Two bills seeking to cut back Industrial Development Commission tax benefits were tabled indefinitely by the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday.
The first bill was proposed by Sen. Norman Jn Baptiste to reduce property tax exemptions for future IDC beneficiaries by 20 percent and deposit the proceeds into special Education Department accounts. Baptiste tacked on an amendment Tuesday to earmark 3 percent of Education's budget for maintenance, supplies and other purposes.
Education Commissioner Ruby Simmonds and Frandelle Gerard, director of the Industrial Development Commission, testified against the bill. Gerard said she had had a worried call from an investor who had "sunk millions in property in St. Croix," asking if the bill would be passed.
Simmonds said that the 3 percent reduction would force layoffs, and that her department's current appropriation level is barely sufficient to meet operating expenses. She added that she was capable of prioritizing her own funds.
Legislative Post-Auditor Campbell Rone Malone, in his analysis termed the original bill "faulty." He added that "the amendment causes further confusion," in that it principally fails to achieve "what a reasonable person can conceive to be the objectives of the sponsor."
Sens. V. Anne Golden, George Goodwin, Lorraine Berry, Donald "Ducks" Cole and Alicia "Chucky" Hansen all were wary of the amendment, afraid it would send the wrong message to potential investors. The bill was tabled indefinitely.
The other bill tabled also dealt with IDC exemptions. Proposed by Sen. Adelbert M. "Bert" Bryan, who was absent, it called for decreasing all tax exemptions by 10 percent for three years pending completion of a comprehensive tax study by the V.I. Tax Study Commission.
Charles Hensley, president of the St. Croix Chamber of Commerce, told the committee that he saw "no redeeming value in the bill." He said it would send an "inappropriate message to new investors."
Gerard said the measure would "chase investors away at a time when we need to make the V.I.'s tax benefits more attractive, not less." Malone pronounced it "confusing "and "impractical" and said it carried uncertain consequences.
