Louisiana House Bill HB708

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14
• Report Pass: 3/31/14
• Engrossed: 4/8/14
• Refer: 4/9/14
• Report Pass: 5/14/14
• Enrolled: 5/22/14
• Chaptered: 6/4/14
• Passed: 6/4/14

Caption

Defines "qualified capital expenditures" eligible for a project facility expense rebate through the Competitive Projects Payroll Incentive Program (EN NO IMPACT GF RV See Note)

Impact

The amendment brought forth by HB 708 adds specificity to the types of expenses that qualify for the project facility expense rebate, which is set at 1.5% of the qualified capital expenditures. Notably, the bill stipulates that costs associated with purchasing and rehabilitating existing facilities will be considered, although land acquisition costs are excluded. This targeted approach aims to streamline the application process and encourage businesses to improve infrastructure, thereby potentially enhancing job creation and retention within the state.

Summary

House Bill 708 is focused on modifying the Competitive Projects Payroll Incentive Program by redefining what constitutes 'qualified capital expenditures.' It specifically aims to clarify the expenses that can be considered for rebates under this economic development initiative. By providing a clearer definition and adjusting the parameters for qualified capital expenditures, the bill seeks to enhance the program's effectiveness and incentivize businesses to invest in Louisiana. These changes are designed to propel economic growth by making the state more attractive for businesses looking to expand or relocate.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 708 appears to be largely supportive among legislators, as evidenced by the favorable voting outcome with only one dissenting vote during the Senate's final passage. This sentiment reflects a consensus on the importance of fostering economic development through clearly defined incentives. Proponents view the bill as a proactive measure to stimulate industry growth and improve competitiveness, suggesting a unified stance among those in favor of the legislation.

Contention

While the bill does enjoy widespread support, there are underlying concerns about the implications of such financial incentives on state revenues. Critics may argue that granting tax rebates may weaken state funding in the long term if not balanced with adequate revenue-generating measures. Moreover, the details around the definition of 'qualified capital expenditures' could potentially lead to disputes or misinterpretations in its application, necessitating ongoing scrutiny to ensure that the rebate aims follow the intended economic development goals.