Mosquito Control: Phillip’s Pest Control hit with notice of procedural default

Lana sent this in Monday:

After a 20 minute Executive Session, from which District 3, Board President, Blaine LaFontaine recused himself, County Administrator, Eddie Favre, recommended payment to Phillip’s Pest Control Services for the month of May for $15,000. District 1 Supervisor, David Yarborough, motioned for payment, seconded by District 2, Greg Shaw, motion carried unanimously with an affirmative vote by District 4, Scotty Adam. District 5 Supervisor, Bo Ladner was not present for the meeting.

The Board also voted unanimously to direct their attorney to write to Phillilp’s Pest Control to begin complying with the items cited in the study done on the company’s performance as per his contract with the county which was executed on October 3, 2016

Cassandra Favre filed this story for the Wednesday Echo snagging a quote from State Senator Phillip Moran:

“The voters of District 46 are no fools — they know what’s going on. There were no problems (with this contract) for 2 1/2 years and now suddenly, just before the election, there are. It doesn’t take a genius to understand what’s going on here. … Whatever questions (the supervisors) have, we will answer.”

I’m not sure that blaming this all on electioneering gets Moran off the hook with the public, based on what I’ve seen in social media.

And to think the politicking hasn’t really started. I imagine more muck will be flying, much more, in the coming weeks.

Bill of Exceptions Update: Boudin Environmental v Hancock Sups

There is nothing like a good ol’ fashioned landfill controversy to keep the news mill filled. Let’s start back at the beginning with Cassandra Favre’s account of the April 2, 2019 Board of Supervisor’s meeting for the Sea Coast Echo:

The Hancock County Board of Supervisors on Monday voted 3-2 to deny Boudin’s Environmental Waste’s request to upgrade the dump site on Rifle Range Road to a Class One.

On Feb. 12, the Hancock County Solid Waste Authority hosted a public hearing and later, unanimously approved the application and amendment to the solid waste management plan.

What’s interesting here is the fact that Board of Supervisor President Blaine Lafontaine voted to allow the Class One Rubbish site as a then member of the Solid Waste Authority. He would late change his point of view on the issue when it came before him again at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting. There are a couple of other snippets that need further color:

According to an MDEQ report, LaFontaine said, statewide there has been a 22 percent increase in out-of-state rubbish in the past five years.

King Landfill is the only current active site in Hancock County, LaFontaine said. Over the past five years, the site went from receiving 22,000 tons to 18,000 tons and 11,000 from out-of-state down to 5,000, he said.

LaFontaine said that the question before the board is, “is there a need in Hancock County?” He said that maybe the only thing the board could look at as a “need” would be competitive pricing.

MDEQ recommends there be two Class One sites in the county, one in the north end and one in the south end. The site Boudin wants to operate is close to the south side, LaFontaine said.

Gotta give Cassandra props here because her account of the political crawfishin’ is a good depiction of the events that day. First Lafontaine bobs by citing a statewide factoid that, even if true, is not an accurate picture of the reality in Hancock County, which has seen a pretty steep decline in out of state trash. The third paragraph tells the tale because the three Sups that voted against the recommendation of the Solid Waste Authority were really more interested in protecting the existing landfill monopoly in Hancock Parish than fostering price competition and creating new jobs. District 1 Sup David Yarborough summed it up: Continue reading “Bill of Exceptions Update: Boudin Environmental v Hancock Sups”

Here is the Discrimination Suit Against the Hancock Chamber of Commerce

For those of you that have been reading the commentary on Hotel and Restaurant Tax Still Topical in the Bay. The Sea Coast Echo also has additional background here. Disclaimer: A Civil lawsuit tells only one side of the story. The Chamber of Commerce has not yet filed a response.

St Julien-Mims v Hancock Chamber Complaint by Slabbed on Scribd

Hotel and Restaurant Tax Still Topical in the Bay

Not sure when the proposal appears on the ballot but it appears that voters in the Pine Belt are more amenable than those on the coast to levying the tax for recreational purposes with Waynesboro being the latest to put on a levy:

Waynesboro voters pass 1% restaurant, bar and hotel tax ~ Quametra Wilborn

A few weeks back Hattiesburg voters voted to add the 3rd cent to their levy:

Hattiesburg 1% tax referendum passes with 81% of vote ~ WDAM

With the Midtown development coming on line Hattiesburg has become a restaurant and bar “boom town”, which goes with the rest of the booming economy in the Pine Belt. People there don’t mind the extra penny on the dollar because the results are tangible. Most places parks and recreation are like mom and apple pie (most people I spoke with in Hattiesburg especially liked the fact the City was stepping up for its College as Reed-Green desperately needs a major renovation).

That was not true in Gulfport where the measure never made the ballot even though it would have benefited Parks and Recreation.

Here at Slabbed and in social media there are many folks voicing opposition to the new tax in Bay St Louis, which has not yet held its election. One difference is that in the Bay some of the money is slated to fund a new tourism bureaucracy at the local economic development nonprofit despite the fact there is already a local tourism nonprofit. This appears on the surface to be an unnecessary duplication of efforts. Continue reading “Hotel and Restaurant Tax Still Topical in the Bay”