SUPPORT MEDA
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
The Montana Association of Counties Economic Development
Committee having examined the legislative agenda of the Montana Economic
Development Association, and having made several change recommendations to
the MEDA proposals recommends that MACo support the legislative effort of
MEDA with the recommended changes.
WHEREAS, the Montana Association of Counties Economic Development Committee in an effort to liaison with other groups with economic development interests; and
WHEREAS, the Montana Economic Development Association has prepared a legislative package which has been recommended to the Interim Committee of Economic Development; and
WHEREAS, MACo’s Economic Development Committee has reviewed the legislative package and made recommended changes; and
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of MACo’s Economic Development Committee that MACo support the MEDA legislative package with the recommended amendments.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Montana Association of Counties will accept the MACo committee recommendations and support the MEDA legislative package, as attached.
SPONSOR: MACo Economic Development Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Do Pass
PRIORITY: High
REFERRED TO: MACo
Economic Development Committee
ADOPTED: Annual Conference, Missoula, MT
September 29,
2004
MACo Economic Development Committee
September, 2004
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 1
1. Creation of Economic Development Trust Fund (HB27,
2003 Session). The economic development trust fund bill passed the House but was
killed in Senate Finance Committee. This is a top priority for MEDA. This bill would create an internal trust
within the Coal Tax Trust Fund (similar to the Treasure State Endowment) with
the interest going to economic development purposes. Such purposes could include distributions by the Department of
Commerce to Regional Economic Development Organizations and local Treasure
State Communities in order to build better local economic development capacity;
matching grants to local development organizations for feasibility studies,
etc.; and also for funding a serious state economic development marketing
effort.
The Committee unanimously supports the concept with qualifications. A funding mechanism must be in place that provides for rural economic development communities. Not all RC&D’s support rural economic development and, while it is true that most growth occurs in urban areas, attention and funds must be provided to Montana’s valuable rural counties. The timing was right during the last session to capture funding for this effort. Hopefully, this session will be more successful.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
1
1. Creation of Economic Development Trust Fund (modified
from HB 276, 2003 Session)
The economic development trust fund bill passed the House but was killed in Senate Finance Committee. This concept is a top priority for MEDA, as sustained and adequate funding of economic development programs and efforts is an essential element to making Montana competitive in the economic development world.
We would like to see an Economic Development Trust
Fund established – similar to the Treasure State Endowment (TSE) with the
interest there from going for economic development purposes. Generally, such purposes could include
matching grants to local development organizations for feasibility studies,
special projects that create jobs, etc.; providing state support to local
Treasure Communities in order to build better local economic development
capacity; augmenting the support for Certified Regional Development
Corporations (CRDCs), assisting in the funding of serious state, regional and
local development projects, and possibly helping sustain the state’s economic
development marketing effort (see state marketing item below).
No more than 10% of the funds should be allowed for
administration and operations at the state, regional and local level. The reminder would be used to promote growth
and jobs in the basic sector. Specific
examples of uses of the funds could include:
Ø Buying
down the interest rate of a commercial loan for the expansion of a local basic
sector company;
Ø Low
interest loan or grant financing for relocation expenses for a relocating basic
sector company;
Ø Rental
assistance (or lease buy-down) for a large relocation or expansion project for
a basic sector company;
Ø Support
of a Business Improvement District (BID) and Central Business District
redevelopment;
Ø
Industrial development;
Ø Funds
to Treasure Communities for baseline community profile creation and
maintenance; and
Ø Matching funds for federal Brownfields funds, Natural Resource Damage (Superfund) funds, or other federal funds.
While this approach starts small (it takes several
cycles to build up a corpus in the internal trust that will generate
significant funding for economic development), eventually it can provide a
great deal of sustained support for economic development funding. For example, the Treasure For
project-related distribution, the distribution method should be:
Ø Based
upon number of jobs created or retained -- $5000 per job could be an
appropriate level;
Ø A
minimum level of jobs for a project to be eligible;
Ø A
requirement for a 1-1 match, public or private; and
Ø
Two-thirds of the available funds put to use through the Department of
Commerce or other state entity, one-third similarly
available through
Certified Regional Development Corporations for local project competition and
use.
State Endowment now, after 11 years, has aggregated
about $115 million in the fund that currently generates (even at low interest rates)
approximately $8 annually for infrastructure projects.
We see several ways to finance this important
Economic Development Trust Fund.
