Requires prefiling by January 15 of any legislative instrument which produces a net decrease in taxes, fees, charges or other revenues received by the state of $10 million or more annually in any one of the 5 fiscal years; a report by the proponents on the instrument's economic effects; and a review of such report by the legislative fiscal office.
If enacted, SR15 would alter the legislative landscape by instituting stricter requirements on how and when certain revenue-reducing legislative instruments are considered. This change is intended to ensure thorough evaluation of the economic implications of such legislation before they reach the legislative floor, ostensibly to prevent substantial unaccounted-for losses in state revenue. The bill's focus on transparency in the legislative process could enhance fiscal responsibility in state governance, as lawmakers would be better informed of the direct effects of their decision-making on the state budget.
Senate Resolution No. 15, presented by Senator Heitmeier, addresses the procedural requirements for legislative instruments that result in significant decreases in state revenues. Specifically, it mandates that any legislative proposal expected to reduce taxes, fees, or other revenues by $10 million or more annually within any of the next five fiscal years must be prefiled by January 15. The bill also requires that proponents of such instruments attach a report detailing the economic effects of the proposed changes, which is then subject to review by the legislative fiscal office (LFO).
The sentiment surrounding SR15 appears to be generally supportive among proponents of fiscal accountability, which include a range of legislators and concerned citizens who prioritize sound economic management. Conversely, there may be some contention from those who view these added requirements as bureaucratic hurdles that could impede the timely introduction of vital legislation aimed at fostering economic growth.
Notable points of contention likely revolve around the balance between necessary fiscal oversight and legislative flexibility. Proponents argue that the added requirements are essential for safeguarding against potential negative economic impacts resulting from poorly assessed legislation, while opponents may contend that this could delay significant proposals, especially those aimed at stimulating economic activity. Debates may focus on the implications of requiring detailed economic reports and the resources required to produce them before legislative instruments can be effectively introduced.