Bossier City finance committee opens first meeting, discusses bond payoff, part‑time pay and capital priorities

The Bossier City Finance Committee opened its first meeting Oct. 14 to review the draft fiscal 2026 budget and to consider options the committee will recommend to the full City Council.

The committee chair said the group’s role is advisory and limited to budget recommendations, adding, “The point of this committee is only to recommend to the council at large.” The meeting included presentations from city staff, committee discussion and public comment; no formal votes were recorded.

Why it matters: Committee discussion flagged several items that could change the city’s near‑term finances — chiefly a proposal to use LCDA funds to pay off an outstanding bond, possible targeted cuts in several departmental budgets, and questions about part‑time worker pay and capital maintenance. Those choices affect reserves, annual debt service and where the council will focus capital funding in coming years.

Bond payoff proposal, reserves and interest

Committee members discussed a plan floated by staff to use about $11.5 million in LCDA funds to pay off roughly $13.0 million in outstanding bond principal. The committee heard that, if feasible, the payoff would save an estimated $4.9 million in interest over 15 years and would free about $900,000 a year in cash that otherwise would go to debt service. Committee staff said a call with bond counsel and the city’s financial consultant is scheduled to evaluate the mechanics and effects on the city’s reserves and bond rating.

City staff told the committee the outstanding bond currently carries an interest profile that averages about 5% now, drops to about 3% in 2027, and has later years at roughly 4% through 2040. Funds identified for the payoff are held in the Parkway Capital Fund and currently earn roughly 3–3.5% interest, staff said. Members cautioned that using those funds would require careful review of restrictions and reserve policies so the payoff would not unintentionally harm the city’s credit rating.

The committee also noted the city’s general fund reserve rule on file as Ordinance 41 of 02/2015, which requires reserves equal to 15% of expenditures; staff reported the city is currently above that threshold.

Part‑time pay, staffing and payroll costs

Councilwoman Deborah Ross said she is interested in boosting pay for the city’s permanent part‑time employees and described retention pressures for after‑hours staff at community centers. Committee members and staff agreed the department heads typically request targeted raises when retention problems arise; staff said the city’s lowest permanent part‑time rate is $12.40 an hour and that roughly 28 permanent part‑time positions exist across departments. Staff also noted a salary study had examined calls for a $15 minimum rate and that the study did not support a across‑the‑board increase for all part‑time roles.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized they want department heads to identify specific staffing needs before recommending blanket increases.

Capital projects and the Nov. 1 capital outlay deadline

Staff summarized capital projects that appear in the budget or five‑year list: a remodel of the Council on Aging building, a fire department maintenance building the city estimates at about $2,000,000, and the recurring need to address local streets including Hamilton Road. Amanda (city staff) told the committee the city is obtaining cost estimates so Hamilton Road can be submitted as a capital outlay application to the state by the Nov. 1 deadline; she said funding timing could range from immediate cash to multi‑year allocations depending on the state program.

Public works items discussed included mowing contract line items (committee members referenced figures around $3.25–$4.75 per cutting in discussion), a $100,000 line for street sweeping and the need to re‑solicit quotes or run an RFP when appropriate. Staff estimated a formal RFP process could take roughly six to eight weeks from packet assembly through responses.

Donations, parks cameras and audit update

The committee discussed a councilmember’s proposal to include a one‑time donation to Ronald McDonald House in next year’s budget; staff said legal research is needed because some proposed donations may be legally constrained. The administration agreed to consult city attorneys and return with a legal recommendation.

Committee members asked about park security cameras. Staff said they have contacted a vendor (Flock) but have not yet scheduled a vendor meeting; any camera purchase may require a budget amendment or ordinance once costs are known.

The committee received an update that an audit the council requested is underway; staff member Miss Williamson provided documents to the auditing firm, and members said the audit results will inform next year’s budgeting process.

Public comment and district funding

Two residents spoke in public comment. David Crockett urged more upfront disclosure of fund balances and restrictions and asked that capital projects come through committees before appearing on council agendas. He also raised the longstanding practice of allocating roughly $200,000 per council district for local street and sidewalk work and said the council should review how those funds are deployed. Duke Lowry urged adoption of procedural safeguards to require necessary approvals before projects proceed.

Next steps and committee directions

Committee members and staff identified follow‑ups for the full council: (1) complete the bond counsel review and present a formal plan for any LCDA payoff, (2) collect department‑level requests and evidence of staffing/retention problems before recommending part‑time pay increases, (3) finalize cost estimates for Hamilton Road and submit capital outlay applications by Nov. 1 if appropriate, (4) run or prepare RFPs/quotes for mowing and other contracted services as needed, (5) have legal staff report on the legal status of proposed donations, and (6) obtain vendor quotes for park cameras and return with cost options.

No formal committee votes were taken at the Oct. 14 meeting; the chair said the committee’s role is advisory and will bring recommendations to the full City Council for any final actions.

Committee chair closed the meeting after reminding members of a town hall scheduled Oct. 20 (the speaker referred to the location as both “Hooter Park” and later “Houdepark” in the record) and thanking staff for the budget data they provided.