The Miss USA preliminary pageant this week featured the expected contestant fun facts and heartwarming stories, but it also had something that had the audience sometimes laughing and sometimes rolling its eyes: rhymes.

The preliminary hosts delivered rhymes about all of the 51 Miss USA contestants as they strutted across the stage in their swimsuits. They ranged from clever to cliché, but the pageant was committed enough to them that every contestant had one of her own.

“This beaut knows how to shoot,” for Miss Ohio, a shooting instructor.

“Going alone to a formal used to be normal for Massachusetts,” whose fun fact was that she went to her junior and senior proms alone because nobody asked her.

“Unlike most others, she’s got two mothers,” for North Dakota who was born via in vitro fertilization.

And finally, for law student Miss Louisiana Candice Bennatt — despite the state’s usual low education rankings — “It’s cool to stay in school when you’re Louisiana.”

Settling feud with New Roads could cost police jury money

The Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury will need to cough up $8,666 if it hopes to settle its ongoing feud with the city of New Roads over management of the William H. Scott Civic Center.

This week, the city punted a proposed cooperative endeavor agreement back into the parish’s court, demanding that the Police Jury reimburse the city for insurance money it allocated out of the Civic Center Commission’s coffers last year.

The joint commission — had two members from the Police Jury and two City Council members, with New Roads Mayor Robert Myer serving as chairman — before it dissolved in May 2014 when the parish pulled out of its old agreement with the city. That happened after mounting tensions between the city and the parish.

On June 23, the Police Jury adopted the proposed agreement with several compromises in hopes it would settle the matter after the New Roads City Council’s approval.

But Myer made it clear at a recent meeting that the parish would need to make the city whole with respect to the past insurance payment before things could move forward.

“I hope this ends this,” Myer said. “The Civic Center is too valuable of an asset to our city.”

The parish will most likely revisit the matter during its upcoming meeting next week.

Due to stipulations in the proposed agreement, the parish already has to fork over approximately $24,000 once both parties sign in back pay the city also said its owed for the commission’s coffers.

The Ascension Parish Planning Commission was staring earlier this week at making a tough call in a potentially thorny development dispute that was poised to put the parish’s new voluntary road impact fee program to the test.

The parish’s planning staff had declined to recommend approval of the 212-home Meadow at Oak Grove subdivision on La. 42, saying the developer did not propose enough road improvement to address up to 10,000 new trips per day expected from the new housing and commercial area.

While the developer proposed new subdivision entrance turn lanes on La. 42, parish officials were also interested in voluntary impact fees of up to $1,000 per home to address other road impacts. Parish officials have started asking for those fees, or road work equivalent to what the fees would generate, even though the fees are not in parish ordinance.

The push comes as a Parish Council subcommittee is again looking at the idea of adopting transportation impact fees on new development and as a broader debate is under way in parish government about the adequacy of parish-mandated traffic studies for new development.

As neighbors to the new development waited to comment Wednesday night Engineer Mickey Robertson pulled Meadow at Oak Grove from the planning commission agenda until next month.

“We still had some unresolved traffic issues that we’re still discussing with DPW, so we’d like to spend another month talking about those with them,” he told the commission.

Robertson said later that most developers he deals with are okay with impact fees as long as they go through approved through a legal process that gives a timeline for when they take effect and are not imposed in the middle of a project..

Advocate staff writers Andrea Gallo, Terry L. Jones and David J. Mitchell contributed to this article.