Oh No You Don’t – Fee-Paid Reserve Accounts Off Limits
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Earlier this week we heard the reports that in their effort to plug state budget holes that there was a possibility lawmakers would consider using reserve accounts, held in various state agencies as a funding source to avoid making some of the cuts in state spending. Based on this account by the Nevada News Bureau those rumors are still in play with legislators making it very public that they consider no reserve fund not being available for their use.
In spite of the spending binge that has driven the size of Nevada government to its current level, the members of the majority party don’t appear to be consigned to acceptance that their build-ups should be reduced to fit the ability of current revenue to meet the cost obligations.
For our part, the example that we are closely watching is the Nevada Brands Program. This service is funded by fees charged to livestock producers. As part of the funding process on a four-year rotation, re-recording fees are assessed and a large influx of funds occur, held in reserve for operational costs that take the reserves down over the time span to the next four year flush of new incoming cash. We are currently two years into the cycle and there is a cash balance of funds that seems to be tempting.
User fees, such as the brands reserve funds, have been paid by Nevadans for specific purposes – the delivery of the service they fund. If legislators are going to take those funds – because they appear to be unspent – the financial integrity of the program will possibly be in jeopardy. It should be noted that this situation is not just a matter of concern for the state brands inspection program…there are any number of similar funds in a number of state agencies in the same boat.
It is understandable that the approach of cutting important funding levels is going to impact Nevada citizens and layoffs of state employees is not going to be a pleasant thing to do. Layoffs in any employment situation is difficult. Doing what has to be done – has to be done and literally taking funds that aren’t yours to take to reduce the level of spending reductions that are required is not an acceptable choice for legislators to make.
We all need to be in touch with our representatives in the Nevada Legislature, encouraging them to move forward with the task of being fiscally responsible. Based on following the guidelines of priority requirements, anything not mandated by the constitution or courts should be considered as possible areas for funding reductions. If necessary entire program areas not falling into priority categories should be cut from general fund spending.
User fee reserve accounts should not be considered as funding sources. Those legislators who vote to raid reserve accounts will be identified and voters will be made aware of how they took these funds to avoid making the cuts which are required.
Earlier this week we heard the reports that in their effort to plug state budget holes that there was a possibility lawmakers would consider using reserve accounts, held in various state agencies as a funding source to avoid making some of the cuts in state spending. Based on this account by the Nevada News Bureau those rumors are still in play with legislators making it very public that they consider no reserve fund not being available for their use.
In spite of the spending binge that has driven the size of Nevada government to its current level, the members of the majority party don’t appear to be consigned to acceptance that their build-ups should be reduced to fit the ability of current revenue to meet the cost obligations.
For our part, the example that we are closely watching is the Nevada Brands Program. This service is funded by fees charged to livestock producers. As part of the funding process on a four-year rotation, re-recording fees are assessed and a large influx of funds occur, held in reserve for operational costs that take the reserves down over the time span to the next four year flush of new incoming cash. We are currently two years into the cycle and there is a cash balance of funds that seems to be tempting.
User fees, such as the brands reserve funds, have been paid by Nevadans for specific purposes – the delivery of the service they fund. If legislators are going to take those funds – because they appear to be unspent – the financial integrity of the program will possibly be in jeopardy. It should be noted that this situation is not just a matter of concern for the state brands inspection program…there are any number of similar funds in a number of state agencies in the same boat.
It is understandable that the approach of cutting important funding levels is going to impact Nevada citizens and layoffs of state employees is not going to be a pleasant thing to do. Layoffs in any employment situation is difficult. Doing what has to be done – has to be done and literally taking funds that aren’t yours to take to reduce the level of spending reductions that are required is not an acceptable choice for legislators to make.
We all need to be in touch with our representatives in the Nevada Legislature, encouraging them to move forward with the task of being fiscally responsible. Based on following the guidelines of priority requirements, anything not mandated by the constitution or courts should be considered as possible areas for funding reductions. If necessary entire program areas not falling into priority categories should be cut from general fund spending.
User fee reserve accounts should not be considered as funding sources. Those legislators who vote to raid reserve accounts will be identified and voters will be made aware of how they took these funds to avoid making the cuts which are required.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 2/4/2010 5:12 AM 
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: User Fees Nevada Reserve Accounts Nevada Interim Finance Committee
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: User Fees Nevada Reserve Accounts Nevada Interim Finance Committee
Comments