SettleTalk.com

A recently released report by WalletHub listed Shreveport as the most difficult out of 182 cities to get a job. 

Needless to say, this report has caused consternation by many in the Shreveport community. 

The report listed Baton Rouge as 151 and New Orleans 179. Dallas came in 49 in the job parade. 

Four of the five best cities for a job are located in Arizona. 

As with any report, the methodology is the key. 

WalletHub evaluated both “job market” and “socio-economics” for the study, using 26 metrics for each dimension. Some of these like job opportunities, monthly average salary and job growth are pertinent. 

However other metrics like friendliness of dating, families and recreation seem to be far fetched. 

WalletHub focused only on Shreveport. 

Thus Bossier City, Minden, Stonewall, Haughton, Blanchard and other neighboring communities including Mansfield were not included in the Shreveport evaluation. It is common knowledge that many Shreveport workers live outside Shreveport city limits. 

Another major fallacy in Shreveport’s rating is that 2015 employment numbers were utilized. 

A recently released Louisiana Workforce Commission report noted a November 2017 4.6 percent unemployment rate in Shreveport. This was down from 4.7 percent in October 2017 and from 5.9 percent in November 2016. 

One local employment agency reports 130 Shreveport job opportunities. And this company is only one of over 20 agencies. 

Unfortunately the WalletHub report has been widely circulated in the local media. 

Scott Martinez, president of the North Louisiana Economic Partnership, says that “WalletHub loves to put these lists out to generate web clicks. Reports like this are problematic when our region still sees population outmigration.”

Another widely respected businessman said, “statistics don’t lie, but you can lie like hell with statistics.” Another noted that “liars figure and figures can sometimes lie.”

As Martinez notes, this report will probably live in perpetuity on the web. 

Hopefully those that believe that everything on the web is “gospel” will not swallow this report hook, line and sinker. But no doubt, the WalletHub listing is a reality that local business and political leaders must now concern themselves with. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

In what was not unexpected, the first appeal of a zoning case under the Shreveport Unified Development Code (UDC) has recently been filed. 

A special exception use for the sale of liquor was approved by the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) for 327 Kings Highway. This property is on the southeast corner of Kings and Gilbert.

The site was formerly a Circle K convenience store. This store was closed when a new store opened on the opposite corner.

Under the UDC the sale of beer and wine is allowed at this site. A special exception use is required for the sale of high alcohol beverages. 

Surrounding neighbors appealed the MPC decision to the Shreveport City Council. 

In what was an very unusual vote, the appeal by the neighbors failed on a tie 3-3 vote.

Council member Stephanie Lynch was absent from the meeting due to a foot injury.

Those that voted to grant the appeal to disallow the sale of  liquor were Councilmen Jeff Everson, Oliver Jenkins and Michael Corbin. Those voting to deny the appeal, and thus allow hard liquor sales, were Council members Jerry Bowman, Willie Bradford and James Flurry. 

Suit was filed in Caddo District court by Tom Arceneaux on behalf of Gladstone Area Parnership, Swan Apartments and Ashley Atkins.

The named defendants are the City of Shreveport (the proper party for suits against Council votes), the applicant for the special exception use (a Bernie Woods entity), and the land owner Chris Casten.

Caddo Judge Mike Pitman was assigned to hear the case.

The plaintiffs claim that the neighborhood will be adversely affected by the use of the Circle K property for the sale of liquor.

The lawsuit alleges that the special exception use fails two of the criteria for such permits. 

The first is that the use will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. 

The second is that the sale of liquor is not compatible with the general land use of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity.

Factors cited in the petition include: no investment or upgrade for the planned  existing facility; the lack of free standing alcohol outlets in the vicinity; the residential uses that back up to the site; and private investment in the area to upgrade the area.

The lawsuit also states that the Council vote was inconsistent with a prior vote in 2017 dealing with a special exception use for the old Don’s Seafood Restaurant location.

If successful the MPC vote granting the liquor sale exception will be overturned as well as the Council vote. 

In such event only the sale of beer and wine will be permissible at this location.  In such event Bernie Woods will probably not open any store at this location.

