Suchergebnisse

Republican Mayor Tom Arceneaux
may helm Shreveport, but its gerrymandered
Democrat supermajority City Council keeps spending more money than the city
has that puts off a more severe day of reckoning which perhaps cloaks a cynical
exercise.

This
week, the Council approved the 2024 budget, making several changes to
Arceneaux's plan
that had the effect of spending more or putting off debts. In all, for its
general operations the city will shell out $283 million, down $11 million budgeted
for this year, but overall spending is pegged at $676 million, up $81 million,
largely as a result of increased revenue projections for water and sewerage and
righting retained risk costs, which in the past couple of years ate into general
fund reserves.

But Arceneaux's plans to begin replenishing general
fund reserves, which dove by two-thirds over that period to around $25 million,
the Council thwarted by amending away a 20 percent increase in water and sewerage
rates, a $3 monthly solid waste charge, and retaining open positions in public
safety, with police particularly understaffed, altogether which could have recaptured
$25 million. The Council unanimously wanted to keep open proactively the
ability to hire into public safety departments, and in the cases of the higher
charges felt the public not sufficiently prepared to endure the increases at
this time.

Arceneaux and the two Republican councilors
acquiesced, but with the Administration warning that revenues attached to bonds
in water and sewerage for the past two years didn't cover those debt costs and
without the rate increase that would continue. That imbalance is courtesy of
the city's consent decree over water and sewerage provision for quality
violations that must be repaired, even as the costs keep on growing. Democrat
former Mayor Adrian Perkins preferred to raid reserves that now approach the
minimum legal level for the general fund and make more difficult paying off revenue
bonds in the future.

The mayor knows this and is trying to fix it, but
the Council Democrats won't let him. Forestalling rate increases blocks most of
his solution while kicking the can down the road, although while a small
portion of that would have come from not filling the public safety vacancies, which
at least is money that can be saved if not spent on new hires, which Arceneaux
would have handled through supplemental appropriations.

And the reason he's not allowed to pursue his
solution may derive from partisan political opportunism. Council Democrats shy
away from being seen as foisting rate hikes, while at the same time by not
acting to prevent the crisis from magnifying allows them to blame Arceneaux for
it a couple of years down the road when likely he tries for reelection and rate
or tax hikes and/or service cuts become more obviously needed from failure to
address problems today. Yet they also can claim they were addressing public
safety concerns by keeping job slots open, even if hiring is lackluster due to
the city's reputation as a violent crime hotbed and past police foibles. Indeed,
at the same meeting the Council called upon Arceneaux to
declare a state of emergency over crime, whatever that could accomplish.

Democrat partisans loathe the idea that a white
Republican serves as mayor over their black-majority and Democrat-plurality
city. Making him appear as a failure in time for the 2028 makes it easier for
the more ambitious among them to take his place in what appears to be a golden opportunity
for a black Democrat politician. Continually rebuffing his sensible plans to
put the city back on more solid footing rather than it careening further
towards fiscal crisis may be part of a plan like that.

A clumsy maneuver by a veteran member of the
Shreveport City Council with the support of two others may have altered the dynamics
of city politics, in favor of Republican Mayor Tom Arceneaux.

In his first two-thirds of a year on the job,
Arceneaux hasn't been very visible. That's not a bad thing necessarily, as
previous Democrat Mayor Adrian Perkins put himself much more in the public eye
on a routine basis, but for the wrong reasons: either in floating dreamy, unrealistic,
if not irrelevant, policies and priorities, or by committing some political, if
not legal, folly.

Drummed out of office for those tendencies,
nevertheless Perkins council supporters Democrats James Green, Tabatha Taylor,
and Alan Jackson returned to office. They hoped to form a working majority including
the two other Democrats elected, Ursula Bowman who succeeded her husband Jerry,
and newcomer Gary Brooks, to continue an agenda that didn't focus on spending
reductions in the light of public
safety shortages contributing to dismal crime numbers and looming huge
capital expenditures on water and sewerage, if not unwise
new commitments such as across-the-board salary increase for city employees.

This meant Arceneaux wouldn't have much leeway to
throttle back spending as he prepared his first budget. But then came the
misstep, triggered by Green.

Without
Council authority, Green authorized ten percent pay raises for the body's staff
of five – on top of a 13 percent hike last year. Raises typically are given
every few years, but always by Council resolution.

His action became public knowledge, whereupon he
claimed ignorance about the illegality of his move – even though he first began
service on the Council in 1994 and is now into his fifth term. Chastened, the
raises were rescinded but Republican Councilors Grayson Boucher and Jim
Taliaferro called
for an investigation. Originally defeated in a special meeting that none of
Green, Jackson, or Taylor attended, the measure passed at the next regular
meeting when the two Democrats who did attend the special meeting changed their
votes in favor.

