NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Maes |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Manufacturing Extension Services |
SB |
11 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Padilla |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
$400.0 |
|
|
|
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates HB 88
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Economic
Development Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 11 appropriates $400.0 from the
general fund to the Economic Development Department for expenditure in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004 for the purpose of contracting for manufacturing extension
services. Expenditure of the funds is
contingent on the receipt of an unspecified amount of funds from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for a NIST-approved manufacturing
center in
Significant
Issues
The only NIST-approved center for manufacturing
extension services in
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $400.0 contained in this
bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2004 shall revert to the general fund.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
EDD believes there may be administrative
implications to the agency for administration of the contract. In FY01, when EDD last managed a contract
with the MEP, the agency did not have sufficient resources to
conduct what it felt was an adequate audit. Via spot checks, EDD found two significant
issues: 1) the MEP invoiced the
department for services that were specifically excluded by the contract, and 2)
the MEP initially invoiced the department for a 20 percent “management fee” on
all the services it provided to small businesses.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP,
RELATIONSHIP
Senate Bill 11 duplicates House Bill 88
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
According to EDD, the New Mexico MEP is managed
by a Maine-based non-profit organization called MEP/MSI. The New Mexico MEP pays a fee to MEP/MSI for
its services. EDD believes this
arrangement is not ideal and does not allow for the best use of MEP resources
in