Comparison of Budget-Balancing Proposals
FY 2002-03 General Fund Changes($ in millions)
Parentheses
indicate an increase in general fund spending.
|
House-Senate Agreement
|
Governor
|
Senate
|
House
|
|
One-Time Resources
|
1,464
|
1,007
|
1,916
|
1,316
|
|
|
Budget Reserve
|
653
|
653
|
653
|
653
|
|
|
Cash flow account
|
195
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
Tax Relief Account
|
158
|
*
|
158
|
|
|
|
Local Government
Aid (LGA) reform account
|
14
|
14
|
14
|
14
|
|
|
Assigned Risk
Plan
|
95
|
95
|
95
|
95
|
|
|
Workers
Compensation Special Fund
|
230
|
*
|
282
|
|
|
|
Tobacco
endowments
|
|
|
|
554
|
|
|
Transportation
refinancing
|
|
245
|
245
|
|
|
|
Delay Repeal of
June Accelerated Sales Tax
|
119
|
|
119
|
|
|
One-Time
Spending Reductions
|
131
|
(82)
|
106
|
131
|
|
|
TIF Grants
cancellation
|
91
|
91
|
91
|
91
|
|
|
St. Paul Busway
|
40
|
|
15
|
40
|
|
|
Local government
aid timing shift
|
|
(173)
|
|
|
|
Permanent
Spending Reductions
|
374
|
634
|
225
|
559
|
|
|
K-12 Education
|
15
|
101
|
15
|
15
|
|
|
Family &
Early Childhood
|
4
|
7
|
0
|
15
|
|
|
Higher Education
|
50
|
71
|
50
|
50
|
|
|
Human Services
|
96
|
124
|
64
|
175
|
|
|
Environment
|
14
|
26
|
2
|
27
|
|
|
Agriculture
|
3
|
11
|
8
|
4
|
|
|
Transportation
|
4
|
(16)
|
2
|
11
|
|
|
Judiciary/Corrections
|
26
|
35
|
24
|
13
|
|
|
Economic
Development
|
7
|
33
|
(14)[1]
|
56
|
|
|
State Government
|
42
|
53
|
32[2]
|
55
|
|
|
TIF Grants
(ongoing)
|
38
|
38
|
38
|
38
|
|
|
Salary Cap
|
40
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
Professional and
Technical Contracts
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt
Service/Capital Budget
|
|
4
|
(8)
|
|
|
|
Special Revenue
Accounts
|
|
|
11[3]
|
|
|
|
Reduction in
Local Government Aids
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
Revenue
Increases
|
0
|
397
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Permanent revenue
Increases
|
|
397
|
|
|
|
TOTAL:
|
1,969
|
1,956
|
2,247
|
2,006
|
* The Governor would transfer $158 million from the Tax
Relief Account and $200 million from the Workers Compensation Special Fund into
the Budget Reserve in 2004-05.
According
to the November Forecast, Minnesota faces a deficit of $1.953 billion for the
2002-03 biennium and a structural deficit of $2.532 billion in 2004-05. The state of Minnesota is constitutionally
required to have a balanced budget in the current biennium, and policy-makers
must make adjustments to bring the 2002-03 budget back into balance. This document provides a brief comparison of
how the general fund deficit for 2002-03 is addressed in the various
budget-balancing plans released to date.
Policy-makers
have three budget-balancing tools available — using reserves, reducing
spending, and raising revenues. In all
plans, the largest component of the solution is use of reserves and other
one-time revenues. One-time revenues
makes up $1.5 billion of the House-Senate Agreement, compared to $1 billion of
the Governor’s plan, $1.3 billion of the House proposal, and $1.9 billion of
the Senate’s solution.
The
Senate’s greater reliance on one-time resources means that their plan has the
smallest amount of permanent spending cuts at $225 million, compared to $559 million
of cuts in the House plan, and $634 million in the Governor’s plan. The House-Senate Agreement comes in about
the middle of the House and Senate spending targets, at $374 million in
permanent spending reductions. Only the
Governor proposes permanent tax increases, which make up $397 million of his
plan.
Reserves and
Transfers from Other Funds
The
largest component of all three budget-balancing plans is use of reserves and
transfers from other funds. The state
has several reserve accounts:
- The $653 million Budget Reserve, or “rainy day
account,” has been set aside to deal with budgetary shortfalls.
- The Cash Flow Account of $350 million can be
thought of as a “minimum balance” in the state’s checking account. It is used to address short-term cash flow
problems during the year.
- The Tax Relief Account contains $158 million
left from the 2000-01 biennium.
- The 2001 omnibus tax bill set aside $14 million in the LGA
(Local Government Aid) Reform Account for use in future reform to the LGA
formula.
The
Senate’s plan uses all four of these accounts to address the 2002-03 deficit, as
does the House-Senate Agreement. The
House and Governor would only use the Budget Reserve and LGA Reform Account in
2002-03. Governor Ventura’s plan would
use the Tax Relief Account in 2004-05 to help rebuild the Budget Reserve. The House and Senate have not yet specified
how they would rebuild the reserves.
