Filmore Parc Apartments II v. Norman White, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Finance, City of New Orleans; Erroll Williams, Assessor, Orleans Parish; And the Chairman, Louisiana Tax Commission

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 14, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0475
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILMORE PARC * NO. 2024-CA-0475 APARTMENTS II * COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT NORMAN WHITE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND * STATE OF LOUISIANA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; * ERROLL WILLIAMS, ASSESSOR, ORLEANS * PARISH; AND THE ******* CHAIRMAN, LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

MFLC PARTNERS, A LOUISIANA NO. 2024-CA-0476 PARTNERSHIP IN COMENDAM

VERSUS

NORMAN WHITE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; ERROLL WILLIAMS, ASSESSOR, ORLEANS PARISH; AND THE CHAIRMAN, LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION

DLD DYSART, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS

I respectfully dissent and provide the following reasons why I believe

Filmore should have been granted relief from the Ad Valorem taxes imposed by

Orleans Parish Assessor Erroll Williams.

The Board of Tax Appeals applied the wrong standard to determine whether

Filmore qualified for the constitutional exemption disregarding the long-standing

precedent set forth in Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund v. Bd. of Assessors, 38 La.Ann.

292 (1886); Warren County, Mississippi v. Hester, 219 La. 763, 54 So.2d 12, 14

(1951); Holly v. Plum Creek Timber Co., 38,716, p. 8 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/23/04),

877 So.2d 284, 290; and Abundance Square Assocs., L.P. v. Williams, 2010-0324,

p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/23/11), 62 So.3d 261, 264. Here, the Board held that

Filmore was “not restricted to operating as extensions of public entities” and that

the exemption claim was “inextricably intertwined” with “private contracts.” My reading of Tulane and those cases that followed does not find any such language or

holding and, as such, it appears the finding of the Board was of its own creation

and a wholesale deviation from the established standard that a purely private entity

can qualify for the constitutional exemption if the property and revenue are

dedicated to a public purpose.

Aside from applying the wrong standard, the Board failed in recognizing the

public purpose demonstrated by Filmore but instead focused its ruling on Filmore’s

private ownership. Providing affordable housing for low-income families has long

been recognized as a public purpose. See Porterie v. Housing Authority of New

Orleans, 190 La. 710, 182 So. 725 (1938). In the last election held in the City of

New Orleans an amendment to the city charter was voted upon to set aside 1% of

the City’s budget to spend on affordable housing. What more noble and deserving

public purpose is there than that of providing affordable housing to low-income

families. Here the facts clearly establish that Filmore solely and exclusively has

provided the public service of affordable housing since 1995 when the property

was acquired by Mirabeau Family Learning Center, Inc., a nonprofit corporation,

from the Resolution Trust Corporation for the purpose of constructing housing

units providing affordable housing to low-income families. The property was

acquired with the inclusion of a “Land Use Restriction Agreement” which

dedicated the property for use solely as low-income housing. Had the property

been used for any other purpose the owner would forfeit the property. In fact, the

property was treated as exempt from 1995 through 2014 when the Assessor began

treating the property as taxable. There was no change in ownership during this

period of time, nor change in purpose for affordable housing. It is also persuasive

that though the properties were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, instead of taking

the insurance proceeds and folding their tent, the Filmore owners rebuilt the units to continue the mission, then more acute than ever, of providing affordable housing

to low-income families.

The properties consist of two complexes with Filmore I having a total of 164

units, comprising two categories of tenants. 103 of the units are “project based

voucher” (“PBV”) units which are dedicated solely to tenants that are referred by

HANO and on the terms dictated by HANO. The remaining 61 units, referred to as

“tax credit” units are available for Filmore to rent to qualified low income tenants

with appropriate “Section 8” vouchers. Filmore only appealed the exemption

denied for the 103 PBV units.

In my opinion, through the use of private equity and funding from

governmental programs, Filmore fulfills the most needed public purpose of

providing affordable housing to low income families through the use of a much

desired and necessary public/private partnership. Accordingly, I would reverse the

Board’s judgment and grant the relief sought by Filmore.