Legislature(1993 - 1994)
05/10/1993 09:15 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 1993
9:15 A.M.
TAPE HFC 93 - 137, Side 1, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Ron Larson called the meeting of the House Finance
Committee to order at 9:15 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Brown
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Foster
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Grussendorf
Representative Hoffman Representative Martin
Representative Navarre Representative Parnell
Representative Therriault
ALSO PRESENT
Senator George Jacko; Shelby Stastny, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 154 An Act relating to the economic development grant
program; and providing for an effective date.
HCS CS SB 154 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal note by
the Department of Administration dated 3/19/93.
SENATE BILL 154
"An Act relating to the economic development grant
program; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Brown provided the Committee with a copy of
Amendment #1 [Attachment #1]. The amendment would require
the legislation to have an economic feasibility analysis for
each project. Representative Brown MOVED Amendment #1.
SENATOR GEORGE JACKO did not understand how direct costs to
the State could be estimated. Representative Hanley
recommended changing the language on the amendment, Section
(6) by deleting "amount of direct and indirect" and also
"generated" and inserting "incurred". The sentence would
end after the word "project". Senator Jacko thought Section
(6) would preclude the smaller communities from applying due
1
to a lack of technical expertise. Representative Brown
pointed out that private industry will be involved with the
projects and they would have the expertise.
Representative Brown MOVED the change to the amendment
proposed by Representative Hanley.
Representative Brown pointed out that the change would cause
an additional deletion on Page 2, Line 18 and Page 2, Line
19, within information specified in Amendment #1. There
being NO OBJECTION to the amended amendment, it was adopted.
Representative Brown advised that "feasibility" was not
adequately addressed in the legislation. Discussion
followed regarding the "feasibility" aspect of the bill.
Representative Hanley pointed out that Section 1,
Subsections (1) - (6) address the specifics of analysis
necessary for the legislation.
Representative Grussendorf reminded the Committee of
previous mistakes made by the State in determining the
"economic feasibility" of various projects. Senator Jacko
refuted previous discussion, pointing out that Subsection
(2) Page 2, Lines 9-10 would clarify the feasibility of
projects. He added, he was not comfortable requiring the
additional language in the bill.
Representative Hanley MOVED all the proposed changes to
Amendment #1.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-137, Side 2).
Representative Brown agreed to the changes. There being NO
OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered. Representative Brown MOVED
Amendment #1 as amended. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Hanley MOVED to report HCS CS SB 154 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. Co-Chair MacLean OBJECTED for the
record. She remarked that the legislative process had been
circumvented with regard to specific items placed in the
capital budget before the bill was passed from Committee.
Co-Chair MacLean WITHDREW HER OBJECTION. Representative
Martin OBJECTED to reporting the bill out of Committee.
Representative Brown asked why the fiscal note would be
administered through the Department of Administration (DOA).
She commented that the function of determining the economic
feasibility should be handled through the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) or the Department
of Community and Regional Development (DCRA).
2
SHELBY STASTNY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, noted the concept of the legislation
was to administer a grant which is the responsibility of DOA
and the explanation of the distribtion would be the
responsibility of the Office of Management and Budget.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to report the bill from
Committee.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Parnell, Therriault, Brown,
Foster, Grussendorf, Hanley, MacLean.
OPPOSED: Martin.
Representatives Hanley and Larson were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED, (8-1).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 A.M.
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 1993
9:15 A.M.
TAPE HFC 93 - 137, Side 1, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Ron Larson called the meeting of the House Finance
Committee to order at 9:15 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Brown
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Foster
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Grussendorf
Representative Hoffman Representative Martin
Representative Navarre Representative Parnell
Representative Therriault
ALSO PRESENT
Senator George Jacko; Shelby Stastny, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
3
SB 154 An Act relating to the economic development grant
program; and providing for an effective date.
HCS CS SB 154 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal note by
the Department of Administration dated 3/19/93.
SENATE BILL 154
"An Act relating to the economic development grant
program; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Brown provided the Committee with a copy of
Amendment #1 [Attachment #1]. The amendment would require
the legislation to have an economic feasibility analysis for
each project. Representative Brown MOVED Amendment #1.
SENATOR GEORGE JACKO did not understand how direct costs to
the State could be estimated. Representative Hanley
recommended changing the language on the amendment, Section
(6) by deleting "amount of direct and indirect" and also
"generated" and inserting "incurred". The sentence would
end after the word "project". Senator Jacko thought Section
(6) would preclude the smaller communities from applying due
to a lack of technical expertise. Representative Brown
pointed out that private industry will be involved with the
projects and they would have the expertise.
Representative Brown MOVED the change to the amendment
proposed by Representative Hanley.
Representative Brown pointed out that the change would cause
an additional deletion on Page 2, Line 18 and Page 2, Line
19, within information specified in Amendment #1. There
being NO OBJECTION to the amended amendment, it was adopted.
Representative Brown advised that "feasibility" was not
adequately addressed in the legislation. Discussion
followed regarding the "feasibility" aspect of the bill.
Representative Hanley pointed out that Section 1,
Subsections (1) - (6) address the specifics of analysis
necessary for the legislation.
Representative Grussendorf reminded the Committee of
previous mistakes made by the State in determining the
"economic feasibility" of various projects. Senator Jacko
refuted previous discussion, pointing out that Subsection
(2) Page 2, Lines 9-10 would clarify the feasibility of
projects. He added, he was not comfortable requiring the
additional language in the bill.
Representative Hanley MOVED all the proposed changes to
4
Amendment #1.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-137, Side 2).
Representative Brown agreed to the changes. There being NO
OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered. Representative Brown MOVED
Amendment #1 as amended. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Hanley MOVED to report HCS CS SB 154 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. Co-Chair MacLean OBJECTED for the
record. She remarked that the legislative process had been
circumvented with regard to specific items placed in the
capital budget before the bill was passed from Committee.
Co-Chair MacLean WITHDREW HER OBJECTION. Representative
Martin OBJECTED to reporting the bill out of Committee.
Representative Brown asked why the fiscal note would be
administered through the Department of Administration (DOA).
She commented that the function of determining the economic
feasibility should be handled through the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) or the Department
of Community and Regional Development (DCRA).
SHELBY STASTNY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, noted the concept of the legislation
was to administer a grant which is the responsibility of DOA
and the explanation of the distribtion would be the
responsibility of the Office of Management and Budget.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to report the bill from
Committee.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Parnell, Therriault, Brown,
Foster, Grussendorf, Hanley, MacLean.
OPPOSED: Martin.
Representatives Hanley and Larson were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED, (8-1).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 A.M.
5
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|