The Real Game in Opelousas Isn’t Football — It’s Accountability

A Letter to the Opelousas City Council Regarding the Absence of a Parks & Recreation Commission, October 14, 2025

Councilman Gilbeaux (and Colleagues):

Thank you for raising the issue of the absence of a Parks & Recreation Commission at the last Council meeting. You were right to bring it forward. A functioning Commission is not a formality—it’s the mechanism that ensures fairness, transparency, and public participation in decisions that affect every neighborhood and age group.

Today, Opelousas faces difficult choices. The new 17,000-square-foot “community center,” essentially a two-court gym, will add substantial operating and maintenance costs to the city’s strapped budget, on top of the new stadium’s ten-year $632,000 annual bond payment. Together, those facilities could approach $900,000–$1 million in yearly obligations—before staffing or programming. And the timing couldn’t be much worse.

With the shutdown of the federal government well underway, Opelousas will suffer disproportionately compared to wealthier communities, making the ongoing capital investments in youth sports facilities, in an era of declining birth rates and enrollment, doubly troubling. Never before has citizen participation and oversight been more necessary. Here are conservative figures for you to ponder as you work to manage the city’s shaky budget:

Indicator	Estimate	Notes
Population	15,750	2023 Census Data
Opelousas Median Household Income	$28,000	LA median $60,000, St Landry $42,000, US $80,000,
Poverty Rate	35%	Among highest in Louisiana
Percent of households under $30,000	60%	Most citizens are barely getting by
Renter Households	57%	Majority are cost-burdened
FY 2025 Budget Gap	$1.4m to $2m	4 months of sales-tax shortfall
Stadium & Track Bond	$632,000 / year	10-year ODDD obligation
Total New O&M Burden	≈ $900k–$1M / year	Debt + maintenance

Feeding families is economic development. The shutdown is already significantly impacting local food security and the local economy. Loss of SNAP and WIC dollars will exacerbate hunger, hurt local grocers, and shrink tax revenues. If the shutdown lingers, the impacts will be grave. Using conservative estimates of the number of people using SNAP and WIC, here’s how that looks:

Federal Nutrition Program Impact on Opelousas

Program	Estimated Beneficiaries (City)	Monthly Local Spending Loss in Local Economy	6-Month Shutdown Loss	Total Economic Activity Lost¹
SNAP	≈ 4,500 individuals, 30% of the population (~1,700 Households)	≈ $550,000 or under $125 per month per recipient	≈ $3.3M	≈ $5–6M
WIC	≈ 2,000–2,500 participants	≈ $250,000	≈ $1.5M	≈ $2.5–3M

An expensive-to-maintain and operate high school football and track stadium, along with an oversized basketball gymnasium, destabilizes our fragile economy and faltering budget. Paving South Park to transform it into a high-end limited-use sports complex will not cause anyone to stay here or to move here. Dependable infrastructure, clean water, good housing, and economic opportunities are what drive quality of life. 

Every dollar spent on South Park sports plans is a dollar not available to invest in youth development in life-skills programs, tutoring, trades apprenticeships, or arts, music, and culinary education, which often have higher “bang-for-buck” in communities where children lack access. And who can afford the $20 ticket price collected at last week’s games? Are projections (if they exist) based on potential ticket revenue? 

The ODDD, formed as a business development organization, mortgaged a decade’s worth of sales tax revenue, accruing more than a million dollars in interest and limiting the city’s ability to fund programs essential for building economic resilience and a better future for all Opelousas citizens. I call them the Opelousas South Park Sports Development District.

Over the ten years of that ODDD debt obligation, SLPSS student enrollment is projected to drop by 4,000. Due to the lack of citizen oversight and failure to conduct non-partisan research, the mayor and ODDD are planning and spending for a narrow demographic that not only doesn’t exist now but won’t exist in the future. The Opelousas they are building is based on memories and on desires to have what nearby wealthier communities have, not on a vision guided by science, data, and community input.

Re-establishing the Parks & Recreation Commission is a fiscally responsible way to realign priorities with community needs. It would give the Council a structured, citizen-based advisory process to guide maintenance, programming, and equitable access across all districts.

Right now, every major city project—from the stadium to the community center to City Hall to the library—is being designed by the same Lafayette firm hand-picked by the mayor. That’s not how public procurement is supposed to work. The Council and the people of Opelousas have had no opportunity to compare costs, credentials, or design philosophy. The total spent on these services remains hidden from public view.

This lack of process invites misuse and guarantees inefficiency. The first step in restoring accountability is to re-establish the Parks & Recreation Commission, followed by transparent procurement reform.

City government investment in high school sports is folly. High school sports are, and should be, the responsibility of school systems. We are all on this ship, and we all can help set a better course. Citizen participation is built into the city charter, if only the administration would adhere to it. Let’s do the right thing and reinstate the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. Please keep pressing for the Commission’s reinstatement—it’s an essential step toward building a more balanced and sustainable Opelousas.

Note: This post was updated on October 15, 2025 with information provided by the city accountant at last night’s meeting. The hole in the city budget, caused by the failure to hold a timely vote to renew the sales tax that expired on May 31, will likely reach $2,000,000 —a gap unlike any the city has faced in the modern era. This adds weight to the argument that adding more overhead via new, limited-use facilities that produce little or no income is fiscally and morally irresponsible.