Louisiana House Bill HB608

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/16
• Refer: 3/4/16
• Refer: 3/14/16
• Report Pass: 4/19/16
• Engrossed: 4/27/16
• Refer: 4/28/16
• Report Pass: 5/23/16
• Enrolled: 5/31/16
• Chaptered: 6/17/16
• Passed: 6/17/16

Caption

Increases the fee imposed by the Louisiana Tax Commission for the mandated assessment of public service properties (EN +$1,700,000 SD RV See Note)

Impact

This legislation will have a direct impact on public service properties that are subject to ad valorem taxes in Louisiana. By increasing the assessment fees, it is anticipated that the state could generate approximately $1.7 million more in revenue. This change is significant for public service entities, as it will raise their operational costs temporarily, influencing their financial planning and budget allocations until the fee reverts back at the end of the designated period.

Summary

House Bill 608 aims to amend the existing statutes related to the fees levied by the Louisiana Tax Commission on public service properties. Specifically, the bill proposes an increase in the assessment fee rate from one-hundredth of one percent to four-hundredths of one percent of the assessed value of such properties for a specified period from 2016 to 2018. This change in fee structure is intended to provide additional revenue to the state during a time of fiscal challenges, thereby supporting the funding of state services.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 608 appears to be generally positive, particularly among legislators who view the fee increase as a necessary adjustment to stabilize state funding. The unanimous Senate vote in favor of the bill indicates widespread legislative support. However, there may be concerns among public service providers and operators regarding the increased financial burden imposed by higher fees, which could potentially lead to debates on budget impacts in their operations.

Contention

A notable point of contention arises from the temporary nature of the fee increase and its implications for long-term financial planning for public service properties. While supporters argue that the increase is crucial for state financial health during a challenging period, opponents may argue about the fairness of imposing additional costs on public service entities, especially if the generated revenue is perceived to be misallocated. The need for a careful balancing of state revenue needs with the operational realities of public service providers will continue to be a topic of discussion.