SettleTalk.com

For the socialites in the Shreveport Bossier area, the hottest “to be seen” event is without a doubt the biennial Shreveport Regional Arts Council (SRAC) “Christmas in the Sky” extravaganza held at Louisiana Downs. Tickets to this over the top soiree this past December were a cool $280 each; all of the allotted tickets sold out.

This black tie glamorous party was from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. The price of admission included food, booze, and live entertainment as well as live and silent auctions. The event had 16 auction areas, 10 stages, 12 bars and 11 themed buffets. More than 2000 guests from across the nation attended.

The Caddo Commission supports SRAC through a cooperative endeavor agreement to help under privileged students attend the Art’s Council Artbreak Program. The Commission has also agreed to help fund SRAC’s development of the Caddo Common Park. Commission economic development funds go to SRAC to produce the Stan Lewis Jazz Festival.

SRAC offered each of the 12 Caddo Commissioners two free tickets to the Christmas in the Sky party. Mike Middleton, who is one of the four reform minded Commissioners serving their first term, declined the tickets because of his concerns over a possible violation of the Louisiana Code of Government Ethics (Code). Middleton then requested an advisory opinion from the Louisiana Board of Ethics.

In a May 23, 2017 letter the Board of Ethics advised Middleton that the Code would prohibit him, as a Caddo Parish Commissioner, from accepting the free tickets. The Board cited Louisiana law that “no public servant shall solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, anything of economic value as a gift or gratuity from any person or from any officer, director, agent or employee of such person, if such public servant knows or reasonably should know that such person has or is seeking to obtain contractual or other business or financial relationships with the public servant’s agency.” This ruling confirms Middleton’s concerns about taking the free Christmas in the Sky tickets were confirmed.

In a previous opinion the Board has concluded that Caddo Commissioners were not prohibited from accepting tickets from the Independence Bowl Foundation to view the game from the Sky Box. In this instance, the Commission pays a sponsorship fee with public dollars, and receives tickets as part of the sponsorship packages. The Ethics Board found this to be “ok”, although government watchdogs question this expenditure of public funds. The Shreveport City Council also helps fund the Bowl game; the mayor gets tickets for her office and the Councilmen do as well.

What impact the ethics opinion will have on the other Commissioners is unknown, or for that matter SRAC. The Commission funds many non profit organizations including the Shreveport Little Theatre, the Theatre of the Performing Arts, and the Shreveport Opera in addition to SRAC. The Shreveport City Council also funds local non profits, including the Red River Revel, the Shreveport Symphony, The Strand as well as The Shreveport Opera.

The ticket policies are of these organizations, as it pertains to providing complimentary tickets to elected officials including Shreveport Mayor Tyler and her administration, is unknown. What is known is that Middleton takes his ethical obligations as a Commissioner very seriously, and his actions speak loudly; hopefully his refusal to take the free Christmas in the Sky tickets will serve as an example to other public officials.

 

Mayor Tyler is in her third year of office as Shreveport Mayor, and by early next year she will need to fish or cut bait on a decision to seek a second term. Throughout her Administrations she has been quick to blame the Glover administration for virtually any and all problems that she has incurred, while failing to give credit for the bond issues passed during Glover’s second term that are funding street paving and water and sewer upgrades that Tyler constantly takes credit for in her Council briefings.

 

As with any mayor, she is trying to build her legacy and there is no doubt that the Shreveport Aquarium is high on her list. Evidently she now wants to have minor leagues basketball facility to be constructed with public dollars. A resolution to express the City’s support to respond to a request for proposal issued by the New Orleans Pelican for the purpose of becoming the flagship community for the Pelicans G league team beginning in the 2018-2019 season is on the Council’s agenda for Tuesday (May 23).