1. Create an internal trust within the Coal Tax
Trust Fund, capturing 25% of the flow into the trust for use as an internal
Economic Development
Trust Fund. This could generate
approximately $3.75 to 4 million per year for the corpus of the internal trust.
2. Create a 2 mill statewide economic development
levy. This could generate approximately $3.5 million per year for the Trust
Fund.
3. Create a Realty Transfer Tax of 1/4% on
residential properties above $75,000.
This would generate approximately $3 million per
year for the Trust Fund.
(SB 475 fiscal note).
4. Use a combination of any and all of these
sources.
5. It is also important to look at “jump-starting”
this trust fund in order to get some funds allocated. This was done when the
Treasure State Endowment
(TSE) was created. Funds were borrowed
from the Coal Tax Trust Fund for the jump-start of
the TSE and repaid by the flow in the first
several years of the TSE. Something similar could be done in this case, as
well.
The Committee unanimously supports the concept with qualifications. A funding mechanism must be in place that provides for rural economic development communities. Not all RC&D’s support rural economic development and, while it is true that most growth occurs in urban areas, attention and funds must be provided to Montana’s valuable rural counties. The timing was right during the last session to capture funding for this effort. Hopefully, this session will be more successful. Additionally, the bill includes no language that supports county infrastructure within the economic development framework. It does include, however language that requires a 1-1 match, public or private. Neither city nor county government has the financial wherewithal to provide a funding match. MACo will be asking for these additions to the language.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 2
2. Improving State’s Current “New Industry” Property Tax
Incentive. This
law, which formerly was useful as a recruitment tool, is now obsolete. It requires both state and local government
approval to be used, so it was generally used for major economic impact
projects. When business equipment tax
valuation was at 11% or 9%, the incentive in the statute – a reduction to 3%
for 3 years – was a good tool to stimulate growth. Now that the taxable valuation is at 3%, the incentive is useless. MEDA likes the 3-year reduction incentive
concept and would like it made useful by placing the incentive rate at 1% for 3
years. Also, we will need to amend the
law to re-define “new industry”, making it apply to more types of “industry”,
as well as redefining the “after built” section of the current statute. Finally, we would like to have this also
apply to significant “expansions”, not just new industry. We also believe this bill should be tied
together with the “trigger ”and introduced as a tandem.
The Committee decided to remain neutral on this proposal, as a result of a tie vote (4 for and 4 against). Some of the discussion indicated that possibly the Committee could support the proposal as long as the decision could be made at the local level. Additionally, there was discussion that the tax reduction should be attached to property tax rather than equipment tax to allow for stability and predictability.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
2
2. Improving State’s Current “New Industry” Property Tax
Incentives . There
are two current forms of property tax incentive for industry growth. Neither works well. Both only apply to new industry and that new
industry is narrowly defined. MEDA
would like both laws to be improved to allow a property tax break for the expansion
of existing industries as well as for new industry, would like to redefine the
industrial definition to make it more broad, and make other changes to make the
laws more useful. We believe changing both laws as described below will help
with major recruitments of new industry as well as major
expansions of existing industry. Finally, the change in definition will
enable Montana to stimulate growth from different kinds of industry.
Section 15-6-135(3)(a) MCA, requiring both state
and local government approval, can reduce property taxes for industries that:
(i) manufacture, mill, mine, produce, process, or
fabricate materials;
(ii) do similar work in value-adding to extracted
resources;
(iii) do manufacturing.
(Note: The
statutory language for 15-6-135(3)(a) MCA currently reads: (3)(a) “New
Industrial property” means any new industrial plant, including land, buildings,
machinery, and fixtures, used by new industries during the first 3 years of
their operation. The property may not
have been assessed within the state of Montana prior to July 1, 1961.)
The reductions come by changing the class of the
property (both real property and business equipment) to Class 5 for 3 years,
thereby placing the taxable value percentage at 3%.
When business equipment tax valuation was at 11%
(prior to 1989) or 9% (between 1989 and 1994), the incentive in the statute – a
reduction to 3% for 3 years – was a good tool to stimulate growth. Now that the taxable valuation on business
equipment is at 3% and real estate is at 3.3%, the incentive is virtually
useless. MEDA would like to make it
useful by placing the incentive rate at 1% for 3 years, as well as expand the
definition of eligible industries.
