ALC executive subcommittee approves purchase of dynamic economic-modeling software

The Arkansas Legislative Council Executive Subcommittee approved purchase of a dynamic economic-impact modeling package after presentations from outside consultants and staff discussion.

Representative Lundstrom, chairing the meeting as the newly elected chair of the Arkansas Legislative Council (ALC) Executive Subcommittee, said the goal is to give legislators “better economic impact” information when they consider bills. Doctor Peter Vangelakis, senior vice president of economics and consulting at Grama, David Ingram, senior economic associate at REMI, and Scott Lerer, assistant business administrator at REMI, described the model’s capabilities and uses.

The subcommittee’s motion authorized acquisition of the modeling software with initial-year costs and a recurring maintenance fee; the chair recorded the motion, a second, and a voice vote with the chair saying “Ayes have it.” The motion text on the record referenced “first year and 48,000 plus taxes for annual maintenance.” The transcript does not identify the motion mover or provide a roll-call tally; the outcome was approved by voice vote.

Members asked technical and operational questions about the model and how it would be used. Senator Hester asked whether the model’s outputs are only as good as its inputs; a REMI representative said they “use the best data available from a variety of official data sources,” that the model is reestimated periodically, and that input data are updated annually. Senator Hester also asked about turnaround time for analyses; REMI said a straightforward bill could be run in roughly a day, while more complex matters might take additional time depending on staff workload.

Members and staff discussed a recently added command-line interface requested by BLR analysts to allow more efficient batch runs during session. REMI said the capability had not been anticipated initially but was being explored to increase throughput for the BLR team.

Marty Garrity, director (BLR), told members that adopting the program will raise procedural questions the subcommittee must answer before BLR can produce dynamic fiscal-impact statements. Those questions include whether dynamic scoring will be performed only for filed bills or also for draft bills and whether impacts should be assessed in isolation or in combination with other measures. Garrity noted BLR would need to consider staffing and workload: currently BLR has staff doing static scoring, and REMI cited examples elsewhere where three staff perform dynamic analyses; the contract under consideration covered two analysts.

Co-chair Les Eaves urged clarity on who may request dynamic scoring and whether requestors will choose static or dynamic scoring. Members agreed to continue refining procedural points at a later meeting.

The approved purchase places REMI/Grama modeling capabilities at BLR’s disposal subject to the procedural decisions the subcommittee develops. Director Garrity asked members to review a discussion paper titled “dynamic scoring fiscal impact statements procedure discussion points” in advance of the next meeting.

Ending: Staff will return with draft procedures for how BLR should accept and prioritize dynamic scoring requests, and members signaled they will review staffing needs as BLR integrates the new capability.