 

A resolution is just that; it does not bind the city to spend any money. But one does wonder is the Tyler administration should not be focusing on more pressing issues that affect all Shreveport citizens. Crime is on an uptick and the Shreveport Police Department (SPD) is 66 officers short of the budgeted force. Police pay is at approximately $10,000 less for the SPD than cities of comparable size. More officers on the street does not guarantee less crime, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

 

The city’s water billing fiasco continues, and seemingly corrections in customer water bills will not be soon accomplished. The City is and will continue to have additional legal expenses defending the Wainwright Pernici litigation which virtually has a life of its on. These fees are a drain on the City’s budget, consuming funds that could otherwise be spent to improve the quality of life for citizens.

 

And then there is the issue of a long overdue pay raise for City employees. Tyler pulled a plan to increase the garbage collection fee to fund a raise, and she has not provided any alternative funding options. And the issue of continued recycling, and in what shape and form, is another matter that must be soon addressed since the current contract has not been renewed.

 

Without going into specifics, it’s a generally accepted fact that Shreveport does not support professional sports with the exception of the Shreveport Mudbugs hockey team that was resurrected this past season after the team owners expended over $3 million dollars of their private dollars to refurbish Hirsch Coliseum. The last basketball team in Shreveport won championships but played before paltry crowds at Hirsch. Even with a brand new facility there are no logical reasons to believe that the area will regularly attend these games in substantial numbers or that there will be meaningful benefit to the City.

 

Its time for Tyler to stop the hype and constant crowing about her administration and to not waste time on proposals such as the basketball team facility. John Q. Public is more concerned about meat and potatoes issues, not than another entertainment option; its time that the Mayor focus on quality of life not sports.

 

Every political organization that receives tax dollars should encourage citizens to attend their regular meetings and to assist the elected or appointed members in the process of spending public dollars. Its fundamental that having the meetings at times and dates that allow for maximum public participation is a starting point for this process. In Caddo Parish the primary bodies that receive tax dollars are the Caddo Parish School Board, the Caddo Commission, the Shreveport City Council and the Port of Shreveport Bossier.

 

The regularly scheduled meeting dates, including administrative conferences/work sessions, of the School Board, the Commission and the Council are on different dates. This is NOT the case with the Port that has its regular monthly meetings that overlap that of the Commission.

 

The regular meetings of the Commission are on the first and third Thursdays of each month, starting at 3:30 pm. The Port has its regular board meeting on the same date—the third Thursday of each month—starting at 4:30 pm. The Port generally has committee meetings on the same date; on May 18 the Finance Audit Committee met at 3:00 pm before the Board meeting at 4.30.

 

Additionally, the Port should join the other 3 bodies in having its meetings video taped and posted on its website, or better yet have the meetings televised live like the Commission and the Council in addition to being videoed. The Port has a high tech, very expensive headquarters castle which is dubbed the Regional Commerce Center with the latest equipment for video-conferencing; seemingly these additional accommodations for transparency would be easy to accomplish. The mere location of the Port’s headquarters south of town is a real factor in the low public attendance at its meetings.

 

A different meeting date for the Port board would also allow the local media more opportunities to provide coverage of its meetings. Currently the scuttlebutt is that Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler is pushing to have the Port contribute $30 grand of public dollars to the riverfront aquarium. Additionally there are rumors that Tyler wants the Port to build a sports facility for the New Orleans Pelicans basketball team to be utilized by its developmental league team. Having more transparency in Port board meetings is needed if for no other reason to allow concerned citizens to question the Port board members on these issues, along with operations of this heavily tax funded body.

 

Sooo…why not move the Port board meeting date , televise live the meetings and post a video of the meetings online? These are questions to be asked of the Board, and it’s a shame concerned citizens had to choose between the Port meeting and the Commission meeting on May 18. The solution is easy; move the date of the Port board meetings.

The voters of Caddo Parish certainly sent a message to the Caddo Commission with the recent defeat of 4 parish wide tax renewals, along with a special sales tax renewal in a rural district. Listening to many of the Commissioners one would think that it was simply bad karma, not their performance, that was the sole and only cause of the voters’ rejection. But then those that complained the loudest also happen to be the biggest spenders on the Commission on travel expenses, prior retirement plan (CPERS) contributions, and votes for social welfare programs.

