Natchitoches budget presentation sets general fund at $21.8M; water, fire station and park projects highlighted

Finance Director Clarissa Brown Smith told a pre-meeting of the Natchitoches City Council that the proposed fiscal-year budget would set the general fund at $21,800,000, the utility fund at $13,700,000 and special funds at $43,700,000.

Clarissa Brown Smith, Finance Director, said the adjustments followed an additional review of line items and included reversing an unnecessary transfer from general to utility funds and reducing a capital grant that will not be received at its initially listed level. "The numbers that I'm gonna be reporting, is a general fund at $21,800,000," she said.

The budget briefing focused on several large capital items and operating trends. Smith flagged the city’s water treatment project as the single largest driver of special-fund spending this fiscal year and pointed council members to a five-year capital plan included in the budget packet. She said the city typically budgets about $700,000 annually for waterline replacements but that specific project estimates varied in discussion.

Fire station timing: Chief Wynne said the station’s plans have been drawn and are awaiting state approval. "The bid proposal comes to you after the state. After the state approves our plans. The plans have been drawn up, and we're just waiting on approval from the state now," Chief Wynne said. He estimated the city would need roughly two months after state approval to advertise for bids and complete contract work, placing procurement in approximately August or September before construction would begin.

Parks and recreation: Council members and staff discussed multiple park upgrades. Manning Park will receive sidewalk work funded from capital allocations; Ben Johnson Park is on a longer timetable because it is larger and costlier to upgrade. Highland Park was singled out repeatedly as needing fencing, lighting and parking improvements, but staff said funding is limited and the city has sought grants and is phasing work over a multiyear plan.

Utilities and electric supplier: The budget shows the utilities grouped by department with water, electric and sewer revenues and expenses. Smith noted the city’s electric costs are currently reduced by a low PCA rate; staff said the city will transition to a new electrical source (referred to in the meeting as LIPA/LEPA) and will continue to monitor how that change affects rates and costs.

Revenue picture: Staff showed sales tax and hotel-tax (TIF/hotel) collections trending upward over a five-year view. Sales tax year-to-date was presented at about $14.3 million, a roughly 4% increase over the prior year; the hotel tax is projected at $344,000 for the fiscal year, about a 2.75% increase over last year.

Code enforcement and towing: City police staff explained the vehicle-towing program under the city ordinance remains active and that the city uses a single vendor based in Pineville who can transport one or two vehicles per trip. Staff said citations and certification letters are sent before towing and that a city officer attends towing events to coordinate on-site actions.

Property maintenance, demolition and public works: Council members pressed staff on demolition, grass-cutting and related line items. Staff reported demolition and grass-cutting were budgeted at $50,000 and that expenditures in the prior two fiscal years were about $37,000 (FY2023) and $42,000 (FY2024). Public Works staff described recurring equipment-repair costs and rising parts and repair expenses for mowers and tractors.

State-owned building and condemnation discussion: Council members raised concern about a state-owned building on MLK that attendees described as open and hazardous. Staff said the building remains state property and that city attorneys would follow up with the state to request inspections and to discuss possible condemnation or other remedies.

Unresolved or unclear figures: Several numbers discussed in the meeting were presented inconsistently in the transcript. Smith referenced a capital grant that would be reduced, a figure described as "$600" in the session (context unclear), and an engineer estimate for a waterline project that variously referenced $1.3 million and another figure described as "$9.85"; staff said they would provide follow-up documentation by email. Where figures were unclear in the discussion, the meeting record did not provide clarifying documentation during the pre-meeting.

Next steps: Staff said the proposed budget will be discussed and may be amended during the regular council meeting; once approved, the full budget will be published on the city website and available at City Hall.

Ending: The pre-meeting closed with staff and council identifying follow-up items — detailed project cost breakdowns for waterline replacements, state coordination on the MLK building, and scheduling for the fire-station bid process — to be returned to council for action or formal approval at a future session.