HB1089

The introduced, House committee, engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled versions have identical operative provisions. Both committees reported the bill without amendments, and the official amendment index states that the bill has no amendments. There is no rejected or adopted floor proposal to attribute to this bill. The House passed it 123–20, with two present but not voting; the Senate passed it 28–3. Text-version index · Introduced · House committee · Engrossed · Senate committee · Amendment index

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Coastal residents, businesses and infrastructure could benefit if qualifying protection projects receive money and reduce storm risks. The district and Land Office gain a dedicated way to handle eligible nonfederal project costs. Actual benefits depend on funding and project performance; this law supplies neither an individual benefit payment nor a guaranteed level of protection.

Both indexed Legislative Budget Board notes say the fiscal impact cannot be determined, because the amounts and timing of future appropriations, gifts, grants and donations are unknown. Neither supplies a quantified two-year or five-year total. They assume administrative costs can be absorbed with existing resources and anticipate no significant local-government fiscal impact. The account remains subject to the Legislature’s funds-consolidation review. These are estimates and qualifications, not evidence of money deposited or construction spending. Introduced fiscal note, March 18 · Engrossed fiscal note, May 7

The fiscal narrative lists the project conditions somewhat loosely. The controlling enacted text connects its three numbered conditions with “and”; only the two project categories within the third condition are alternatives. The account is not open to any coastal expenditure merely because it benefits the district.