This case is very significant because the UDC has definite criteria for special exception uses. How the court interprets these requirements will be meaningful for future appeals from the Council. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

Several votes by the Shreveport City Council in 2017 were significant. 

Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler proposed a $30 million bond issue to construct a sports complex on Cross Bayou in an effort to land the New Orleans Pelicans basketball team’s developmental (G League) team. A private developer promised to spend $130 million on a hotel and mixed-use development in conjunction with the sports complex. 

Tyler and many business organizations put on a full court press to get the authority to hire bond counsel, promising economic prosperity for all. Many detractors pushed for a citizen vote for approval like the Shreveport Convention Center. The coordinated effort to sell the proposal was virtually unprecedented. 

In what was a surprising vote to many, Tyler’s proposal was defeated 6-0. (Councilman Jerry Bowman missed the vote). After the vote the Pelicans advised that Shreveport was no longer on the short list for the Franchise award. 

The UDC had been work in progress for almost two years by the MPC. The development of this comprehensive building and development ordinance was funded by both the City and the Parish to the tune of over $600 thousand dollars. 

Most Louisiana cities have a combined code. Shreveport’s building and zoning ordinances were very dated. The UDC was promised to facilitate development in Shreveport and the five mile parish radius that is regulated by the MPC. 

The UDC was enacted by a unanimous vote. As expected there have been several amendments by the Council since its enactment to “fine tune” the ordinance. 
During the final deliberations on the 2018 city budget two amendments were enacted that surprised many government observers. The first was to fund an economic disparity vote and the other was to reduce funding of the MPC. 

A disparity study examines the percentage of public contracts awarded to minority and women-owned businesses versus the capacity of these businesses to fulfill public contracts. A study provides a factual foundation to help ensure that agencies are using procurement policies and processes that result in fair and equitable outcomes. 

A disparity study can be the basis for ordinances that set quotas for the award of contracts to minority and women-owned businesses. Currently Shreveport’s Fair Share Program sets goals, not quotas. 

A $400,000 economic disparity study had been proposed in Council Willie Bradford in 2017. This was defeated by a vote along racial lines. 

This time Bradford proposed a $300,000 study, matching the cost of a proposed Baton Rouge study. Funding was approved for $150,000, with the hopes that the remaining $150,000 would come from third sources. This vote was 5 to 2. 

For many years the City Council had questioned the equality of the funding by the city and the parish of the MPC. A financial sustainability study had concluded that the city parish MPC funding should be on a 60-40 basis. 

The parish had voted the prior week to fund $200,000 to the MPC. This was a $30,000 decrease in the proposed budget. Based on the Commission vote, the city budget was amended to reduce by $195,000 funding of the MPC. 

The MPC has been under pressure by both the city and the parish to be more “business friendly”. Both the mindset of the MPC staff and the intricacies of the complex version of the UDC were the sources of concern. 

This vote passed 5 to 2. 

The mayor’s budget included a 5% pay raise for city employees whose annual salary is under $75,000. This was the first raise for city employees since 2007. This vote was unanimous. 

The Council also passed a budget amendment for $150 thousand to pay the 3% increase in the 2018 health insurance. After extended discussion this amendment passed 5-2. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

If anyone in Shreveport got a lump of coal for Christmas, they can blame it on the Shreveport City Council vote on Dec 22. 

By a unanimous vote the Council authorized a special election on April 28 of 2018 to for six ad valorem tax renewals.

Five of these were last authorized in a 2013 election for five years. They expire at the end of this year (2017) and must be authorized again by the voters.

These include taxes for streets, SPAR, salaries, police & fire personnel and city employee benefits. 

The Louisiana Legislative Auditor is requiring the city, along with Baton Rouge, to now obtain voter approval to continue a Police Three Platoon System ad valorem tax.

All together the six taxes total 7,359 mills, with an estimated annual revenue of over $11 million dollars. Basically the taxes will maintain basic city services. 

The street improvement tax of 1.120 mills is dedicated to improving, repairing, and maintaining city streets. This tax should generate $1,720,999 per year. 

The SPAR tax is to operate, supply and maintain its recreational facilities. The .083 mills should generate $1,275,383 annually. 

