Fiscal Survey of States The

Fiscal Survey of States The
The
Fiscal
Survey of
States
SPRING 2015
An Update of State Fiscal Conditions
A report by the National Association of State Budget Officers
Copyright © 2015 by the National Association of State Budget Officers.
All rights reserved.
National Association of State Budget Officers
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 642
Washington, DC 20001-1511
Tel: (202) 624-5382 • Fax: (202) 624-7745
www.nasbo.org
Price: $25.00
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BUDGET OFFICERS
Founded in 1945, NASBO is the instrument through which the states collectively advance state budget practices. The major functions
of the organization consist of research, policy development, education, training, and technical assistance. These are achieved primarily
through NASBO’s publications, membership meetings, and training sessions. Association membership is composed of the heads of
state finance departments, the states’ chief budget officers, and their deputies. All other state budget office staff are associate members. Association membership is organized into four standing committees—Health and Human Services; Financial Management and
Reporting; Education; and a Critical Issue Committee. NASBO is an independent professional and education association.
2014–2015 Executive Committee
Mike Morrissey, Texas, President
Thomas Mullaney, Rhode Island, President-Elect
George Naughton, Oregon, Past President
Brandon Sharp, Arkansas, Member-at-Large
Michael Cohen, California, Member-at-Large
Sarah Clark, Vermont, Eastern Regional Director
Jane Driskell, Kentucky, Southern Regional Director
Michael Marcelli, New Mexico, Western Regional Director
John Roberts, Michigan, Midwest Regional Director
Margaret Kelly, Minnesota, Chair, Health and Human
Services Committee
Juliette Tennert, Utah, Chair, Fiscal Management and
Reporting Committee
John Guyer, Pennsylvania, Chair, Education Committee
Paul Potamianos, Connecticut, Chair, Critical Issue
Committee on Disaster Response & Emergency
Preparedness
Marc Nicole, Maryland, Special Committee on
Governing Policies
Scott D. Pattison, Executive Director and
Secretary/Treasurer
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
i
Acknowledgments
The Fiscal Survey was written, compiled and produced by Kathryn Vesey White with assistance from Lauren Cummings, Brukie
Gashaw, Stacey Mazer, Brian Sigritz, and Leah Wavrunek. In addition, the report represents substantial work by state budget office
staff throughout the United States. NASBO thanks these individuals for their assistance in providing state data for this report:
Laneita Littleton, Alabama
Gerald Joyner, Mississippi
Brian Fechter, Alaska
Judy Eggen, Missouri
Michael Williams, Arizona
Ryan Evans, Montana
Crystal Singleton, Arkansas
Lyn Heaton, Nebraska
Melinda Terry, Arkansas
Sherri Barkdull, Nevada
Nina Hoang, California
Maud Naroll, Nevada
James Nickel, California
Joe Bouchard, New Hampshire
Alexis Senger, Colorado
Steven Watson, New Jersey
Cameron Colburn, Connecticut
Michael Marcelli, New Mexico
Paul Potamianos, Connecticut
Gregory Armstrong, New York
Bert Scoglietti, Delaware
Donna Cox, North Carolina
Kim Burke, Florida
Sheila Peterson, North Dakota
Aniseh Abou-Saeb, Florida
Jeff Newman, Ohio
Stephanie Beck, Georgia
Shelly Paulk, Oklahoma
Heather Aquino, Georgia
Brian DeForest, Oregon
Terri Ohta, Hawaii
Kathleen Wallace, Pennsylvania
Wesley Machida, Hawaii
Brenda Warburton, Pennsylvania
Anita Hamman, Idaho
Adam Brusseau, Rhode Island
Tyler White, Illinois
Greg Stack, Rhode Island
Zac Jackson, Indiana
David Seigler, South Carolina
Joel Lunde, Iowa
Jim Terwilliger, South Dakota
Brendan Yorkey, Kansas
Charles Brown, Tennessee
Sandy Russell, Kansas
Meghan Weller, Texas
John Hicks, Kentucky
Ken Matthews, Utah
Jeremy McDaniel, Louisiana
Emily Byrne, Vermont
Melissa Winchenbach, Maine
Mike Barton, Virginia
Jonathan Martin, Maryland
Pam Davidson, Washington
Ben Stone, Massachusetts
Mike McKown, West Virginia
James LeBlanc, Massachusetts
Dan Subach, Wisconsin
Colleen Gossman, Michigan
Folbert Ware, Jr., Wyoming
Bryan Dahl, Minnesota
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
iii
Table of Contents
Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................................vi
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1: State Expenditure Developments .........................................................................................1
Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................................1
State Spending from All Sources ................................................................................................................................................1
State General Fund Spending .....................................................................................................................................................1
Table 1: State Nominal and Real Annual Budget Increases, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016 ....................................................2
Figure 1: Annual Percentage Budget Changes, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016 ......................................................................3
Table 2: State General Fund Expenditure Growth, Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2016 ...............................................................3
Table 3: Fiscal 2014 State General Fund, Actual ..............................................................................................................4
Table 4: Fiscal 2015 State General Fund, Estimated ........................................................................................................5
Table 5: Fiscal 2016 State General Fund, Recommended ................................................................................................6
Table 6: General Fund Nominal Percentage Expenditure Change, Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2016 .......................................7
Recommended Budget Adjustments, Mid-Year Budget Adjustments, Budget Cuts and Budget Gaps.................................8
Table 7: States with Net Mid-Year Budget Cuts Made After the Fiscal 2015 Budget Passed ............................................9
Table 8: Fiscal 2015 Mid-Year Program Area Cuts .........................................................................................................10
Table 9: Fiscal 2016 Recommended Program Area Cuts ...............................................................................................11
Table 10: Fiscal 2015 Mid-Year Program Area Adjustments by Dollar Value....................................................................12
Table 11: Fiscal 2016 Recommended Program Area Adjustments by Dollar Value .........................................................13
Table 12: Enacted Mid-Year Fiscal 2015 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease...............14
Figure 2: Budget Cuts Made After the Budget Passed, Fiscal 1991 to 2015 ..................................................................15
Table 13: Strategies Used to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2015 ............................................................................................16
Table 14: Strategies Used to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2016 ............................................................................................18
Chapter 1 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................20
Chapter 2: State Revenue Developments..................................................................................................32
Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................................32
Revenues ....................................................................................................................................................................................32
Estimated Collections in Fiscal 2015 ........................................................................................................................................33
Forecasted Collections in Fiscal 2016 ......................................................................................................................................33
Table 15: State Nominal and Real Annual Revenue Increases, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016..............................................34
Table 16: Number of States with Revenues Higher, Lower or on Target with Projections ................................................35
Table 17: Fiscal 2015 Tax Collections Compared with Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2015 Budgets .....................36
Table 18: Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015, and Recommended Fiscal 2016 ..........................37
Table 19: Percentage Changes Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015, and
Recommended Fiscal 2016 ............................................................................................................................38
Recommended Fiscal 2016 Revenue Changes........................................................................................................................39
Table 20: Enacted State Revenue Changes, Fiscal 1980 to Fiscal 2015 and
Recommended State Revenue Actions, Fiscal 2016.......................................................................................40
iv
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Figure 3: Enacted State Revenue Changes, Fiscal 1980 to Fiscal 2015 and
Recommended State Revenue Actions, Fiscal 2016 .......................................................................................41
Table 21: Recommended Fiscal 2016 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and
Net Increase or Decrease................................................................................................................................42
Chapter 2 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................43
Chapter 3: Total Balances ...................................................................................................................................44
Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................................44
Total Balances ............................................................................................................................................................................44
Rainy Day Funds ........................................................................................................................................................................45
Table 22: Total Year-End Balances, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016.......................................................................................46
Table 23: Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016 ...................................47
Figure 4: Total Year-End Balances Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016 ........................................................................................48
Figure 5: Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016 .....................................48
Figure 6: State Total Balance Levels 2014......................................................................................................................49
Figure 7: State Total Balance Levels 2015......................................................................................................................49
Figure 8: State Total Balance Levels 2016......................................................................................................................49
Table 24: Total Balances and Total Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016 ....................50
Table 25: Rainy Day Fund Balances and Rainy Day Fund Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016 ..............................................................................................................................51
Chapter 3 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................52
Chapter 4: Medicaid Outlook .........................................................................................................................53
Medicaid Growth Rates .............................................................................................................................................................53
Medicaid Enrollment ..................................................................................................................................................................53
Medicaid Actions .......................................................................................................................................................................54
Table 26: Annual Percentage Medicaid Growth Rate......................................................................................................56
Table 27: Percentage Change in Medicaid Enrollment ....................................................................................................57
Table 28: Fiscal 2015 Budget Actions in Medicaid .........................................................................................................58
Table 29: Recommended Fiscal 2016 Budget Actions in Medicaid ................................................................................59
Table 30: Provider Tax Increases for Medicaid Program, Fiscal 2015 and Recommended Fiscal 2016 ...........................60
Chapter 4 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................61
Chapter 5: Other State Budgeting Changes .......................................................................................63
Recommended Changes in State Aid to Local Governments .................................................................................................63
Table 33: Recommended Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2016 ...............................................................64
Appendix Tables .............................................................................................................................................................69
Table A-1: Enacted Mid-Year Fiscal 2015 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease .............69
Table A-2: Enacted Mid-Year Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2015 .......................................................................................70
Table A-3: Recommended Fiscal 2016 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease.................71
Table A-4: Recommended Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2016...........................................................................................77
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
v
Preface
The Fiscal Survey of States is published twice annually by the
Fiscal 2014 data represent actual figures, fiscal 2015 figures are
National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO). The se-
estimated, and fiscal 2016 data reflect governors’ recom-
ries was started in 1979. The survey presents aggregate and
mended budgets.
individual data on the states’ general fund receipts, expenditures, and balances. Although not the totality of state spending,
these funds are raised from states’ own taxes and fees, such
as state income and sales taxes. These general funds are used
to finance most broad-based state services and are the most
important elements in determining the fiscal health of the states.
A separate survey that includes total state spending, NASBO’s
State Expenditure Report, is also conducted annually.
The field survey on which this report is based was conducted
by NASBO from February through April 2015. The surveys were
completed by executive state budget officers in all 50 states.
vi
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Forty-six states begin their fiscal years on July 1. The exceptions
are New York, which starts its fiscal year on April 1; Texas, with
a September 1 start date; and Alabama and Michigan, which
start their fiscal years on October 1. Additionally, 30 states operate on an annual budget cycle, while 20 states operate on a
biennial (two-year) budget cycle.
NASBO staff member Kathryn Vesey White compiled the data
and prepared the text for the report.
Executive Summary
This report finds that state budgets are stable and continue to
labor force participation rate continues to hover around historic
grow. However, this growth is moderate and recovery for state
lows.1 The strong stock market performance in calendar year
finances since the end of the Great Recession has been mod-
2014 led to higher state income tax collections in fiscal 2015,
est. While states’ fiscal conditions are improving, progress is
though such gains may be a one-time windfall. States’ spend-
slow and state governments face significant financial challenges
ing proposals continue to be cautious as they plan for modest
going forward. Requirements for spending on K-12 education,
revenue growth and focus on ensuring structural balance.
health care and other important areas continue to grow, often
at faster rates than state revenue growth. Long-term critical
challenges include pent-up demand for spending on infrastructure and rising pension and health care costs. States vary in
their fiscal health, some doing very well and others facing more
significant budgetary problems. For example, the steep decline
in oil prices has impacted some energy producing states. Overall, state finances are somewhat improved compared to last
year, but growth is modest and some states are worse off than
others.
Modest state fiscal advancements are widespread, with 42 executive budgets recommending higher spending levels in fiscal
2016 compared to fiscal 2015. Aggregate spending and revenue are projected to remain below historical growth trends,
though inflation also continues to be low. Governors in most
states have proposed to increase spending in fiscal 2016 by
more than the current rate of inflation to bolster core services
such as K-12 education and respond to rising spending demands in health care. In some states, however, problems remain
from prior budget cuts, especially in discretionary programs that
have had to absorb a disproportionate share of reductions to
protect other programs like Medicaid and K-12 education.
State Spending
In fiscal 2016, general fund expenditures are projected to increase by 3.1 percent, a slower rate of growth than the estimated 4.6 percent increase in fiscal 2015. Spending growth for
both fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016 continues to be below the historical average of 5.5 percent. Executive budgets show general
fund spending increasing to $779.6 billion in fiscal 2016, compared to $756.2 billion in fiscal 2015. General fund spending in
fiscal 2014 reached $722.8 billion, a 4.1 percent increase over
general fund spending in fiscal 2013.
Aggregate general fund expenditures first exceeded pre-recession levels in fiscal 2013 (on a nominal basis), but some states
have yet to surpass their pre-recession spending peak. Governors’ recommended budgets for fiscal 2016 show that
eight states are still expected to see general fund expenditure
levels below pre-recession highs, without adjusting for inflation. Moreover, aggregate general fund spending at the state
level is still below the fiscal 2008 peak after accounting for
inflation, indicating that state budgets have not fully recovered
from the recession. Aggregate spending levels would need
to be at $780.5 billion, or 3.2 percent higher than the $756.2
Mid-year budget cuts in fiscal 2015 remain fairly minimal
billion currently estimated for fiscal 2015, to be equivalent
compared to the levels observed in the strained years during
with real 2008 spending levels.2
and immediately following the Great Recession, though they
exceed the level observed during the same period in fiscal
2014. While the national unemployment rate continues to decline as the economy grows and adds more jobs, regional
disparities in economic performance, including uneven job
growth, are becoming more pronounced, putting budgetary
pressure on some states, while helping to strengthen fiscal
conditions in others.
Budget Gaps, Mid-Year Budget Actions and
Recommended Budget Adjustments
With modest revenue growth and continued long-term spending pressures, budget gaps increased slightly in fiscal 2015,
though they remain far below the levels observed in the years
during and immediately following the Great Recession. Twenty
states reported closing $9.3 billion in budget gaps, and ten
State tax revenue growth remains modest, as employment con-
states have a combined $7.1 billion in remaining gaps that must
tinues to grow slowly, wages remain relatively stagnant, and the
be closed by the end of the fiscal year. This compares with 15
1
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent in April 2015, and has remained between 62.7 percent and 62.9
percent since April 2014.
2
See Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Account Tables, Table 3.9.4, Line 33 in April 2015, which provides state and local government implicit
price deflator on a quarterly basis. The fiscal 2015 inflation rate is determined based on an average of the first three quarters.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
vii
states reporting $6.8 billion in budget gaps in fiscal 2014 and
higher than observed in fiscal 2014, when revenues increased
18 states reporting $33.8 billion in budget gaps in fiscal 2013.
by only 1.6 percent. The revenue slowdown in fiscal 2014 can
With more limited revenue growth and mandatory spending
be largely attributed to the volatility caused by individuals shift-
pressures expected, budget gaps are projected to increase fur-
ing capital gains, dividends and personal income to the 2012
ther in fiscal 2016, with 24 states projecting $25.2 billion in
calendar year to avoid higher federal tax rates that were set to
budget gaps. However, this figure reflects forecasted budget
take effect on January 1, 2013. This one-time shift led to a sub-
shortfalls prior to incorporating governors’ budget recommen-
stantial acceleration of revenue growth in fiscal 2013, followed
dations. Shortfall projections tend to change, in some cases
by the slowdown in fiscal 2014. With more distance now from
dramatically, over the course of the fiscal year.
the impact of the so-called “federal fiscal cliff,” states appear
to be returning to more stable patterns of modest annual rev-
Virtually all states are required to balance their budgets, and
enue growth.
relatively few states are permitted to carry over a deficit.3 State
budget gaps that arise during the fiscal year are primarily solved
Governors’ budget proposals forecast total general fund tax
through a reduction in previously appropriated spending. Similar
revenues of $777.6 billion in fiscal 2016, compared to the esti-
to fiscal 2013 and 2014, mid-year budget cuts have been min-
mated $755.1 billion collected in fiscal 2015 and actual collec-
imal in fiscal 2015. At the time of data collection, 11 states had
tions of $728.1 billion in fiscal 2014. Total general fund revenues
enacted net mid-year budget cuts totaling $2.0 billion in fiscal
first surpassed the pre-recession high of $680 billion in nominal
2015. This compares with eight states enacting net mid-year
terms in fiscal 2013. However, projected revenues in governors’
budget cuts totaling $1.0 billion in fiscal 2014, and 11 states
recommended budgets remain below pre-recession peaks in
enacting $1.3 billion in net mid-year budget cuts in fiscal 2013.
five states, without adjusting for inflation.
Sixteen states enacted mid-year spending increases in fiscal
2015 totaling $2.3 billion. Additionally, four states enacted midyear tax decreases and one state enacted a mid-year tax increase, resulting in a net revenue reduction of $1.3 billion in
Fiscal 2015 general fund revenues from all sources, including
sales, personal income, corporate income and all other taxes
and fees, are exceeding original forecasts in 24 states, on target in six states and below forecasts in 19 states. When com-
fiscal 2015.
paring current revenue collections to more recent forecasts,
Governors recommended that additional budget dollars for fis-
19 states are above projections, 23 states are on target and
cal 2016 most heavily target K-12 education and Medicaid, call-
seven states are below updated projections. Due to higher
ing for spending increases of $10.2 billion and $9.2 billion,
than anticipated windfalls in April as taxpayers paid their fed-
respectively. Governors in 42 states recommended spending
eral and state taxes, more states are expected to meet or ex-
increases for K-12 education, while 38 governors recommended
ceed revenue projections for fiscal 2015 once final fiscal year
increases for Medicaid. Net spending increases were also rec-
tax collections are determined. Most of these gains are the re-
ommended for higher education at $2.6 billion, corrections at
sult of an increase in income tax collections, which can be at-
$1.8 billion and public assistance at $82 million in additional
tributed in part to the strong stock market performance in
spending in fiscal 2016. Thirty-three states recommended fiscal
calendar year 2014.
2016 increases for higher education, 38 states for corrections,
and 19 states for public assistance.
State Revenue Actions
Governors are proposing a mix of tax increases on general
State Revenues
sales and cigarettes and tobacco products and tax cuts in
Aggregate general fund revenues are projected to modestly in-
other areas (namely personal income and other taxes) for fiscal
crease in fiscal 2016. Governors’ recommended budgets show
2016. Sixteen governors are proposing net tax increases of
collections are projected to increase by 3.0 percent in fiscal
$6.7 billion, while 12 are proposing net tax decreases totaling
2016 — a somewhat slower rate of growth than the estimated
$3.7 billion, resulting in a net tax increase of $3.0 billion. States
3.7 percent gain in fiscal 2015. However, the growth rate is
with the largest proposed tax decreases (in absolute dollar
3
See NASBO, Budget Processes in the States (2015), Table 9.
viii
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
amounts) include Florida, Ohio, and Texas. States with gover-
2015, as well as two other states for which complete data are
nors proposing the largest tax increases include Alabama, Con-
not available, rainy day fund balances totaled $30.2 billion in
necticut, and Pennsylvania. Governors have also proposed
fiscal 2014, are estimated to total $30.7 billion in fiscal 2015,
$1.7 billion in new revenue measures in fiscal 2016. This mix of
and are projected to increase to $35.2 billion in fiscal 2016.
proposed tax and fee increases and decreases across states
contrasts with state revenue actions in fiscal 2015, when states
enacted net tax decreases totaling $2.3 billion.
Medicaid Costs and Enrollment
Medicaid is estimated to account for about 25.8 percent of total
state spending from all fund sources in fiscal 2014, the single
Year-End Balances
largest portion of total state expenditures, and 19.1 percent of
Total balances include ending balances and the amounts in
general fund spending (the second largest portion of general
states’ budget stabilization or “rainy day” funds. They are a cru-
fund expenditures) according to NASBO’s 2014 State Expen-
cial tool that states heavily rely on during fiscal downturns and
diture Report. As reported in the Fiscal Survey, total Medicaid
to address budget shortfalls. Balances reflect the surplus funds
spending increased by 8.6 percent in fiscal 2014 with state
and reserves that states may use to respond to unforeseen cir-
funds growing by 5.9 percent and federal funds growing by
cumstances, helping to offset potential revenue declines and
11.9 percent. For fiscal 2015, total Medicaid spending is esti-
increased spending demands. In fiscal 2014, total balances de-
mated to grow more rapidly by 18.2 percent, with state funds
creased slightly in dollar terms to $71.2 billion and as a per-
increasing by 5.2 percent and federal funds increasing by 24.2
centage of general fund expenditures to 9.9 percent, compared
percent.
to $72.2 billion (or 10.4 percent of expenditures) in fiscal 2013.
Total balances for fiscal 2014 were greater than previously reported in NASBO’s Fall 2014 Fiscal Survey, mainly due to larger
ending balances in California and Texas, compared to preliminary figures. Total balances are estimated to decline to $60.3
billion or 8.0 percent of expenditures in fiscal 2015, with most
of this decrease attributable to Alaska drawing down on its reserves to respond to declining oil prices. Governors recommended decreasing total balance levels further in fiscal 2016
to $55.2 billion or 7.1 percent of general fund expenditures. Additionally, it should be noted that two states have generally held
Executive budgets for fiscal 2016 assume an increase in Medicaid spending of 5.2 percent in total funds with state funds increasing by 3.1 percent and federal funds increasing by 6.9
percent. The growth rates in fiscal 2014, fiscal 2015 and fiscal
2016 reflect both the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion
option that began on January 1, 2014, in addition to ongoing
program spending. The rate of growth in federal funds exceeds
state funds since costs for those newly eligible for coverage are
fully federally funded in calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016
with federal financing phasing down to 90 percent by 2020.
a disproportionate share of states’ total budget reserves. For
Medicaid enrollment increased by 9.5 percent during fiscal
example, the total balance levels of Alaska and Texas are esti-
2014 and is estimated to increase more rapidly by 13.7 per-
mated to make up 34 percent of total state balance levels in
cent in fiscal 2015. In governors’ recommended budgets for
fiscal 2015 and 38 percent in fiscal 2016. The remaining 48
fiscal 2016, Medicaid enrollment growth is expected to stabi-
states have balance levels that represent only 5.7 percent of
lize somewhat, with enrollment projected to rise by 4.6 per-
general fund expenditures for fiscal 2015 and 4.7 percent for
cent. These enrollment increases reflect the impact from the
fiscal 2016.
Affordable Care Act, including increased enrollment in states
Total balances include both ending balances and rainy day fund
balances. State balances in rainy day funds — budget stabilization funds set aside to respond to unforeseen circumstances
— tend to be more stable than total balance levels. Excluding
Alaska, whose rainy day fund declined significantly in fiscal
that have implemented the Medicaid expansion that began in
January 1, 2014, as well as increased participation among
those currently eligible in both states that did and did not implement the expansion. Medicaid enrollment is estimated to
grow by roughly 30 percent over the fiscal 2014 through fiscal
2016 period.
This edition of The Fiscal Survey of States reflects actual fiscal 2014, estimated fiscal 2015, and recommended fiscal 2016 figures. The data were collected in the spring
of 2015.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
ix
State Expenditure Developments
CHAPTER ONE
Overview
State budgets are projected to continue their trajectory of moderate growth in fiscal 2016 for the sixth consecutive year, according to governors’ recommended budgets. Consistent
year-over-year growth has helped states achieve relative budget
tary and secondary education, 19.5 percent; higher education,
10.1 percent; transportation, 7.7 percent; corrections, 3.1 percent; public assistance, 1.4 percent; and all other expenditures,
32.4 percent.
For estimated fiscal 2014, components of general fund spend-
stability with minimal need for unanticipated cuts. General fund
ing are elementary and secondary education, 35.0 percent;
spending increased by 4.6 percent in fiscal 2015, more than
Medicaid, 19.1 percent; higher education, 9.4 percent; correc-
previously estimated, and well above the rate of inflation around
tions, 6.8 percent; public assistance, 1.4 percent; transporta-
1.0 percent.4 At the same time, budgets remain constrained by
tion, 0.9 percent; and all other expenditures, 27.4 percent.
a variety of factors. Mandatory spending demands in health
care and other areas continue to rise faster than revenue
growth in a number of states. Budgetary challenges also linger
State General Fund Spending
from the Great Recession and slow recovery for some states
State general fund spending is projected to be $779.6 billion in
that have not been able to fully restore previous spending cuts.
fiscal 2016 according to governors’ recommended budgets.
