Relating to dedication of $30 million dollars of any budget surplus at the end of the fiscal year to the Development Office Promotion and Closing Fund
Impact
The impact of HB 3392 may lead to a more robust economic environment in West Virginia by ensuring that surplus funds are channeled towards activities that will stimulate growth and job creation. By assisting businesses in marketing and development initiatives, the state aims to attract more companies and support existing ones, which could provide a stronger job market and economic resilience. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend on the actual implementation and the conditions of the state's economy at the time the surplus funds are available.
Summary
House Bill 3392 aims to enhance the state's economic development efforts by dedicating the first $30 million of any budget surplus at the end of each fiscal year to the Economic Development Promotion and Closing Fund. This fund is structured to support business formation, expansion, recruitment, and retention within West Virginia. The bill intends to use these surplus funds to provide incentives for businesses, assist with site development, and promote international development and export assistance, ultimately aiming to create more high-wage jobs across various regions, including rural and urban areas.
Sentiment
Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 3392 appears to be positive among lawmakers and economic advocates who see it as a proactive approach to enhancing the state's economic framework. Supporters emphasize the importance of dedicated funding for economic initiatives as a strategic move to maximize the potential of surplus revenue. While there generally seems to be backing for the bill, some may question the reliance on fluctuating budget surpluses to fund essential programs or initiatives, which could raise concerns about the stability of ongoing support.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding HB 3392 may arise from how the funds are allocated and the perceived effectiveness of the economic development strategies employed. Critics may argue that relying on surplus revenues, which can vary year to year, may not provide a reliable or consistent funding stream for economic development. Additionally, discussion may include the adequacy of the proposed incentives and whether they address the unique needs of all communities within the state, especially lower-income or struggling areas.
Relating to combining the totals of the Revenue Shortfall Reserve Fund and Revenue Shortfall Reserve Fund – Part B when determining surplus deposit eligibility