Louisiana Senate Bill SB259

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/15
• Refer: 4/3/15
• Refer: 4/13/15
• Report Pass: 5/19/15
• Engrossed: 5/26/15
• Refer: 5/27/15
• Report Pass: 6/1/15
• Enrolled: 6/10/15
• Chaptered: 7/1/15
• Passed: 7/1/15

Caption

Provides for the creation of the Budget and Transportation Stabilization Trust from the Budget Stabilization Fund and provides for use of monies in the fund. (See Act) (EN SEE FISC NOTE SD RV See Note)

Summary

Senate Bill No. 259 focuses on restructuring Louisiana's budgeting and transportation funding mechanisms. It creates a new entity known as the Budget and Transportation Stabilization Trust, which will combine elements of the existing Budget Stabilization Fund with provisions for transportation funding. The bill stipulates that excess mineral revenues—those received beyond a specified base—are to be allocated into two new subfunds: the Budget Stabilization Subfund and the Transportation Stabilization Subfund. This reallocation aims to ensure a more stable funding system for essential state services and infrastructure projects. The legislation proposes that mineral revenues, including severance taxes and royalties, be carefully monitored and allocated. Once the Budget Stabilization Subfund reaches a threshold of $500 million, any additional revenues would be directed to the Transportation Stabilization Subfund, which, in turn, will require that a minimum of 20% of appropriated funds is utilized for the Louisiana Intermodal Connector Program. This financial structure is designed to enhance the state’s capacity for addressing both budgetary and transportation needs effectively. Sentiment around SB259 appears largely supportive, with legislators recognizing the importance of long-term fiscal stability in the face of variable mineral revenue streams. Proponents highlight the bill’s potential to improve the states’ infrastructure funding and budgetary planning, aligning with calls for improved fiscal responsibility within state governance. However, there may be concerns regarding how the changes might impact existing funding allocations and the priorities for state projects. Noteworthy points of contention include the mechanisms for determining future increases to the revenue base and the potential implications of redirecting mineral revenues. Critics may voice concerns about the increased centralization of budgetary control and the long-term effects on local government funding. Additionally, discussions about whether certain expenditures would be limited or prioritized can shape the debate on the bill's overall utility and effectiveness.