The salary tax of 1.120 should generate $1,720,999 for city employee wages and salaries.

The 1.120 mil tax is for police and fire personnel and the allowances for uniforms and equipment for both departments. 

The ad valorem renewal of 1.69 mills will provide over $2.5 million per year for the City’s portion of pensions, employee life insurance and hospitalization plan for city employees.

The Police Three Platoon System tax of 1.470 will generate $2,258,811 annually. This tax is designed to provide the police department with adequate staffing.

The millages and rates on the April ballot will be the same as previous years. Voters will see an increase in taxes if their real estate is assessed at a higher amount in 2018. Likewise, if a 2018 re-assessment is lower, then there will be a tax reduction.

The tax election could become a referendum on Shreveport Mayor Tyler’s performance. No doubt the election results will be a marker to determine if she will seek re-election in the fall of next year. 

And citizens can expect to be the subject of a well oiled campaign next April to pass all the renewals.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

The hearing in Monroe on Monday, December 11 before Judge Robert G. James had more questions than it did answers.

The Shreveport Chapter #237 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) filed a federal lawsuit on October 19 seeking a ruling that the Caddo Commission could not remove or force the removal of the Confederate Memorial from the Caddo court house grounds.

The lawsuit also requested a temporary injunction against any removal action by the Commission until the trial on the merits which was granted.

The hearing was to determine if the restraining order should be continued until the trial.

The UDC was represented by Dave Knadler from Mansfield. The Commission was represented by parish attorneys Donna Frazier and Henry Bernstein. 

After testimony from five witnesses and argument by counsel, the case was taken under advisement. Judge James advised an opinion would be rendered in thirty days.

Several issues were raised in the testimony. These are important because one requirement to have the injunction continued is to show a likelihood of success by the UDC at trial. 

The first issue was the language of the land reservation. The testimony and evidence included a June 18, 1903 resolution of the Caddo Police Jury (the predecessor to the Commission). The minutes of that meeting read as follows:

“The rules were suspended and Mr. W.H. Wise on behalf of the 

Daughters of Confederacy made an earnest appeal for an 

appropriation of $1,000.00 for the confederate monument, at same

time requesting that the monument association be given the front

plat or portion of court house square as a site for the monument. 

Moved by J.S. Young that the $1,000.00 be allowed and the front

plat of court house square be reserved for that purpose, which

motion was unanimously adopted.” 

Both the UDC and the Commission agreed that no deed transferring ownership of the site to the UDC had been filed in Caddo public records.

The language “the front plat of court house square be reserved” did not have any further clarification. Specifically, the time duration of the “reservation” was not specified. 

Dr. Gary Joiner testified that he believed the reservation of the plot for the memorial was intended to be in perpetuity. He cited the $1,000 contribution by the Police Jury and that additional funds were donated by the Jury to later cover the cost of the memorial. 

Another issue raised was of who actually owns the 500 block of Texas Street; where both the memorial and the Caddo court house are located.

The parish claims ownership from none other than Captain Henry Miller Shreve and Shreve Town Company. Dr. Gary Joiner testifIed that the Larkins Edward family also had an ownership claim to the 500 block.

No doubt the ownership issue will be litigated at trial. If the Parish is not the legal owner of the court house square, then the Parish cannot force removal of the monument.

The last issue was the significance of a parish website posting indicating that the UDC owned the land. An entry on the Caddo Parish website concerning the memorial was also introduced into the record.

This language, which is still on the website, reads as follows:

“A very interesting fact about the land on which the monument sits 

is that it does not belong to the Commission but to Daughters 

of the Confederacy. However this small piece of land is surrounded 

by the courthouse square.”

Neither the Commission website master nor the Parish Administrator Dr. Woodrow Wilson knew how or why this language was posted on the website. Both indicated that this comment was on the prior website before they assumed their current positions. 

Dr. Wilson testified that the threshold to put information on the parish website was that it had to be “truthful, factual and relevant.” Wilson said that he believed this entry could be in the “realm of human error.”

Judge James ruled in favor of the Parish by dismissing the seven Commissioners who were named individually in the UDC suit. This was expected. Public officials have judicial immunity when acting in their official capacity.