In eight states, nominal spending levels recommended for fiscal
This represents a 3.1 percent increase from the estimated
2016 are still below pre-recession highs set back in fiscal 2008.
$756.2 billion spent in fiscal 2015. General fund spending in-
Spending in some states is also being restrained by strict tax
creases are projected to be widespread in fiscal 2016, with
and expenditure limitations.5 Despite these constraints, more
governors in 42 states having proposed a larger budget for fis-
and more states are moving beyond recession-induced de-
cal year 2016 over 2015. Eight states have fiscal 2016 recom-
clines and returning to more normal patterns of growth. Spend-
mended budgets that have yet to surpass pre-recession highs
ing growth in fiscal 2016 is projected to be limited, but
in nominal dollars, compared to 10 states last year and 19
governors have recommended funding increases for core serv-
states in fiscal 2014. Aggregate general fund spending is esti-
ices such as K-12 education, Medicaid and higher education.
mated to increase by 4.6 percent in fiscal 2015 compared to
In this constrained budget environment, fiscal progress is likely
fiscal 2014, and 44 states estimate they will end fiscal 2015
to remain slow and steady in fiscal 2016.
with greater general fund spending levels than in fiscal 2014.
(See Table 1, Figure 1, and Tables 3 – 5)
State Spending from All Sources
For fiscal 2015, six states estimate general fund expenditures
This report captures only state general fund spending. General
below fiscal 2014 levels, 30 states had general fund expendi-
fund spending represents the primary component of discre-
ture growth between 0 and 4.9 percent, 12 states had general
tionary expenditures of revenue derived from general sources
fund spending growth between 5.0 and 9.9 percent and two
which have not been earmarked for specific items. According
states experienced budget growth greater than 10.0 percent.
to the most recent edition of NASBO’s State Expenditure Re-
For fiscal 2016, eight states project negative budget growth,
port, estimated fiscal 2014 spending from all sources (general
28 states project budget growth between 0 and 4.9 percent,
funds, federal funds, other state funds and bonds) is approxi-
10 states expect budget growth between 5.0 and 9.9, and four
mately $1.79 trillion, with the general fund representing 40.5
states expect budget growth greater than 10.0 percent. (See
percent of the total. The components of total state spending
Table 2 and Table 6)
for estimated fiscal 2014 are: Medicaid, 25.8 percent; elemen-
4
See Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Account Tables, Table 3.9.4, Line 33 in April 2015, which provides state and local government implicit
price deflator on a quarterly basis. The fiscal 2015 inflation rate was determined based on an average of the first three quarters.
5
For more on state tax and expenditure limitations, see NASBO, Budget Processes in the States (Spring 2015), Table 11.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
1
TABLE 1
State Nominal and Real Annual Budget Increases,
Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016
State General Fund
Fiscal Year
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1979–2015 average
Nominal Increase
3.1%
4.6
4.1
4.1
3.4
3.5
-5.7
-3.8
4.9
9.4
8.7
6.5
3.0
0.6
1.3
8.3
7.2
7.7
5.7
5.0
4.5
6.3
5.0
3.3
5.1
4.5
6.4
8.7
7.0
6.3
8.9
10.2
8.0
-0.7
6.4
16.3
10.0
10.1
5.5%
Real Increase
3.6%
2.8
2.5
0.9
0.3
-6.5
-6.3
-0.4
4.4
3.2
0.5
-0.7
-2.4
-0.9
3.9
2.4
4.9
3.7
2.7
2.2
3.3
2.8
-0.1
1.8
0.0
1.5
4.8
2.9
2.6
5.4
6.0
3.9
-6.2
-0.9
5.2
-0.5
3.2
1.5%
NOTES: The state and local government implicit price deflator cited by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis National Income and Product Account Tables, Table 3.9.4, Line 33 in April 2015 is used
for state expenditures in determining real changes. Fiscal Year real changes are based on quarterly
averages. Fiscal 2014 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2013 actuals to fiscal 2014
actuals. Fiscal 2015 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2014 actuals to fiscal 2015
estimated. Fiscal 2016 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2015 estimated figures to
fiscal 2016 recommended.
2
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Figure 1:
Annual Percentage Budget Increases, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016
25
Nominal Percentage Budget Increase
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994Fiscal
1996Year1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
TABLE 2
State General Fund Expenditure Growth,
Fiscal 2015 and 2016
Number of States
Spending Growth
Fiscal 2015
(Estimated)
Fiscal 2016
(Recommended)
Negative growth
0.0% to 4.9%
5.0% to 9.9%
10% or more
6
30
12
2
8
28
10
4
NOTES: Average spending growth for fiscal 2015 (estimated) is 4.6 percent; average spending
growth for fiscal 2016 (recommended) is 3.1 percent. See Table 6 for state-by-state data.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
3
TABLE 3
Fiscal 2014 State General Fund, Actual (Millions)
State
Beginning
Balance
Alabama*
Alaska*
Arizona
Arkansas
California* **
Colorado* **
Connecticut*
Delaware**
Florida
Georgia* **
Hawaii
Idaho*
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa*
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine*
Maryland*
Massachusetts**
Michigan*
Minnesota* **
Mississippi*
Missouri*
Montana*
Nebraska*
Nevada*
New Hampshire* **
New Jersey*
New Mexico* **
New York* **
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island*
South Carolina* **
South Dakota*
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington*
West Virginia*
Wisconsin*
Wyoming*
Total
$304
0
895
0
2,528
373
0
636
2,892
761
844
80
154
1,428
0
709
123
0
8
502
1,874
1,187
1,712
54
447
538
815
300
82
310
671
1,610
269
1,396
2,639
133
470
541
104
1,046
24
800
5,505
122
0
880
168
512
759
0
$37,204
Revenues
$7,353
5,394
8,482
4,944
102,675
8,978
17,230
3,573
26,604
19,168
6,096
2,815
34,616
14,660
6,489
5,653
9,621
8,217
3,075
15,106
33,843
9,788
19,522
5,403
8,003
2,077
4,106
3,209
1,322
31,423
6,097
61,868
21,001
2,586
29,233
6,330
7,634
28,607
3,430
6,552
1,354
12,052
51,640
5,393
1,388
17,304
16,383
4,106
13,948
1,787
$728,139
Adjustments
$204
35
0
0
-856
14
0
0
0
280
0
-56
2,142
22
679
0
302
545
132
78
0
-1,351
0
-105
124
-2
-456
0
0
-27
0
0
0
342
0
37
-164
-672
-99
0
98
154
-3,413
0
12
0
-98
8
606
0
Total
Resources
$7,862
5,429
9,377
4,944
104,346
9,365
17,230
4,209
29,495
20,210
6,940
2,840
36,912
16,110
7,168
6,363
10,046
8,762
3,214
15,686
35,718
9,624
21,234
5,352
8,574
2,613
4,465
3,509
1,404
31,706
6,769
63,478
21,271
4,324
31,872
6,500
7,940
28,476
3,436
7,599
1,476
13,006
53,732
5,515
1,400
18,184
16,453
4,626
15,313
1,787
$763,859
Expenditures
$7,479
7,323
8,798
4,944
99,838
8,764
16,982
3,794
26,914
19,139
6,275
2,781
31,479
14,553
6,462
5,983
9,864
8,583
3,200
15,539
34,267
9,317
19,348
5,310
8,385
2,188
3,791
3,291
1,251
31,406
5,992
61,243
21,082
3,237
30,172
6,500
7,693
28,395
3,336
6,329
1,442
12,136
46,764
5,402
1,386
17,705
16,079
4,208
14,674
1,787
$722,811
Adjustments
$330
-180
0
0
-592
-50
0
0
0
0
0
14
5,359
520
0
0
102
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
122
0
140
0
186
0
0
0
0
0
-31
106
24
486
0
0
14
0
0
6
122
0
NOTES: NA Indicates data are not available. *See Notes to Table 3 on page 20. **In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the rainy day fund.
4
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Ending
Balance
$52
-1,714
579
0
5,100
651
249
414
2,581
1,071
665
44
74
1,036
707
380
81
179
12
148
1,451
306
1,886
41
189
425
674
184
31
300
637
2,235
2
1,087
1,700
0
247
81
130
1,163
10
384
6,968
113
0
479
373
412
517
0
$34,333
Rainy
Day Fund
Balance
$276
15,597
455
0
4,130
436
519
202
925
863
83
161
276
969
650
0
77
445
68
764
1,248
386
661
110
277
0
719
28
9
0
638
1,481
652
584
1,478
535
153
0
177
408
139
456
6,703
432
71
688
415
956
0
926
$47,224
TABLE 4
Fiscal 2015 State General Fund, Estimated (Millions)
State
Beginning
Balance
Alabama*
Alaska*
Arizona*
Arkansas
California* **
Colorado* **
Connecticut*
Delaware* **
Florida
Georgia*
Hawaii
Idaho*
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa*
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine*
Maryland*
Massachusetts**
Michigan*
Minnesota* **
Mississippi
Missouri*
Montana*
Nebraska*
Nevada*
New Hampshire* **
New Jersey*
New Mexico**
New York* **
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio*
Oklahoma*
Oregon*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island*
South Carolina* **
South Dakota*
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia*
Washington*
West Virginia*
Wisconsin*
Wyoming*
Total
$52
0
579
0
5,100
436
0
414
2,581
1,071
665
44
74
1,036
0
380
81
0
12
148
1,451
306
1,886
41
189
427
674
184
31
300
637
2,235
2
1,087
1,700
0
247
81
68
1,163
10
384
6,933
113
0
479
373
412
517
0
$34,603
Revenues
$7,562
2,216
8,577
5,047
108,042
9,768
17,333
3,928
27,765
20,021
6,389
2,965
32,333
14,954
6,857
6,014
9,901
8,408
3,277
15,708
36,682
10,245
19,916
5,464
8,372
2,144
4,282
3,396
1,355
32,298
6,169
68,714
21,522
2,338
30,779
6,595
8,278
30,177
3,510
6,660
1,374
12,467
52,580
5,953
1,417
17,738
17,164
4,192
14,470
1,774
$755,091
Adjustments
$256
24
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
-4
1,736
0
543
0
337
61
50
162
0
-967
0
0
120
0
-217
0
13
285
0
0
0
520
0
-14
-44
-1,197
-86
22
24
37
-2,774
0
5
0
-71
56
556
0
Resources
$7,871
2,240
9,156
5,047
113,142
10,270
17,333
4,342
30,347
21,091
7,054
3,005
34,143
15,990
7,400
6,394
10,318
8,469
3,339
16,018
38,133
9,584
21,802
5,505
8,680
2,571
4,738
3,580
1,399
32,883
6,807
70,949
21,524
3,945
32,479
6,581
8,482
29,061
3,491
7,846
1,408
12,888
56,739
6,066
1,422
18,216
17,467
4,660
15,542
1,774
$789,189
Expenditures
$7,755
6,063
9,281
5,047
111,720
9,713
17,551
3,808
28,526
20,021
6,469
2,936
31,110
14,909
6,989
6,322
10,124
8,510
3,213
15,981
36,938
9,584
19,950
5,502
8,570
2,227
4,136
3,415
1,294
32,495
6,317
63,181
21,522
3,264
31,847
6,403
8,221
29,048
3,488
6,532
1,398
12,597
48,401
5,781
1,406
18,094
16,706
4,289
15,797
1,773
$756,225
Ending
Balance
Adjustments
$45
92
-126
0
0
0
-86
0
0
0
0
6
2,959
377
0
0
112
-41
125
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302
11
80
0
0
0
2
104
274
0
0
4
0
326
10
141
0
0
15
0
0
0
-255
0
$71
-3,915
1
0
1,423
556
-133
535
1,821
1,071
585
63
74
705
411
72
82
0
2
37
1,195
0
1,852
4
110
343
299
155
25
388
489
7,768
0
577
358
177
260
9
3
988
0
150
8,339
285
0
123
761
371
0
1
$28,490
Rainy
Day Fund
Balance
$414
8,875
329
0
2,059
556
519
213
1,139
N/A
91
161
276
1,255
696
0
77
470
72
786
1,128
498
994
395
270
0
685
0
12
0
490
1,796
698
687
1,478
N/A
391
4
180
447
149
492
7,500
432
76
468
510
866
0
960
$39,593
NOTES: NA Indicates data are not available. *See Notes to Table 4 on page 23. **In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the rainy day fund.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
5
TABLE 5
Fiscal 2016 State General Fund, Recommended (Millions)
State
Beginning
Balance
Alabama*
Alaska*
Arizona*
Arkansas
California* **
Colorado* **
Connecticut*
Delaware* **
Florida
Georgia*
Hawaii
Idaho*
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa*
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine*
Maryland*
Massachusetts**
Michigan*
Minnesota* **
Mississippi*
Missouri*
Montana*
Nebraska*
Nevada*
New Hampshire* **
New Jersey
New Mexico* **
New York* **
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island*
South Carolina* **
South Dakota*
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia*
Washington*
West Virginia*
Wisconsin*
Wyoming*
Total
$0
0
1
0
1,423
556
0
535
1,821
1,071
585
63
74
705
0
72
82
0
2
37
1,195
0
1,831
4
110
343
300
155
25
388
489
7,768
0
577
358
177
260
9
3
988
0
150
7,533
285
0
123
761
371
0
1
$31,230
Revenues
$8,283
2,198
9,020
5,207
113,380
10,260
18,005
3,950
28,231
20,663
6,642
3,128
30,339
15,310
7,195
6,244
10,140
8,517
3,321
16,317
38,047
10,635
20,706
5,630
8,673
2,294
4,418
3,672
1,409
33,545
6,291
66,090
22,234
2,744
35,166
6,094
8,674
31,388
3,597
6,947
1,433
12,822
53,778
5,995
1,469
18,261
17,929
4,322
15,191
1,773
$777,576
Adjustments
$0
4
209
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
-99
1,661
50
391
0
187
526
2
55
0
-1,265
0
-19
99
0
-230
0
48
0
0
0
0
657
0
0
-226
-1,383
-108
-61
0
-37
-2,395
0
17
0
339
0
531
0
Total
Resources
$8,283
2,202
9,230
5,207
114,803
10,880
18,005
4,485
30,052
21,733
7,227
3,091
32,074
16,064
7,586
6,317
10,409
9,043
3,325
16,409
39,242
9,370
22,538
5,615
8,882
2,637
4,487
3,827
1,483
33,932
6,781
73,858
22,234
3,979
35,524
6,271
8,707
30,014
3,492
7,874
1,433
12,935
58,916
6,280
1,486
18,384
19,029
4,693
15,722
1,774
$807,821
Expenditures
$8,247
5,605
9,094
5,207
113,298
10,268
18,002
3,971
28,544
20,663
6,789
3,089
27,789
15,143
7,336
6,229
10,312
9,043
3,272
16,362
38,062
9,341
20,911
5,615
8,782
2,352
4,256
3,613
1,390
33,584
6,278
70,629
22,230
3,616
35,334
6,094
8,507
29,884
3,492
6,750
1,433
12,861
49,703
6,258
1,468
18,376
18,504
4,357
15,876
1,772
$779,588
Adjustments
$15
-50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,211
191
0
0
96
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
9
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
170
0
74
0
0
18
0
0
5
-246
0
NOTES: NA Indicates data are not available. *See Notes to Table 5 on page 26. **In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the rainy day fund.
6
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Ending
Balance
$21
-3,353
136
0
1,505
611
3
513
1,507
1,071
439
3
74
730
250
88
0
0
42
47
1,180
29
1,626
0
100
285
227
205
17
349
503
3,229
4
362
190
177
200
97
1
954
0
0
9,213
22
0
8
525
331
92
2
$23,615
Rainy
Day Fund
Balance
$406
5,622
329
0
3,361
611
522
214
1,354
N/A
103
195
276
1,256
721
0
63
514
72
814
1,135
611
994
412
275
0
746
0
12
0
503
1,796
698
687
1,478
N/A
637
37
180
459
149
528
9,770
433
82
712
231
856
0
961
$40,818
TABLE 6
General Fund Nominal Percentage Expenditure
Change, Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2016
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Average Total Change
Fiscal
2015
Fiscal
2016
3.7%
-17.2
5.5
2.1
11.9
10.8
3.4
0.4
6.0
4.6
3.1
5.6
-1.2
2.4
8.2
5.7
2.6
-0.9
0.4
2.8
7.8
2.9
3.1
3.6
2.2
1.8
9.1
3.7
3.5
3.5
5.4
3.2
2.1
0.8
5.6
-1.5
6.9
2.3
4.6
3.2
-3.1
3.8
3.5
7.0
1.5
2.2
3.9
1.9
7.7
-0.8
4.6%
6.3%
-7.6
-2.0
3.2
1.4
5.7
2.6
4.3
0.1
3.2
4.9
5.2
-10.7
1.6
5.0
-1.5
1.9
6.3
1.8
2.4
3.0
-2.5
4.8
2.1
2.5
5.6
2.9
5.8
7.4
3.3
-0.6
11.8
3.3
10.8
10.9
-4.8
3.5
2.9
0.1
3.3
2.5
2.1
2.7
8.2
4.4
1.6
10.8
1.6
0.5
-0.1
3.1%
NOTES: *Fiscal 2015 reflects changes from fiscal 2014 expenditures (actual) to fiscal 2015 expenditures (estimated). Fiscal 2016 reflects changes from fiscal 2015 expenditures (estimated) to fiscal
2016 expenditures (recommended).
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
7
Recommended Budget Adjustments,
Mid-Year Budget Adjustments, Budget Cuts
and Budget Gaps
Budget adjustments help identify changing spending patterns
within the general fund. The degree of competition for state resources can be analyzed by highlighting budget cuts and spending increases across program areas. Governors have
meet previously set revenue collections forecasts. Eleven states
have enacted net mid-year budget cuts in fiscal 2015 totaling
$2.0 billion, greater than the $1.0 billion in mid-year cuts enacted
in eight states by this time in fiscal 2014. Despite this uptick in
mid-year funding reductions, overall budget stability is widespread
in fiscal 2015 with still relatively few states enacting a small
amount of net mid-year budget cuts. (See Table 7 and Figure 2)
recommended that additional budget dollars in fiscal 2016 most
In addition to reduced spending, legislatively approved changes
heavily target K-12 education and Medicaid, calling for spending
in taxes and fees can also be implemented in the middle of the
increases in these areas totaling $10.2 billion and $9.2 billion re-
fiscal year. States enacted net mid-year tax cuts of $1.3 billion
spectively. Recommended program area spending increases
in fiscal 2015. Only a handful of states enacted mid-year tax
also include higher education at $2.6 billion, corrections at $1.8
changes, with Illinois and Ohio accounting for the largest de-
billion, and public assistance at $82 million in proposed additional
creases. (See Table 12)
spending in fiscal 2016. Governors recommended net reductions
in general fund spending on transportation. However, most
State revenues have improved substantially over the last two
states rely on other fund sources primarily to finance transporta-
fiscal years, helping to minimize the gaps between projected
tion spending; in fiscal 2014, general fund spending accounted
spending demands and revenue collections. Previously closed
for less than 5.0 percent of total state spending on transporta-
budget gaps for fiscal 2015 totaled $9.3 billion, more than the
tion. Therefore, general fund spending adjustments are not nec-
$4.0 billion closed by this time in fiscal 2014, but significantly
essarily indicative of overall recommended state spending
less than fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, when states closed $33.3
changes for transportation for fiscal 2016. In fact, New York and
billion and $68 billion in budget gaps prior to the start of the
North Dakota, which both reported a net decrease in recom-
next fiscal year. At the time of data collection, 10 states re-
mended general fund spending on transportation in fiscal 2016,
ported $7.1 billion in ongoing budget gaps to be closed before
indicated in footnotes that additional funding from dedicated fund
the end of fiscal 2015. Twenty-four states are projecting $25.2
sources are recommended for infrastructure investments for the
billion in budget gaps for fiscal 2016, prior to incorporating gov-
upcoming fiscal year. (See Table 11)
ernors’ budget recommendations for fiscal 2016.
Fiscal 2015 mid-year budget adjustments resulted in $214 million
States use a variety of budget management strategies in order
in net additional spending. The program areas that received mid-
to reduce expenses or increase revenues to help eliminate or
year spending increases were Medicaid, corrections and trans-
prevent budget gaps. Twenty-five states have recommended
portation. K-12 education, higher education, and public
targeted cuts to reduce expenditures in fiscal 2016, while 24
assistance received net mid-year spending reductions. For K-
states reported using targeted cuts to manage their budgets in
12, the bulk of this decrease is driven by a $710 million reduction
fiscal 2015. Other budget management strategies used by
in bond debt service in Texas. States with the largest mid-year
states in fiscal 2015 and recommended in fiscal 2016 include
spending increases in fiscal 2015 include California, Georgia,
across-the-board cuts, reorganizing agencies, tapping rainy
Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas. (See Tables 8 and 10)
day funds, and increasing user fees, among others. (See Tables
13 and 14)
One sign of state fiscal stress can be mid-year budget cuts, as
these actions are often evidence that states will not be able to
8
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 7
States with Net Mid-Year Budget Cuts Made After
the Fiscal 2015 Budget Passed
State
FY 2015
Size of Cuts
($ in Millions)
Hawaii*
$47.8
Indiana
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan*
119.4
247.9
273.7
532.7
Missouri
New Hampshire
479.9
18.3
New Jersey
Pennsylvania*
Vermont
Virginia
Total
51.0
71.0
Programs or Expenditures
Exempted from Cuts
Debt service, employee retirement and
health benefits
Distributions to K-12 school corporations.
Non Discretionary Programs
Higher education, local revenue sharing, and
K-12 operations
All mid-year programs impacted were
targeted cuts.
After budget enactment, the Governor does
not have the authority to reduce appropriations to the Attorney General, Auditor General, Treasurer (all independently elected),
the legislature and the judiciary.
34.1
168.3
$2,044.1
NOTES: *See Notes to Table 7 on page 29. Budget Cuts for Fiscal 2015 are currently ongoing.
Note: Only states with net mid-year budget cuts are included in Table 7. See Table 10 for state-bystate data on mid-year program adjustments.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
9
Table 8
Fiscal 2015 Mid-Year Program Area Cuts
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia*
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas*
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
K-12
Education
Higher
Education
Public
Assistance
Medicaid
Corrections
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
10
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 8 on page 29. See Table 10 for state-by-state dollar values.
10
Transportation
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
13
4
11
Table 9
Fiscal 2016 Recommended Program Area Cuts
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
K-12
Education
Higher
Education
X
Public
Assistance
X
X
X
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
15
X
X
17
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
8
14
15
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 9 on page 29. See Table 11 for state-by-state values.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
11
Table 10
Fiscal 2015 Mid-Year Program Area Adjustments By Value (Millions)
State
K-12
Education
Higher
Education
Public
Assistance
Medicaid
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota*
Tennessee
Texas*
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
$0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
139.2
-14.0
0.0
0.0
-1.8
0.0
-16.1
0.0
-8.9
0.0
-0.8
-41.8
-80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.3
0.0
-4.4
-41.9
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
-0.2
-0.8
0.0
-6.0
0.0
-710.0
0.0
-0.4
-96.5
24.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
-$809.7
$0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
-5.4
0.0
0.0
-26.5
0.0
-10.7
0.0
-15.8
0.0
-54.7
-18.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-21.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.4
7.8
0.0
-11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.9
0.0
-2.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-45.0
-11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
-$192.2
$0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.5
-2.5
0.0
0.0
-7.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
-17.8
-14.0
-14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-11.7
0.0
-13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.0
0.0
-5.0
4.8
-30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-$79.6
$38.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
88.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.5
-7.0
0.0
0.0
-2.4
0.0
31.1
0.0
-175.3
21.0
-26.2
226.4
-138.7
0.0
0.0
-63.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-35.7
0.0
66.0
0.0
0.0
453.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.8
0.0
-5.6
0.0
165.2
0.0
-20.1
-192.0
47.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
$552.6
NOTES: *See Notes to Table 10 on page 29.
