The Bossier Parish Police Jury is pursuing one of the most hackneyed dodges that a Louisiana local government can attempt.

And in the process, it is wasting, and maybe collecting, too many tax dollars along the way.

Last week, the Jury voted to send a couple of property taxes out for renewal. One is a 1.99-mill dedicated to roads and bridges, of which only 1.95 mills are currently being collected, and the other is a 0.82-mill tax dedicated to running the parish health unit, which statute requires the parish to maintain and of which only 0.81 mills are being collected.

It’s difficult to argue against the presence of either. Infrastructure is a constant concern, and the health unit is a legal obligation on behalf of the state. But the manner of renewal is craven, if not cowardly, or even duplicitous.

The Jury set up the election for Dec. 12. That’s the general election runoff date for U.S. House races and, temporarily, all local elections in the parish – School Board, law enforcement, and judicial (and an alderman’s race in Haughton). This means, practically speaking, that across the entire parish, the tax renewals may be the only items on the ballot.

Consider that the judicial races often draw only one candidate, occasionally two. Even in the rare instance that more than two run, usually it’s decided in the general election. School Board contests have a little more competition, but recently not much more. In fact, the last time there was a runoff for the School Board in a regular election was 16 years ago, and barely at that, as the leading candidate finished exactly at 50 percent. Since then, only a constable’s contest and a Plain Dealing alderman’s race went to a runoff. Certainly, no statewide or legislative election (unless something unusual happens in the meantime) will share the ballot.

This almost guarantees extremely low turnout. The Jury never has scheduled any proposition on a fall runoff date before that wasn’t on the national off-year general election day in Louisiana, but the last time statewide constitutional amendments showed up on a runoff date, turnout was below 10 percent parish-wide. Lower turnout particularly favors tax renewal because parish employees, whose jobs depend upon these revenues, disproportionately show up, along with families and whatever friends they can drag along, to vote in favor.

After all, the parish has been burned before by rolling the dice on piggybacking on higher-stimulus contests.Just about two decades ago, during the general election, its attempt to raise property taxes 6 mills for infrastructure narrowly failed (my minor contribution to that is recounted here). And then there’s the Bossier Parish School District’s risking property tax hikes in a spring 2019 election that voters decisively binned. Even though those proposed here are not new taxes but renewals, jurors don’t seem to want to take a chance.

Yet it’s not just the putting of a thumb on the scales that is cringeworthy. Worse, these elections will be more expensive than they needed to be precisely because they may be the only ones, certainly among the only ones, anywhere on a parish ballot. Statute creates a formula that increases the costs to local governments the greater the proportion of the ballot their items occupy. The judicial and district attorney contests, in particular, could have increased the state’s subsidization of the election, allowing the renewals to hitch a ride on Nov. 3. Instead, as perhaps the only items on the Dec. 12 ballot, the parish may have to pay the entire local half of the cost.

There’s still another underhanded aspect to this election. The extant millages last through 2027. Practically speaking, this means an election could have occurred at the regular general election scheduled for Oct. 9, which would have maximized the state picking up the tab. But even if the Jury wanted to be devious, it has three dates in 2027 that would cost more but have less stimulus. And then, if the measure(s) failed, there still would be all of 2028 to adjust and attempt passage (because property taxes aren’t due until year’s end, so anything passed before then would count for the entire year).

Instead, the Jury is a year early. A buffer of a year prior to the first year a renewed tax would have to be on the books is a good idea in case voters reject something that can be adjusted to satisfy them, but this is two years early. Additionally, jurors may have made this choice knowing 2027 was an election year for them, and they may have worried that a tax item on the ballot might damage their chances for reelection. This earlier date isn’t optimal because it removes a year’s worth of data for voters to determine whether the tax is set at an appropriate authorized maximum millage, or is needed at all.

For example, almost all of the operating revenue coming into the parish’s health unit comes from the tax (a pittance coming from the state), but its share of total revenues is somewhat lower because over 10 percent comes from investing idle balances, which are considerable. At the end of last year, the Health Unit Fund contained about $3.5 million, having increased by $800,000 because only half a million was spent. In the latter half of the 2010s, the fund ran deficits because of some capital outlay costs and increased expenditures for unspecified public safety reasons, with those expenditures several times the 2025 amount, as well as a 2016 transfer out of around $300,000 for an unspecified purpose, another in 2013 for $15,000, also unspecified, and a nearly $600,000 one in 2009, likely attributable in part to capital spending (throughout these years “public safety” expenditures varied considerably, and one year a small transfer in was made).

Prior to then, the fund balance never was very large, in part because the tax took in much less – about a quarter to a third as much as it does today – because of lower property values, fewer properties, and a millage that sometimes was substantially below the maximum authorized. The balance now is the highest since at least the turn of the century, with the only time it got close being the year of the huge withdrawal in 2009.

Thus, it would appear that, in the past few years, the tax has over-collected. Unlike in past years, the Jury hasn’t rolled back the rate more than a pittance, although back then it also showed a penchant for periodically draining the fund (and keep in mind it ran a big general fund deficit last year). Another year of data would have been helpful for voters to determine whether the 0.82 rate is structurally too high, or is needed at all.

But instead, jurors focused on their needs, so voters look set to face early, if not inflated, tax items costing them more than necessary on a likely lonely ballot.