Act 273 (2026 Regular Session)
Louisiana SOS publishes no official arguments, yes/no statements, or fiscal notes (PAR Louisiana guide is nonpartisan but unofficial).
GAP-FILL 2026-10-10: fiscal_impact quoted verbatim from Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office, Fiscal Note - HB521 Enrolled (26RS), Expenditure and Revenue Explanation sections (https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1471612). Single-sourced (one official document). Five-year expenditure/revenue tables in the note are not reproduced; see URL.
Do you support an amendment to allow a local taxing authority to continue to levy a lower millage rate without losing its ability to adjust to the maximum authorized millage rate from a prior year's reassessment? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Amends Article VII, Section 23(C))
Not published by the state
Not published by the state
Act 273 (2026 Regular Session) - Proposing to amend Article VII, Section 23(C) of the Constitution of Louisiana, relative to ad valorem property tax millage rate adjustments; to provide for maximum authorized millage rates; to provide for applicability; to provide for an effective date; to provide for submission of the proposed amendment to the electors; and to provide for related matters.
EXPENDITURE EXPLANATION The Secretary of State may incur minimal ballot processing costs associated with this measure. As a regular practice, the Secretary of State typically budgets for up to 10 constitutional amendments and statewide propositions for the fall statewide elections. To the extent the ballot includes more than 10 constitutional amendments and statewide propositions, the Secretary of State may require additional SGF resources for the November 3, 2026, statewide election. Any expenditure impact would be realized in FY 27. There is no other anticipated impact on governmental expenditures. REVENUE EXPLANATION Proposed constitutional amendment may result in foregone ad valorem tax revenues by allowing taxing authorities to continue taxing at a lower millage post-reassessment without losing their ability to adjust the millage to a prior maximum at a later date. However, this will depend on the decision of each taxing authority on whether they defer “rolling forward” their millages for longer due to the proposed constitutional amendment; therefore, the extent of any decrease is indeterminable. Currently, after a reassessment, millage rates are subsequently adjusted to keep ad valorem tax revenues from increasing or decreasing. If the millage is adjusted downward, the local taxing authority can, by a two-thirds vote and after a public hearing, elect to increase (”roll forward”) the millage up to the prior year’s maximum. This allows the local taxing authority to capture the revenue associated with the increase in the value of the existing tax base. However, if the taxing authority does not implement this increase before the next reassessment, then it permanently loses the ability to increase rates to that maximum millage. By allowing local taxing authorities to retain the ability to return to a prior year’s maximum millage rate even after the following reassessment, they may elect to continue using the lower millage rate for longer, as there would no longer be a “use it or lose it” incentive to increase the millage before the next reassessment. However, the extent to which local taxing authorities will defer rolling forward their millages because of proposed constitutional amendment is indeterminable.
Not published by the state
Not published by the state
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.