Louisiana Senate Bill SB587

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12

Caption

Provides for the allocation of CDBG funds. (gov sig)

Impact

The enactment of SB 587 would lead to significant changes in how federal hurricane recovery funds are allocated and managed in Louisiana. The bill establishes clear definitions and outlines the responsibilities of the office of community development in drafting proposals for fund allocation. One key aspect is that any proposal involving expenditures of ten million dollars or more must receive approval from the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget, ensuring legislative oversight throughout the funding process. This mandatory oversight aims to enhance transparency and accountability in the allocation of significant public funds.

Summary

Senate Bill 587 focuses on the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and other federal resources towards the recovery efforts following hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike, and Gustav. The bill tasks the office of community development within the division of administration with the responsibility to manage and allocate these funds specifically to the governing authorities of municipalities affected by these disasters. This legislation marks a concerted effort to streamline recovery processes and ensure that federal resources are effectively utilized in rebuilding efforts.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around SB 587 appears to be largely supportive, particularly among those who see the need for organized recovery efforts following multiple natural disasters. Advocates highlight the bill's potential to improve the efficiency of fund allocation, ensuring that municipalities can access necessary resources for effective recovery. However, there are concerns that such centralized control might introduce bureaucratic delays or limitations on local authorities' agility in responding to their unique recovery needs.

Contention

One notable point of contention regarding SB 587 is the level of oversight and control exercised by the state over local recovery efforts. Critics argue that while oversight is necessary, it might stifle local governance and adaptation, which could lead to mismatches between federal mandates and local needs. Furthermore, the requirement for proposals to undergo extensive review and approval processes could delay critical recovery actions, hampering timely assistance to affected communities.