HB 1675-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2010 SESSION
10/05
HOUSE BILL 1675-FN
AN ACT relative to eliminating payment of certain travel expenses for members of the general court, and imposing a 2-year moratorium on reimbursement of executive branch state employee travel.
SPONSORS: Rep. N. Elliott, Hills 19; Rep. Mead, Hills 4; Rep. W. O'Brien, Hills 4
COMMITTEE: Legislative Administration
This bill repeals provisions allowing members of the general court to be reimbursed for travel expenses. The bill also establishes a 2-year moratorium on the reimbursement of certain travel expenses of executive branch state employees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
10-2130
10/05
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten
AN ACT relative to eliminating payment of certain travel expenses for members of the general court, and imposing a 2-year moratorium on reimbursement of executive branch state employee travel.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Repeal. RSA 14-A:3, relative to general court travel and expenses when on legislative business, is repealed.
2 Legislative Branch; Travel Reimbursement; Lapse. Notwithstanding the designation in the 2010-2011 operating budget as nonlapsing, any unexpended sums appropriated to the legislative branch for house of representatives or senate out-of-state travel reimbursement, or in-state travel reimbursement other than mileage, shall lapse at the end of each fiscal year to the general fund.
3 State Employees; Moratorium; Travel Expenses. Notwithstanding any provision of law authorizing or requiring the reimbursement of travel expenses for state employees, there is hereby imposed a moratorium on the reimbursement of the travel expenses of executive branch state employees until July 1, 2012.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
10-2130
Revised 12/29/09
HB 1675 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to eliminating payment of certain travel expenses for members of the general court, and imposing a 2-year moratorium on reimbursement of executive branch state employee travel.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Administrative Services states this bill will decrease state expenditures by $7,540,016 in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The Legislative Branch states this bill will decrease state expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2011 and FY 2012. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue or on county and local expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Administrative Services states this bill imposes a two-year moratorium on travel expense reimbursement for executive branch state employees and eliminates travel reimbursement payments to general court members for both in-state, with the exception of any mileage payments, and out-of-state travel. The Department assumes an effective date of July 1, 2010. In estimating the bill’s potential savings to the state, the Department started with the FY 2011 appropriations for in-state (070) and out-of-state (080) class lines for the entire state budget, including all funds. As the moratorium only applies to executive branch employees, the Department removed the travel appropriations for the judicial and legislative branches from this total. The remainder is the amount the Department expects to save in each year. While the budget for FY 2012 has not yet been set, the Department assumed the savings for the second year of the moratorium would be identical to the first year. The estimated fiscal impact is:
Total FY 2011 Less Less Total savings
Appropriation Judicial Legislative per year
In-State $5,416,116 ($492,570) ($1,249,020) $3,674,526
Out-of-State $4,004,811 ($ 2,500) ($ 136,821) $3,865,490
Total Travel $9,420,927 ($495,070) ($1,385,841) $7,540,016
The Department states 84.5% of the estimated in-state travel savings and 14.75% of the out-of-state travel savings would be general funds, with the balance of each coming from other funds. As it did not have sufficient information, the Department did not include the potential impact of the federal revenue foregone as a result of various state agencies being prevented from carrying out federal grant requirements necessitating employee travel. The Department also did not include the provision relating to the general court travel reimbursement in its analysis.
The Legislative Branch states this proposed elimination of travel reimbursement payments for members of the general court is accomplished in this bill by repealing the provision in current law that allows for these reimbursement payments, with the exception of mileage payments, and then lapsing to the general fund any remaining appropriation for in-state or out-of-state travel. The Branch also assumes an effective date of July 1, 2010. The Branch estimates a majority of the expenditures for in-state travel (class 070) in both the House and the Senate are for mileage payments and the majority of the expenditures for out-of-state travel are for travel reimbursement. During the FY 2008 and 2009 biennium, the Branch states 1.2% of House and 0.0% of Senate in-state travel spending and 95.8% of House and 98.0% of Senate out-of-state travel spending went towards travel reimbursement. The Branch cannot reasonably estimate what the actual savings will be, however using an allocation based on the data from the FY 2008 and 2009 biennium, the Branch projects a fiscal impact of approximately:
FY 2008/2009
% related to travel FY 2011 Potential annual
reimbursement appropriation savings
House – class 070 1.2% $1,078,500 $ 13,402
House – class 080 95.8% $125,000 $119,715
Senate – class 070 0.0% $155,000 $ 0
Senate – class 080 98.0% $11,500 $ 11,267
Total $1,370,000 $144,383
While the budget for FY 2012 has not yet been set, the Branch assumed the savings for the second year of the moratorium would be identical to the first year.