Editorial by Wes Merriott

For years, Bossier City government followed a familiar pattern: the administration acted, the Legal Department explained, and the City Council usually moved on.

That era may be ending.

Documents released Thursday after the Bossier City Council’s investigation into the construction of new parking lots at Scot’s Audio and Bossier Power Equipment reveal a process that was poorly documented, hidden from public view, and structured in a way that appears designed to avoid Louisiana’s public bidding requirements.

The records do not contain a court ruling that anyone committed a crime. They do, however, show exactly why many residents have lost confidence in the Bossier City Legal Department. They also show why former Council President Chris Smith and current Council President Brian Hammons deserve credit for doing something Bossier City leaders have rarely done: investigating their own government.

Bossier City spent approximately $280,000 rebuilding two privately owned parking lots along Benton Road. The city paid about $170,000 to replace the parking lot at Bossier Power Equipment and another $110,000 to replace the parking lot at Scot’s Audio.

City Attorney Charles Jacobs and Assistant City Attorney Richard Ray described the work as the settlement of two possible legal claims connected to the Walter O. Bigby Carriageway project. Bossier Power Equipment claimed that pile driving and nearby construction damaged its concrete. Scot’s Audio had concerns that the Carriageway and a new median reduced convenient access to its business.

Governments are allowed to settle valid claims. Avoiding an expensive lawsuit can save taxpayers money. That alone was not the scandal.

The problem was how the work was approved, divided, explained, and concealed from the City Council and the public.

One $280,000 Job Became Two Smaller Jobs

The most important document in the controversy is an email exchange involving Ray and representatives of Waggoner Engineering.

The original contractor estimate covered both properties as one $280,000 project. At the time, Louisiana’s public bid threshold for this type of work was $250,000. A public works project at or above that amount would generally require formal competitive bidding.

After receiving the $280,000 estimate, former City Engineer Ben Rauschenbach wrote that he would feel better if the city could get the project below $250,000 because of “Bid law.” He then suggested separating the work into two projects. Todd Thompson of Waggoner Engineering responded that it was a “great idea.”

Ray was included in the email chain.

The contractor later issued two separate estimates, one for $170,000 and another for $110,000. Together, they still totaled exactly $280,000. Ray then authorized moving forward with the contractor.

That does not prove in a courtroom that illegal bid splitting occurred. It is, however, powerful evidence of why the transaction looks improper. The project did not suddenly cost less. The same contractor performed the work. The properties were next to each other. The parking lots were connected as part of one coordinated solution.

Only the paperwork changed.

Jacobs and Ray argue that the parking lots represented two separate claims. Bossier Power Equipment claimed physical damage, while Scot’s Audio claimed loss of access. Because the owners and potential lawsuits were different, the Legal Department says the projects could also be treated separately.

That is the city’s strongest defense, but the documents show the two claims became connected. The owner of Bossier Power Equipment would not grant Scot’s Audio customers access through his property unless the city replaced his parking lot. The work at one property became necessary to resolve the problem at the other.

In other words, Bossier Power Equipment’s parking lot was not replaced simply because engineers proved the city damaged it. The evidence of construction-related damage was weak. Engineering correspondence showed that some cracks existed before the Carriageway pile driving began. Ray acknowledged that engineers did not believe the cracks were caused by the project. Jacobs later described the Bossier Power Equipment claim as having little or negligible value.

The city still paid $170,000 to replace the lot because the owner’s cooperation was needed to provide better access to Scot’s Audio and secure releases from potential claims.

That may have been a practical settlement decision. But it should have been fully documented, publicly explained, and subjected to proper oversight. Instead, the Council learned about the work after construction had already begun.

The Council Never Specifically Approved the Parking Lots

Ray has argued that the City Council approved the spending because it had previously approved money for the city’s general insurance and risk-management fund.

That is a legal argument about budget authority. It is not the same as the Council publicly voting to spend $170,000 at Bossier Power Equipment and $110,000 at Scot’s Audio.

The Council specifically voted on a separate multimillion-dollar access road near Scot’s Audio. It did not specifically vote on the two parking lot projects. The public was not told that city funds would be used to rebuild two privately owned parking lots.

Council members were not given the opportunity to debate whether the projects should be competitively bid, whether the claims were supported by evidence, or whether written releases and access agreements had been completed. The Legal Department decided the spending fell within its settlement authority and moved forward.

That amount of discretion demands strong safeguards. The released documents show those safeguards were either weak or missing.

An outside attorney hired to review the matter concluded that the mayor and Legal Department likely had authority to settle pre-lawsuit claims using money already budgeted for risk management. She also found that the settlements could serve a public purpose by avoiding litigation and protecting business access.

But that opinion was not a complete clearance of the city’s conduct. The attorney did not independently verify every document and did not interview the business owners. She acknowledged that the parking lot construction qualified as public work and that intentionally dividing a larger project to avoid public bidding would violate state law. She also reviewed the email discussing the $250,000 threshold and separating the work.

Ultimately, she found insufficient evidence to conclude that city officials intentionally violated the Public Bid Law.

That is not the same as finding that the process was clean. It means the available evidence did not allow outside counsel to make a definitive legal accusation.

