TAX/AD VALOREM TAX: (Constitutional Amendment) Authorizes a taxing authority to levy a millage at a rate lower than the maximum authorized rate under certain circumstances (EN SEE FISC NOTE LF RV See Note)
Summary
HB 521 proposes a constitutional amendment to change how local taxing authorities in Louisiana handle ad valorem property tax millage rates after reassessment. Under current law, when reassessment or homestead exemption changes alter the tax base, millage rates are automatically adjusted to keep revenue level, and a taxing authority may later raise the rate back up to the prior year’s maximum authorized rate by a two-thirds vote, subject to public notice and a hearing. The bill would allow a taxing authority to continue levying a lower millage rate without permanently losing the ability to later return to the prior maximum authorized rate.
The measure also preserves the existing requirement that any increase above the adjusted rate, but not above the prior year’s maximum authorized rate, may be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the taxing authority after a public hearing with enhanced notice requirements. If approved by voters, the amendment would take effect January 1, 2027, and apply to taxable years beginning on or after that date. The proposed amendment would be submitted to voters at the statewide election on November 3, 2026.
Impact
HB 521 would amend Article VII, Section 23(C) of the Louisiana Constitution to give local taxing authorities more flexibility in setting property tax millage rates after reassessment. It would change the current rule that can cause a taxing authority to permanently lose the ability to return to a prior maximum authorized millage rate if it does not restore that rate before the next reassessment. The bill affects local governments and other taxing authorities that levy ad valorem taxes, while leaving in place the two-thirds vote and public notice/public hearing requirements for certain millage increases.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, as it passed the House 90-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate organized opposition or detailed concerns in committee. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a technical or administrative adjustment to local property tax authority rather than a controversial tax increase measure.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether local taxing authorities should be allowed to keep a lower millage rate temporarily without forfeiting the future ability to return to the prior maximum authorized rate. Supporters likely view this as preserving local flexibility and avoiding an unintended permanent penalty for choosing a lower rate. Potential critics could be concerned that the amendment makes it easier for taxing authorities to restore higher property tax rates later, even though the bill retains the two-thirds vote and public notice/hearing safeguards for increases above the adjusted rate.