Louisiana House Bill HB203

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Report Pass: 5/14/12
• Engrossed: 5/21/12
• Report Pass: 5/29/12
• Enrolled: 6/1/12
• Chaptered: 6/15/12
• Passed: 6/15/12

Caption

Deletes quarterly payment requirements of the casino support services contract (EN DECREASE SD RV See Note)

Impact

The enactment of HB 203 is expected to streamline the funding process for parishes, potentially allowing for negotiations that better reflect the actual costs incurred by local governments in supporting casino operations. By removing the quarterly payment structure, local governments might have greater latitude in negotiating contracts based on specific needs and circumstances rather than a fixed schedule. However, this change may introduce uncertainties regarding consistent funding, which could hinder local services that depend on these financial contributions.

Summary

House Bill 203 revises R.S. 27:247, which governs the contracts related to casino support services in Louisiana. The bill's primary modification is to amend the requirements regarding compensation for parishes that provide essential services due to the operations of casinos. Specifically, it eliminates the mandatory requirement for quarterly payments to parishes for their support services, including policing, sanitation, health, and transportation services. This adjustment not only changes how funds are allocated but also affects the contractual relationship between casinos and local governments, as it grants more negotiation flexibility to the gaming control board and the respective parishes.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 203 appears to be largely supportive among legislators who believe that the flexibility in negotiation will benefit both state revenues and local governance. Proponents argue that this approach will enable a more tailored response to the varying needs of local communities associated with casino activities. Conversely, there may be concerns raised by local entities regarding the potential for inconsistent funding, as the previous mandated payments ensured a predictable revenue stream for essential services, which are vital for community safety and infrastructure.

Contention

Key points of contention surrounding this bill involve the balance of power between state and local authorities. Critics may argue that removing the fixed payment requirement could undermine the ability of local governments to secure funding for necessary services linked to casino operations. There are concerns that this could lead to inadequate support for public services, placing more burden on local taxpayers. The debate is indicative of broader ongoing discussions surrounding local control and funding mechanisms in relation to the gambling industry and public service provisioning.