Section 15-24-1402 MCA allows a local government to
implement a property tax reduction for a new industry. That reduction only applies to local
mills. The reduction is to reduce the
property tax to 50% for five years, scaled up to 100% over the next 5 years at
the rate of 10% more each year. MEDA
would like this to apply to expansions of existing businesses and to a broader
range of industry. It requires only a re-definition of what “industry” can
qualify for the tax break.
(Note:
15-24-1402 is too voluminous to retype in this document. Please read the language before making a
determination. It was last appended in
1999 so make sure your law book is newer than 1999.)
The Committee supports this proposal since MEDA added language that requires state and local government approval, which was suggested in our last comments to MEDA. Additionally, MEDA also accepted our recommendation to attach the tax reduction to property tax rather than equipment tax, which allows for stability and predictability.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 3
3. 6. Restructuring Governor’s Office of Economic
Development – Creating and Financing a Strong Montana Business Marketing
Program (Large Package). This
involves the creation of a Montana Business Development Council and financing
it from a portion of the receipts of a Civic Responsibility Tax. Details provided separately.
The Committee unanimously supports with qualifications. The Montana Business Development Council Board of Directors organizational chart is thoughtfully constructed. The selection process for private members should, however, be revisited. Requiring a 60% vote of approval from the Senate may prove difficult. We recommend the Governor initially appoint an equal number of Democrats and Republicans with an Independent completing the uneven number. We would be interested in looking at other suggestions as well.
Additionally, the make-up of the Advisory Council needs to include a County and City Commissioner. Commissioners should be, and are, becoming very active in economic development and need to have a seat at the Advisory Council table. After all, a good share of the funds will be utilized at the local level.
The Committee does not support utilizing the methodology you outlined on the page titled The Collection and Distribution of the Proceeds of Civic Responsibility Tax for State Economic Development and Local Capital Projects. We understand this formula is copied from SB297 but feel it needs to be reworked. The Committee does not necessarily believe that the collection point of 0% should end at $20 million. Perhaps $15 or $10 million may be fairer. Additional research and more study needs to take place that considers a broader group tax that goes beyond the big box concept.
It also may be important to remove the word “progressive” in any of the narrative. Progressive, used politically, is an invention that some politicians believe means “regressive”. If support is expected unilaterally across political boundaries, hot button words must be removed.
The Committee supports the Retention strategy except for the Distribution methodology narrative that suggests “only on vote of local electorate (or vote of governing body)”. Since the funds must be expended on brick and mortar projects, providing for a vote of the people would not only slow the process and add another bureaucratic step, it could stop the project altogether. Commissioners continually hear from their constituents about what is needed in their community. Commissioners are elected to follow the direction of the public and are entrusted to provide the capital improvements needed. Not only are elections outlandishly expensive, they take a lot of time that is unnecessary in this instance. We recommend removing the vote of the electorate language and include a majority vote of the governing body.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
3
3. Restructuring Governor’s Office of Economic
Development. We
believe that the current structure and location of the office makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to retain skilled employees in the key positions,
particularly as you approach elections and, because of that we are looking for
change. Also, we believe the efforts
need to be beefed up – especially in the area of marketing &
recruitment. We see two different approaches
to the issue.
A.
While we believe the head of the existing office, should that structure
be retained where it is, should be “political” and serve at the pleasure of the
Governor, we also believe that the remaining staff positions should be classified. The Governor’s Budget Office is a good
model, where the employees are professional,
but the Director is political.
Other structures could be considered, but it is important that the
office continue to have high visibility, both inside and outside of Montana.
B.
Another approach is to make a broader change in the state effort,
integrating it into an organization dedicated to a more extensive marketing of
Montana for business development purposes.
See discussion below.
Currently the state of Montana does not even get on
the playing field with other states when it comes to economic development
recruitment – effectively marketing our state for business development
purposes. We have done much to improve
our State’s appeal to businesses, but we have, to this point, not committed
ourselves to telling anyone about it.
Keeping our appeal a “secret” is no way to accomplish growth. We must have a serious, well-funded program
to market Montana as a business opportunity.
(Tourism Promotion has been an economic development success story for
Montana. We need to emulate that by
having a strong business marketing program and adequately funding it – without
stealing funds from tourist promotion to do it.) The Governor’s Office of Economic Development could be integrated
into a larger program that takes on marketing and recruitment in a much
stronger way than we currently do (that is not required, but may be done if the
Governor and Legislature wish to do so).
