Central leaders weigh $4.2 million proposal to create full-time police department

City of Central staff presented a plan to convert the city’s current hybrid law enforcement arrangement into a full-time Central Police Department (CPD), saying the department would require an estimated $4.2 million a year to operate and about $1.2 million in startup costs.

Michelle Lewis, administrative assistant to the chief, told the council the proposed staffing would include 27 full-time officers and 16 part‑time employees and would provide all services except major-crime investigations and dispatch. "We envision having 27 full time employees and 16 part time employees. Our estimated budget, we anticipate to be 4,200,000.0 annual with the start up cost of approximately 1,200,000.0," Lewis said during the presentation.

The proposal compares that $4.2 million estimate to a quoted contract figure from the sheriff’s office the presentation identified as $2,515,000. Lewis said the sheriff’s figure did not include dedicated manpower for special events, community policing, or costs that could be passed through for retirement or Medicare increases. She said when those items are included the city’s "best case" conservative estimate for contracting with the sheriff would be about $3,000,000.

Why it matters

Proponents said a city police force would increase local control and accountability: officers would answer directly to the council and voters, and the city would retain related revenue rather than sending some fines to Baton Rouge. Opponents and several council members warned the long-term fiscal commitments for a full-time force — notably retirement and health benefits — could create an unshrinkable budget item and said the city should be cautious before adding recurring legacy costs.

Funding options and disagreement

Lewis outlined potential funding streams to cover the proposed CPD budget: allocating 20% of the general fund (about $2.4 million under the city’s estimates), instituting a mayor’s court (projected to keep about $1 million locally in fines and forfeitures, based on comparisons to other municipalities), a contract with Blue Line Solutions (speed/school-zone camera enforcement; the company projected first‑year revenues of $1.9 million to $3.1 million), a quarter‑cent sales tax (estimated $1.3 million), and a 4.2‑mill property tax (projected to raise roughly $1 million). Lewis said combining all options could generate $7.6 million to $8.8 million in best‑case scenarios.

Councilmembers and speakers pressed the presenters on assumptions behind those figures. One councilmember said revenue from automated enforcement can decline as drivers change behavior; Lewis answered that the stated purpose of cameras would be safety in school zones even if revenue falls. A different councilmember questioned the operating costs of a mayor’s court and noted gross revenue differs from net revenue after court costs and staffing. "I think the approach here is multifaceted," one councilmember said, urging multiple funding sources rather than relying on a single mechanism.

Operational scope and legal questions

Staff said the proposed CPD would not take on homicide or major investigations and that the sheriff’s office would still perform dispatch in the presented model. The presenters described a Criminal Information Unit (CIU) at CPD that would answer incoming calls and forward dispatches to the sheriff’s office; the CIU would also run license-plate checks and manage NCIC entries.

Legal and jurisdictional questions surfaced: presenters said the city must consider whether the sheriff or a city police department would enforce municipal ordinances and whether the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (19th JDC) would hear city ordinance cases. City staff and an attorney on the dais explained that some traffic and misdemeanor matters could be brought under local titles in a mayor’s court, while other matters would fall to district court when thresholds exceed municipal jurisdiction.

Retirement, benefits and legacy costs

Multiple speakers raised concerns about legacy costs, notably retirement and health insurance obligations that accompany converting part-time or contracted services into full-time employment. One long-time resident warned that once the city establishes a full-time department it rarely shrinks, and cited previous municipal examples where revenue shortfalls forced cuts later. Staff responded that employer retirement contribution rates are scheduled to decline modestly on July 1, 2025, which would slightly reduce long-term employer costs.

Debate over contracting with the sheriff

Several speakers argued the sheriff’s office is better equipped for full law-enforcement coverage and urged the council to negotiate the contract price instead of immediately creating a full-time CPD. Staff countered that the sheriff’s $2.515 million figure did not include several items the city would still need and that their $4.2 million model reflects months of research and proportional adjustments from the city’s existing operating expenses.

Next steps and outstanding items

No formal decision or vote occurred at the meeting. Councilmembers asked for more detailed cost breakdowns, clarification of mayor’s-court net revenue after operating costs, and copies of relevant statutes and any attorney general opinions requested earlier. Staff asked critics to show specific line‑item errors if they believe the $4.2 million estimate is incorrect, and several members urged more time and a possible consultant study before the council commits to a path.

Ending

City leaders left the matter open for further research and negotiation. The council will continue examining the fiscal assumptions, legal jurisdiction questions and the feasibility of combining funding sources before deciding whether to create a full‑time Central Police Department or contract with the sheriff’s office.