Louisiana House Bill HB679

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Provides relative to the execution of the casino support services contract (OR +$3,600,000 GF EX See Note)

Impact

The proposed law signifies a shift in the financial dynamics of how casino operations are funded at the local level. By eliminating the necessity for committee approval, the bill intends to expedite the contractual process, ensuring that local authorities receive compensation for support services—such as police and sanitation—promptly. However, it also places a burden of financial responsibility on the legislature to ensure an annual appropriation is made to cover the full terms of the contract.

Summary

House Bill 679 aims to amend the existing provisions surrounding the casino support services contract in Louisiana. The primary aspect of this bill is the removal of the requirement for the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget to approve the amount of the support services contract. This change allows for a more streamlined execution of contracts between the gaming control board and local governing authorities without the need for legislative approval every time a contract amount is negotiated.

Sentiment

Sentiment surrounding HB 679 appears to be mixed among stakeholders. Proponents argue that the bill will alleviate bureaucratic delays and provide necessary funds to local governments swiftly, enhancing service delivery related to casino operations. However, critics may raise concerns regarding potential oversight issues resulting from the lack of committee scrutiny, which could lead to fiscal mismanagement or misallocation of resources intended for local public services.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns raised about the loss of legislative oversight on substantial contract amounts, which could pose risks of misappropriation or frivolous expenditures. Local governments may view this as a win for operational efficiency, yet the balance of power shifts decidedly away from legislative oversight, leading to questions about accountability and the financial impact on state budgets due to the required annual appropriations.