Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND LABOR

Date:02/03/2006
ATTENDANCE
Time:08:01 AM to 01:38 PM
Balmer
X
Borodkin
X
Place:HCR 0107
Butcher
*
Carroll M.
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Coleman
X
Representative Marshall
Knoedler
X
Liston
*
This Report was prepared by
McCluskey
X
Christie Lee
Paccione
*
Penry
*
Welker
X
Cerbo
X
Marshall
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB06-1017
HB06-1144		Amended, Referred to Appropriations
Laid Over


08:02 AM -- House Bill 06-1017

Representative Hall, prime sponsor, stated that House Bill 06-1017 is a new job incentive bill and distributed proposed amendment L.001 along with a memo prepared by fiscal note staff indicating that with passage of the amendment, the fiscal impact would change (Attachments A and B). He explained that the bill provides tiers for wage incentives, and a 5-year sunset. Representative Hall stated that although the bill does have a large fiscal note, the Office of Economic Development has a different estimate that is closer to a $5 million fiscal impact. He told the committee the offset would pay for the cost over the next few years. Representative Hall responded to a question about the mechanics of the bill. There was committee discussion about the meaning of verifiability, placing more accountability into the bill, and the bill's scope. Representative Hall explained that the scope goes beyond enterprise zones, it also extends to rural and metro counties.

08:20 AM -- Kevin Hougen, representing the Aurora Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of the bill. He gave an example of a recent incentive that was used in Aurora to help keep Raytheon in Colorado. There was committee discussion about narrowing the scope of the bill. Mr. Hougen was asked to give some more examples of recent successful incentives in Aurora. Mr. Hougen talked about Aurora's recent success with Raytheon in detail.

08:27 AM -- Chuck Berry, Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Berry was asked if he felt the bill should state that employers must provide health care to their employees in the newly created jobs in order to receive the incentive. Mr. Berry stated that health care has historically been a voluntary program for employers that was started as an incentive program to gain employees, and that government has to be careful about mandating that program. There was committee discussion that followed about adding health care for the employees to the bill in order for employers to receive these incentives.



08:42 AM -- Clarke Becker, Colorado Rural Development Council, responded to earlier questions raised discussions by the committee. He stated that the criteria in the bill could provide specific opportunities to rural Colorado.

08:45 AM -- Brian Vogt, Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT), gave an explanation of the three components of economic development in the public sector. The first is the business environment, what attracts businesses to the state: infrastructure, work force, taxes, rules, and regulations. Second, is persuasion: reaching out to companies so they consider Colorado as an option for relocation or to start their business in. The third component is competitive incentives. He discussed the strong competition that surrounds Colorado, such as Texas that just appropriated several hundred million dollars for business incentives. He talked about how New Mexico lured Eclipse from Colorado because of the weight of the incentives the state offered. He mentioned that businesses have also been lost to Utah for the same reason. Mr. Vogt discussed recent deals Colorado has made, for instance a recent deal in Sterling that will create 250 jobs. He stated that something should be in place to reach out to more areas in Colorado. Mr. Vogt added that if Colorado had a more open, accessible, across the board incentive, it would send a signal nationally and world wide that Colorado is a place where ease of doing business also includes the ease of showing that what is brought to the state has value.

08:54 AM -- Mr. Vogt responded to the committee's earlier concerns regarding accountability. He stated that the OEDIT would put into place requirements to ensure the performance would be rock solid before an incentive would be paid to an employer. He was asked to give some examples of successful incentives other states have offered. He explained that the two states that are the toughest to compete with right now are New Mexico and Texas due to the amount of money they are putting into economic development.

08:58 AM -- Recess

The committee recessed.

12:22 PM -- Reconvene

Mr. Vogt spoke to the earlier discussion about adding health care to the bill to receive the incentive. Representative Borodkin talked about a bill she is sponsoring, House Bill 1038, that includes the health care portion, and stated she would like to sit down and put the two bills together. Representative Hall stated he would like to work with the Economic Development Committee and discuss whether they would like to add any more provisions to the bill.



12:49 PM -- Representative Hall explained amendment L.001 (Attachment B). He explained that the amendment: changes the program from 10 to 5 years; limits the total amount of incentives that may be claimed in a given fiscal year; directs the incentives to be paid on a first-come first-served basis if the total amount of claims made exceeds the amount appropriated; and only takes effect if the General Assembly appropriates money, up to $5 million.
BILL:HB06-1017
TIME: 12:52:00 PM
MOVED:McCluskey
MOTION:Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Balmer
VOTE
Balmer
Borodkin
Butcher
Carroll M.
Coleman
Knoedler
Liston
McCluskey
Paccione
Penry
Welker
Cerbo
Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


12:53 PM

Representative Welker discussed the idea of amending the bill to clarify that the term "employee" meant legally present in the United States. He did not offer the amendment. Representative Hall reiterated his previous statement that over time the bill would pay for itself and eventually earn more money then it is paying out. There was committee discussion about the fiscal note.
BILL:HB06-1017
TIME: 12:57:18 PM
MOVED:Knoedler
MOTION:Moved to refer House Bill 06-1017, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed 8-5.
SECONDED:Balmer
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
No
Butcher
No
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
No
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
No
Marshall
No
Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:05 PM -- House Bill 06-1144

Representative May, prime sponsor, stated that he has returned to discuss House Bill 06-1144. He distributed a strike below amendment L.005 (Attachment C), and explained that currently, the law allows for the suspension of an employer's liquor license if an employee sells alcohol to a minor. The strike below would make it so that if employers follow all the rules, train their employees in accordance with the law, and have no previous violations, they would not have their liquor license suspended because an employee sold alcohol to a minor.

01:06 PM -- Peg Ackerman, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. However, she stated that the Sheriff's would reluctantly accept the amendment.

01:08 PM -- Kevin Bommer, representing the Colorado Municipal League (CML), testified on the proposed strike below amendment and withdrew CML's previous opposition. He briefly explained under what circumstances the holder of a liquor license should be held responsible for selling alcohol to a minor. Mr. Bommer was asked for clarification about the mitigating factors of certain training programs and the weight that it gives. Mr. Bommer stated that it depends because all situations are different.



01:19 PM -- Kelly Dunnaway, Douglas County Deputy Attorney representing the Douglas County Commissioners and the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated the law does not need to be fixed, it is working fine. Mr. Dunnaway explained that only one licensee has ever been a repeat offender, and that the usual suspension is 15 days, however, only 3 are imposed and the remaining 12 are held for a year and if there is no other offense they go away. He talked about how the suspension is imposed and what must be proved to impose it. Mr. Dunnaway talked about how under the bill, if an employer offers the training to his employee, then they are getting a leg up and the case is harder to prosecute. Representative May responded to Mr. Dunnaway's testimony stating that the bill does not address the person who sold the alcohol to the minor, only the business, even though they have trained their employees and done all that they can to avoid having alcohol sold to a minor. Mr. Dunnaway responded to committee questions. There was committee discussion about placing the penalties solely on the employee and not the business.

01:37 AM

Due to time restraints, the Chairman decided to pull the bill off the table and continue the hearing on Monday, February 6 at 1:30 PM.