Natchitoches Council Adopts Current Millage; Vote on Roll-Forward Produces Confusion, Will Be Revisited

The Natchitoches City Council on May 12 adopted an ordinance to levy the city’s current millage rates for 2025 but produced a contested and confusing vote over a separate ordinance that would apply the assessor’s higher roll‑forward rates.

Councilman David Nielsen read Ordinance No. 17 of 02/2025, the measure to levy the city’s current millage rates. Clarissa Brown Smith, the city’s finance director, explained that a separate ordinance (No. 18 of 02/2025) would apply the assessor’s updated rates and, if approved, “it will generate additional revenue for the city, at about a hundred and 82,000 more dollars that we will get in, property taxes.”

Council members debated whether to accept the roll‑forward given recent utility and cost increases that have affected residents and businesses. Mayor Ronnie Williams Jr. and Chief Wynne of the Fire Department spoke about the operational importance of the millage proceeds; Chief Wynne said the millage revenues are used for major capital purchases and training and described the funds as an important source for fire and police capital needs: “it generates, over a million dollars per entity, fire and police. And that is how we purchase major, capital items.”

Councilman Nielsen moved a motion “not to adopt ordinance number 18 of 02/2025” (i.e., not to roll forward the assessor’s increased millage). The motion was seconded and a roll‑call was taken. The roll call as recorded in the meeting transcript shows votes of “No” from several council members (Eli, Nelson, Smith, Peachy) on that roll call, which led to immediate confusion on the floor about whether the council had effectively voted to adopt the roll‑forward. Meeting participants debated whether a “No” vote on the motion to not adopt effectively resulted in adopting the roll‑forward ordinance.

Mayor Williams said the vote had taken place and described the result as "set" while council members and staff asked to revisit the matter. City staff advised that rescission or clarification would require a subsequent meeting and additional procedural steps, including public‑hearing notices and statutory publication. Clerk and staff said the process requires notices to the tax assessor’s office and other formal steps before a roll‑forward becomes final.

The council directed staff to analyze the procedural record and return with a recommendation at the next meeting. No final rescission or new adoption occurred on May 12; the council left the item subject to further review and possible action at an upcoming meeting.