Omnibus job growth and energy affordability bill approved by committee

In an effort to progress a wide-ranging omnibus bill, legislators discussed for hours over two days how Minnesotans could best be served when it comes to employment and economic development.

Nearly 90 pages make up the omnibus job growth and energy affordability bill. Within it lays budget cuts, one-time appropriations, program creations and policy changes.

On an 11-6 roll-call vote, the House Job Growth and Energy Affordability Policy and Finance Committee approved the measure Tuesday, despite contention throughout the more than a dozen amendments considered. HF3931 now heads to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard Wednesday.

Sponsored by Rep. Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington), the bill calls for a $10.9 million increase in current General Fund biennial spending with another $4 million coming from the Workforce Development Fund.

A large portion of the money would be allocated for one-time appropriations to either grants or pilot program creations.

Rep. Pat Garofalo

As a so-called “savings-generator”, the Minnesota Investment Fund would see a one-time reduction of $12 million in General Fund appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017; its base funding would be reduced to $5 million in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.

The Job Creation Fund would also see a one-time appropriation reduction of $8.5 million.

Many DFL committee members expressed their distaste for the bill.

“This bill does not do nearly enough, and it is frustrating,” Rep. Karen Clark (DFL-Mpls) said.

“I think this is a terrible bill that says Minnesota is closed for business,” Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park) said. “[The bill] is disappointing in many aspects. … I will work hard to kill it.”

“We robbed Peter to pay Paul with this bill,” Rep. Jason Metsa (DFL-Virginia) said. “We’re simply taking money from one pot and putting it in another when we have money on the table to fund both.”

One contentious amendment approved late Monday would limit the amount of acres of trees a solar generating company could clear-cut for solar panel installments.

According to the amendment, no state or local permit may be issued if a solar generating system is to be sited at a location beyond 3 acres where more than 75 percent of trees are standing.

Rep. Marion O'Neill (R-Maple Lake), who put forward the amendment, the issue strikes a chord with many who have been dealing with clear-cutting issues in the Wright County.

“Last week, I was at a township officers meeting and people were upset about the solar fields going in; Wright County is like ground zero for solar. We went out to the fields … and a good chunk of 11 acres had been clear-cut,” O’Neill said. “Do we really want to be cutting down trees across the state to put solar panels in?”

Some saw the amendment as unnecessary bureaucracy.  

“This is a dumb amendment. There are local decision-makers who make these decisions, and people who sell property for development with trees on it every day,” Hortman said. “A rule like this is onerous and it would inhibit development and economic growth.”