Working Cash-Stabilization Reserve Fund; increase the limit of diversion to.
Summary
SB 2563 amends Mississippi’s statute governing the year-end distribution of unencumbered General Fund cash balances. Under current law, after a fixed $750,000 transfer to the Municipal Revolving Fund, half of the remaining balance is deposited into the Working Cash-Stabilization Reserve Fund, but only up to 10% of the General Fund appropriations for that fiscal year. This bill raises that cap to 15%, allowing a larger share of any surplus state general fund cash to be set aside in the reserve fund.
The remaining distribution rules are unchanged: any balance left after the municipal transfer and the reserve-fund transfer continues to go to the Capital Expense Fund. The bill also preserves the existing process for determining the unencumbered balance, including the post-August 31 calculation and certification by the Department of Finance and Administration and the State Treasurer. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill directly amends Section 27-103-213 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 and changes how surplus General Fund cash is allocated at the end of each fiscal year. Its practical effect is to increase the maximum amount that can be diverted into the Working Cash-Stabilization Reserve Fund, strengthening the state’s fiscal cushion and potentially reducing the amount of surplus available for the Capital Expense Fund in years with large unencumbered balances. Municipal Revolving Fund transfers remain unchanged at $750,000.
Sentiment
The available voting record suggests strong support for the bill: the Senate passed SB 2563 unanimously, 51-0. No committee transcript or recorded debate is provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or significant controversy. The bill appears to have been treated as a fiscal management measure aimed at increasing reserve capacity rather than a contentious policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only likely policy tradeoff is between increasing the state’s rainy-day reserve and preserving more surplus funds for other uses, particularly the Capital Expense Fund. Any disagreement would likely center on whether raising the cap from 10% to 15% is an appropriate level of fiscal restraint, but the unanimous Senate vote indicates that, at least in that chamber, such concerns did not generate opposition.