Louisiana House Bill HB788

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/18
• Refer: 4/3/18

Caption

Provides relative to sales of property adjudicated to a local government for nonpayment of property taxes (OR SEE FISC NOTE LF RV)

Impact

The introduction of HB 788 is expected to have significant implications for how local governments manage the sale of properties that have been adjudicated due to nonpayment of taxes. By capping the costs that private entities can impose and limiting their retained earnings from these sales, the bill seeks to ensure that sales remain accessible and fair for local communities. It addresses potential concerns about excessive fees that can discourage participation in tax sales and create barriers for local buyers aiming to purchase adjudicated properties.

Summary

House Bill 788 aims to regulate the management and operation of tax sales of adjudicated properties within local governments in Louisiana. The bill specifies that if a political subdivision opts to contract with a private entity for managing these sales, the costs imposed by the private entity must not increase the minimum bid or sale price of a property by more than $100. Furthermore, the private entity can retain no more than $100 from the sale price of any property sold under such circumstances. This regulation is intended to protect buyers and ensure transparency in the sales process of adjudicated properties.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 788 seems largely supportive, particularly from constituents and policymakers concerned with ensuring fair practices in the management of adjudicated property sales. The bill's proponents argue that it fosters an equitable environment for potential buyers and instills confidence that taxes are being handled responsibly. Nevertheless, there are voices of caution regarding the limitations placed on the income of private entities, as some stakeholders argue it could deter private partnerships which might effectively manage and promote adjudicated properties.

Contention

While the bill has garnered positive attention for its consumer protection measures, the limitation on private entity earnings may spark debates about the balance between private management efficiency and regulation. Critics might argue that too stringent controls could lead to a reduction in the quality of services provided for the management of property sales. Additionally, opponents of the bill may express concerns regarding its impact on local revenues generated from these transactions, questioning whether the cap on fees might disincentivize private entities from participating in these arrangements.