The opinion also identified another possible problem. State law generally requires publication and a waiting period before municipalities settle larger claims. The attorney found no evidence that Bossier City followed that process.

Jacobs later obtained a second opinion arguing that the publication requirement did not apply to Bossier City because of its home rule charter. That may be a legitimate legal dispute. It also reinforces the appearance that the Legal Department searches for the interpretation that gives it the most authority and the least public oversight.

Why the Legal Department Has a Credibility Problem

Parking Lot Gate did not happen in isolation.

The Bossier City Legal Department has repeatedly been at the center of controversies involving transparency, public meetings, the Charter Commission, public comment, records, and the limits of Council authority. In each case, Jacobs or Ray offered confident legal explanations. In several cases, those explanations were later challenged by the Louisiana Attorney General, outside attorneys, federal litigation, public records, or the city’s own elected officials.

The Fifth Circuit recently revived major portions of litigation involving Bossier City’s public-comment restrictions and an alleged closed meeting. The court did not issue a final judgment that Jacobs lied or violated the law, but it did find that several allegations were legally sufficient to move forward.

That history matters because public trust depends on more than whether a city attorney can construct a possible legal defense after the fact.

Citizens expect complete answers. They expect public money to be spent through a transparent process. They expect city lawyers to advise the entire government, not simply defend the administration. They expect the Legal Department to preserve records, cooperate with oversight, and clearly distinguish between what is legally arguable and what is publicly honest.

Parking Lot Gate failed that test.

The initial public explanation was too simple. The city’s attorneys spoke generally about damage claims and lawsuit avoidance, but the documents later revealed weak evidence of construction-related damage, an original combined $280,000 estimate, an explicit discussion of the bid threshold, and a decision to separate the project without reducing its total cost.

The Legal Department also relied heavily on confidentiality and attorney-client privilege when Council members sought answers. Some confidentiality was justified because the city faced active litigation. But privilege cannot become a general shield against legislative oversight of public expenditures.

The city’s attorneys were also placed in the awkward position of defining the authority of the Council committee investigating their own conduct. That alone created a serious conflict of confidence.

A New Council Finally Asked Questions

The most encouraging part of this controversy is the response from the City Council’s new leadership.

Hammons first raised questions about the parking lots in a public meeting. He asked who authorized the work, what engineering evidence supported it, and why the Council had not been informed.

After Chris Smith became Council president, he supported the creation of a formal investigative committee and appointed Hammons as its chairman. The committee, which also included Cliff Smith and Debra Ross, demanded documents, statements, emails, contracts, and legal explanations.

It was described by city leaders as Bossier City’s first formal Council investigation under the Charter’s investigative authority.

That is significant.

For once, the Council did not simply accept the Legal Department’s explanation and move on. It sought outside counsel, reviewed records, questioned officials, and created a public record that citizens and future leaders can examine.

Chris Smith has now passed the Council presidency to Hammons. That transition represents more than a change in seating arrangements. It represents a chance to restore the proper balance between the administration, the Legal Department, and the elected Council.

The Real Lesson of Parking Lot Gate

The central question is no longer whether rebuilding the parking lots may have prevented lawsuits. The real question is whether Bossier City followed a process worthy of public trust.

The answer is no.

A single $280,000 proposal was separated after the public-bid threshold was specifically discussed. The same contractor performed both portions, and the combined price remained unchanged. The Council never specifically approved the projects, the evidence supporting one of the claims was weak, and the Legal Department controlled the decision, the explanation, and much of the information released afterward. Whatever legal defense may eventually be offered, that is not transparent government.

But unlike many past controversies in Bossier City, Parking Lot Gate produced reform before the investigation was even finished. On July 1, 2025, the newly seated Council elected Chris Smith as president and immediately adopted a resolution requiring the Council president’s approval before any risk-management payment exceeding $50,000 could be issued. Hammons successfully lowered the proposed threshold from $75,000 and expanded the safeguard to cover all qualifying payments, not merely certain settlements. That same day, the Council created the investigative committee that Hammons would chair.

That timing matters. Smith, Hammons, and the new Council did not wait for outside counsel, prosecutors, or auditors to tell them that the old system was vulnerable to abuse. They recognized the lack of oversight and closed the gap while the investigation was still underway. To his credit, Mayor Tommy Chandler approved the resolution limiting the payments, a measure he could have vetoed, even symbolically. This seemed to signal his philosophical departure from his legal team, and is a strong step forward for increased accountability.

The Legal Department, though, may never face a formal finding that they violated the law. Critics may conclude that they “got away with it.” But they cannot repeat this particular maneuver in the same way. Payments of $170,000 and $110,000 from risk-management funds would now require the Council president’s approval before the money could leave the city treasury.

Parking Lot Gate therefore should not end with another legal opinion placed in a file. It should mark the end of a system in which a few officials could authorize major expenditures behind closed doors and explain them only after someone noticed. The new Council, as well as the Mayor’s office, placed the Legal Department under a spotlight, imposed a meaningful safeguard, and restored a measure of legislative oversight.

Now it must make sure the light stays on.

–

Wes Merriott is the Editor of SOBO.live and a frequent observer of Northwest Louisiana politics.