Appropriations panel rejects supplemental pay for Lakefront Airport firefighters

House Bill 189, carried in committee by Representative Newell, would have allowed supplemental pay for nine ARFF‑certified firefighters at the New Orleans Lakefront Airport (operated by the Lakefront Management Authority). Newell argued the airport had high operations in 2025 and that existing law appeared to have inadvertently omitted the Lakefront authority from supplemental pay eligibility; he asked the committee to add the airport to the constitutional/ statutory language that authorizes supplemental pay for certain fire protection officers.

Bruce Martin, director of aviation for the Lakefront Airport, told the committee the airport is a political subdivision managed by the Lakefront Management Authority and that airport employees are in state civil service and pay into LASERS. "It's politically we're a political subdivision ... We pay into LASERS. We are state civil servants," he said. He described the airport's ARFF capabilities and noted it responds to aircraft emergencies and other incidents on airport property.

Members pressed several questions: whether the airport is a political subdivision that already qualifies for supplemental pay under the present constitution and statutes; whether extending benefits would require a constitutional amendment; and whether adding entities would expand a program that has grown in cost. Legislative Fiscal Office testimony and later committee discussion noted the annualized cost for nine officers would be about $64,800 (nine officers at $7,200 each annually) and that the first fiscal year could show half that amount if effective mid‑year.

Representative Marcel moved to report HB 189 favorable, and Representative Amade objected. The roll call produced eight yeas and ten nays; the motion failed and HB 189 did not advance from the Appropriations Committee.

Why it matters: Supporters argued that trained ARFF firefighters face hazardous duty and were inadvertently excluded from supplemental pay; opponents and several members worried about the expanding cost of the supplemental‑pay program and constitutional/statutory limits on eligibility.

Next steps: The committee rejected the motion to report the bill favorable. Sponsors said they would continue working on a durable solution, including possible constitutional or statutory fixes and further analysis of fund sustainability.