12
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Corrections
$7.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
0.0
0.0
-12.9
0.0
-2.2
0.0
-6.4
0.0
-24.2
6.5
-20.7
0.0
0.0
-7.7
0.0
10.8
0.0
-1.9
-9.9
0.0
53.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.7
-2.0
8.5
0.0
-1.4
0.0
50.5
0.0
-0.6
10.9
14.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
$97.8
Transportation
$0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-22.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
$39.0
Other
$39.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
224.9
38.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.9
-18.1
0.0
0.0
-66.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
-41.5
5.0
-150.0
239.9
-279.0
0.0
0.0
-383.3
0.0
21.0
0.0
-8.6
-0.6
0.0
-64.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.1
-59.4
2.4
0.0
18.6
20.3
783.5
0.0
-7.6
149.5
22.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
$606.4
Total
$85.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
224.9
128.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
276.3
-47.8
0.0
0.0
-119.4
0.0
4.1
0.0
-247.9
27.6
-273.7
408.6
-532.7
0.0
0.0
-479.9
0.0
30.5
0.0
-18.3
-51.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
453.9
0.0
153.0
-71.0
43.2
0.0
6.0
20.3
290.1
0.0
-34.1
-168.3
66.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
$214.3
Table 11
Fiscal 2016 Recommended Program Area Adjustments By Value (Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon*
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas*
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
K-12
Education
$149.3
-174.6
8.0
59.4
2,091.0
188.4
17.6
46.9
544.8
549.9
132.8
101.2
488.8
168.7
84.6
11.3
69.0
7.9
-9.2
79.1
83.9
-69.0
241.5
47.6
44.6
32.0
29.5
153.0
0.0
809.4
68.0
1,219.0
0.0
45.4
441.2
25.0
138.1
662.0
62.9
107.6
11.0
36.3
403.0
311.3
11.9
-54.4
874.0
-84.1
-110.4
32.0
$10,187.3
Higher
Education
$89.8
6.2
-103.9
-0.1
1,350.6
107.3
-13.7
3.8
74.8
98.6
17.9
8.1
-398.8
27.2
22.2
-5.9
35.0
-172.0
10.5
-8.3
19.3
-6.0
83.1
10.8
-15.5
16.1
14.0
36.1
5.5
19.1
6.1
-73.0
0.0
55.1
39.2
0.0
128.8
159.0
4.7
-17.1
6.5
24.8
627.9
69.4
-0.4
-45.0
273.5
-7.3
-124.7
103.0
$2,562.2
Public
Assistance
$7.4
-8.2
0.0
20.1
-71.8
0.0
-6.1
-1.5
0.0
53.0
2.6
7.2
-91.3
-6.1
-1.1
-1.1
18.0
0.0
-4.1
-9.5
-22.0
-16.6
96.0
12.6
0.0
0.9
5.7
4.6
44.9
-38.9
0.0
-41.0
0.0
0.0
20.1
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
9.7
6.9
-8.2
128.5
0.0
-11.3
-87.6
49.9
18.0
0.0
0.0
$81.6
Medicaid
$110.0
-20.0
-67.2
61.1
1,775.8
144.1
233.1
-2.7
66.7
52.0
-25.3
18.4
-981.4
1.5
95.8
141.7
53.0
516.5
20.2
11.7
908.0
-143.7
561.2
2.2
150.5
32.8
47.9
-4.4
30.0
75.5
33.7
743.0
0.0
46.0
3,267.2
0.0
293.1
362.0
-17.3
66.4
7.6
39.6
105.3
22.1
26.4
-39.0
4.7
110.4
272.1
0.0
$9,208.3
Corrections
$36.0
-19.4
9.5
16.0
575.3
35.7
123.5
7.2
50.9
54.7
20.6
5.6
171.1
29.5
4.3
-0.5
8.0
-13.0
-1.5
15.8
31.5
-61.9
33.2
26.4
-8.7
10.4
20.0
16.2
7.4
-3.0
10.5
101.0
0.0
34.8
69.1
15.0
58.0
165.0
12.3
8.0
1.8
35.7
0.0
18.7
11.2
0.0
83.3
-6.5
22.0
0.0
$1,840.6
Transportation
$0.0
-119.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
116.6
N/A
-12.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
-5.5
-101.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
59.6
-145.1
-22.0
-0.7
-6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-119.2
0.0
-19.0
0.0
-731.5
1.0
0.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
400.0
-3.2
0.0
0.0
7.9
-0.1
-12.9
11.0
-$674.9
Other
$126.4
-217.2
-73.1
3.4
-411.2
179.7
73.1
36.7
-332.4
98.0
258.1
11.9
-2,232.9
-21.9
148.8
-174.3
32.0
-54.3
71.8
181.3
360.6
-194.0
-31.9
24.4
-76.1
23.2
32.7
61.6
3.3
345.3
23.1
5,556.0
0.0
735.2
87.0
43.6
273.3
-573.0
-16.1
47.1
7.2
258.0
467.6
58.3
5.9
481.5
500.8
-29.8
-53.8
322.0
$6,446.9
Total
$518.9
-552.2
-226.7
159.9
5,310.7
655.2
544.1
90.4
392.8
918.4
406.7
152.4
-3,050.0
97.6
354.6
-28.8
215.0
285.1
87.7
270.1
1,440.9
-636.3
961.1
123.3
88.8
115.4
149.7
267.1
91.1
1,088.2
141.4
7,486.0
0.0
185.0
3,924.8
83.6
904.4
777.0
46.5
221.7
41.0
386.2
2,132.3
476.6
43.7
255.5
1,794.2
0.6
-7.7
468.0
$29,652.1
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 11 on page 30.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
13
Table 12
Enacted Mid-year Fiscal 2015 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease* (Millions)
Personal
Income
Sales
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Corporate
Income
Motor
Fuels
Alcohol
Other
Taxes
Fees
TBD
-558.0
-10.6
-344.0
-70.0
-312.0
10.3
6.8
3.7
TBD
$0.0
-$940.0
-$354.6
NOTES: *See Appendix Table A-1 for details on specific revenue changes.
14
Cigarettes/
Tobacco
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
$0.0
$10.3
$0.0
$6.8
$3.7
Total
$0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TBD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-10.6
-902.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-70.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-312.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.8
0.0
TBD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-$1,273.8
Figure 2:
Budget Cuts Made After the Budget Passed, Fiscal 1990 to Fiscal 2015
50
$40,000
Recession ends
Recession ends
Recession ends
40
41
$30,000
39
37
$20,000
22
20
20
19
18
16
$10,000
13
9
13
11 10
11
8
8
7
2
3
1
5
2
8
4
$0
0
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
(In Millions)
30
28
(Number of States)
37
35
Number of States
Amount of Reduction
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
15
TABLE 13
Strategies Used to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2015
Higher Education
Related
Fees
User
Fees
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Minnesota
Mississippi*
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire*
New Jersey*
New Mexico
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Court
Related
Fees
Transportation/
Motor Vehicle
Related Fees
X
Business
Related Fees
Layoffs
Furloughs
X
X
X
X
Early
Retirement
Salary
Reductions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
3
3
X
3
3
4
3
2
0
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 13 on page 30.
Table 13 continues on next page.
16
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 13 (Continued)
Strategies Used to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2015
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Minnesota
Mississippi*
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire*
New Jersey*
New Mexico
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Cuts to State
Employee
Benefits
Acrossthe-Board
Percent Cuts
Targeted
Cuts
Reduce
Local Aid
Reorganize
Agencies
Privatization
X
Rainy
Day
Fund
Lottery
Expansion
Gaming/
Gambling
Expansion
Other
(Specify)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
8
24
3
7
5
9
X
1
1
15
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 13 on page 30.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
17
TABLE 14
Strategies Used to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2016
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut*
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine*
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi*
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
User
Fees
Higher Education
Related
Fees
Court
Related
Fees
Transportation/
Motor Vehicle
Related Fees
X
X
X
X
X
X
Business
Related Fees
Layoffs
Furloughs
Early
Retirement
X
X
Salary
Reductions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
5
3
5
4
4
2
2
1
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 14 on page 31.
Table 14 continues on next page.
18
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 14 (Continued)
Strategies Used to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2016
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut*
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine*
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi*
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Cuts to State
Employee
Benefits
Acrossthe-Board
Percent Cuts
Targeted
Cuts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reorganize
Agencies
X
X
X
X
X
Privatization
Rainy
Day
Fund
X
X
Lottery
Expansion
Gaming/
Gambling
Expansion
Other
(Specify)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reduce
Local Aid
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
12
3
9
X
3
2
12
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 14 on page 31.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
19
Chapter 1 Notes
Notes to Table 3
Fiscal 2014 State General Fund, Actual
For all states, unless otherwise noted, transfers into budget stabilization funds are counted as expenditures, and transfers from budget
stabilization funds are counted as revenues.
Alabama
Revenue adjustments include $204.2M in one-time revenues (from Rainy Day Account, $145.8M; Tobacco Settlement, $46.4M;
and Insurance Settlement, $12M). Expenditure adjustment includes $330.4M of Rainy Day repayment (Per Code Section 29-9-4).
Alaska
Revenues: Spring 2015 Revenue Source Book (Total Revenue)
Revenue Adjustments: SLA2014 Fiscal Summary (Revenue Carryforward)
Expenditures: SLA2014 Fiscal Summary (Pre-Transfer Authorization)
Ending Balance: SLA2014 Fiscal Summary (Transfer to SBR)
Rainy Day Balance: FY2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Arizona
Adjustments to revenue include revenues from the temporary 1% sales tax increase and budget transfers. Adjustments to expenditures include the transfer of revenue into the rainy day fund.
California
Represents adjustments to the Beginning Fund Balance. This consists primarily of adjustments made to major taxes and K-12
spending.
Colorado
Reflects Table 4 of the March 18, 2015 OSPB forecast. Note that the ending GF balance is $650.9M; however, $215.0M is
transferred to other funds per statute (HB14-1339, HB14-1342, and SB14-223). Thus the $410.9M statutory reserve plus the
remaining $25.0M that is above the statutory reserve but not transferred out to other funds, becomes the beginning fund balance
for FY 2014–15.
Connecticut
The reported rainy day fund balance includes the ending balance.
Georgia
Adjustments to revenues include agency surplus returned and the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement.
Idaho
Budget Stabilization Fund – $26,375,800, Business Job Development Fund – $3,000,000, Water Resources Boards –
$10,000,000, Public Education Stabilization Fund – $10,000,000, and Higher Education Stabilization Fund – $2,000,000.
Miscellaneous Adjustments included: $9,142,100 Health and Welfare reversion and $10,620,000 reserved for tax conformity
legislation.
Illinois
Revenue adjustments include transfers in to the general fund. Expenditure adjustments include transfers out of the general fund
and the change in accounts payable.
Indiana
Revenue adjustments include PTRC and homestead credit adjustments HEA 1072-2011 loan repayments, and a transfer from
the Mine Subsidence Fund. Expenditure adjustments include reversions from distributions, capital, and reconciliations; the cost
of a 13th check for pension recipients; transfer to the Major Moves 2020 trust fund; transfer to the tuition reserve fund; and
state agency and university line item capital projects. The FY14 Rainy Day Fund balance reflects $373.9M in the Counter-Cyclical
Revenue and Economic Stabilization Fund, $445M in the Medicaid Contingency and Reserve Account, and $150M in the State
Tuition Reserve Fund.
Iowa
Revenue adjustments include an estimated $679.3 million of residual funds transferred to the General Fund after the Reserve
Funds are filled to their statutorily set maximum amounts. The Ending balance of the General Fund is transferred in the current
fiscal year to the Reserve Funds in the subsequent fiscal year. After the Reserve Funds are at their statutorily set maximum
amounts, the remainder of the funds are transferred back to the General Fund in that subsequent fiscal year.
Kansas
Kansas does not have a "Rainy Day" fund. However, the balanced budget provision of the constitution requires revenues to
finance the approved budget.
20
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Kentucky
Revenue includes $159.4 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $156.4 million that represents
appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $145.7 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded and to the next fiscal year and budgeted balances to be
expended in the next fiscal year.
Louisiana
Revenues adjustments—Includes transfer of $198.7 million from various funds and $345.2 million in undesignated General Fund
Cash Balance from prior years.
Maine
Revenue and Expenditure adjustments reflect Legislatively authorized transfers.
Maryland
Revenue adjustments include $16.1 million for tax credit reimbursements and $61.8 million in transfers from other funds.
Michigan
Fiscal 2014 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes (-$769.1 million); revenue sharing payments
to local government units (-$396.6 million); use tax adjustment ($164.6 million); state restricted fund adjustments (-$44.6 million);
deposit to the rainy day fund (-$75.0 million); and deposit to the Roads and Risks Reserve Fund (-$230.0 million). Fiscal 2014
expenditures include $522.2 million in one-time spending financed from one-time resources, excluding deposits to the rainy day
fund and the Roads and Risks Reserve Fund.
Minnesota
Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million, a budget reserve of $661 million, and stadium reserve of $39.8 million.
Mississippi
State statute requires 2% of the revenue estimate plus beginning cash (excluding reappropriated amounts) be set aside prior to
legislative appropriations. At fiscal year close, the 2% is recombined with any remaining revenue balance and distributed to other
funds as required by statute, leaving an amount equal to 1% of the appropriations retained in the General Fund.
Missouri
Revenue adjustments include transfers from other funds into the general revenue fund.
Montana
Revenue adjustments include prior year revenues which impact fund balance for the current year and/or direct entries to fund
balance.
Nebraska
Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. Per Nebraska law, includes a transfer of $285.3
million to the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) of the amount the prior year's net General Fund receipts exceeded the official
forecast and an additional $49.4 million transferred from the General Fund to the Cash Reserve Fund to set aside additional
funds as a result of increasing General Fund revenues. Among others, also includes a $113 million transfer from the General
Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund.
Nevada
Expenditure adjustments are restricted transfers.
New Hampshire
Expenditure Adjustments: $102 million moved to the Education Trust Fund and $ .7 million moved to the Fish and Game Fund
at year end. (Adjustments also include $18.9 million of GAAP and Other.)
New Jersey
Budget vs. GAAP adjustments and transfers to other funds. All FY 2014 Actual amounts are preliminary figures as of February
24, 2015.
New Mexico
FY14 includes $30 million for unreconciled account balances and $36 million for Public Education Department (PED) Special
Education Maintenance of Effort as reflected in the FY14 General Fund audit, and a $73.1 million FY14 General Fund audit adjustment for the Human Services Department for unreconciled account balances..
New York
The ending balance includes nearly $1.5 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $45 million reserved to cover costs of potential
retroactive labor settlements with certain unions, $87 million in a community projects fund, $500 million reserved for debt
reduction, $58 million from a monetary settlement with J.P. Morgan, $21 million reserved for litigation risks, and $43 million
in undesignated reserve.
North Dakota
Revenue adjustments are a $341.8 million transfer from the property tax relief fund into the general fund.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
21
Oklahoma
FY–2014 Revenue adjustment is the difference in cash flow.
Oregon
Revenue adjustments include: prior biennium transfer adjustment; transfer 2011–13 biennium ending GF balance to Rainy Day
Fund (up to 1% of total biennial budget appropriation minus GF reversions); cost of Tax Anticipation Notes; statutory dedication
of some corp. taxes to RDF; and, a statutory transfer to local governments for local property tax relief. As in previous reports,
the Rainy Day Fund balance is a combined total of RDF (primarily GF) and Education Stability Fund (primarily Lottery Fund).
Pennsylvania
Revenue adjustments include refunds, lapses and adjustments to beginning balances.
Rhode Island
Adjustments to revenues reflect a transfer of $106.0 million to the Budget Reserve Fund plus a reappropriation of $7.1 million.
Total expenditure adjustments of $31.2 million reflect transfers to the Accelerated Depreciation Fund of $10.0 million, projected
transfer of surplus revenues to the State Retirement Fund of $13.8 million, and reappropriations of $7.4 million.
South Carolina
Ending Balance = 5% General Reserve ($292.9) + 2% Capital Reserve ($114.9) + Surplus Contingency Reserve ($265.6) +
Agency Appropriation Balances Carried Forward to Next FY ($489.9); Expenditure Adjustments include FY12–13 Capital Reserve
Funds transferred to State agencies.
South Dakota
The beginning balance of $24.2 million and adjustment to expenditures reflects the prior year's ending balance that is transferred
to the rainy day fund. Adjustments to revenue of $98.2 million are from one-time receipts. The ending balance of $9.9 million is
cash that is obligated to the Budget Reserve fund the following fiscal year. This $9.9 million is not included in the total rainy day
fund balance of $139.3 million.
Tennessee
Adjustments (Revenues) include: $83.5 million transfer from debt service fund unexpended appropriations; -$100.0 million transfer
to Rainy Day Fund; $315.9 million transfer from reserves for closing; and -$145.3 million transfer to dedicated revenue reserves.
Adjustments (Expenditures) include: $215.9 million transfer to capital outlay projects fund; $170.8 million transfer to state office
buildings and support facilities fund; $3.8 million transfer to debt service fund; $3.6 million transfer to Systems Development
Fund; and $91.9 million transfer to reserves for unexpended appropriations. The Ending Balance includes $272.5 million reserve
for appropriations 2014–2015 and $111.3 million unappropriated budget surplus at June 30, 2014.
Texas
Adjustment is net of set aside for transfer to Rainy Day Fund (-$1,383.5m) and the State Highway Fund 6 (-$1,383.4m). In addition, the Comptroller adjustment to general fund dedicated account balances (-$646.1m).
Vermont
Adjustments equal net transfer effect in/out of General Fund.
Washington
Fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts, and changes made by the 2014 Legislature.
West Virginia
Fiscal Year 2014 beginning balance includes $456.2 million in Reappropriations, Unappropriated Surplus Balance of $11.8
million, and FY 2013 13th month expenditures of $44.1 million. Expenditures include Regular, Surplus and Reappropriated funds
and $44.1 million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Revenue adjustments are prior year redeposits and special revenue expirations. Expenditure adjustment represents the amount transferred to the Rainy Day Fund. The ending balance is mostly the historically carried forward reappropriation amounts that will remain and be reappropriated to the next fiscal year, the 13th month
expenditures & unappropriated surplus balance.
Wisconsin
Revenue adjustments include Designated Balance, $18.8m and Other Revenue, $587.1m. Expenditure adjustments include
Designation for Continuing Balances, $122.4m.
Wyoming
WY budgets on a biennial basis. To arrive at annual figures certain assumptions and estimates were required.
22
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Notes to Table 4
Fiscal 2015 State General Fund, Estimated
For all states, unless otherwise noted, transfers into budget stabilization funds are counted as expenditures, and transfers from budget
stabilization funds are counted as revenues.
Alabama
Revenue adjustments include $256.3M in one-time revenues (from Rainy Day Account, $145.8M; Various agency transfers,
$110.5M). Expenditure adjustment includes $35.1M repayment to the Rainy Day Fund and $10M repayment to the Alabama
Trust Fund.
Alaska
Revenues: Spring 2015 Revenue Source Book (Total Revenue)
Revenue Adjustments: SLA2015 Fiscal Summary (Revenue Carryforward)
Expenditures: SLA2015 Fiscal Summary (Pre-Transfer Authorization)
Ending Balance: SLA2015 Fiscal Summary (Transfer to SBR)
Rainy Day Balance: OMB Spring Fiscal Model
Arizona
Adjustments include shifting $126M from the Rainy Day Fund to leave an ending balance of $1M.
California
Ending balance excludes $1,606.4 million that was transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for "rainy day" purposes.
Colorado
Reflects Table 4 of the March 18, 2015 OSPB forecast. Forecast (but not final budget) reflects very slight shortfall in FY 2014–15
which was quickly addressed by the General Assembly. Expenditure figures reflect expenditures by the General Assembly as of
the date of the forecast (3/18/15) but final expenditures will not be established until May or June 2015.
Connecticut
The reported rainy day fund balance includes the ending balance. Expenditure adjustment includes $85.9 million in continuing appropriations from FY 2014.
Delaware
Reflects estimates presented in Governor's FY 2016 Recommended Budget
Georgia
General Fund Revenues include $192 million for the Mid Year Adjustment Reserve for Education. Georgia is required by its constitution to maintain a balanced budget. The fund balances for both FY 2015 and FY 2016 reflect the Governor's balanced
budget. Georgia does not project future Rainy Day fund balances, but expects the reserve to continue to grow in future years.
Idaho
Wolf Control Fund – $400,000, Permanent Building Fund – $101,200, Time Sensitive Fund Health and Welfare – $225,800,
Constitutional Defense Fund – $1,000,000. Miscellaneous Adjustments include: $9,142,100 Health and Welfare reversion and
$10,620,000 reserved for Tax Conformity legislation.
Illinois
Revenue adjustments include transfers in to the general fund. Expenditure adjustments include transfers out of the general fund
and the change in accounts payable.
Indiana
Expenditure adjustments include reversions from distributions, capital, and reconciliations; the cost of a 13th check for pension
recipients; transfer to the Major Moves 2020 trust fund, transfer to the tuition reserve fund; and state agency and university line
item capital projects. The FY15 Rainy Day Fund balance reflects $376.9M in the Counter-Cyclical Revenue and Economic Stabilization Fund, $577.6M in the Medicaid Contingency and Reserve Account, and $300M in the State Tuition Reserve Fund.
Iowa
Revenue adjustments include an estimated $642.2 million of residual funds transferred to the General Fund after the Reserve
Funds are filled to their statutorily set maximum amounts. The Ending balance of the General Fund is transferred in the current
fiscal year to the Reserve Funds in the subsequent fiscal year. After the Reserve Funds are at their statutorily set maximum
amounts, the remainder of the funds are transferred back to the General Fund in that subsequent fiscal year. Also included in
revenue adjustments is a -$99 million adjustment for the proposed annual Internal Revenue Code update bill. FY2015 Revenues
are based upon the December 2014 Revenue Estimating Conference estimates.
Kansas
Kansas does not have a "Rainy Day" fund. However, the balanced budget provision of the constitution requires revenues to
finance the approved budget.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
23
Kentucky
Revenue includes $99.7 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $112.1 million that represents
appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $224.5 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded and to the next fiscal year and budgeted balances to be
expended in the next fiscal year.
Louisiana
Revenues adjustments—Includes $11.2 from carryforwards and $49.8 from various funds
Expenditure adjustments—Includes the remaining $40.7 state general fund reduction as authorized by Act 15 of the 2014
legislative session.
Maine
Revenue and Expenditure adjustments reflect Legislatively authorized transfers.
Maryland
Adjustments to revenues include $143.9 million in fund transfers and $17.6 million in tax credit reimbursements.
Michigan
Fiscal 2015 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes (-$744.0 million); revenue sharing payments
to local government units (-$468.0 million); use tax adjustment ($373.7 million); state restricted fund adjustments (-$35.1 million);
and deposit to the rainy day fund (-$94.0 million).
Minnesota
Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million, a budget reserve of $994.3 million, and stadium reserve of $30 million.
Missouri
Revenue adjustments include transfers from other funds into the general revenue fund. The enacted revenue estimate, if met,
would be insufficient to cover budget expenses. The above expenditures assume expenditure restrictions.
Montana
Recommendations based on Governor's budget request
Nebraska
The Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board met in Feb. 2015 (subsequent to the time the Governor's budget recommendations upon which this survey response is based were presented) to reconsider its revenue forecasts for FY2015 and
FY2016. The board reduced the General Fund revenue forecast for FY2015 by $1 million and reduced the General Fund revenue
forecast for FY2016 by $5 million at that time. Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds.
Per Nebraska law, includes a transfer of $96.7 million to the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) of the amount the prior year's
net General Fund receipts exceeded the official forecast. Among others, also includes a $138 million transfer from the General
Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund. Expenditure adjustments are reappropriations ($302.3 million) of unexpended balance
of appropriations from the prior year.
Nevada
Expenditure adjustments are restricted transfers.
New Hampshire
Expenditure Adjustments: Executive Order 2014–09 issued to reduce General Fund Appropriations by $18.2 million; $97.0 million
expected to be moved to the Education Trust Fund, $0.9 million moved to the Fish and Game Fund, and $2.9 million to the
Rainy Day Fund at year end.
New Jersey
Transfers to other funds and estimated lapses
New York
The ending balance includes nearly $1.8 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $500 million reserved for debt reduction, $51 million
reserved to cover costs of potential retroactive labor settlements with certain unions, $21 million reserved for litigation risks and
$5.4 billion in proceeds from monetary settlements.