In
addition to these official reserves, a number of other one-time revenue sources
are tapped, such as the Assigned Risk Plan and Workers’ Compensation
Special Fund. The Assigned Risk
Plan provides workers’ compensation coverage to employers who are unable to
purchase coverage in the private insurance market.[4] At the end of 1999, there was a $553 million
surplus in this fund, primarily due to returns on investments. In the 2000 session, $450 million was
transferred out of the Assigned Risk Plan and into the following funds: $325
million to the Workers Compensation Special Fund to settle long-term claims,
$110 million to the state’s General Fund, and $15 million to the Minnesota
Compensation Health Association (MCHA).
All four budget-balancing plans would use $95 million from the Assigned
Risk Plan to address the 2002-03 general fund deficit. In addition, the Senate would access $282
million from the Workers Compensation Special Fund in 2002-03, the House-Senate
Agreement would use $230 of these funds to address the 2002-03 deficit, while
the Governor would use $200 million from this account in the next biennium to
help rebuild the Budget Reserve.
Approximately
$1.3 billion in funds the state received from its tobacco settlement is put
aside in several Tobacco Endowments.
The interest earned on these endowments are used to fund various
purposes, including medical education and tobacco use prevention. The Senate plan would borrow funds from the
tobacco endowments to deal with cash flow problems during the year. The House plan would use the $554 million
endowment dedicated to tobacco prevention to cover General Fund costs in
2002-03.
Another transfer used by the Governor and Senate
is to refinance $245 million in transportation projects appropriated in
2000. The $245 million in general funds
for these projects would be replaced by issuing bonds.
The
House-Senate Agreement and the Senate plan repeals a portion of the 2001 tax
bill that has not yet been implemented, called the June Accelerated Sales
Tax Payment, which is scheduled to be repealed on June 2003. Currently, merchants must remit a portion of
their estimated sales tax collections for June in advance, which moves some of
the sales tax revenues into the prior fiscal year. Repealing this provision would keep $119 million in the 2002-03
biennium instead of shifting it into 2004-05.
This does not raise new money, but rather changes the timing of when it
is collected by the state.
Expenditure Cuts
The
plans vary in the degree to which budget-balancing is achieved through permanent
spending cuts, ranging from $225 million in the Senate, $374 million in the
House-Senate Agreement, $559 million in the House, and $634 million in the
Governor’s plan. The House-Senate
Agreement comes in about the middle of the House and Senate spending targets,
at $374 million in permanent spending reductions. The House-Senate agreement also often comes down in the middle in
individual spending areas where the House and Senate targets differ.
The House plan also included $100 million in
savings from a hiring freeze and reduction in the number of state
employees. The House-Senate Agreement
similarly outlines $40 million in savings from a salary cap. The Agreement also would save $35 million in
the area of professional and technical contracts.
All plans
make changes to state aids to local governments, and agree to do so by
eliminating $91 million in one-time
funding and $38 million in ongoing funds for TIF grants (this proposal is also
in the Governor’s plan). The TIF grant
program was created as part of last year’s tax bill to help local governments
who may encounter problems with their Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts as
a result of tax reform.
In addition, the Governor’s plan would permanently
cut aids to local governments by $147 million in FY 2003. The immediate impact of this decrease is
softened by changing the way in which local government aids are paid. These funds are currently distributed to
local governments in July and December.
The Governor’s plan would distribute the funds three times a year, and
would move approximately half of the July payment into March. Under this plan, $173 million in aids that
would have been distributed in the 2004-05 biennium are moved up into the
2002-03 biennium. This does not provide
additional aid, but is simply a timing shift.
No other plans include the timing change or a reduction in local
government aids.
Revenue Increases
The
only plan that includes significant ongoing revenue changes is Governor
Ventura’s plan, which proposes $397 million in additional revenues for FY
2002-03. The primary components of his
revenue-raising plan are to increase the gas tax by 5¢ per gallon starting
March 1, 2002, and index for inflation starting in 2003, and increase the
cigarette tax by 29¢ per pack for a total of 77¢ a pack (and similar increase
to tobacco products tax) starting March 1, 2002.
Source documents: Ventura administration’s Supplemental
Budget Recommendations; House Fiscal Analysis’ Governor Jesse Ventura’s
FY 2002-03 Supplemental Budget: An Overview; and spreadsheets from
the Department of Finance and legislative fiscal staff.
Click on footnote number to
return to text.
[1] Includes transfer to
Dislocated Worker Fund
[2] Includes Department of
Revenue
[3] These revenues are from the
State Government/Economic Development/Judiciary Committee.
[4] This source for this
paragraph is House Fiscal Analysis, Assigned Risk Plan Surplus Grows by $73
million, October 2000.
Updated February 19, 2002 |