A good example of the free spending habits of the Commission is the little known Summer Youth Worker Program. Initially funded for $130,000, the Commission recently upped this pork barrel project by $30,000 last month. The program was originally funded for the employment of 48 summer workers for 8 to 10 weeks; the extra money will now fund an extra 12 workers. (To his credit Commissioner John Atkins made a motion to reduce the number of student interns which failed.)

The Parish information package states that the program is designed to allow Caddo students—high school or college—the opportunity to “learn how their local government works, explore possible careers, provide employment opportunities, and develop essential work readiness skills.” The 10 week program will pay high school workers (minimum age 16) $7.50 per hour and college workers $9.00 per hour. The maximum number of hours permitted for each worker is 400, and the normal work week is Monday through Friday. The program runs from May 29 (which is Memorial Day) through August 4; presumably work actually begins on Tuesday, May 30th.

The job categories included Parks & Recreation, Animal Services & Mosquito Control, Juvenile Services-Probation Division, Public Works, Finance & Human Resources, and Facilities & Maintenance. The positions offered are laborers for inside and outside work, kennel workers to clean kennels and care for the shelter animals, and clerical spots in business offices. The information package advises that the program participants “will be expected to come to work daily (on time) and follow all the rules established by the Program and the departments to which they have been assigned . Furthermore, they are “expected to be active, engaged and to always put forth their best effort while on the job.”

As of Wednesday (May10), the Commission had received 47 job applications; of these 21 were college students and the others were high school students. No offers of employment had been extended as of that date, although they can be expended soon. And its no real surprise that all of the applicants had been recommended by Commissioners. To their credit Commissioner Middleton and Atkins had not recommended anyone; other Commissioners may have also chosen not to participate in this kingdom building program.

At the meeting where the funding was increased two Commissioners addressed the program, and their comments were on both ends of the taxpayer dollar spending spectrum. Commissioner Dominick asked how many times this program would be extended, reminding this cohorts that originally it was only for two summer jobs; Dominick expressed concern on the financial reality of this growing pork barrel.

On the other hand, Commissioner Matthew Linn touted the expansion, saying that he had already promised three of his allotted four summer spots and was hopeful of having more jobs he could broker out.

If voters are looking for another reason to vote down any further Parish tax renewals, this job program is certainly a good one to add to the list. Seemingly the majority of the Commissioners consider the public tax dollars that the body as a whole controls as a private piggy bank that they can tap as they see fit to further build their political kingdom. How meaningful these jobs really are is an open question, however there is no doubt that this cronyism needs to stop.

 

Understanding a financial statement is no easy task for a lay person, however a quick review of the Sci-port audit raises many red flags for the 2016 fiscal year. The report includes comments on transactions after the end of the June 30 fiscal year which further reflect negatively on the economic viability of Sci-port.

The audit report provides comparison totals for the 2015 and 2016 fiscal year which are telling to say the least. Current assets declined over $170,000 in the 2016 fiscal year and the total assets were over $585,000 less; the total current liabilities increased by over $85,000.

More telling are the operating cash totals: on June 30, 2015 operating cash was almost $239,000 and a year later is was zero. That means that the cash flow for the 2016 fiscal year was in the red by almost $239,000,—to be exact, $238,987.

In 2015 Sci-Port borrowed $250,000 against a line of credit; interest only was paid in 2015 and 2016. In January of this year this line was converted into a promissory note in the amount of $257,000; this note was guaranteed by two current Sci-Port board members.

In September of last year Sci-Port obtained a $100,000 loan from a company in which a board member is an officer and owner. Another loan was made to Sci-Port in the amount of $420,000 from the Sci-Port Foundation, which is a separate legal entity.

During the 2016 fiscal year Sci-Port also used donor-restricted funds to cover the expenses of programs and operations. As of June 30,2016 these funds should have totaled over $800,000; the actual cash on hand reflected a shortage of almost $350,000.

