Backers of the Port of New Orleans’ plans for a new deep-water container terminal in Violet are pushing a bill in the legislative session designed to quell concerns about the project from those who would be most directly impacted by it.
House Bill 465, by state Rep. Brian Glorioso, a Slidell Republican who grew up in St. Bernard Parish, would create a special taxing district around the site. If passed and signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, it would provide up to $2.1 million of any new state sales taxes generated by the project back to the area, which includes two schools, about 2,000 homes and a handful of businesses along East Judge Perez Drive and East St. Bernard Highway.
The funds are aimed at addressing community needs resulting from construction on the Louisiana International Terminal, a multiyear, multibillion-dollar project that state maritime officials have said is critical if Louisiana is to remain competitive as a global trading center.
“As Violet is the frontline community hosting the LIT for the benefit of the entire state, it is critical that they benefit from the jobs and development that the project will provide,” said GNO Inc. President and CEO Michael Hecht, who was tapped by Landry last year to shepherd the project and a related toll road through the process.
“The tax dollars that would go to them as a result of this bill is critical for meeting that goal,” he said.
St. Bernard Parish officials opposed to the terminal project, including the Parish Council and parish School Board, have come out against the bill. State Rep. Mike Bayham, a Republican who represents the area, also is against it.
Community organizer Michael Bailey, whose Violet Action Committee favors the bill, say anti-terminal forces run so deep in some parts of the parish, anything that could help the project along faces stiff opposition.
Parish Council Chair Fred Everhardt Jr. said the bill is a money and power grab.
“They are using legislators from St. Tammany to determine the fate of our parish because our people and our legislators don’t want it,” Everhardt said. “We are at war.”
Glorioso said he is not being used and that he wanted to sponsor the bill because he grew up around Violet and “understands that it is going to put a burden on that community, so we are trying to do whatever we can to lighten that burden.”
Slow progress
It’s been more than five years since Port NOLA first announced the terminal project, which the port says is the only way New Orleans can continue to compete for international container ship business. As vessels have grown ever larger in recent decades, the local port has lost market share to Houston; Mobile, Alabama; and Savannah, Georgia.
Backers say the facility also is needed to attract new manufacturing and distribution investment to the region.
Opponents in St. Bernard, however, argue the project will disrupt their way of life and damage the local environment. They have filed lawsuits challenging the project and threatened more litigation.
Still, Port NOLA officials and their private sectors partners, who signed on to the project in late 2022, are continuing to move forward. For months, they have been awaiting permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Should those permits come through this spring, as hoped, they could begin construction later this year.
‘Make Violet whole’
In the meantime, supporters of the project are working on HB465, which would create the Violet Economic Development District within a narrowly defined area around the proposed terminal site.
It would also establish a nine-member board to oversee the incremental tax dollars generated within the district and decide how to spend them.
Language in the bill says the money would be used to support “long-term, place based investments in infrastructure, housing, workforce development and community priorities within Violet … and align state, parish and community interests.”
There’s no fiscal note attached to the bill yet, so it is unclear what the estimated cost or benefit of the measure would be. It’s also unclear how much additional spending activity would be generated by the project in the immediate Violet area, which has few retail businesses.
However, a new economic impact study on the project released by GNO Inc. estimates that construction on the terminal would generate $5.4 million in sales tax revenue for St. Bernard Parish more broadly and that, once operational, the facility would bring nearly $15 million in annual sales tax revenues to the parish — a 64% increase over current levels.
Hecht said the bulk of the sales tax revenue would come from equipment purchases, even if purchased elsewhere, for port operations such as trucks, cranes and fuels — as long as the goods are shipped to Violet. The project is also expected to generate additional spending by the nearly 2,750 workers that would be hired by the terminal once it’s fully operational.
Community groups supporting the measure say any additional dollars will help their immediate area.
“We are trying to secure funds to provide resources to try to help make Violet whole,” said Bailey. “We should not be excluded from the economic development. Historically, we have been.”
Everhardt is skeptical and has taken issue with the proposed makeup of the district governing board. The governor and three local legislators, who all support the project, would each get one board appointment. Parish President Louis Pommes, who has come out against the project, would have one appointment. The Violet Action Committee would get three and GNO Inc. would have one.
“The board makeup is crazy,” Everhart said. “We only have one seat at the table. How can they do that? We don’t have oversight over our own parish.”
Bailey countered that Violet residents have not been fairly represented by parish officials, who are opposed to the terminal, and who he argued haven’t looked for ways to make the project work for their area.
“We had to form the Violet Action Committee because none of the powers that be in St. Bernard Parish care about our needs or opinions,” he said. “If this port is coming to St. Bernard Parish, we want to take part in the economic development opportunities.”
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs.