Our initial proposal is to create a Montana Business Development
Council.
The Montana Business Development Council would be a
private, non-profit state entity supported partially, but substantially, by
state funding. The Governor (chair),
Speaker, President of the Senate and the Minority Leader of each house would be
public members of the Board of Directors.
Seven private business members would be appointed to the Board by the
Governor with ratification by the State Senate. A broad-based advisory council would also be part of the
structure. The Board would direct the
staff dedicated to marketing Montana through a structure that involves the
following divisions: retention/expansion of existing core companies,
research/lead development, product development (improving the state for
business), and marketing (state & local development targets, state image
building). (SEE SEPARATE DETAILED
PROPOSAL ON THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS
ATTACHED.)
Financing the Business Development Council
Marketing Program and Other Efforts.
Our initial estimates are that a strong
marketing/recruitment effort as described above and in the attached document
will cost between $9-12 million annually, depending upon the structure. While this seems a lot, it is still small in
comparison to many states with which we must compete.
The size of the program is similar to the “bed tax” tourism promotion efforts that have proven to be so successful. MEDA is not locked into any particular revenue source for this. As a possible source, we have advanced the idea of a Progressive Gross Receipts Tax on Retail Stores (Big Box Store Tax) (similar to SB 332, 2003 Session). We are open to any and all ideas for the financing. The important thing is to find a way to put the program into effect.
The Committee unanimously supports with qualifications. The Montana Business Development Council Board of Directors organizational chart is thoughtfully constructed. However, the make-up of the Advisory Council needs to include a County and City Commissioner. Commissioners should be, and are, becoming very active in economic development and need to have a seat at the Advisory Council table. After all, the majority of the funds will be utilized at the local level. Also missing from the list is representation of the Montana Ambassadors.
We do not support the last two sentences of your narrative, “As a possible source, we have advanced the idea of a Progressive Gross Receipts Tax on Retail Stores (Big Box Store Tax) (similar to SB 332, 2003 Session). We are open to any and all ideas for the financing. The important thing is to find a way to put the program into effect.” Rather, we DO support the following, with modification, from your attached explanation of the Business Development Council structure:
“We are not locked into any particular source, but
provide the following list to demonstrate there are places to turn for funding.
1.
Create a 2 mill statewide economic development
levy. This cound generate approximately
$3.5 million per year.
2.
Create a realty transfer tax of ½% on residential
properties above $75,000. This would
generate approximately 46 milion per year. (SB 475 fiscal note).
3.
Create a progressive gross receipts tax on large
retailers (similar to SB 332), 2003 session).
Based upon the fiscal note for SB 332, this would generate no less than
$60 million in annual tax collections.
Given the passage of time (the fiscal analysis of SB 332 was based upon
the 1997 economic census) and the growth in large retailer sales in recent
years, it is likely the collections will be even higher.
4. Utilize other sources yet unidentified or use a combination of any and all of these sources.”
It is necessary to be consistent with the information you are providing. In the brief narrative you target only a progressive gross receipts tax on large retailers; however, in the attached narrative, you provide additional alternatives.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 4
4. 5. Incumbent Job Training Program. (modeled from last year's bill, with possible changed
administration site. DETAILS TO FOLLOW.
The Committee remains neutral until details are provided.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
4
4. Incumbent Worker Job Training Program and Existing
“New Worker” Job Training Program.
Incumbent Worker Job Training Program
Last session, in HB 564, the state created the
first job training program utilizing state funds. We were the last
state in the nation to have a state program for job
training. Workforce issues (availability,
productivity and
training) are perhaps the number one concern of
today’s businesses. The state job
training assistance (paid for
by the taxes that come from new employees) needs to
be expanded to existing Montana businesses that need to
improve their company by increasing the
capabilities of their employees via job training. MEDA supports a bill
to make an investment in existing employees
(through state job training assistance) to create better productivity
and more competitive Montana companies.
The challenge will be to find a way to finance
this. The approach to financing
training for new jobs uses new
taxes to cover the costs. Since re-training or upgrading skills of existing workers does
not produce much in the
way of new taxes, an alternative funding mechanism
needs to be found. Perhaps alternative
uses of Workforce
Investment Act funds could also play a role
The Committee does not support the incumbent worker job-training program as proposed. While it is always wise to invest in employees, the employee should bear some responsibility of the cost, whether it be financially or as a condition of continued employment with their current employer. Additionally, the state should not have the burden of funding the entire expense. One suggestion is for a business to apply for 1/3 of the expense from state training funds (whatever the source may be), 1/3 of the cost would be born by the business and 1/3 by the employee. The business could decide to pay for the employees 1/3 and require the employee to sign a contract that requires him/her to stay within the company structure for a minimum of XX years.
