COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 2043-01
Bill No.: SB 517
Subject: Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund; Office of Administration
Type: Original
Date: April 18, 2001
FISCAL SUMMARY
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| Various |
($42,500,374) |
$0 | $0 |
| Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund | $42,500,374 | $0 | $0 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| None | |||
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| Local Government | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 6 pages.
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Office of Administration (COA) state that the proposal is based on the premise that an appropriations lapse provides cash that can be transferred to the "Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund." Appropriation lapse is not equivalent to a fund's cash balance. If a fund has no cash, it cannot make payments even if it has an appropriation in the budget. COA notes that there are a number of revolving funds that are identified by the proposed legislation's methodology that will not have cash to transfer to the "Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund."
COA officials assume that the proposal language refers to appropriation lapse (unexpended appropriations), total lapse is not calculated until after fiscal year end which was August 31, 2000, not June 30 as stated in the proposal. In fiscal year 2000, agencies were allowed to spend appropriations (approximately $500 million) during the "lapse period" which consisted of July and August 2000. COA states that this has been standard practice in Missouri state government for decades. Using the date of June 30 is inconsistent with the budget and accounting processes of the state. For purposes of the cost of this fiscal note, COA used appropriation lapse as of August 31, 2000. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation lapse does not include Capital Improvements and Reappropriations that are appropriated for two years. COA notes that the calculations that they provided in response to the proposal bear no relationship to the cash that could be transferred to the "Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund."
Oversight assumes for fiscal note purposes that Article X Distributions would be made in FY 2002.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume that the Office of Administration will estimate the general revenue impact. DOR assumes that if the Supreme Court rules that additional refunds are due, the DOR will need postage funding in the amount of $615,048 for the possible 2.4 million refund checks that will be issued.
DOR assumes that the distribution will be paid on the tax liability of the income tax return ending the year that the Supreme Court case is decided. Therefore, no additional programming will be required. However, if the decision is made to go back on all of the prior years that Article X distributions were made, then additional programming will be needed and will be requested during the normal budget process.
Oversight assumes that postage costs would be a result of the impending court decision, not as a result of passage of this legislation.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials from the Departments of Economic Development, Mental Health, Natural Resources, and the State Treasurer's Office, defer to the Office of Administration (COA) to respond to this proposal. It is their understanding that COA submitted a response for all departments.
Officials from the Secretary of State's Office assume that the impact of this proposal is unknown.
Officials from the Office of the Attorney General assume that any costs resulting from this
proposal can be absorbed with existing resources.
Officials from the State Lottery Commission, assume that the proposal does not affect their agency because the State Lottery Fund and the Lottery Proceeds Fund are mandated by the Constitution.
Officials from the Department of Transportation assume no fiscal impact due to all of their funds being constitutionally mandated, available for federal match, or related to federal reimbursements.
Officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Higher Education, Health, Insurance, Labor and Industrial Relations, Conservation, Elementary and Secondary Education, Social Services, Public Safety, State Gaming Commission, State Tax Commission, State Courts Administrator, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Office of the State Auditor assume the proposed legislation would either have no or minimal administrative impact on their agencies.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2002
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| VARIOUS STATE FUNDS* | |||
| Transfers Out - To "Taxpayer Surplus Trust Fund" | ($42,500,374) | $0 | $0 |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS | ($42,500,374) | $0 | $0 |
| *Various state funds may include General Revenue | |||
| TAXPAYER SURPLUS TRUST FUND | |||
| Transfers In - From Various State Funds | $42,500,374 | $0 | $0 |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON TAXPAYERS SURPLUS TRUST FUND | $42,500,374 | $0 | $0 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2002
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would require the Commissioner of Administration to list all existing funds of the state, other than funds mandated by constitutional provisions or which were set up to accumulate amounts used to match federal fund sources, and to determine which funds, as of July 1, 2000, contained moneys which had lapsed and were not used for the purposes for which they were appropriated.
Twenty-five percent of the funds identified would be transferred to the Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund, which is created by the proposal. Moneys in the Fund would be distributed pursuant to sections 16 through 23 of Article X of the Missouri Constitution to pay distributions required by any disposition by the Missouri Supreme Court in the case of Francis Flotron and Gary Marble v. Wilson and Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association v. State of Missouri.
Any moneys remaining in the Taxpayers Surplus Trust Fund after making all distributions pursuant to Article X of the Missouri Constitution would be transferred to the General Revenue Fund.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
The provisions of the proposal would be effective upon determination of the Missouri Supreme
Court in the case of Francis Flotron and Gary Marble v. Wilson and Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association v. State of Missouri that Article X distributions are required and not otherwise.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of Administration
Department of Agriculture
Department of Revenue
Office of the State Auditor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Office of the Attorney General
Secretary of State's Office
State Treasurer's Office
State Lottery Commission
State Gaming Commission
State Courts Administrator
State Tax Commission
Department of Conservation
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Health
Department of Insurance
Department of Transportation
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Public Safety
Department of Higher Education
Department of Economic Development
Department of Mental Health
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social Services
NOT RESPONDING
Department of Corrections
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
April 18, 2001