Sci-Port’s current liabilities on June 30, 2016 exceeded its current assets by over $677,000, which was an increase during the fiscal year by over $254,000. Based on these factors, the audit concluded that there was “uncertainty about Sci-Port’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

Sci-Port has added a new children’s museum and the construction costs of almost two million dollars have obviously strained it budget. The total benefit of this addition in the terms of increased attendance and revenue versus costs is an open question.

Sci-Port officials advise that since June the staff has been reorganized and operating costs reduced while efforts have been made to increase fund raising. Like many other area non profit organizations the stagnant local economy will be a challenge as well as the fall opening of the Shreveport Aquarium which will no doubt compete with Sci-Port for visitors.

 

It’s always good when local organizations and businesses donate a portion of their sales to local charities as well as sponsor charitable events. But should a local organization that was funded in 2016 by the Shreveport City Council to the tune of $100,000 a year and the Caddo Commission in the amount of $50,000 be giving money to local charities?

The Independence Bowl started a Charitable Donation Program in 2013; the Bowl has been underwritten for years by both the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Commission. According to a recent press release, the I Bowl Foundation takes a portion of each ticket sold to the Independence Bowl and donates the funds to selected non-profit organizations.

No one can question the charitable gifts, but the logic of utilizing public dollars to underwrite a game for ticket sales to fund the gifts is highly questionable. For many reasons local public funding of the Independence Bowl should cease and the this charitable gift program is just the latest evidence that the I Bowl needs to stand on its on without tax dollars.

It’s a good question, and the answer probably depends on who you ask. 0 The defeat by Caddo voters of four Parish wide tax renewals last Saturday was certainly a slap in the face to the Caddo Commission.

Proposition No. 1 was a .83 mills renewal for maintaining and operating 14 parish parks, public roads, garbage disposal, and drainage facilities. This millage expires in 2018 and it was projected to bring in $1.48 million a year. This proposition failed by a mere 16 votes.

Proposition No. 2 was a .87 mills renewal to operate public health units, mosquito control and the animal shelter. This proposition failed by 117 votes and it was to fund $1.55 million per year. This millage expires in 2020.

Proposition No. 3 was for 1.97 mills to fund the Caddo juvenile court and the various juvenile court programs. This failed by 299 votes. The projected income from this millage was $3.5 million and this millage expires in 2021.

Proposition No. 4 was for 2.72 mils to operate the Caddo courthouse. This failed by a 892 votes. This millage generates $4.82 million and it expires in 2021.

The tax renewals were endorsed by the Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, The Committee of 100, and the Northwest Louisiana Economic Partnership. Additionally, a local political action committee (PAC) funded numerous media buys pushing the renewal.

Unlike the defeat of the Caddo Parish School Board bond package in 2015, there was no parish wide organized group urging defeat of the renewals. In north Caddo a “No” campaign was spearheaded by a local resident and various bloggers throughout the parish opposed the renewals. Additionally, the Caddo Republican Party took a “no” vote position.

The reality is that the Caddo Commission has a poor public perception and in the world of politics perception IS reality. Initially, voters are becoming weary of special elections that increase the costs to the public and which virtually ensure dismal voter turnout. And to add insult to injury, none of the taxes expired this year; voters perceived the early vote as a money grab.

Many Caddo voters are concerned with self-dealing by Commissioners, and they identify the subsidized health insurance and the retirement plan (CPERS) that seven of the twelve current Commissioners enjoyed. Additionally Commissioners received a cost of living adjustment (COLA) to their salaries each time they voted a COLA for parish employees and that’s the reason the salary of Commissioners is the highest in Louisiana for a part-time elected officials. (To its credit, the Commission voted in January of last year to end the subsidized health insurance, the CPERS and COLA raises)

Taxpayers are also concerned about the travel expenses of many of the current Commissioners and they remember the excessive travel expenses by former Commissioners. Additionally the fact that Commissioners get two tickets to the Skybox at the Independence Bowl in exchange for the Commissioners $50,000 sponsorship strikes many voters as more wallet padding by this elected body.

