Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment (2010)
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
The Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment did not appear on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Kansas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.[1]
Legislature was mulling the possibility of placing the “rainy day” fund on a future ballot if not on a 2010 ballot. The proposal was introduced in legislative session by Senator John Vratil and Laura Kelly. Governor Mark Parkinson endorsed the proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment, showing that the state was becoming a proponent of fiscal restraint. The measure would have required the state to put money in the fund when tax revenues increased more than 3 percent from one fiscal year to the next. Up to one percent would have been set aside, according to reports. Taxes that were collected between 4 percent and 4.5 percent above previous year's tax receipts would have been placed into a debt prepayment fund.[1][2]
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Kevin Yoder stated about the measure: "I think we certainly may see a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The issue continues to gain significant momentum, and this is probably something that will emerge from the legislative session." However, legislative session ended on May 28, 2010, without the measure being sent to the ballot.[3]
Constitutional changes
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
- (a) On July 1, 2011, a budget stabilization fund and a debt prepayment fund shall be established and maintained in the state treasury.
- (b) When state tax receipts for a fiscal year increase by more than three percent over state tax receipts for the preceding fiscal year:
- (1) Any increase in excess of three percentup to the next one percent of state tax receipts collectedshall be deposited in the budget stabilization fund; and
- (2) Any increase in excess of four percent up to the next one-half percent of state tax receipts collected shall be deposited in the debt prepayment fund. Nothing in this subsection shall require state tax receipts to be deposited in the budget stabilization fund when the budget stabilization fund balance exceeds fifteen percent of the preceding fiscal year’s state tax receipts. Nothing in this subsection shall require state tax receipts to be deposited in the debt prepayment fund when the debt prepayment fund balance exceeds fifteen percent of the preceding fiscal year’s total amount of principal of bonded indebtedness serviced by appropriations from the state general fund.
- (c) The legislature may provide, by law, for additional amounts of state tax receipts to be deposited in the budget stabilization fund and the debt prepayment fund.
- (d) (1) Withdrawals from the budget stabilization fund may occur in the current fiscal year only when the current fiscal year’s estimated state tax receipts are less than the amount of actual state tax receipts collected or otherwise received in the preceding fiscal year. The amount subject to withdrawal shall not exceed the difference between the current fiscal year’s estimated state tax receipts and the amount of actual state tax receipts collected or otherwise received in the preceding fiscal year except that such difference shall be reduced by the amount of the current fiscal year’s estimated state tax receipts not collected or otherwise received as a result of any kind of tax reduction legislation enacted by the legislature and approved by the governor in the current or preceding fiscal year.
- (2) Withdrawals from the budget stabilization fund may occur in the ensuing fiscal year only when the ensuing fiscal year’s estimated state tax receipts are less than the amount of estimated state tax receipts in the current fiscal year. The amount subject to withdrawal shall not exceed the difference between the ensuing fiscal year’s estimated state tax receipts and the amount of estimated state tax receipts in the current fiscal year except that such difference shall be reduced by the amount of the ensuing fiscal year’s estimated state tax receipts not collected or otherwise received as a result of any kind of tax reduction legislation enacted by the legislature and approved by the governor in the current or preceding fiscal year.
- (3) For the purposes of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2), the attorney general shall be responsible for certifying whether any kind of tax reduction legislation was enacted by the legislature and approved by the governor and if so, the governor shall certify the amount of such reduction. Any withdrawal authorized by this subsection shall be provided for by law enacted in a separate bill that does not include any other matter except a statement that the conditions prescribed by this subsection exist and the authority to transfer a specific amount of money from the budget stabilization fund to the state general fund.
- (e) (1) Withdrawals from the debt prepayment fund may occur only to provide for calling and redeeming selected bonds for which debt service is paid by appropriations from the state general fund in accordance with their terms on or after their first optional redemption date and prior to maturity.
- (2) Prior to any withdrawal from the debt prepayment fund authorized by this subsection, the governor shall be responsible for determining and selecting which bonds will produce the greatest debt service savings to the state general fund, and the attorney general shall be responsible for certifying that the selected bonds are available for optional redemption. Any withdrawal authorized by this subsection shall be provided for by law enacted in a separate bill that does not include any other matter except a statement that the conditions prescribed by this subsection exist and the authority to transfer a specific amount of money from the debt prepayment fund to the state general fund for the purpose of calling and redeeming selected bonds.
- (f) Amounts in the budget stabilization fund and the debt prepayment fund may be invested as provided by law and the earnings thereon shall be retained in the budget stabilization fund and the debt prepayment fund.
- (g) As used in this section, ‘‘state tax receipts means receipts from any state income tax, sales tax, compensating use tax or other excise tax or tax in the nature of an excise tax, or estate or inheritance tax, or tax in the nature of an estate or inheritance tax, but shall not include receipts from any property tax, or tax in the nature of a property tax, or any tax on motor fuels.
- (h) The legislature may enact laws to carry out the purposes of this section.[4]
If enacted by Kansas voters, the measure would have amended Article XI of the Kansas Constitution by adding Section 14.[5]
Support
Legislature
Legislators who had stated their support for the measure included:[1]
Opposition
Legislature
Legislative members that were opposed to the measure included:
- According to Representative Brenda Landwehr, "The odds are that the way we’ve done this, there will not be money in this fund to do what it’s intended to do. I like the concept, I like the idea…but it does not provide the safety or stabilization that this state needs.”[2]
- Representative Virgil Peck, Jr. stated, "Kansas certainly needs an emergency fund but we need one that provides Kansas with a significant amount of money...we only have one shot at getting it right, in its current form it’s not right."[2]
Path to the ballot
On March 24, 2010, the Kansas House of Representatives passed the measure with a vote of 102-20, sending the proposal to the Kansas State Senate for it's approval. If the Senate had approved the ballot question, it would have been sent to the November ballot for voter approval.
A 2/3rds vote in both chambers of the Kansas State Legislature is required to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot. Kansas is one of 17 states that requires this process.[2]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Kansan, "Senate panel mulls plan for rainy day fund," February 24, 2010
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Kansas Reporter, "Kansas House passes proposed rainy day constitutional amendment," March 24, 2010
- ↑ Bloomberg Business Week, "Analysis: Buzz for restraint grows in Kansas," January 11, 2010 (dead link)
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
- ↑ Kansas Legislature, "SCR 1614" (dead link)
