Louisiana House Bill HCR7

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/30/10
• Report Pass: 4/21/10
• Engrossed: 5/3/10
• Report Pass: 5/17/10
• Passed: 6/3/10

Caption

Suspends for one year the provisions of the Infrastructure Priority Program

Impact

The suspension proposed in HCR7 is seen as a cautious and responsible approach, given the lack of immediate funding. This would halt activities such as public hearings and application reviews that are otherwise mandated by the existing laws. The bill reflects a financial pragmatism by acknowledging that without actual funds, requiring local subdivisions to adhere to such statuary requirements may be unwise and burdensome. Ultimately, the bill seeks to streamline processes and eliminate needless expenditure of resources during a time of fiscal uncertainty regarding infrastructure funding.

Summary

House Concurrent Resolution 7 (HCR7) proposes a suspension of the provisions related to the Infrastructure Priority Program as established in Louisiana Revised Statutes (R.S.) 49:214.6.6. This program involves the submission of requests for state funding directed at local infrastructure projects, which undergo a review process to establish priority listings for funding. Given that revenue streams anticipated from the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) are not projected to be available until Fiscal Year 2011-2012, HCR7 aims to relieve local entities from the costly and unnecessary obligations tied to application submission and review while there is currently no funding available.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HCR7 appears to be predominantly supportive among its sponsors and the legislative bodies involved, who perceive it as a rational response to current financial realities. However, there may exist underlying concerns from local governance advocates who could argue this suspension diminishes the capability of local areas to plan important infrastructure projects proactively. The support is likely grounded in fiscal responsibility but could be juxtaposed with sentiments regarding local empowerment and project readiness.

Contention

While the resolution may be seen as necessary by many, it raises basic questions about the future of local infrastructure and its funding. Critics might argue that suspending these requirements could lead to delays in important infrastructure projects that local communities may need to address even in the absence of immediate funding. Potential contention revolves around the balance of local autonomy versus state-level decision-making and the impact this decision may have on long-term infrastructure planning and readiness at the community level.