It is expected that Judge James will continue the injunction until he rules on the case. The memorial has been on the courthouse grounds on the 500 block of Texas Street for well over 100 years. Seemingly no substantial harm will result to the public from its presence during the duration of this litigation.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

The Shreveport City Council voted on Tuesday, Dec. 12, to fund an economic disparity study.

Councilman Willie Bradford proposed a budget amendment of $300,000 to the study.

Council chairman James Flurry offered an amendment to only fund $150,000. After discussion, this motion passed 5 to 2. Councilmen Oliver Jenkins and Michael Corbin voted “no.”

Those voting for the study suggested that the balance of the needed funded could be requested from the Caddo Parish School Board, the Caddo Commission and maybe the Northwest Louisiana Economic Partnership.

Last year a similar effort by Bradford to fund a disparity study in the amount of $400,000 failed. That vote was along racial lines. 

A disparity study examines whether there are disparities between the percentage of dollars that minority- and women-owned businesses receive on city contracts and subcontracts. It also reviews percentage of dollars that those firms might be expected to receive based on their availability to perform on the city’s prime contracts and subcontracts. 

A disparity study typically determines if the environment is fair and equitable to all parties seeking to participate in those opportunities. It provides a factual foundation to help ensure that agencies are using procurement policies and processes that result in fair and equitable outcomes. 

Such a study also examines if further processes need to be implemented to ensure that contacting practices are fair and nondiscriminatory. 

These studies have been utilized by some municipalities to set quotas for minority- and women-owned businesses in public contracts.

Studies have been conducted in Atlanta, Memphis and Birmingham. Currently such a study is being conducted in New Orleans.

The Baton Rouge mayor-president Sharon Broome recently issued an executive order to have study conducted in East Baton Rouge Parish. (Baton Rouge has a combined city/parish government). Last week she asked the Metro Council members to delay a vote on a $300,000 study until next year.

Currently Shreveport has a Fair Share Program that encourages city contractors to utilize minority- and women-owned businesses. The program has a goal, not a quota, of 25% for minority- and women-owned businesses for each city contract.

The ordinances passed on Tuesday were delivered to the mayor’s office two days later. Ollie Tyler opposes a disparity study. She has seven calendar days to veto the funding ordinance.

The Council can override a veto with five votes. Presumably the five who voted for the funding would vote again for it and override a veto.

Another option for Tyler is to sit on the ordinance and do nothing. If the city does not issue a Request for Proposal on the study, then no action will be taken. Many believe that this is the course of action that Tyler will take.

The Council’s vote was historic. However the fact that it did not fund completely the expected cost of a study was a compromise to obtain passage. 

Mayor Tyler has not commented publicly on the proposed study. What actions she takes on the ordinance will certainly send a message to Shreveport voters.

The disparity study will probably be a campaign issue in the 2018 mayor and council races. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

The Shreveport City Council adopted the 2018 city budget on Tuesday, December 12. In this process four significant votes were taken.

The first was to fund a five percent pay raise to city employees with an annual salary under $75 thousand dollars a year. 

The second was to reduce the proposed funding of the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) by $195 thousand dollars.

The third was to appropriate $150 thousand dollars for a economic disparity study.

The fourth was to fund $150 thousand dollars to pay the 3% health insurance increase in 2018 for city employees. 

The employee pay raise is the first overall raise for city employees since 2007. The vote was unanimous.

The decrease in the MPC’s proposed funding level was the direct result of the MPC Financial Sustainability Studies. This report concluded appropriate funding of this separate government entity be 75% by the city and 25% by the Parish. 

Dollar wise, this formula equated to $400 grand from the Parish.

In 2017 the Parish chipped in $217 thousand to the MPC. The 2018 budget proposed by parish administrator Woody Wilson had a $230 thousand dollar line item for the MPC. On a motion by Commissioner Mario Chavez, this funding was set at $200 thousand dollars for 2018. The vote was unanimous. 

The proposed 2018 city budget included the 2017 funding level of $1,083,400 for the MPC. The motion to reduce this amount by $195 thousand made by Councilman Oliver Jenkins passed 5 to 2. Councilman Jeff Everson and Councilwoman Stephanie Lynch voted “no”.

