Louisiana House Bill HB783

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/20/12
• Refer: 3/21/12
• Report Pass: 3/27/12
• Engrossed: 4/4/12
• Refer: 4/9/12
• Report Pass: 4/17/12
• Enrolled: 5/10/12
• Chaptered: 5/14/12
• Passed: 5/14/12

Caption

Authorizes the issuance of bonds secured by monies in the State Highway Improvement Fund (EN SEE FISC NOTE SD EX See Note)

Impact

By allowing the issuance of revenue bonds backed by truck and trailer fees, HB783 aims to bolster state infrastructure development projects without necessitating direct taxpayer funds. The revenue generated could potentially expedite road repairs and improvements, benefiting overall transportation efficiency and safety. The funding mechanism shifts dependence from federal aid to state-managed sources, potentially leading to more localized control over highway maintenance and development priorities.

Summary

House Bill 783, enacted as Act No. 135, primarily authorizes the State Bond Commission to issue bonds secured by certain fees and licenses. The bill facilitates the establishment of the State Highway Improvement Fund, with funding derived from registration and license fees on trucks and trailers. This fund is aimed at generating revenue specifically for state highway projects, particularly those ineligible for federal funding. The main objective of HB783 is to streamline financial mechanisms for enhancing infrastructure within the state highway system.

Sentiment

Throughout the discussions surrounding HB783, there appeared to be broad support among lawmakers primarily focused on enhancing state funding for highway projects. The sentiment was largely positive, with advocates emphasizing the importance of maintaining and improving transportation networks as a critical factor for economic development. However, some concerns regarding the reliance on fees rather than direct tax revenues surfaced, particularly related to the predictability and stability of such funding over time.

Contention

Notable points of contention included the implications of establishing the bond issuance process and how it could impact existing financial obligations to taxpayers. Critics voiced apprehensions over perceived risks of over-leveraging state resources through bond financing, drawing attention to the potential for budgetary strains in future fiscal cycles. Furthermore, questions were raised about the adequacy of regulatory measures in ensuring that revenue from the special fund is used efficiently and transparently.