Data and Impact Commission recommends four bill drafts, advances guidance on dedicated revenue

The Data and Impact Commission voted to recommend four bill drafts — three non‑substantive cleanup measures and one policy draft — to the Legislative Finance Committee for consideration in mid‑June.

The decision came after OPPP deputy budget director Amy Susano told members the subcommittee had produced “three non substantive bills and one policy related bill” and asked the commission to endorse the drafts as pre‑introduced bills to be presented to the finance committee.

The most substantive item, PD 54, is intended to simplify guidance for legislators on when to create dedicated revenue provisions or statutory appropriations. Katie Gunther of the Legislative Fiscal Division said the draft narrows the criteria so legislators know when dedicated revenue is appropriate: it should enable effective tracking for constitutional, federal or statutory mandates or provide a direct benefit to those who pay the fee or assessment. Gunther said the draft also seeks parity between revenues and expenditures so such accounts are not routinely subsidized by transfers from the general fund.

Gunther noted one explicit exception in the draft for transfers that support “long‑term financial state stability,” and cited the budget stabilization reserve fund as an example of where a general‑fund transfer might be appropriate.

Legislative fiscal director Amy Carlson offered examples to illustrate application of the thresholds: the gas tax and certain Fish, Wildlife & Parks fee accounts are already held as state special accounts where separate tracking clarifies that revenue is used as promised. Carlson and others discussed formatting options for the guidance (narrative text plus targeted checkbox items) and emphasized the draft is intended as nonbinding guidance rather than a legal mandate.

The draft also addresses statutory appropriations and administrative expenses; Gunther said statutory appropriations “should not be used for administrative costs” unless expressly authorized in statute and recommended that any administrative allowances be explicitly identified in the statutory text.

After discussion and a brief question period on scope and exceptions, a motion to recommend the four drafts to the Legislative Finance Committee was offered and approved by voice vote. The transcript records vocal “ayes” and the chair announcing the motion had passed; no roll‑call tally was included in the meeting record.

There were no public comments in the room or online. Susano said the budget subcommittee’s work is complete, but that the data subcommittee will likely hold at least one more meeting; agencies will resubmit EPC documentation to the office by the end of the month. The commission is expected to present the recommended drafts to the Legislative Finance Committee in mid‑June.