OCR Text |
Show Retirement change seems most significant legislative action of 1972 budget session Perhaps the most significantenacted by the 1972 budget fiscal action taken by the recently re-cently adjourned budget session ses-sion was the full funding of retirement costs for state and local employees. This was the conclusion reached by Utah Foundation, the private research re-search organization, in their analysis of the 1972 budget session of the legislature. Under the present public retirement law, the employer and employee each contribute 4i percent of salary costs to the state retirement fund. Under Un-der the new law passed iby the 1972 budget session, the employing unit will assume the employee's 4 Ms percent share, resulting in a total cost' of 9 percent to the State. This total contribution will be raised to 9V3 percent in 1973 and finally to 10 percent in 1975. The Foundation notes that this new dbligation will add approximately $10.6 million to state expenditures, a sum equal to nearly a third of the total estimated Increase in state general purpose spending spend-ing for all purposes next year. Recipients of this new fringe benefit will include most state employees and local school employees. The benefit also may be extended to other local lo-cal government employees If the action is approved by their I local employing unit. session, ' all but eight were classified as nonbudgetary, requiring re-quiring a two-third favorable vote in each house for consideration. consid-eration. ( The study notes that import-ant import-ant new impetus to the state building program is provided provid-ed by legislation which transfers trans-fers all general fund surpluses at the end of the current (1971-72) fiscal . year to the state building board. Although the building priority schedule contemplates a transfer Jof about $6.6 million for building build-ing purposes, it is possible that the -ending general fund surplus could exceed this amount toy $2 - $3 million. While the totals in the legislative leg-islative program enacted do not differ appreciably from the budget plan recommended 'by the Governor, there were some differences in specifics. One area where the Legislature did depart from the Governors Gover-nors recommendation was in turning down a proposal for a new $14 million bond issue to finance an expanded program for recreation development. ; According to legislative estimates, es-timates, total cost of local school operations during 1972-73 1972-73 will be $131.9 million, the same sum recommended in the Governor's budget. The Foundation study points out that the budget proposal differed dif-fered from the one finally adopted, however, in that it provided for greater state support sup-port iof the basic school program pro-gram but did not recommend full state funding of the retirement re-tirement program for school employees. According to the Foundation, Founda-tion, total state general purpose pur-pose spending is expected to increase by $32.5 million next year as a result of the 1972 budget session actions. In addition, ad-dition, increased spending i from restricted revenue sour- ces (Federal aid, institutional I fees, etc.) will add another $10.2 million to the total. Of the $32.5 million estimat-ed estimat-ed increase in Mate general purpose spending for 1972-73 approximately 61 percent will go for education, 15 percent for social services, 17 percent for highways, and 7 percent 'for all other state purposes, Foundation analysts olbserve that this wag Utah's second experience with a budget session. ses-sion. At tooth the 1970 and the 1972 budget sessions numerous numer-ous nonbudgetary Issues were presented for consideration. This year more ibilla were introduced in-troduced but fewer gained legislative acceptance than in 1970. Of the 24 bills finally Another fact noted in the foundation analysis was that legislative projection of school costs for 1972-73 were based oh estimates that were lower than the ones used in the Gov. ernor's budget. If the legislative, legisla-tive, cost projection had been (made on the same basis as the one used in the budget, the program could he expected to cost about $2.2 million more than the amount indicated by . the Legislatlre. In addition, the Legislature raised the revenue re-venue estimates shown In the budget by $2.5 million. |