Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Growth Cap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citizen and sponsor ask legislature to cap general-fund growth at 3%
Summary
Representative Christina Wolf presented a citizen-requested bill to cap biennial growth in the state general fund to 3%, with unused portions carryable for up to three bienniums and larger increases allowed only by a two-thirds vote of each chamber.
Representative Christina Wolf introduced House Bill 1502, a citizen-requested measure that would limit increases in state general-fund appropriations to 3% of the prior approved general fund appropriation per biennium, allow unused portions to carry for up to three bienniums, and permit larger increases only by two-thirds votes of both legislative chambers.
Wolf said the bill mirrors constraints asked of political subdivisions in other proposals this session and reflects voter concerns about unchecked spending growth. She did not provide a decade-long chart of past general-fund growth in her oral remarks; committee members asked staff for historical growth numbers. Sponsor Mike Blessum, who testified in support, told the committee the legislative average general-fund growth figure from legislative council presentations is about 6.9% and urged lawmakers to impose self-restraint consistent with local caps under consideration.
Blessum urged the committee to consider a structural approach rather than episodic cuts: "What I would say is that this would be self-imposed for you if you chose to," Blessum said, arguing the limit would demonstrate fiscal discipline at the state level and align with local property-tax constraints under consideration in other bills. He also noted a drafting point: the bill as introduced may read as limiting total appropriations to 3% of the prior budget rather than limiting growth; he urged a technical fix.
Committee members asked technical questions about whether the cap would affect transfers to political subdivisions and about the interaction with other funds (e.g., special funds that sit outside the general fund). Representatives noted that prior budget adjustments and special-session appropriations have addressed school and local obligations in past cycles and that structured limits would require detailed drafting to avoid unintended effects on statutory obligations and transfers.
No formal committee action was taken; sponsors asked the committee to consider the policy concept or an alternate structure such as CPI plus a cap or an agency-by-agency framework. The hearing record shows public testimony and support but no opposition signups at the close of the hearing.
