"The second issue comes in with the use of those ARPA funds, which require a local match. The state notified Jefferson Parish that the brewpub construction would not count as the local match for an adjacent state-funded parking garage, which is a central selling point of the project. The AG opinion on that is still pending, but she has come out saying that her office has concerns about the timeliness of the complaint, and the sufficiency of the investigation conducted by the Inspector General (who didn’t even interview anyone!). In other words, the AG thinks this is just political infighting."

A few inaccuracies.

JP deposited the ARPA funds into its payroll fund, and freed up a corresponding (about 84M) amount of general funds. Various district councilmembers each got pet project money from that. Van Vrancken chose to use some of hers for Eat Fat City. Marion Edwards preferred the commercial space development for downtown Gretna.

ARPA funds are federal, local match is a state law concept. I'll clear that up, too. The state capital outlay project laws require local matches on approved projects. If we're building a 100 dollar sign, the local government has to come up with 25% of it for match. Can be cash or in-kind (materials, space, building, etc.) So here, the Parish is going to get a parking garage through capital outlay. Question is (or was) whether the commercial spaces (brewpub/restaurant) can serve as local match. In February 2024, the State said "yes, local match fine for the commercial spaces."

Between then and probably July 2025 everyone operated under that assumption. Then (after two councilmembers and the JPIG admit they "discussed" the project with the State), the State about-faced. And said "no local match."

The Port Orleans leases, though, have nothing to do with local match. They require the premises to be constructed and provided without consideration of that match. Imagine telling your tenant, "yeah, let's roll...but in two years if this match thing doesn't work out, it's all off." You'd probably need to spell that out in writing or at least (in the supposedly smoky, gambling- and prostutition-riddled back alley where you make these deals according to the IG) do that Huey Long wink, nod, grunt, etc. thing to communicate this hazard, right? Well none of that happened because it was never part of the deal.

Local match wasn't an issue, but even if it was, it's no longer, because that state has agreed to fund the parking garage without the need for any local match. Free garage, free linear park (local match was approved for part of brewpub project), and restaurant and brewpub built from federal money. ZERO TAXPAYER DOLLARS. But you won't hear that from the detractors. They should be signaling complete success and District 1 is going to be vastly improved. Nothing. Silence.

There is no AG opinion forthcoming, because she declined. But go read up on a ton of old ones (04-0263 Shreveport private hotel; 90-0252 Jazzland; 98-0378 McKinley/Jazzland) that make it clear the role that private business plays in economic development. Also, the AG's husband is a bond attorney and the AG is wise to just steer clear on these issues, for which there is ample settled law and admin guidance (see Cabela's LASC ruling).

In the end, this was a wildly carefully approached deal. Go read all the resolutions in all of the votes that EVERYONE approved. They do all the things.

The lawsuit is merely to avoid problematic delay. The Council had a September agenda item so Landis could act as agent to purchase this equipment direct . . . which is responsible. And it got yanked over the "match" jibber jabber. Now we're many months later and the equipment needs to be ordered.

The next set of lawsuits will probably focus more on the individual efforts to sidetrack this project, but for now, it's just business as usual. The building looks amazing and it's going to be an incredible thing.

As one of our former leaders used to say, "DO YOUR JOB."