Certain additional fiscal notes requirements provision
Summary
SF604 amends Minnesota Statutes section 3.98, subdivision 2, which governs the contents of fiscal notes prepared for legislation. The bill adds a new requirement that fiscal notes, where possible, must provide both a dynamic analysis and a static analysis of a bill’s fiscal effects. It also renumbers the existing long-range implication requirement to accommodate the new language, while leaving the rest of the fiscal note content requirements intact.
Under the bill, fiscal notes would still need to cite dollar impacts, identify affected statutes, estimate revenue and expenditure changes, describe costs that can be absorbed without additional funding, and explain the assumptions used in the estimate. The bill does not change who prepares fiscal notes or when they are required, but it does expand the analytical detail expected in those notes by explicitly requiring two different types of fiscal analysis when feasible.
Impact
The bill would amend the state’s fiscal note statute to require more comprehensive budget analysis for proposed legislation. In practice, this could affect how legislative fiscal staff evaluate bills by adding an expectation for both dynamic and static scoring, which may require additional modeling, assumptions, or analytical resources. The change would apply to fiscal notes prepared under Minnesota Statutes section 3.98 and could influence how legislators, committees, and the public assess the financial effects of proposed laws.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Senate State and Local Government Committee, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears procedural and technical rather than policy-driven, suggesting it is aimed at improving the quality and transparency of fiscal information rather than advancing a substantive program change. Because no discussion or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the materials provided.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the new requirement for both dynamic and static analysis in fiscal notes. Supporters would likely view this as a way to improve fiscal transparency and provide a fuller picture of a bill’s budget effects, while critics might argue that dynamic analysis can be more uncertain, more resource-intensive, or may introduce methodological disputes into the fiscal note process. Another possible issue is the phrase “where possible,” which leaves some discretion and could lead to disagreement over when the new analyses are required.