Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Oriented Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee keeps PLA preference in transit-oriented development bill after member question
Summary
During the Economic Matters Committee docket on April 8, Delegate Adams asked whether project labor agreement (PLA) language had been removed from Senate Bill 389; the subcommittee chair confirmed the House-conformed version—including PLA preference—was the version before the committee, and the bill passed favorably as amended.
Senate Bill 389, which would designate specified transit-oriented development areas as enterprise zones and limit certain local land-use restrictions during construction, was moved favorably as amended by the Economic Matters Committee on April 8.
During committee consideration, Delegate Adams asked whether the Senate had advanced the bill without project labor agreement (PLA) language and whether that language had been restored in the House-conformed version. "I noticed that the Senate moved this bill, I thought, confirm if I'm wrong, moved it without the public the PLA language. ... Have we put the PLA back or what's happening there?" Adams asked.
The subcommittee chair replied that the House version contains the PLA language and that the committee was voting on the House-conformed bill. "Yeah, we—the House wants this PLA language here," the chair said, and the committee proceeded to move the bill favorably as amended.
The amendments to SB 389 included technical and clarifying changes and a provision authorizing the Sustainable Growth Subcabinet to establish a scoring preference for transit-oriented-development capital grant and revolving-loan fund applications that use project labor agreements. The bill also exempts certain development excise taxes and impact fees from collection restrictions when those fees were imposed before a specified date.
The committee recorded its vote and the bill passed; members asked only brief procedural questions focused on whether the House or Senate language was being adopted and whether specific amendments (including the PLA preference) were present in the final text.
The committee’s acceptance of the House-conformed text means the PLA-related scoring preference remains part of the version advancing to the full House.
