Temporarily suspends the payment of video draw poker device operation fees due to the closure of licensed establishments as a result of COVID-19 (OR -$2,454,000 SD RV See Note)
Impact
If enacted, this resolution would suspend the provisions of R.S. 27:435(A)(5) until October 1, 2020, easing the financial pressure on video gaming establishments. The suspension would mean that owners of video draw poker devices, who typically pay annual fees that vary based on the type of establishment, would not incur these fees during the specified period. This move reflects an intention to keep these businesses afloat amid unprecedented challenges posed by the pandemic, potentially leading to better recovery prospects once operations can resume.
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 39 aims to provide temporary financial relief to owners of video draw poker devices in Louisiana by suspending the payment of operational fees due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resolution arises from the necessity to support businesses that were forced to cease operations in compliance with Governor Edwards' executive order, which mandated the closure of video draw poker establishments from March 17, 2020, until April 13, 2020. Without the ability to operate, device owners would not generate revenue during the mandated closure, effectively making it financially burdensome to continue paying device fees.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HCR39 is primarily positive, particularly among business owners and stakeholders in the video gaming industry. By alleviating fees, the resolution is seen as a crucial form of support that could help prevent business insolvencies during a time of financial crisis. Supporters argue that this strategy will help stabilize the local economy, which relies significantly on gaming revenue. However, discussions may also hint at contrasting opinions regarding the long-term implications of such support and whether it sets a precedent for future financial assistance measures.
Contention
Notable points of contention could arise around the fairness and sustainability of such measures. Opponents may question whether suspending fees for gaming establishments is equitable compared to other sectors struggling under the pandemic's effects, or if the state should redirect funds to broader relief efforts. Moreover, the potential long-term interactions between state revenue from gaming taxes and the temporary relief measures could spur debates on the balance between aiding the gaming industry and ensuring fair tax practices across all businesses.