HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 1293

BYHouse Committee on Trade & Economic Development (originally sponsored by Representatives G. Fisher, Cantwell, Doty, Schoon, Rasmussen, Raiter, Moyer, Rector, R. King, Todd, McLean and P. King; by request of  Director of Trade and Economic Development)

Revising provisions for the community economic revitalization board.

Majority Report:  The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives Cantwell, Chair; Wineberry, Vice Chair; Doty, Ranking Republican Member, G. Fisher, Kremen, Moyer, Raiter, Rasmussen, Rector, Schoon, Tate and Youngsman.

House Staff:Paul Leistner (786-7663)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

JANUARY 26, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) is authorized to make loans and grants to port districts, counties, cities, and towns to construct public facilities that support economic development efforts.  Grants may be authorized only to the extent that a loan is not possible.

Before any loan or grant application is approved, the local government must demonstrate to CERB that no other timely source of funding is available to it at costs which are similar to CERB financing.

The Community Economic Revitalization Board prioritizes each proposed project according to the number of jobs it would create after it is completed and the unemployment rate in the area in which the jobs are located.  At least 20 percent of the funds available for grants and loans must be for projects in distressed counties, unless it appears that the number of applications for projects in these areas is insufficient to use the 20 percent allocation.

The Community Economic Revitalization Board is authorized to make grants and loans only for projects which result in specific private developments or expansions in:  (1) manufacturing, production,  food processing, assembly, warehousing, and industrial distribution; (2) processing or support of processing of recyclable materials; (3) manufacturing facilities that rely significantly on recyclable materials; or (4) projects which substantially support the export of goods and services outside the state.

SUMMARY:

SECOND SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The Community Economic Revitalization Board is authorized to make grants or loans which would result in specific private developments or expansions in destination tourist resorts.

A destination tourist resort is defined as a planned tourism and recreation complex that is developed primarily as a location for recreation and tourism activities that will be used primarily by non-residents of the state and that is generally located away from densely populated areas.

SECOND SUBSTITUTE COMPARED TO FIRST SUBSTITUTE:  The second substitute updates the first substitute bill by including language that was passed by the legislature in 1989.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Dennis Matson and Deborah Knutson, Department of Trade and Economic Development; Donna Batch, Community Economic Revitalization Board Program; Judith St. Claire, Executive Director, Clallam County Economic Development Council; and Pam Brown, Executive Director, Lewis County Economic Development Council.

House Committee - Testified Against:      No one.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Successful economic development in rural areas is clearly linked to economic diversification.  There are presently no destination tourist facilities in Washington State.  There is a leakage of economic activity from Washington State to destination tourist facilities in neighboring states and provinces. Destination tourist facilities in Washington State could retain this economic activity in this state and could provide employment and income for rural communities.  The Community Economic Revitalization Board can assist the development of destination tourist facilities if it is allowed to provide funding for these projects.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 93; Nays 1; Absent 1; Excused 3 - 1989.

Voting Nay: Representative Brekke

Absent:     Representative Heavey

Excused:    Representatives Day, Dellwo and Hankins