As was mentioned, last session, in HB 564, the
state created the first job training program utilizing state funds. We were the last state in the nation to have
a state program for job training.
Currently, in terms of administration, the initial experience with the
program has demonstrated some areas that could be improved.
The required demonstrated payoff for a loan from
the Board of Investments for the job training funds currently needs to come
from the individual company receiving the training funds. We believe that the payoff analysis should
also be able to be based upon a portfolio-wide analysis once an adequate
portfolio of such projects is developed.
Further, we believe that the Board of Investments
should not be a second level of review and decision-making regarding such
projects. When they loan the money to
the Governor’s Office for the training, the loan is backed by the full faith
and credit of the state. A company
seeking job training funding should not have to undergo two reviews – one by
the advisory council and one by the Board of Investments.
We also believe that the training should be tied
more closely to the Colleges of Technology.
The Committee supports the “new worker” job-training program with qualifications. Again, the Committee does not believe the company should bear the full cost of training a new worker. The new worker should be required to pay back at least a portion of the cost of training, once the employee has demonstrated the skill to perform the job and has been employed, with the original employer, for a certain period of time.
The Committee does support only one level of loan review and assume your intent is to have that responsibility be the required by the Board of Investments. Additionally, the Committee also supports a closer tie to the colleges of technology and close coordination with the local workforce investment board training activities.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 5
5. 3. Exempting Economic Development Levies from
Local Government Spending Cap (HB 596, 2003 Session). Currently, if a local government
wishes to impose a mill levy for local economic development efforts (as allowed
by statute) it must fit it under the local government spending cap or it is
forced to be placed on the ballot. MEDA
believes that economic development is so important to local areas that millage
for that purpose should be exempt from the spending cap. We should be making it easier for localities
to accomplish economic development, rather than harder.
The Committee unanimously does not support this proposal. Caps were put on by the voters and the Committee decided that legislators should not allow additional permissive levies. We are interested in reviewing additional language that could, perhaps, set limits and authorization for specific levies. For example, seeing language that allows Commissioners to impose a levy with a cap, to improve roads, may be something that could receive support from our Committee.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
5
5. Exempting Economic Development Levies from Local Government Spending Cap (similar to HB 596, 2003 Session)
Currently, if a local government wishes to impose millage to support local economic development efforts, it can be done two ways: 90-5-112 MCA allows economic development millage and 7-14-1131 MCA allows Port Authority millage that can be used for economic development purposes.
In either case, the economic development mills must
fit within the local government spending cap or the local government is forced
to place the levy the ballot in order to institute it. MEDA on believes that economic development
is so important to local areas that millage for that purpose should be exempted
by the Legislature from the spending cap.
We should be making it easier for localities to accomplish economic development,
rather than harder. MEDA wants the
statute to be amended to allow the local governing body to pass up to a maximum
of 2 mills for economic development (using either statute) without a vote of
the people, regardless of
the local government spending cap that may be in place.
The Committee vote was divided on this proposal but the majority (six committee members) supports this proposal, with qualifications, now that language has been included to cap the mills at a maximum of 2 mills. The six supporting committee members believe there should be language added that indicates an increase can only be authorized once every third year.
Three Committee members oppose this proposal. They believe caps were put on by the voters and that statutes should not allow additional permissive levies.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 6
6. 8. Various Venture (“Equity”) Capital
Possibilities (SB 378, 385, 465 and HB 710, 2003 Session). MEDA thinks that a good venture
(equity) capital law will benefit economic growth efforts in Montana. We are unsure, at this time, which of the
above approaches will work best, but urge that this be a priority for the next
session. It is essential that work be
done on this concept before the session, rather than beginning in the session –
because of the complexity of the issue.
It may be that multiple bills may have to emerge to cover different
aspects of the “equity capital” shortfall.