The net result of the commission and council votes is a $212 thousand dollar combined 2018 budget cut for the MPC from the 2017 funding levels.

Councilman Willie Bradford proposed funding of $300 thousand dollars for an economic disparity study. A motion was made by Council chair James Flurry to reduce this funding to $150 thousand dollars.

The purpose of such a study is to provide documentation that would support quotas on public contracts for minority disadvantaged businesses versus goals. With supporting studies, courts in other parts of the nation have upheld quotas. Currently the city has a Fair Share Program that sets goals, not quotas.

Several council members expressed their hope the additional funding needed for the study would be provided by the parish, the school board, and/or economic development groups.

The disparity study funding passed 5 to 2. Voting against the study were Councilmen Michael Corbin and Oliver Jenkins. 

The motion to pay the health insurance increase was the subject of extended (and confusing) discussion. Concerns were raised that an expected 2019 health insurance increase would lead to a substantial net increase to city employees without an additional budget subsidy. The administration argued that the subsidy will insure a full 5% pay raise not reduced by the premium increase.

This motion passed 5 top 2. Councilmen Everson and Jenkins voted against this measure.

The votes on the MPC budget cut, the disparity study and the health insurance subsidy were interesting from the perspective of future politics.

Everson, Jenkins and Corbin are termed out in 2018. Rumor has it that Lynch will run for Barbara Norton’s house seat. Norton, who is termed out, is expected to run for Lynch’s seat.

Flurry intends to seek a second term. His district has almost an even split of white and black voters.

Councilman Jerry Bowman and Bradford are expected to run again for the Council. Both represent predominantly black districts. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

The Shreveport City Council must adopt the 2018 budget for the city by December 15. It is expected to be approved at the regular meeting on Tuesday, December 12.

The proposed General Fund Budget is for $221,214,100. 

Four amendments have been offered to this budget.

The first by Councilman Oliver Jenkins is to decrease funding for the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) by $195,000. This amendment will fund the MPC in the amount recommended for the city in the MPC Financial Sustainability Study.

A companion amendment has been offered by Council Chairman James Flurry. This amendment is to fund the MPC for 90 days only at the city level recommended by the MPC study.

Jenkin’s amendment is expected to pass with no real controversy. There will probably be discussion on Flurry’s amendment although it will probably pass since it is only interim versus permanent funding.

Council Willie Bradford has an amendment to fund a $300,000 economic disparity. This amendment will no doubt be controversial and its passage may depend on whether or not Councilwoman Stephanie Lynch’s recent surgery will keep her from the meeting.

Word is that Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler will veto any budget amendment for a disparity study. Even though there has been very little to practically no public discussion on a disparity study, Councilman Bradford has been pushing this issue all year. 

This vote could be as controversial as the failed sports arena complex that failed earlier this year. 

The fourth amendment is to increase the personal services budget by $150,000. This increase covers the 3% health insurance increase for city employees and maintains the 2017 health insurance rates. This amendment is expected to pass with little discussion.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

A long standing bone of contention between the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Commission has been the appropriate funding of the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC). 

For the last three calendar years, the City has funded a little over $1 million dollars to the MPC. 

The city also provided free office space for the MPC , free accounting services, and other administrative support valued at over $200 grand a year. 

The Parish funded $189 thousand (and change) for 2015 and 2016. In 2017 the Parish funded $217,500. 

This fall the MPC funded a financial sustainability study to determine the appropriate funding levels for the city and the parish. Two approaches were used to determine appropriate funding levels. 

The first was a direct cost approach. This analyzed the direct costs and revenues of the MPC from both government bodies. This analysis indicated that the total city funding was 86.8% and the parish funding was 13.2%. 

The direct cost approach indicated that the city funding should be 77% and the parish should be 23%. Based on this analysis, the parish funding of the MPC should be $378 grand. 

The second approach was a budget analysis of Caddo Parish. Since the City of Shreveport is in Caddo Parish, a portion of the parish’s budget is for services for those that live outside the City limits and for those within the city limits. 

The budget analysis approach indicated that the City should fund 74.3% of the MPC and the Parish should provide 25.7% of the funding. Based on this analysis the Parish should be funding the MPC the sum of $422 thousand. 

