Last week, a request went to the State Bond Commission
to schedule a tax election in New Orleans. It came from the City Council, which
passed over Cantrell’s objections a measure increasing property taxes to fund
senior services, intending to pass through proceeds to the city’s Council on
Aging.
Cantrell
has opposed the move because she sees such a dedication as too limiting of policy
option. She prefers integration of that service provision with a broader social
services agenda that could require a tax increase, but not one separately for
that discrete task and directed to an entity outside of city government.
But with the City Council steaming forward, in order to stop the matter Cantrell hit upon a strategy to make the SBC an appellate court. Statute requires that the SBC approve of any local tax request going to a public vote.
And that’s it. Nothing in the Constitution about
the SBC and every other of the thousands of words addressing its duties in the
laws gives any more substance to that particular function. Presumably, its
members can use any decision rule they like in voting to determine whether
something hits the ballot.
Accordingly, Cantrell
argued that the SBC take into account the extra cost the election would
entail as a reason to refuse this. The Council wanted to slot the election in
for the first authorized spring date, in 2019 on Mar. 30, while the Cantrell Administration
pointed out that on the second spring date, May 4, had another city dedication,
of property taxes, up for deciding by the electorate.
Of course, the Council could switch dates to moot
that argument, although that would require a revote that would present the slim
chance of Cantrell successfully lobbying to torpedo the measure. The additional
local expense of $440,000, her administration argued, could be spent on the
very function covered by the tax, even as that would provide just a small portion
of the envisioned tax’s revenues.
In the end, while that provoked some debate within
the SBC, the panel unanimously approved of the request. That seemed to signal
agreement with its member state Sen. JP
Morrell’s sentiment that the body defer to local governments in deciding
the wisdom of asking for such taxes, with the SBC sticking to vetting only whether
legal requirements involving the particular item has been met satisfactorily.
However, Cantrell’s argument she couched as not
affecting the policy itself but procedure, in that the request spent money inefficiently.
And if she wanted to assert that this kind of study fell under the SBC’s
purview, she had a case.
Throughout the various statues dealing with the
group runs a presumption that the SBC does have a role in preventing unwise expenditures.
For example, if debt service for state agencies goes too high, legally it must
refuse approval for that entity to borrow more money.
Still, in the few statutes concerning its dealings
with local government requests, nothing of this nature appears. Then again,
nothing about whether it should behave in a ministerial fashion, act as a
policeman over paperwork, or anything else in this policy area appears in the
law even though it does these things. For example, when it reviews an election
proposal, it presumably checks to see that the request doesn’t breach the 5 percent
sales tax ceiling established in R.S. 47:338.54 (with
other exceptions granted in statute).
So, this lack of direction seems ripe for legislative
intervention. Clear instructions by legislators as to SBC scope and role would
reduce potential confusion over what it does and how it may act appropriately.
Otherwise, its future activities could result in inefficient use of time and resources
or, worse, its straying into areas of policy not intended by lawmakers.
No comments:
Post a Comment