NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.
The LFC is only preparing FIRs on bills referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee and the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. The chief clerks are responsible for preparing and issuing all other bill analyses.
Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.
| SPONSOR: | Gubbels | DATE TYPED: | 02/09/99 | HB | 245 | ||
| SHORT TITLE: | Clarify Municipal and County Revenue Bonds | SB | |||||
| ANALYST: | Taylor | ||||||
| Subsequent
Years Impact |
Recurring
or Non-Rec |
Fund
Affected | ||
| FY99 | FY2000 | |||
| NFI | NFI | NFI | Recurring | Local Capital |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Duplicates/Conflicts with/Companion to/Relates to
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Finance and Administration, Local Government Division
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 245 would amend the statute governing local governments issuance of gross receipts revenue bonds. It would strike current requirements that revenues in excess of the maximum permitted by United States treasury regulations and not needed to pay debt service requirements be used to redeem bonds prior to their maturity date.
Significant Issues
This bill would provide municipal and county governments greater discretion in administering gross receipts revenue debt. Local governments would still be permitted , but not required, to use excess revenues to prepay bonded debt.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The fiscal implications of this bill are limited to municipal and county governments. Not requiring that excess revenues be used to prepay debt should free that money for other purposes.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
Administrative impact would be limited to local governments choosing to change the way they manage gross receipts tax revenue debt.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
DFA, Local Government Division suggest that the definition of excess revenue may be vague, resulting in disagreements among local and state government officials.
BT/njw