The financial sustainability study findings were discussed at a Council meeting. The consensus of the Council members was that $400 grand should be funded by the Parish for the 2018 MPC budget. 

The proposed Parish 2018 budget had a line item of $230 thousand dollars for the MPC operations. At its special budget meeting on December 5, the MPC funding was amended to $200,000. 

And unlike the City, all MPC fees charged for Parish cases flow through to the Parish. This practice is also problematic to the Council. 

The Council has been less than happy with the MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney. Additionally, the much heralded Unified Development Code has failed to live up to the high expectations that it would suddenly be the cure-all to increase development in Caddo Parish. 

Against this background of discontent is the study prepared by Shreveport City Attorney William Bradford on the feasibility of the city setting up an internal planning office versus continued funding of the MPC. Bradford’s report indicated that such an office would be valid under the city charter and it set forth the various legislative steps needed to accomplish the same. 

What the Council will do on funding is, for now, an open question. 

One option is to fund the MPC the same amount for 2018 as it did in 2017. Thus the total government funding of the MPC would be $17,000 less in 2018. 

A second option is to reduce 2018 funding to a lower percentage in line with the feasibility study. Since the Parish funding is $200,000 then the City’s funding of 75% would be $600 thousand. In this event, total government funding of the MPC would be only $800 thousand versus 2017 government funding of $1.3 million. 

A third option is to fund the MPC for the first quarter only of 2018 to allow additional consideration of setting up an internal planning office. 

The Council must adopt its 2018 budget by December 15. It is expected that the Council will have substantial discussion at its Monday work session on the MPC funding. The Council is expected to adopt its budget on Tuesday, December 12.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

Currently 17 year old juveniles charged with crimes that are waiting for a judicial resolution of their cases are housed at the Caddo Correctional Center. This changes on July 1 of next year.

As of that date, 17 year olds charged with “non-violent “ crimes must be detained at the Caddo Juvenile Detention Center. These crimes are primarily battery—the intentional use of force or violence on another person.

This legislative changes is an unfunded mandate. Thus, no additional state moneys will be appropriated for the additional costs of housing 17 year olds in juvenile facilities. And no state funding for additional facilities.

So what does this mean for the Caddo Juvenile Detention Center?

Clary Walker, Director of Caddo Juvenile Services, says it’s like adding 300 students to C.E. Byrd High School. But without additional teachers, classrooms, non teaching staff, books and/or parking to handle the overload. 

The detention center has three pods. Each pod has eight cells and a common area. There is no double bunking. Thus, the total capacity of the detention center is twenty-four.
 Currently each pod has one pod leader, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Once 17 year olds are added to the mix, each pod will have two pod leaders to ensure safety. 

The influx of 17 year olds will mean less beds for juveniles age 13, 14, 15, and 16 years old. Depending on the juvenile’s criminal record and the seriousness of the charged offense, detention officials have several options in these cases.

The first is to release the juvenile to his family for supervision.

The second is place the juvenile on house arrest with an ankle monitor. In these cases, the juvenile can only go to school and to church.

The third option is to release the juvenile with a GPS monitor with no entry zones programmed into the monitor.

In the perfect world, Caddo Parish would construct three more pods. Not only would this increase capacity, but it would also allow for more segregation of the 17 year old population from the other detainees. And with pods for juveniles 16 years old or younger, only one pod leader will be needed for staffing.

The price tag for three more pods is $12 million. The Parish does have reserves that could fund this construction. The problem would be funding the four million dollars per year in additional staff costs for the extra pods and extra capacity.

Most parish revenues are from dedicated tax millages. The Parish has lost the last two renewals of millages, and thus the Commission is very very reluctant to propose a new millage to pay for additional staffing at the detention center. 

The other option for the Commission is to collect the full 2.04 millage for the detention center. The Commission has rolled this millage back to 1.86 mills to maintain the same tax amount.

The mention of a new tax millage or higher taxes from a fully funded millage on the books is an anathema to Commissioners and tax payers alike. There are no easy answers for this challenge. That becomes a reality on July first of next year.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name.