Public Safety, Legacy Costs, and Responsible Planning

There has been a lot of talk about the future of law enforcement in Central. Things like budgets, salaries, staffing, start-up costs, and funding are being tossed around.

These are important issues.

But there is a cost we aren't talking about in enough detail.

Legacy costs.

Legacy costs are the long-term financial obligations that come with expanding government and adding permanent employees. Costs like retirement contributions, pensions, healthcare and insurance. Obligations that stay around for years, sometimes decades.

These are not one-time costs but long-term commitments.

They remain long after the excitement of proposal wears off.

When You Hire an Officer, You Commit to More Than a Salary

When we hire an officer at $60,000 a year, we aren't just spending $60,000.

In many Louisiana municipal systems, employer retirement contributions exceed 29% of payroll. Only part of that goes toward the employee’s current retirement. The rest goes toward paying down old pension liabilities.

Then there is healthcare, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, training, equipment replacement, and step-increases.

By the time you factor all this in, a $60,000 salary can easily jump to $85,000 to $95,000 a year. When I was involved in budget justifications for hiring new agents at the OIG, it was critical to understand all of these factors beyond just the starting pay.

Once those obligations are created, they don't disappear when the economy slows down, sales tax revenue drops, or grant money runs out.

That is what legacy cost means.

Structure Matters: Full-Time vs. Hybrid

A traditional full-time department creates a much larger payroll base.

That payroll base also creates larger retirement obligations, larger healthcare obligations, and much greater long-term financial exposure.

Those obligations are fixed.

Our hybrid structure works differently.

It relies on part-time officers, support from the Sheriff’s Office, and eventually a rebuilt reserve program. That approach allows us to maintain coverage and service while reducing the amount of permanent financial obligations the city takes on.

It does not reduce how serious we are about public safety.

Nobody is seriously talking about eliminating the Central Police Department. That option may appear in presentations to the City Council, but I believe that's simply part of giving the Council a complete picture of every option.

Likewise, nobody is seriously talking about officers losing their jobs or livelihoods.

Central PD is primarily made up of part-time officers. Most are either retired from full-time law enforcement careers or currently work full-time for another agency or profession.

These men and women chose a difficult profession and deserve our respect. I support strengthening Central PD, not getting rid of it.

I believe we can continue building on the hybrid model we have now, increase neighborhood patrols, improve community policing, rebuild a reserve program, and continue working with the Sheriff’s Office and remain in a position of strength. The community is our greatest crime reducing resource. That is what we should pour into.

Reserves: Where We Stand and Where We Are Going

According to its official page, the Central Police Department does not currently have a roster of POST-certified reserve officers. That is simply where we are starting.

I understand the challenges that come with building a reserve program. Recruitment isn't easy. Training takes time. Standards matter.

None of that happens overnight. But difficulty isn't a reason to quit. I am committed to putting in the work and pursuing every opportunity to grow this invaluable resource.

“Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try one more time.” Thomas Edison

Strategic Planning vs. Reactive Expansion

Things change. The economy changes. Population changes.

No city should assume the future will always stay the same.

That is one of the strengths of a hybrid model.

It gives Central the flexibility to adjust if conditions change.

Thinking a full-time police department can be formed and operated on $3.3 million or even $4.6 million a year, while still providing adequate law enforcement for a city the size of Central, is wishful thinking at best and willful ignorance of municipal finance at worst.

Real leadership means telling people the truth, even when it is not the popular thing to say. It means creating a responsible long-term plan, studying the numbers honestly, and making sure any promises made today can still be kept five, ten, and twenty years from now.

Leadership is building a system that can work in good times and hard times.

A Hybrid Model Does Not Mean Less Public Safety

Central has operated under some version of a hybrid structure for more than twenty years.

During that time, we have remained one of the safest communities in the region. Central sits right next to Baton Rouge, which has struggled with violent crime for decades. But when you actually look at the numbers, our community has remained dramatically safer.

For nearly twenty years, violent crime in Central has stayed consistently low. That doesn’t happen by accident. It happens because of strong community values, responsible policing, and citizens who look out for one another.

That doesn't change with the additional payments now being required by the Sheriff’s Office. Strengthening a hybrid model is still less expensive than even the lowest publicly discussed full-time expansion proposals.

If two different models can both provide good policing, but one carries much higher long-term financial risk, then that has to be part of the conversation.

The goal is not growth for the sake of growth.

The goal is professional, sustainable law enforcement that protects both our neighborhoods and the city’s financial future.

The Risk of Funding Permanent Costs with Temporary Revenue

Permanent costs should never be built around temporary revenue.

Ticket revenue changes. Grant money runs out. Economic growth slows.

But - Retirement obligations do not stop. Healthcare costs do not stop. Pension obligations do not stop.

When permanent costs are built on unstable revenue, the result is usually the same:

• More pressure on the general fund

• Cuts to other city services

• Delayed infrastructure projects

• Eventual tax increases

  
  

That is just the reality of municipal finance.

A Mayor’s Court has also been mentioned as part of funding discussions.

I am not opposed to a Mayor’s Court. I understand the argument for local control and for keeping money collected in Central here in Central.

What I oppose is treating a Mayor’s Court as a funding source for the police department, directly or indirectly.

You cannot argue for increasing the police department’s share of the general fund while also arguing that a Mayor’s Court will generate more money for that same general fund and pretend those two things are unrelated.

The ethical concern is still there. I see it and I think most of you do too.

The more tickets that are written and the more fines that are collected, the more money flows into the general fund. The more money in the general fund, the easier it becomes to fund the police department.

To me, that starts looking too much like a quota system.

Law enforcement should never be in the revenue-generating business.

If Central ever establishes a Mayor’s Court, that money should go towards discretionary projects, parks, recreation, beautification, or other quality-of-life improvements.

It shouldn't be used as a substitute for properly funding the police department.

Leadership Means Thinking Ahead - Creating a Master Plan for Law Enforcement

Expansion without sustainability is not leadership.

It is RISK.

Central deserves a plan that protects our neighborhoods without gambling with the future.

We can build deliberately. We can strengthen responsibly. We can plan strategically.

This is what I refer to in my campaign plans when I propose we create a Master Plan for Law Enforcement.

A law enforcement master plan is not just a staffing chart or a budget projection.

It is a long-term roadmap for how public safety services should grow along with the city.

Just as cities create master plans for roads, drainage, utilities, parks, and development, I believe Central should create a master plan for law enforcement and public safety.

That plan would not be written by one person sitting in an office. It should be developed with input from law enforcement professionals, public finance experts, city planners, emergency management professionals, disaster response leaders, and community stakeholders.

A good master plan would help answer questions like:

• How many officers, reserves, and support personnel will Central need in 5, 10, or 20 years?

• What type of police facility will eventually be needed?

• How should equipment, vehicles, and technology be replaced over time?

• What role should reserves, community policing, school partnerships, and neighborhood patrols play?

• How should Central prepare for future population growth, traffic increases, or commercial development?

• How should the city prepare for natural disasters, major storms, evacuation support, mass casualty incidents, or large-scale emergencies?

• What partnerships should exist with the Sheriff’s Office, fire services, schools, neighboring agencies, and state or federal partners?

• How can we grow responsibly without creating financial obligations that outpace stable revenue?

  
  

The purpose is to create a thoughtful framework so future leaders are not making major decisions in a crisis or reacting to politics in the moment.

Central deserves a long-term vision that protects both our people and our financial future. A document created with input from citizens and industry experts to identify the risks.

Strong leadership thinks ahead.

I believe we're called to steward this community wisely.

That means protecting both its safety and its future with integrity, discipline, and a commitment to one another.