Caddo Parish staff seeks legislative OK for up to 0.5% sales tax; board and public debate trade‑offs

Caddo Parish School Board staff told the Insurance and Finance Committee on March 4 they asked Representative Mellerin to carry House Bill 13, legislation that would authorize the district to ask voters in the future to approve a local sales tax up to one‑half cent.

The request is a preliminary step: staff said the board has not approved and has no current plan to place a sales‑tax proposal before local voters. The authority would simply give the district the option in the future to secure legislative permission to levy a sales tax if the board and voters agreed.

Nut graf: The authorization is intended as a financing tool — to provide an option to secure bond proceeds using sales tax revenue, to reduce reliance on property taxes for debt service or to raise general revenue — but it prompted questions from board members and public commenters about who would pay, how much revenue it would generate and whether it would lower property taxes.

Staff member remarks and bill details

A staff presentation said the bill would allow the district to increase the local sales tax by up to one‑half cent. Staff noted three other school districts (Jefferson Davis and Webster were named) and cited a list from bond counsel showing 34 other districts had pursued similar authority. The district identified the bill as House Bill 13 and said it appreciates Representative Mellerin carrying the measure.

Staff provided a rough revenue estimate: a full one‑half cent could generate about $35 million annually; a one‑quarter cent about $17 million. Staff also said the district’s current debt‑service millage produces about $11 million (staff figure cited during discussion). Staff emphasized the district would not be compelled to levy the full one‑half cent if the authority were granted; any actual proposal would require a separate board decision and local voter approval.

Board and public reaction

Board members pressed staff for clarity about timing and control. One board member said staff was not advocating for an immediate sales‑tax increase and reiterated that the board would decide whether to send any proposal to voters. Another said the district’s current bond rating is "A plus," and questioned the need to change financing options solely to improve that rating. Several board members raised equity concerns about shifting the tax burden from property owners to everyone who purchases goods locally.

Public commenters raised similar points. Jackie Lansdale, identified as a resident of Shreveport, urged the board to consider dedicating revenue to employee pay and noted the district is an economic engine whose payroll supports the local economy. John Glover, another attendee, asked for greater transparency on how additional revenues would be used and cautioned that legislative approval is not guaranteed.

Staff and legal process

District staff said bond counsel recommended obtaining legislative authority as a prudent preparatory step in light of state tax‑reform conversations and pending constitutional amendments. Staff described the filing as a precautionary measure so the board would have the option in future years to consider a sales‑tax‑backed financing option rather than rely exclusively on property taxes. Staff repeatedly stated they were not advocating immediate action and that any change would come only after board deliberation and voter approval.

Ending: The committee did not take formal action on the bill during the meeting; the presentation concluded and the meeting moved to the visitor section, where public comments further debated priorities for any future revenue the authority could enable.