HOUSE BILL REPORT
2SSB 5090
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Community & Economic Development & Trade
Appropriations
Title: An act relating to innovation partnership zones.
Brief Description: Promoting innovation partnership zones.
Sponsors: Senate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Kastama, Shin, Franklin, Kilmer, Marr, Kauffman, Murray and Rasmussen; by request of Governor Gregoire).
Brief History:
Community & Economic Development & Trade: 3/21/07, 3/29/07 [DPA];
Appropriations: 3/31/07 [DPA(APP w/o CEDT)s].
Brief Summary of Second Substitute Bill (As Amended by House Committee) |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TRADE
Majority Report: Do pass as amended. Signed by 9 members: Representatives Kenney, Chair; Pettigrew, Vice Chair; Bailey, Ranking Minority Member; McDonald, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Chase, Darneille, Haler, Rolfes and P. Sullivan.
Staff: Tracey Taylor (786-7196).
Background:
In 2006, the Governor's Global Competitiveness Council (Council) issued their report
"Rising to the Challenge of Global Competition." The Council's Research and Innovation
Committee (Committee) Report found that research and innovation creates a cycle of
development that yields increased living standards and globally competitive businesses. The
Committee and Council proposed a broad 10-year plan that connects the importance of strong
research and innovation with the creation of jobs, healthy economic growth and a high
standard of living and broad opportunity throughout the state's economy, reaching people of
all backgrounds and in all the state's geographic locations.
Summary of Amended Bill:
The Director of the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED)
may designate areas in Washington as an "Innovation Partnership Zone" (IPZ).
In order to be designated an IPZ, an area must have three types of institutions within their
boundaries: a university or college fostering commercially valuable research, a nonprofit
institution creating commercially applicable research, or a national laboratory; the dense
proximity of globally competitive firms in a research-based industry or industries, or of
individual firms with innovation strategies linked to a university, community college,
nonprofit institution or national laboratory; and training capacity either within the IPZ or
readily accessible to the IPZ. In addition, an IPZ must have the support of a local
jurisdiction, a research institution, an educational institution, an industry or cluster
association, a workforce development council, and associate development organization, port,
or chamber of commerce. The IPZ must also have identifiable boundaries within which an
applicant will concentrate efforts to connect innovative researchers, entrepreneurs, investors,
industry associations or clusters and training providers. The geographic area defined should
lend itself to a distinct identity and have the capacity to accommodate firm growth.
The IPZ must be administered by an Economic Development Council, port, Workforce
Development Council, city, or county.
Annually on October 1, the Director of the DCTED (Director) shall designate IPZs based on
a review and evaluation of applications applying the legislative criteria, the estimated
economic impact of the IPZ, and the evidence of forward-planning for the IPZ. The Director
shall designate the IPZ Administrator. An IPZ designation shall be for a four-year period,
after which the IPZ must reapply for the designation.
If the IPZ meets the other requirements of the fund source, then the IPZ may be eligible for
the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program, the sales and use tax for public facilities in
rural counties, and the Job Skills Program.
The DCTED must convene an annual information sharing event for IPZ Administrators and
other interested parties.
The IPZs are required to provide performance measures as prescribed by the DCTED. These
measures must include, but are not limited to, private investment measures, job creation
measures, and measures of innovation.
The Commission shall, with the advice of an Innovation Partnership Advisory Group selected
by the Commission, have oversight responsibility for the implementation of the state's efforts
to further IPZs throughout the state. The Commission must: provide information and advice
to the DCTED to assist in the IPZ program implementation; document clusters of companies
throughout the state that have a comparative advantage or the potential for a comparative
advantage; conduct an innovation opportunity analysis to identify the strongest current
intellectual assets and research teams in Washington focused on emerging technologies and
their commercialization, and the faculty and researchers that could increase their focus on
technology commercialization if provided assistance and resources; and based on findings
and analysis, and in conjunction with the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) and
research institutions, develop a plan to build on existing and develop new intellectual assets
and innovation research teams as well as provide direction for the development of a
comprehensive entrepreneurial assistance programs at research institutions.