The Caddo Animal Shelter has drawn criticism by animal activists for the past several years and this vocal dedicated group is still unhappy with the operations of the shelter. The tax election provided a ready opportunity for those concerned About the shelter to send a message to the Commission.

Another bone of contention to voters is the purchase of the GM plant by the Commission’ the lease of the facility to Stuart Lichter , and the failed promise of Elio Motors coming to Shreveport. Elio has proven to be a joke, if not a scam, and the authority given to Lichter to sell the plant assets has created a dark cloud of suspicion that, rightly or wrongly, the Commission can not dodge.

No doubt the overall taxes paid by Caddo property owners, which is one the highest if not the highest in Louisiana, is becoming more and more a concern to voters who more than ready to vote “NO” on any tax issue—renewal or not. This reality should be a concern to the Commission, The Caddo Parish School Board and the Shreveport Council.

The current Commission has taken many actions to show more fiscal responsibility but most observers believe the belt-tightening should be increased. In the mean time, what steps the Commission will to earn more credibility with Caddo voters is a story yet to be told.

It’s a given that Caddo Parish teachers are underpaid, and that a pay raise for these front line warriors in the ever growing challenge of educating youth is long overdue. The Caddo Parish School Board (CPSB) has been struggling with funding for a raise to take effect before they face the reality of re-election next fall. This political reality is seemingly the underlying motivation for the Board’s concerted push for ways to fund the pay raise for the 2017-2018 school year,-come hell or high water.

The initial discussions for finding the estimated $12.3 million dollars needed for a five (5%) per cent raise included the elimination of school librarians, outsourcing janitorial services, raising health insurance costs and increasing student-teacher ratios in classrooms. Staff reductions always cause angst, and this was especially true among teachers who value school librarians as part of the educational process. Increasing the employee share of health insurance benefits would hit retirees who continue to receive coverage under district health plans because they would see the premium and out-of-pocket expenses increase without the benefit of the pay raise given to employees. And in a similar fashion increased health care costs for current employees would diminish the real effect of any pay raise.

The recommendations to the Board included a reduction in schools that were overstaffed as determined by the staffing formula used by the school district. This recommendation noted that numerous school are presently over staffed, meaning that they have more teachers than the school allotment. A savings of $3 million dollars per year would result by limiting all school to the staffing formula.

Another area identified for additional revenue is the reduction of MFP funding designated for the Child Nutrition Program. Currently the district allocates an excess of over $1.9 million dollars more than the required MFP funding. The district will receive an additional $1 million dollars from a new funding program, which will allow for additional revenue of $1 million dollars per year.

The district currently bills Medicaid for allowable services provided to special needs students. Medicaid is now allowing transportation costs and the school board staff estimates an additional three ($300,000) thousand dollars to be received in the next school year.

And the bulk of the funds, i.e. $8 million per year, is to be achieved by using future reserves anticipated from future claims. This scenario is anticipated to mitigate any premium changes until March 2019 which will be after next the elections next fall. What course of action the Board will then take is pretty limited and most likely would be both premiums hikes as well as increases in out-of-pocket expenses.

The staff report presented to the Board at their April meeting noted that recent medical management changes had resulted in exceptional growth of the healthcare reserves that would allow the utilization of these extra funds for teacher pay raises. The report noted that premium adjustments and/or out-of-pocket expense changes may become necessary before April 2019 in a worst case scenario and in such a case, the utilization of potential future reserves would be a “reasonable risk.”

The School Board’s plan to fund the pay raises is a desperate move to avoid making hard decisions on school closures and staff reductions. In effect, this “kick the can down the road” approach typifies the Board continually makes only the “necessary” decisions on hard issues and delays reality. The rationale of funding a pay raise for less than two years from anticipated future reserves without a plan for what’s next is questionable if not irresponsible. Seemingly the only justification for this strategy is to avoid employee backlash at the polls next fall when the school board members run for re-election. If Caddo voters needed any other justification for electing an entire new School Board next fall, these voodoo economics should tell the tale.

