NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended 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 in any other situation.
Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
SPONSOR: | Lyons | DATE TYPED: | 1/27/00 | HB | |||
SHORT TITLE: | Maintaining Public Service in Rural Areas | SB | SJM 2 | ||||
ANALYST: | Taylor\Dunbar |
Recurring
or Non-Rec |
Fund
Affected | ||||
FY00 | FY01 | FY00 | FY01 | ||
Unknown - See Narrative |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates/Conflicts with/Companion to/Relates to
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of Cultural Affairs (OCA)
Health Policy Commission (HPC)
Veterans' Service Commission (VSC)
Public Defender Department (PDD)
Department of Game and Fish (DGF)
Economic Development Department (EDD)
Commission on Higher Education (CHE)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Human Services Department (HSD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
SJM 2 recognizes that some state agencies have reduced services or closed field offices in rural communities and as such, the residents and local governments of those communities have been hurt, not only fiscally by the loss of state jobs, but also by the absence of nearby available services. The bill specifies that taxes on rural citizens have been raised through user fees and public services have been curtailed to a minimum. The bill provides for an evaluation of the impact on rural communities prior to any reduction in staff or public services.
Significant Issues
SMJ 2 calls for an evaluation of any reduction in services in rural communities prior to an agency making a decision, in an effort to minimize the negative economic impact on those communities. According to the Department of Game and Fish, this procedure may limit a state agency from the most-cost effective means of delivering services and also reports the procedure may conflict with an executive agency decision to minimize services due to lack of funds.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
See significant issues above.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
See significant issues above
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The bill implies that the state agency curtailing state services will be responsible for conducting an evaluation of the impact of reducing such services in the rural community. There are no guidelines or standards for conducting such an evaluation, which will lead to numerous evaluation methods.
Health Policy Commission notes that:
Human Service Department comments that the memorial is not binding on the executive agencies.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
Are all state government agencies that have a presence in a rural area effected by this memorial?
BD/gm