Fiscal Survey of States The

Fiscal Survey of States The
The
Fiscal
Survey of
States
FA L L 2 0 1 2
An Update of State Fiscal Conditions
A report by the National Governors Association and
the National Association of State Budget Officers
Copyright 2012 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 GOVERNORS
ASSOCIATION
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE BUDGET OFFICERS
Founded in 1908, the National Governors Association (NGA)
Founded in 1945, NASBO is the instrument through which the
is the instrument through which the nation’s Governors col-
states collectively advance stage budget practices. The major
lectively influence the development and implementation of na-
functions of the organization consist of research, policy devel-
tional policy and apply creative leadership to state issues. The
opment, education, training, and technical assistance. These
association’s members are the Governors of the fifty states,
are achieved primarily through NASBO’s publications, member-
the Commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and
ship meetings, and training sessions. Association membership
Puerto Rico, and the territories of American Samoa, Guam,
is composed of the heads of state finance departments, the
and the Virgin Islands. NGA has four standing committees on
states’ chief budget officers, and their deputies. All other state
major issues—Economic Development and Commerce; Ed-
budget office staff are associate members. Association mem-
ucation, Early Childhood, and Workforce; Health and Human
bership is organized into four standing committees-Health,
Services; and Natural Resources. The association serves as
Human Services, and Justice; Financial Management, Systems,
a vehicle for sharing knowledge of innovative programs
and Data Reporting; Tax, Commerce, Physical Resources, and
among the states and provides technical assistance and con-
Transportation; and Training, Education, and Human Resources
sultant services to Governors on a wide range of manage-
Management. NASBO is an independent professional and ed-
ment and policy issues.
ucation association and is also an affiliate of the National Governors Association.
2012-2013 Executive Committee
2012-2013 Executive Committee
Governor Jack Markell, Delaware, Chair
Jason Dilges, South Dakota, President
Governor Mary Fallin, Oklahoma, Vice Chair
George Naughton, Oregon, President-Elect
Governor Mike Beebe, Arkansas
John Hicks, Kentucky, Past President
Governor John Hickenlooper, Colorado
Linda Luebbering, Missouri, Member-at-Large
Governor Mark Dayton, Minnesota
Gerry Oligmueller, Nebraska, Member-at-Large
Governor Dave Heineman, Nebraska
Thomas Mullaney, Rhode Island, Eastern Regional Director
Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey
Brian Hayes, Wisconsin, Midwest Regional Director
Governor Gary Herbert, Utah
Brandon Sharp, Arkansas, Southern Regional Director
Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin
Ana Matosantos, California, Western Regional Director
Jerry McDaniel, Florida, Chair, Health and Human Services
Dan Crippen, Executive Director
Committee
Timothy Keen, Ohio, Chair, Fiscal Management and
Reporting Committee
Karen Rehfeld, Alaska, Chair, Education Committee
George Naughton, Oregon, Chair, Critical Issue
Committee on Lessons Learned from the Downturn
Scott D. Pattison, Executive Director
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
i
ii
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Acknowledgments
The Fiscal Survey was written, compiled and produced by Michael Streepey with assistance from Lauren Cummings, Stacey Mazer,
Brian Sigritz, and Kathryn Vesey White. 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:
Hunter Meriwether, Alabama
Maud Naroll, Nevada
Karen Elliot, Alaska
Joe Bouchard, New Hampshire
Duong Nguyen, Arizona
Cathy Nonamaker, New Jersey
Crystal Singleton, Arkansas
Michael Marcelli, New Mexico
Phoung La, California
James Kaufman, New York
Alexis Senger, Colorado
Donna Cox, North Carolina
Matthew Pellowski, Connecticut
Sheila Peterson, North Dakota
Bert Scoglietti, Delaware
Lori Anderson, North Dakota
Janice Harris, Florida
Jeff Newman, Ohio
Robert Giacomini, Georgia
Shelly Paulk, Oklahoma
Terri Ohta, Hawaii
Brian Deforest, Oregon
Anita Hamman, Idaho
Ann Bertolino, Pennsylvania
Jared Brunk, Illinois
Carmen M. Rosado, Puerto Rico
Jon Vanator, Indiana
Gregory Stack, Rhode Island
Joel Lunde, Iowa
Quentin Hawkins, South Carolina
Sandy Russel, Kansas
Jim Terwilliger, South Dakota
John Hicks, Kentucky
Charles Brown, Tennessee
Mike Barbier, Louisiana
Mike Meyer, Texas
Jeremy McDaniel, Louisiana
Tenielle Young, Utah
Shirrin Blaisdell, Maine
Juliette Tennert, Utah
Kristy Michel, Maryland
Matt Riven, Vermont
Robert Dolan, Massachusetts
Mike Barton, Virginia
Colleen Gossman, Michigan
Pam Davidson, Washington
Nancy Rooney, Minnesota
Mike McKown, West Virginia
Gerald Joyner, Mississippi
Dan Subach, Wisconsin
Marty Drewel, Missouri
Kirsten Grinde, Wisconsin
Ryan Evans, Montana
Folbert Ware, Jr., Wyoming
Lyn Heaton, Nebraska
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
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 2013 ....................................................2
Figure 1: Annual Percentage Budget Changes, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013 ......................................................................3
Table 2: State General Fund Expenditure Growth, Fiscal 2012 and Fiscal 2013 ...............................................................3
Table 3: Fiscal 2011 State General Fund, Actual ..............................................................................................................4
Table 4: Fiscal 2012 State General Fund, Preliminary Actual ............................................................................................5
Table 5: Fiscal 2013 State General Fund, Appropriated....................................................................................................6
Table 6: General Fund Nominal Percentage Expenditure Change, Fiscal 2012 and Fiscal 2013 .......................................7
Budget Cuts, Budget Gaps, and the Recovery Act ...................................................................................................................8
Table 7: Fiscal 2013 Net Mid-Year Budget Cuts ...............................................................................................................9
Table 8: Fiscal 2013 Mid-Year Program Area Cuts ........................................................................................................10
Table 9: Fiscal 2013 Mid-Year Program Area Adjustments by Dollar Value......................................................................11
Table 10: Fiscal 2013 Enacted Program Area Cuts ........................................................................................................12
Table 11: Fiscal 2013 Enacted Program Area Adjustments by Dollar Value.....................................................................13
Table 12: Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2012 ................................................................14
Table 13: Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2013 ................................................................16
Table 14: Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2014 ................................................................18
Figure 2: Budget Cuts Made After the Budget Passed, Fiscal 1991 to Fiscal 2012 ........................................................20
State Employment Changes .....................................................................................................................................................20
Table 15: Number of Filled Full-Time Equivalent Positions at the End of Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013, in All Funds ............21
Table 16: State Employee Compensation Changes, Fiscal 2013 ....................................................................................22
Medicaid Outlook .......................................................................................................................................................................26
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF) ....................................................................................................27
Table 17: Enacted Cost of Living Changes for Cash Assistance Benefit Levels, Fiscal 2013...........................................27
Chapter 1 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................28
Chapter 2: State Revenue Developments..................................................................................................40
Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................................40
Revenues ....................................................................................................................................................................................40
Projected Collections in Fiscal 2013 .........................................................................................................................................41
Collections in Fiscal 2012 ..........................................................................................................................................................41
iv
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Forecast Collections in Fiscal 2013 ..........................................................................................................................................41
Table 18: Number of States with Revenues Higher, Lower or on Target with Projections ................................................41
Table 19: Fiscal 2012 Tax Collections Compared with Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2012 Budgets .....................42
Table 20: Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012, and Enacted Fiscal 2013 .....................................43
Table 21: Percentage Changes Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012,
and Enacted Fiscal 2013 ................................................................................................................................44
Enacted Fiscal 2013 Revenue Changes....................................................................................................................................45
Table 22: Enacted State Revenue Changes, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013.........................................................................46
Figure 3: Enacted State Revenue Changes, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013 .........................................................................47
Table 23: Enacted Fiscal 2013 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and
Net Increase or Decrease................................................................................................................................48
Chapter 2 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................49
Chapter 3: Total Balances ...................................................................................................................................51
Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................................51
Total Balances ............................................................................................................................................................................51
Budget Stabilization Funds .......................................................................................................................................................51
Table 24: Total Year-End Balances, Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013.......................................................................................52
Table 25: Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013 ...................................53
Figure 4: Total Year-End Balances Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013 ........................................................................................54
Figure 5: Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013 .....................................54
Figure 6: State Total Balance Levels 2011......................................................................................................................55
Figure 7: State Total Balance Levels 2012......................................................................................................................55
Figure 8: State Total Balance Levels 2013......................................................................................................................55
Table 26: Total Balances and Total Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013 ..............................................................................................................................56
Table 27: Rainy Day Fund Balances and Rainy Day Fund Balances as a Percentage of
Expenditures, Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013 ........................................................................................................57
Chapter 3 Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................58
Chapter 4: Other State Budgeting Changes .......................................................................................59
Enacted Changes to Budgeting and/or Financial Management Practices ............................................................................59
Enacted Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2013 .................................................................................................59
Table 28: Enacted Changes to Budgeting and Financial Management Practices ............................................................60
Table 29: Enacted Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2013 ..........................................................................64
Appendix Tables .............................................................................................................................................................68
Table A-1: Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013........................................................................68
Table A-2: Enacted Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2013 ......................................................................................................74
Table A-3: Enacted Mid-Year Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2013 .......................................................................................77
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
v
Preface
The Fiscal Survey of States is published twice annually by the
were completed by Governors’ state budget officers in all 50
National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) and the
states. This survey also includes Puerto Rico; however, their
National Governors Association (NGA). The series was started
data is not included in the 50 state totals.
in 1979. The survey presents aggregate and individual data on
the states’ general fund receipts, expenditures, and balances.
Although not the totality of state spending, these funds are
raised from state own source taxes and fees, such as state in-
Fiscal 2011 data represent actual figures, fiscal 2012 figures
are preliminary actual, and fiscal 2013 data reflect state enacted
budgets.
come and sales taxes. These general funds are used to finance
Forty-six states begin their fiscal years in July and end them in
most broad-based state services and are the most important
June. The exceptions are Alabama and Michigan, with October
elements in determining the fiscal health of the states. A sepa-
to September fiscal years; New York, with an April to March fis-
rate survey that includes total state spending, NASBO’s State
cal year; and Texas, with a September to August fiscal year.
Expenditure Report, also is conducted annually.
Additionally, 20 states operate on a biennial budget cycle.
The field survey on which this report is based was conducted
NASBO staff member Michael Streepey compiled the data and
by NASBO from August through October 2012. The surveys
prepared the text for the report.
vi
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Executive Summary
State finances in fiscal 2013 are modestly recovering in step
to be at $735 billion1, or 7.9 percent higher to remain equiv-
with the slowly improving national economy, but progress is
alent with real 2008 spending levels. Trends are however
uneven across states. Enacted fiscal 2013 budgets reflect
moving in a positive direction, with 42 states enacting higher
continued fiscal stability for most states, but the lingering ef-
general fund spending in fiscal 2013 compared to fiscal 2012.
fects of the recession are still hampering state budgets. Al-
States are also making progress in rebuilding budget reserves
though general fund spending levels are expected to increase
with balances projected to reach 9.0 percent of general fund
by 2.2 percent this fiscal year, this is less than half their his-
expenditures.
torical average growth rate. However, signs of budget volatility
have subsided compared to the years immediately following
the recession when states had to make substantial cuts and
take other actions to balance their budgets such as the use
of rainy day funds. Most fiscal 2013 budgets are growing
compared to fiscal 2012, and while the economy is indeed
improving, states are still faced with recession induced challenges and looming long-term issues that will continue to have
implications for operating budgets.
Most of the additional federal support used to stabilize state
budgets through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA) has expired. Similar to fiscal 2012, states
enacted fiscal 2013 budgets without enhanced Medicaid
matching rates or substantial support from ARRA’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The drawdown in flexible ARRA funds
has brought challenges for operating budgets, but revenue
collections have improved, and other actions such as successful cost controls have helped states acclimate to the ex-
Fiscal 2013 will likely be a turning point for state tax collections
piration of ARRA funds. Of greater concern to states now is
with general fund revenues projected to surpass pre-reces-
the significant uncertainty surrounding federal tax and spend-
sion levels for the first time since the onset of the recession.
ing decisions, which could negatively impact the economy
Enacted fiscal 2013 budgets estimate that revenues will in-
and federal funding for states. If Congress fails to act by the
crease by 3.9 percent from fiscal 2012. The improvement re-
end of the calendar year, federal funds flowing to states
mains uneven with 21 states still forecasting lower general
would decline under the process of automatic across-the-
fund revenues in fiscal 2013 compared to fiscal 2008. After
board spending cuts known as sequester.2 But even if a se-
falling precipitously during the recession, personal income tax
quester is avoided, the likely policies required to address the
collections are projected to gain again in fiscal 2013 and are
nation’s long-term fiscal debt problems may also reduce the
likely to account for the majority of growth in aggregate gen-
level of federal funds for states.3
eral fund revenues. The growth rate in personal income tax
collections is more than three times the increase in sales tax
collections over the last three years, suggesting that consumer purchasing remains weak as households continue to
decrease debt incurred during the housing and credit bubble.
Slower growth in sales tax collections may also be attributable
to an increase in online retail sales, which continue to outpace
retail sales as a whole and in many instances don’t produce
sales tax revenue for states.
The fiscal fallout from unprecedented revenue declines in fiscal
2009 and 2010 puts states well below historical growth trends
in general fund spending and revenue. Many states are still
challenged with slow revenue growth and unrelenting expenditure pressures tied to high unemployment. However, enacted fiscal 2013 budgets show that states are in a position
to increase spending for some program areas significantly cutback during the recession including health care and K-12 education. With the Supreme Court decision making the
Even with revenue growth, state budgets are still facing pres-
Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion voluntary,
sure, with 24 states enacting lower spending levels in fiscal
states are beginning to have a better understanding of how
2013 than in fiscal 2008. In nominal terms, aggregate general
the ACA may impact future spending, but a heightened level
fund expenditure levels are also still below the pre-recession
of budgetary uncertainty remains.
peak of $687.3 billion. Aggregate spending levels would need
1
The Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, November 2012.
The sequester was a component of the Budget Control Act of 2011, and the mechanism was designed to ensure that increases in the federal debt were also accompanied by automatic spending cuts.
3
The policies that will provide a resolution to the nation’s long-term fiscal debt problems are unknown at this time, but states recognize the importance of making their
own long-term (5 years or more) budget projections to prepare for potential future reductions in federal funds and other uncertainties. Although comprehensive data on
states’ projections is not currently available, NASBO and NGA are working with states to collect information regarding long-term budget projections.
2
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
vii
Aggregate general fund spending levels indicate stable growth
new taxes, largely attributable to the expiration of temporary
in fiscal 2013. General fund appropriations total $681.3 billion,
tax and fee increases in California and North Carolina.
a 2.2 percent increase over the $666.9 billion spent in fiscal
2012. The general fund growth rate is slower than the previous
year when there was a 3.4 percent increase in fiscal 2012 over
the $645.2 billion in state general fund spending in fiscal 2011.
States may also rely on balances, including budget stabilization funds or “rainy day funds,” to help offset future revenue
sluggishness or additional spending demands. Balances
reflect the surplus funds that states can use to respond to
Aggregate general fund revenues are expected to surpass peak
unforeseen circumstances. States have made progress re-
pre-recession levels for the first time since the onset of the re-
building budget reserves after the recession, and fiscal 2013
cession. Enacted fiscal 2013 budgets project general fund tax
enacted budgets show balances rising to $61.3 billion or 9.0
revenues to reach $692.8 billion, $26.1 billion or 3.9 percent
percent of general fund expenditures. Due to the recession,
above the $666.7 billion collected in fiscal 2012. States ended
total balance levels fell to $32.5 billion or 5.2 percent of ex-
fiscal 2012 with total general fund revenues up $16.6 billion or
penditures by the end of fiscal 2010, but by fiscal 2012, bal-
2.5 percent over fiscal 2011.
ances rose to $50.9 billion or 7.6 percent of expenditures.
However, the balance levels of Texas and Alaska made up
In many states, revenue growth has not been sufficient enough
to meet the rise in demand for state services and mandated
spending. However, fiscal 2013 budget gaps are expected to
be smaller than in years prior. Seventeen states have closed
$37 billion in budget gaps thus far in fiscal 2013. During this
45.3 percent of total state balance levels in fiscal 2012 and
are projected to comprise 48.5 percent of the total in fiscal
2013. Balance levels for the remaining 48 states equaled 4.5
percent of general fund expenditures for fiscal 2012 and are
expected to reach 5.0 percent in fiscal 2013.
same time period in fiscal 2012 and 2011, 28 states solved
$71.7 billion and 33 states solved $72.4 billion in budget gaps
State budgets in fiscal 2013 reflect the expiration of ARRA
respectively. Although not all state budget offices have com-
funds. Fiscal 2013 enacted budgets show states with only
pleted official forecasts, the number of states expecting fiscal
$400 million remaining in flexible emergency funds. In fiscal
2014 budget gaps has fallen from eleven to eight.
2011, states used $50 billion in flexible ARRA funds, but by fiscal 2012 that amount fell to $5.5 billion. The decline in flexible
Enacted program area budget adjustments help identify changing spending patterns across states. Thirty-six states increased
spending for K-12 education, resulting in a net spending increase of $4.9 billion in fiscal 2013. Thirty-two states enacted
general fund spending increases for Medicaid, and aggregate
spending levels are expected to increase by $4.1 billion exclud-
ARRA funds was mostly due to the expiration of enhanced federal matching rates to states’ Medicaid programs and the expiration of additional education funds from the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund. Despite previous concerns over the postARRA budget environment, states have been able to adjust
spending plans to account for declining federal support.
ing Texas. Supplemental Medicaid appropriations in Texas are
projected to reach $4.7 billion, but the additional appropriations
Budgetary concerns related to the decline in ARRA funds are
are still pending legislative approval. Other major program areas
now being supplanted by uncertainty surrounding federal
including higher education, public assistance and corrections
deficit reduction and how this will impact state tax revenues
experienced enacted cuts.
and federal funds for states. However, enacted fiscal 2013
budgets portray continued fiscal stability for states, a wel-
States enacted $6.9 billion in new net taxes and fees for fiscal
2013. Personal income tax increases in California and New
York, along with temporary sales tax increases in California and
Arizona account for the majority of new tax revenues. States
also enacted $2.5 billion in new revenue measures in fiscal
2013. In fiscal 2012, states enacted a $600 million decrease in
viii
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
come advancement compared to the years immediately following the recession. As the economy gains traction, state
tax collections are projected to provide some room for budgets to grow, and the fiscal conditions display positive trends
for states. Although, full recovery remains elusive in many
places across the country.
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
State Spending
new revenue measures. Eleven states enacted net
tax and fee increases while 20 enacted net de-
Findings of this edition of the Fiscal Survey of States include
creases. Personal income tax increases in California
the following:
and New York, along with temporary sales tax in•
Twenty-four states enacted fiscal 2013 budgets with
creases in California and Arizona account for the
lower nominal general fund expenditures in fiscal
majority of new tax revenues.
2013 than in fiscal 2008, the last year before the recession. In addition, aggregate general fund expen-
•
Fiscal 2012 general fund revenues from all sources,
including sales, personal income, corporate income
ditures will not surpass the pre-recession high of
and all other taxes and fees, exceeded original fore-
$687.3 billion spent in fiscal 2008.
casts in 34 states, were on target in five states and
•
Forty-two states enacted fiscal 2013 budgets with
below forecasts in 10 states. Nineteen states re-
greater general fund spending than in fiscal 2012.
ported that current revenue collections are on target
with enacted budget forecasts, 16 states are above
•
Based on enacted budgets, aggregate general fund
fiscal 2013 projections, and nine states reported
expenditures are expected to reach $681.3 billion in
that revenues are below target.
fiscal 2013. This is an increase of $14.5 billion or 2.2
percent from $666.9 billion spent in fiscal 2012.
•
State general fund revenues are projected to increase by $26.1 billion in fiscal 2013. The majority
•
The 2.2 percent general fund budget growth in fiscal
of the fiscal 2013 revenue gains are attributable to
2013 has slowed from the 3.4 percent increase in
a $15.3 billion increase in personal income tax col-
fiscal 2012. State budgets have increased by $36.2
lections and a $5.8 billion increase in sales tax col-
billion or 5.6 percent from fiscal 2011 to fiscal 2013.
•
Thirty-six states enacted general fund spending in-
lections.
•
creases for K-12 education, 32 states enacted gen-
Twenty-one states enacted budgets with lower
nominal general fund revenues in fiscal 2013 than in
eral fund spending increases for Medicaid, 28
fiscal 2008, the last year before the recession.
enacted spending increases for corrections and 25
states enacted increases for higher education.
Generally, 80 percent of general fund revenue is derived from
three tax sources: 40 percent from the personal income tax,
State Revenue Actions
•
Aggregate general fund revenue is projected to
reach $692.8 billion, a 3.9 percent increase over fis-
33 percent from the sales tax and seven percent from the
corporate income tax. The other 20 percent is from various
sources.
cal 2012. Aggregate fiscal 2013 general fund rev-
•
enues are expected to surpass pre-recession highs
Year-End Balances
for the first time since the onset of the recession.
Total balances—ending balances and the amounts in budget
However, in real, inflation-adjusted terms, revenues
stabilization “rainy day” funds—are a crucial tool that states
remain 7.9 percent below fiscal 2008 levels.
heavily rely on during fiscal downturns and budget shortfalls.
Forty-three states enacted budgets with greater
•
Fiscal 2013 enacted budgets indicate that states
general fund revenues in fiscal 2013 than in fiscal
are continuing efforts to rebuild budget reserves that
2012.
were depleted during the recession. Balance levels
are projected to reach $61.3 billion or 9.0 percent
•
Enacted fiscal 2013 budgets include $6.9 billion net
of general fund expenditures. However, rising bal-
new additional taxes and fees and $2.5 billion in
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
ix
ances in Texas will account for the majority of the
the largest reserves, still account for 48.5 percent of
total increase in fiscal 2013. States ended fiscal
states’ total balances in fiscal 2013. The average of
2012 with balance levels at $50.9 billion or 7.6 per-
total balances from the remaining 48 states is pro-
cent of expenditures.
jected to reach 5.0 percent of expenditures by the
end of fiscal 2013, a significantly lower average com-
•
The number of states with balance levels equal to
pared to that of all 50 states.
five percent of expenditures or more has risen in fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012.
•
States made progress rebuilding budgetary reserves
in fiscal 2012 and are expected to do so in fiscal
2013; however, Alaska and Texas, two states with
x
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
This edition of The Fiscal Survey of States reflects actual fiscal 2011, preliminary
actual fiscal 2012, and appropriated fiscal 2013 figures. The data were collected
in the fall of 2012.
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
State Expenditure Developments
CHAPTER ONE
Overview
State budgets are expected to continue their trend of slow improvement, making fiscal 2013 the third consecutive year of
rections, 3.2 percent; public assistance, 1.4 percent; and all
other expenditures, 33.7 percent.
For estimated fiscal 2012, components of general fund spend-
general fund spending growth. In contrast to the pre-reces-
ing are elementary and secondary education, 34.7 percent;
sion’s rapid expansion and fiscal fallout years immediately fol-
Medicaid, 19.6 percent; higher education, 10.0 percent; cor-
lowing the Great Recession, state budgets have stabilized.
rections, 7.0 percent; public assistance, 1.5 percent; trans-
Fiscal 2013 spending patterns show aggregate increases but
portation, 0.5 percent; and all other expenditures, 26.6 percent.
the budget growth is anemic compared to prior periods of economic recovery and long range historical averages. In many
states, budgets are not keeping pace with the rate of inflation,
State General Fund Spending
which means real purchasing power for these states is declin-
State general fund spending is forecast to be $681.3 billion in
ing. The national economic recovery is reducing some state ex-
fiscal 2013 according to enacted budgets. This represents a
penditure pressures, but GDP growth is modest and the
2.2 percent increase from the $666.9 billion spent in fiscal
unemployment rate remains elevated, and additional spending
2012. The fiscal 2013 spending increase will be the third con-
efforts are not likely to fully offset past budget cuts and the ex-
secutive yearly increase in general fund expenditures following
piring Recovery Act funds. Governors’ ability to implement new
back-to-back declines in general fund spending in fiscal 2009
program spending initiatives will be mitigated by constrained
and fiscal 2010, in which spending decreased by 3.8 percent
revenue growth, uncertainty surrounding the federal budget,
and 5.7 percent respectively. Even with a 2.2 percent increase
and the persistent growth in Medicaid spending.
in fiscal 2013, nominal state general fund expenditures will still
be $5.5 billion, 0.8 percent, below the $687.3 billion spent in
State Spending from All Sources
fiscal 2008. Aggregate spending levels would need to be even
higher to keep up with inflation. Fiscal 2013 general fund
This report captures only state general fund spending. General
spending would need to be at $735 billion, or 7.9 percent
fund spending represents the primary component of discre-
higher than the $681.6 billion currently enacted to be equivalent
tionary expenditures of revenue derived from general sources
with 2008 spending levels in real terms.
which have not been earmarked for specific items. According
to the most recent edition of NASBO’s State Expenditure Re-
Forty-two states enacted fiscal 2013 budgets with greater gen-
port, estimated fiscal 2012 spending from all sources (general
eral fund spending than in fiscal 2012. However, there are still
funds, federal funds, other state funds and bonds) is approxi-
24 states that enacted a fiscal 2013 budget with general fund
mately $1.7 trillion with the general fund representing 39.8 per-
spending levels below fiscal 2008, indicating that many places
cent of the total and federal funds representing 31.2 percent.
across the country still face an uphill path to full recovery. (See
However, as recently as fiscal 2008, general fund spending ac-
Table 1, Figure 1, and Tables 3 - 5) For fiscal 2012, five states
counted for 45.9 percent of total state spending and federal
had general fund expenditures below fiscal 2011 levels, while
funds accounted for 26.3 percent. This decrease in the general
20 states had general fund expenditure growth between 0 and
fund’s impact on total state spending is evidence of the gap
4.9 percent, and 25 states had general fund spending growth
that ARRA funds have helped to fill. The components of total
greater than 5.0 percent. Fiscal 2012 general fund spending in-
state spending for estimated fiscal 2012 are: Medicaid, 23.9
creased by 3.4 percent, building on fiscal 2011, which was the
percent; elementary and secondary education, 19.8 percent;
largest increase in state spending since fiscal 2008. (See Table
higher education, 9.9 percent; transportation, 8.1 percent; cor-
2 and Table 6)
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
1
TABLE 1
State Nominal and Real Annual Budget Increases,
Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013
State General Fund
Fiscal Year
Nominal Increase
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
1979-2013 average
2.2%
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
5.6%
Real Increase
1.6%
-0.6
-8.0
-2.6
-1.8
4.1
2.7
0.2
-0.4
-3.7
-0.3
4.7
2.9
4.2
4.3
3.0
2.7
3.2
2.7
0.7
2.8
1.0
2.2
5.3
3.7
2.0
6.2
6.4
3.5
-5.4
0.2
5.5
-1.6
2.3
1.6%
Notes: *The state and local government implicit price deflator cited by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis in October 2012 is used for state expenditures in determining real changes. Fiscal 2011
figures are based on the change from fiscal 2010 actuals to fiscal 2011 actuals. Fiscal 2012
figures are based on the change from fiscal 2011 actuals to fiscal 2012 preliminary actuals.
Fiscal 2013 figures are based on the change from fiscal 2012 preliminary actuals to fiscal 2013
enacted.
2
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 2013
25
Nominal Percentage Budget Increase
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987
1980
1982
1984
1986
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
1990 1992 Fiscal
1994Year1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
1988
TABLE 2
State General Fund Expenditure Growth,
Fiscal 2012 and 2013
Number of States
Spending Growth
Fiscal 2012
(Preliminary Actual)
Fiscal 2013
(Appropriated)
Negative growth
0.0% to 4.9%
5.0% to 9.9%
10% or more
5
20
17
8
8
27
15
0
NOTE: Average spending growth for fiscal 2012 (preliminary actual) is 3.4 percent; average spending growth for fiscal 2013 (enacted) is 2.2 percent. See Table 6 for state-by-state data.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
3
TABLE 3
Fiscal 2011 State General Fund, Actual (Millions)
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico**
Total
Beginning
Balance
Adjustments
Expenditures
Adjustments
Ending
Balance
$72
0
-6
0
-4,507
137
0
537
1,573
1,138
-22
0
130
831
0
-27
80
-108
7
344
903
187
440
5
185
311
297
314
75
804
278
2,302
237
313
510
42
-390
-294
22
246
0
241
917
-28
0
132
-561
552
26
0
$6,855
7,673
7,250
4,479
93,489
7,086
17,707
3,531
22,960
16,559
5,117
2,445
28,306
13,384
5,899
5,882
8,859
7,770
2,896
13,537
33,075
7,385
16,184
4,574
7,110
1,783
3,494
3,409
1,384
28,913
5,468
54,447
19,157
1,532
26,371
5,750
6,504
26,347
3,084
5,633
1,163
10,747
39,767
4,659
1,157
16,166
14,648
4,064
12,912
1,580
$0
23
1,131
0
927
158
450
0
0
498
0
74
8,583
-54
0
0
197
106
86
347
0
1,198
0
0
716
-1
33
0
2
-680
62
0
0
865
1,392
-33
0
3,160
-81
0
-15
193
-831
154
71
0
645
0
642
0
$6,927
7,696
8,375
4,479
89,910
7,381
18,157
4,069
24,533
18,195
5,095
2,519
37,019
14,161
5,899
5,855
9,136
7,768
2,990
14,228
33,978
8,770
16,623
4,579
8,011
2,092
3,824
3,722
1,460
29,038
5,808
56,749
19,394
2,710
28,274
5,759
6,115
29,213
3,025
5,879
1,148
11,181
39,853
4,785
1,228
16,299
14,731
4,616
13,580
1,580
$7,359
5,450
8,372
4,479
91,549
6,936
17,920
3,271
23,787
17,064
4,969
2,450
29,175
13,050
5,344
5,667
8,789
7,782
2,873
13,238
32,078
8,217
15,335
4,528
7,631
1,747
3,322
3,398
1,311
28,168
5,307
55,373
18,503
1,651
26,248
5,417
6,043
28,321
2,956
5,167
1,148
9,996
38,717
4,710
1,162
15,457
14,823
3,772
13,565
1,580
-$483
277
0
0
1,439
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,375
-12
0
0
57
0
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
122
0
0
0
308
62
1,595
249
0
-182
0
0
0
590
0
14
66
0
0
51
-70
0
$51
1,969
3
0
-3,079
446
237
798
746
1,131
126
69
469
1,124
555
188
290
-14
19
990
1,901
554
1,289
50
379
342
502
324
27
870
501
1,376
582
997
431
93
72
1,073
69
712
0
595
1,136
60
0
841
-92
793
86
0
$0
12,981
0
0
-3,797
157
0
186
279
328
0
0
0
57
440
0
0
647
0
624
1,379
2
9
191
247
0
313
0
9
0
501
1,206
296
386
0
249
16
0
130
712
107
284
5,012
233
54
0
1
659
0
752
0
$8,246
8,134
$650,147
1,016
9,150
$678,414
9,150
$645,174
0
0
$21,680
0
$24,651
Revenues
NOTES: *In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the budget stabilization fund. **See Notes to Table 3 on page 28.
4
Rainy
Day Fund
Balance
Total
Resources
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 4
Fiscal 2012 State General Fund, Preliminary Actual (Millions)
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico**
Total
Beginning
Balance
Rainy
Day Fund
Balance
Adjustments
Resources
Expenditures
Adjustments
Ending
Balance
$51
0
3
0
-3,079
157
0
798
746
1,131
126
69
469
1,124
0
188
290
-14
24
990
1,901
554
1,289
51
379
342
502
324
27
870
501
1,376
582
997
844
93
72
1,073
69
712
0
595
1,136
60
0
841
-92
793
86
0
$7,098
9,870
7,803
4,606
86,830
7,737
18,562
3,359
24,003
17,262
5,661
2,589
31,860
14,331
6,311
6,404
9,193
7,862
2,995
14,258
32,547
8,144
16,611
4,762
7,341
1,871
3,691
3,033
1,377
29,106
5,880
56,900
19,534
2,225
26,603
6,174
6,896
26,403
3,270
5,858
1,236
11,232
41,152
4,758
1,244
16,185
14,887
4,103
13,515
1,580
$296
47
1,011
0
194
138
0
0
0
166
0
-14
1,763
-74
381
0
200
553
171
239
0
413
0
0
423
9
-249
0
0
584
11
0
0
295
582
-35
-69
214
-93
11
47
142
2,198
41
6
0
116
5
195
0
$7,445
9,917
8,817
4,606
83,944
8,032
18,562
4,157
24,749
18,559
5,787
2,644
34,092
15,382
6,693
6,593
9,683
8,401
3,191
15,487
34,447
9,111
17,900
4,812
8,143
2,222
3,944
3,357
1,404
30,560
6,392
58,276
20,116
3,517
28,030
6,232
6,899
27,690
3,246
6,581
1,282
11,969
44,486
4,859
1,250
17,027
14,910
4,902
13,795
1,580
$7,598
7,013
8,421
4,606
87,027
7,168
18,705
3,592
23,749
17,428
5,511
2,545
29,272
13,590
6,004
6,126
9,435
8,249
3,130
14,935
32,458
8,383
16,802
4,803
7,938
1,775
3,446
3,114
1,241
29,991
5,687
56,489
19,576
2,223
26,395
5,797
6,897
27,186
3,117
5,517
1,207
11,458
43,911
4,830
1,250
16,351
15,325
4,140
13,868
1,580
-$188
2,086
0
0
-201
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,780
-11
0
0
157
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6
0
38
140
0
0
0
146
0
1,264
328
0
-155
13
108
28
84
0
29
0
0
0
151
-415
0
$35
818
396
0
-2,882
864
-144
565
1,000
1,131
275
100
40
1,803
688
466
90
152
42
551
1,990
728
1,098
9
205
453
499
205
23
569
705
1,787
394
1,294
371
107
2
659
116
956
48
427
574
0
0
675
-415
611
342
0
$0
14,783
250
0
-3,601
281
93
186
494
328
0
24
276
352
596
0
122
442
45
672
1,652
365
658
100
248
0
429
38
9
0
705
1,306
419
386
246
578
85
0
153
956
135
306
6,899
233
58
0
130
851
0
752
0
$19,049
8,660
$666,708
610
9,270
$695,675
9,260
$666,856
0
10
$20,424
0
$33,038
Revenues
NOTES: *In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the budget stabilization fund. **See Notes to Table 4 on page 30.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
5
TABLE 5
Fiscal 2013 State General Fund, Appropriated (Millions)
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico**
Total
Beginning
Balance
Adjustments
Resources
Expenditures
Adjustments
$35
0
396
0
-2,882
804
0
565
1,000
1,131
275
85
40
1,803
0
466
44
0
42
551
1,990
728
1,098
9
205
453
499
205
23
569
705
1,787
394
1,294
973
107
2
659
94
956
0
427
574
0
0
675
-415
611
342
0
$7,073
8,440
7,881
4,728
95,887
7,956
19,143
3,690
25,492
18,161
5,782
2,634
32,436
14,663
6,483
6,174
9,400
8,103
3,056
14,458
33,781
8,325
17,257
4,840
7,626
1,853
3,767
3,176
1,415
31,393
5,749
58,900
20,004
2,026
28,595
6,284
7,018
27,290
3,321
6,128
1,234
11,542
41,587
4,973
1,300
16,714
15,582
4,150
13,675
1,621
$146
0
819
0
0
-3
0
0
0
0
0
-12
1,962
0
559
0
254
155
21
15
0
-79
0
-96
237
0
-143
0
-11
-4
0
0
0
305
188
0
0
0
-103
0
77
15
-452
145
5
0
235
0
540
0
$7,255
8,440
9,096
4,728
93,005
8,758
19,143
4,254
26,492
19,292
6,058
2,707
34,438
16,466
7,041
6,641
9,698
8,258
3,120
15,024
35,771
8,974
18,355
4,752
8,068
2,306
4,123
3,381
1,427
31,958
6,454
60,687
20,398
3,625
29,756
6,391
7,020
27,949
3,312
7,084
1,310
11,983
41,709
5,118
1,305
17,389
15,402
4,761
14,558
1,621
$7,108
7,583
8,573
4,728
91,338
7,743
19,140
3,751
24,914
18,161
5,709
2,702
28,355
14,087
6,221
6,171
9,500
8,253
3,003
14,593
34,371
8,974
17,359
4,752
7,968
1,910
3,632
3,176
1,259
31,309
5,721
58,868
20,184
2,120
28,574
5,987
6,827
27,656
3,296
5,974
1,246
11,686
37,139
5,093
1,305
17,341
15,351
4,247
14,766
1,621
$0
304
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,043
727
41
0
146
0
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
131
0
0
0
0
0
630
0
0
73
0
549
48
287
0
25
0
0
0
28
-548
0
$147
553
523
0
1,667
1,015
3
504
1,578
1,131
348
5
40
1,652
779
470
52
5
0
431
1,400
0
997
0
100
397
217
206
37
648
733
1,819
213
1,505
552
403
193
220
16
561
16
10
4,570
0
0
49
51
485
339
0
$115
16,518
450
0
948
298
93
199
709
328
0
35
276
355
622
0
122
442
45
713
1,392
505
612
0
251
0
384
38
10
0
733
1,306
419
386
482
0
85
73
171
561
151
356
8,084
244
63
0
267
900
0
765
0
$19,322
8,750
$692,764
333
9,083
$716,860
9,083
$681,347
0
0
$26,639
0
$40,505
Revenues
NOTES: *In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the budget stabilization fund. **See Notes to Table 5 on page 33.
6
Rainy
Day Fund
Balance
Ending
Balance
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 6
General Fund Nominal Percentage Expenditure
Change, Fiscal 2012 and Fiscal 2013**
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Average
Fiscal
2012
Fiscal
2013
3.3%
28.7
0.6
2.8
-4.9
3.4
4.4
9.8
-0.2
2.1
10.9
3.9
0.3
4.1
12.3
8.1
7.4
6.0
9.0
12.8
1.2
2.0
9.6
6.1
4.0
1.6
3.7
-8.4
-5.4
6.5
7.2
2.0
5.8
34.6
0.6
7.0
14.1
-4.0
5.4
6.8
5.1
14.6
13.4
2.5
7.5
5.8
3.4
9.8
2.2
0.0
-6.5%
8.1
1.8
2.6
5.0
8.0
2.3
4.4
4.9
4.2
3.6
6.2
-3.1
3.7
3.6
0.7
0.7
0.1
-4.1
-2.3
5.9
7.1
3.3
-1.1
0.4
7.6
5.4
2.0
1.5
4.4
0.6
4.2
3.1
-4.6
8.3
3.3
-1.0
1.7
5.7
8.3
3.3
2.0
-15.4
5.4
4.4
6.1
0.2
2.6
6.5
2.6
1.2
3.4%
-1.9
2.2%
*See Notes to Table 6 on page 35. **Fiscal 2012 reflects changes from fiscal 2011 expenditures
(actual) to fiscal 2012 expenditures (preliminary actual). Fiscal 2013 reflects changes from fiscal
2012 expenditures (preliminary actual) to fiscal 2013 expenditures (appropriated).
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
7
Budget Cuts, Budget Gaps, and the
Recovery Act
Mid-year budget cuts are one mechanism by which states can
close budget gaps. States can also implement strategies to
Enacted budget cuts by program area help identify changing
spending patterns within the general fund. The degree of competition for state resources can be analyzed by highlighting program area cuts and year over year enacted spending changes
across program areas. (See Tables 10 and 11) Seven states
enacted cuts to K-12 education, while 36 states reported an
increase, resulting in a net spending increase of $4.9 billion in
fiscal 2013. Thirty-two states enacted general fund spending
increases for Medicaid, and aggregate spending levels are expected to increase by $4.1 billion excluding Texas. Supplemental Medicaid appropriations in Texas are projected to reach $4.7
billion, but the additional appropriations are still pending legislative approval. Several major program areas including higher education, public assistance and corrections experienced
enacted cuts in fiscal 2013.
close budget gaps prior to the start of the fiscal year. Previously
closed budget gaps for fiscal 2013 totaled $37 billion, significantly less than the $71.7 billion in previously closed budget
gaps for fiscal 2012. In addition, the number of states forecasting budget gaps for fiscal 2014 has fallen from 11 to eight.
Declining budget gaps in fiscal 2013 indicate that state fiscal
conditions are further stabilizing from fiscal 2012 and fiscal
2011. Constrained revenues and heightened spending demands in fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012, left states to solve
$146.3 billion in budget gaps over the two year time period.
Continued improvement of state revenue collections is projected to minimize gaps between spending and revenue
throughout fiscal 2013, and fiscal 2014 budget gaps will likely
also decline relative to fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012.
In order to eliminate budget gaps in fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014,
One of the clearest signs of state fiscal stress is mid-year
budget cuts, as these actions are evidence that states will not
be able to meet previously set revenue collection forecasts.
With fiscal 2013 just underway at the time of data collection,
few states reported mid-year budget cuts for the current fiscal
year. However, in fiscal 2012, eight states made $1.7 billion in
mid-year cuts. (See Figure 2) In fiscal 2011, 23 states made
mid-year budget cuts totaling $7.8 billion. In fiscal 2010, 39
states made mid-year budget cuts totaling $18.3 billion, and in
fiscal 2009, 41 states made mid-year budget cuts, totaling
$31.3 billion. In sharp contrast to fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010,
states are planning to use a number of strategies. In fiscal 2013,
21 states reported that targeted cuts will be used to reduce expenditures, and 13 states expect to use across-the-board percentage cuts. Four states intend to close budget gaps by
making use of their “rainy day” fund in fiscal 2013. States also
helped solve budget gaps by reducing the budgetary impact
of state personnel costs with nine states implementing employee layoffs and nine states cutting state employee benefits.
While few states were able to project how budget gaps will be
addressed in fiscal 2014, five expect targeted cuts to be part
of the solution. (See Tables 12, 13, and 14)
minimal mid-year cuts in fiscal 2012 indicate that states’ fiscal
situations are stabilizing, and budgets are successfully adapting
to the current economic environment.
8
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 7
Fiscal 2013 Net Mid-Year Budget Cuts
FY 2013
Size of Cuts
($ in Millions)
Programs or Expenditures
Exempted from Cuts
Missouri*
$81.9
K-12 Foundation Formula
Total
$81.9
—
Region/State
Notes: *See Notes to Table 7 on page 35. **Budget Cuts for Fiscal 2013 are currently ongoing. See Tables 8
& 9 for state-by-state data on programs and dollar values.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
9
Table 8
Fiscal 2013 Mid-Year Program Area Cuts
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Higher
Education
K-12
Education
Public
Assistance
Medicaid
Transportation
Other
X
X
1
1
X
X
0
1
0
0
NOTE: See Table 9 for state-by-state values.
10
Corrections
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
1
Table 9
Fiscal 2013 Mid-Year Program Area Adjustments by Dollar Value (Millions)
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
K-12
Education
Higher
Education
Public
Assistance
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
-57.0
-8.9
-0.3
Other
Total
57.0
0
-72.7
-81.9
25.3
$25.3
25.3
-$8.9
$0.0
$0.0
-$57.0
-$0.3
-$15.7
-$56.6
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 9 on page 36.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
11
Table 10
Fiscal 2013 Enacted Program Area Cuts
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
K-12
Education
Higher
Education
X
X
Public
Assistance
Medicaid
Corrections
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
16
12
12
NOTE: See Table 11 for state-by-state dollar values.
12
Transportation
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
16
X
X
X
X
5
X
13
Table 11
Fiscal 2013 Enacted Program Area Adjustments by Dollar Value (Millions)
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
K-12
Education
Higher
Education
Public
Assistance
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
Other
Total
-$113.6
46.3
25.7
56.6
3,143.8
181.7
-88.3
59.0
908.2
92.2
-16.2
56.2
-209.6
171.6
36.7
0.0
0.0
11.7
21.8
-37.2
233.0
203.8
634.9
12.3
167.9
30.0
40.4
25.7
0.0
199.2
64.0
458.0
42.1
0.0
88.7
0.0
2.5
413.5
70.0
173.5
48.8
83.5
-2,916.0
97.1
17.8
349.4
-17.0
41.4
0.0
0.0
-$20.6
9.6
16.1
3.6
-816.7
-4.7
-6.6
3.3
-254.6
138.6
-8.8
23.8
-112.6
5.6
42..3
0.0
-55.6
-64.7
-1.6
-46.9
20.5
44.5
0.2
-42.8
16.3
1.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
96.2
42.0
181.0
40.6
0.0
-9.3
10.0
0.0
-34.2
7.0
20.4
22.8
18.4
-455.0
19.7
0.0
97.0
15.0
-2.2
0.0
0.0
$0.0
28.8
21.2
0.0
-1,112.2
0.0
-7.5
6.3
0.0
0.0
-2.9
0.0
-13.0
0.0
-1.4
0.0
0.0
1.5
-0.1
29.7
6.9
68.6
-23.6
3.8
-0.6
0.0
-4.4
0.0
0.0
-19.2
1.0
235.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
-156.1
0.0
0.6
7.5
0.9
0.0
-0.1
0.2
8.5
22.0
8.5
0.0
0.0
-$40.7
129.9
-1.0
114.3
-893.2
158.2
65.9
24.2
685.4
113.6
10.0
36.0
-81.0
166.0
11.5
0.0
-37.3
185.3
-119.9
-164.3
635.1
-23.6
-9.3
227.0
-54.4
8.0
64.3
-17.2
0.0
13.9
38.0
373.0
143.1
0.0
1,294.0
0.0
59.9
161.9
44.0
176.3
34.5
74.5
-3,590.0
40.3
39.9
298.8
2.0
70.5
0.0
0.0
-$12.4
35.4
7.5
1.6
-934.4
2.9
-44.5
7.6
-119.0
39.2
-3.6
9.9
-92.8
7.8
7.5
0.0
12.3
-19.4
-1.1
25.7
55.0
19.9
1.0
0.8
7.2
0.0
0.7
-2.5
0.0
-30.6
9.0
-41.0
324.6
0.0
-1.4
3.9
46.9
5.4
-3.0
4.5
2.7
50.4
-5.0
9.2
1.7
14.8
-29.0
-17.9
0.0
0.0
$0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-9.1
22.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-98.4
0.0
295.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.7
-12.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
-96.2
-3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-$75.5
131.1
-21.0
-12.6
6,013.7
172.1
513.4
-22.2
339.0
389.9
176.8
27.4
-48.8
84.8
119.7
0.0
175.0
-100.4
-26.5
37.3
964.4
275.8
-46.2
-0.4
-52.1
14.0
30.8
35.6
0.0
1,157.1
63.9
436.0
-49.3
0.0
274.0
144.0
27.7
80.2
39.0
257.5
35.7
359.3
-536.5
39.6
10.0
478.8
36.0
-130.0
0.0
0.0
-$262.8
383.4
48.5
163.5
5,401.0
510.2
432.4
78.2
1,559.0
820.6
155.3
153.3
-557.0
435.8
174.0
0.0
95.5
14.1
-127.4
-155.7
1,905.8
611.5
557.0
200.7
84.6
53.0
146.1
41.6
0.0
1,318.2
217.9
1,937.0
501.1
0.0
1,647.2
257.6
124.5
470.7
157.0
633.4
156.0
587.0
-7,502.5
205.9
69.6
1,151.1
26.0
-29.7
0.0
0.0
-62.1
$4,911.0
52.3
-$1,069.4
0.0
-$888.9
14.6
$467.4
-18.0
-$642.5
-4.6
$254.3
-159.7
$11,818.1
-177.5
$14,850.1
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 11 on page 36. Value of changes are in reference to funding levels of FY 2012 enacted budgets.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
13
TABLE 12
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2012
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
User
Fees
Higher Education
Related
Fees
Court
Related
Fees
Transportation/
Motor Vehicle
Related Fees
Business
Related Fees
Layoffs
Furloughs
Early
Retirement
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
8
4
8
X
X
3
11
3
X
4
5
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 12 on page 37.
Table 12 continues on next page.
14
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 12
(Continued)
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2012
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Cuts to State
Employee
Benefits
Acrossthe-Board
Percent Cuts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Targeted
Cuts
Reduce
Local Aid
Reorganize
Agencies
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Privatization
Rainy
Day
Fund
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
(Specify)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gaming/
Gambling
Expansion
X
X
X
X
X
Lottery
Expansion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
13
26
12
X
12
X
3
X
6
2
1
11
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 12 on page 37.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
15
TABLE 13
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2013
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
User
Fees
Higher Education
Related
Fees
Court
Related
Fees
Transportation/
Motor Vehicle
Related Fees
X
X
X
X
X
Business
Related Fees
Layoffs
Furloughs
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
6
4
6
X
X
3
9
3
X
2
4
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 13 on page 37.
Table 13 continues on next page.
16
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2013
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Cuts to State
Employee
Benefits
Acrossthe-Board
Percent Cuts
Targeted
Cuts
Reduce
Local Aid
Reorganize
Agencies
Privatization
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
13
21
8
10
4
X
4
4
2
11
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 13 on page 37.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
17
TABLE 14
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2014
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
User
Fees
Higher Education
Related
Fees
X
X
X
Court
Related
Fees
Transportation/
Motor Vehicle
Related Fees
X
X
Business
Related Fees
1
Furloughs
X
X
Early
Retirement
Salary
Reductions
X
X
3
Layoffs
2
1
X
X
1
2
X
1
X
0
1
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 14 on page 38.
Table 14 continues on next page.
18
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2014
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Cuts to State
Employee
Benefits
Acrossthe-Board
Percent Cuts
Targeted
Cuts
Reduce
Local Aid
Reorganize
Agencies
Privatization
Rainy
Day
Fund
Lottery
Expansion
Gaming/
Gambling
Expansion
Other
(Specify)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
3
5
X
2
1
0
X
0
0
1
4
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 14 on page 38.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
19
Figure 2:
Budget Cuts Made After the Budget Passed, Fiscal 1990 to Fiscal 2012 ($ Millions)
50
$60,000
Recession ends
Recession ends
Recession ends
$50,000
40
(In Millions)
30
$30,000
20
$20,000
(Number of States)
$40,000
10
$10,000
$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
0
Number of States
State Employment Changes
Amount of Reduction
State employee compensation has also been widely affected by
The state employment outlook deteriorated in fiscal 2012
and is expected to worsen again in fiscal 2013. The reduction in the state workforce was widespread with 33 states
cutting the number of full time equivalent positions in fiscal
2012. Sixteen states are expected to reduce the number of
full time employees in fiscal 2013, and five states expect no
change. The total number of full time employees is projected
to decrease by 1.7 percent in fiscal 2013, after falling by 2.4
the recession and the anemic growth in the economic recovery.
Since fiscal 2010 there has been considerable variation among
states’ changes to employee compensation, but many states
have foregone salary increases, reduced benefits, and in select
cases implemented salary cuts. However, a number of states
authorized across-the-board and merit increases in fiscal 2012
and fiscal 2013. Seventeen states enacted across-the-board
salary increases in fiscal 2013. Other modifications to employee
compensation in fiscal 2013 included merit increases, furlough
percent in fiscal 2012. (See Table 15)
days, changes to health and retirement benefit packages, and
additional pay for performance. (See Table 16)
20
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 15
Number of Filled Full-Time Equivalent Positions Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013, in All Funds
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Percent
Change
2011-2012
Percent
Change
2012-2013
31,995
21,843
NA
34,668
341,766
52,016
45,336
31,347
117,444
96,794
34,296
17,890
50,196
28,000
39,473
40,934
32,000
63,859
13,323
75,175
64,120
45,300
NA
36,494
55,560
13,498
NA
16,655
10,631
71,003
25,810
185,919
267,448
8,259
54,049
35,223
50,570
79,831
15,026
66,303
13,702
41,800
235,047
19,643
7,800
116,930
105,449
37,958
63,331
8,545
-5.10%
0.13
0.49
0.01
-7.59
-1.35
-0.47
0.52
-3.95
-11.59
-1.37
-1.01
-6.35
-0.72
-6.55
-2.49
-0.84
-11.94
-2.78
-0.33
0.53
0.82
-4.16
0.40
-1.77
0.60
-0.83
0.03
-9.21
-0.99
-2.96
-2.32
-0.05
0.80
-4.51
-1.49
-1.62
-1.09
-0.40
5.24
-1.07
-1.63
1.40
-1.11
0.12
0.39
-1.77
1.36
0.74
0.00
0.00%
0.55
NA
9.60
-0.57
-0.25
-2.19
0.51
-3.06
-0.75
0.22
0.36
0.26
0.48
0.00
-0.65
-0.15
-0.99
-0.24
0.01
-24.13
0.13
NA
15.80
2.12
0.10
NA
0.00
10.51
2.78
18.87
0.97
-17.04
7.32
-1.16
-0.90
0.08
-0.93
9.89
17.65
4.93
0.06
0.00
-2.03
1.40
2.06
-0.44
0.68
1.85
0.00
175,776
2,920,255
-1.77
-2.41%
-1.12
-1.73%
Fiscal
2011
Fiscal
2012
Fiscal
2013
33,716
21,696
38,349
31,629
371,959
52,864
46,573
31,027
126,127
110,313
34,697
18,008
53,457
28,069
42,238
42,252
32,321
73,247
13,737
75,413
84,071
44,872
35,514
31,390
55,389
13,563
15,940
16,650
10,596
69,772
22,374
188,511
322,564
7,635
57,266
36,081
51,362
81,473
13,728
53,550
13,200
42,468
231,911
20,276
7,683
114,125
107,828
37,198
61,722
8,545
31,995
21,724
38,536
31,631
343,728
52,148
46,352
31,188
121,150
97,523
34,222
17,825
50,065
27,866
39,473
41,201
32,048
64,500
13,355
75,165
84,513
45,240
34,037
31,514
54,406
13,483
15,808
16,655
9,620
69,082
21,712
184,141
322,391
7,696
54,681
35,544
50,529
80,583
13,674
56,357
13,059
41,774
235,239
20,050
7,692
114,569
105,920
37,703
62,181
8,545
180,971
3,045,141
177,769
2,971,708
Includes Higher
Education
Faculty
StateAdministered
Welfare System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOTE: NA indicates data are not available. *See Notes to Table 15 on page 38. **Unless otherwise noted, fiscal 2011 reflects actual figures, fiscal 2012 reflects preliminary actuals and fiscal 2013 reflects appropriated figures. Totals exclude states that were not able to provide data for all three years.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
21
TABLE 16
State Employee Compensation Changes, Fiscal 2013
Region/State
Merit
(percent)
Other
(percent)
-5.0
-0.25
2.0
3.5
X
3.8
-3.29 to -4.75
Depends on
individual eligibility
-3.29 to -4.75
Across-the-Board
(percent)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
-5.0
Idaho
2.0
Continued -5.0 percent reduction from FY 2012. Four employee collective
bargaining units are currently without a collective bargaining agreement.
(One awaits an arbitration award, two await arbitration hearings and award,
and one is working under unilaterally implemented terms which are similar
to the units with agreements).
All employees received a 2% across-the-board merit increase and if
agencies had extra money they were allowed to give a merit increase on
top of the across-the-board. The average increase for state employees was
a 4% increase.
The state is currently in mediation with the bargaining units that represent
their employees.
Unions and Noncontract 2% ATB on July 1, 2012 and 1% ATB on
January 1, 2013. Employees not at the top of their payscale also were
eligible to receive up to a 4.5% step increase.
Employee Compensation package for FY 2013 has not yet been determined.
State employees received performance-based pay increases in FY 2012
averaging 2.2 percent.
Illinois
Iowa
Annual merit raises (5%) are frozen through December 31, 2012 Employee
retirement contribution rates are set to increase 0.25% on October 1, 2012.
Other is additional $80/month toward health insurance cost increase.
The pay increase represents a one-time retention pay for all non-university
state employees who are uncovered as of Sept 28, 2012. On Sep 29th,
each uncovered state employee paycheck will increase 5%, for the
equivalent of 3.75% of the employee's annual salary level.
The cost of living and merit increases for FY13 will be determined at the
end of the year based on available funding.
Above percentages reflect a one day per month PLP/Furlough reduction.
Employee health care benefits were fully funded in FY 2012-13, reducing
the potential cost increase to state employees.
Wage freeze through FY 2013.
Effective July 1, 2012.
Certain positions that have experienced high turnover in recent years were
granted special pay incentives. These positions include child protective
investigators and nursing personnel in veterans’ homes.
1.0
Georgia
Hawaii
Notes
2.5
4.5
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
0.0
0.0
4.0
Maryland
Massachusetts
2.0
3.0
Indiana
0.0
Collective bargaining agreements with state employees not settled at this
time. Merit pay is suspended through FY 2013.
A 2% cost of living adjustment will go into effect on January 1, 2013.
3% across-the-board for approved and ratified union contracts, 3% merit
for managers.
3.0
Table 16 continues on next page.
22
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 (Continued)
State Employee Compensation Changes, Fiscal 2013
Region/State
Michigan
Across-the-Board
(percent)
Merit
(percent)
Other
(percent)
1.0 to 3.0
Minnesota
1.0
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
2.0
Notes
General increases include 3 percent for non-represented employees,
2 percent for enlisted state police personnel, and 1 percent for all other
classified employees. An additional lump sum payment of 1 to 2 percent of
the annualized base pay rate is provided for each classified employee.
1.14
0.72
Effective Fiscal 2012 (October 2012), all classified employees will pay
20 percent of annual health plan premium amounts. Some classified
employees will receive step increases pay adjustments for satisfactory
performance in amounts and at intervals provided for in the compensation
schedule for the employee's classification level. Other employees may be
eligible for promotion to a higher classification grade and pay level. Career
employees receive an annual longevity payment following completion of
6 years of continuous full-time service. The amount of the longevity payment
varies depending on the number of years of full-time service and is
increased in four-year increments.
Proposed contracts not yet ratified by the legislature. The total percentage
reflects a 2% across-the-board effective 1/2/13, anticipated 9% increase in
employer insurance costs, and a step/merit increase averaging 3.5% for
50% of employees.
Applicable to employees earning less than $70,000 annually.
Employees covered by collective bargaining contracts as follows:
NAPE/AFSCME contract: 2%
State Law Enforcement (SLEBC) contract: 2.6%
State Education Dept. contract employees: 2%
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
1.5
New Mexico
1.75
Non-contract employees as follows:
Employees of the Judicial Branch: 2.5%
Employees of the Legislative Branch: 2%
Supervisory and Management (non-contract) staff of most other agencies
received a 3% increase with some management staff an additional 1%.
Six furlough days per year continued from FY 2012.
Employee compensation for annual step increases for classified employees
represented through collective bargaining was frozen for the period
effective Sept. 1, 2011 through Aug.31, 2012. Unrepresented nonclassified
and unclassified employees in the Executive Branch, those eligible for step
increases, had that action frozen by an Executive Order of the Governor for
that same timeframe.
Negotiated agreements for approximately 74% of the State workforce do not
include across-the-board increases. Approximately 6,000 employees will
receive a contractual one-time bonus of $800 in FY 2013. Collective
bargaining negotiations continue with approximately 21% of the state
workforce. The remaining 5% of the workforce are not union-represented.
Shift in retirement calculations from the employee to the state.
Table 16 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
23
TABLE 16 (Continued)
State Employee Compensation Changes, Fiscal 2013
Region/State
Across-the-Board
(percent)
Merit
(percent)
Other
(percent)
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Notes
The State recently reached new labor contracts with most of the State
employee labor unions. Under the agreed upon terms of the recently ratified
labor contracts, there will be no general salary increases in FY 2013.
In addition, employees will participate in a Deficit Reduction Leave (DRL)
program, implemented during FY 2012 and remaining in effect through the
end of FY 2013, which temporarily reduces wages by the equivalent of
9 days of salary in exchange for compensatory leave time. There are a
series of step increases within each pay grade until reaching the maximum
salary for the grade. Approximately 33% of the workforce is eligible to receive
such increases. Pending wage and benefit agreements being negotiated
with labor unions at the time the FY 2013 Budget was enacted,
Management/Confidential (M/C) employees were administratively delayed
their performance advancements and longevity increases at the beginning
of FY 2013.
1.2
3.0
Ohio
4.5
Oklahoma
Oregon
0.8
Pennsylvania
1.0
2.3
South Carolina
3.0
2.0
South Dakota
3.0
0.0 to 7.0
Tennessee
2.5
1.1
Puerto Rico
Texas
Salary increases are to be given on the basis of merit and equity and are
not to be given across the board.
The current contract for FY 12-14 reinstituted “Step” increases for all
bargaining unit and certain "Exempt" employees. "Step" increases result in
an approximately 4.0% increase in employee base salary for each year of
experience, up to a maximum of six steps. Additionally, the contract
continues “longevity” pay for which bargaining unit and certain “Exempt”
employees receive an increase equal to .5% of the base salary for the
lowest step of their pay range for each year of service, up to a maximum of
20 years of service.
Fiscal year percentages displayed are of “Total Compensation”, not just
salaries & wages. Prior year reports were for salaries & wages only. “Merit”
increases were frozen until FY 2013. Steps will phase in one-half step over
the course of the fiscal year (depending on eligibility date) and then be fully
restored at the end of the fiscal year. “Across-the-board” is a 1.45% COLA
increase scheduled for Dec. 2012. Total 2011-13 biennium compensation
package increase is 6%.
Across-the-board: Most state employees received a 1% increase effective
July 1, 2012. Other: Most state employees will receive a 2.25% service
increment in April 2013.
Each agency must evaluate their fiscal ability to offer salary increases to the
employees. No across the board salary increases are included in FY 2013
adopted budget.
Other = Additional 2% (total of 5%) increase for Class I law enforcement
personnel at select agencies.
In FY2013 South Dakota added a new component to our movement towards
job worth so select groups of employees received a percentage based on
where they were currently within that career family. For employees not
included in that component they received up to a 2.5% movement towards
job worth if they were not there yet.
Also, $15 million was appropriated for a salary market adjustment for state
employees, effective January 1, 2013. Appropriation reflects the six months
cost of the salary adjustment.
No across-the-board salary adjustments were adopted. Compensation
decisions are made on an agency-by-agency, employee-by-employee
basis.
Table 16 continues on next page.
24
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 (Continued)
State Employee Compensation Changes, Fiscal 2013
Region/State
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Across-the-Board
(percent)
1.0
2.0
Merit
(percent)
Other
(percent)
3.0
3.0
Notes
State employees received a 1% salary increase.
Other: represents restoration of 3% pay cut that was implemented for
FY11 (and pay freeze in FY12). Not included above are step increases,
which on average represent approximately 1.7% salary base increase.
One-time bonus scheduled for December 2013.
State Police 2% ATB for civilian positions of the WV State Police $5,000
raise for the Coal & Rock Dust Inspector’s with Miners Health Safety and
Training Department of Veterans Assistance Cabinet Secretary Raise
$5,000 (from $70k to $75k).
General employees will be required to contribute an additional 0.75% of
their pay to the Wisconsin Retirement System.
Wyoming
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
25
Medicaid Outlook: Medicaid Spending,
Enrollment, Cost Containment Proposals,
and the Affordable Care Act
Cost containment in Medicaid continues to be a common
theme. In fiscal 2012, 48 states implemented at least one new
policy to control Medicaid costs, and 47 planned to do so in
Medicaid is a means-tested entitlement program financed by
the states and the federal government that provides comprehensive and long-term medical care for more than 60 million
low-income individuals. Medicaid is estimated to account for
about 23.9 percent of total spending in fiscal 2012, the single
largest portion of total state expenditures and 19.6 percent of
fiscal 2013 according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid
and the Uninsured’s 2012 annual survey on Medicaid and state
budgets. The report notes that cost pressure and cost containment were still dominant themes, though states were also able
to implement program changes, payment and delivery system
reforms and re-orient long-term care programs to communitybased care models.
general fund expenditures.
Total Medicaid spending increased by 9.6 percent in fiscal 2011
and is estimated to increase by 1.2 percent in fiscal 2012, according to NASBO’s 2011 State Expenditure Report. Fiscal
2012 growth rates in the Medicaid program are significantly
below historical trends and reflect many factors including ex-
The Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, has a significant impact on states and especially on state Medicaid programs. In the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold the
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Court ruled that
the Medicaid expansion is constitutional though the federal
government could not withhold existing Medicaid funding for
tensive state cost containment actions.
states that opted not to participate in the expansion. Beginning
In fiscal 2011, state funds increased by 20.3 percent and fed-
January 1, 2014, state Medicaid programs will have the option
eral funds increased by 4.1 percent over fiscal 2010 amounts.
to expand to cover non-pregnant, non-elderly individuals with
For fiscal 2012, state funds increased by an estimated 16.2
incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The cost
percent while federal funds decreased by 7.8 percent over fiscal
for those newly eligible for coverage will be fully federally funded
2011 amounts.
in calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016 with federal financing
phasing down to 90 percent by 2020. States are required to
The significant increase in state spending in fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012 and the significant decrease in federal funding for fiscal
2012 reflect the end of the enhanced Medicaid match rate from
apply a five percent income disregard when determining Medicaid eligibility, effectively bringing the new Medicaid minimum
eligibility level to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
that was in effect from October 2008 through June 2011.
The Affordable Care Act imposes a maintenance of effort (MOE)
Under ARRA, all states received a temporary increase in their
requirement on eligibility standards, methodologies, and pro-
FMAP as well as additional amounts for those states facing the
cedures for adults until an exchange is fully operational in 2014
highest unemployment rates. ARRA was estimated to provide
and for children in Medicaid and CHIP through 2019. There is
approximately $100 billion to states through the temporary in-
a limited exception during the period January 1, 2011 through
crease in FMAP payments beginning October 2008 and ending
December 31, 2013 for a state that certifies it has a budget
in June 2011.
deficit on or after December 31, 2010.
The downturn in the economy resulted in significant increases
Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing the Af-
in Medicaid enrollment as has occurred in previous economic
fordable Care Act. There are many challenges and opportu-
slowdowns though enrollment growth has subsided from its
nities ahead as states move forward with implementation of the
peak of 7.8 percent during the height of the recession. Enroll-
Affordable Care Act. Some of the most significant challenges
ment growth averaged 4.4 percent in fiscal 2011 with states
cited by states include upgrading current Medicaid eligibility
projecting Medicaid enrollment to grow by an additional 3.2
systems and integrating with health insurance exchanges, and
percent in fiscal 2012, according to the Kaiser Commission on
accommodating the significant number of new enrollees under
Medicaid and the Uninsured.
Medicaid. Other challenges cited include changing to the modified adjusted gross income eligibility criteria, funding existing
26
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
programs, the lack of clarity about the federal exchange option,
of recipients fell from 12.8 million prior to the enactment of TANF
estimating the number of new Medicaid enrollees, and the
to 4.4 million on average in 2011, a decrease of over two-thirds.
sheer number of initiatives that need to be implemented in a
tight timeframe with reduced workforce capacity. Opportunities
cited include the increased federal match for Medicaid eligibility
systems, reducing the numbers of uninsured individuals, reducing premiums for individuals and small businesses, lowering uncompensated care costs, modernizing business processes,
and new options for payment and delivery of health care.
This report has information only on the changes in the cash assistance benefit levels within the program. Cash assistance
payments under TANF comprise approximately 29 percent of
total TANF spending. For fiscal 2013, 46 states maintained the
same cash assistance benefit levels that were in effect in fiscal
2012. Four states increased cash assistance benefit levels,
ranging from 1.8 to 10 percent. (See Table 17 and Notes to
Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Program
Table 17)
State cash assistance increased under the Temporary Assis-
Table 17
tance for Needy Families program. The Temporary Assistance
Enacted Cost-of-Living Changes for
Cash Assistance Benefit Levels Under the
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families
Block Grant, Fiscal 2013
for Needy Families (TANF) program was reauthorized under the
Deficit Reduction Act in February 2006. The TANF block grant
is funded at $16.6 billion each year and is currently authorized
under a continuing resolution.
The program includes specific definitions of work, work verification requirements, and penalties if states do not meet the requirements. As a result of these changes, most states have to
significantly increase work participation rates.
Percent
Change
State/Territory
Florida
Nebraska*
New York
Ohio
South Dakota
4.0
10.0
1.8
1.8
Since welfare reform was initially passed in 1996, states have
focused on providing supportive services for families to achieve
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 17 on page 39.
self-sufficiency rather than cash assistance. Since 1996, caseloads have declined significantly. The average monthly number
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
27
Chapter 1 Notes
Notes to Table 3
Fiscal 2011 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
Expenditure Adjustments include a reduction due to across the board percentage cuts of $414.2M and a reduction of $68.6M
for reversions and other adjustments.
Alaska
Revenue adjustments: $21.4 reappropriation and carry forward. Expenditure adjustments: Net of ($1,114.3) Public Education
Fund draw and $1,131.0 Public Education Fund forward funding. Rainy Day Fund is $10,016.8 CBR + $1,048.6 SBR.
Arizona
Adjustment to revenue include temporary one-cent sales tax increase, agency fund transfers and county transfer.
California
Represents adjustments to the Beginning Fund Balance. This consists primarily of adjustments to major taxes and K-12 spending.
Colorado
FY 11 total expenditures reflects -$26.4M of reversions and accounting adjustments and -$0.5M of Enhanced Medicaid match
which reduces GF expenditures. See Table 1 of the June 2012 OSPB forecast, page 9, lines 15 and 16. In FY 11 (per SB11-156),
the reserve was set at 2.3% (this increased to 4% in FY 11-12). Per SB11-230, of the excess reserve in FY 2010-11, $67.5M
was transferred to the Public School Fund and $221.4M was transferred to the State Education Fund (SEF).
Connecticut
Adjustments for FY 2011 reflect transfer of FY 2010 General Fund revenue. The ending balance for FY 2011 was reserved for
early retirement of Economic Recovery Notes issued to resolve the FY 2009 deficit.
Georgia
Agency surplus returned.
Idaho
The remainder of the rainy day fund balances were transferred to the General Fund for FY 2011, this included $30.1 million from
the Budget Stabilization Fund and $48.8 million from the Economic Recovery Reserve Fund. There was an additional $1.5 million
transferred to the General Fund from various other dedicated accounts and $1 million was transferred to the Disaster Recovery
Fund/Military Division.
Illinois
Revenue adjustments include: statutory transfers in, inter-fund borrowing proceeds, short term borrowing proceeds, pension
obligation bond proceeds, tobacco revenue securitization proceeds. Expenditure adjustments include: statutory transfers out,
pay down of accounts payable, repayment of short term borrowing, repayment of inter-fund borrowing. Rainy Day Fund monies
were not transferred out of the General Revenue Fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
Indiana
Revenue Adjustments: Transfer from General Fund to Rainy Day Fund.
Expenditure Adjustments: Local Option Income Tax Distributions; PTRF Adjust for Abstracts.
Iowa
Ending Balance of General Fund is transferred to in the current year to the Reserve Funds in the subsequent fiscal year. After
the Reserve Funds hit their statutorily set maximum amounts, the remainder of the funds are transferred back to the General
Fund in the subsequent fiscal year.
Kentucky
Revenue includes $99.8 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $72.0 million that represents
appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $125.1 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded to the next fiscal year.
Louisiana
Revenues Adjustments—Includes Transfers from various Funds $28.7; Transfer from Overcollections Fund $26.9; Transfer from
Incentive Fund $4.0; Carryforward from FY09-10 $12.7; Carryforward of Interim Emergency Board appropriations $1.1; Re-Appropriation of Capital Outlay from various prior years $32.8. Actual State General Fund collections were less than official projections adopted by the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) on May, 2011 in the amount of ($107.9).
Maine
Revenue and expenditure adjustments reflect authorized transfers.
Maryland
Revenue adjustments include a $5.2 million reimbursement from the reserve for Sustainable Community Tax Credits, $8.0 million
reimbursement from the reserve for Biotechnology Tax Credits, and transfers of $333.9 million from other special funds.
28
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Massachusetts
Includes budgeted fund balances.
Michigan
Fiscal 2011 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes($1,428.6 million); revenue sharing payments
to local government units (-$426.8 million); and deposits from state restricted funds ($196.5 million).
Minnesota
Ending balance includes cash flow account of $266 million, budget reserve account of $8.7 million and appropriations carried
forward of $37.9 million.
Missouri
Revenue adjustments include transfers from other funds into the general revenue fund, including $572.4M from enhanced FMAP
authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Montana
Revenue adjustments include prior year revenue and expenditure adjustments include prior year expenditures and other direct
entries to fund balance.
Nebraska
Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. Among others, this includes a $112 million transfer from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund as well as a $154 million transfer to the General Fund from the
Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund).
New Hampshire
Revenue Adjustments: + $2.1 million transfer from the Liquor Fund and $124.0 million transfer to the Education Trust Fund.
New Jersey
Transfers from other funds and budget vs. GAAP adjustments.
New Mexico
Adjustments include one-time fiduciary tax payment of $36 million and transfer for solvency of $26 million.
New York
Total expenditures are not adjusted for the impact of delaying the end-of-year school aid payment ($2.06 billion) from March
2010 to the statutory deadline of June 1, 2010, which was done to carry forward the FY 2010 budget shortfall into FY 2011.
The ending balance includes $1.2 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $136 million in a community projects fund, $13 million
reserved for debt reduction and $21 million reserved for litigation risks.
North Dakota
Revenue adjustments are a $830.0 million transfer from the permanent oil tax trust fund and a $35.0 million transfer from the
lands and minerals trust fund to the general fund. Expenditure adjustments include a $61.4 million transfer to the budget stabilization fund and misc. adjustments and transfers.
Oklahoma
Revenue adjustment represents the difference in cash flow. $249.2 million expenditure adjustment is amount deposited into the
Rainy Day fund from surplus revenues.
Oregon
Rainy Day Fund balance includes normal RDF (primarily General Fund) plus an Education Stability Fund (primarily Lottery Funds).
Balances in RDF & ESF may include donations.
Pennsylvania
Revenue adjustments include a $0.25 million adjustment to the beginning balance, $93.7 million in prior year lapses, $1,756.5
million in Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, $921.4 million in federal State Fiscal Stabilization Funds and $387.8
million in federal Education Jobs Funds. Expenditure adjustment reflects $181.5 million in current year lapses. The year-end
transfer to the Rainy Day Fund (25% of the ending balance) was suspended for FY 2011.
Puerto Rico
Included $1.0 billion from the Local Stabilization Fund to cover operational expenses expected to be reduced through the fiscal
year 2011.
Rhode Island
Opening balance includes a surplus of $18 million and reappropriations of $4 million. Adjustments to revenues reflect a transfer
to the Budget Stabilization Fund.
South Carolina
Rainy Day Balance equals 3% General Reserve ($166.3) + 2% Capital Reserve ($107.7) + Surplus Contingency Reserve ($367.1)
Agency Appropriation Balances Carried Forward Next FY ($70.6).
South Dakota
Adjustments in Revenues: $9.9 million addition to revenue is from one-time receipts; $26.1 million decrease to revenue is a onetime refund of taxes.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
29
Tennessee
Revenue adjustments: $91.4 million transfer from debt service fund unexpended appropriations. $169.5 million transfer from
Rainy Day Fund. -$67.5 million transfer to dedicated revenue reserves. Total $193.4 million. Expenditure adjustments: $323.7
million transfer to capital outlay projects fund. $13.1 million transfer to state office buildings and support facilities fund. $253.3
million transfer to reserves for unexpended appropriations. Total $590.1 million. Ending balance: $371.3 million reserve for appropriations 2010-2011. $223.0 million unappropriated budget surplus at June 30, 2011. $0.9 million undesignated balance.
$595.2 million.
Texas
Adjustment is net of transfer to Rainy Day Fund (-$1,087.6m) and Comptroller adjustment to general fund dedicated account
balances (+$256.4m).
Utah
Includes transfers from previous year balance, to/from Rainy Day Fund, and special revenue funds.
Vermont
Adjustments equals transfers in or out of the General Fund.
Washington
Revenue fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts, and balancing to the final audited ending balance.
West Virginia
Fiscal year 2011 beginning balance includes $418.7 million in reappropriations, unappropriated surplus balance of $102.6 million,
and FY 2010 13th month expenditures of $30.6 million. Expenditures include regular, surplus and reappropriated funds and
$30.6 million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Revenue adjustments are prior year redeposits. 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 Transfers out of General Fund, -$14.8; Other Revenue, $632.3; Tribal Gaming, $24.7. Expenditure
adjustments include Designation for Continuing Balances, $8.2; and Unreserved Designated Balance, -$78.5.
Notes to Table 4
Fiscal 2012 State General Fund, Preliminary 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 one-time revenues of $296.4M. Expenditure Adjustments include a reduction due to across the
board percentage cuts of $188.3M.
Alaska
Revenue adjustments equals reappropriations; Expenditure adjustments equals transfers/savings including the net of Public Education Fund draw ($1,058.8) and future year funding $1,105.7, Statutory Budget Reserve $1,800.0; Rainy Day Fund is
$10,380.9 CBR + $4,402.1 SBR.
Arizona
Positive adjustment to revenue include temporary one-cent sales tax increase, agency fund transfers and county transfer; negative
adjustment includes a transfer to the Rainy Day fund.
California
Represents adjustments to the Beginning Fund Balance. This consists primarily of adjustments to reimbursements and savings
from various Health and Human Services departments.
Colorado
Per HB12-1338, $59M of the FY 11-12 excess amount and all of the FY 12-13 excess amount is transferred to the State Education Fund. After the $59M transfer, the remainder of the surplus is carried forward to be part of the FY 12-13 beginning balance.
Connecticut
The ending balance for FY 2012 reflects redirection of the funds reserved to retire FY 2009 Economic Recovery Notes. Instead,
the funds were used to resolve the FY 2012 deficit, and the $93.4 million remainder was deposited to the Budget Reserve Fund.
Georgia
Adjustment is the mid-year adjustment for education.
30
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Idaho
Transfers to the General Fund included: $21,959,000 from the Non-Endowed Millennium Fund; $8 million from Liquor Division;
$7 million from the Permanent Building Fund; and $1,045,700 from other dedicated funds. Transfers from the General Fund included: $23,641,300 to the Budget Stabilization Fund; $21,452,600 to the Public Education Stabilization Fund; $500,000 to
the Consumer Protection Fund; and $2 million to the Disaster Recovery Fund. Includes $4,225,700 for Deficiency Warrants.
Illinois
Revenue adjustment accounted for by statutory transfers in. Expenditure adjustments include: statutory transfers out, inter-fund
borrowing repayment, Budget Stabilization Fund repayment, increase in accounts payable.
Indiana
Revenue Adjustments: FY07-11 Corporate E-check Revenue; Local Option Income Tax Adjustment; Transfer from General Fund
to Rainy Day Fund. Expenditure Adjustment: PTRF Adjust for Abstracts.
Iowa
Revenue adjustments include $381.4 million of residual funds transferred to the General Fund after the Reserve Funds were
filled to their statutorily set maximum amounts. Ending balance of the General Fund is transferred to 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.
Kentucky
Revenue includes $101.8 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $57.5 million that represents
appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $159.3 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded to the next fiscal year.
Louisiana
Revenues Adjustments—Includes Carryforward balances $16.6; Transfer of $38.1 from various Funds. Act 597 of 2012 RLS Transfers $141.5 from various funds, Act 53 of RLS - Transfers $204.7 from the Budget Stabilization Fund. Actual State General
Fund collections are estimated more than official projections adopted by the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) on April,
2012 in the amount of $152.5.
Maine
Revenue and expenditure adjustments reflect authorized transfers. Beginning balance differs from FY 11 ending balance due to
Controller's adjustments.
Maryland
Revenue adjustments include a $5.1 million reimbursement from the reserve for Heritage Tax Credits, $8.1 million reimbursement
from the reserve for Biotechnology Tax Credits, and transfers of $225.4 million from other special funds.
Massachusetts
Includes budgeted fund balances.
Michigan
Fiscal 2012 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes ($920.4 million); revenue sharing payments
to local government units (-$340.0 million); and deposits from state restricted funds ($195.6 million). Fiscal 2012 estimated expenditures includes one-time spending financed from one-time revenues of $148.7 million and excludes $362.7 million deposited
to the budget stabilization fund.
Minnesota
Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million and budget reserve account of $657.6 million.
Missouri
Revenue adjustments include transfers from other funds into the general revenue fund, including $67.4M from enhanced FMAP
authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and $209.9M from the enhanced FMAP authorized in the
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.
Montana
Revenue adjustments include prior year revenue and expenditure adjustments include prior year expenditures and other direct
entries to fund balance.
Nebraska
Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. Per Nebraska law, includes a transfer of $145
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 $110 million transfer from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund as
well as a $37 million transfer to the General Fund from the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) for budget stabilization. Revenue
adjustments also include a $25 million transfer from the General Fund for the University of Nebraska Innovation Campus to jumpstart significant new investment in research infrastructure.
Nevada
FY 2012 expenditure adjustment is a transfer to the Rainy Day fund.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
31
New Hampshire
Revenue Adjustments: + $140.0 million to be moved to the Education Trust Fund.
New Jersey
Balances targeted to be lapsed.
New Mexico
Adjustment includes transfer for solvency of $11.4 million.
New York
The ending balance includes $1.3 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $283 million reserved to cover costs of potential retroactive
labor settlements with certain unions, $102 million in a community projects fund, $13 million reserved for debt reduction, $21
million reserved for litigation risks and $62 million in undesignated fund balance to be used for gap-closing purposes in FY 2013.
North Dakota
Revenue adjustments are a $295.0 million transfer from the property tax relief fund to the general fund.
Oklahoma
Revenue adjustment represents the difference in cash flow. $328.3 million expenditure adjustment is amount deposited into the
Rainy Day fund from surplus revenues.
Pennsylvania
Revenue adjustments include a $19.7 million adjustment to the beginning balance and $194 million in prior year lapses. Expenditure adjustment reflects $155.1 million in current year lapses. The year-end transfer to the Rainy Day Fund (25% of the ending
balance) was suspended for FY 2012.
Puerto Rico
Includes $610 million from the Local Stabilization Fund to cover operational expenses.
Rhode Island
Opening balance includes a surplus of $64 million and reappropriations of $5 million from the prior year. Adjustments to revenues
reflect a transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund and the adjustments to expenditures are the reappropriations from FY 2011.
Adjustment to expenditures reflects transfer to Employees Retirement System of $12.5 million.
South Carolina
Rainy Day Balance equals 3.5% General Reserve ($183.5) + 2% Capital Reserve ($104.8) + Surplus Contingency Reserve
($501.9) + Agency Appropriation Balances Carried Forward Next FY ($165.9); Expenditures include FY10-11 Capital Reserve
Fund.
South Dakota
Adjustments in Revenues: $26.3 million addition to revenue is from one-time receipts; $20.2 million addition to revenue is a
transfer from budget reserves to pay for emergency expenses. Adjustments to Expenditures: $27.8 million is obligated cash
that will be carried forward to pay for FY2013 expenses. The ending balance of $47.9 million is cash that is obligated to the
Budget Reserve fund the following fiscal year. This $47.9 million is included in the total rainy day fund balance of $134.7 million.
Tennessee
Revenue adjustments: $100.6 million transfer from debt service fund unexpended appropriations. $4.8 million transfer from
Mental Health Trust Fund. $58.7 million transfer from TennCare Reserve. -$22.4 million transfer to Rainy Day Funds. Total $141.7
million. Expenditure adjustments: $64.3 million transfer to capital outlay projects fund. $13.1 million transfer to state office buildings and support facilities fund. $7.0 million transfer to reserves for unexpended appropriations. Total $84.4 million. Ending balance: $426.1 million reserve for appropriations 2012-2013. $0.4 million undesignated balance. Total $426.5 million.
Texas
Revenue adjustment is net of transfer to Rainy Day Fund (-$1,115.6m), Comptroller adjustment to general fund dedicated account
balances (+$349.5m), and estimate of additional general funds due to FY2012 collections substantially exceeding most recent
revenue estimate (+$2,964.3).
Utah
Includes transfers from previous year balance, to/from Rainy Day Fund, and special revenue funds.
Vermont
Adjustments equals transfers in or out of the General Fund.
Washington
Revenue fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts.
West Virginia
Fiscal year 2012 beginning balance includes $425.5 million in reappropriations, unappropriated surplus balance of $338.8 million,
and FY 2011 13th month expenditures of $28.6 million. Expenditures include regular, surplus and reappropriated funds and
$28.6 million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Revenue adjustments are prior year redeposits. 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.
32
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Wisconsin
Revenue adjustments include Other Revenue, $532.8; Tribal Gaming, $24.3; prior year continuing balance, $8.2; and General
Fund Transfers, -$370.4. Expenditure adjustments include Compensation Reserve of $19.7 and Lapses, -$434.2.
Notes to Table 5
Fiscal 2013 State General Fund, Appropriated
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 a one-time transfer of $145.8M.
Alaska
Expenditure adjustments equals transfers/savings including the net of Public Education Fund draw ($1,178.5) and future year
funding $1,139.7, Statutory Budget Reserve $250.0; Rainy Day Fund is $10,939.5 CBR + $5,577.9 SBR.
Arizona
Positive adjustment to revenue include temporary one-cent sales tax increase and agency fund transfers; negative adjustment
includes a transfer to the Rainy Day fund.
Colorado
Per HB12-1338, all of the excess FY 12-13 reserve (beyond the 4% reserve requirement) is transferred to the SEF at year end.
For FY13, the year-end transfer to the SEF is $717.1M.
Delaware
Figures based on enacted FY 2013 General Fund appropriations and revenue estimates contained in SJR 12 of the 146th
General Assembly.
Idaho
Transfers from the General Fund include: an estimate of $10.9 million to the Budget Stabilization Fund; $500,000 to the Constitutional Defense Fund; and $200,000 to the Legislative Legal Defense Fund.
Illinois
Revenue adjustment accounted for by statutory transfers in. Expenditure adjustments include: statutory transfers out, inter-fund
borrowing repayment, pay down of accounts payable.
Indiana
Expenditure Adjustments: Automatic Taxpayer Refund; Pension Distributions; HEA 1072 Loans (Net of Repayments).
Iowa
FY13 Revenue reflects action taken by the Revenue Estimating Conference on October 11, 2012. Revenue adjustments include
$558.5 million of residual funds transferred to the General Fund after the Reserve Funds were filled to their statutorily set maximum
amounts. Expenditure Adjustments include an estimated $41 million supplemental appropriation for the Medicaid program. Ending balance of the General Fund is transferred to 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.
Kentucky
Revenue includes $92.1 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $145.5 million that represents
appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $108.2 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded to the next fiscal year.
Louisiana
Revenues Adjustments - Includes Transfer of $155.4 from various Funds.
Maine
Revenue and expenditure adjustments reflect authorized transfers.
Maryland
The Maryland General Assembly passed a revenue package during the 2012 Special Session. For FY 2013 only, the majority of
revenue generated through this legislation will be deposited in a special fund known as the Budget Restoration Fund. Therefore,
the FY 2013 General Fund figures noted above are artificially low. Revenue will be directed to the General Fund beginning n FY
2014. Revenue adjustments include a $6.8 million reimbursement from the reserve for Sustainable Community Tax Credits and
$8.0 million reimbursement from the reserve for Biotechnology Tax Credits.
Massachusetts
Includes budgeted fund balances.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
33
Michigan
Fiscal 2013 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes($430.5 million); revenue sharing payments
to local government units (-$370.6 million); and deposits from state restricted funds ($1.2 million). Fiscal 2013 enacted spending
includes one-time spending financed from one-time revenues of $181.4 million and excludes $140.0 million deposited to the
budget stabilization fund.
Minnesota
Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million, budget reserve account of $612.2 million and stadium reserve account of $34.3 million.
Mississippi
Revenue adjustment represents the statutory withholding of 2% of projected revenue and beginning cash.
Missouri
Revenues include $40M from the national mortgage foreclosure settlement; revenue adjustments include transfers from other
funds into the general revenue fund and $15.9M of collection initiatives.
Nebraska
Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. Per Nebraska law, includes a transfer of $104.8
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 $110 million transfer from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund as
well as a $78 million transfer to the General Fund from the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) for budget stabilization. Expenditure adjustments are reappropriations ($269.1 million) of the unexpended balance of appropriations from the prior fiscal year
and a small amount ($5 million) reserved for deficit/supplemental appropriations.
New Hampshire
Enacted Budget Revenue Adjustments; Assumes: + $ .6 million to be transferred into the Rainy Day Fund and + $131.5 million
to be transferred to the Education Trust fund at year end.
New Jersey
Transfers to other funds.
New York
The ending balance includes $1.3 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $422 million reserved to cover costs of potential retroactive
labor settlements with certain unions, $57 million in a community projects fund, $13 million reserved for debt reduction, $21
million reserved for litigation risks.
North Carolina
Adjustments: repair and renovation.
North Dakota
Revenue adjustments are a $305.0 million transfer from the strategic investment and improvements fund.
Ohio
FY 2013 adjustments to expenditures includes a $235.1 million transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund. FY 2013 adjustment
expenditures includes estimated encumbrances for the end of FY 2013.
Oklahoma
Unable to calculate revenue or expenditure adjustments at this time.
Oregon
Revenue adjustment transfers prior biennium ending GF balance to Rainy Day Fund (which can be up to 1% of total budgeted
appropriation), less statutorily authorized carry-forward amounts ($2.6 million).
Pennsylvania
Expenditure adjustment reflects a transfer of $73.2 million (25% of ending balance) to the Rainy Day Fund.
Puerto Rico
Includes $332.7 million from the Local Stabilization Fund to cover operational expenses.
Rhode Island
Enacted opening balance of $94 million, however, the actual opening balance was $115.5 million. Adjustments to revenues
reflect a transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund.
South Carolina
Rainy Day Balance equals 5% General Reserve ($281.6) + 2% Capital Reserve ($112.6) + Surplus Contingency Reserve ($1) +
Agency Appropriation Balances Carried Forward Next FY ($165.9); Expenditures Includes FY11-12 Capital Reserve Fund and
Supplemental Appropriations.
34
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
South Dakota
Adjustments in Revenues: $75.7 million addition to revenue is from obligated cash carried forward from the previous fiscal year
of which $27.8 million will pay for special appropriations and $47.9 million is unobligated cash from the FY2012 budget. Also,
$1.0 million addition to revenue is from a one-time receipt. Adjustments in Expenditures: $47.9 million represents the transfer to
the Budget Reserve fund from the prior fiscal year's unobligated cash. The ending balance of $16.3 million is cash that is obligated
to the Budget Reserve fund the following fiscal year. The $16.3 million of projected unobligated cash is included in the projected
rainy day fund balance total of $151 million.
Tennessee
Revenue adjustments: -$50.0 million transfer to Rainy Day Fund. $65.0 million transfer from TennCare Reserve. Total $15.0
million. Expenditure adjustments: $145.9 million transfer to capital outlay projects fund. $135.9 million transfer to state office
buildings and support facilities fund. $5.2 million transfer to reserves for dedicated revenue appropriations. Total $287.0 million.
Ending Balance: $10.2 million undesignated balance.
Texas
Adjustment is net of transfer to Rainy Day Fund (-$793.6m) and Comptroller adjustment to general fund dedicated account balances (+$341.1m).
Utah
Includes transfers from previous year balance and special revenue funds.
Vermont
Adjustments equals transfers in or out of the General Fund.
Washington
Revenue fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts.
West Virginia
Fiscal year 2013 beginning balance includes $476.9 million in reappropriations, unappropriated surplus balance of $101.9 million,
and FY 2012 13th month expenditures of $31.9M. Revenues are FY 13's official general revenue estimate. Expenditures include
FY 13 regular general revenue, 13th month expenditures & FY 13 surplus appropriations. The ending balance is mostly the historically carried forward reappropriation amounts that will remain and be reappropriated to the next fiscal year, unappropriated
balance, & unappropriated surplus balance.
Wisconsin
Revenue adjustments include Other Revenue, $577.0; Tribal Gaming, $28.6; prior year continuing balance, $72.4; and General
Fund Transfers, -$137.6. Expenditure adjustments include Compensation Reserve, $61.9; Sum Sufficient Reestimate,-$16.4;
and Lapses, -$593.0.
Notes to Table 6
General Fund Nominal Percentage Expenditure Change, Fiscal 2012 and Fiscal 2013
Michigan
Fiscal 2012 and fiscal 2013 estimated expenditures exclude deposits to the Budget Stabilization Fund of $326.7 million and
$140.0 million respectively. Including these deposits results in nominal percentage expenditure changes of 6.4 percent in fiscal
2012 and 4.3 percent in fiscal 2013.
Notes to Table 7
Net Mid-Year Budget Cuts: Fiscal 2013
Missouri
Expenditure restrictions effective July 1, 2012.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
35
Notes to Table 9
Fiscal 2013 Mid-Year Program Area Adjustments By Dollar Value
Illinois
By using his reduction veto power, Governor Quinn reduced funding for Illinois’ prison system. He is seeking to reallocate that
funding in a budget neutral manner this Fall veto session.
Notes to Table 11
Fiscal 2013 Enacted Program Area Adjustments By Dollar Value
Arizona
Medicaid funding actually increases in FY13 compared to FY12; however we don't see that because FY12 budget includes a
$107 million one-time payment to end the previous payment deferral. All other—fiscal 2013 appropriations were lower than FY12
because there was a $79 million one-time funding issue in FY12 to pay for the additional pay period in that year.
California
The K-12 amount includes funding provided for the Quality Education Investment Act program. Effective July 1, 2011 and pursuant to enacted legislation, fiscal responsibility of various public safety programs shifted from the state to counties, resulting in
$5.6 billion decreased General Fund expenditures in fiscal year 2012-13 in the program areas listed. All other includes General
Fund loan of $300 million from Motor Vehicle Account.
Colorado
Reflects the appropriated operating budget only. Does not include the capital budget.
Florida
All Other—Includes a $275m shift from trust funds to the General Revenue Fund for State Courts.
Hawaii
No general funds were devoted to transportation.
Illinois
While the overall general funds budget decreased by approximately $557 million from enacted Fiscal Year 2012 to enacted Fiscal
Year 2013, pension costs increased $969.4 million.
Maryland
The Maryland General Assembly passed a revenue package during the 2012 Special Session. For FY 2013 only, the majority of
revenue generated through this legislation will be deposited in a special fund known as the Budget Restoration Fund. The Budget
Restoration Fund is supporting certain appropriations that would normally be supported with General Funds, particularly K-12,
Higher Education, and Medicaid. Therefore, the negative appropriation change noted above for these three program areas is artificially high.
Michigan
Budget adjustments for K-12 education are included in the restricted School Aid Fund, separate from the general fund. Therefore
this survey does not reflect School Aid increases of $482.2 million and one-time spending from one-time revenue of $476.7
million (fiscal 2012) and $194.3 million (fiscal 2013).
New York
The estimates used to calculate year-to-year spending adjustments reflect the subsequent allocation, by agency, of an approximate 10 percent reduction in State Operations in FY 2012, which was counted on as gap-closing savings in the FY 2012
Enacted Budget, but which were not allocated by agency until a later time; and the phasing-out of extraordinary Federal aid
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which will shift approximately $1.6 billion in Medicaid and Education
costs back to the General Fund in FY 2013.
Oregon
Oregon budgets on a full biennial basis, not by fiscal year. The amount represents the change for the entire 2011-13 biennium
(FY 2012 + FY 2013).
Texas
Figure provided for change in K-12 Education is reflective of a deferral of state payments to school districts (from the end of FY
2013 to the beginning of FY2014) and savings resulting from changes to the calculation of Foundation School Program formulas.
It does not include the possible acceleration of the deferred payment ($1.9 billion, est.). Change in Medicaid funding does not
include anticipated FY 2013 appropriation for supplemental funding needs ($4.7 billion, est.).
36
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 12
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2012
Arizona
Other—Temporary revenue increase.
California
Layoffs for specific departments. For K-12 Education, the 2011-12 enacted budget included deferrals of general purpose funding
for local education agencies and targeted cuts primarily in child care and development. The 2011-12 enacted Budget also included
deferrals of general purpose funding for community college districts. Other strategies refer to Hospital fee and Nursing Home fee.
Colorado
Previously used in FY 11-12 budget balancing.
Connecticut
Other—Hiring limitations, wage freeze.
Hawaii
Other—Diversion of special fund revenues to the general fund.
Maryland
Other—Transfer of balance and interest from special funds to the general fund.
Nebraska
The projected variance from the 3% minimum reserve requirement calculated by the Legislative Fiscal Office for the 2011-2013
biennium, ending June 30, 2013, as of November 2010 was $986 million. This projected variance was based on a series of expenditure growth assumptions announced publicly by the Legislative Fiscal Office. The Executive Budget Office did not project
a shortfall as the actual level of appropriations for the 2011-2013 budget biennium were yet to be considered by the Governor
and enacted by the Legislature.
Nevada
Other—Moved some services from state to counties.
New York
Other—After the FY 2012 Enacted Budget closed a $10.001 billion budget gap, an estimated shortfall of $350 million was identified in the FY 2012 Mid-Year Update to the State's Financial Plan. Based on an updated review conducted concurrently with
preparation of the FY 2013 Executive Budget proposal, of disbursement patterns (as modified by ongoing spending controls),
the availability of excess cash balances in other State funds, current-year costs associated with debt management activities,
and other factors, it was expected that the State would end FY 2012 in balance on a cash basis.
Tennessee
Other—Base budget reductions.
Wisconsin
Other—Debt restructure.
Notes to Table 13
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2013
Arizona
Other—Temporary revenue increase.
California
Layoffs for specific departments. Targeted cuts in the 2012-13 enacted budget include reductions to child care and preschool.
Other strategies refer to Hospital fee and Nursing Home fee.
Connecticut
Other—Hiring limitations, wage freeze.
Hawaii
Other—Diversion of special fund revenues to the general fund.
Maryland
Other—Transfer of balance and interest from special funds to the general fund.
Nevada
Other—Moved some services from state to counties.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
37
New York
Other—In December 2011, prior to the submission of the Executive Budget and subsequent enactment of the FY 2013 Budget,
the State enacted legislation to reform the structure of the personal income tax code, providing a net impact, after accounting
for investments associated with tax relief to small business operators within the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District
and other economic development and employment initiatives included in the legislation, of approximately $1.5 billion in additional
tax revenue to the State that was counted towards closing the FY 2013 budget gap. Through June 2012, the State’s largest
uniformed and non-uniformed employee unions had ratified multi-year labor agreements with the State, which provided wage
and benefit changes necessary to meet planned savings in the FY 2013 Enacted Budget. Under these agreements, there are
no general salary increases during FY 2013, employee health insurance premiums will increase for individual and family coverage,
and employee compensation will be temporarily reduced by an amount commensurate to nine days of wages spanning a portion
of FY 2012 (in some cases retroactively) through FY 2013 with employees receiving nine days of compensatory Deficit Reduction
Leave credits valid through FY 2013. The temporarily reduced wages will be repaid to employees who continue State service
beyond the expiration of their current contractual agreement. Other savings counted toward closing the FY 2013 budget gap
reflect administrative efficiencies related to the Governor's ongoing agency redesign effort, a one-year extension of the tax modernization initiative, the net impact of various forecast revisions and other measures.
Tennessee
Other—Base budget reductions.
West Virginia
Other—Use onetime surplus from general revenue & lottery funds from previous fiscal years.
Notes to Table 14
Strategies Used to Reduce or Eliminate Budget Gaps, Fiscal 2014
Arizona
Other—Temporary revenue increase.
California
Layoffs for specific departments. Other strategies refer to Hospital fee and Nursing Home fee.
Tennessee
Other—Base budget reductions.
West Virginia
Other—Use onetime surplus from general revenue & lottery funds from previous fiscal years.
Notes to Table 15
Number of Filled Full-Time Equivalent Positions Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013, in All Funds
California
In California, the TANF program is administered at the local level by counties under state oversight.
Colorado
These are FY 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013 appropriated.
Massachusetts
Fiscal 2011 figure includes operating budget, federal grant, trust and capital funded FTEs. Fiscal 2012 figure includes operating
budget, federal grant, trust and capital funded FTEs. Fiscal 2013—The Executive of Office for Administration only forecast numbers of FTES supported by the state operating budget, and not what may be supported by capital, federal and trust funds.
Since FY08 the number of FTEs on the Commonwealth’s payroll has dropped significantly after adjusting for shifts in the way certain
FTEs are accounted for and for entities that were absorbed by the state in FY09 and FY10. In FY09, the state switched approximately
2,500 Higher Education employees to the Commonwealth’s payroll system. In FY10, approximately 1,330 employees of the former
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Tobin Bridge were transferred to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). Also in FY10, the sheriff departments of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk were brought
onto the state’s accounting and payroll systems, with approximately 2,770 employees. These increases were offset by reductions in
state employment due to a combination of employee attrition and layoffs, as the state responded to lower tax revenues caused by the
recession. Adjusting for the 6,600 employees brought onto the state payroll system as a result of these accounting changes and reorganizations, state employment levels dropped by a total of approximately 5,800 FTEs between June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2012.
38
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Nebraska
Appropriations bills do not limit authorized FTE to a specific number.
New Hampshire
Fiscal 2011 includes Community College System of NH (CCSNH) Effective 7/1/11, 883 CCSNH employees were removed from
the State's payroll system.
North Carolina
Reported FTE’s figures refer to the General Fund and the Highway Fund.
Notes to Table 17
Enacted Cost-of-Living Changes for Cash Assistance Benefit Levels Under the Temporary
Assistance For Needy Families Block Grant, Fiscal 2013
Nebraska
No increase in the maximum grant an individual may receive has been enacted for FY2013. Per State Statute (sec. 43-513),
Nebraska will not increase the maximum "standard of need" in FY2013. The next "standard of need" increase is due July 1,
2013 (FY2014).
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
39
State Revenue Developments
CHAPTER TWO
Overview
reporting from 44 states in the latest Rockefeller revenue report
States forecast that general fund revenue collections will increase again in fiscal 2013, marking a third consecutive annual
show that total tax collections increased by 8.7 percent in July
and August of CY 2012 compared to CY 2011.
increase. State revenue collections typically lag the economic
This Fiscal Survey report finds that general fund revenues are
cycle, sometimes taking several years to fully recover from a re-
forecast to increase in fiscal 2013 to $692.8 billion, a 3.9 percent
cession. The recent downturn was particularly severe and pro-
increase from fiscal 2012 levels. Continued slow improvement
longed, which is why state general fund revenues had yet to
in fiscal 2013 will likely result with general fund revenue collec-
surpass fiscal 2008 peak levels. However, this is expected to
tions $12.5 billion above the $680.2 billion collected in fiscal
change in fiscal 2013 with general fund revenues projected to
2008. General fund revenue collections slowly increased by 2.5
reach $692.8 billion, $12.5 billion greater than revenue collec-
percent in fiscal 2012 after rising by 6.6 percent in fiscal 2011.
tions in fiscal 2008. Fiscal 2013 enacted budgets forecast general fund revenues to increase by 3.9 percent from fiscal 2012,
Revenue collections of sales, personal income, and corporate
making the fiscal 2013 revenue growth more substantial than
income tax collections, which make up approximately 80 per-
the 2.6 percent increase in fiscal 2012. Most of the increase in
cent of general fund revenue, are estimated to be $553.5 billion
general fund revenues in fiscal 2013 will be attributable to higher
in fiscal 2013, 4.0 percent above 2012 levels. States’ enacted
personal income tax collections.
budgets for fiscal 2013 show collections in these three sources
of revenue projected to surpass fiscal 2008 levels by $21.4 bil-
Revenues
lion or 4.0 percent. (See Tables 18 and 19)
According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, total state
Continued revenue growth from all sources, which includes
revenue collections have increased for 10 consecutive quarters
sales, personal income, corporate income and all other taxes
or two and a half calendar years. However, tax collections
and fees, has led to collections greater than projections in
slowed in the second quarter of calendar year (CY) 2012, put-
many states. Thirty-four states reported that fiscal 2012 rev-
ting state tax revenues 2.0 percent lower in the second quarter
enue collections were higher than originally forecasted, and
of CY 2012 than in the same quarter in CY 2008. Despite this
16 states reported that revenues are greater than forecasts
softening in the second quarter of CY 2012, state tax revenues
used to enact fiscal 2013 budgets. A nearly equivalent num-
surpassed pre-recession highs in the last quarter of CY 2011
ber of states reported higher revenue collections in the fall of
and the first quarter of CY 2012.
2011 for both reported years, indicating that state budgets
are remaining relatively stable. Despite widespread revenue
The Rockefeller findings show that relative to fiscal 2008, total
state tax collections ended fiscal 2012 1.7 percent higher than
in fiscal 2008. In contrast, NASBO data included in this survey
refer only to general fund revenues, which did not surpass prerecession highs in fiscal 2012. However, for fiscal 2013, both
general fund revenues and total state tax collections are projected to surpass pre-recession highs set in fiscal 2008. Early
40
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
growth, 10 states reported that fiscal 2012 collections were
below original forecasts, and nine states are collecting less
revenue than projected in fiscal 2013. With rising tax collections, a number of states ended fiscal 2012 with slight surpluses, and while surpluses are a positive sign, such
surpluses likely resulted from conservative revenue forecasts
and cuts in spending. (See Tables 12 and 15)
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Projected Collections in Fiscal 2013
Table 18
Collections of sales, personal income, and corporate income
Number of States With Revenues Higher,
Lower, and On Target with Projections*
taxes in fiscal 2013 are estimated to be $553.5 billion, 4.0 percent above fiscal 2012 collections. Specifically, personal income
Fiscal 2012
Fiscal 2013
tax collections are projected to be 5.5 percent higher than fiscal
Lower
10
9
2012 collections, sales tax collections are projected to be 2.8
On Target
Higher
5
34
19
16
percent higher and corporate income tax collections are expected to be little changed. (See Table 19)
*Fiscal 2012 reflects whether revenues from all sources came in higher, lower, or on target with
final projections. Fiscal 2013 reflect whether Fiscal 2013 collections thus far have been coming
in higher, lower, or on target with projections.
Collections in Fiscal 2012
Collections of sales, personal income, and corporate income
taxes in fiscal 2012 were 4.2 percent above fiscal 2011 collections. Specifically, personal income tax collections in fiscal 2012
were 7.8 percent higher than collections in fiscal 2011, while
sales tax collections and corporate income tax collections were
little changed. (See Table 19)
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
41
TABLE 19
Fiscal 2012 Tax Collections Compared With Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2012 Budgets (Millions)**
Sales Tax
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Original
Estimate
Current
Estimate
Personal Income Tax
Original
Current
Estimate
Estimate
Corporate Income Tax
Original
Current
Estimate
Estimate
$2,022
NA
3,614
2,162
19,009
1,888
3,789
NA
17,436
5,333
2,590
1,044
7,100
6,518
2,008
2,450
3,031
2,672
1,009
4,164
5,007
6,646
4,624
1,817
1,823
61
1,425
833
NA
8,539
2,325
11,173
5,293
756
7,869
1,747
NA
8,788
847
2,251
720
6,658
20,993
1,522
337
2,974
7,649
1,242
4,270
435
$2,010
NA
3,655
2,111
18,921
2,093
3,830
NA
17,422
5,335
2,699
1,027
7,226
6,622
1,979
2,462
3,052
2,639
1,023
4,039
5,059
7,024
4,678
1,855
1,845
60
1,437
876
NA
8,214
2,442
11,126
5,258
1,154
8,087
1,830
NA
8,772
850
2,355
744
6,900
24,100
1,583
342
3,122
7,206
1,277
4,289
490
$2,785
NA
3,058
2,277
50,408
4,666
8,661
1,054
NA
7,979
1,487
1,205
15,062
4,774
2,976
2,955
3,470
2,815
1,436
6,688
11,768
6,798
7,877
1,389
4,815
809
1,758
NA
NA
11,132
1,095
39,059
9,800
266
8,147
1,893
5,925
11,000
1,010
2,322
NA
201
NA
2,248
595
10,137
NA
1,742
6,868
NA
$2,974
NA
3,092
2,402
52,958
4,956
8,311
1,042
NA
8,142
1,541
1,206
15,512
4,766
2,967
2,908
3,512
2,486
1,445
7,115
11,911
6,966
7,973
1,489
4,914
899
1,823
NA
NA
10,900
1,120
38,767
10,272
430
8,433
2,107
5,853
10,801
1,061
2,592
NA
185
NA
2,479
597
10,613
NA
1,784
7,042
NA
$321
640
618
359
9,012
403
708
138
2,112
685
51
136
2,354
687
297
250
237
255
204
622
1,807
1,065
947
432
331
115
200
NA
259
2,543
283
6,101
1,000
62
220
203
440
2,232
121
187
NA
1,548
NA
267
78
838
NA
178
881
NA
$382
715
648
379
8,208
449
717
119
2,011
591
73
187
2,461
959
341
284
374
141
219
646
1,771
1,182
1,044
505
341
128
234
NA
255
2,438
283
5,760
1,133
199
117
343
427
2,022
123
212
NA
1,865
NA
272
86
860
NA
192
907
NA
L
H
H
T
L
H
L
L
H
T
H
H
H
H
H
T
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
T
L
H
L
0
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
T
L
H
H
H
680
$206,462
543
$211,118
2,109
$272,405
2,143
$278,345
1,515
$42,427
1,441
$42,604
H
Revenue
Collection***
NOTES: NA indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. *See Notes to Table 19 on page 49. **Unless otherwise noted, original estimates reflect the
figures used when the fiscal 2012 budget was adopted, and current estimates reflect preliminary actual tax collections. ***Refers to whether preliminary actual fiscal 2012 collections of Sales, Personal
Income and Corporate Taxes were 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 2012.
42
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 20
Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012, and Enacted Fiscal 2013 (Millions)**
Region/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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Fiscal 2011
Sales Tax
Fiscal 2012
Fiscal 2013
Personal Income Tax
Fiscal 2011
Fiscal 2012
Fiscal 2013
Corporate Income Tax
Fiscal 2011
Fiscal 2012 Fiscal 2013
$1,928
NA
3,467
2,056
26,983
2,044
3,353
NA
16,638
5,081
2,496
972
6,833
6,218
1,936
2,253
2,896
2,610
972
3,656
4,905
6,711
4,403
1,791
1,760
65
1,373
826
NA
8,144
2,333
10,782
5,872
782
7,578
1,668
NA
8,590
813
2,245
710
6,494
21,401
1,601
326
3,012
7,154
1,210
4,109
471
$2,010
NA
3,655
2,111
18,921
2,093
3,830
NA
17,422
5,335
2,699
1,027
7,226
6,622
1,979
2,462
3,052
2,639
1,023
4,039
5,059
7,024
4,678
1,855
1,845
60
1,437
876
NA
8,214
2,442
11,126
5,258
1,154
8,087
1,830
NA
8,772
850
2,355
744
6,900
24,100
1,583
342
3,122
7,206
1,277
4,289
490
$2,085
NA
3,785
2,174
20,605
2,086
4,046
NA
18,101
5,561
2,851
1,083
7,335
6,796
2,051
2,575
3,075
2,768
1,009
4,126
5,310
7,194
4,738
1,887
1,891
62
1,485
858
NA
8,820
2,442
11,414
5,456
1,198
8,425
1,924
NA
9,219
888
2,466
763
7,049
21,944
1,611
353
3,066
8,265
1,261
4,387
489
$2,790
NA
2,864
2,270
49,446
4,496
7,246
997
NA
7,659
1,231
1,153
11,225
4,586
2,845
2,710
3,418
2,405
1,393
6,643
11,576
6,418
7,529
1,383
4,640
816
1,735
NA
NA
10,617
1,061
36,209
9,735
428
8,120
1,832
5,524
10,436
1,021
2,396
NA
184
NA
2,298
553
9,944
NA
1,689
6,701
NA
$2,974
NA
3,092
2,402
52,958
4,956
8,311
1,042
NA
8,142
1,541
1,206
15,512
4,766
2,967
2,908
3,512
2,486
1,445
7,115
11,911
6,966
7,973
1,489
4,914
899
1,823
NA
NA
10,900
1,120
38,767
10,272
430
8,433
2,107
5,853
10,801
1,061
2,592
NA
185
NA
2,479
597
10,613
NA
1,784
7,042
NA
$2,975
NA
3,230
2,381
60,268
4,880
8,554
1,086
NA
8,605
1,529
1,295
15,273
5,051
3,102
2,871
3,564
2,627
1,436
7,306
12,721
7,908
8,385
1,480
5,072
860
1,870
NA
NA
11,767
1,115
40,256
10,518
443
8,970
2,057
6,116
11,286
1,081
2,732
NA
215
NA
2,597
642
10,526
NA
1,817
7,222
NA
$291
700
560
351
9,614
394
794
168
1,875
670
50
169
1,851
705
248
225
301
262
193
571
1,951
2,098
925
448
386
119
155
NA
249
2,463
230
5,279
1,014
147
237
274
469
2,132
85
183
NA
1,580
NA
261
90
822
NA
307
853
NA
$382
715
648
379
8,208
449
717
119
2,011
591
73
187
2,461
959
341
284
374
141
219
646
1,771
1,182
1,044
505
341
128
234
NA
255
2,438
283
5,760
1,133
199
117
343
427
2,022
123
212
NA
1,865
NA
272
86
860
NA
192
907
NA
$401
783
677
362
8,488
454
793
176
2,159
735
59
182
2,550
692
352
270
360
156
204
734
1,734
287
853
463
352
128
230
NA
267
2,831
373
6,038
1,075
178
150
321
396
2,205
133
190
NA
1,733
NA
257
81
828
NA
253
877
NA
532
$209,521
543
$211,118
691
$216,976
2,187
$258,223
2,143
$278,345
2,107
$293,687
1,677
$42,746
1,441
$42,604
1,623
$42,819
NOTES: NA indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. *See Notes to Table 20 on page 49. ** Unless otherwise noted, fiscal 2011 figures reflect
actual tax collections, fiscal 2012 figures reflect preliminary actual tax collections estimates, and fiscal 2013 figures reflect the estimates used in enacted budgets. Totals include only those states with
data for all years.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
43
TABLE 21
Percentage Changes in Tax Collections in Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012, and Enacted Fiscal 2013**
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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Fiscal 2011
Sales Tax
Fiscal 2012
Fiscal 2013
Personal Income Tax
Fiscal 2011
Fiscal 2012
Fiscal 2013
Corporate Income Tax
Fiscal 2011
Fiscal 2012 Fiscal 2013
4.1%
NA
1.3
4.6
0.9
12.0
4.7
NA
3.9
4.4
7.8
1.7
8.3
5.1
-15.6
21.3
3.7
10.5
1.9
3.8
6.3
8.6
5.4
0.6
1.6
-1.8
6.4
5.4
NA
3.1
11.1
9.2
5.5
28.2
8.3
10.0
NA
7.0
1.2
2.5
8.9
5.5
9.2
14.1
4.7
-2.3
4.6
5.9
4.2
14.0
4.3%
NA
5.4
2.7
-29.9
2.4
14.2
NA
4.7
5.0
8.1
5.6
5.8
6.5
2.2
9.3
5.4
1.1
5.2
10.5
3.2
4.7
6.2
3.6
4.9
-7.2
4.7
6.0
NA
0.9
4.7
3.2
-10.5
47.5
6.7
9.7
NA
2.1
4.6
4.9
4.8
6.3
12.6
-1.2
5.0
3.6
0.7
5.5
4.4
4.0
3.7%
NA
3.6
3.0
8.9
-0.3
5.6
NA
3.9
4.2
5.6
5.4
1.5
2.6
3.7
4.6
0.8
4.9
-1.4
2.1
5.0
2.4
1.3
1.7
2.5
2.6
3.3
-2.0
NA
7.4
0.0
2.6
3.8
3.9
4.2
5.2
NA
5.1
4.4
4.8
2.5
2.2
-8.9
1.8
3.2
-1.8
14.7
-1.3
2.3
-0.2
7.9%
NA
18.5
8.6
10.2
10.1
10.0
16.9
NA
9.2
-19.4
8.5
19.0
18.3
-12.1
12.1
8.3
8.7
7.3
7.5
14.5
16.0
15.3
3.2
4.7
13.7
14.5
NA
NA
2.8
10.9
4.2
7.6
-0.1
8.6
10.7
11.8
4.7
13.7
10.4
NA
6.4
NA
9.2
11.1
9.4
NA
9.5
10.1
NA
6.6%
NA
8.0
5.8
7.1
10.2
14.7
4.5
NA
6.3
25.1
4.7
38.2
3.9
4.3
7.3
2.8
3.4
3.7
7.1
2.9
8.5
5.9
7.7
5.9
10.1
5.1
NA
NA
2.7
5.6
7.1
5.5
42.6
3.8
15.0
6.0
3.5
3.9
8.2
NA
0.5
NA
7.8
7.9
6.7
NA
5.7
5.1
NA
0.0%
NA
4.5
-0.9
13.8
-1.5
2.9
4.3
NA
5.7
-0.8
7.3
-1.5
6.0
4.5
-1.3
1.5
5.7
-0.6
2.7
6.8
13.5
5.2
-0.6
3.2
-4.3
2.6
NA
NA
8.0
-0.5
3.8
2.4
3.0
6.4
-2.4
4.5
4.5
1.9
5.4
NA
16.2
NA
4.8
7.6
-0.8
NA
1.8
2.6
NA
-29.9%
32.5
35.6
-3.1
5.5
5.9
19.1
91.3
4.7
-2.1
-15.1
74.2
12.2
19.1
-36.3
0.0
26.5
49.9
10.3
-17.1
22.0
12.6
39.2
11.2
33.9
35.2
0.6
NA
-4.1
8.3
83.8
-1.7
-15.4
66.5
136.6
63.3
30.5
19.0
-42.5
66.0
NA
12.9
NA
1.0
42.4
1.9
NA
29.7
2.2
NA
31.2%
2.2
15.6
7.9
-14.6
14.0
-9.8
-29.2
7.3
-11.9
45.7
10.7
33.0
36.0
37.7
26.2
24.3
-46.2
13.5
13.2
-9.2
-43.7
12.9
12.8
-11.6
7.4
51.2
NA
2.7
-1.0
23.2
9.1
11.7
35.6
-50.5
25.2
-8.8
-5.1
45.8
16.3
NA
18.0
NA
4.5
-4.2
4.6
NA
-37.4
6.3
NA
5.1%
9.5
4.6
-4.5
3.4
1.1
10.7
47.9
7.4
24.4
-19.3
-2.5
3.6
-27.8
3.3
-4.9
-3.7
10.6
-6.8
13.5
-2.1
-75.8
-18.4
-8.4
3.3
0.2
-1.8
NA
4.5
16.1
31.9
4.8
-5.1
-10.5
28.1
-6.6
-7.3
9.0
8.1
-10.3
NA
-7.1
NA
-5.7
-5.7
-3.7
NA
31.5
-3.3
NA
-1.3
5.6%
2.2
0.8%
27.2
2.8%
-15.1
8.9%
-2.0
7.8%
-1.7
5.5%
0.0
8.6%
-14.1
-0.3%
12.7
0.5%
NOTES: NA indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. *See Notes to Table 21 on page 49. ** Unless otherwise noted, fiscal 2011 figures reflect
actual tax collections, fiscal 2012 figures reflect preliminary actual tax collections estimates, and fiscal 2013 figures reflect the estimates used in enacted budgets. Totals include only those states with
data for all years.
44
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Enacted Fiscal 2013 Revenue Changes
States enacted $6.9 billion in net revenue increases for fiscal
2013. However, the majority share of this increase comes from
California, New York, and Arizona. In all, 11 states enacted a
net increase, and 20 states enacted net decreases in revenue.
Personal Income Taxes—Five states enacted personal income tax increases while 13 enacted decreases for a net increase of $5.9 billion. Much of the enacted increases are
attributable to higher marginal rates for personal income taxes
in New York and California.
In addition to these tax and fee changes, states also enacted
Corporate Income Taxes—Two states enacted corporate in-
$2.5 billion in new revenue measures. These measures en-
come tax increases while nine enacted decreases for a net de-
hance general fund revenue but do not affect taxpayer liability
crease of $108 million. Elimination of some corporate taxes in
and may rely on enforcement of existing laws, additional audits
Arizona and West Virginia accounted for the majority of the net
and compliance efforts, and increasing fines for late filings. (See
decrease.
Table A-2) In fiscal 2012, states enacted $600 million in net tax
and fee decreases, with 13 states enacting net increases and
Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes—Four states enacted a ciga-
18 states enacting net decreases. States also enacted an ad-
rette tax increase for a net increase of $248 million. Increases
ditional $2.6 billion in revenue measures in fiscal 2012. With
in Illinois accounted for $237 million of the total.
revenue conditions improving, states have had fewer tax increases in fiscal 2012 and 2013 than in fiscal 2010, when
states enacted $23.9 billion in net tax and fee increases along
with $7.7 billion in other revenue measures.
The largest portion of enacted changes in fiscal 2013 is attributable to personal income taxes ($5.9 billion), followed by sales
Motor Fuel Taxes—Hawaii enacted a motor fuel tax increase
and Minnesota enacted a decrease, resulting in a net decrease
of $1.6 million.
Alcohol Taxes—Florida enacted a decrease in the state alcohol tax for a net decrease of $6.3 million.
taxes ($1.2 billion). States also increased cigarette and tobacco
Other Taxes—Five states enacted other tax increases, while
taxes by $248 million and fees by $371 million. Corporate in-
11 states enacted decreases in other taxes for a net decrease
come taxes, alcohol taxes, motor fuel and other taxes were de-
of $572 million.
creased in fiscal 2013.
Fees—Ten states enacted fee increases, and one state deSales Taxes—Five states enacted sales tax increases and 12
creased fees for a net increase of $371 million.
enacted decreases. The result is a net revenue increase of $1.2
billion. Much of this change is due to an increased sales tax
rate in California and Arizona. Arizona’s sales tax increase is set
to expire at the end of fiscal 2013.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
45
TABLE 22
Enacted State Revenue Changes,
Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013
Fiscal Year
Revenue Change
(Billions)
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
$6.9
-0.6
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
-2.3
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 1988–2013 data provided by the National Association
of State Budget Officers.
46
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 1979 to Fiscal 2013
25
20
$ In Billions
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987
1980
1982
1984
1986
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
1988 1990 1992 Fiscal
1994Year1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
47
TABLE 23
Enacted Fiscal 2013 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease (Millions)
State
Sales
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
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total
Personal
Income
976.0
4.8
605.0
4735.0
Corporate
Income
Cigarettes/
Tobacco
Motor
Fuels
Other
Taxes
2.1
-46.1
-281.2
-5.0
-0.9
-11.2
-61.0
-1.1
-30.9
-6.3
-4.8
-249.2
-20.9
-1.0
264.0
18.0
-5.8
7.4
14.2
5.0
82.2
-6.5
35.2
-103.0
-3.5
-5.0
-15.0
1.3
-0.2
11.0
-14.8
-3.4
-84.3
247.3
-3.6
-2.2
-16.6
1.9
237.0
5.6
Fees
-38.7
1.2
3.5
4.8
-7.9
-16.5
1931.0
-60.0
-446.0
-4.9
9.7
-310.0
-12.5
-4.5
-12.0
-357.8
4.1
2.6
-20.3
-22.0
12.5
-15.5
20.7
5.8
-3.6
0.5
-1.6
11.6
-40.5
-0.6
-5.8
-35.0
-6.0
$1,154.7
$5,844.9
-$107.7
$248.2
-$1.6
NOTE: *See Notes to Table 24 on page 49. See Appendix Table A-1 for details on specific revenue changes.
48
Alcohol
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
-$6.3
-1.0
60.0
16.0
-$572.1
$370.7
Total
0.0
0.0
942.1
0.0
5340.0
0.0
-12.9
-2.3
-65.8
-94.8
-4.2
-36.8
248.0
-18.2
0.0
-231.2
0.0
0.0
-70.3
260.9
64.8
-110.5
36.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-12.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
-16.5
1621.0
0.0
-77.0
-446.0
0.0
0.0
-374.7
16.4
-20.3
0.0
-4.3
0.0
5.8
8.0
-1.1
60.0
-61.1
-11.8
0.0
0.0
$6,930.8
Chapter 2 Notes
Notes to Table19
Fiscal 2012 Tax Collections Compared With Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2012 Budgets
California
Compared to projection at 2011-12 Budget Act.
Missouri
Does not include additional revenue that was budgeted from tax amnesty and other collection efforts.
Notes to Table 20
Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012, and Enacted Fiscal 2013
Tennessee
Sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax are shared with local governments.
Notes to Table 21
Percentage Changes in Tax Collections in Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012 and Enacted Fiscal 2013
Michigan
Revenue decline for corporate income tax collections reflects the recently enacted business tax reduction that replaced the
Michigan Business Tax with a Corporate Income Tax.
Notes to Table 23
Enacted Fiscal 2013 Revenue Actions by Type of Revenue and Net Increase or Decrease
California
Proposition 30 (Nov. 2012 ballot) would increase sales use tax rates by 1/4 percent for tax years 2013 to 2016. The amount of
revenue increase in fiscal 2013 is $605.0 million. The effective date is January 1, 2013.
Proposition 30 (Nov. 2012 ballot) would increase personal income tax rates for tax years 2012 to 2018. The amount of revenue
increase in fiscal 2013 is $4,735 million. The effective date is January 1, 2012.
The net revenue increase for fiscal 2013 of Proposition 30 is $5,340.0
New York
In December 2011, prior to submission of FY 2013 Executive Budget and the subsequent enactment of the FY 2013 Budget,
the State enacted tax reform legislation to amend existing tax structure, the result of which produced additional revenue necessary
to reduce the estimated FY 2013 budget gap by approximately $1.5 billion.
New Hampshire
Cigarette—Ten cent per pack of cigarettes reduction ($1.78 per to $1.68 per ) became effective 7/1/11. Impact on revenues
was expected to be zero as decline in revenue was expected to be offset by increased cigarette sales. (Actual impact was a resultant loss of tax revenue in FY 2012 of approximately $12 million).
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
49
50
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Total Balances
CHAPTER THREE
Maintaining adequate balance levels helps states mitigate dis-
serves since the decline at the end of the recession. (See Fig-
ruptions to state services during an economic downturn. Total
ures 6, 7, and 8) Balance levels were greatly increased in fiscal
balances include both ending balances and the amounts in
2011 from fiscal 2010, bringing total balances to 7.1 percent
states’ budget stabilization funds (rainy day funds) and reflect
of expenditures. Those levels increased again in fiscal 2012,
the funds that states may use to respond to unforeseen cir-
rising to $50.9 billion or 7.6 percent of general fund expendi-
cumstances. Additionally, rainy day funds are needed to ensure
tures. In fiscal 2013, states project balances to increase to
that budgets can be balanced when revenues do not meet ex-
$61.3 billion or 9.0 percent of general fund expenditures. (See
pectations in the latter part of the fiscal year when budget cuts
Tables 24, 25, and 26)
and revenue increases do not have enough time to take effect.
Though budget experts’ views vary, an informal rule-of-thumb
used to be that balances should be built to a level that equals
at least five percent of total expenditures to provide a relatively
adequate fiscal cushion. However, in the wake of the recent financial crises, there have been calls by some organizations and
academics to increase the standard size above five percent, in
some cases much higher than five percent. State officials often
try to avoid drawing down balance levels at the beginning of a
downturn, and may also be prohibited from draining all rainy
day funds immediately. In total, 48 states have budget stabilization funds, which may be budget reserve funds, revenue-
Total balance levels at $61.3 billion or 9.0 percent of general
fund expenditures appear to indicate that budget reserves are
fairly sufficient across states, but the totals can be misleading.
The combined balance levels for Texas and Alaska, at $12.7
billion and $17.1 billion respectively, account for 48.5 percent
of total state balances. The concentration of total budget reserves being disproportionately held by two states means that
the average balance level as a percent of expenditures is much
lower for the other 48 states. If you remove Texas and Alaska
from total balance levels, the remaining 48 states have average
balance levels representing only 5.0 percent of expenditures.
shortfall accounts, or cash flow accounts. About three-fifths of
The view that total balance levels across all states are inflated
the states have limits on the size of their budget reserve funds,
due to the robust levels in two states is reinforced by the fact
ranging from 3 to 10 percent of appropriations.
that in fiscal 2013, five states estimate balance levels below one
Prior to the start of the recession, states built up fairly significant
balance levels. By 2006, total balances reached a peak at $69
billion or 11.5 percent of general fund expenditures. However,
the severe deterioration in state revenues and rising expenditure
pressures in fiscal 2009 and 2010 resulted in balance levels
falling to 5.2 percent of expenditures by the end of fiscal 2010.
percent of expenditures and 19 states estimate balance levels
greater than one percent, but less than five percent. (See Table
25) States with low balance levels may be impeded in their ability to respond to events that occur during the fiscal year, including unanticipated budget gaps that may arise towards the end
of the fiscal year.
States have made significant progress rebuilding budget re-
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
51
TABLE 24
Total Year-End Balances,
Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013
Fiscal
Year
Total Balance
(Billions)
Total Balance
(Percentage of
Expenditures)
2013**
$61.3
9.0%
2012*
50.9
7.6
2011
45.7
7.1
2010
32.5
5.2
2009
36.2
5.7
2008
59.1
8.6
2007
65.9
10.1
2006
69.0
11.5
2005
46.6
8.4
2004
26.7
5.1
2003
16.4
3.2
2002
18.3
3.7
2001
44.1
9.1
2000
48.8
10.4
1999
39.3
8.4
1998
35.4
9.2
1997
30.7
7.9
1996
25.1
6.8
1995
20.6
5.8
1994
16.9
5.1
1993
13.0
4.2
1992
5.3
1.8
1991
3.1
1.1
1990
9.4
3.4
1989
12.5
4.8
1988
9.8
4.2
1987
6.7
3.1
1986
7.2
3.5
1985
9.7
5.2
1984
6.4
3.8
1983
2.3
1.5
1982
4.5
2.9
1981
6.5
4.4
1980
11.8
9.0
1979
11.2
8.7
—
6.0%
Average
NOTE: *Figures for fiscal 2012 are preliminary actual;**Figures for fiscal 2013 are based on
enacted budgets.
52
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Total Year-End Balances as a
Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013
Number of States
Percentage
Fiscal 2011
(Actual)
Fiscal 2012
(Preliminary Actual)
Fiscal 2013
(Appropriated)
Less than 1.0%
7
5
5
1.0% to 4.9%
15
17
19
5.0% to 9.9%
17
12
12
10% or more
11
16
14
NOTE: The average for fiscal 2011 (actual) was 7.1 percent; the average for fiscal 2012 (preliminary actual) is 7.6 percent; and the average for fiscal 2013 (appropriated) is 9.0 percent.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
53
Figure 4:
Total Year-End Balances Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013
$70
$60
$ In Billions
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993
1995 1997 1999
2001 2003
2005 2007 2009
2011 2013
Fiscal Year
Figure 5:
Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures Fiscal 1979 to Fiscal 2013
12
Total Balance (Percent of Expenditures)
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1979 1981 1983 1985
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Fiscal Year
54
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
Changing Balance Levels 2011, 2012, 2013
Figure 6:
Total State Balance Levels 2011
Less than 1 percent (7)
Greater than 1 percent but less than 5 percent (15)
Greater than 5 percent but less than 10 percent (17)
Greater than 10 percent (11)
Figure 7:
Total State Balance Levels 2012
Less than 1 percent (6)
Greater than 1 percent but less than 5 percent (15)
Greater than 5 percent but less than 10 percent (14)
Greater than 10 percent (15)
Figure 8:
Total State Balance Levels 2013
Less than 1 percent (5)
Greater than 1 percent but less than 5 percent (19)
Greater than 5 percent but less than 10 percent (14)
Greater than 10 percent (12)
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
55
Table 26
Total Balances and Total Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013
Region/State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total**
Fiscal
2011
Total Balance ($ in Millions)**
Fiscal
2012
Fiscal
2013
Total Balances as a Percent of Expenditures
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
2011
2012
2013
$51
14,950
3
0
-3,079
446
237
798
1,026
1,131
126
69
469
1,182
995
188
290
633
$19
1,615
1,901
556
1,297
241
627
342
816
324
27
870
501
1,376
878
1,383
431
342
87
1,073
199
712
107
879
6,148
293
54
841
-91
1,452
86
752
$35
15,601
646
0
-2,882
864
-50
565
1,494
1,131
275
100
316
2,155
1,284
466
212
595
87
1,223
1,990
1,093
1,098
108
454
453
927
243
23
569
705
1,787
813
1,681
617
685
87
659
269
956
183
733
7,473
233
58
675
-285
1,462
342
752
$262
17,071
973
0
1,667
1,015
97
504
2,286
1,131
348
40
316
2,007
1,401
470
174
447
0
1,145
1,400
505
1,609
0
351
397
601
244
37
648
733
1,819
632
1,891
1,034
403
277
293
187
561
167
366
12,654
244
63
49
318
1,385
339
765
0.7%
274.3
0.0
0.0
-3.4
6.4
1.3
24.4
4.3
6.6
2.5
2.8
1.6
9.1
18.6
3.3
3.3
8.1
0.7
12.2
5.9
6.8
8.5
5.3
8.2
19.6
24.6
9.5
2.1
3.1
9.4
2.5
4.7
83.8
1.6
6.3
1.4
3.8
6.7
13.8
9.3
8.8
15.9
6.2
4.7
5.4
-0.6
38.5
0.6
47.6
0.5%
222.5
7.7
0.0
-3.3
12.0
-0.3
15.7
6.3
6.5
5.0
3.9
1.1
15.9
21.4
7.6
2.2
7.2
2.8
8.2
6.1
13.0
6.5
2.3
5.7
25.5
26.9
7.8
1.9
1.9
12.4
3.2
4.2
75.6
2.3
11.8
1.3
2.4
8.6
17.3
15.1
6.4
17.0
4.8
4.6
4.1
-1.9
35.3
2.5
47.6
3.7%
225.1
11.3
0.0
1.8
13.1
0.5
13.4
9.2
6.2
6.1
1.5
1.1
14.3
22.5
7.6
1.8
5.4
0.0
7.8
4.1
5.6
9.3
0.0
4.4
20.8
16.5
7.7
2.9
2.1
12.8
3.1
3.1
89.2
3.6
6.7
4.1
1.1
5.7
9.4
13.4
3.1
34.1
4.8
4.8
0.3
2.1
32.6
2.3
47.2
0
$45,650
10
$50,957
0
$61,324
0.0
7.1%
0.1
7.6%
0.0
9.0%
NOTES: NA indicates data not available.*Fiscal 2011 are actual figures, fiscal 2012 are preliminary actual figures, and fiscal 2013 are appropriated figures.**Total balances include both the
ending balance and Rainy Day Funds.
56
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE 27
Rainy Day Fund Balances and Rainy Day Fund Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013
Region/State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas*
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico
Total**
Rainy Day Fund Balance ($ in Millions)**
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
2011
2012
2013
Rainy Day Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
2011
2012
2013
$0
12,981
0
0
-3,797
157
0
186
279
328
0
0
0
57
440
0
0
647
0
624
1,379
2
9
191
247
0
313
0
9
0
501
1,206
296
386
0
249
16
0
130
712
107
284
5,012
233
54
0
1
659
0
752
$0
14,783
250
0
-3,601
281
93
186
494
328
0
24
276
352
596
0
122
442
45
672
1,652
365
658
100
248
0
429
38
9
0
705
1,306
419
386
246
578
85
0
153
956
135
306
6,899
233
58
0
130
851
0
752
$115
16,518
450
0
948
298
93
199
709
328
0
35
276
355
622
0
122
442
45
713
1,392
505
612
0
251
0
384
38
10
0
733
1,306
419
386
482
0
85
73
171
561
151
356
8,084
244
63
0
267
900
0
765
0.0%
238.20
0.0
0.0
-4.1
2.3
0.0
5.7
1.2
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
8.2
0.0
0.0
8.3
0.0
4.7
4.3
0.0
0.1
4.2
3.2
0.0
9.4
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.4
2.2
1.6
23.4
0.0
4.6
0.3
0.0
4.4
13.8
9.3
2.8
12.9
4.9
4.7
0.0
0.0
17.5
0.0
47.6
0.0%
210.8
3.0
0.0
-4.1
3.9
0.5
5.2
2.1
1.9
0.0
0.9
0.9
2.6
9.9
0.0
1.3
5.4
1.4
4.5
5.1
4.4
3.9
2.1
3.1
0.0
12.4
1.2
0.7
0.0
12.4
2.3
2.1
17.4
0.9
10.0
1.2
0.0
4.9
17.3
11.2
2.7
15.7
4.8
4.6
0.0
0.8
20.6
0.0
47.6
1.6%
217.8
5.2
0.0
1.0
3.8
0.5
5.3
2.8
1.8
0.0
1.3
1.0
2.5
10.0
0.0
1.3
5.4
1.5
4.9
4.0
5.6
3.5
0.0
3.1
0.0
10.6
1.2
0.8
0.0
12.8
2.2
2.1
18.2
1.7
0.0
1.2
0.3
5.2
9.4
12.1
3.0
21.8
4.8
4.8
0.0
1.7
21.2
0.0
47.2
0
$24,651
0
$33,038
0
$40,505
0.0
3.8%
0.0
5.0%
0.0
5.9%
NOTES: NA indicates data not available. *See Notes to Table 27 on page 58.**Fiscal 2011 are actual figures, fiscal 2012 are preliminary actual figures, and fiscal 2013 are appropriated figures.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
57
Chapter 3 Notes
Notes to Table 27
Rainy Day Fund Balances and Rainy Day Fund Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures,
Fiscal 2011 to Fiscal 2013
Kansas
58
Kansas does not have a "Rainy Day" fund. However, the balanced budget provision of the constitution requires revenues to finance the approved budget.
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 Four
Enacted Changes to Budgeting and Financial
Management Practices
For fiscal 2013, a number of states enacted changes to their
budgeting and financial management practices to increase efficiency and improve performance of government agencies and
programs. Several states reported the implementation of new
IT budgeting systems that enable better performance management by helping agencies align resources with goals. The most
commonly cited changes were additional emphasis on performance management, consolidation and reorganization, and
IT budgeting system upgrades. With the potential for cost and
efficiency savings, IT consolidation remains a primary driver for
organizational reform. Reforms were also made to minimize future budgetary risks from long-term liabilities such as pensions
and fiscally unsustainable patterns in health care expenditures.
Enacted changes to state fiscal administration continue to reflect the current limited resource environment. (See Table 28)
states reported that enacted budgets contained changes in
state aid to local governments in fiscal 2013 and many of the
changes resulted in increased state aid for local governments.
Enacted changes varied considerably, but the number of states
that increased aid to local governments was greater than those
that decreased aid. Specific programs which are run by local
governments including K-12 education or road maintenance
account for the majority of increased state dollars. Local governments faced severe fiscal pressures during the recession
and property taxes, the primary source of local government revenue, have continued to be impacted by declines in the housing
market. Increased state aid in fiscal 2013 will likely provide welcome relief, but in many cases local government fiscal challenges remain. In fiscal 2013, state enacted changes for local
government aid reflect greater emphasis on program reform.
Several states reported an increase in state aid tied to performance, specifically in the area of education. Increased local government aid in fiscal 2013 will help address falling property tax
Enacted Changes in Aid to Local
Governments, Fiscal 2013
revenues, but the amount of aid is likely not enough to offset
the historic decline in property tax collections. According to the
National League of Cities, property tax collections are estimated
In contrast to fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010, more states in-
to fall by 2.1 percent in calendar year 2012, marking the third
creased aid to local governments in fiscal 2013. Twenty-four
consecutive year of declines. (See Table 29)
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
59
Table 28
Enacted Changes to Budgeting and Financial Management Practices
California
Eliminating redevelopment agencies to increase funding for schools, police, fire, and other core local services.
Colorado
HB12-1283 codified the consolidation of Colorado's homeland security functions, personnel, and resources,
enacted under Executive Order D 2011-030, into a new Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) within the Department of Public Safety (DPS).The bill reduces the budget for Colorado
State University by $620,090 total funds, including $310,045) and 35.4 FTE in FY 2012-13. These resources
are transferred to the Division of Fire Prevention and Control in the Department of Public Safety.
Amendment S was initiated by House Concurrent Resolution 12-1001. Amendment S proposes an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning the state personnel system. It also expands the veterans' preference, increases the number of candidates eligible to be appointed to a position, changes the amount of
time for allowable temporary employment, allows flexibility to remove some positions from the system, modifies
the residency requirement, adjusts the terms of service for members of the state personnel board, and requires
merit-based appointments to be made through a comparative analysis process.
TBD (“To Be Determined”) Colorado is a "nonpartisan, collaborative effort designed to create informed and
constructive conversations among Coloradans about some of the biggest issues facing the state. TBD Colorado hosted more than 60 community meetings with 1,000 + people throughout Colorado in April and May
and will hold six multi-region summits in June. No state dollars will be spent on TBD Colorado.”
Colorado implemented the SMART Act (State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent
—SMART—Government Act), pursuant to HB10-1119. For FY 13-14, the Governor's Office of State Planning
and Budgeting believes that departments should craft strategic operational plans that can be used in their
daily management. For FY 13-14, OSPB will direct departments to modify strategic operational planning activities to focus on the "specific identification of major programs, the business processes that drive those programs, and output-oriented performance measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of those programs....
For the Fiscal year 2014-2015 budget cycle, OSPB intends to tie these output-oriented measures to the outcome-oriented goals envisioned in the SMART Government Act, including (but not limited to) goals aimed at
increased efficiency and cost savings. These goals will be reached by applying process improvement tools to
areas in State government that fall short of performance goals. We expect that specific guidance surrounding
these sorts of outcome-oriented goals will be published in instructions for the Fiscal Year 2014-2015 budget
cycle."
In his FY 12-13 budget, the Governor requested to fund a revamp of Colorado's COFRS system (accounting
system) included a component for electronic budgeting.
Debt Policy. Senate Bill 150 was passed in the 2012 Session. This legislation requires the State Treasurer to
act as the issuing manager for most state agencies when the loan is at least $1 million and paid from state
sources. The bill also requires the State Treasurer to develop and issue rules for a state public financing policy.
Management and Efficiency. To achieve our goal of making government more efficient, effective, and elegant,
the Office of State Planning and Budgeting began leading the implementation of Lean management principles
in nearly all executive branch state departments in October 2011. Lean management refers to a set of tools
and processes to streamline operations and eliminate waste, all with the goal of improving customer value.
Using the last of the ARRA dollars allocated to the State, some existing resources, as well as donated funds,
40 separate improvement efforts in 15 executive branch agencies are currently underway, with a multitude of
improvement opportunities queuing up for action by trained staff and facilitators. Examples of specific projects
include process improvements in permitting activities with the Department of Transportation, evaluating the
process and forms supporting housing choice vouchers with the Department of Local Affairs, enhancing call
center services in the Department of Regulatory Agencies, and supporting efforts to ensure adequate staffing
is available to serve some of the most vulnerable citizens with the Department of Human Services.
Table 28 continues on next page.
60
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 28 (Continued)
Enacted Changes to Budgeting and Financial Management Practices
Illinois
Governor Quinn led the effort for a comprehensive overhaul of the state's Medicaid system. While not yet
complete, Governor Quinn remains committed to overhauling the pension system and bringing stability back
to the budget. Governor Quinn restructured the Government's operations by closing correctional facilities,
rebalancing the care of Illinois' most vulnerable citizens, consolidating state police communication centers.
Furthermore, he continued to consolidate lease space while still be committed to providing the same level of
service to Illinois’ residents.
Indiana
The Indiana State Budget Agency implemented Oracle's Hyperion Public Sector Planning and Budgeting
EPM software for submission, modeling, development and presentation of statewide agency and program
budgets, and to better leverage the state's existing investment in PeopleSoft Financials and Time and Labor.
Maine
The administration's policy is to continue it's effort to reduce the size of the state's work force. The Department
of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources and the Department of Conservation were merged to form the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry effective 7/1/13. The former State Planning Office was restructured, forming the Office of Policy and Management and transferring other functions to several other
state departments and agencies. The Legislature enacted the bill that implemented the recommendations of
the Streamline and Prioritize Core Government Services Task Force. The Legislature passed legislation creating
the Fund for a Healthy Maine as a separate fund, requiring a programming change to our Budget and Financial
Management System.
Massachusetts
Long Term Fiscal Policy: On May 8, 2012, in keeping with the Patrick-Murray Administration's commitment
to responsible fiscal management, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance today released the
Commonwealth’s first formal policy to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability. The Long-Term Fiscal Policy
Framework includes five-year budgetary forecasts, identifies the fiscal challenges to sustaining vital government programs, and articulates specific policies to address these challenges
State Finance Reform: On July 27th, 2012, Governor Patrick signed into law legislation that makes fundamental changes in the operations of state government, updating antiquated finance laws and implementing
performance measurement requirements for all government agencies and programs to improve efficiency,
transparency and accountability.
Payment Reform Legislation: On August 6, 2012, the Governor approved comprehensive health payment
reform legislation which was a compromise version of the bill he had filed in February, 2011. The law will move
providers and payers away from fee-for-service payments toward alternative payment structures that are designed to reward integration and coordination of care for patients, reduce costs and improve quality. In addition, the new law will extend the presumptive disapproval criteria of the state Division of Insurance for premium
rates in the small and non-group market. A newly created Health Policy Commission will oversee policy development necessary for the implementation of the law. The law establishes a cost growth target for the Commonwealth based on Potential Gross State Product (PGSP), which is estimated to be 3.6% for the 2012-2013
period. The growth rate of PGSP is the long-run average growth rate of the Commonwealth's economy, ignoring fluctuations due to business cycles. The cost growth target equals PGSP for the period from 2013
through 2017, PGSP minus 0.5% for the period from 2018 through 2022 and PGSP from 2023 on. However,
the Health Policy Commission and the Legislature have some ability to change those growth targets after
2018. Insurers and providers with cost growth exceeding the growth target may be required by the Health
Policy Commission to file performance improvement plans describing specific strategies, adjustments and
action steps they propose to implement to improve cost performance. If cost growth targets are met, it is estimated that the new law could result in statewide savings of up to $200 billion over the next 15 years.
Table 28 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
61
Table 28 (Continued)
Enacted Changes to Budgeting and Financial Management Practices
Performance Management: On February 14, 2012, Governor Patrick signed Executive Order 540, which
requires strategic planning and performance management for all executive departments. Building on the Administration’s commitment to improving government performance, accountability and transparency, E0 540
calls on state government to align resources with strategic goals and utilize objective performance measures
to demonstrate results. Through the Office of Commonwealth Performance, Accountability and Transparency
(CPAT), A&F is leading efforts to change the way state government does business – creating a more strategic,
responsive and results-oriented government, where managing performance is the rule and not the exception.
As the first step in developing and implementing a performance management framework, E0 540 requires
each Secretariat to publish a two-year strategic plan alongside the Governor’s fiscal year 2014 Budget Recommendation. A&F is pleased to release our strategic plan which will be issued in final form in January 2013.
Michigan
In December 2011, pension and retiree health care reform laws were enacted, reducing $5.6 billion in longterm unfunded liabilities. The State of Michigan refunded collections of 3 percent of state employees' pay to
fund future retiree health costs. Alternatively, state employees voluntarily pay 4 percent of their salary to remain
in the state's defined benefit retirement program or opt for the state's defined contribution (DC) plan and
forego the 4 percent payment. State employees also have options for managing their retiree health care. Employees in the DC system hired before January 2012 choose to remain in the current graded health care subsidy plan or receive an amount paid directly to a tax-deferred account. Workers choosing the tax-deferred
account option and employees hired after January 2012 receive a state matching contribution up to 2 percent
of their compensation in lieu of the retiree health care benefit.
Reinventing Michigan's government is guided by the "good government" principle, focusing on performance
management, service/process optimization, employee engagement, and change management. The state's
priorities are tracked through dashboards and goals of cabinet-level scorecards. Strategies of the various organizational subunits, together with shared competencies and objectives of individual performance management plans, enable each employee to recognize how their work aligns with statewide goals and strategies.
Funding decisions are tied to performance outcomes as a way to ensure Michigan government is moving to
provide better service and economic growth. Employees are encouraged to participate in Bureaucracy
Busters, using a blog to share ideas for improvement and innovation and vote to implement. Additional information may be located at http://www.michigan.gov/openmichigan.
Missouri
Targeted reviews of expenditures; Healthcare cost containment including Medicaid, offender healthcare and
state employee healthcare.
Nevada
Nevada's most recent Legislative session was in the spring of 2011. All changes took effect in FY 2012. The
departments of personnel and information technology were folded into the Department of Administration.
Divisions of the Department of Cultural Affairs (Museums and History, Library and Archives, Historical Preservation, etc.) were folded into other departments. The departments of personnel and information technology
were folded into the Department of Administration. Nevada also made changes to the automated budget
system to accommodate performance budgeting.
New York
Beginning on April 1st, 2012, the State implemented use of the new Statewide Financial System (SFS), which
is a single source accounting system to streamline government financial transactions, increase operational
efficiency, and facilitate better financial analysis and decision-making.
Ohio
Authority was granted to sell some state correctional facilities to private operators. Also, many economic development activities were transferred to a newly created non-profit entity outside of state government. While
major adjustments were enacted to the state's public employee collective bargaining law, these changes
were repealed in a voter referendum in November 2011.
Table 28 continues on next page.
62
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 28 (Continued)
Enacted Changes to Budgeting and Financial Management Practices
Ohio is a biennial budget state that passes budgets for two fiscal years at a time, a mid-biennial budget review
process was conducted to review the expenditures and activities of all state agencies. From this process numerous adjustments were made to existing policies and operations as well as appropriations authorized for
each year of the current biennium. Also, near the end of FY 2012, revenue estimates for 2013 were recast
and adjusted based on updated economic forecasts. As mentioned above, for the first time a mid-biennial
budget review process was conducted and numerous policy, operational, and spending adjustments occurred. While aggregate appropriation levels were modestly adjusted, widespread fine tuning of appropriations
occurred with some line items receiving additional spending authority and some having their original authority
reduced as a result of the review.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma is continuing the Governor's initiative to flatten and "right-size" government services. This legislative
session, appropriations were held to 3.9% growth which left $16 million of General Revenue monies unappropriated, after several years of significant cuts. Additional legislation was enacted to support state-wide
consolidation of IT services and other on-going consolidation efforts. In keeping with the Governor's goals,
our Budget division has purchased and will be implementing the Oracle Hyperion budgeting, financial and
data management system to more fully and efficiently integrate all elements of the budget and performance
management process for savings of time and money.
Rhode Island
Effective July 1, 2012, an Office of Management and Budget was created. In addition to the State Budget Office, the new OMB will include a Grants Management Office, a Performance Management Office, and an
Office of Regulatory Reform.
The new Performance Management Office was created during FY 2012 and is in the process of being staffed.
The Performance Management Office, along with members of the Budget Office and the Governor's Office,
review performance measures with agencies and departments on a quarterly basis. This is a major initiative
by the Governor to improve the quality/performance of state government.
South Carolina
Public Employee Benefit Authority (PEBA) was set up (Act No. 278) to manage employee insurance program
and retirements systems. Functions previously fell under different entity. Additionally, the Legislature funded a
new budget formulation system, which is planned to be in place for development of the FY14-15 budget.
Texas
The Texas Youth Commission and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission were consolidated into the Texas
Juvenile Justice Department (a new agency) and the Department of Rural Affairs consolidated into the Department of Agriculture. The Governor and Texas Legislature enacted additional public hearing and reporting
requirements regarding State revenue, State appropriations and fiscal condition, current economic trends,
and other related topics. Texas is continuing to develop an enterprise architecture to track financial and human
resource data at certain large agencies.
Vermont
Executive driven strategic planning process underway. Sections E.100.1 and E.100.2 of Act 162 (FY13 Approps Act) identify various goals for the outcomes and processes of the State budget. Sec E.100.1 of Act
162 (FY 13 Approps Act) also expresses support for the "continuous evaluation of the raising and spending
of public funds by systems of outcome measurement based on indicators that measure success in accomplishing the purposes of the state budget." Additionally, implementation of new budget system is currently
underway for FY 2014 cycle.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
63
Table 29
Enacted Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2013
Arizona
Stop the county transfer that took place during the last several years.
California
1) The 2013 Budget includes a $20 million grant for cities due to poor economic conditions that has resulted
in cuts to police services. 2) The 2013 Budget also includes an additional $500 million of lease revenue bond
financing authority for the acquisition, design, and construction of local facilities to help counties manage their
offender population as a result of realignment. 3) The 2013 Budget includes a $525 million reduction (21.0
percent) to Trial Court operations. The 2013 Budget includes the redirection of various funds and the use of
local trial court reserves to offset this reduction. Furthermore, beginning in 2014, local trial court reserves will
be reduced to 1 percent of the courts operating budget. 4) Of the General Fund revenues raised by Proposition
30, $2.9 billion would be used to fund local school districts and community college districts in the 2012-13
fiscal year (approximately 7.9% of the total General Fund for K-12 and community colleges direct instruction,
Proposition 98).
Chapter 40, Statutes of 2012 established a permanent funding structure for 2011 Realignment. 2011 Realignment, enacted as part of the 2012 Budget, transferred program and fiscal responsibility of certain public
safety programs from the state to local governments. The 2013 Budget provides $2.2 billion to local school
districts and community college districts to pay back deferrals in the 2012-13 fiscal year (21.2% of total K12 and community college deferrals as of the 2011-12 enacted Budget). Legislation was enacted (Chapter
26, Statutes of 2012) that creates a mechanism for the Successor Agencies to the former Redevelopment
Agencies (RDAs) to remit to the affected taxing entities (i.e. cities, counties, schools, and special districts) the
unencumbered cash assets of the former RDAs. Over $1.4 billion is expected to be received in 2012-13 by
the affected taxing entities. These cash shifts were required by previous law; Chapter 26, Statutes of 2012
creates the framework to ensure the cash is actually shifted in the current fiscal year.
Connecticut
Municipal aid increased $50.1 million in FY 13, a 1.78% increase over FY 12. Beginning with FY 2013, the
state will relax the minimum budget requirement (MBR) associated with the state’s main education formula
grant (Education Cost Sharing) for municipalities with high performing school districts. This is estimated to affect up to $10.5 million or 1.5% of the ECS grants for those districts.
Florida
Revision of the collection method for medical hospital fees billed to the counties for both past due and future
billings resulting in a $75.2m increase in local payments to the state.
Hawaii
Act 103, SLH 2011, limited the amount of transient accommodations taxes distributed to the counties to
$93 million per fiscal year from FY 2012 to FY 2015.
Kentucky
Repealed $19,000,000 earmark from coal severance tax receipts for workers' compensation special fund;
thereby increasing state aid to local governments by $9,500,000.
Maine
State-Municipal Revenue Sharing. The State provides funds to municipalities to stabilize the municipal tax
burden and to aid in financing all municipal services. Revenue sharing payments were reduced by a fixed
amount that will be transferred to the General Fund as undedicated revenue. The revenue transfer amount
for FY 2013 is $44 million.
General Purpose Aid to Local Schools- K-12 Education. Funding was increased by 19.6 million from FY 2012
to FY 2013 which represented a State share percent for essential programs and services for K-12 public education of 46.60%.
The Tax & Rent Circuit Breaker program provides property tax relief to certain low and middle residents &
renters is limited to 80% of the amount resulting in a $10.3 m decrease to benefits and expenditure reduction
to the General Fund.
Table 29 continues on next page.
64
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 29 (Continued)
Enacted Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2013
Maryland
The 2013 Budget provides $6.7 billion in aid to local governments, an additional $134.0 million over 2012.
The increases include an additional $132 million for direct K-12 education aid and $16.1 million in local Highway User Revenue. The increase is offset by a $136.6 million reduction in the State's contribution to teacher
retirement. Legislation was approved under which the counties will pay a portion of teacher retirement costs.
The FY 2013 budget includes $27.7 million in additional funding to help certain counties offset these costs.
Actions in the FY 2013 budget will generate $67.2 million in additional revenue to local governments to include:
income tax changes to rates and exemptions ($31.5 million) and closing the indemnity mortgage tax loophole
($35.7 million). The FY 2013 budget also includes a provision repealing required repayments to the Local Income tax Reserve saving local governments $36.7 million.
Massachusetts
The fiscal 2013 budget provides $5.07 billion in state-funded local aid to municipalities. The budget includes
state funding for chapter 70 education aid of $4.17 billion, an increase over the $ 3.99 billion in state funding
for chapter 70 in fiscal 2012. The fiscal 2013 budget level funded unrestricted general government aid at
$898 million.
On July 12, 2011, Governor Patrick signed municipal health care reform legislation that in its first year of implementation has provided significant and immediate savings to cities and towns, while preserving a meaningful role for organized labor in the process and protecting health care quality for retirees and municipal
employees. Political cooperation - first among state leaders to pass the law and then between municipal officials and employee unions to implement it - has enabled savings to far surpass an initial estimate of $100
million statewide as a result of the reform. Changes made in FY12, the first year of the new reform, will likely
produce as much as $200 million in savings for local governments who have used the new reform process
to negotiate changes or used traditional collective bargaining, with the new law providing additional leverage.
More municipalities are expected to achieve health insurance savings in FY13.
Michigan
Effective for fiscal 2013 (October 2012): incentive payments ($110 million) to school districts that meet district
performance standards or best practices criteria; $50 million for technology infrastructure grants; $10 million
to local and intermediate school districts to defray costs associated with consolidation or shared services efforts; incentive-based funding ($2.0 million) for intermediate school districts meeting 4 of 5 best practices criteria; $15 million to local governmental units to help with costs of merging government operations; and $26.1
million for a county incentive-based program similar to the Economic Vitality Incentive Program implemented
in fiscal 2012 for cities, villages, and townships.
Missouri
$1.4M (18.7%) reduction to local public health agencies; $1.3M (12.0%) reduction to county assessors for
assessment maintenance.
Nebraska
State General Fund Only (All July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013): Aid to K-12 Schools: $40.3 million; 3.9% increase
Homestead Exemption Reimbursement: $4.4 million; 6.5% increase.
New Jersey
Municipal Aid: Increased Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Aid by $48.2 million (10%) to $553.6
million. This program provides general State Aid to municipalities.
Reduced Transitional Aid to Localities program funding by $61.4 million (36%) to $108.7 million. This program
provides assistance to municipalities facing fiscal distress, primarily aiding the state’s large urban centers.
Other Local Aid: Increased County College Aid by $4.8 million to $214.2 million (2%). This program provides
aid to the county college system, including funding for operating aid, fringe benefits, and debt service funding.
Increased Aid to County Psychiatric Hospitals by $1.8 million (1%) to $133.5 million. This program supports
patients in county psychiatric hospitals by reimbursing allowable costs incurred by counties.
Table 29 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
65
Table 29 (Continued)
Enacted Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2013
New Mexico
Distribution formula to small cities and counties revised to allow larger distributions beginning in FY14. The larger
distributions were necessary to offset revenue declines due to the antipyramiding legislation. The effect is estimated to increase distributions to small cities by $5 million annually and to small counties by $1 million annually.
New York
The FY 2013 Enacted Budget will have an estimated $1.1 billion positive impact on municipalities in local fiscal
years ending in 2013—the first full-annual local fiscal year affected by changes in the FY 2013 Enacted Budget.
Major Enacted Budget program changes and one-year impact for local fiscal years ending in 2013 are as follows:
• Increased school aid funding for the 2012-13 school year ($755 million);
• Competitive performance grants to school districts ($125 million);
• Acceleration of AIM payments to certain cities ($64 million);
• Creation of a new Pension Tier VI ($44 million);
• Increased Red Light Cameras for Suffolk and Nassau counties ($34 million);
• State takeover of local Medicaid growth expenses ($24 million);
• Increased transit assistance for downstate county transit systems ($18 million); and,
• Eliminate NYC Shelter Supplement Funding ($15 million).
In addition to $125 million in competitive performance grants for school districts, the FY 2013 Enacted Budget
will have the following impact:
• School districts outside of New York City will realize a $490 million positive impact in the 2012-13 school
year driven mostly by a $462 million increase in school aid (exclusive of the competitive performance grants).
School districts will also experience $28 million in savings from the creation of a new Pension Tier VI.
• New York City will realize a $302 million positive impact due primarily to $293 million in additional aid for
New York City schools (exclusive of the competitive performance grants), and $11 million from the takeover
of the Medicaid growth factor. Other actions include $8 million in increased transit assistance for NYCDOT
and Staten Island Ferry and $2 million in savings from Early Intervention program reforms. These savings
will be partially offset by an $11 million net decrease for human services programs.
• County governments will realize an estimated $71 million net positive impact in 2013, primarily due to $34
million in increased revenue from additional red light camera authorization in Nassau and Suffolk counties,
$14 million from the takeover of the Medicaid growth factor, and $10 million in savings from the creation of
a new Pension Tier VI. In addition, counties will realize $10 million in increased assistance for downstate
county transit systems, and $1 million in savings from Early Intervention program reforms.
• Other cities, towns and villages will experience a $71 million positive impact in local fiscal years ending in
2013 attributed to $64 million in accelerated Aid and Incentives for Municipalities (AIM) assistance to certain
cities and $7 million in savings from the creation of a new Pension Tier VI.
North Dakota
For the 2011-13 biennium, mill levy reduction grants were increased by $42.6 million, or 14.2%, and state
school aid grants were increased by $93.3 million, or 10.2%.
Table 29 continues on next page.
66
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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 29 (Continued)
Enacted Changes in Aid to Local Governments, Fiscal 2013
Ohio
Payments through the Local Government Fund (LGF) were reduced from 3.68% of total state GRF tax revenue
to 50% of the FY 2011 allocation in FY 2013 (estimated FY 13 savings $334.7 million). Payments to local libraries were limited to 95% of the amounts provided in FY 2011 in 2013 (FY 13 savings $23.6 million).
Pennsylvania
The FY 2012-2013 budget for the Department of Public Welfare includes a human services block grant pilot
program. Twenty counties will be selected to participate in the pilot which will allow the counties the flexibility
to combine funding streams for a number of human services program and use the funds outside of their strict
categorical purposes while still providing needed services under a locally designed plan. Counties will also
benefit from streamlined reporting requirements for programs included in the block grant.
Rhode Island
Education aid to LEAs increased by $32 million, or 5.4 percent, in FY 2013 compared to FY 2012. This relieved
some of the financial pressure on local governments.
South Carolina
Full funding of local government fund was suspended (4% of Most Recent Closed FY Revenue Required by
Statute). Funded at $210,619,411. Required by Statute: $253,477,411.
Tennessee
The percentage of sales tax revenue distributed to city governments was increased from 4.5925% to 4.603%
to compensate for the reduced revenue from lowering the sales tax on grocery food from 5.5% to 5.25%.
The change will increase the sales tax distributed to cities by approximately $700,000.
Texas
The Texas budget is written and balanced on a biennial (two-year) basis. The Texas Legislature enacted various
changes impacting aid to local governments for the FY 2012-2013 cycle--for example reductions to local
continuing education grants, aid to local libraries, and local parks grants--however only minimal differences
exist between FY 2012 and FY2013.
Washington
Eliminate liquor profits sharing (effective 7/1/12), $45 million. Eliminate liquor excise tax sharing (effective
7/1/12), $29 million.
West Virginia
State will share 1% ($4.0 million) of net State Coal Severance Tax collections with coal producing county governments.
Wisconsin
Act 32, the 2011-13 biennial budget bill, includes reductions in FY 2013 for various local government programs. Compared to FY 2011, FY 2013 funding for county and municipal aid decreased by $76.8 million. Of
this amount, payments to towns, villages, and cities were reduced by $47.7 million or 7.0%, and payments
to counties were reduced by $29.1 million, a reduction of 19.2%. Under 2011 Wisconsin Act 32, funding for
school aids (general and categorical) decreased over the biennium by $792.2 million (7.4%). Compared to
FY 2011 school aid funding levels, FY 2013 funding decreased by $360.7 million. School aid funding increased
from FY 2012 to FY 2013 by $79.9 million (1.4%). From other funds, the financial assistance for local government recycling programs, which is funded from the environmental fund, was reduced $12.1 million from FY
2011 levels. From the transportation fund, general transportation aids for counties were reduced by 8% or
$9.8 million for FY 2013. General transportation aids for municipalities were reduced by 5.97% or $19.6 million
for FY 2013. From the transportation fund, mass transit operating assistance was reduced by 10% for FY
2013 or $9.3 million. From the transportation fund, an additional $5 million in funding for the local roads improvement program for towns was added for FY 2013 and thereafter an increase of 783 % over FY 2012 levels.
Under 2011 Wisconsin Act 32, school districts were required to reduce per pupil expenditures by 5.5% in FY
2012 and are permitted to increase per pupil expenditures by $50 in FY 2013. Act 32 also adopted the provisions of the Governor's proposed budget modifying the expenditure restraint program budget test, affecting
eligibility. A county and municipal levy limit increase of 0% for 2012-13 property taxes was imposed, under
most circumstances, which is the same limit as 2011-2012.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
67
Appendix
TABLE A-1
Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2013
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
05-10
$976.0
01-13
605.0
07-12
-46.1
SALES TAXES
Arizona
California
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Georgia
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia
Enacted in 2010, a temporary 3-year sales tax increase, worth $836 million in FY11,
$916m in FY12, and $976m (est) in FY13.
Proposition 30 (Nov. 2012 ballot) would increase SUT rates by 1/4 percent for
tax years 2013 to 2016.
3 day back to school sales tax holiday Elimination of paper filers' collection allowance
Urban high crimes jobs tax credit Expansion in exemptions for M&E and aircraft repair
Corporate scholarship tax credit.
Act 219, 2012 - Repeals Act 155, 2010, which requires all businesses with excise tax
exemptions to register to do business in Hawaii, file their tax returns in a timely manner,
and creates a personal trust liability for businesses and ensure that those funds are
paid to the state.
HB 485 Revises the eligibility criteria for taking a state income tax deduction for
installing energy efficient upgrades within existing residences.
Sales and use tax exemption for certain aircraft
Energy Sales Tax Exemptions for business, sales tax holiday
Establishes a Use Tax Compliance Program from July 1, 2012 through Dec. 30, 2012
covering purchases made in calendar years 2006-2011. Taxpayers are absolved from
further liability prior to 1/1/12 and criminal prosecution if forms and payments are
submitted as required.
Cost of a sales tax holiday on August 11-12, 2012.
Retroactively exempts items made in MI but attached to property in other states
Exemptions for health clinics, data centers, mental health centers, biochips, and joint
governmental entities
Antipyramiding legislation: Gross receipts tax (GRT) deduction for certain service inputs
used in construction GRT deduction for consumables used in manufacturing, phased in
over 5 years
Allow a licensee whose tax reported in the third quarter of the prior year exceeds
$25,000 but is less than $100,000 to make a prepayment equal to or greater than
50% of the current month instead of 50% of the prior year.
Repeal Clothing Exemption >$250.
Lost Revenue from SSUTA Non-Compliance.
Apply Sales Tax to Ground Transportation.
Apply Sales Tax to Pet Services.
Repeal Sales Tax on Package Tours, etc.
Apply sales tax to the Retail Sale of Medical Marijuana.
Increase Sales Tax revenue from increasing the cigarette tax to $3.50 per pack.
Reduce tax on grocery food from 5.5% to 5.25%.
Expands the types of sellers who are required to pay or collect and remit sales and
use taxes.
Sales tax on groceries reduced from 3% to 2% as of 1/1/12 and to 1% as of 7/1/12.
Total Revenue Changes—Sales Tax
-5.0
07-12
01-09
01-13
-0.9
-3.4
-281.2
07-12
08-12
01-06
5.6
-20.9
-1.0
07-12
-5.0
01-13
-16.5
10-12
10-12
10-12
10-12
10-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
-4.9
7.3
-1.4
2.5
0.9
-0.6
0.8
0.1
-22.0
07-12
01-12
5.8
-40.5
$1,154.7
Table A-1 continues on next page.
68
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2013
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
01-12
01-12
01-12
01-13
-$8.0
12.8
4,735.0
-61.0
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES
Arizona
California
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Enacted in 2011, expand the private school tuition tax credit, impact -$4m each year
staring FY13, long-term care premium tax deduction, -$4m impact each year starting
FY13.
Enacted in 2012, eliminate clean election tax credit.
Proposition 30 (Nov. 2012 ballot) would increase PIT rates for tax years 2012 to 2018.
Increase personal exemption for married filers by $2000
Act 185, 2012 (affects both Personal and Corporate taxes)—prohibits penalties for
substantial understatements or misstatements and erroneous claims for refund or
credit from being added to tax underpayments on which other penalties have been
imposed.
HB 563 Reduces the Idaho personal income tax rate for taxable income over $20,000
from 7.8 % to 7.4%.
Consolidates 3 tax brackets into 2, reduces rates, eliminates many tax credits, and
makes other structural changes.
Conforms to Federal Standard deduction & eliminates tax additions starting January 2012.
It establishes new income tax rate schedules that contain a 6.5% rate bracket and reduces
the 8.5% rate bracket to 7.95% for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013.
Provides a credit equal to 10% of the federal bonus depreciation on property placed in
service in Maine during tax years beginning 2011 and 2012, excluding certain utility and
telecommunications property.
Repeals the income tax additions modifications related to the federal section 179 business
expensing thresholds for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
Provides new minimum taxability thresholds for non residents to permit greater income
earning activity by non residents in the State before Maine income tax liability is triggered.
It also excludes from the determination of taxability in the State up to 24 days of personal
services related to certain training, management functions, equipment upgrades and
new investment.
Increased State income tax rates for certain income groups and established new
State income tax brackets. Reduced and eliminated income tax personal exemptions for
certain tax payers.
Accelerated scheduled cut in tax rate by 3 months and increased the personal exemption
Lower certain tax rates and expand tax brackets
PIT Reform—Lowered taxes for middle class and added three new brackets for income
over $150,000.
Reduced tax rates.
Final installment of delayed income tax reduction which started in Fiscal Year 2012. This
was delayed for FY 2010-11. The revenue decrease identified for FY 2013 is relative to
FY 2011.
Reduces active trade or business income taxed from 5% to 4.33% in tax year 2012.
Taxes on this type of "Business" income are payed as Personal Income tax.
Cloud computing moratorium—Dec 31, 2006 to July 1, 2013.
Increase neighborhood assistance credit.
Maintain tax credit cap on equity/sub debt.
Increase Tax Credit for Apprenticeship Training.
-1.1
07-12
-30.9
01-13
-249.2
07-11
-78.8
07-11
-1.2
07-11
-1.7
07-11
-2.5
01-12
10-12
01-13
247.3
-103.0
-7.9
01-12
01-12
1,931.0
-60.0
07-11
-446.0
01-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
01-12
-20.3
-3.6
-1.5
2.0
-0.6
Table A-1 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
69
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013
State
Effective
Date
Tax Change Description
Fiscal 2013
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
PERSONAL INCOME TAXES (continued)
Wisconsin
Domestic Production Activities Credit: Specified percentage of qualified production activities
income that is derived from property assessed as manufacturing or agricultural property in
Wisconsin. For tax year 2013 this percentage is 1.875% (see notes for more). 2011 Act 212
provided for an income and franchise tax credit for hiring unemployed veterans (-$0.9).
-5.8
Total Revenue Changes—Personal Income Taxes
$5,845.0
CORPORATE INCOME TAXES
Arizona
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
Maryland
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Enacted in 2010, tax credit for qualifying renewable energy production beginning 1/2011,
cap at $20 million/year till 2031.
Enacted in 2011, create/enhance tax credit for new jobs created, angel investment,
R&D, eliminate enterprise zone tax credit, net impact -$18.7m in FY13, increase to
-$60m impact when fully phased in.
Exemption increase from $25k to $50k Renewable energy investment tax credit:
Corporate scholarship tax credit
Act 185, 2012 (affects both Personal and Corporate taxes)—prohibits penalties for
substantial understatements or misstatements and erroneous claims for refund or
credit from being added to tax underpayments on which other penalties have been
imposed. Revenue impact was included in personal income tax change.
HB 563 reduced the maximum corporate income tax rate from 7.6% to 7.4%.
Provides a credit equal to 10% of the federal bonus depreciation on property placed in
service in Maine during tax years beginning 2011 and 2012, excluding certain utility
and telecommunications property.
Repealed the corporate income tax credit for 60% of State and local property taxes
paid on certain telecommunications property.
Reduced tax rates.
Single Sales Factor—increases the weighting of the sales factor from 90% to 100%
when apportioning income to Pennsylvania.
Requires state approval to deduct intangible expense from taxable income.
Increase neighborhood assistance credit.
Corporate Income Tax Rate reduced from 8.5% to 7.75% & Franchise Tax rate
reduced from 0.34% to 0.27%.
Domestic Production Activities Credit (-$5.6) and Unemployed Veterans Credit (-$0.4).
Total Revenue Changes—Corporate Income Taxes
01-11
-$20.0
07-11
-18.7
07-12
-11.2
07-12
-4.8
07-11
-5.8
12-11
01-12
7.4
-12.5
01-13
07-12
07-12
-12.0
12.5
-1.6
01-12
01-13
-35.0
-6.0
-$107.7
Table A-1 continues on next page.
70
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013
State
Fiscal 2013
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Tax Change Description
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Florida
Corporate scholarship tax credit
07-12
-$6.3
Total Revenue Changes—Alcoholic Beverages
-$6.3
CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES
Connecticut
Illinois
Maryland
Rhode Island
Roll-Your-Own Changes
$1/pack cigarette tax increase.
Increased the other tobacco tax rate from 15% to 30% for all products excluding cigars.
Increased the tobacco tax rate for non-premium cigars from 15% to 70%. The tobacco
tax rate for premium cigars continues to be 15%.
Increase Cigarette Tax to $3.50
Redefine Little Cigars that weigh less than 4lbs per 1,000
10-12
07-12
$2.1
237.0
07-12
07-12
07-12
5.0
1.7
2.4
Total Revenue Changes—Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes
$248.2
MOTOR FUELS TAXES
Hawaii
Minnesota
Act 188, 2012(Special Highway fund)—Extends the sunset provision relating to the
tax on naphtha fuel sold for use in a power-generating facility from 12/31/2012 to
12/31/2017.
Gas tax exemptions for health providers.
$1.9
-3.5
01-11
Total Revenue Changes—Motor Fuel Taxes
-$1.6
Table A-1 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
71
TABLE A-1
(Continued)
Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013
State
Fiscal 2013
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Tax Change Description
OTHER TAXES
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Georgia
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
West Virginia
Gross Receipts Tax—Clarifies that certain transactions during refinery processes
are exempt from this tax.
Corporate scholarship tax credit.
09-11
07-12
-$3.6
-2.2
HB 417 makes the taxation of parts installed on private aircraft owned by non-residents
consistent with the taxation of parts installed as components of aircraft manufactured
in Idaho and sold to non-residents, as well as parts installed on aircraft in commercial
use. HB 489 exempts beverages, including wine and beer, from the payment of use tax
if given as a free tasting to a potential customer.
07-12
$11M for tobacco related products.
07-12
Inheritance tax phase out.
01-12
Conservation Easement, R&D Credit.
Varies
Repeals the current 2 year severance tax exemption for new pool oil wells.
07-12
A one-time assessment on hospitals equal to 0.39% of net operating revenue as identified
on the hospital's most recent audited financial statement for the hospital's fiscal year that
ended during calendar year 2008.
07-12
A one-year delay of the FAS 109 deductions (additional $45.9 million) and enhanced tax
enforcement initiatives (additional $36.3 million).
Limits lookback period for some taxes to 4 years.
06-12
Expand lawful gambling taxes to E-Pultabs, E-Bingo with new net receipts tax
rate/structure changes to fund new professional football stadium.
07-12
MTA Payroll Tax—Extended exemption and lowered tax rate for small tax payers in
MTA region.
01-12 and 04-12
Reduced financial institution and gaming tax rates.
01-12
Continued phase-out of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax.
01-13
Excludes from the Inheritance tax the transfer of real estate devoted to the business of
agriculture between members of the same family.
07-12
Establish a new Education Improvement Tax Credit program (EITC2) for low- and
moderate-income students residing within the attendance boundaries of a public school
ranked in the lowest 15% of its designation as an elementary or secondary school.
07-12
Increases the annual cap on the amount of the Education Improvement Tax Credits from
$75 million to $100 million.
07-12
Provides authority to attach bank accounts of delinquent businesses if the taxpayer is not
in compliance with a deferred payment plan and there is a lien recorded in favor of the
Commonwealth for taxes due.
07-12
Repeals gift tax on all transfers made on or after 1/1/2012. Inheritance Tax—Increases
exemption from $1 million to $1.25 million—Decreases revenue by $14.7 million in
FY 2014—Effective date is 1/1/2013.
01-12
Special Revenue: Extend Tax Holiday for Regular Timber Severance Tax until 2016.
07-12
Total Revenue Changes—Other Taxes
-0.2
11.0
-14.8
-16.6
18.0
14.2
82.2
-6.5
35.2
-310.0
-4.5
-298.3
-2.4
-40.0
-20.0
2.9
-15.5
-1.0
-$572.1
Table A-1 continues on next page.
72
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
Enacted Revenue Changes by Type of Revenue, Fiscal 2013
State
Tax Change Description
Effective
Date
Fiscal 2013
Revenue
Changes
($ in Millions)
Upon Passage
06-12
03-13
-$15.0
1.3
264.0
FEES
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Indian Gaming Compact Amendment.
Nursing Home Provider Assessment Fee
Motor Vehicle Title Fee replaces state and local sales taxes on motor vehicles.
Maryland
Increased certain vital records fees from $12 to $24 and increased Office of
Administrative Hearings fee for appeals of a driver’s license suspension or revocation.
Environmental Protection—Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permitting
and compliance activities ensure that private and public sector development meet
Commonwealth environmental standards. The fees that DEP collects for these services
have not been raised since 2004. This proposal raises fees by $2.5 M in accordance
with the Consumer Price Index from 2004-2011 (17%). All of the new revenue would
be retained by DEP to support permitting and compliance activities.
• Hospital Fees—DPH is required to license health care facilities operating in
Massachusetts. A licensing fee is recovered to offset the state's associated costs.
Over $1 M will be generated from establishing a new fee charged for satellite locations
or license amendments. The fee will be paid by approximately 433 nursing homes,
118 hospitals with 297 satellites and 323 clinics with 330 satellites.
Extend operation of the MN specialty health system at Willmar.
Gambling Control Board fees.
Apply 4% surcharge on compassion center’s net patient revenues
Impose $100 fee for the re-inspection of school buses
Expand Beverage container letter fee to all beverage containers except milk
Restructure various Department of Health fees.
Imposes expungement fees of various criminal records.
Increase hospital provider assessment from 5.9% to 6.0% ($1.9M) Motor vehicle
license & reg fees ($6.3M) Environmental permits, registrations & certifications
($3.2M) other misc ($0.2M).
Various fees relating to vehicle license renewals, request for driver license abstracts,
new fee for electrical vehicle, and other fees.
Various fees related to driver licenses are raised to fund facial recognition for the
purpose of verifying identities.
Special Revenue: Increase Coal Reclamation Fee from 14.4 cents per ton to
27.9 cents per ton.
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
06-12
1.2
07-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
3.5
2.7
1.9
0.5
0.1
0.2
1.8
20.7
07-12
11.6
10-12
33.0
10-12
27.0
07-12
16.0
Total Revenue Changes—Fees
$370.5
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
73
TABLE A-2
Enacted Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2013
State
Effective
Date
Description
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
New York
Fiscal 2013
Recommended
Changes
($ in Millions)
Sales Ch. 37, Stats. 2012: Extends FIRM to the Board of Equalization (BOE).
Personal Income Ch. 37, Stats. 2012: Extends FIRM to the Employment Development
01-13
$3.0
Department (EDD). Changes rules for FTB wage garnishment.
Sales Sunday and Certain Holidays Sale of Alcohol, Expand Enforcement at DRS,
01-13
35.0
Roll-Your-Own Sales Tax Differential, Joint Ventures-Aviation Industry Exemption.
Personal Income Expand enforcement at DRS.
Corporate Income Expand enforcement at DRS.
Alcohol Sunday and Certain Holidays Sale of Alcohol.
Other Reduce GF Transfer to Transportation Fund Transfer Securities Fees from
Banking Fund Mortgage Settlement Civil Penalties.
Fees Increase Grocery Store Beer Permit Fee, Expand Childhood Vaccine Program,
Roll-Your-Own Changes.
Other Taxes Clarification that certain transactions engaged in by the Delaware City
Refinery in the processes of acquiring raw materials, refining such materials, and
distributing refined products are exempted from the Gross Receipts Tax.
Fees Nursing Home Provider Assessment Fee
Corporate Income June 2013 Installment Payment due date change.
Other Redirection of revenues to debt service.
Fees Redirection of court filing fees and motor vehicle title fees Speed up of
medical hospital fee collections.
Other Act 59, 2009—reduces the allocation of conveyance tax to the General Fund
from 45% to 35% after june 30, 2012.
Alcohol Transfers money to the new Alcohol Beverage Control fund instead of the
General Fund.
Other Increased child care copays. The obligation for Illinois’ residents to pay childcare
co-pays is policy set forth by the Illinois Department of Human Services. The amount of
the co-pay or legal obligation to do so is not enacted by law.
Other Tax Amnesty. Collection and compliance efforts.
Sales Enhancement of revenue discover and collection opportunities by authorizing the
payment of overtime to Maine Revenue Services employees.
Other Provides for a continued fixed amount to be credited as revenue to the General
Fund in lieu of paying these funds out as revenue sharing to municipalities.
Other Amends the Tax and Rent “Circuitbreaker” program to limit the amount of the
benefit to 80% of the amount that would otherwise be available in FY 2012 and 2013.
Other Amends distribution of net slot machine revenue such that resources that would
otherwise be available to the Fund for a Healthy Maine are deposited to the General Fund.
Motor Fuel Diverts a portion of revenue from the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Fund to the
Budget Restoration Fund.
Other Removes credit balances and other property from escheated property.
Sales Integrated tax reporting system.
Personal Income Integrated tax reporting system.
Corporate Integrated tax reporting system.
Sales Extend mandatory e-filing requirements for one year.
Personal Income Extend mandatory e-filing requirements for one year.
07-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
6.7
3.0
1.0
1.6
07-12
76.7
07-12
9.9
09-11
06-12
07-12
07-12
-3.6
1.3
100.0
-2.6
Various
64.0
07-12
-4.0
07-12
-1.6
07-12
09-12
26.0
68.2
07-12
1.2
44.3
10.3
4.5
07-12
05-12
07-12
07-12
07-12
04-12
04-12
8.0
-5.4
6.4
6.4
3.1
1.0
4.0
Table A-2 continues on next page.
74
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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-2
(Continued)
Enacted Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2013
State
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Fiscal 2013
Recommended
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Description
Sales Refund for passenger air carriers.
Personal Income Tax deduction for educational supplies.
07-12
07-12
-$3.2
-1.8
Motor Fuel Capped the gas tax at 37.5 cents/gallon.
Sales Redirection of existing non-auto sales tax receipts as a result of reducing
07-12
-62.2
07-11
-0.2
07-11
337.2
07-11
848.3
07-12
-16.0
11-12
15.1
07-12
-1.6
08-12
18.5
Public Library Fund allocation of these receipts ($11.8 million), as well as a sales
and use tax amnesty (-$12.0 million).
Personal Income Redirection of existing personal income tax receipts as a result of
reducing Local Government Fund allocation of these receipts. Also enacted expanded
motion picture tax credit for $10.0 million in FY 2013.
Other Redirection of kilowatt hour sales tax receipts to the General Revenue Fund
as a result of reducing Public Library Fund allocation of these receipts ($11.8 million)
and increasing the portion of receipts deposited in the GRF instead of property tax
replacement funds ($123.7 million). Redirects natural gas consumption tax proceeds
to the GRF ($60.0 million). Additionally, Ohio has a commercial activity tax on most
businesses for gross receipts. The budget redirected existing state revenue the
General Revenue Fund. The amount additional commercial activity tax revenue to the
GRF is estimated in 2013 to be $669.8 million. Expanded job retention tax credit
(-17.0 million) in FY 2013 against commercial activity tax and expanded historical
preservation against commercial activity tax credit which has zero impact in FY 2013.
Fees Reduction in allocation of liquor permit fees deposited in the General Revenue
Fund. Beginning in FY 2013 fees will be deposited into funds to support liquor
enforcement and permitting activities.
Sales Increased authority for collection of sales taxes from non-compliant tax payers
and some small sales tax exemptions expanded.
Other Reapportions a portion of Motor Vehicle Tax collections from the General
Revenue Fund to the County Improvements for Roads and Bridges Fund beginning
Jan 1, 2013.
Fees Delinquent registration and excise tax fees apportioned permanently to the
General Revenue Fund and late tag fee waiver for inoperability eliminated approx
$400,000 in agency fees also eliminated or removed from the General Revenue Fund.
Table A-2 continues on next page.
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
75
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Enacted Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2013
State
Effective
Date
Description
Rhode Island
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Sales Tax Amnesty for 75 days begins 9/1/2012.
Personal Income Tax Amnesty for 75 days begins 9/1/2012.
Personal Income Add to FTE Rev. Agent to Office Audit.
Personal Income Tax Amnesty for inheritance and gift taxes for 75 days begins 9/1/2012.
09-12
09-12
07-12
09-12
$4.4
3.0
1.3
0.2
Corporate Income Tax Amnesty for insurance companies for 75 days begins 9/1/2012.
Corporate Income Tax Amnesty for health care providers for 75 days begins 9/1/2012.
Corporate Income Tax Amnesty for 75 days begins 9/1/2012—Hotel Tax portion.
Corporate Income Tax Amnesty for 75 days begins 9/1/2012.
Cigarette Add 4 FTE for Tobacco Enforcement.
Fees Reinstitue Hospital Licensing Fee at 5.35% 2011 Base with a 37.0% waiver for
hospitals in Washington County, Rhode Island. This law sunsets each year.
Fees Discontinue Waste-water treatment facility program—state run.
Fees Discontinue State run well drilling program.
Fees Subject the regional greenhouse gas restricted receipt account to the State’s
10.0% indirect cost recovery.
Other Interest from Tax Amnesty period.
Other Neighborhood Health Plan Grant for Dental Care.
Other Lottery, Enhance Town of Lincoln NTI share for 24 hour operations.
Sales Accelerated Collections.
Motor Fuel Accelerated collection (67.1M) and delay transfer out of general
fund (403M).
Alcohol Accelerated Collections.
Sales Modify accelerated collections.
Alcohol Removes current limitations on the operation of gov’t ABC stores on Sunday.
Other Restore interest to higher education.
Corporate Income Dairy and Livestock Credit. 2011 Wisconsin Act 15-delayed the
sunset of the credit for livestock and dairy manufacturing modernization from
January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2017.
09-12
09-12
09-12
09-12
07-12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.9
07-12
07-12
07-12
141.3
-0.1
0.0
07-12
09-12
07-12
07-12
Offset in FY 2014
0.5
2.8
1.8
-0.9
231.2
Offset in FY 2014
Offset in FY 2014
07-12
07-12
07-12
470.1
17.6
-6.8
1.3
-5.3
Total
76
Fiscal 2013
Recommended
Changes
($ in Millions)
01-12
-1.2
$2,467.0
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N
OF
S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S
TABLE A-3
Enacted Mid-Year Revenue Measures, Fiscal 2013
State
Maryland
Tax Change Description
Authorizes video lottery terminal facilities to operate 24 hours/day and
operate table games.
Fiscal 2013
Recommended
Changes
($ in Millions)
Effective
Date
Contingent upon
voter referendum on
$17.4
November 6, 2012
Total
$17.4
THE FISCAL SURVEY
OF
S TAT E S
•
FALL 2012
77
78
N AT I O N A L G O V E R N O R S A S S O C I AT I O N
•
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
Founded 1945
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