North Dakota
Revenue adjustments are a $520.0 million transfer from the strategic investment and improvements fund to the general fund.
Expenditure adjustments are a $103.6 transfer to the budget stabilization fund.
Ohio
Excess dollars will be transferred to non-General funds. FY 2016 is budgeted to begin with the statutory one half percent of previous year revenue plus an additional $200 million to fund an FY 2016 tax cut.
Oklahoma
FY–2015 Revenue adjustment is the difference in cash flow and is based on estimates certified by the State Board of Equalization
in February of 2015. Expenditure adjustments cannot be estimated at this time, nor can Rainy Day Fund balance.
Oregon
Revenue adjustment is a statutory transfer to local governments for local property tax relief.
Pennsylvania
Revenue adjustments include refunds, lapses and adjustments to beginning balances; Expenditure adjustments include transfers
to the Budget Stabilization Fund (rainy day).
24
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Rhode Island
Adjustments to revenues reflect a transfer of $107.8 million to the Budget Reserve Fund, an adjustment to the opening surplus
of $14.2 million, and a reappropriation of $7.4 million. The Governor recommends that surplus revenues be redirected to the
general fund instead of the State Retirement Fund ($14.2 million).
South Carolina
Ending Balance = 5% General Reserve ($319.5) + 2% Capital Reserve ($127.8) + Surplus Contingency Reserve ($51.2) +
Agency Appropriation Balances Carried Forward to Next FY ($489.9); Revenue Adjustments include BEA estimated revenue
revision and Legal Settlement; Expenditure Adjustments include FY13–14 Capital Reserve Funds transferred to State agencies,
nonrecurring supplemental appropriations, loan to a State supported Higher Ed institution, and estimated debt service appropriation lapse.
South Dakota
The beginning balance of $9.9 million and adjustment to expenditures reflects the prior year's ending balance that is transferred
to the rainy day fund. Adjustments to revenue of $23.9 million are from one-time receipts.
Tennessee
Adjustments (revenues) include: $72.0 million transfer from debt service fund unexpended appropriations; $0.3 million transfer
from TennCare Reserve Fund; and -$35.5 million transfer to Rainy Day Fund. Adjustments (expenditures) include: $123.3 million
transfer to capital outlay projects fund; $13.1 million transfer to state office buildings and support facilities fund; $3.8 million
transfer to debt service fund; and $1.0 million transfer to reserves for dedicated revenue appropriations. The Ending Balance includes $150.0 million unappropriated budget surplus at June 30, 2014.
Texas
Revenue adjustment to Dedicated Account Balances (-$341m); Also, adjustment for transfers to the Economic Stabilization and
State Highway Funds (-$2,433m).
Vermont
Adjustments equal net transfer effect in/out of General Fund.
Virginia
In May 2014, when final payments on income taxes were received, it became apparent that general fund revenue collections
would be significantly lower than original estimates. The Governor therefore directed the Secretary of Finance to begin the process
required to reforecast revenues for the 2014–16 biennium. In June 2014, the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed
into law, Chapter 2, the 2014 Appropriation Act which appropriates funding for the 2014–16 biennium. When Chapter 2 was
being finalized, it was assumed that revenues would be lower than the original estimate. However, since the revenue reforecasting
process was not complete, the enacted Appropriation Act contained the original revenue forecast. To accommodate a pending
reduction in the official revenue forecast, the General Assembly appropriated cash reserves that could be used to address any
budget shortfall. As it turned out, the results of the revised forecast in August were much greater than the assumed shortfall that
could be addressed by the appropriated budget reserve. In addition, Chapter 2 relied on a balance rolling forward from FY 2014
into FY 2015 which in reality fell short because of the actual revenue shortfall in FY 2014. This reforecasting process resulted in
the August 2014 Interim Revenue Forecast. This forecast is based on the updated economic outlook for Virginia as approved by
the Joint Advisory Board of Economists (JABE) and the Governor’s Advisory Council on Revenue Estimates (GACRE). Governor
McAuliffe presented the results of the revised forecast to a joint meeting of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees on August 15. The revised forecast reduces general fund revenues by nearly $2.0 billion over the 2014–16 biennium. For
a more complete presentation, see http://dpb.virginia.gov/forms/20141015-1/Item471_10_2015_SavingsPlan.pdf.
Washington
Fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts, and changes made by the 2014 Legislature.
West Virginia
Fiscal Year 2015 Beginning balance includes $378.2 million in Reappropriations, Unappropriated Surplus Balance of $18.4 million,
and FY 2014 13th month expenditures of $15.8 million. Expenditures include Regular, Surplus and Reappropriated funds and $15.8
million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Revenue adjustments are prior year redeposits and special revenue expirations and usages.
Expenditure adjustment represents the amount transferred to the Rainy Day Fund. The ending balance is mostly the historically
carried forward reappropriation amounts that will remain and be reappropriated to the next fiscal year, the 13th month expenditures
& unappropriated surplus balance.
Wisconsin
Revenue adjustments include Tribal Gaming, $49.0m and Other Revenue, $506.7m. Expenditure adjustments include Transfers,
$169.6m; Lapses, -$454.8m; Biennial Spend Ahead, -$4.4m; and Compensation Reserves of $35.0m. Note: The transfer
amount includes the amount needed to reflect the biennial transfer requirement.
Wyoming
WY budgets on a biennial basis. To arrive at annual figures certain assumptions and estimates were required.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
25
Notes to Table 5
Fiscal 2016 State General Fund, Recommended
For all states, unless otherwise noted, transfers into budget stabilization funds are counted as expenditures, and transfers from budget
stabilization funds are counted as revenues.
Alabama
Expenditure adjustment includes $15M repayment to the Alabama Trust Fund.
Alaska
Revenues: Spring 2015 Revenue Source Book (Total Revenue)
Revenue Adjustments: SLA2015 Fiscal Summary (Revenue Carryforward)
Expenditures: SLA2015 Fiscal Summary (Pre-Transfer Authorization)
Ending Balance: SLA2015 Fiscal Summary (Transfer to SBR)
Rainy Day Balance: OMB Spring Fiscal Model
Arizona
Adjustments include miscellaneous fund transfers to the General Fund
California
Ending balance excludes projected $1,220 million transfer to the Budget Stabilization Account for "rainy day" purposes.
Colorado
Reflects Table 4 of the March 18, 2015 OSPB forecast. Expenditures reflect the Governor's request and not the final expenditures
authorized by the General Assembly. These final expenditures will not be established until approximately June 2015 (when all
legislation is signed).
Connecticut
The reported rainy day fund balance includes the ending balance.
Delaware
Reflects estimates presented in Governor's FY 2016 Recommended Budget
Georgia
Georgia is required by its constitution to maintain a balanced budget. The fund balances for both FY 2015 and FY 2016 reflect
the Governor's balanced budget. Georgia does not project future Rainy Day fund balances, but expects the reserve to continue
to grow in future years.
Idaho
Budget Stabilization Fund – $29,645,000, additional transfer to Budget Stabilization Fund – $4,100,000, Wolf Control Fund –
$400,000, Military Communication Towers – $1,300,800, Permanent Building Fund $6,250,000, Elected Official Rent –
$2,737,500, Opportunity Grant, Commerce – $3,000,000, Industry Sector Grant, Labor – $5,000,000, Economic Recovery Reserve Fund for FY 2017 – 27th payroll cost – $20,000,000. Miscellaneous Adjustments include: Income Tax Relief – Phase 1 of
5 – $17,800,000, Tax Conformity legislation – $7,080,000, and miscellaneous Executive Legislation with a fiscal impact –
$2,029,500.
Illinois
Revenue adjustments include transfers in to the general fund. Expenditure adjustments include transfers out of the general fund
and the change in accounts payable.
Indiana
Revenue adjustments include the proceeds of a cell tower lease. Expenditure adjustments include reversions from distributions,
capital, and reconciliations; transfer to the Major Moves 2020 trust fund; and state agency and university line item capital projects.
The FY16 Rainy Day Fund balance reflects $377.9M in the Counter-Cyclical Revenue and Economic Stabilization Fund, $577.6M
in the Medicaid Contingency and Reserve Account, and $300M in the State Tuition Reserve Fund.
Iowa
Revenue adjustments include an estimated $374.2 million of residual funds transferred to the General Fund after the Reserve
Funds are filled to their statutorily set maximum amounts. The Ending balance of the General Fund is transferred in the current
fiscal year to the Reserve Funds in the subsequent fiscal year. After the Reserve Funds are at their statutorily set maximum
amounts, the remainder of the funds are transferred back to the General Fund in that subsequent fiscal year. Also included in
revenue adjustments is a $17.2 million adjustment for the proposed legislative changes by the Governor. FY2016 Revenues are
based upon the December 2014 Revenue Estimating Conference estimates.
Kansas
Kansas does not have a "Rainy Day" fund. However, the balanced budget provision of the constitution requires revenues to finance the approved budget.
26
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Kentucky
Revenue includes $72.4 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $109.8 million that represents
appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $77.4 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded and to the next fiscal year and budgeted balances to be
expended in the next fiscal year.
Louisiana
Revenues adjustments—Includes $525.9 in Tax Credits
Maine
Revenue and Expenditure adjustments reflect transfers included in the proposed biennial budget.
Maryland
Adjustments to revenues include $17.4 million in tax credit reimbursements, $34 million transfer from the Rainy Day Fund, and
$4 million in other fund transfers.
Michigan
Fiscal 2016 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes (-$921.4 million); revenue sharing payments
to local government units (-$462.7 million); use tax adjustment ($377.7 million); state restricted fund adjustments (-$24.1 million);
deposit to the rainy day fund (-$95.0 million); and matching funds for transportation projects (-$139.5 million). Fiscal 2016 expenditures include $76.7 million in one-time spending financed from one-time resources, excluding deposits to the rainy day
fund, and funds earmarked for transportation.
Minnesota
Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million, a budget reserve of $994.3 million, and stadium reserve of $13.9
million.
Mississippi
The revenues adjustment is comprised of a projected decrease of $78.7 million resulting from the Governor's recommendation
for a Mississippi Working Families Tax Credit, and a projected increase of $60 million derived by additional auditors hired at the
State Department of Revenue.
Missouri
Revenue adjustments include transfers from other funds into the general revenue fund. The above expenditures assume expenditure restrictions.
Montana
Recommendations based on Governor's budget request.
Nebraska
The Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board met in Feb. 2015 (subsequent to the time the Governor's budget recommendations upon which this survey response is based were presented) to reconsider its revenue forecasts for FY2015 and
FY2016. The board reduced the General Fund revenue forecast for FY2015 by $1 million and reduced the General Fund revenue
forecast for FY2016 by $5 million at that time. Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds.
Per Nebraska law, includes an estimated transfer of $61.5 million to the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) of the amount the
prior year's net General Fund receipts are estimated to exceed the official forecast. Among others, also includes a $198 million
transfer (a $60 million increase) from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund. Expenditure adjustment represents
$5 million reserved for potential deficit appropriations.
Nevada
Expenditure adjustments are restricted transfers.
New Hampshire
Revenue Adjustments: The FY 2016 budget proposes increases in Tobacco Taxes to yield $20.6 million, Business Enterprise
Tax-Reasonable Compensation Basis Changes to yield $21.7 million, Offshore Tax Loop Hole Closure to yield $3.5 million and
other revenue initiatives to yield $2.4 million. Expenditure Adjustments: The FY 2016 Recommended Budget anticipates moving
$75.9 million to the Education Trust Fund and $.8 million to the Fish and Game Fund at year end.
New Mexico
FY15 figures include nonrecurring appropriations recommended in the Governor's FY16 budget recommendation. FY16 figures
reflect the Governor's budget recommendation for recurring appropriations.
New York
The ending balance includes nearly $1.8 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $500 million reserved for debt reduction, $62 million
reserved to cover costs of potential retroactive labor settlements with certain unions, $21 million reserved for litigation risks and
$850 million in proceeds from monetary settlements.
North Dakota
Revenue adjustments are a $657.0 million transfer from the property tax relief fund into the general fund.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
27
Oklahoma
No FY–2016 expenditures have been authorized by the Legislature at this time. The estimate assumes that all available revenue
will be appropriated. Adjustments and Rainy Day Fund balance cannot be calculated at this time.
Oregon
Revenue adjustments include: transfer 2013–15 biennium ending GF balance to Rainy Day Fund (up to 1% of total biennial
budget appropriation); cost of Tax Anticipation Notes; and, a statutory transfer to local governments for local property tax relief.
Expenditures represent 48% of the 2015–17 (Biennium) Governor's Budget.
Pennsylvania
Revenue adjustments include refunds, lapses and adjustments to beginning balances; Expenditure adjustments include transfers
to the Budget Stabilization Fund (rainy day).
Rhode Island
Adjustments to revenues reflect a transfer of $108.0 million to the Budget Reserve Fund.
South Carolina
Ending Balance = 5% General Reserve ($327.6) + 2% Capital Reserve ($131.0) + estimated Surplus Contingency Reserve ($5.7)
+ Agency Appropriation Balances Carried Forward to Next FY ($489.9); Revenue Adjustments includes proposed transfer of
sales tax on cars to the Highway Fund; Expenditure Adjustments include FY14–15 Capital Reserve Funds transferred to State
agencies.
South Dakota
The rainy day fund balance of $149.2 million includes $11.5 million that has been loaned to a department for a specific project
that will be repaid to the rainy day fund within four years. Note: All fiscal 2016 figures for South Dakota in this report represent
the Legislative Adopted FY2016 Budget.
Tennessee
Adjustments (Revenues) include: -$36.5 million transfer to Rainy Day Fund. Adjustments (Expenditures) include $54.8 million
transfer to capital outlay projects fund; $14.7 million transfer to state office buildings and support facilities fund; $3.8 million
transfer to debt service fund; and $1.0 million transfer to reserves for dedicated revenue appropriations. The Ending Balance includes $0.2 million undesignated balance.
Texas
Revenue adjustment for transfers to the Economic Stabilization and State Highway Funds (-$2,395m). Texas budgets on a biennial basis. The fiscal 2016 recommended expenditure level represents 50% of the GR spending level proposed by the Governor
for the fiscal 2016-2017 biennium. Texas is projected to have an $11.1 billion balance in its Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF)
at the end of fiscal 2017.
Vermont
Adjustments equal net transfer effect in/out of General Fund.
Virginia
See footnote to Table 4.
Washington
Fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts, and changes assumed in Governor's budget proposal.
West Virginia
Revenues are FY 2016 Official Estimate. Expenditures are the Governor's FY 2016 General Revenue Fund anticipated total appropriations plus estimated 13th month expenditures of FY15 appropriations. Expenditure adjustment represents the amount
estimated to be transferred to the Rainy Day Fund. The ending balance is mostly the historically carried forward reappropriation
amounts that will remain and be reappropriated to the next fiscal year, the 13th month expenditures and unappropriated surplus
balance.
Wisconsin
Revenue adjustments include Tribal Gaming, $23.5m and Other Revenue, $507.3m. Expenditure adjustments include Transfers,
$38.0m; Lapses, -$294.4m; and Compensation Reserves of $10.7m.
Wyoming
WY budgets on a biennial basis. To arrive at annual figures certain assumptions and estimates were required.
28
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Notes to Table 7
States with Net Mid-Year Budget Cuts Made After the Fiscal 2015 Budget Passed
Hawaii
Some of the mid-year budget adjustments were released throughout the fiscal year.
Michigan
Fiscal 2015 budget adjustments reflect changes in general fund spending. In some cases, general fund spending reductions
create corresponding spending increases in other revenue sources.
Pennsylvania
After 2014–15 enactment, during the rebudget (spending plan approval), $71 million in approved vacancy funding was frozen
so that agencies could not spend these funds.
Notes to Table 8
Fiscal 2015 Mid-Year Program Area Cuts
Georgia
Programs were not required to provide budgetary cuts for the mid-year.
Hawaii
Some of the mid-year budget adjustments were released throughout the fiscal year.
Michigan
Fiscal 2015 budget adjustments reflect changes in general fund spending. In some cases, general fund spending reductions
create corresponding spending increases in other revenue sources.
Pennsylvania
The $9.4 million in Human Services personnel vacancy funding is included in operating appropriations and should not be considered as Public Assistance or Medicaid services reductions.
Texas
Mid-year program area reductions reflect a decrease in bond debt service.
Notes to Table 9
Fiscal 2016 Recommended Program Area Cuts
Michigan
Fiscal 2016 general fund budget adjustments replace general fund revenue with restricted School Aid Fund revenue for K-12
Education ($69.0 million) and Community Colleges ($30.0 million).
North Dakota
An additional $675.0 million was provided for transportation expenditures through a separate special fund.
Notes to Table 10
Fiscal 2015 Mid-Year Program Area Adjustments by Value
California
Represents changes made through the 2015–16 Governor's Budget.
Hawaii
Some of the mid-year budget adjustments were released throughout the fiscal year.
New York
Changes to cash projections have been used to illustrate changes in spending levels and changes in projected receipts.
Oregon
Oregon budgets on a biennial basis. Mid-year adjustments represent an approximate single fiscal year change.
Pennsylvania
The $9.4 million in Human Services personnel vacancy funding is included in operating appropriations and should not be considered as Public Assistance or Medicaid services reductions. After 2014–15 enactment, during the rebudget (spending plan
approval), $71 million in approved vacancy funding was frozen so that agencies could not spend these funds.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
29
South Dakota
Mid-year adjustments were made in the public assistance program area, but changes net to zero.
Texas
Mid-year program area reductions reflect a decrease in bond debt service.
Notes to Table 11
Fiscal 2016 Recommended Program Area Adjustments by Value
Maryland
These figures do not reflect actions taken during FY 2015 to further reduce the budget. When accounting for FY 2015 mid-year
reductions and the Governor's budget, FY 2016 grows $381.7 million.
Michigan
Fiscal 2016 general fund budget adjustments replace general fund revenue with restricted School Aid Fund revenue for K-12
Education ($69.0 million) and Community Colleges ($30.0 million).
New York
Changes to cash projections have been used to illustrate changes in spending levels and changes in projected receipts. FY
2016 changes also include a $4.55 billion transfer to a dedicated fund for infrastructure investments. These investments are
funded by proceeds from monetary settlements received in FY 2015.
North Dakota
North Dakota's budget is based on a biennial period. This adjustment amount is half of the recommended biennial increase for
the 2015–17 biennium. An additional $675.0 million was provided for transportation expenditures through a separate special
fund.
Oregon
Oregon budgets on a biennial basis. Adjustments represent an approximate single fiscal year change.
Texas
These are the Office of the Governor’s (OOG) budget recommendations for FY 16–17. Includes a three percent across-theboard reduction to all agencies.
Vermont
Transportation does not receive General Funds—Appropriations are made through the Transportation fund.
Notes to Table 13
Strategies to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2015
California
Other—Zero Based Budget Analysis, Work Study Analysis.
Hawaii
Other—Prior year fund balance
Illinois
Other—Executive Order 15–08; Reserves and grant suspensions for non-essential spending.
Indiana
Other—In FY14, Indiana paid off the debt for Miami Correctional Facility early. As a result, we are able to revert $12.9M that
would have been used towards bond lease payments in FY15. In addition, we have reconciled state matching funds in order to
revert excess funding from prior years.
Maryland
Other—Transfers from Special Funds to the General Fund and a Voluntary Separation Program
Michigan
Other—Lower caseload costs; shift costs to non-general fund revenue sources
Mississippi
Other—State Department of Revenue hiring additional auditors.
New Hampshire
Other—A tax amnesty program was recommended by the Governor as a one-time tax enhancement measure to increase FY
2015 business taxes.
New Jersey
Other—Closing Tax Loopholes
30
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
New York
The Executive Budget for FY 2015 proposed to limit annual growth in State spending consistent with the spending benchmark
adopted in 2012.
Oklahoma
Other—Revolving Fund reconciliations and efficiencies
Tennessee
Other—Agency Reserves, Carryforwards, and Overappropriation Increase
Vermont
Across-the-board cuts: $1.5 million in management savings
West Virginia
Use one time surplus from General Revenue and Lottery Funds from previous fiscal years. Also use one time excess cash in
various Special Revenue accounts.
Notes to Table 14
Strategies to Manage Budget, Fiscal 2016 Recommended
California
Other—Zero Based Budget Analysis, Work Study Analysis.
Connecticut
Other—Combination of exemption delays/eliminations, revenue and fee intercepts.
Hawaii
Other—Prior year fund balance
Maine
Other—Increase in the attrition rate from 1.6% to 3%
Maryland
Other—Voluntary Separation Program
Mississippi
Other—State Department of Revenue hiring additional auditors.
New York
The Executive Budget for FY 2016 proposes limiting annual growth in State spending consistent with the spending benchmark
adopted in 2012.
Oklahoma
Other—Revolving Fund reconciliations and efficiencies
Tennessee
Other—Base Budget Reductions
Vermont
Across-the-board cuts: $10.8M in Labor Savings
West Virginia
Use one time surplus from General Revenue and Lottery Funds from previous fiscal years. Also use one time excess cash in
various Special Revenue accounts.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
31
State Revenue Developments
CHAPTER TWO
Overview
vision by $6.8 billion is largely driven by unanticipated revenue
States forecast that general fund revenue collections will increase again in fiscal 2016, marking a sixth consecutive annual
increase. However, the growth of general fund revenues is projected to decelerate slightly in fiscal 2016 compared to the rate
gains in the state of New York, including a one-time windfall
from financial settlements. Fiscal 2015 general fund revenues
are estimated to end the fiscal year up $27.0 billion or 3.7 percent from the $728.1 billion collected by states in fiscal 2014.
of growth estimated for fiscal 2015. Overall, state tax collection
According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government at SUNY-
growth has fluctuated over the past couple of years, with that
Albany, state tax collections for the first two quarters of fiscal
volatility largely caused by individuals shifting income to the
2015—the last two quarters of calendar year (CY) 2014—grew
2012 calendar year to avoid federal tax changes that were set
by 4.9 percent compared to the same period in fiscal 2014, re-
to take effect in 2013. This one-time shift led to a substantial
bounding after the decline in collections in the second quarter
acceleration of state revenue growth in fiscal 2013, followed by
of CY 2014 due to the impact of the federal fiscal cliff. Prelimi-
a significant slowdown in fiscal 2014. Most states show signs
nary figures for the first quarter of CY 2015 point to further
of returning to more stable, steadier revenue growth, though
growth in overall tax collections, and higher-than-anticipated
certain energy-producing states are seeing some negative im-
personal income tax collections in April are expected due to the
pact on their revenues and economies from the rapid decline
strong stock market performance in 2014. All regions reported
in oil prices. Meanwhile, lower gas prices have yet to produce
growth in overall state tax collections in the fourth quarter of
noticeable increases in consumption and other positive eco-
CY 2014, though the rate of growth varied significantly by re-
nomic benefits across the country, but some analysts say these
gion, with several states recording a quarterly decline.6 In par-
gains are likely to appear soon. Also, early indications point to
ticular, Alaska, heavily reliant on oil and gas severance taxes,
a positive “April surprise” this year in most states after taxpayers
has faced a severe revenue shortfall due to the rapidly declining
filed their income tax returns, in contrast to last year, which will
price of oil, forcing the state to tap its large rainy day fund and
likely help more states, including some oil-rich ones, stabilize
reduce spending as officials work to find a longer-term solution.
their budgets.
In the wake of the last recession, general fund revenues
dropped to $609.9 billion in fiscal 2010 from $680.2 billion in
Revenues
fiscal 2008. After five years of improvement, general fund revAggregate general fund revenues are projected to reach $777.6
billion in fiscal 2016, $22.5 billion or 3.0 percent greater than
the estimated $755.1 billion collected in fiscal 2015. Revenue
collections have been revised slightly upward in fiscal 2015 from
the projections used to enact fiscal 2015 budgets. As previously reported in NASBO’s Fall 2014 Fiscal Survey of States,
general fund revenues were projected to be $748.3 billion in
fiscal 2015 based on states’ enacted budgets. The upward re-
6
enues are estimated to end fiscal 2015 up $145.2 billion, or 24
percent, over collections in fiscal 2010 (without adjusting for inflation). While states have enacted some tax increases since
that time, most of the revenue gains are due to improved collections resulting from the gradual strengthening of the economy. General fund revenue collections increased by 1.6 percent
in fiscal 2014, 7.1 percent in fiscal 2013, 2.9 percent in fiscal
2012, and 6.6 percent in fiscal 2011. (See Table 15)
See Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State Revenue Report: May 2015, No. 99 (May 19, 2015)
32
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Estimated Collections in Fiscal 2015
At the time of data collection, aggregate state revenues from
all sources, including sales, personal income, corporate income
and all other taxes and fees, were coming in close to original
projections used to enact fiscal 2015 budgets. State-by-state,
collections compared to projections were somewhat mixed.
