HB178 would significantly expand and standardize Kentucky’s fiscal note requirements for legislation and administrative regulations. The bill creates a new chapter 6 section requiring every bill or resolution to have a fiscal note attached before either chamber may vote on it, unless the requirement is waived by the specified supermajority vote. It directs the Legislative Research Commission to create a standardized form, prepare the notes, and make them public. The required note must identify the measure, summarize it, state whether it has a fiscal impact, and, if so, estimate affected expenditures and revenues or explain why an estimate cannot be made.
The bill also revises Kentucky’s local government mandate statement process by replacing references to “fiscal note” with “local government mandate statement” and clarifying that these statements apply to bills, resolutions, and executive orders affecting local government. It preserves the existing waiver structure for local-government-related measures and requires updated statements if a bill is amended. In addition, HB178 makes extensive changes to administrative regulation procedures in Chapter 13A, including requiring fiscal notes on state or local government for regulations, expanding cost-analysis requirements, and tightening filing, formatting, and publication rules for emergency regulations and statements of consideration after public comment.
Overall, the bill’s impact would be to increase the amount of fiscal information available to lawmakers, local governments, regulated entities, and the public before legislative or regulatory action is taken. It would place additional procedural responsibilities on the Legislative Research Commission, executive agencies, and the regulations compiler, and it would likely slow some bill and regulation processing because fiscal notes and related attachments would have to be prepared before action can proceed. It also broadens the scope of fiscal analysis to include local governments, fire departments, school districts, and regulated entities in the administrative regulation process.
Because no committee transcripts or vote history were provided, there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence to indicate a formal sentiment trend. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and accountability reform, with an emphasis on ensuring lawmakers have fiscal information before voting. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means any assessment of sentiment is limited to the bill’s structure and stated purpose.
The main points of contention likely would be the bill’s mandatory pre-vote fiscal note requirement, the administrative burden on the Legislative Research Commission and agencies, and the possibility that the new rules could delay legislative action or regulation promulgation. Another likely issue is the waiver threshold: the bill allows waiver by a two-thirds vote in one chamber and a majority in the other, which could be debated as either a practical safeguard or an insufficient exception. The expanded requirements for emergency regulations and post-comment filings may also draw concern from agencies that rely on expedited rulemaking.
HB178 would amend KRS Chapter 6 and KRS Chapter 13A to require fiscal notes for bills, resolutions, executive orders affecting local government, and administrative regulations, while also revising the procedures for preparing, attaching, publishing, and updating those documents. It would expand the duties of the Legislative Research Commission, the Finance and Administration Cabinet, administrative agencies, and the regulations compiler, and it would affect how the General Assembly considers legislation and how agencies promulgate regulations.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no direct record of support or opposition. On its face, the bill is presented as a transparency measure designed to ensure fiscal impacts are known before action is taken, which suggests a generally reform-oriented and accountability-focused intent. Any sentiment assessment is therefore limited to the bill’s text, which indicates a policy preference for more information and public access rather than a partisan or ideological position.
Likely points of contention include whether requiring a fiscal note before any floor vote would create delays or procedural bottlenecks, whether the Legislative Research Commission and agencies have sufficient capacity to prepare the required analyses, and whether the waiver thresholds are appropriate. Stakeholders affected by administrative rulemaking may also object to the expanded fiscal-note and cost-analysis requirements, especially for emergency regulations and amended-after-comments filings. Local governments and regulated entities could support the added transparency while still raising concerns about added administrative complexity.