LIVINGSTON, La. — The regular meeting of the Livingston Parish Council on March 26, 2026, centered heavily on legal proceedings involving the installation of a mobile home in an aesthetics-focused subdivision, as well as the reimbursement of legal fees stemming from an ethics investigation of Parish President Randy Delatte.
Before the meeting began, the council presented special recognition and commemorative certificates to the French Settlement High School Girls' Basketball Team for winning the 2026 LHSAA Girls' Basketball Division III State Championship. The team finished with a record of 31 wins and 3 losses, each loss coming against a 5A school ranked in the top seven that advanced to the semifinals — an achievement not seen at French Settlement since 1960.
Council approves mobile home waiver in local subdivision
Undoubtedly, the most debated and time-consuming agenda item was a proposal to grant a hardship waiver to Asa Faulker so that a mobile home could be placed on his property with proper electrical services. The home is set to be placed in the Beechwood Ridge Subdivision, prompting many neighbors to attend the meeting and speak out against the waiver.
The same waiver had come before the council on August 28, 2025, when it was denied for the same objections residents raised again that evening.
The most vocal speaker against the waiver was Adrienne Bordelon, a property owner in the neighborhood with active involvement in its preservation.
"The actual records of the restrictions of Beechwood Ridge, filed with the clerk of court, state that Halo trailers are not allowed temporarily or permanently for any reason on any property," Bordelon said passionately. "That is not ambiguous, that is not a close call, that is just plain English."
Steve Irving argued afterward that the home in question was not mobile but modular. He said, "The parish can grant a waiver as to a modular home for a limited period of time, the parish can specify that it does not put the subdivision on the mobile home list without any problem at all… so I don't see a problem with doing what is proposed."
William Bordelon, who also lives in the neighborhood, countered that the "modular" home in question was built in a factory. It was built to HUD code, which makes it, per y'all's definition, a mobile home… it came in on a chassis, it had a HUD label on it… It's a manufactured home, and per y'all's zoning laws requirements, it cannot be placed in our neighborhood."
Another neighbor, Sonetta Amy, shared a similar experience from her own past. She said she had obtained a modular home for her mother and, in accordance with the law, placed it on a property that permitted it rather than behind her own house.
"I was restricted," Amy said. "I couldn't put [the modular home] behind my house. I didn't get a waiver, and I don't think he needs a waiver either."
Objections continued, with some neighbors citing potential financial harm to the neighborhood and others warning of backlash that could affect the parish's FEMA CRS rating.
Faulker's attorney, Ricky Simmons, was also present and offered a summary of the property's history, the surrounding housing market, and the presence of a property in the area with trailers on it.
"There is a property within the subdivision, which is closer to most of the people who have spoken tonight than Mr. Faulker's property is, that has two FEMA trailers on it, that does not have a fence in front of it, and is viewable from the street," Simmons said. "Passing by that for ten years would give a normal citizen the understanding that 'if my neighbor can do that in my same subdivision, I should be able to do that too,' so [Mr. Faulker] moved appropriately from that."
Despite Simmons' defense, residents continued to approach the council, each either demanding it reconsider or emphasizing the aesthetic character of the community.
Eventually, Councilman John Mangus cited two hardship cases he had previously brought before the council as the basis for this waiver. "Both of [the hardship cases] were granted, thankfully, by this council, and neither of them stayed active the entire time. One passed away, and the other eventually went into a [nursing] home, so both of those facilities have been moved."
"We have the recourse to move [the mobile home] if this is anything nefarious and it doesn't affect any other properties," Mangus added.
"This parish has the responsibility and the authority to grant the waivers and grant the change… and at the end of the day, it's a hardship case. We take that information individually, and we can vote it today yes and tomorrow no," Councilman Ricky Goff said.
The council ultimately voted to grant the waiver, 5-3, with Councilmen Ryan Chavers, Dean Coates, and Joe Erdey in opposition after hearing public testimony.
Upon learning the result, most of the attendees rose from their seats and left the chambers, some shaking their heads, others expressing disbelief through gasps and scoffs.
Expansion of jail site seeks to stop inmates from being sent out of the parish
The council then heard two resolutions aimed at addressing longstanding problems in the parish prison system. The first sought to issue sales tax revenue bonds to fund a two-phase plan to refurbish and construct inmate holding facilities within the parish and eliminate the annual practice of shipping inmates to out-of-parish jails.
The first phase would refurbish an existing sheriff's facility to meet Department of Corrections standards. Set to be completed in just under a year at a cost of $8.5 million, it would add 128 new beds.
The second phase would add 100 more beds at a separate facility. Jamie Felder, chief civil deputy for the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office, said she hopes to secure state funding to cover that cost.
"The goal has always been: if we can get outside money, which is state money, brought into the parish, then that is less taxpayer money that we have to drain," Felder said.
The project is intended to address the approximately $1 million the parish spends annually to house inmates in surrounding parishes. Between 112 and 120 inmates are sent out of the parish each year, at a rate of $26 to $30 per day per inmate, a cost that adds up to $12,000 to $13,000 per person in parish funds.
The new facilities would require hiring 13 new sheriff's office staff members, a warden, and one to two additional nurses to oversee inmate health.
Councilman Goff noted that shipping inmates out of the parish "has been an issue in our parish for a long, long time… but one of the other caveats here is that all of these inmates have family members here and… are shipped out of the parish." He said he hopes the new facility means "our inmates, bad or good, will be here in our parish for their loved ones to be able to visit with them."
On a related note, the council also heard a request to use opioid litigation funds to hire a reentry resource coordinator to help prisoners reintegrate into society upon release and connect with opioid addiction treatment programs. The selected candidate is O.T. Taylor, a retired probation and parole officer with extensive field experience, who will earn $24,000 per year in the role.
The council voted unanimously in favor of both requests.
Parish President Randy Delatte receives reimbursement for ethics inquiry
In February 2025, Randy Delatte and DeeDee Delatte were placed under investigation by the Louisiana Board of Ethics over allegations that Delatte had hired and promoted his wife in violation of state nepotism statutes.
At a subsequent meeting on February 5, 2026, the board determined that "based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Board declined to pursue further enforcement action… and has instructed to close the file at this time."
Delatte had retained an attorney to defend against the case at a cost of approximately $6,343.75 and submitted a proposal for reimbursement following the case's closure with no fault found.
The council deliberated on the matter despite the Attorney General and the District Attorney clearly stating that reimbursement was permissible under state statute. Councilman Coates read three statutes aloud seeking clarification, but the District Attorney present at the meeting gave the same answer each time: the Attorney General's opinion holds that reimbursement is legal in this case.
Coates then proposed sending the reimbursement request back to the Attorney General for an official opinion specific to this situation before the council acted.
At that point, former councilmember Garry Talbert approached the podium.
"Your attorney has recommended reimbursement," Talbert said. "There are people out here that have business before this council, and they don't want to sit here all night… while make-believe attorneys give opinions when you've got a real attorney with a degree that's passed the Louisiana Bar giving you an opinion."
Councilman Goff commended Talbert's remarks and offered a substitute motion to accept the reimbursement proposal in accordance with the legal opinions already provided.
The motion passed, with only Councilmen Coates and Erdey in opposition.