Twenty-four states reported that fiscal 2015 revenue collections
cent of general fund revenue, are projected to be $614.5 billion
in fiscal 2015, or 4.4 percent above 2014 levels. Specifically,
fiscal 2015 sales tax collections are estimated to be 5.2 percent
higher than fiscal 2014 collections, personal income tax collections are projected to be 4.3 percent higher and corporate income tax collections are expected to be 1.7 percent higher.
(See Tables 18 and 19)
were higher than originally forecasted, six states reported that
collections were on target, and 19 states reported collections
Forecasted Collections in Fiscal 2016
coming in below original projections. By comparison, in the
States’ proposed budgets for fiscal 2016 project continued
spring of 2014, 39 states reported that revenue collections
modest growth in sales, personal income and corporate in-
were meeting or exceeding original revenue forecasts and 11
come taxes. Combined collections from these three sources of
states reported that fiscal 2014 collections were below original
revenue are forecasted to be $638.5 billion in fiscal 2016, a 3.9
forecasts, though this had been before negative “April sur-
percent increase compared to estimated fiscal 2015 and an 8.5
prises” in many states in fiscal 2014 due to the impact of the
percent increase from fiscal 2014. (See Tables 18 and 19)
federal fiscal cliff. Unlike last year, strong income tax collections
Specifically, fiscal 2016 sales tax collections are forecasted to
this April may help more states meet or exceed their original
be 4.6 percent higher than fiscal 2015 collections, personal in-
fiscal 2015 forecasts; however, that data is not captured in this
come tax collections are projected to be 3.6 percent higher and
report. (See Tables 16 and 17)
corporate income tax collections are expected to increase by
Revenue collections of sales, personal income, and corporate
2.7 percent. (See Table 19)
income tax collections, which make up approximately 80 per-
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
33
TABLE 15
State Nominal and Real Annual Revenue Increases,
Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016
State General Fund
Fiscal Year
Nominal Increase
Real Increase
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
3.0%
3.7
1.6
7.1
2.9
6.6
-2.5
-8.0
3.9
5.4
9.1
2.7%
0.3
5.5
0.4
3.4
-3.3
-10.5
-1.4
0.4
3.6
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1979–2015 average
7.8
5.4
8.0
-6.8
4.5
2.0
19.2
-0.6
5.0
5.9
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.6
4.7
3.4
10.1
6.5
8.2
6.3
8.8
12.5
3.7
12.6
7.9
9.8
7.8
5.6%
1.8
1.7
5.0
-9.1
0.1
-2.7
16.3
-2.6
2.7
3.6
2.3
3.3
2.4
3.3
0.2
-1.5
6.1
2.4
4.5
2.8
4.5
8.4
-1.9
5.3
-3.2
-0.6
0.9
1.5%
NOTES: The state and local government implicit price deflator cited by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis National Income and Product Account Tables, Table 3.9.4, Line 33 in April 2015 is used
for state expenditures in determining real changes. Fiscal Year real changes are based on quarterly averages. Fiscal 2014 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2013 actuals to fiscal
2014 actuals. Fiscal 2015 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2014 actuals to fiscal
2015 estimated. Fiscal 2016 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2015 estimated figures
to fiscal 2016 recommended.
34
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Table 16
Number of States With Revenues Higher, Lower
and On Target with Projections*
Original
Fiscal 2015
Most Recent
Fiscal 2015
Lower
19
7
On Target
Higher
6
24
23
19
NOTES: *Original Fiscal 2015 reflects whether revenues from all sources thus far have come
in higher, lower, or on target with orignal projections. Most Recent Fiscal 2015 reflects
whether revenues from all sources thus far have been coming in higher, lower, or on target
with a state's most recent projection. The date of a state's most recent projection varies by
state, ranging from October 2014 to May 2015.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
35
TABLE 17
Fiscal 2015 Tax Collections Compared With Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2015 Budgets (Millions)**
Sales Tax
Original
Estimate
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska*
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total****
$2,120
N/A
4,291
2,208
23,823
2,413
4,167
N/A
20,464
5,259
3,057
1,233
7,847
7,442
2,770
2,527
3,150
2,696
1,238
4,351
5,789
7,549
5,113
2,045
2,034
70
1,536
1,023
N/A
9,332
2,665
12,113
6,244
1,324
9,909
2,034
N/A
9,477
940
2,590
851
7,515
28,219
1,709
367
3,176
8,405
1,315
4,607
521
$239,527
Current
Estimate
$2,125
N/A
4,125
2,195
23,438
2,609
4,226
N/A
21,012
5,340
2,984
1,204
7,950
7,257
2,757
2,545
3,150
2,701
1,244
4,335
5,829
7,609
5,162
2,073
1,992
65
1,580
1,033
N/A
9,084
2,682
12,240
6,390
1,286
10,021
2,069
N/A
9,574
955
2,630
836
7,612
28,957
1,725
366
3,218
8,798
1,294
4,880
561
$241,718
Personal Income Tax
Original
Current
Estimate
Estimate
$3,294
N/A
3,868
3,173
70,238
6,113
9,265
1,226
N/A
9,537
1,912
1,403
14,845
5,419
4,272
2,519
3,977
2,932
1,456
8,469
14,021
8,506
9,138
1,736
5,991
1,105
2,208
N/A
N/A
12,627
1,280
43,735
10,885
415
8,228
2,186
7,068
12,033
1,157
3,013
N/A
264
N/A
2,913
739
12,359
N/A
1,905
7,651
N/A
$325,080
$3,332
N/A
3,566
3,160
71,699
6,267
9,265
1,220
N/A
9,364
1,887
1,413
14,845
5,121
4,202
2,280
3,977
2,869
1,462
8,168
14,028
8,396
10,046
1,749
5,730
1,108
2,165
N/A
N/A
13,007
1,315
43,813
10,470
416
8,309
2,271
7,286
11,951
1,168
3,019
N/A
251
N/A
2,986
702
11,816
N/A
1,883
7,350
N/A
$325,333
Corporate Income Tax
Original
Current
Estimate
Estimate
$387
591
574
450
8,910
775
704
212
2,255
847
69
207
3,071
869
564
425
463
351
178
781
1,993
468
958
666
442
155
263
N/A
356
2,820
289
5,438
1,095
193
773
375
524
2,501
119
304
N/A
2,059
N/A
320
93
817
N/A
206
994
N/A
$46,902
$465
320
540
439
9,618
723
734
223
2,185
955
76
200
2,664
978
571
455
463
350
190
768
2,020
244
1,317
691
372
158
325
N/A
356
2,761
230
5,576
1,204
223
818
259
566
2,711
113
265
N/A
1,859
N/A
360
103
841
N/A
186
935
N/A
$47,409
Revenue
Collection***
H
L
L
H
H
H
L
L
T
H
T
L
L
L
L
L
T
L
H
L
T
L
H
H
L
T
H
L
L
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
T
H
H
L
H
H
H
N/A
H
H
L
L
H
—
NOTES: N/A indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. *See Notes to Table 17 on page 43. **Unless otherwise noted, original estimates reflect the
figures used when the fiscal 2015 budget was adopted, and current estimates reflect preliminary actual tax collections. ***Refers to whether fiscal 2015 revenues from all sources (includes sales, personal income, corporate income, excise, and motor vehicle and all other taxes and fees) are coming in higher than, lower than, or on target with original estimates. Key: L=Revenues lower than estimates.
H=Revenues higher than estimates. T=Revenues on target. ****Totals include only those states with data for both original and current estimates for fiscal 2015.
36
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 18
Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015, and Recommended Fiscal 2016**
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total***
Fiscal 2014
$2,178
N/A
3,986
2,173
22,263
2,416
4,101
N/A
19,708
5,126
2,825
1,146
7,676
6,926
2,642
2,446
3,131
2,620
1,156
4,143
5,496
7,355
5,043
1,955
1,925
68
1,525
968
N/A
8,849
2,514
11,786
5,567
1,213
9,166
1,953
N/A
9,130
916
2,517
823
7,286
27,400
1,657
354
3,067
8,237
1,222
4,628
521
$229,801
Sales Tax
Fiscal 2015
$2,125
N/A
4,125
2,195
23,438
2,609
4,226
N/A
21,012
5,340
2,984
1,204
7,950
7,257
2,757
2,545
3,150
2,701
1,244
4,335
5,829
7,609
5,162
2,073
1,992
65
1,580
1,033
N/A
9,084
2,682
12,240
6,390
1,286
10,021
2,069
N/A
9,574
955
2,630
836
7,612
28,957
1,725
366
3,218
8,798
1,294
4,880
561
$241,718
Fiscal 2016
$2,380
N/A
4,344
2,294
25,166
2,722
4,321
N/A
22,088
5,594
3,198
1,270
8,204
7,551
2,877
2,650
3,217
2,770
1,179
4,530
6,010
7,894
5,320
2,135
2,032
66
1,640
1,090
N/A
9,401
2,809
12,770
6,716
1,379
11,585
2,126
N/A
9,711
1,003
2,730
869
7,878
29,680
1,790
378
3,323
9,219
1,315
5,030
546
$252,800
Personal Income Tax
Fiscal 2014
Fiscal 2015
Fiscal 2016
$3,202
N/A
3,462
3,111
66,560
5,696
8,719
1,188
N/A
8,966
1,745
1,329
16,642
4,899
3,975
2,218
3,749
2,751
1,406
7,774
13,202
8,014
9,660
1,667
5,404
1,063
2,061
N/A
N/A
12,312
1,255
42,961
10,272
514
8,065
2,085
6,628
11,437
1,116
2,921
N/A
239
N/A
2,890
671
11,253
N/A
1,781
7,061
N/A
$311,924
$3,332
N/A
3,566
3,160
71,699
6,267
9,265
1,220
N/A
9,364
1,887
1,413
14,845
5,121
4,202
2,280
3,977
2,869
1,462
8,168
14,028
8,396
10,046
1,749
5,730
1,108
2,165
N/A
N/A
13,007
1,315
43,813
10,470
416
8,309
2,271
7,286
11,951
1,168
3,019
N/A
251
N/A
2,986
702
11,816
N/A
1,883
7,350
N/A
$325,333
$3,431
N/A
3,741
3,227
75,213
6,611
9,761
1,275
N/A
9,839
1,951
1,489
13,180
5,173
4,437
2,300
4,136
2,988
1,541
8,629
14,728
8,720
10,731
1,814
6,023
1,213
2,268
N/A
N/A
13,652
1,360
46,768
10,859
420
6,503
2,065
7,635
12,829
1,211
3,165
N/A
269
N/A
3,110
740
12,220
N/A
1,956
7,845
N/A
$337,025
Corporate Income Tax
Fiscal 2014
Fiscal 2015 Fiscal 2016
$378
421
575
440
8,858
721
782
102
2,043
944
87
188
3,164
1,054
550
399
475
330
183
761
2,049
138
1,278
677
396
148
307
N/A
345
2,299
197
6,046
1,357
239
794
307
495
2,502
114
288
N/A
1,859
N/A
314
95
758
N/A
204
967
N/A
$46,624
$465
320
540
439
9,618
723
734
223
2,185
955
76
200
2,664
978
571
455
463
350
190
768
2,020
244
1,317
691
372
158
325
N/A
356
2,761
230
5,576
1,204
223
818
259
566
2,711
113
265
N/A
1,859
N/A
360
103
841
N/A
186
935
N/A
$47,409
$413
274
465
446
10,173
785
901
164
2,235
996
90
212
2,338
1,009
610
470
434
350
188
822
2,165
159
1,299
693
340
149
320
N/A
382
2,821
225
5,894
1,135
212
1,475
250
543
2,488
120
307
N/A
1,909
N/A
370
82
821
N/A
178
970
N/A
$48,678
NOTES: N/A indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. *See Notes to Table 18 on page 43. **Unless otherwise noted, fiscal 2014 figures reflect
actual tax collections, 2015 figures reflect estimated tax collections estimates, and fiscal 2016 figures reflect the estimates used in recommended budgets. ***Totals include only those states with
data for all years.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
37
TABLE 19
Percentage Change Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015, and Recommended Fiscal 2016**
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total***
Fiscal 2014
Sales Tax
Fiscal 2015
Fiscal 2016
7.7%
N/A
3.7
2.3
8.7
9.2
5.2
N/A
7.0
-2.9
-4.1
3.2
4.4
1.9
3.7
-3.1
3.6
1.5
11.5
1.8
6.4
2.8
5.9
2.3
2.8
9.7
3.4
4.8
N/A
4.7
4.9
4.9
5.1
4.0
8.5
2.8
N/A
2.7
4.2
2.8
6.1
3.9
6.0
-18.7
2.0
-4.8
7.2
-2.7
4.9
8.3
4.6%
-2.4%
N/A
3.5
1.0
5.3
8.0
3.1
N/A
6.6
4.2
5.6
5.1
3.6
4.8
4.4
4.0
0.6
3.1
7.6
4.6
6.1
3.5
2.4
6.0
3.5
-4.4
3.6
6.7
N/A
2.7
6.7
3.9
14.8
6.1
9.3
5.9
N/A
4.9
4.3
4.5
1.6
4.5
5.7
4.1
3.5
4.9
6.8
5.9
5.4
7.7
5.2%
12.0%
N/A
5.3
4.5
7.4
4.4
2.3
N/A
5.1
4.7
7.2
5.5
3.2
4.1
4.3
4.1
2.1
2.6
-5.3
4.5
3.1
3.7
3.1
3.0
2.0
1.4
3.8
5.6
N/A
3.5
4.7
4.3
5.1
7.2
15.6
2.7
N/A
1.4
5.1
3.8
3.9
3.5
2.5
3.8
3.3
3.3
4.8
1.6
3.1
-2.7
4.6%
Personal Income Tax
Fiscal 2014
Fiscal 2015
Fiscal 2016
3.2%
N/A
1.9
-1.1
3.2
1.8
0.0
4.2
N/A
2.2
0.6
3.5
0.6
-1.6
-2.7
-24.3
0.7
-0.1
-7.6
1.1
2.9
-3.1
7.2
1.0
-1.5
1.5
-2.0
N/A
N/A
1.7
1.1
6.8
-6.2
-16.5
-15.2
1.4
5.8
0.6
2.7
2.7
N/A
2.5
N/A
1.3
1.6
-0.8
N/A
-0.8
-5.8
N/A
1.1%
4.1%
N/A
3.0
1.6
7.7
10.0
6.3
2.8
N/A
4.4
8.1
6.3
-10.8
4.5
5.7
2.8
6.1
4.3
4.0
5.1
6.3
4.8
4.0
4.9
6.0
4.2
5.1
N/A
N/A
5.6
4.8
2.0
1.9
-19.2
3.0
8.9
9.9
4.5
4.7
3.3
N/A
5.0
N/A
3.3
4.6
5.0
N/A
5.7
4.1
N/A
4.3%
3.0%
N/A
4.9
2.1
4.9
5.5
5.4
4.5
N/A
5.1
3.4
5.3
-11.2
1.0
5.6
0.9
4.0
4.1
5.4
5.6
5.0
3.9
6.8
3.7
5.1
9.4
4.8
N/A
N/A
5.0
3.4
6.7
3.7
1.1
-21.7
-9.1
4.8
7.4
3.7
4.8
N/A
7.1
N/A
4.1
5.5
3.4
N/A
3.9
6.7
N/A
3.6%
Corporate Income Tax
Fiscal 2014
Fiscal 2015 Fiscal 2016
8.2%
-23.1
-13.1
2.1
13.8
13.3
5.3
-45.7
-1.9
18.4
-13.9
-5.2
-0.4
8.9
-1.0
7.5
18.5
-2.0
6.3
-6.9
12.5
-79.2
-0.2
29.2
-4.7
-16.8
11.2
N/A
-0.2
-9.3
-26.3
-3.3
13.8
28.0
0.5
-32.1
9.3
3.2
-13.4
-17.9
N/A
-8.0
N/A
-7.3
-0.2
-4.9
N/A
-16.1
4.5
N/A
0.8%
23.0%
-23.9
-6.1
-0.4
8.6
0.3
-6.1
118.6
7.0
1.1
-12.3
6.3
-15.8
-7.3
3.8
14.0
-2.5
6.2
4.0
0.8
-1.4
77.3
3.0
2.1
-6.2
6.8
6.0
N/A
3.4
20.1
16.9
-7.8
-11.3
-6.9
3.0
-15.4
14.4
8.4
-1.2
-8.1
N/A
0.0
N/A
15.0
8.2
11.0
N/A
-8.5
-3.3
N/A
1.7%
-11.1%
-14.3
-13.9
1.7
5.8
8.6
22.6
-26.5
2.3
4.3
17.4
6.2
-12.2
3.2
6.9
3.3
-6.3
0.0
-1.1
7.1
7.2
-34.7
-1.4
0.2
-8.6
-5.8
-1.5
N/A
7.1
2.2
-2.2
5.7
-5.8
-4.8
80.2
-3.7
-4.2
-8.2
5.9
15.9
N/A
2.7
N/A
2.7
-19.7
-2.4
N/A
-4.7
3.7
N/A
2.7%
NOTES: N/A indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. *See Notes to Table 18 on page 43. **Unless otherwise noted, fiscal 2014 figures reflect
actual tax collections, 2015 figures reflect estimated tax collections estimates, and fiscal 2016 figures reflect the estimates used in recommended budgets. ***Totals include only those states with
data for all years.
38
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Recommended Fiscal 2016 Revenue Changes
State governors recommended a mix of tax increases and
decreases in their fiscal 2016 budgets. Governors in 16
states have proposed net tax and fee increases, while governors in 12 states proposed net decreases, resulting in a net
increase of $3.0 billion. States with the largest proposed tax
Sales Taxes—Ten states recommended sales tax increases
and two proposed decreases in their fiscal 2016 budgets. The
result is a net revenue increase of $3.2 billion. Much of this
change is due to a proposed increase in the sales tax rate in
Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Personal Income Taxes—Six states proposed a personal in-
decreases (in absolute dollar amounts) include Florida, Ohio,
come tax increase, while 12 states recommended decreases,
and Texas. States with governors proposing the largest tax
resulting in a net decrease of $549 million. Ohio continued to
increases include Alabama, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.
phase in various tax decreases, while Pennsylvania proposed
For the most part, increases were proposed for general sales
an increase in the personal income tax rate.
taxes and cigarette taxes—10 states recommended a sales
tax increase and nine states recommended increased taxes
Corporate Income Taxes—Six states recommended corpo-
on cigarettes and tobacco products. Meanwhile, a dozen
rate income tax increases, while seven proposed decreases in
states proposed decreases for personal income taxes. (See
their fiscal 2016 budgets for a net increase of $39 million. An
Tables 20 and 21, Figure 3 and Appendix A-3)
increase to corporate taxes in Connecticut accounted for the
majority of the net increase.
In addition to these tax and fee changes, states also proposed $1.7 billion in new revenue measures. These measures
Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes—Nine states proposed tax in-
enhance general fund revenue but do not affect taxpayer lia-
creases on cigarettes and tobacco products, resulting in a total
bility and may rely on enforcement of existing laws, additional
increase of $1.3 billion. Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania ac-
audits and compliance efforts, and increasing fines for late
counted for most of the increase.
filings. (See Appendix A-4)
Motor Fuel Taxes—Three states reported a proposed increase
As reported in NASBO’s Fall 2014 Fiscal Survey, in fiscal 2015,
to the motor fuel tax for a net gain of $59 million. As noted
states enacted $2.3 billion in net tax and fee decreases, with
above, not all recommended changes to the motor fuel tax are
the majority share of decreases occurring in Florida, Minnesota,
captured here, as some states only reported on proposed tax
New York, and Texas. In fiscal 2015, 10 states enacted a net
changes that impact the general fund. South Dakota accounted
increase, and 21 states enacted net decreases in revenues.
for most of the reported increase, recommending a tax increase
States also enacted $669 million in new revenue measures in
on motor fuel and ethyl alcohol, with revenues dedicated to the
fiscal 2015.
State Highway Fund.
In their fiscal 2016 budget proposals, governors recommended
Other Taxes—Ten states recommended other tax increases,
net increases in sales taxes ($3.2 billion), cigarette and tobacco
while five states proposed decreases in their fiscal 2016 budg-
taxes ($1.3 billion), motor fuel taxes ($59 million), corporate in-
ets for a net decrease of $1.2 billion. The net decrease was pri-
come taxes ($39 million), and fees ($316 million). Governors
marily driven by proposed business and property tax relief in
proposed net decreases in other taxes (-$1.2 billion), personal
Texas.
income taxes (-$549 million), and alcohol taxes (-$113 million).
It should be noted here that since many states limited reporting
on tax changes to those impacting the general fund only, not
all proposed changes to dedicated revenue sources, including
state motor fuel taxes, are reflected here.
Fees—Nine states proposed a fee increase in their fiscal 2016
budget, and two states proposed a decrease for a net increase
of $316 million. A recommended fee increase on health insurance claims assessment in Michigan and a proposal to restructure the Business License Fee in Nevada accounted for the
majority of the net increase.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
39
TABLE 20
Enacted State Revenue Changes, Fiscal 1980 to
Fiscal 2015 and Recommended State Revenue
Actions, Fiscal 2016
Fiscal Year
Revenue Change
(Billions)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
$3.0
-2.3
-2.1
6.9
-0.7
6.2
23.9
1.5
4.5
-2.1
2.5
3.5
9.6
8.3
0.3
-5.8
-5.2
-7.0
-4.6
-4.1
-3.8
-2.6
3.0
3.0
15.0
10.3
4.9
0.8
6.0
0.6
-1.1
0.9
10.1
3.5
3.8
0.4
-2.0
SOURCES: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Significant Features of Fiscal
Federalism,1985–86 edition, page 77, based on data from the Tax Foundation and the National
Conference of State Legislatures. Fiscal 1988–2016 data provided by the National Association
of State Budget Officers.
40
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Figure 3:
Enacted State Revenue Changes, Fiscal 1980 to Fiscal 2015 and Recommended State
Revenue Actions, Fiscal 2016
$25
$20
$ In Billions
$15
$10
$5
$0
-$5
-$10
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Fiscal
1994Year1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
41
TABLE 21
Recommended Fiscal 2016 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease* (Millions)
State
Sales
Personal
Income
Alabama
$231.0
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
70.4
Delaware
Florida
-67.6
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
226.5
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
4.0
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
9.0
North Carolina
-4.2
North Dakota
Ohio
1,136.6
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
1,554.3
Rhode Island
2.9
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
2.7
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
10.7
Wyoming
Total
$3,176.3
Corporate
Income
Cigarettes/
Tobacco
$20.0
$205.0
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
Alcohol
Other
Taxes
Fees
$73.0
18.0
-12.8
TBD
23.7
273.2
197.5
-7.5
-412.0
-17.8
-7.1
-4.9
-0.1
73.0
81.0
-176.4
-2.5
-150.0
-1.0
-90.1
-78.7
8.0
1.0
-0.7
-57.5
-2,399.1
-0.5
-20.0
2,302.2
-5.9
-249.3
0.4
27.0
30.0
-141.9
-4.8
-7.4
1.7
39.6
20.6
0.1
8.7
200.4
2.5
23.9
187.5
16.4
-0.5
528.1
1.5
442.5
6.5
41.3
15.5
31.8
15.3
1.0
366.2
504.9
12.5
-1.0
27.2
17.3
-2,108.1
-134.0
41.4
5.8
20.9
21.9
2.3
-$549.2
$39.3
NOTES: *See Appendix Table A-3 for details on specific revenue changes.
42
Motor
Fuels
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
3.6
$1,346.9
$58.7
-$113.4
-$1,247.5
$315.5
Total
$529.0
18.0
0.0
-12.8
0.0
0.0
580.1
0.0
-487.1
0.0
0.0
-24.9
0.0
-5.0
0.0
211.0
0.0
0.0
44.4
-151.8
-150.0
200.4
-65.2
-78.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
251.0
37.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
-5.9
-77.5
-366.7
0.0
0.0
4,554.6
15.4
0.0
85.8
0.0
-2,242.1
0.0
62.7
55.4
21.9
0.0
16.6
0.0
$3,026.6
Chapter 2 Notes
Note to Table 17
Fiscal 2015 Tax Collections Compared With Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2015 Budgets
Nebraska
The Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board met in Feb. 2015 (subsequent to the time the Governor's budget recommendations upon which this survey response is based were presented) to reconsider its revenue forecasts for FY2015 and
FY2016. The board reduced the General Fund revenue forecast for FY2015 by $1 million and reduced the General Fund revenue
forecast for FY2016 by $5 million at that time.
Notes to Table 18
Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015, and Recommended Fiscal 2016
Colorado
Sales tax figure excludes revenue from special 10% sales tax on marijuana.
Tennessee
Sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax are shared with local governments. Corporate income tax includes
franchise tax.
Texas
Texas does not have a corporate income tax, but it does have a franchise tax, a privilege tax imposed on each taxable entity
chartered/organized in Texas or doing business in Texas. Franchise tax collections totaled $4,700 million in fiscal 2014, are estimated to total $2,874 million in fiscal 2015, and are projected to total $2,800 million in fiscal 2016.
Note to Table 19
Percentage Changes Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2016
Colorado
Sales tax figure excludes revenue from special 10% sales tax on marijuana.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
43
Total Balances
CHAPTER THREE
Overview
In fiscal 2014, 18 states had total balance levels of 10 percent
Maintaining adequate balance levels helps states to mitigate
disruptions to state services during an economic downturn.
Total balances include both ending balances and the amounts
in states’ budget stabilization funds (rainy day funds and reserves) and reflect the funds that states may use to respond to
unforeseen circumstances. Additionally, rainy day funds are
needed to ensure that budgets can be balanced when revenues do not meet expectations in the latter part of the fiscal
year when budget cuts and revenue increases do not have
enough time to take effect. In the wake of the financial crises,
there have been calls by some organizations and academics
to increase the standard size of budget reserves. State officials
or more as a percentage of general fund expenditures, while
15 states had balance levels below 5 percent. (See Tables 23
and Figures 6, 7, and 8) Total balance levels are estimated to
have declined significantly in fiscal 2015 at $60.3 billion, or 8.0
percent of general fund expenditures. However, this decline is
largely driven by the state of Alaska, whose total balance levels
have dropped from $13.9 billion (190 percent of expenditures)
in fiscal 2014 to $5.0 billion (82 percent of expenditures) in fiscal 2015, as the state has tapped its reserves to respond to
the budgetary effects of the rapid decline in oil prices. States
project balances to decrease further in fiscal 2016 to $55.2 billion or 7.1 percent of general fund expenditures. (See Table 24)
often try to avoid drawing down balance levels at the beginning
Total balance levels at $55.2 billion or 7.1 percent of general
of a downturn, and may also be prohibited from draining all
fund expenditures in fiscal 2016 appear to reflect that budget
rainy day funds immediately. In total, 48 states have budget sta-
reserves are fairly sufficient across states, but this total can be
bilization funds, which may be budget reserve funds, revenue-
misleading. In fiscal 2016, the balance level for Texas is pro-
shortfall accounts, or cash flow accounts. About three-fifths of
jected to be $19.0 billion, accounting for 34.3 percent of total
the states have maximum limits on the size of their budget re-
projected state balances in fiscal 2016. The concentration of
serve funds.7
total budget reserves being disproportionately held by one state
means that the average balance level as a percent of expendi-
Total Balances
tures is much lower for the other 49 states. If you remove Texas
Budget reserves reached a low in fiscal 2010 due to the severe
from total balance levels, the remaining 49 states have average
decline in revenues and rise in expenditure demands tied to the
balance levels representing 5.0 percent for fiscal 2016.
recession. Since that time, states have made progress rebuilding budget reserves. In fiscal 2014, total balances amounted
to $71.2 billion, or 9.9 percent of general fund expenditures.
This marks a slight decline compared to fiscal 2013, when
strong budget surpluses due to increased revenue collections
helped to bolster states’ balance levels, reaching $72.2 billion
(10.4 percent), an all-time high for states in terms of actual dollars, though not as a percent of expenditures. However, it is im-
While a majority of states project total balance levels of 5.0 percent or more in fiscal 2016, four states estimate balance levels
below one percent of expenditures and 15 states estimate balance levels greater than one percent but less than five percent
at the end of fiscal 2016. States with low balance levels may
be impeded in their ability to respond to unforeseen events that
occur during the fiscal year, including budget gaps due to unanticipated expenses or revenue shortfalls.
portant to note that balance levels vary considerably by state.
7
For more details on states’ budget stabilization or rainy day funds, see NASBO’s Budget Processes in the States report (Spring 2015), Table 14.
44
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Rainy Day Funds
Total balances include both ending balances and rainy day fund
balances. State balances in rainy day funds—budget stabilization funds set aside to respond to unforeseen circumstances—
tend to be more stable than total balance levels, as ending
balances fluctuate due to a variety of factors. Excluding Alaska,
whose rainy day fund balance declined significantly in fiscal
2015, as well as two other states for which complete data are
not available, states’ rainy day fund balances totaled $30.2 billion in fiscal 2014, are estimated to total $30.7 billion in fiscal
2015, and are projected to increase to $35.2 billion in fiscal
2016. Including Alaska, rainy day fund balances totaled $45.8
billion in fiscal 2014, $39.6 billion in fiscal 2015 (estimated), and
$40.8 billion in fiscal 2016 (recommended). (See Table 25)
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
45
TABLE 22
Total Year-End Balances, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016
Fiscal Year
2016*
2015*
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
Average
Total Balance
(Billions)
Total Balance
(Percentage of
Expenditures)
$55.2
60.3
71.2
72.2
55.8
45.7
32.5
36.2
59.1
65.9
69.0
46.6
26.7
16.4
18.3
44.1
48.8
39.3
35.4
30.7
25.1
20.6
16.9
13.0
5.3
3.1
9.4
12.5
9.8
6.7
7.2
9.7
6.4
7.1%
8.0
9.9
10.4
8.4
7.1
5.2
5.7
8.6
10.1
11.5
8.4
5.1
3.2
3.7
9.1
10.4
8.4
9.2
7.9
6.8
5.8
5.1
4.2
1.8
1.1
3.4
4.8
4.2
3.1
3.5
5.2
3.8
2.3
4.5
6.5
11.8
11.2
—
1.5
2.9
4.4
9.0
8.7
6.2%
NOTES: *Figures for fiscal 2015 are estimated; figures for fiscal 2016 are based on recommended budgets. Figures for fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016 exclude Oklahoma due to complete
balance data being unavailable for these years.
46
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 23
Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of
Expenditures, Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016
Number of States
Percentage
Fiscal 2014
(Actual)
Fiscal 2015
(Estimated)
Fiscal 2016
(Recommended)
Less than 1.0%
3
3
4
1.0% to 4.9%
12
14
15
5.0% to 9.9%
17
16
17
10% or more
18
16
13
NOTE: The average for fiscal 2014 (actual) was 9.9 percent; the average for fiscal 2015 (estimated) is 8.0 percent; and the average for fiscal 2016 (recommended) is 7.1 percent.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
47
Figure 4:
Total Year-End Balances Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016
$70
$60
$ In Billions
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
Figure 5:
Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2016
12.0
Total Balance (Percent of Expenditures)
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
48
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Changing Balance Levels Fiscal 2014, Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2016
Figure 6:
Total State Balance Levels Fiscal 2014
Less than 1 percent (3)
Greater than 1 percent but less than 5 percent (12)
Greater than 5 percent but less than 10 percent (17)
Greater than 10 percent (18)
Figure 7:
Total State Balance Levels Fiscal 2015
Less than 1 percent (3)
Greater than 1 percent but less than 5 percent (14)
Greater than 5 percent but less than 10 percent (16)
Greater than 10 percent (16)
Data are not available (1)
Figure 8:
Total State Balance Levels Fiscal 2016
Less than 1 percent (4)
Greater than 1 percent but less than 5 percent (15)
Greater than 5 percent but less than 10 percent (17)
Greater than 10 percent (13)
Data are not available (1)
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
49
Table 24
Total Balances and Total Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016
Fiscal
2014
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California**
Colorado**
Connecticut***
Delaware**
Florida
Georgia***
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts**
Michigan
Minnesota**
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire**
New Jersey
New Mexico**
New York**
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma***
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina**
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total****
$329
13,883
1,034
0
5,100
651
519
414
3,506
1,071
748
206
350
2,005
1,356
380
158
623
81
911
1,451
693
1,886
151
466
425
1,393
212
31
300
637
2,235
654
1,670
3,178
535
400
81
307
1,163
149
840
13,671
544
71
1,166
788
1,368
517
926
$70,697
Total Balance ($ in Millions)
Fiscal
2015
$485
4,961
330
0
1,423
556
519
535
2,960
1,071
676
224
350
1,959
1,107
72
159
470
74
822
1,195
498
1,852
398
380
343
984
155
25
388
489
7,768
699
1,264
1,836
N/A
651
13
183
988
149
641
15,839
717
76
590
1,271
1,237
0
961
$60,343
Fiscal
2016
$427
2,269
465
0
1,505
611
522
513
2,861
1,071
542
198
350
1,986
971
88
63
514
114
862
1,180
640
1,626
412
375
285
973
205
17
349
503
3,229
703
1,049
1,667
N/A
837
134
181
954
149
528
18,983
455
82
720
756
1,187
92
963
$55,167
Total Balances as a Percent of Expenditures
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
2014
2015
2016
4.4%
189.6
11.8
0.0
5.1
7.4
3.1
10.9
13.0
5.6
11.9
7.4
1.1
13.8
21.0
6.3
1.6
7.3
2.5
5.9
4.2
7.4
9.7
2.8
5.6
19.4
36.7
6.4
2.5
1.0
10.6
3.6
3.1
51.6
10.5
8.2
5.2
0.3
9.2
18.4
10.3
6.9
29.2
10.1
5.1
6.6
4.9
32.5
3.5
51.8
9.9%
6.3%
81.8
3.6
0.0
1.3
5.7
3.0
14.0
10.4
5.3
10.4
7.6
1.1
13.1
15.8
1.1
1.6
5.5
2.3
5.1
3.2
5.2
9.3
7.2
4.4
15.4
23.8
4.5
1.9
1.2
7.7
12.3
3.2
38.7
5.8
N/A
7.9
0.0
5.2
15.1
10.7
5.1
32.7
12.4
5.4
3.3
7.6
28.8
0.0
54.2
8.0%
5.2%
40.5
5.1
0.0
1.3
6.0
2.9
12.9
10.0
5.2
8.0
6.4
1.3
13.1
13.2
1.4
0.6
5.7
3.5
5.3
3.1
6.9
7.8
7.3
4.3
12.1
22.9
5.7
1.2
1.0
8.0
4.6
3.2
29.0
4.7
N/A
9.8
0.4
5.2
14.1
10.4
4.1
38.2
7.3
5.6
3.9
4.1
27.2
0.6
54.3
7.1%
NOTES: N/A indicates data not available. Fiscal 2014 are actual figures, fiscal 2015 are estimated figures, and fiscal 2016 are recommended figures. *Total balances include both the ending balance and Rainy Day Funds. **In these states, Ending Balance includes Rainy Day Fund. *** See Notes to Table 24 on page 52. **** Totals only include states with data for all three years.
50
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 25
Rainy Day Fund Balances and Rainy Day Fund Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia*
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas*
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total**
Rainy Day Fund Balances ($ in Millions)
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
2014
2015
2016
$276
15,597
455
0
4,130
436
519
202
925
863
83
161
276
969
650
0
77
445
68
764
1,248
386
661
110
277
0
719
28
9
0
638
1,481
652
584
1,478
535
153
0
177
408
139
456
6,703
432
71
688
415
956
0
926
$45,826
$414
8,875
329
0
2,059
556
519
213
1,139
N/A
91
161
276
1,255
696
0
77
470
72
786
1,128
498
994
395
270
0
685
0
12
0
490
1,796
698
687
1,478
N/A
391
4
180
447
149
492
7,500
432
76
468
510
866
0
960
$39,593
$406
5,622
329
0
3,361
611
522
214
1,354
N/A
103
195
276
1,256
721
0
63
514
72
814
1,135
611
994
412
275
0
746
0
12
0
503
1,796
698
687
1,478
N/A
637
37
180
459
149
528
9,770
433
82
712
231
856
0
961
$40,818
Rainy Day Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
2014
2015
2016
3.7%
213.0
5.2
0.0
4.1
5.0
3.1
5.3
3.4
4.5
1.3
5.8
0.9
6.7
10.1
0.0
0.8
5.2
2.1
4.9
3.6
4.1
3.4
2.1
3.3
0.0
19.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
10.6
2.4
3.1
18.0
4.9
8.2
2.0
0.0
5.3
6.4
9.7
3.8
14.3
8.0
5.1
3.9
2.6
22.7
0.0
51.8
6.6%
5.3%
146.4
3.5
0.0
1.8
5.7
3.0
5.6
4.0
N/A
1.4
5.5
0.9
8.4
10.0
0.0
0.8
5.5
2.3
4.9
3.1
5.2
5.0
7.2
3.2
0.0
16.6
0.0
0.9
0.0
7.8
2.8
3.2
21.0
4.6
N/A
4.7
0.0
5.1
6.8
10.7
3.9
15.5
7.5
5.4
2.6
3.1
20.2
0.0
54.1
5.4%
4.9%
100.3
3.6
0.0
3.0
6.0
2.9
5.4
4.7
N/A
1.5
6.3
1.0
8.3
9.8
0.0
0.6
5.7
2.2
5.0
3.0
6.5
4.8
7.3
3.1
0.0
17.5
0.0
0.9
0.0
8.0
2.5
3.1
19.0
4.2
N/A
7.5
0.1
5.2
6.8
10.4
4.1
19.7
6.9
5.6
3.9
1.2
19.6
0.0
54.2
5.4%
NOTES: NA indicates data not available. Fiscal 2014 are actual figures, fiscal 2015 are estimated figures, and fiscal 2016 are recommended figures. *See Notes to Table 25 on page 52. ** Totals only
include states that provided data for all three years.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
51
Chapter 3 Notes
Notes to Table 24
Total Balances and Total Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016
Connecticut
For each of the fiscal years, the reported rainy day fund balance includes the ending balance.
Georgia
For Fiscal 2014, Ending Balance includes Rainy Day Fund Balance. Georgia does not project future Rainy Day fund balances, but expects the reserve to continue to grow in future years.
Oklahoma
FY 2015 and FY 2016 Rainy Day Fund balances cannot be estimated at this time.
Notes to Table 25
Rainy Day Fund Balances and Rainy Day Fund Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2014 to Fiscal 2016
Georgia
Georgia does not project future Rainy Day fund balances, but expects the reserve to continue to grow in future years.
Kansas
Kansas does not have a "Rainy Day" fund. However, the balanced budget provision of the constitution requires revenues
to finance the approved budget.
Oklahoma
FY 2015 and FY 2016 Rainy Day Fund balances cannot be estimated at this time.
52
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Medicaid Outlook
CHAPTER Four
Medicaid Outlook: Medicaid Spending,
Enrollment, Medicaid Actions and Trends,
and the Affordable Care Act
Medicaid, a means-tested entitlement program financed by the
states and the federal government, provides comprehensive
and long-term medical care for over 70 million low-income in-
percent. The sizeable increase in Medicaid spending in fiscal
2015 is largely attributable to the fact that fiscal 2015 is the first
full fiscal year reflecting the Medicaid expansion under the ACA
for almost all of the expansion states. Fiscal 2014 reflects a partial year impact of the optional Medicaid expansion under the
ACA for those states that began expansion on January 1, 2014.
dividuals. Medicaid is estimated to account for about 25.8 per-
Governors’ recommended budgets for fiscal 2016 assume an
cent of total state spending from all fund sources in fiscal 2014,
increase in Medicaid spending of 5.2 percent in total funds with
the single largest portion of total state expenditures, and 19.1
state funds increasing by 3.1 percent and federal funds increas-
percent of general fund spending (the second largest portion
ing by 6.9 percent. (See Table 26) The growth rates reflect both
of general fund expenditures), according to NASBO’s 2014
the impact of the ACA Medicaid expansion that began on Jan-
State Expenditure Report. The following sections look at Med-
uary 1, 2014 for states that have chosen to expand in addition
icaid spending and enrollment, budget actions and trends, and
to ongoing program spending.
changes attributable to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The rate of growth in federal funds exceeds state funds since
Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2012
costs for those newly eligible for coverage in states implement-
upheld the constitutionality of the ACA and affected states by
ing the Medicaid expansion are fully federally funded in calendar
making the expansion of Medicaid effectively a state option.
years 2014, 2015, and 2016, with federal financing phasing
The Supreme Court ruled that the Medicaid expansion is con-
down to 90 percent by 2020 and beyond. Increased participa-
stitutional though the federal government could not withhold
tion among those currently eligible is funded at the states’ reg-
existing Medicaid funding for states that opted not to participate
ular Medicaid matching rate.
in the expansion. Beginning January 1, 2014, state Medicaid
programs had the option to expand to cover non-pregnant,
non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the
Medicaid Enrollment
federal poverty level. The cost for those newly eligible for cov-
Medicaid enrollment increased by 9.5 percent during fiscal
erage are fully federally funded in calendar years 2014, 2015,
2014 and is estimated to increase by 13.7 percent in fiscal
and 2016 with federal financing phasing down to 90 percent
2015. In governors’ recommended budgets for fiscal 2016,
by 2020 and beyond. As of May 2015, 28 states and the Dis-
Medicaid enrollment would rise by an additional 4.6 percent.
trict of Columbia have expanded Medicaid and a number of
(See Table 27) This reflects both the impact from the ACA in-
other states are debating the issue.8
cluding increased enrollment in states that have implemented
the Medicaid expansion that began in January 1, 2014, as well
Medicaid Growth Rates
as increased participation among those currently eligible in both
states that did and did not implement the expansion. Medicaid
Total Medicaid spending increased by 8.6 percent in fiscal 2014
enrollment is estimated to grow by about 30 percent over the
with state funds growing by 5.9 percent and federal funds
fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2016 period. The groups with the
growing by 11.9 percent. For fiscal 2015, total Medicaid spend-
highest enrollment figures include adults from the expansion of
ing is estimated to grow by 18.2 percent with state funds in-
Medicaid under the ACA, children and families.
creasing by 5.2 percent and federal funds increasing by 24.2
8
In addition to the 28 states that have expanded Medicaid, Montana has passed legislation adopting the expansion, which is currently pending federal approval.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
53
Among states expanding Medicaid, enrollment in Medicaid and
Impact on State-Funded Programs from Medicaid Ex-
the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) grew 20.3 per-
pansion. States that have chosen to expand Medicaid under
cent since the July-September 2013 baseline period, according
the ACA were asked about early indicators of the impact on
to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Feb-
other state funded programs. Of the states that expanded,
ruary 2015 enrollment report. States not expanding Medicaid
about one third to one half of the states noted that they are
reported an 8 percent increase over the same period. The im-
seeing savings for behavioral health programs, corrections pro-
plementation of the ACA greatly increased the individuals
grams, and in uncompensated care expenses. Other states
served in the Medicaid program. According to the Congres-
have not seen savings at this point in time or the figures are un-
sional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, 80 percent of the people
certain. Some states also mentioned savings from previous
who meet the new eligibility criteria will live in states that have
waiver programs and from health screenings that are now being
extended Medicaid coverage.
covered by the Medicaid expansion, from reduced expenditures from state funded general assistance programs, and ad-
Medicaid Actions
ditional revenues such as from premium taxes.
Trends in state actions in Medicaid varied with 24 states in-
Medicaid Spending Trends and Budget Pressures. States
creasing payments to providers in fiscal 2015. More states in-
were asked to identify issues and trends that are affecting their
creased provider reimbursement rates than restricted rates in
Medicaid spending. The most frequent responses were around
fiscal 2015. Similarly for governors’ proposed budgets in fiscal
concerns about the spike in pharmaceutical costs from spe-
2016, 26 states propose increasing rates while 12 states would
cialty drugs such as new medications to treat hepatitis C as
restrict rates. (See Tables 28 and 29) This is a reflection of an
well as overall pharmacy increases including from generics.
improved economy as well as policies to increase reimburse-
Other significant issues include overall enrollment trends from
ment rates for certain providers and continues the trend from
both expansion under the ACA as well as new enrollees that
prior years.
had previously been eligible. Several states noted that enroll-
Other significant actions states took in fiscal 2015 include expanding or restoring benefits in 14 states, expanding managed
care in 15 states, and enhancing program integrity in 10 states.
In governors’ proposed budgets for fiscal 2016, similar trends
occur with 18 states planning to enhance program integrity efforts, 17 states proposing to expand or restore benefits, 16
ment increases were also occurring as a result of the change
to a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) basis for eligibility
determinations which was a change required under the ACA.
For states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, several
noted funding the state match in 2017 and thereafter as a significant fiscal concern.
states planning to expand managed care, and 12 states purs-
For several states, a reduction in the Federal Medical Assis-
ing policies to reduce costs for prescription drugs.
tance Percentage (FMAP), and federal rules, policy changes
Provider Tax Increases for Medicaid. Some states have increased or plan to increase resources for Medicaid through
provider taxes or fees as shown in Table 30. For fiscal 2015,
six states have raised or plan to raise provider taxes or fees
while 11 states have plans to raise provider taxes or fees in
and mandated coverage for services were among the most significant issues identified. In the area of long-term care, significant issues include potential policies to require overtime pay for
home health workers and the impact of regulations on home
and community based services.
governors’ proposed budgets for fiscal 2016. Restrictions to
States are also closely watching the outcome of the U.S.
provider taxes and fees have surfaced in federal deficit re-
Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell and the impact
duction proposals and in the President's proposed budgets
on those using the federal marketplace rather than a state-
over the years. (See Table 30)
based health insurance exchange. The recent enactment of
54
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
the two-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance
jected to increase at about 6 percent annually from 2016 to
Program (CHIP) with the increased match rate alleviated con-
2025, the same rate of growth that such spending averaged
cerns from many states about the immediate direction of the
over the past 10 years. By 2025, about 77 million people will
program.
be enrolled in Medicaid on an average monthly basis according to CBO.9 Federal outlays for Medicaid in 2025 are pro-
Long-Term Health Care Spending. Medicaid spending,
similar to health care spending, has historically increased
faster than the economy as a whole. Based on CBO estimates, the growth in federal spending for Medicaid is pro-
9
jected to total $576 billion, or about 2.1 percent of the gross
domestic product (GDP), reflecting an increase from the estimated $343 billion in federal Medicaid spending that represents 1.9 percent of GDP in 2015.
See Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid—Baseline Projections (March 9, 2015).
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
55
TABLE 26
Annual Percentage Change in Medicaid Spending
State
State
Funds
Alabama
Alaska*
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware*
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska*
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Average**
4.8%
-7.3
0.3
1.1
19.6
7.5
-1.8
3.7
-0.2
4.1
3.1
-12.5
-1.4
-17.2
5.3
6.9
10.8
23.5
2.0
0.6
7.8
4.7
9.0
6.2
3.3
5.0
6.7
-0.6
7.1
5.5
1.5
3.2
-1.1
13.2
5.9
6.7
4.9
5.5
6.6
13.3
6.1
11.0
5.4
4.6
-3.0
3.8
-10.9
3.8
6.6
-1.4
5.9%
Fiscal 2014 (Actual)
Federal
Funds
4.1%
-9.4
10.0
12.3
19.6
25.1
20.7
10.4
10.5
3.9
16.1
0.1
8.7
-1.4
13.1
11.1
27.6
-1.1
16.0
23.0
13.5
12.9
21.3
3.4
3.1
8.0
1.0
30.6
8.7
34.5
19.8
3.5
9.2
16.0
13.5
5.6
33.6
5.2
17.6
11.0
-0.4
-4.1
6.2
10.4
2.7
5.0
43.2
8.0
8.2
3.9
11.9%
Fiscal 2015 (Estimated)
Federal
Total
Funds
Funds
Total
Funds
State
Funds
4.3%
-8.5
6.9
9.1
14.4
16.3
9.4
7.4
7.2
4.0
11.6
-3.6
3.8
-6.8
10.0
9.3
22.6
6.3
11.0
12.2
13.4
9.2
15.2
4.1
3.2
7.1
3.2
18.5
7.9
20.6
14.2
2.8
5.2
14.7
10.8
6.0
23.1
5.3
12.5
10.5
2.1
-0.1
5.9
8.4
0.3
4.4
18.2
6.8
7.6
1.4
8.6%
4.3%
41.7
13.9
2.1
1.7
7.5
-2.9
3.6
6.2
5.3
7.0
5.2
-1.7
12.4
8.9
10.3
5.2
8.8
-2.0
1.5
12.2
12.2
4.3
8.6
4.2
10.7
16.1
11.6
9.5
8.9
1.2
3.2
3.4
9.5
4.7
1.8
-10.3
4.7
7.3
6.5
11.4
8.3
7.0
4.4
3.9
8.3
-0.7
7.0
9.6
3.5
5.2%
7.7%
27.5
35.6
29.2
68.5
38.0
15.7
17.7
1.7
-3.0
6.0
7.0
21.3
23.1
19.5
8.1
47.0
7.5
-2.0
17.4
20.7
22.8
23.3
7.6
14.8
10.0
18.0
71.7
17.6
49.9
54.9
12.6
3.1
58.2
26.5
-0.5
29.0
18.2
33.7
13.6
14.6
13.7
3.6
3.3
16.1
1.3
40.1
31.7
3.1
1.3
24.2%
NOTES: NA indicates data not available *See Notes to Table 26 on page 61. **Average percent changes are weighted averages.
56
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
6.6%
33.4
29.2
21.9
51.4
23.9
7.4
11.7
8.3
-0.2
6.4
6.5
10.5
19.9
18.0
9.1
35.7
7.9
-2.0
10.6
16.3
18.8
14.4
7.9
9.8
10.2
17.3
52.0
13.5
32.7
38.5
7.5
3.2
36.3
19.0
0.4
16.8
11.9
22.0
13.5
13.3
10.4
5.0
3.7
11.0
4.7
26.0
25.0
5.5
2.3
18.2%
Fiscal 2016 (Recommended)
State
Federal
Total
Funds
Funds
Funds
5.4%
-14.6
0.5
7.6
4.1
8.1
0.2
1.1
3.6
0.1
-3.4
3.7
-8.9
0.3
2.3
10.1
1.0
-0.8
5.0
0.9
3.6
-7.3
12.5
10.3
3.2
7.8
5.3
-7.0
7.9
3.0
1.3
2.1
2.3
1.0
12.6
4.1
4.7
4.6
-5.1
10.5
6.1
0.6
2.9
4.2
8.6
5.3
4.6
-0.8
8.0
4.9
3.1%
4.2%
15.4
7.8
2.0
8.2
10.5
-2.1
8.5
-7.0
5.3
28.0
1.3
-2.4
15.9
2.7
7.5
5.1
1.2
4.0
6.2
9.4
5.0
17.9
15.0
1.4
5.4
3.3
-4.2
5.2
13.0
10.8
9.9
5.2
10.8
9.3
-0.3
7.5
20.8
-1.9
90.0
-1.0
-3.8
-2.0
3.6
3.1
4.0
-5.0
0.1
4.2
2.5
6.9%
4.5%
1.9
5.9
3.3
11.3
9.5
-1.2
5.6
-6.9
3.4
13.6
2.0
-5.1
11.4
2.6
8.6
4.2
0.5
4.0
4.1
6.5
3.9
15.3
13.8
2.2
6.2
2.0
-4.9
6.5
9.6
8.7
5.8
4.1
7.3
10.3
1.5
6.8
13.9
-3.1
1.5
1.8
-0.8
0.0
3.8
5.2
4.7
-2.4
-0.1
5.6
3.7
5.2%
TABLE 27
Percentage Change in Medicaid Enrollment
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia*
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Average**
FY 2014
Actual
FY 2015
Estimated
6.8%
4.0
18.7
25.0
19.8
26.1
7.5
2.3
4.3
1.5
8.1
5.6
10.7
3.1
12.0
4.1
37.0
2.6
-6.0
24.5
7.0
6.1
13.4
7.1
-4.2
8.0
-2.1
25.1
0.4
4.4
24.0
8.6
4.6
11.1
5.4
-0.7
26.6
1.6
11.1
6.9
0.0
5.0
2.4
3.6
2.8
1.3
15.8
34.3
-0.4
-2.0
9.5%
5.0%
0.2
10.0
35.0
25.9
34.9
15.3
2.4
7.7
11.4
5.0
8.7
6.9
7.0
17.0
3.3
15.0
3.0
-6.5
-0.5
14.5
9.1
25.7
9.6
-0.1
6.6
5.3
48.4
24.8
24.8
11.9
9.1
10.1
14.5
19.0
1.1
27.2
18.9
20.6
14.7
1.0
4.8
9.1
6.7
3.6
4.0
22.0
5.1
1.7
6.0
13.7%
FY 2016
Recommended
5.0%
15.1
3.1
35.0
2.1
11.1
4.2
3.5
3.9
1.3
3.0
2.2
1.5
25.3
4.0
1.3
3.0
1.3
N/A
4.5
8.9
3.1
3.6
6.0
3.0
6.6
2.1
1.3
0.0
5.8
4.3
2.2
6.7
4.4
3.0
2.4
-5.9
16.6
2.4
8.7
0.8
1.1
1.7
0.3
0.5
4.8
2.7
3.0
0.3
6.0
4.6%
NOTES: N/A indicates data not available *See Notes to Table 27 on page 61. ** Average percent
changes are weighted averages.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
57
TABLE 28
Fiscal 2015 Budget Actions in Medicaid
Restrict
provider
payments
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana*
Iowa*
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota*
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming*
Total
Increase
provider
payments
Restrict
benefits
Policies to
cut costs for
prescription drugs
Expand
managed
care
Enhanced
program integrity
efforts
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
24
NOTES: *See Notes to Table 28 on page 61.
58
Expand
or restore
benefits
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
X
X
X
X
2
14
6
15
10
X
8
TABLE 29
Recommended Fiscal 2016 Budget Actions in Medicaid
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida*
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa*
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana*
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Minnesota*
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon*
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington*
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming*
Total
Restrict
provider
payments
Increase
provider
payments
Restrict
benefits
Expand
or restore
benefits
Policies to
cut costs for
prescription drugs
Expand
managed
care
Enhanced
program integrity
efforts
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
X
X
X
X
26
7
X
X
17
12
X
X
11
18
NOTES: *See Notes to Table 29 on page 62.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
59
TABLE 30
Provider Tax Increases for Medicaid Program,
Fiscal 2015 and Recommended Fiscal 2016
State
Fiscal 2015
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
NOTES: *See Notes to Table 30 on page 62.
60
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Fiscal 2016
(Recommended)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
11
Chapter 4 Notes
Notes to Table 26
Annual Percentage Change in Medicaid Spending
Alaska
Due to a one-time accounting item, a large portion of state general fund expenditures were moved from prior year (FY2014) to
current year (FY2015). This does not reflect a change in Medicaid spending for the fiscal year, rather, this is a technical audit adjustment regarding the issuance of advanced payments to providers following the rollout of a new information system.
Delaware
The FY 2016 recommended appropriation for Medicaid is $2.7 million less than the FY 2015 appropriation. Funds are being
carried over from FY 2015 to supplement the FY 2016 appropriation.
Nebraska
The FY2015 estimated annual percentage change is based on appropriated funds for the Medicaid program and does not represent an estimate of expenditures as no such estimate has been established. It is assumed that the appropriation will not be
fully expended during the fiscal year.
Notes to Table 27
Percentage Change in Medicaid Enrollment
Georgia
FY 2015 Estimated: Georgia Medicaid saw a dramatic increase in enrollment in FY 2015 as a result of the Woodwork Effect of
the PPACA. Individuals who were previously eligible for Medicaid enrolled because of the Federally Facilitated Marketplace and
other outreach efforts associated with the PPACA. We expect that we will not see a similarly large increase in enrollment in FY
2016 because most individuals who were eligible for Medicaid would have already enrolled at this point.
West Virginia
FY15 estimated based on monthly reports analyzing month to month increases; SFY16 assumed that increases would begin to
flatten.
Notes to Table 28
Fiscal 2015 Budget Actions in Medicaid
Indiana
Other—HIP 2.0 expansion
Iowa
Other—Expand access to Medicaid, service delivery reform
Maryland
Other—behavioral health services
Minnesota
Other—Performance Housing
Oregon
Other—ACA expansion
Pennsylvania
Other—Delayed MA MCO payments but kept prudent pay requirements
Tennessee
Other—Implementing policies and pricing strategies to reduce unnecessary and excessive costs
Wyoming
Other—DD Waiver waitlist reduction, Indian Health Service uncompensated care waiver
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
61
Notes to Table 29
Recommended Fiscal 2016 Budget Actions in Medicaid
California
Other—Establish an open enrollment period for managed care and allow allied dental professionals to enroll as billing providers.
Florida
Other—Hospital Outpatient and Nursing Home Prospective Payment System
Illinois
Given Illinois's budgetary challenges, the FY16 introduced budget assumes the elimination of many provider payment increases
and benefit restorations assumed in the FY15 enacted budget.
Indiana
Applied Behavior Analysis therapy is being added as a benefit due to the federal mandate.
Iowa
Other—Expand access to Medicaid, service delivery reform
Louisiana
Other—Ending 1115 Waiver for adults in Greater New Orleans Area as grant funding used for Medicaid match is ending.
Michigan
Other—Michigan is rebidding its Managed Care Program.
Minnesota
Other—Performance Housing
Oregon
Other—ACA expansion
Tennessee
Other—Implementing policies and pricing strategies to reduce unnecessary and excessive costs
Washington
Other—Home and community waiver– DSHS
Wyoming
Increase nursing facility payment rates to begin July 1, 2015. Expand chiropractic benefit due to Wyoming Legislation to begin
July 1, 2015. Extra fill of eye drops (spare) due to Wyoming Legislation to begin July 1, 2015. Care management entity for emotionally disturbed children.
Other—DD Waiver waitlist reduction, Indian Health Service uncompensated care waiver.
Note to Table 30
Provider Tax Increases for Medicaid Program, Fiscal 2015 and Recommended Fiscal 2016
West Virginia
62
Increase in acute care hospital tax (SFY14 was .0045, increased to .0062 for SFY15; SB398 increased to .0072 for SFY16).
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Other State Budgeting Changes
CHAPTER Five
Recommended Changes in State Aid to Local
Governments, Fiscal 2016
Twenty-four states reported that recommended budgets contain changes in state aid to local governments and/or other
changes that will affect local government operations in fiscal
2016. Governors in a number of states recommended increased funding for local governments in their fiscal 2016 budgets through changes in revenue sharing formulas and by
providing additional aid to school districts and community colleges. Some states also increased aid for infrastructure projects, property tax relief, and to compensate for new mandates.
Meanwhile, other states are proposing to reduce state aid by
scaling back revenue sharing payments. One state also proposed changes to public employee pension and benefit systems that would have an impact on local governments.
10
Local governments continue to face fiscal challenges. Revenues for local governments have not recovered to the same
extent as state revenues, in part because property tax collections have taken longer to rebound from the impact of the Great
Recession and the housing market collapse. Despite the recent
rise in property valuations and widespread improvement in the
housing market, property tax collections have yet to catch up
with market advancements due to the lag time in assessments
and payments, though they are finally starting to grow again.
According to the National League of Cities, property tax collections are projected to increase by 1.6 percent in 2014, the first
gain since 2009.10 For many local governments, finances are
no longer deteriorating but progress is slow and expenditure
pressures in areas such as employee health and retirement
benefits continue to strain budgets. (See Table 31)
See National League of Cities, City Fiscal Conditions in 2014 (2014).
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
63
Table 31
Recommended Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2016
Alaska
Community Revenue Sharing Program was eliminated in the FY2016 Governor's budget request—a decrease
of $52 million from the prior year. Direct Appropriations to retirement accounts in FY2016 for municipalities
and school districts (PRS and TRS) is estimated to be $169.1 million, a decrease of 1.7 billion over FY2015
levels. The decrease, in large part, is a result of a one-time transfer to fund an unfunded pension liability appropriated for FY2015. Community Jails Program has been reduced by 7 million. $54 million in aid to school
districts has also been removed from the budget.
Arizona
Department of Revenue local cost sharing provisions (-$20.8M) and DJC local cost sharing (-$12.0M). These
would be ongoing changes beginning in FY2016.
California
The proposed budget includes $992 million to local school and community college districts to fully pay down
deferrals in the 2014–15 fiscal year. This represents 100 percent of the total outstanding deferral balance in
the 2014–15 enacted budget. In addition, the proposed budget includes $1.5 billion in payments of mandate
obligations to local school and community college districts. This represents 28 percent of the total outstanding
mandate obligation balance in the 2014–15 enacted budget.
The suspended/deferred mandate payments in FY 2015–16 result in approximately $708 million in post–2004
mandates reimbursement payments deferred to future years.
The FY 2015–16 budget proposes $533 million in reimbursement payments in the current year for pre–2004
mandates, based on trigger mechanism estimates in Control Section 6.20 of the 2014–15 Budget Act.
The FY 2015–16 budget includes $9.8 million in payments towards newly determined mandates.
Colorado
In FY 2016, the Department of Local Affairs estimates that its aid to local governments will increase by approximately $18.5 million over the previous year. This increased aid includes: distributions up to $939,053 to
local governments for the Firefighter Heart and Cardiac Malfunction Benefit Fund Program for reimbursement
for the cost of providing the benefit to qualified firefighters; $3,115,546 in distributions in each of the next
three fiscal years to offset the impacts to local governments from the Department of Interior's legal settlement
surrounding the cancellation of Roan Plateau Federal Mineral Leases in 2008 and subsequent refund of
"bonus" payments received by Colorado; $100,000 in distributions for a one-time planning grant to El Paso
County for possible redevelopment of a State of Colorado community corrections complex; an increase of
$11,600,000 in CDBG-DR distributions to disaster impacted local governments for household assistance,
home access, infrastructure replacement and repair, and other planning grants; increases in Federal
CSBG/CDBG allocations to local governments of $2,200,000; and, increases in Rural Economic Development
Initiative grants of $500,000. These amounts constitute an 8% increase in aid to local governments for
FY2016.
Connecticut
In general, the aggregate level of municipal aid was maintained. For FY 2015 $4,930.3 million was provided,
compared with the FY 2016 recommendation of $4,950.2 million, which is an increase of $19.89 million or
0.40%. In general, maintained Aid to municipalities includes both appropriations and bonding.
Illinois
There will be a savings of $4.7M in spending for FY2016 with the elimination of the operating subsidy to the
Pace Suburban Bus Service and an additional $1M from a reduction in community development programs.
There will be a savings of $749.7M in transfers out of General Funds for FY2016 as a result of the following:
Changing the Local Government Distribution Fund state share of personal income tax from 8% to 4% and
corporate income tax from 9.14% to 4.57%; Changing the Public Transportation Fund rate of match from
30% to 20% for RTA Sales Tax and Chicago Real Estate Transfer Tax; Changing Downstate Public Transportation Fund rate of sales tax transfer from 3/32 to 2/32 of the 80% of sales tax derived in the district.
Table 31 continues on next page.
64
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Table 31
(Continued)
Recommended Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2016
Iowa
During the 2013 legislative session, a new Business Property Tax Credit was created to take effect in FY2015.
The credit is funded through a General Fund appropriation. The appropriation is for $100 million for FY2016.
The credit will be used to reduce the final property tax bill for all commercial, industrial, and railroad property.
Also passed during the 2013 legislative session was a rollback to 90% of commercial property valuations for
FY2016. The property tax revenue loss is reimbursed to local governments through a standing unlimited general fund appropriation which is estimated to be $162.0 million for FY2015.
Kansas
Eliminate $54.0 million transfer to reduce local property taxes.
Maine
Adjusts revenue sharing for fiscal year 2015–16 to set a fixed amount of total revenue sharing transfers flat to
approximately the current projected level of fiscal year 2014–15 at $62.5M (reduction of $95.7M) and repeals
revenue sharing on 07/30/16 (reduction of $155M).
1) Repeals the excise tax on telecommunications equipment and repeals the telecommunications equipment
exemption from local property taxation. 2) Removes the full exemption from property taxation on properties
owned by certain nonprofit organizations with an assessed value in excess of $500,000 and reduces the exemption to 50% on the portion of the value in excess of $500,000. 3) Amends the Maine Resident Homestead
Property Tax Exemption to restrict the exemption to residents who are 65 or older and to increase the exemption from $10,000 to $20,000 for property tax years beginning on or after April 1, 2015. 4) Authorizes the
State Tax Assessor to reduce a municipality's Tree Growth reimbursement for one year under certain conditions. 5) Eliminates General Assistance to non-citizens who are not qualified to receive such assistance pursuant to federal law. 6) Changes the reimbursement methodology for General Assistance. 7) Eliminates the
district court in the municipality of Madawaska. 8) Transitions from BETR to BETE.
Maryland
Overall local aid totals $7.036 billion, an increase of $24.1 million or 0.3%. This includes the following contingent reductions to provisions mandated in law: (1) $75.9 million or 1.2% in FY 2016 education reductions delaying a phase-in in wealth calculation changes and freezing the per pupil amount (note the proposal limits
growth through FY 2020), (2) $2.3 million or 4.3% in library aid reductions phasing a legislatively mandated
increase in over ten years instead of four years, (3) $13 million or 5.6% in community college reductions, (4)
$3.7 million or 5.2% in police aid reductions, level funding that amount from FY 2015, (5) $9.7 million or 18.9%
in health aid reductions, level funding that amount from FY 2015, (6) $2.1 million or 1.6% in disparity grant reductions, level funding that amount from FY 2015, (7) $15.3 million or 48.9% in program open space reductions, and (8) $3.9 million or 10% in video lottery terminal impact aid reductions. The budget also contains
mandate relief for future years, limiting percent funding increases for mandates to projected general fund
growth less 1%.
Several of the tax bills included in the budget plan have a local impact. If enacted, the total local loss of
revenue is estimated to be $11.1 million and growing to $13.4 million in FY 2020.
Massachusetts
Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) to local governments increased by $34 M to $979.8 M, a 3.6%
increase that kept the Governor's pledge to increase local aid by at least 3/4 the rate of consensus revenue
growth (4.8%). Chapter 70 aid to local school districts increases $105.3 M (2.4%) to $4,506 M, its highest
total ever.
Michigan
Effective for fiscal 2016, beginning October 1, 2015, constitutionally-required revenue sharing payments to
cities, villages, and townships are increased by $23.8 million, a 3.1% increase, based on estimated sales tax
collections. Revenue sharing payments to counties are increased $3.5 million, a 1.7% increase, to cover the
costs of two counties eligible for state payments and full year costs for eleven counties receiving partial year
payments in fiscal 2015.
Table 31 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
65
Table 31
(Continued)
Recommended Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2016
Nebraska
TEEOSA (formula) State Aid to Schools: $25.04 million, 2.74% increase for FY 2016. Special Education Aid:
$5.34 million, 2.5% increase for FY 2016. Community College Aid: $2.85 million, 3.0% increase for FY 2016.
Natural Resources Development Fund Aid to Natural Resources Districts: -$10.5 million, 76.97% reduction
for FY 2016; removes one-time increase.
The Governor recommended a $60 million increase (43% increase), to $200 million annually, in the amount
the State dedicates to property tax relief through the Property Tax Credit Program.
New Jersey
An increase in Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Act (CMPTRA) funding by $18.3 million (3.2%) to
$594.1 million. This program provides general State Aid to municipalities. The increase reflects a reallocation
of funds from the main discretionary aid program, Transitional Aid to Localities. A decrease in Transitional Aid
to Localities program funding by $14.1 million (11.6%) to $107.4 million. This discretionary aid program provides assistance to municipalities facing fiscal distress. Reduction in Meadowlands Adjustment Payments Aid
of $7.3 million (100%). This program provided support to municipalities that are required to contribute funds
to an intermunicipal tax-sharing account. The program is not funded in FY16. A decrease in funding for Consolidation Implementation by $4.5 million (52.9%) to $4 million. This program supports non-recurring costs
associated with local unit consolidations and adoption of shared services agreements. The new funding level
reflects anticipated programmatic need. Changes in other local aid programs include an increase in Support
of Patients in County Psychiatric Hospitals by $7.9 million (7.5%) to $113.7 million, a decrease in Transportation Trust Fund Local Project Aid by $2.4 million (.9%) to $273.6 million, a decrease in County College Aid by
$1.3 million (.6%) to $221.4 million, and a decrease in Employee Benefits on behalf of Local Governments by
$3.3 million (2.6%) to $126.1 million.
In his Budget Address, the Governor recommended several reforms to the State's public employee pension
and benefit systems, which would affect local governments' financial operations.
New York
The 2015–16 Executive Budget will have an estimated $1.1 billion positive impact on municipalities for local
fiscal years ending in 2016—the first full-annual local fiscal year affected by the Executive Budget. Major Executive Budget program changes and one-year impacts for local fiscal years ending in 2016 are as follows:
•
Increased school aid funding for the 2015–16 school year ($1.1 billion)
•
Additional revenue from various sales and personal income tax initiatives ($54.4 million)
•
A cap on youth facility chargeback costs ($37.8 million)
•
Increased transit assistance for New York City and downstate counties ($15.6 million)
•
Adjustment to the reimbursement percentage for Emergency Assistance to Families in New York City
(-$15.0 million)
•
Modification to the foster care human services COLA funding (-$12.9 million)
The 2015–16 Executive Budget will have an estimated $1.1 billion positive impact on municipalities for local
fiscal years ending in 2016—the first full-annual local fiscal year affected by the Executive Budget.
The Executive Budget will provide a statewide school aid increase of up to $1.1 billion for the 2015–16 school
year. In addition to their portion of the school aid increase, school districts outside of New York City are expected to benefit by an estimated $0.4 million due to miscellaneous sales tax proposals.
Table 31 continues on next page.
66
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Table 31
(Continued)
Recommended Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2016
New York (cont.)
In addition to its portion of the statewide $1.1 billion school aid increase, New York City will realize a net
positive $8.1 million impact in City Fiscal Year 2016 as the result of Executive Budget actions. This is primarily
due to a benefit of $22.6 million from various sales and income tax proposals and an additional benefit of
$6.9 million from increased transit aid. These positive impacts will be partially offset by a $15.0 million impact
from adjusting New York City's reimbursement for Federal Emergency Assistance to Families and a $5.8
million impact from modifying the funding for the Foster Care Human Services COLA.
County governments will experience a $65.5 million net increase in financial support from Executive Budget
actions in 2016, primarily due to a $37.8 million positive impact from a cap on youth facility operating cost
chargebacks, an estimated $26.7 million increase from various sales tax proposals, and $8.7 million in increased assistance for Downstate county transit systems. These impacts will be partially offset by a $7.1 million impact from adjustments to the funding of the Foster Care Human Services COLA and a reduction in Aid
to Municipalities with Video Lottery Gaming Facilities totaling nearly $600,000.
Other cities, towns, and villages will experience an overall $4.6 million net positive impact in local fiscal years
ending in 2016, primarily due to an estimated $4.7 million increase from various sales tax proposals and a
$3.0 million increase for the City of Buffalo from the creation of a Traffic Violations Bureau. These impacts will
be partially offset by the discontinuation of several legislative additions.
The Executive Budget included several additional proposals affecting local governments and school districts,
including:
North Dakota
•
A real property tax credit for homeowners and renters with property tax burdens exceeding six percent
of their income in municipalities that stay within the property tax cap;
•
Up to $150 million from recent financial settlements with the State for investments in municipal restructuring;
•
An audit of NYSHIP dependent eligibility that could save local governments more than $10 million; and
•
$5 million in grants to counties, cities, towns, or villages to install, repair, or upgrade water fluoridation
systems.
The state school aid program was increased by $68.7 million, or 4.3%, for the biennium to provide for increasing K-12 education costs. State aid distribution fund allocations to cities and counties, which are based
on a percentage of sales, use and motor vehicle excise tax collections, are estimated to increase by $62.0
million, or 24%, for the biennium.
The Governor recommended that, beginning in January 2016, the state cover the counties' share of child
welfare, SPED and emergency human services costs, at a cost of $23 million. This will result in a mill levy reduction for local taxpayers.
Ohio
The proposed phase-out resumption of the Tangible Personal Property (TPP) tax replacement payments and
the Public Utility Tangible Property (PUTP) tax replacement payments would reduce the amount of funding
directed to local governments in FY2016 from $131.3 million to $65.9 million; the proposed policy reduces
funding for school districts in FY2016 from $509.5 million to $360.0 million.
The proposed increase of a half percent in the state sales and use tax rate will have a local sales tax impact,
currently estimated at $257.4 million in FY 2016 and $334.2 million in FY 2017. This is based on an average
1.3% statewide average piggyback amount.
Table 31 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
67
Table 31
(Continued)
Recommended Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2016
Rhode Island
The Governor's recommended budget funds provides Payments in Lieu of Tax Exempt Property (PILOT) payments totaling $5 million less than in FY 2015 as this total was expected to be a one-time increase for FY
2015 only. An increase of $1.6 million in Hotel Local Tax payments and a reduction of $240,000 for Textbook
Expansion are also recommended in the FY 2016 budget.
South Carolina
Full Funding of the local government fund required by statute (4.5% of most recent closed FY revenue) is suspended for the 7th consecutive year. Funding recommended $212.6 million vs. full funding at $294.8 million.
South Dakota
In FY2016, the Legislature passed a package of road and bridge funding legislation, which included a
$0.06/gallon increase in motor fuel taxes, an increase from 3% to 4% in motor vehicle excise tax as well as
increases in license plate fees. This legislation dedicates approximately $20 million in additional funding for
local government highway and bridge projects for FY2016. The legislation also includes provisions to allow
counties and townships to assess additional property taxes for road funding needs.
Texas
Not yet determined. The Governor and both legislative chambers have identified tax reductions that may impact aid to local governments. (House plan identifies broad sales tax reductions; Senate plan identifies broad
property tax reductions, Governor's recommendations identify both business and property tax reductions.)
There are several local government transparency policy-related items pending before the legislature, including
local bond election ballot transparency and strategic fiscal review of school districts, municipal and county
government.
Virginia
Local governments were required to revert a total of $30m in state aid to localities back to the Commonwealth
in 2015.
West Virginia
Proposed change to reduce State Aid to Schools by changing bus replacement reimbursement cycle from
12 years to 15 years and other minor changes equal to $9.2 million (less than 0.5% change).
Wisconsin
Per Pupil School Aid, -$127.0; and School Levy Credit, $105.6 (state FY2017 for local FY2016)
68
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Appendix
TABLE A-1
Enacted Mid-Year Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2015
State
Fiscal 2015
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Tax Change Description
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES
California
Illinois
Massachusetts
Ohio
Chapter 367, Statutes of 2014 (SB 798) created a state tax credit for taxpayer
contributions to the College Access Tax Credit Fund to increase Cal Grant awards.
The General Fund is back-filled with the donations, so there is no net loss to the
General Fund.
Rate changed from 5.0% to 3.75% as of January 1, 2015.
Automatic 0.05% decrease in income tax rate based on economic growth.
Small Business Deduction expansion.
Accelerate income tax rate cut by one year.
09–14
$0.0
01–15
01–15
-550.0
-70.0
-312.0
Total Revenue Changes—Personal Income Taxes
-$940.0
CORPORATE INCOME TAXES
California
Idaho
Illinois
Chapter 367, Statutes of 2014 (SB 798) created a state tax credit for taxpayer
contributions to the College Access Tax Credit Fund to increase Cal Grant awards.
The General Fund is back-filled with the donations, so there is no net loss to the
General Fund.
Tax Conformity
Rate changed from 7.0% to 5.25% as of January 1, 2015.
09–14
$0.0
01–15
01–15
-10.6
-344.0
Total Revenue Changes—Corporate Income Taxes
-$354.6
MOTOR FUELS TAXES
South Dakota
Increase of $0.06/gallon for motor fuel and ethyl alcohol tax is effective April 1, 2015.
These revenues are dedicated to the State Highway Fund.
04–15
$10.3
Total Revenue Changes—Motor Fuel Taxes
$10.3
OTHER TAXES
South Dakota
Texas
Motor vehicle excise tax is increased from 3% to 4% effective April 1, 2015.
These revenues are dedicated to the State Highway Fund.
Temporary business margin tax reduction in FY 2014, returning to previous rates for
FY 2016 without further legislative action (pending currently).
04–15
-$6.8
05–14
TBD
Total Revenue Changes—Other Taxes
$6.8
FEES
California
South Dakota
Various fees have been adjusted within the Department of Consumer Affairs.
A 20% overall increase in license plate fees is dedicated to local government highway
and bridge funding.
Various
04–15
To Be Determined
$3.7
Total Revenue Changes—Fees
$3.7
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
69
TABLE A-2
Enacted Mid-Year Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2015
State
Description
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Personal Income—Tax Amnesty
Other—Transfer from the Oil and Gas Lease Fund to the General Fund
will not occur in 2014–15
Fees—Casino license fees assumed at enactment will not be received in 2014–15
Total
70
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2015
Enacted Mid-Year
Changes
($ in Millions)
04–15
07–14
$18.0
-95.0
07–14
-124.8
-$201.8
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-3
Recommended Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2016
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2016
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
11–15 and 07–15
$231.0
70.4
07–15
07–15 and 01–16
-67.6
226.5
SALES TAXES
Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Maine
Minnesota
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin
Vehicle sales and rental tax increase.
Reduce rate: 6.20% on 11/1/2015, Eliminate clothing exemption, Alter Sales Tax
free week/exempt clothing <$100, Impact of Alcoholic Beverages Changes
Back-to-School Sales Tax Holiday permanent exemption for college textbooks
Extends the current tax rates past the sunset date of 07/30/15 to 12/31/15 and
sets new rates effective 01/01/16. Extends the sales and use tax to consumer
purchases of various new services effective 01/01/16. Changes the sales and
use tax law as it applies to leases so that the tax must be collected on the "lease
stream effective 01/01/16. Increases the service provider tax rate effective
01/01/16, expands the tax base to basic cable and satellite television services and
makes other changes consistent with the changes to the sales and use tax law.
Governor's Recommendations
Reform the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) Program
Close Certain Sales and User Tax Avoidance Strategies
Extend privilege license tax for certain datacenter machinery and equipment purchases.
Extend motorsports sales tax refund.
The SUT rate is proposed to be increased from 6.0% to 6.6% and the base expanded
to include services and some products currently exempted.
Phase-out of sales tax on commercial use of electricity, natural gas, and heating fuels
over five years (-4.8), expand sales tax to rental of vacation homes and bed and
breakfast inns with less than three rooms to rent (5.4), impose sales tax on the final
retail price for on-line room resellers (.8) and unlicensed rentals for lodging
accommodations (.9), and increase sales tax from cigarette excise tax to $3.75/pack (.7).
Modify sales tax for online travel companies
Combine all 3 sales tax holidays
Delay Bad Debt Adjustment
04–15
04–15
01–15
01–16
07–15
01–16
4.0
4.0
5.0
-3.0
-1.2
1,136.6
1,554.3
07–15
2.9
07–15
07–15
01–16
$1.7
$1.0
$10.7
Total Revenue Changes—Sales Tax
$3,176.3
Table A-3 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
71
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
Recommended Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2016
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2016
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES
Arkansas
Connecticut
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Income Tax Reductions (Generally 0.1% on income above $21,000 and
below $75,000)
Delay singles exemption for 2 years and delay EITC for 2 years at 27.5%.
Individual tax relief phase 1 of a 5 year phase in to reduce income tax
1/10 of a percentage point until the highest rate equals 6.9%.
Increase in cap on Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) tax credits.
Tax rate changes & deduction changes
Phases down the individual income tax top marginal tax rate for tax years
beginning after 12/31/15 and makes other amendments to the tax law.
Limit EITC and REITC to in-state individuals
Military retirement income tax subtraction
Law enforcement, fire, rescue, and emergency services personnel
retirement income subtraction
Annualization of automatic step down in FY15 and assumes additional
0.05% step down in January FY16
Governor's Recommendations
Mississippi Working Families Tax Credit
Extend Current STAR / Tax Delinquency Program and Convert it from
Offset into a Tax Clearance Program
Extend and modify historic preservation tax credit.
Reduced tax rates
The PIT rate of 3.07% is proposed to be increased to 3.7%.
A claimants eligibility income limit to qualify for 100% tax forgiveness under
the special tax provisions for poverty is proposed to be increased from
$6,500 to $8,700.
Pennsylvania lottery winnings are proposed to be taxed at a rate of 3.7%
Exempt taxable Social Security benefits for federal AGI of $50,000 or less
(S/MS/HH) and $60,000 (MJ) or less. Also increase allowable percentage of
federal earned income tax credit to 12.5 percent in TY 2016. Performance
Contract for Tax Compliance in Division of Taxation.
Elimination of State and Local Tax Deduction
Reduce long-term care deduction to 50%
Cap land preservation credit
Total Revenue Changes—Personal Income Tax
-$12.8
01–15
23.7
01–15
-17.8
07–16
01–16
12–15
-4.9
73.0
-176.4
07–15
07–15
07–15
4.0
-3.5
-3.0
01–15
-150.0
07–15
04–15
-90.1
-78.7
1.0
01–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
-0.7
-57.5
-2,399.1
2,376.7
-90.2
07–15
07–15
15.7
-5.9
01–16
07–15
07–15
15.5
9.4
22.4
-$549.2
Table A-3 continues on next page.
72
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
Recommended Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2016
State
Fiscal 2016
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Tax Change Description
CORPORATE INCOME TAXES
Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Indiana
Maine
Minnesota
North Carolina
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin
Require combined reporting for multi-state companies.
Maintain surcharge at 20% permanently, Cap use of Net Operating Losses at
50% of liability, Credit Caps—IY 15: 35% and IY 16 at 45%, Eliminate the Business
Entity Tax
Exemption increase from $50K to $75K
Tax Conformity
Increase in cap on Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) tax credits.
Phases down the corporate income tax top marginal tax rate for tax years beginning
after 12/31/16 and eliminates the corporate alternative minimum tax for year
beginning after 12/31/15.
Governor's Recommendations
Extend and modify historic preservation tax credit.
Reduced tax rates
The CNIT rate is proposed to be reduced from 9.99% to 5.99% accompanied by
Mandatory Combined Reporting and a reduction in the Net Operating Loss
carryforward limit from the greater of $5 million or 30% of current year income to
the greater of $3 million or 12.5% of current year income. The CNIT rate is proposed
to be reduced to 5.49% in tax year 2017 and 4.99% in tax year 2018.
Elimination of the Enterprise Zone wage tax credit.
Adjust federal TOPS program
Cap coalfield tax credit
Cap coalfield employment tax credit
Business Tax Credit Modifications
01–15 and 01–16
$20.0
273.2
01–16
07–15
07–16
01–17 and 01–16
-7.5
-7.1
-0.1
-1.0
01–15
07–15
01–16
8.0
-0.5
-20.0
-249.3
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–16
0.4
1.0
5.2
14.7
2.3
Total Revenue Changes—Corporate Income Tax
$39.3
Table A-3 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
73
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
Recommended Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2016
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2016
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES
Alabama
Kansas
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Washington
Tobacco tax increase.
Increase tax from $0.79 to $2.29 per pack
Tobacco product tax increase from 10.0 percent to 25.0 percent of wholesale price
Governor's Recommendations
Increase the Cigarette Tax from $0.80 to $1.20 per pack.
An increase of $.21 per package of cigarettes was proposed.
An increase in the Cigarette Tax rate equivalent to $0.05 per cigarette
($1.00 per pack of 20 cigarettes) is proposed.
A 40% tax on the wholesale price of other tobacco products is proposed, including
smokeless tobacco, large cigars, loose tobacco, and e-cigarettes.
Increase cigarette excise tax by 25 cents to $3.75/pack (5.9). Also cigarette floor stock
tax from increase in cigarette excise tax increase (.6).
Increase cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack and add excise tax to e-cigarettes and
vapor products
07–15
07–15
07-15
10–15
$205.0
72.0
9.0
1.7
39.6
20.6
528.1
358.4
10–15
84.1
07–15
6.5
07–15
07–15
21.9
Total Revenue Changes—Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes
$1,346.9
MOTOR FUELS TAXES
New Hampshire
New York
South Dakota
An increase in motor vehicle registration fees was proposed to fund the Highway Fund.
Enhance Motor Fuel Tax Enforcement
Increase of $0.06/gallon for motor fuel and ethyl alcohol tax is effective April 1, 2015.
These revenues are dedicated to the State Highway Fund.
07–15
04–15
04–15
Total Revenue Changes—Motor Fuel Taxes
$16.4
1.0
41.3
$58.7
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Kansas
Maryland
Ohio
Liquor enforcement tax increase from 8.0 percent to 12.0 percent.
Total Revenue Changes—Alcoholic Beverages
07–15
07–15
07–15
$27.0
-141.9
1.5
-$113.4
Table A-3 continues on next page.
74
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
Recommended Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2016
State
Fiscal 2016
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Tax Change Description
OTHER TAXES
Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Remove certain tax credits and exemptions for financial institutions,
insurance companies, and municipal utility companies.
Update the Hospital Net Revenue Tax, Cap health provider tax credit in FY 15
$73.0
at 35%, maintain 3 Tier Credit Cap for two years, continue film moratorium for
two years, Charge towns 100% for Resident State Troopers
Communications Services Tax rate reduction
Tax Amnesty Program
Repeals the telecommunications excise tax and the telecommunications
equipment exemption from local property taxation. Transitions from BETR to BETE.
Personal property tax reimbursement to local governments
Governor's Recommendations
1) Remove firms in the mining industry from the Modified Business Tax on
Non-financial businesses tax base and tax their taxable wages at 2.0% per quarter
instead of the current rate of 1.17% of taxable wages paid in excess of $85,000 per
quarter. (effective 7/1/15) 2) Require Slot Route Operators that have 500 or more
restricted slot machines at restricted locations or cumulatively $10 million or more in
gaming revenue from the restricted slots at restricted locations to be subject to the
gaming percentage fee tax on monthly gross gaming revenue.
Extend and modify historic preservation tax credit.
Commercial Activity Tax ($289.7 million) and Severance Tax ($76.5 million).
A severance tax of 5% plus 4.7 cents per thousand cubic feet of volume (mcf) is
proposed on natural gas extraction.
The Bank Shares Tax rate is proposed to be increased from 0.89% to 1.25% beginning
tax year 2014, and the tax base is proposed to be clarified, to achieve the revenue
neutrality intended with the enactment of Act 52 of 2013.
The existing Promoting Employment Across Pennsylvania tax credit is proposed
to be eliminated.
A tax credit for qualifying manufacturing investments up to 5% of new taxable payroll
above $1 million over a four-quarter period may be used as a credit against certain
state taxes. The total annual credits will be capped at $5 million.
Enact Controlling Interest Transfer Tax for real estate holdings (.7). Impose state
property tax of $2.50 per $1,000 of total value on second homes assessed at
$1.0 million or more (11.8).
Motor vehicle excise tax is increased from 3% to 4% effective April 1, 2015.
These revenues are dedicated to the State Highway Fund.
Business and Property Tax Relief
0.7% Payroll tax deposited into the State Health Care Resources Fund. Not deposited
into General Fund.
01–15 and 07–15
197.5
07–15
9–1–15 to 10–15–15
-412.0
30.0
-4.8
07–15
-7.4
8.7
23.9
01–15
07–15
01–16
-0.5
366.2
165.7
01–14
339.2
07–15
-5.0
07–15
5.0
07–15
12.5
04–15
27.2
09–15
01–16
-2,108.1
41.4
Total Revenue Changes—Other Taxes
-$1,247.5
Table A-3 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
75
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
Recommended Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2016
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2016
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
FEES
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Various Fee Increases Statewide—Marine Highway 4.5% Fare Increase,
Various Aviation related Fees, Vaccine Assessment Fees, University Tuition Increase.
Various fees have been adjusted within the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Increase DEEP Fee for Solid Waste Transport by $1, Increase SOTS fees for
pass-through entities by $80.
Increase in park fees collected at Macworth Island.
Proposed fee increases for fiscal 2016: pesticide registration ($1.5 million) retail
food, warehouses, limited processor ($2.9 million) air emissions fee ($11.9 million)
liquor license fee—class C ($2.3 million) liquor license fee—specially designated
distributor ($1.7 million); health insurance claims assessment ($180.1 million).
Governor's Recommendations
3) Restructure Business License Fee. The fee would be based on revenues and
the type of industry, instead of the current $200 per business
Phase out imaging services and outpatient health care facility surcharges over
four years (-.6) and eliminate licenses for select occupations (-.4).
Includes a 20% overall increase in license plate fees effective April 1, 2015 and an
increase in license plates for noncommercial vehicle over 20,000 lbs.
(effective July 1, 2015). These revenues are dedicated to local government highway
and bridge funding.
Reduce or eliminate this amount in dedicated fees and lesser taxes
5.8 total includes: -0.1M for Secretary of State, 0.3M for K-12 Ed, 0.8M for the
Health Department, 05M for Natural Resources, 0.5M for the Natural Resources Board,
0.9M for Environmental Conservation, 2.7M for Water Quality proposal, 0.1M for
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 0.1M for Commerce and Community Development.
Fee in Forfeiture Actions, $1.2 Justice Information System Surcharge, $1.5 Parks and
Forest Admission and Camping Fees, $1.9 and Health Care Provider Fees for
Data Collection, -$1.0.
Total Revenue Changes—Fees
76
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
07–14
$18.0
Various
To Be Determined
07–15 and 10–15
15.3
10–15
0.1
200.4
07–15
2.5
187.5
07–15
-1.0
04–15
17.3
09–15
07–15
-134.0
5.8
07–15
3.6
$315.5
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-4
Recommended Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2016
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Ohio
Tax Change Description
Fiscal 2016
Recommended
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Personal Income—Eliminate withholding certificate exemption option.
Other—Fraud Detection & One-Time Tax Amnesty
01–16
Other—AHTD Natural Gas Severance to Special Revenues ($2,600,000);
Redirect 1/2 of 9mills/10003 Ft. Gas Assessments $5,000,000 to
General Revenues
Alcohol—Eliminate Minimum Pricing, Extend Sales hours
07–15
Other—Divert Municipal Video Competition Trust Acct. transfers, Impact of
07–15
expenditure changes, Reduce Transfer to CT-N
Fees—Transfer CHEFA grant program loan servicing fees and Private
01–16, 07–15, 10–15
Occupational School Student Protection Account. Divert PEGPETIA transfers,
Intercept Community Investment Act Revenue, Eliminate Tobacco Settlement
Transfers to Tobacco Health Trust fund and Biomedical Trust fund, reduce
transfer to Early Childhood Education Program, Transfer Palliative use of
Marijuana to General Fund, GAAP Amortization.
Other—Implementation of constitutional amendment dedicating funds for
07–15
environmental usage
Motor Fuel—Change in allocation of the environmental response tax to
07–15
special funds.
Personal Income—Stopping diversion to 2 other funds in the state treasury.
07–15
Corporate Income—Stopping diversion to 2 other funds in the state treasury.
07–15
Other—Stopping diversion to 4 other funds in the state treasury.
07–15
Other—Reduces the amount of real estate transfer tax transferred to the Maine
State Housing Authority and increases the amount transferred to the General Fund.
This change is one-time in fiscal year 2015-216 only.
Other—Reduce film production activity income tax credit ($683,763)
07–15
Personal Income—Tax Amnesty for non filers
07–15
Corporate Income—A change to the criteria defining reasonable compensation for
Business Owners was proposed along with the removal of an offshore tax loophole.
Personal Income—Lower the Outstanding Tax Debt Threshold Required to Suspend
04–15
Delinquent Taxpayers’ Drivers Licenses
Personal Income—Allow New York to Enter Reciprocal Tax Collection Agreements
04–15
with Other States
Personal Income—Require New York State Employees to be Compliant with State Tax
04–15
Obligations
Personal Income—Require Practitioners to be Compliant with State Tax Obligations
04–15
before Receiving Excess Medical Malpractice Coverage
Personal Income—Make Warrantless Wage Garnishment Permanent
04–15
Corporate Income—Require Grantees to be Compliant with State Tax Obligations before
04–15
Receiving a State Grant from a State or Local Authority
Sales—Loss in GRF revenue is the result of the Tangible Personal Property Tax (TPP)
replacement and Public Utility Tangible Property (PUTP) replacement payments
proposed policy changes increasing the overall GRF amount from which Local
Government Fund (LGF) and Public Library Fund (PLF) distributions are calculated
and taken from the non-auto sales tax collections.
$12.0
57.4
2.4
1.8
-22.0
-2.3
-292.1
-$5.0
880.0
4.0
175.0
6.3
0.7
100.0
25.2
9.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
15.0
1.0
-0.4
Table A-4 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
SPRING 2015
77
TABLE A-4 (Continued)
Recommended Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2016
State
Tax Change Description
Ohio (cont.)
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Personal Income—Loss in GRF revenue is the result of the Tangible Personal Property
Tax (TPP) replacement and Public Utility Tangible Property (PUTP) replacement payments
proposed policy changes increasing the overall GRF amount from which Local
Government Fund (LGF) and Public Library Fund (PLF) distributions are calculated and
taken from the personal income tax collections.
Other—Proposed changes to the Tangible Personal Property Tax (TPP)
replacement and Public Utility Tangible Property (PUTP) replacement payments
would increase GRF collections from the Commercial Activity Tax by $419.8 million
and from the Kilowatt Hour Tax by $65.3 million. There is a modest $0.4 million loss
in GRF revenue as a result of the above proposed policy changes increasing the
overall GRF amount from which LGF and PLF distributions are calculated and taken
from the Kilowatt Hour Tax.
Personal Income—Extends various tax credits beyond scheduled sunset dates;
caps a statutory transfer of PIT funds to counties for property tax relief
Alcohol—Dedicates a per bottle surcharge to the General Fund
Fees—Reappropriates administrative funds to the General Fund
Sales—Taxation self audit program
Sales—Proposal to transfer motor vehicle sales tax to the State Highway Fund
Sales—Click-Thru Nexus
Sales—Software as a Service & Video Games
Sales—Retail Accountability Program
Sales—Research & Development Tax Exemption
Corporate Income—Jobs Tax Credits Amendments
Other—Title & Registration—Increased Lien Fees
Fees—Health Maintenance Organizations—Insurance Premium Tax Rate Increase
Sales—AST $3 million dealer threshold
Sales—Eliminate sales tax exemption on trade-ins valued over $10,000; eliminate
refund of state sales tax to non-residents; repeal use tax exemption for most extracted
fuels; repeal sales tax exemption on bottled water; extend agricultural processor tax
exemptions; extend High Tech R&D sales/use tax deferral
Other—Repeal preferential B&O tax for royalties; extend high tech research and
development B&O tax credit
Sales—1. Suspend General Revenue Fund Sales Tax transfer to State Road Fund for
one year: $11.5 million. 2. Reduce for one year $8.0 million in General Revenue Fund
Sales Tax transfer to School Building Authority Special Fund.
Corporate Income—End the annual transfer of $4.3 million of General Revenue
Corporate Income Tax collections to the Public Port Authority Special Revenue Fund.
Other—Reduce Severance Tax allocation to Infrastructure Bond Fund to capture
savings from recent refunding
Fees—Reduce Excess Lottery Fund transfer to State Infrastructure Fund for one year
by $10 million
Total
78
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2016
Recommended
Changes
($ in Millions)
$-0.4
484.7
-35.1
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
07–15
15.0
157.9
0.5
-61.4
4.1
10.2
4.3
-3.6
-1.0
6.1
33.5
18.6
98.0
-11.0
07–15
19.5
07–15
4.3
07–15
0.5
07–15
10.0
$1,725.8
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement