Search

The purpose of this handbook is to outline the requirements and methodologies of the fiscal note process for the Utah State Legislature. Fiscal notes serve as a tool to help legislators understand the fiscal impact of a bill and are not intended to influence passage or defeat of a bill. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst and staff are responsible for providing fiscal notes on all proposed legislation. Each analyst is assigned specific departments and agencies that are grouped within policy areas for budget analysis and fiscal note preparation. Analysts use their expertise and specific program knowledge, along with predictive insight and data provided by state agencies, local governments and others affected by legislation to prepare a fiscal note. The intent of this handbook is to provide legislators, departments and agencies, and the general public with a better understanding of the fiscal note process.

This report reviews a limited number of fiscal notes and budget items from past legislative sessions to assess the accuracy of earlier estimates, report the current status of associated initiatives, and recommend potential future budget actions. It assesses the work of state agencies and institutions as well as the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA). The findings not only relate to these specific initiatives themselves, but they will also improve the accuracy of future fiscal notes and budget items.

During the 2018 General Session, the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee requested that agencies "continue to refine their data for fee revenues and costs, so that it will be an accurate and reliable source for decision-making. Each entity should report their progress to the subcommittee annually, and the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst should provide evaluation of the data."

This brief is intended to assist the members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee during the Accountable Budget Process. JR3-2 requires the Legislature to create a budget for a line item or a program by starting from zero and determining whether or to what extent to recommend funding be included in a budget for FY 2021.

This brief is intended to assist the members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee during the Accountable Budget Process. JR3-2 requires the Legislature to create a budget for a line item or a program by starting from zero and determining whether or to what extent to recommend funding be included in a budget for FY 2021.

This report reviews a limited number of fiscal notes and budget items from past legislative sessions to assess the accuracy of earlier estimates, report the current status of associated initiatives, and recommend potential future budget actions. It assesses the work of state agencies and institutions as well as the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA). The findings not only relate to these specific initiatives themselves, but they will also improve the accuracy of future fiscal notes and budget items.

This is year four of an effort by the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee to gain a better understanding of the 1,300 agencies' fees that this subcommittee reviews and approves each year. The conclusion of the first set of reviews in 2016 was that the data for how much revenue is collected from each fee, and how much it costs the agency to administer that fee, is either not available or not reliable.

In the 2019 General Session the Legislature passed H.J.R. 18, “Joint Rules Resolution on Base Budgeting Provisions” that required each appropriations subcommittee to create an accountable process budget (APB) for budgets under the purview of the subcommittee. The resolution states that an APB “is created by starting from zero and adding line items and programs” recommended by a subcommittee (see lines 30-31). Furthermore, the resolution requires that a subcommittee create an APB for approximately 20 percent of the budgets within its responsibilities each interim, and that each budget must be the subject of an APB at least once every five years (see lines 158-163).

This brief is intended to assist the members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee during the Accountable Budget Process. JR3-2 requires the Legislature to create a budget for a line item or a program by starting from zero and determining whether or to what extent to recommend funding be included in a budget for FY 2021.

This brief is intended to assist the members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee during the Accountable Budget Process. JR3-2 requires the Legislature to create a budget for a line item or a program by starting from zero and determining whether or to what extent to recommend funding be included in a budget for FY 2021.

Utah Code Annotated, Section 63J-5-201, states: “The Legislative Fiscal Analyst shall submit a federal funds request summary for each agency to the legislative appropriations subcommittee responsible for that agency’s budget for review during each annual general session.

The purpose of this handbook is to outline the requirements and methodologies of the fiscal note process for the Utah State Legislature. Fiscal notes serve as a tool to help legislators understand the fiscal impact of a bill and are not intended to influence passage or defeat of a bill. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst and staff are responsible for providing fiscal notes on all proposed legislation. Each analyst is assigned specific departments and agencies that are grouped within policy areas for budget analysis and fiscal note preparation. Analysts use their expertise and specific program knowledge, along with predictive insight and data provided by state agencies, local governments and others affected by legislation to prepare a fiscal note. The intent of this handbook is to provide legislators, departments and agencies, and the general public with a better understanding of the fiscal note process.

This report reviews a limited number of fiscal notes and budget items from past legislative sessions to assess the accuracy of earlier estimates, report the current status of associated initiatives, and recommend potential future budget actions. It assesses the work of state agencies and institutions as well as the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA). The findings not only relate to these specific initiatives themselves, but they will also improve the accuracy of future fiscal notes and budget items.

Agencies were asked to provide three performance measures to be included in the base budget bills for each line item. The information below details the agency submissions for the Business Economic Development and Labor Appropriations Subcommittee.

Independent living centers (ILCs) are non-residential community based organizations that provide services and advocacy for individuals with all types of disabilities. There are nearly 500 ILCs across the United States. There are six private nonprofit ILCs in Utah. Each ILC has a board of directors. Boards have 50 percent consumer membership. ILC staff, many of whom have a disability, play an important role in the delivery of services to enhance the independence of people with disabilities and are also, as required by the Rehabilitation Act, composed of 51 percent people with disabilities. Services provided in ILCs include peer support, independent living skills training, information and referral, nursing home transition, and advocacy. ILCs also work to make communities more accepting of individuals with disabilities. ILCs provide services to individuals of all ages and all disabilities. The six ILCs in Utah are located in: Salt Lake City, Logan, Price, St. George, Provo, and Ogden. ILCs are mandated through the federal Rehabilitation Act.

This issue brief summarizes FY 2016 statewide spending on Medicaid of $579,074,600 General Fund and $7,445,800 Education Fund ($2,547,992,700 total funds). Totals represent 26% of all General Fund spending statewide. Other entities provided $206,732,900 or 26% of the matching funds used to draw down $1,754,739,400in federal funds in FY 2016. The data source for information in this brief comes from the Department of Health's annual report entitled "Utah Annual Report of Medicaid and CHIP." This brief is for informational purposes only and requires no Legislative action.

Receipts for the Tobacco Settlement Restricted Account will likely be lower than appropriations by the following amounts: $4.5 million or 19% in FY 2017 and $8.0 million or 34% ongoing beginning in FY 2018. The Legislature has at least five options to respond to this situation, ranging from "do nothing" to hold-harmless with other revenue.

Summary of the legislative intent language proposed for the agencies in the Executive Offices and Criminal Justice Appropriations Subcommittee.

Tuition is becoming a more significant portion of higher education funding each year. Tuition is used to pay for a portion of any compensation increase approved by the Legislature. In addition, tuition may be used for specific institutional needs.

Each year, the Subcommittee is asked to give approval for institutions' motor pools. For FY 2018, five of the USHE institutions are requesting authorization to expand their fleets.

Receipts for the Tobacco Settlement Restricted Account will likely be lower than appropriations by the following amounts: $1,557,300 or 7% in FY 2016, $1.5 million or 6% in FY 2017, and $8.0 million or 34% ongoing beginning in FY 2018. The Legislature has at least five options to respond to this situation, ranging from "do nothing" to hold-harmless with other revenue.

This issue brief summarizes FY 2015 statewide spending on Medicaid of $553,909,000 General Fund and $7,212,000 Education Fund ($2,438,200,800 total funds). Totals represent 25% of all General Fund spending statewide. Other entities provided $190,213,500 or 25% of the matching funds used to draw down $1,686,866,300 in federal funds in FY 2015. The data source for information in this brief comes from the Department of Health's annual report entitled "Utah Annual Report of Medicaid and CHIP." This brief is for informational purposes only and requires no Legislative action.

The Medicaid consensus forecast team estimates costs to the General Fund in FY 2016 of $18.0 million one-time and an ongoing of $37.8 million in FY 2017. Both of these estimates are point estimates of costs and include no cushion (no extra money) for unforeseen circumstances. There are no estimated increased costs for the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Legislature may want to include these estimates in the base budgets for FY 2016 and FY 2017. These estimates do not include any funding for state administration or any optional provider inflation. The 2011-2012 consensus process helped save the State from appropriating an additional General Fund of $13 million for FY 2012 during the 2012 General Session for medical services in Medicaid.

This report follows‐up on select fiscal notes and budget actions from past legislative sessions. For each item, the report includes a stop light (red, yellow, green) for implementation status, budget accuracy, and, where available, performance. It details original cost and/or revenue estimates, legislative appropriations, and actual experience. It is intended to create a feed‐back loop that improves future estimates and initiatives.