Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Funds Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates multiple amendments to state‑investment bill; proposals to create next‑generation account fail
Summary
House members considered several second‑reading amendments to Senate File 191 (state funds and investment rules), including proposals to fund local mineral‑royalty grants, add investment‑division staff, and create a new Next‑Generation Account funded from the LSRA. The amendments were not adopted.
Members discussed a range of amendments to Senate File 191, a bill concerning state funds, proxy voting and investment matters. Representative Larson JT moved an amendment to authorize Mineral Royalty Grant (MRG) funding for local infrastructure projects; he and other supporters argued the program provides critical help to small communities. That amendment required an appropriation and failed on a roll call (17 aye, 44 no, 1 excused).
Representative Locke then moved a technical amendment authorizing three full‑time positions in the Treasurer’s investment division to implement the act; the amendment proposed funding the positions using a small portion of investment revenue authorized in the bill. Supporters argued the positions were necessary to staff investment functions. The House voted and did not adopt that amendment (22 aye, 37 no, 3 excused).
Representative Harshman later offered language modeled on a proposal discussed in other bills to create a Next‑Generation Account seeded by transfers from the LSRA when the account exceeds set balance thresholds. That amendment would have created a stepped formula for deposits tied to the LSRA balance. Supporters called it a way to begin a long‑term saving vehicle; opponents questioned timing and process. The amendment was not adopted after a standing/voice count.
Ending: None of the proposed floor amendments were adopted; the bill was ordered to third reading. House members signaled differing priorities: some emphasized immediate community infrastructure and staff capacity, others emphasized long‑term savings vehicles and preserving guaranteed revenue streams for schools and other obligations.