The incident the Republicans argued needed
investigation because of conflicting stories of the impetus for the raises and
the decision-making involved in the process, including Green's claim of
ignorance. And, according to public statements given by Bowman, coming
about at some apparent personal cost to her.

She said that the other three Council black Democrats
– Brooks is white – lobbied her hard not to authorize the investigation, through
Jackson even threatening noncooperation with her legislative goals if she voted
for the probe, which she also thought necessary because of conflicting
information released about the incident from other councilors. Brooks has made no
public mention of councilor pressure not to reverse his vote, but said
constituents asked him to change his vote.

Bowman further became alienated from the bullying
three when Taylor in particular accused the desire for an investigation stemmed
from "systemic racism." Besides the obvious that clearly the law was contravened
in the incident and governance would improve by trying to understand how it
happened. such a charge especially is laughable to lodge against city
government that has had black mayors from 2006-22 and black majorities on the
city council since 2018. Far more arguable, Taylor may want to avoid an
investigation that may blow back negatively on her and her Council allies.

This incident could cause a permanent rupture
between Bowman and the other black Democrat councilors. As the new mayor and
Council took their offices, as long as Council Democrats stuck together they
could call the policy-making tune as Arceneaux could not veto without being overridden
any of their measures. If the most moderate of the bunch, Brooks, did join
Council Republicans with vetoes, that could forestall measures from black Democrats,
but would not allow Arceneaux to promote a policy agenda.

But with Green, Jackson, and Taylor having
alienated Bowman, she may be wary of supporting their initiatives and perhaps
more open to alliances with the white councilors on select issues backed by Arceneaux,
as well as having support for at least some of her initiatives. It's leverage
that he should explore, and provides an enhanced opportunity to induce more
fiscal responsibility into governing a city that needs it badly.

Shreveport Democrats' plan to have the city's
electorate dump Republican Mayor Tom Arceneaux
is fully afoot as they play
Russian roulette with the city's water and sewerage system.

The city remains under a consent decree that will
demand hundreds of millions in spending to satisfy. Currently, $310.6
million worth of expenditures deemed critical need completion – most of
which the city doesn't have.

It doesn't because of voter hesitancy triggered by
the untrustworthy
performance that featured many questionable spending choices of Democrat
former Mayor Adrian Perkins, who on three occasions proposed large bond issues
that included requests to fund water and sewerage. Out of around $600 million
proposed, all of which involved property tax increases, only a $70.65 million estimated
amount that ended up tacking on 2.5 mils for
public safety made it onto the ballot and gained voter approval.

Meanwhile, the funding well for water and sewerage
threatens to run dry. Such operations are set up so that users pay, but legally
the city can apportion the cost to all property owners. However, users
already have experienced a series of increases. In 2013 in response to the
decree, the city decided that over a two-year span commencing in 2015 sewer rates
would go up 14 percent, then that and water rates would increase 6 percent in
2020, rise 2 percent more for water in 2021, and a year later would be capped
by 4 percent more there and 2 percent more for sewer.

Still, this doesn't appear to be enough. So,
Arceneaux has proposed a two-prong strategy of another bond issue including of
three items that altogether total $256 million one of $82 million for water and
sewerage, and an
increase in rates again, of 10 percent. Last month, the city launched a
road show to gather citizen input and inform them about it.

Except that the City Council, composed of a 5-2
majority of Democrats, dragged its heels on the rate hike. Twice it delayed in February
authorizing that, although last week it did cue up the three bond ballot items
just in time to make the Apr. 27 election.

Democrat Councilors Tabatha Taylor
and James Green
voted against that, and also declared they would provide minimal rhetorical
assistance to mobilize electoral support for the measures. They had backed
reliably the measures Perkins had put forward, including for water and sewerage,
as well as generally Perkins and his initiatives. Green expanded upon his vote
and intended actions, noting that his apathy was not different from that of
Republican councilors on past items, inferring particularly Grayson Boucher who
was on the Council then and now who gave vocal support to the measure that
passed then but not for the others ultimately rejected.

This he attributed to racism – Perkins is black,
Arceneaux is white – falling back on the increasingly patterned behavior of he
and Taylor and Democrat Councilor Alan Jackson,
all of whom are black, to cite
systemic racism as the cause whenever a non-black disagrees with their policy preferences.
This card they had played when Green illegally gave raises to Council employees
and Boucher and Republican Jim Taliaferro,
along with Democrats Ursula Bowman
and Gary Brooks,
united to call for an investigation that nailed Green. Far more likely, tepid
Republican support over the previous bond votes came from suspicion over Perkins'
general laxity about finances – such as not
vetting all available sources for funding before asking for tax increases –
and his shiftiness that led to legal actions and Legislative Auditor rebukes.

Regardless, a political motive clearly presents
itself. Councilors with an eye towards denying Arceneaux a second term can feel
safe in supporting or ignoring a bond issue, because if voters approve the
water and sewerage measure at least the people will have voted it onto
themselves. But they can posture over the rate hikes, because to approve these
puts the spotlight on them and to reject these makes Arceneaux look like the
bad guy for bringing up the idea.

