Louisiana House Bill HB52

Louisiana 2016 2nd Special Session

• Introduced: 6/6/16
• Refer: 6/6/16
• Report Pass: 6/7/16
• Engrossed: 6/13/16
• Refer: 6/14/16
• Report Pass: 6/16/16
• Enrolled: 6/20/16
• Chaptered: 7/11/16
• Passed: 7/11/16

Caption

Provides with respect to the execution and administration of capital outlay appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (Item #3)

Impact

The legislation aims to streamline the capital outlay process by imposing stricter requirements on project requests and ensuring that all necessary documentation is submitted by specific dates. This could lead to more organized capital planning and spending within the state, potentially benefiting local economies through improved infrastructure and project execution. However, it also places additional responsibilities on local governments to comply with these new requirements, which could burden some districts that may lack the resources to meet them.

Summary

House Bill 52 provides specific guidelines for capital outlay appropriations for the fiscal year 2016-2017. The bill requires that any projects with a previously approved line of credit submit a new capital outlay request by a set deadline. This is applicable to non-state projects and mandates submission of supporting letters from local legislators in the respective districts. Furthermore, it stipulates that these requests remain incomplete until a fully executed cooperative endeavor agreement or proof of a local match is submitted to relevant state authorities.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB 52 reflects a commitment to improving infrastructure funding and project accountability in Louisiana. Supporters of the bill generally view it as a necessary step toward more transparency and efficiency in capital outlay processes. However, there may be concerns from some local governments about the feasibility of meeting the new requirements, which could foster apprehensions about the potential for bureaucratic challenges in future project implementation.

Contention

Points of contention primarily revolve around the implications of requiring local matching funds and the necessity of support letters from local legislators, which might lead to disparities in project approvals, especially in less affluent districts. Critics could argue that the bill centralizes too much control over local projects at the state level, which may not adequately take into account the unique needs and circumstances of individual communities. Moreover, questions may arise regarding the timeline for submissions and the potential for disruptions to already planned projects.