5
Including the fiscal year 2009 sweeps, a total of $1.122
billion was authorized in fund sweeps between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2009. Almost half (49.4%) of
the fund sweep transfers were from funds that receive
significant amounts of fee revenues and may also
receive significant amounts of revenues from other
sources. Again, the three biggest agencies whose fee
related funds are tapped by the transfer program are the
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation,
the EPA, and the Secretary of State. Slightly more than
10% ($117.5 million) was tapped from fee based funds
used by Financial and Professional Regulation.
Insurance division funds accounted for $34.4 million;
while, funds receiving fees paid to regulate professions
accounted for over $70.0 million including $12.0 million
from the fund that receives nursing fees, $6.5 million
from the fund that receives medical doctor fees, $4.8
million from pharmacist fees, and $26.5 million from the
General Professions Dedicated Fund that receives
licensing monies from a host of other professions. The
largest funds for EPA sweeps were the Underground
Storage Tank Fund which receives a fee from motor fuel
sales used to clean up leaking underground storage tanks
($24.1 million) and the Solid Waste Management Fund
($18.9 million) which receives waste disposal fees.
Sweeps of funds used by the Secretary of State are large-ly
from the Securities Audit and Enforcement Fund that
receives security related fees and is used to administer
the Securities Department of the Secretary of State. The
$51.0 million transfer from funds used largely by the
Department of Transportation is primarily from a $50.0
million sweep from the Road Fund in fiscal year 2004.
Support for levying many fees arises in part from the
rather understandable premise that the proceeds from
the fee will be used for a purpose related to the imposi-tion
of that fee. Conversely however, when the state is
dealing with General Funds budgetary stress and bal-ances
that are not deemed as immediately needed are
accumulating in the special state funds, there is a strong
practical incentive to move these funds to the General
Funds to alleviate that stress.
Chargebacks
Chargeback authority began in fiscal year 2004 and
expired after fiscal year 2007. The logic behind a
chargeback is that through the General Funds, state
government provides indirect services essential for pro-gram
operations. These indirect costs include such back
office functions as accounting and treasury services
from the Comptroller and Treasurer, legal services
through the Attorney General’s Office, and personnel
and other support services through the Department of
Central Management Services. The chargeback reim-burses
the General Funds for these expenses.
The total chargeback transfer was limited to the lesser
of 8% of the revenues deposited into the fund during
the fiscal year or an amount that leaves a remaining
fund balance of 25% of the July 1st fund balance for the
fund. Between fiscal years 2004 and 2007, the
Governor requested $716.1 million in chargeback
transfers. Funds that received significant fee revenues
were the source of 45.1% of the chargeback revenues.
In particular, $118.0 million or 16.5% was from one-time
fiscal year 2004 transfers from the Road and State
Construction Account Funds used largely by the
Department of Transportation. The Toll Highway
Authority had chargeback transfers in fiscal years 2004
and 2006 that totaled $44.7 million or 6.2% of the
chargeback transfers.
