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: |
Zanetti |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
589 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Economic Development Corporation Act |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Padilla |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$3,000.0 |
|
$50.0 |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates HB 493 and HB 494, when
considered together, in most respects
Responses
Received From
Economic
Development Department
Attorney
General’s Office
Department
of Finance and Administration
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 589 creates a new non-profit
corporation named Adelante New
The programmatic functions of the corporation
are to:
Section 6 of the bill makes the corporation
“separate and apart from the state” and says that it shall not be deemed an
agency, public body or other subdivision of New Mexico for purposes of applying
various state government laws, such as personnel laws, per diem and mileage,
procurement, etc. The bill grants the
corporation and its officers, directors and employees immunity from torts under
the Tort Claims Act and allows them to purchase insurance even though a covered
loss may also be covered by the state’s risk management fund.
Significant
Issues
1. According to the AG’s office, New Mexico law is unclear whether legislation creating a corporation such as the one in this bill violates Article XI, Section 13 of the state constitution, which requires the legislature to provide for the organization of corporations by general law, or Article IV, Section 24, which bars the legislature from passing special laws granting to any corporation the right to “any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise,” which this bill does. The AG’s office notes that while the courts have recognized a difference between public and private corporations, they have not established criteria for a public corporation or determined whether such a corporation would be constitutional. The AG’s office itself has interpreted these constitutional provisions in an opinion. According to the analytical framework set out in that opinion, it appears that the corporation established by this bill would satisfy the criteria (i.e., duties are specified by statute, its purposes are defined as public, it has no shares, it is non-profit and its members are appointed by the governor). The AG’s office believes, therefore, the corporation may well be constitutional, except for the exemptions from open meetings and public records laws. (See Significant Issue 3.)
2. Although the bill states that the corporation would not be subject to laws governing state government entities, the AG’s office believes otherwise, stating “the fact that it is created by the legislature renders it a quasi-governmental agency and thus subject to all of the limitations contained in the state constitution, including the anti-donation clause.” The corporation could not give gifts, donations or grants to any private entity.
3. Two issues arise relating to accountability. First, the AG’s office is concerned that exempting the corporation from open meetings and public records laws, as the bill does, removes public accountability and is contrary to the underlying principles of open government. It may also render the corporation a private entity, and thus in violation of the state constitution. Second, because the corporation would be funded through means of a large contract, ensuring accountability would be the responsibility of both the Board and the EDD contract manager.
4. It is
unclear if this bill is intended to replace current EDD functions or to
supplement them. The duties of the
corporation relate to a considerable extent to the current responsibilities and
programs of EDD under its enabling act (Section
·
Actively encourage new economic enterprises to
locate in
·
Serve as a comprehensive source of information
and assistance to businesses wishing to expand or locate to
Section
· Assisting in gathering information on local and regional assets.
· Assisting in the establishment of programs to attract new labor forces or training local labor forces.
· Identifying barriers to local or regional economic development and developing plans to overcome such barriers.
According to EDD and DFA, however, the new corporation will allow EDD to outsource its external recruitment and marketing functions. Currently there are approximately nine FTEs at EDD (six recruiters and three marketing staff) focused on business recruitment and marketing. The corporation’s duties also appear to relate directly to some of the responsibilities of EDD’s Community Development Program.
5. The bill stipulates that the contract between EDD and the new corporation shall contain reporting requirements to ensure that the contract furthers the purposes of the Economic Development Corporation Act. EDD reports that the contract will be performance-based, with deliverables to include leads, prospects and signed deals in both rural and urban communities. EDD notes that performance of the corporation will be measured as follows:
·
Increased leads generation
·
Increased trade show leads
·
Increase in direct inquires and exposures
·
Increase in earned media
·
Increase in web traffic
The appropriation of $3,000.0 contained in this
bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered
balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 04 shall revert to the general
fund.
EDD’s FY03 general fund budget was
$6,001.5.
If the AG’s office provides counsel to the
corporation, it reports that the fiscal implications would be approximately
$50.0 a year.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
This will be a large contract for EDD to
manage. EDD reports, however, that this
bill will result in only a minimal increase in administrative functions for the
department.
RELATIONSHIP
This bill relates to the EDD appropriation in
the General Appropriation Act. The LFC
general fund recommendation for FY04 is $5,820.7.
This bill duplicates HB 493 and HB 494 (which
are companion bills) in most respects except the following:
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Other states use the model of an economic
development corporation and tend to completely replace their governmental
entities with the new organization. For
example:
1. EDD would prefer to separate Section 7, which contains the appropriation for the corporation, into a separate bill. This is the approach that House Bills 493 and 494 take.
2. The
Attorney General’s office believes the bill should be amended to either provide
an appropriation to AGO for the cost of providing counsel to the corporation or
to provide authority to the corporation to hire its own counsel.
LP/yr/njw