The Commission must develop performance measures to be used in the evaluation of the
performance of innovation research teams, the plans and programs and the performance of
the IPZ grant recipients. A biennial report to the Legislature is due beginning December 12,
2012. In addition, the Commission must convene a working group with the Workforce
Training and Education Coordinating Board to create a process and criteria for identifying
substate geographic concentrations of firms or employment in an industry and the industry's
customers, suppliers, and supporting businesses, and institutions. The Workgroup will also
establish criteria for identifying strategic clusters which are important to the economic
prosperity of the state.
There is a null and void clause on section 6 of the bill.
Amended Bill Compared to Second Substitute Bill:
The amended bill removes the Commission from a role in designating an IPZ. The amended
bill adds the requirement that an IPZ have or show evidence of planning and local partnership
that will lead to dense concentrations of research capacity, the dense proximity of globally
competitive firms in a research based industry, and training capacity. The amended bill also
removes references to the presence of research teams focused on emerging technologies.
The amended bill removes requirement that the IPZ applicant use labor market data, revenue
growth rate data, wage levels and other factors to demonstrate the presence of firms that are
important to the prosperity of the state and removes the list of eligible applicants. In
addition, the amended bill authorizes the Director of DCTED to designate IPZs based on the
applicants meeting the legislative criteria, the estimated economic impact of the IPZ and
evidence of forward planning.
In addition, the amended bill specifies that so long as IPZs meet the program criteria, they
may be eligible for economic development programs, including the Local Infrastructure
Financing Tool (LIFT) program, the sales and use tax for economic development-related
public facilities in rural counties, and the Job Skills program. The amended bill also removes
the grant program and the direction that the DCTED must assist successful IPZ grant
applicants identify and access any appropriate private, federal or state program that provides
funding for planning, infrastructure, technical assistance or training.
The amended bill restores the provision that an IPZ designation is for four years and an IPZ
can reapply for designation. Further, the amended bill directs the DCTED to convene an
annual information sharing event for IPZ administrators and other interested parties. The
amended bill directs IPZs to provide performance measures as required by the DCTED and
must include private investment measures, job creation measures and measures of innovation.
The Commission may annually review these performance measures.
Also, the amended bill amends the current LIFT statute to allow funds to be used for IPZs
and amends the rural county .08 percent sales and use tax for economic development related
public facilities statute to include IPZs. Finally, a null and void for section 6 of the act is
added.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: New fiscal note requested on March 29, 2007.
Effective Date of Amended Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. However, section 6 is null and void unless funded in the budget.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) This is an important additional tool for the economic development tool box. It is
important to note that the IPZ designation process fits where the zones naturally occur and is
not necessarily tied to state resources. This bill also provides a framework for inspiring
innovation by encouraging local leadership to come forward. The star researcher program is
a concept that is used well throughout the country. The star researcher element of this bill
will allow our research institutions to recruit the best intellect from around the world on a
more consistent basis and is based on the Commission recommendations.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: Senator Kastama, prime sponsor; Dodd Snodgrass, Port of Bellingham; Bruce Kendall, Washington Economic Development Association; Marc Baldwin, Office of the Governor; R. Lee Cheatham, Washington Technology Center; and Sherry Burkey, Western Washington University.
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Majority Report: Do pass as amended by Committee on Appropriations and without amendment by Committee on Community & Economic Development & Trade. Signed by 31 members: Representatives Sommers, Chair; Dunshee, Vice Chair; Alexander, Ranking Minority Member; Bailey, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Haler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Anderson, Buri, Chandler, Cody, Conway, Darneille, Dunn, Ericks, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hunt, Hunter, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kretz, Linville, McDermott, McIntire, Morrell, Pettigrew, Priest, Schual-Berke, Seaquist and P. Sullivan.
Staff: Owen Rowe (786-7391).
Summary of Recommendation of Committee On Appropriations Compared to
Recommendation of Committee On Community & Economic Development & Trade:
The bill as amended by the Appropriations Committee removes the requirement that the
Director of the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED)
designate innovation partnership zone administrators. The DCTED and the Washington
State Economic Development Commission's requirement to conduct an innovation
opportunity analysis is removed. The Higher Education Coordinating Board, research
institutions, and DCTED are no longer required to develop a plan to build on existing
intellectual assets and innovation research teams where there is a high potential to
commercialize technologies, or report to the Governor and the Legislature on the plan. The
amended bill clarifies that the null and void clause applies only to section 5, not the entire
act.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date of Amended Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. However, section 5 is null and void unless funded in the budget.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
None.
Persons Testifying: None.