Legislature(1997 - 1998)
1997-01-16 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1997-01-16 House Journal Page 0088 HB 78 HOUSE BILL NO. 78 by the House Rules Committee by request of the Governor, entitled: An Act relating to the definition of certain state receipts; and providing for an effective date. was read the first time and referred to the State Affairs, Labor & Commerce and Finance Committees. The following fiscal note applies: Zero fiscal note, Office of the Governor/Various Depts., 1/16/97 The Governor's transmittal letter, dated January 16, 1997, appears below: Dear Speaker Phillips: As my Administration and the legislature work to cut the budget, we are faced with an accounting Catch-22: some increases in state spending have absolutely no effect on the fiscal gap. They are actually good for the state economy. Denying increases for economic development permitting, test fisheries or other services that users are willing to entirely pay for might help the bottom line for the state budget but they make no sense for the state economy. To avoid an 1997-01-16 House Journal Page 0089 HB 78 increase in the bottom line, totally unrelated programs are often cut to meet budget caps. This makes no sense from the customer side of the counter. In other cases, such as professional licensing or the regulation of insurance companies and utilities, the legislature has passed laws requiring the states responsibilities be fully fee-supported by the users. The fee is to be no more and no less than the cost of protecting the public interest. If an increase in the number of engineers or teachers needing licenses requires an increase in the cost of providing that service, should some other public service be penalized an equivalent amount? Of course not. Last year I proposed a way to eliminate this Catch-22 without limiting public disclosure of all state expenditures or the legislatures authority to appropriate. A version of my proposal was merged with SB265, a bill which cured the Catch-22 for test fisheries. Reintroduced in the Special Session as SB1009, it passed the House and was expected to pass the Senate when the clock ran out. I am reintroducing a designated program receipts bill with two updates. As before, it establishes a category of program receipts generated by state government activities and treats them the same way we currently handle fund sources such as university tuition, gifts and grants. In reviewing the bill for this year, we realized that two technical additions to the statute would be in order. One adds the term corporate receipts to the statutory list of program receipts, codifying the longstanding treatment of receipts generated by our public corporations (such as AHFC and AIDEA). The other adds earnings of the Childrens Trust which, I am very pleased to say, now has earnings for you to appropriate. Designated program receipts would still be appropriated by the legislature, but they would not be included in the tally of unrestricted general funds. For information purposes, both my FY97 and FY98 budgets have shown general fund spending with and without designated program receipts to make it very clear that increases in services paid for entirely with designated program receipts do not widen the budget gap. We would continue that practice. 1997-01-16 House Journal Page 0090 HB 78 This bill makes common sense changes to our budget process without sacrificing fiscal information or legislative prerogative. I urge your favorable consideration. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor