Institutions and Appropriations members agree to consult on cash-fund "up to 4%" language

Representative (Chair), Legislative Institutions Committee, told the committee a small group that included members of House Appropriations had met and raised three issues related to the capital cash fund: whether statute should say a flat 4% rather than "up to 4%" of the general fund minus debt service; what the proper starting point is for any multi‑year look‑back; and how to treat cash that remains unencumbered after two years.

The discussion matters because the cash fund is the Legislature’s ongoing tool for paying for capital projects without bonding. “I hope we can keep the 4% which is proposed,” said Jim Harrison, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, describing the view from Appropriations that now is not the time to lock a higher or mandatory percentage into statute given fiscal uncertainty.

Why it matters: several members said the difference between a fixed 4% and an "up to 4%" transfer affects how much general‑fund capacity remains for operating and programmatic needs, while the treatment of unencumbered balances affects whether previously appropriated but unused dollars can be reallocated. Committee members repeatedly requested clearer timing and a reconciled flow of money before making statutory changes.

Discussion highlights - Jim Harrison, member of the House Appropriations Committee, summarized the Appropriations view that the committee would prefer keeping the current "up to 4%" formulation this year because of uncertainty about federal revenues and other budget pressures. “We’re nervous about making changes this year,” Harrison said. - Committee members identified three concrete drafting questions: (1) whether to change statutory language from "up to 4%" to a flat 4%; (2) what date starts a statutory look‑back for encumbrances; and (3) whether funds unencumbered after two years should automatically revert or instead be the subject of consultation between Institutions and Appropriations. - The two committees agreed to continue working together: Representatives and Appropriations members said they would craft language that clarifies the starting point (for example, tying it to the effective date of an appropriation) and that any sweep or reallocation of unencumbered funds be handled in consultation between both committees.

What was not decided: no statutory change was adopted at the meeting and no formal motion or vote occurred. Members stressed the decision would need agreement from both committees and ultimately from the full Legislature; Harrison said he personally favored long‑term increases in cash funding but that the present fiscal uncertainty made locking language into statute this year imprudent.

Next steps: Institutions members identified a small working group to continue reconciling spreadsheets and to present a precise proposal for committee consideration. Several members asked staff to produce a clear flow‑of‑funds timeline that maps project milestones to fiscal years so the committees can see when appropriations actually need to be available.

Ending: Committee leadership said they would schedule follow‑up meetings between Institutions and Appropriations staff to refine draft language and the schedule for review before any bill is filed.