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.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Conflicts with SB199

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC files

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HENRC Amendment

The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee amendment would strike the Senate Floor amendment. Additionally, the amendment adds an annual permit for state residents of $85 a year and $5 for an additional vehicle. It also adds a $100 park pass for out-of-state residents that would be good for 14 nights of camping, with an additional vehicle for $5.

Synopsis of SFl Amendment #1

Senate Floor amendment #1 adds language which would require the State Parks Division to provide an annual camping permit to the public. The cost of the permit would be $85.

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 237 would direct the Secretary of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department to rescind the recent park fee increase that it implemented on January 1, 1999. The bill would also require the Secretary to hold public hearings before changing park fees.

Significant Issues

Senate Bill 237 continues the current policy where the Secretary retains the rulemaking authority for park fee changes. The department would have until June 18, 1999 to rescind the current park fee structure. However, the state parks division has already implemented the new park fee increase, and thus, has restructured its operations accordingly. For instance, the department has expended funds to develop marketing materials specifically the new fee structure: new signs, park brochures, etc.

Because the State Parks Division implemented the new park fee structure on January 1, 1999, it could experience higher-than-expected revenue over what has been budgeted for the current fiscal year, FY99. The division is a non-reverting division, which means that any excess funds remaining at the end of the year, will stay in the division's cash balance account and are not refunded to the general fund account, as is the case with many state agencies.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

Senate Bill 237 does not contain an appropriation. The department would experience a minor fiscal impact because it would have to realign its operations with the previous fee structure, meaning change its signs, brochures, etc. Additionally, the department would lose the expenditure it has already made to develop new signs and park brochures.

In its bill analysis, the department has argued that rescinding the fees would result in a budget shortfall. However, both the executive and Legislative Finance Committee budget recommendations did not include revenue estimates based on this new fee structure. Therefore, rescinding the fees should not result in a budget shortfall.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Senate Bill 237 will impose minor administrative changes on the department, to realign the division's operations with the previous fee structure.

CONFLICT

Senate Bill 237 conflicts with Senate Bill 199, a bill that would remove the rulemaking authority for park fee increases from the Secretary and place it with the Legislature.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

The department's analysis of this bill suggests that if the park fees are rescinded, then the division will suffer a budget shortfall. Was the new park fee structure used for estimating revenues for the FY2000 budget recommendation? If not, then rescinding the new park fee structure would not have an impact on the division?

The new fees will be realized in this current fiscal year, FY99. What is the incremental positive fiscal impact of the new fee structure for the division?

MV/gm