Tax-weary EBR voters turn back sketchy renewals

Last weekend, the “Thrive” plan didn’t thrive in the voting booth. It’s important to understand why and what are the implications.

The consolidated government of East Baton Rouge Parish had on the ballot a corrective plan backed by Republican Mayor-President Sid Edwards. Upon his taking office, it soon became clear that metro government was facing a deficit that only promised to grow, so Edwards came up with the plan. This largely was a consequence of the leaving of the cash cow that now is the separate city of St. George that subsidized the profligacy of past elected Democrats that was so egregious St. George residents constitutionally compartmentalized and fought off a lawsuit from the perpetrators trying to cancel that.

In essence, the plan would slice money from three over-funded dedications and divert some of that to the general fund for ongoing operating expenses. Money going to the parish library system would be the lion’s share affected, but little slices of funding for pest abatement and for the Council on Aging also were targeted. Additionally, the city-parish would divert over $52 million of the fat $121 million the library sat on – far above its projected capital outlay needs with plenty of recent transfer already to the Capital Projects Fund for that purpose – to pay off debt and use the savings as another source of funds.

On election day for the three items, approval in precincts with high proportions of black residents by one estimate was little better than a third, but with a modest advantage among white voters who would turn out to vote at a higher rate that would have been enough for the trio to win the day. Instead, a fairly even distribution of yeas and nays in precincts white a high proportion of whites caused their demises.

In fact, it was distrustful conservatives that torpedoed the plan. To some degree, it was over the controversial COA, whose longtime executive director Tasha Clark-Amar embroiled herself in a shady legal maneuver involving the estate of a client years ago and who pulled off an over-funding of the COA. Fiscally conservative voters with long memories (perhaps refreshed with publicly stated misgivings by COA staff a couple of years back), even as the plan would have diverted money from the COA, distrusted giving it any money at all, although the renewal would not kick in until 2027.

Yet while that diversion of would have been 0.25 mills leaving 2 mills for the COA, that 2.25 total – the original ten-year levy passed in 2017 – was higher than to where the levy had been rolled back previously, 2 (and exceeding the maximum allowed now at 2.13). By contrast, the abatement levy was renewed last year at 1.06, and this version asked for 1 with half staying and half going, reset to begin in 2027.

In other words, between these two the plan asked for an aggregate tax increase going forward for tax year 2027: .25 attached to the COA levy less .06 with the abatement levy. Now, it’s possible in 2026 that the Metropolitan Council could have voted to roll back the non-general fund portions in some combination so that it could have been no more total than what was levied this year, but that takes some voter trust.

But the library situation especially eroded trust. With the huge surpluses being racked up annually – which in 2024 had revenues exceed expenditures by $18 million – that proposition would have renewed at the original 11.10 from 2016, splitting to send 8.30 to the library and 2.80 to the general fund, even though it had been rolled back to 9.89. Had that contemplated rate been applied in 2024, that would have shaved the surplus only by half. Regardless, unless the Council jumped in with an immediate roll back, it’s still would have been a tax increase.

With this one, there was a veneer of a blackmailing threat, as for 2026 the library system would be unfunded if it didn’t pass (technically, the Council quickly could get a measure on next May’s ballot, but the political fallout may not have dissipated by then). However, the threat lost credibility because of the overstuffed library fund, and actually the library system has declared it will weather the year dipping into the fund (there goes the $52 million) before trying again in 2026.

Simply, on paper the plan could have increased taxes, and enough parish residents have had enough of that. The measures failed also as a consequence of their timing, on a ballot with nothing statewide and with only a small amount of East Baton Rouge residents voting on anything else. In conjunction with other elections for offices that would stimulate more turnout would have produced more less-aware voters who wouldn’t really know about the measures but who would have heard that all elected officials and both major parties were backing these and have gone along with that, pushing one or more across the finish line. However, time constraints mandated the election occur prior to year’s end in a low stimulus election.

This time next year, during national midterm elections, can provide that likely helpful boost in turnout. But while Edwards should follow the same redistribution theme, the millages should be no higher than what was being paid this year to assure that no tax increases are involved. That should hearten conservatives in what then becomes a straight-up reallocation that is revenue-neutral without needing promises of roll backs. And policy-makers, even if reluctantly, must understand that the footprint now of city-parish government has lived beyond its means and people aren’t willing to float that with higher taxes, if they expect future measures to pass to prevent cutbacks.