The Committee unanimously remains neutral on this concept
until further information is provided.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
6
6. Various Venture (“Equity”) Capital Possibilities (SB 378, 385, 465 and HB 710, 2003 Session) MEDA thinks that a good venture (equity) capital law will benefit economic growth efforts in Montana. As we
have informed the interim committee before, MEDA’s
position is that the state should adopt a venture (equity) capital law that
would:
· Utilize contingent
deferred state tax credits as an incentive to leverage private funds that would
be available for in-state
investment,
· Allow funds to be
invested both in-state and out-of-state, with an emphasis on in-state
investments,
· Make the tax credits
marketable and transferable,
·
Require a capital company to maintain an office and staff in Montana,
· Provide for private
professional management of funds invested, and
· Provide that the return
to the fund be market-driven.
We like the direction the Interim Committee on
Economic Affairs is moving on this subject
The Committee supports the concept.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 7
7. 9. Require
an Energy Policy for the State of Montana. Details will follow.
The Committee unanimously supports the concept of an energy policy and is interested in receiving further information.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
7
7. Energy Policy for the State of Montana. Montana
needs to have an energy policy that can help the state to properly approach
energy development as a path to economic growth. We understand that another interim committee is looking at this
and await the results of that effort.
The
Committee unanimously supports the concept of an energy policy and is
interested in receiving further information from the interim committee that is
looking at the concept.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 8
8. 7. Eliminate the “trigger” on further business
equipment tax valuation reductions
(keeping it at 3%) (SB 12 and HB 268, 2003 Session). This is a major item with
MEDA. Currently the taxable valuation
of business equipment is at 3%. It has
gone down from 11%+ in 1989 until it reached the 3% level in 2000. According to the statutes, it can be triggered
to go to ZERO by a 2.85% real growth in wages, beginning in 2004. The current rate makes Montana competitive
and nothing of real value will be accomplished by taking it to ZERO. Further, there is no reimbursement to local
governments and schools for the property tax revenues lost by such a reduction,
meaning that mills will have to be raised locally to offset the lost revenues,
resulting in a tax shift from very large businesses to regular commercial and
residential taxpayers or a reduction in local services and education.
The Committee unanimously supports this concept.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
8
8. Eliminating the “trigger” on further business
equipment tax valuation reductions
(keeping it at 3%) (SB 12 and HB 268, 2003 Session). Currently the taxable valuation of business equipment is at 3%. It has gone down from 11%+ in 1989 until it reached the 3% level in 2000m – a 73% reduction. According to the statutes, it can be triggered to go to ZERO by a 2.85% real growth in wages, beginning in 2004. The current rate of 3% (about 1.5% effective tax rate) makes Montana competitive and nothing of real value will be accomplished by taking it to ZERO. Further, there is no state money available to provide a reimbursement to local governments and schools for the property tax revenues lost by such a reduction. This means that should the tax go to zero, mills will have to be raised locally to offset the lost revenues, resulting in a tax shift from very large businesses to regular commercial and residential taxpayers or a reduction in local services and education.
The Committee unanimously supports this concept.
*Meda’s first draft and our response – Item 9
9. 10. Creation of a State-wide Mainstreet Program
with Funding for state-level as well as matching funds for local programs.
Details will follow.
The Committee unanimously remains neutral on this concept until further information is provided.
*Meda’s second draft and our DRAFT response – Item
9
9. Creation of a State-wide Mainstreet Program. Many communities in the state want a
Mainstreet Program in place for the state.
The program is a proven and effective national program with development
approaches in four areas: design, promotion, organization and economic
restructuring. These communities will
be approaching the legislature to get a state-level effort to assist local
communities in putting this program to work to benefit the Mainstreets of
Montana communities of all sizes.
The Committee unanimously supports this concept.
*Meda’s first draft and our DRAFT response – Item
10
NOTE: This is
a new item and was not previously addressed in MEDA’s first draft.
10. Allowing Local Government to Retain Urban Renewal
Revolving Loan Funds When Tax
Increment Ceases (HB 690, 2003 Session). HB
690 from last session did not pass, but would have accomplished an important
objective. It would allow the local
government to retain and continue to use a revolving loan fund created to
assist in an urban renewal area beyond the sunset of the tax increment
provision for the area. The urban
renewal function continues even though the tax increment ceases. Most such loan funds involve on-going
business loans. It does not cost anyone
anything to allow the existing revolving loan funds to continue. As many communities now approach the sunset
of their tax increment provision, we need to protect their business development
efforts through these loan funds.
The Committee unanimously supports this concept