Plus, they get to take shots at Arceneaux for
things Perkins left undone. In the prior
administrative council meeting to the regular meeting that turned down the
rate hikes but approved the bond vote, the issue of overbilling for services
reemerged. A few years ago, the city settled
multi-million dollar class action claims about this, and the lawyer who had
led this battle alleged this still was going on. Green and Taylor particularly
cast aspersions that Arceneaux's administration was negligent on this – except
that the lawyer said he had notified the Perkins Administration in 2021 about
this and nothing was done.

Ironically, the hold that Council Democrats have
placed on rate increases they say comes from concerns that the city's program
helping lower-income families pay water bills can't do enough received a major shot
in the arm as a result of the overbilling settlement, where class members who
couldn't be located had their shares requisitioned for this purpose. How long recalcitrant
councilors stick to that story remains to be seen.

For in their ideal world, they will drag this out
as long as possible – which perhaps is why Green and Taylor talked of the bond
vote to come in the fall rather than spring – in order to have maximal time to paint
Arceneaux as a tax- and rate-raiser with Democrat councilors as a check against
his trying in this manner to impoverish the people, regardless of whether the
city's water and sewerage system receives its badly-needed and legally-required
fixes. Like it or not, decades of neglect have led the city to this point, and
resolution might be swifter and more effective if the Council majority, and
especially those members of it prone to playing the race card, would dial down the
politicking focused too much on political futures.

It's a tough call this Saturday on Shreveport
approving property tax hikes – necessary bromide or throwing good money
after bad?

Across
three proposals, the city plans to raise around $256 million for capital
items. Almost half would go towards roads, streets, bridges, and surface and
subsurface drainage systems (2.45 mills), while nearly a third would go to
water and sewerage systems (1.6 mills), with the remainder going to public
safety, buildings, and recreation (0.95 mills). Unlike measures to fund continuing
government operations, the millages will vary depending upon bond issuance
amounts and timings, with the city estimating 2027 would be the first year initial
millages would be added to tax bills. Eventually, it predicts the total millage
almost will double to close to 8 mills.

Regardless, success of any item at the polls will
push Shreveport further into the category of the highest-taxed city without consolidated
government in Louisiana. Republican current Mayor Tom Arceneaux's
predecessor Democrat Adrian Perkins three
times attempted to have bond issues, around that neighborhood of a
quarter-billion dollars give or take a few dozen millions, in various packages
gain voter approval. His first attempt resulted in complete rejection at the
polls, his second couldn't get City Council assent, and in his third only one
of five measures, about $71 million dedicated to public safety, passed voter
muster.

Of course, the electorate quickly became distrustful
of Perkins partly because of the opaqueness of spending plans and partly
because of other shenanigans in his administration that eventually led to his ouster
upon his trying for reelection. Undoubtedly this played a hand in the
rejections, but this isn't a problem Arceneaux should encounter. In great
contrast, his term to date has featured little drama and the city has bent over
backwards to inform the citizenry about the items to be funded and process to
get there and stated its case for their acceptances, as well as publicizing progress
made on the projects associated with the 2021 hike.

Even with potential skepticism likely mooted, the
items face choppy waters. It's a new tax on the books for at least 20 years and
as many as 30, and the total property tax bill faced by city property owners,
if all measures pass, likely eventually would push their rates into the stratospheric
range of 160+ mills (by contrast, the typical Bossier City homeowner pays about
130, and that's one of the highest in the state).

As well, a question remains about why the city
needs to do all of this when it is shrinking in population. Unfortunately, its
decline isn't uniform; the closer to the city center, the more pronounced it
is, while radiating outwards is new building and hence more infrastructure
demands. Further, the consent
decree over its water and sewerage systems continues to make voracious
monetary demands.

As a result, the most urgent of the three is #2,
which in the main replicates the critical projects that comprise work to
fulfill the consent decree. Legally, the city must pursue these and is behind
schedule. In voters' minds, #1 also may have some criticality, as it addresses
public safety even though most of the spending would occur on buildings and
recreation, since they have shown a willingness to back things associated with
public safety. In light of these, #3 seems the most optional where voters might
be tempted to endure problematic roads and poor drainage in places (if they
ever run into these).

Past recent elections show Shreveport voters
willing to act strategically, so it's not out of the question that they wouldn't
produce a clean inning – three up and three down. Yet the fact remains that for
a city in decline a tax increase is the worst medicine possible that makes it
even less amenable for population and wealth growth – unless fixing the items
removes impediments even more likely to keep the city's fortunes from
reversing.

That noted, voting for #2 can help to solve very
pressing needs, while the other two don't rise to that level. Voters will have
to engage in strategic calculation on this trio.