 

The Caddo Commission can take a giant step in resolving continual complaints about the operations of the Caddo Parish Animal Shelter (CPAS) by voting to upgrade its camera system at the shelter at its next regular meeting on Thursday, May 4. The resolution offered by Commissioner Chavez authorizes the expenditure of $25,000 (maximum) to bring the camera system up to the standards of other Caddo Parish facilities.

At this juncture, it is unknown if the resolution will pass; several Commissioners have questioned this expense even though they voted an additional $30,000 for summer jobs at their last meeting on April 20. Earlier this year almost $12,000 was expended by 3 Commissioners and the Parish Administrator to attend the Washington Mardi Gras. And just last year The Commission paid a $50,000 sponsorship to the Independence Bowl that provided 2 “free” tickets for Commissioners and staff members to the Sky Box for the game festivities.

Presently, the CPAS cameras do not provide full coverage of all the shelter areas nor complete monitoring of all the employees at the shelter. Additionally the camera system only retains the video memory for 3 days; all other Commission camera systems have video storage for at least 30 days. When questioned at the last Commission meeting, the Parish’s video technician admitted that the camera system at CPAS “could use some love.”

An upgraded camera system has obvious benefits for the Commission. The first is provide additional transparency of shelter operations that can be used to dispel any unfounded rumors of animal abuse or other improper procedures by innocent shelter employees. Conversely, additional transparency should discourage improper employee behavior at the shelter and provide evidence of any non-compliance with shelter procedures. Seemingly, an updated camera system, with a 60 day memory, would be a “win win” for all concerned, including the Parish Administration and the Commissioners.

The animal shelter is a constant source of citizens complaints, and the operations of this facility have become a thorn in the flesh for the Commissioners as well as the Parish Administration. Seemingly this vote should be a slam dunk; however some Commissioners seemingly are opposed to additional expenses at the shelter and/or more cameras. Hopefully these concerns will be resolved before the upcoming vote.

Another one of former Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover’s legacy “accomplishments” may now be as murky as the City’s water billing fiasco which is largely attributable to the Glover administration’s purchase of Triton water meters and its contract with the water billing software company. Pratt Industries recently notified Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler that it will no longer be able to collect recycling at the current monthly rate; the Pratt’s ten year contract ends October 6th.

The current contract is for $2.50 per household (approximately 65,000) per month. The City collects this sum on the City water bills and remits the funds to Pratt. Republic Services is contracted by Pratt to pick up the blue recycle bins citywide. Pratt operates a Material Recycling Facility at the Port of Shreveport Bossier; how the termination of the Shreveport contract will affect the continued operation of this facility is currently unknown.

Despite having convenient curbside service, Tyler reported to the Council that less than twelve thousand households recycle. Pratt reports participation to be very high in South Highlands and in southeast Shreveport, and spotty west of I-49 and north of East Kings Highway. How to provide recycling to the one in less than five participating households is no easy task.

In a March 15 letter to Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler, Pratt outlined different recycling models. The first was a reduction in frequency of collection from weekly to twice monthly or every other week. Another option was a subscription service for residents who wanted to continue recycling, either with or without a subsidy of the $2.50 per month recycling charge. Other alternatives include having the City provide the pick-up service, going to a drop-off program with 50 to 70 sites throughout the City, and/or increasing the recycling fee.

In the past, recycling drop-off centers in Shreveport were basically a failure. After the City Council rejected a proposal to increase garbage fees, a fee increase may face substantial opposition. And with the water billing circus, having the City collection a recycling subscription fee would be a joke in deed.

How Tyler approaches the recycling challenge will be interesting to say the least. The City’s budget is basically held together with bailing wire and duct tape, and adding additional costs for a progressive but highly underutilized program is problematic. With the burgeoning legal expenses of the expansive water billing litigation along with the potential exposure to the City for damages and refunds in this litigation, the prospects for a politically acceptable solution for recycling are not favorable, to say the least.