Eliminate obsolete transfers relating to the Cash Reserve Fund
Summary
LB393 would revise Nebraska’s Cash Reserve Fund statute by removing obsolete transfer provisions and repealing the original section. The bill keeps the basic framework of the Cash Reserve Fund in place, including the State Treasurer’s authority to move money from the fund to the General Fund when the General Fund cash balance is inadequate and to receive certain federal funds for general governmental purposes or fiscal relief. It also preserves the fund’s role as a source for temporary cash management and emergency support.
The bill’s main substantive effect is to delete a long list of specific, dated, and largely one-time transfer directives from the Cash Reserve Fund to various state funds and programs. Those provisions include transfers to funds such as the Governor’s Emergency Cash Fund, Nebraska Capital Construction Fund, School Safety and Security Fund, Health and Human Services Cash Fund, Economic Recovery Contingency Fund, Critical Infrastructure Facilities Cash Fund, Public Safety Communication System Revolving Fund, and others. LB393 also retains the Legislature’s stated intent to transfer money from the Cash Reserve Fund to the General Fund under certain conditions tied to the fund balance.
Impact
LB393 would amend Nebraska Revised Statutes section governing the Cash Reserve Fund by striking obsolete appropriation and transfer language and repealing the original section. In practical terms, it would simplify the statute, remove expired or completed transfer instructions, and leave the Cash Reserve Fund’s core cash-flow and emergency-transfer authority intact. State agencies and the State Treasurer would no longer be governed by the deleted one-time transfer mandates, while the General Fund and other affected special funds would lose those statutory references.
Sentiment
The available record suggests little overt controversy around the bill’s policy direction, since the measure is framed as a cleanup bill to eliminate obsolete provisions. The caption and text indicate a technical, housekeeping purpose rather than a major policy change. However, the bill was ultimately indefinitely postponed, which suggests the Legislature did not advance it despite its noncontroversial framing.
Contention
The primary point of contention appears to be procedural rather than substantive: whether the statute should be updated now to remove outdated transfer language or left unchanged. Because the bill would erase numerous specific funding directives, any concern would likely center on preserving legislative flexibility, avoiding unintended effects on fund balances, or ensuring that no still-relevant transfer authority is inadvertently removed. No committee transcript or vote record is available here to show named opponents or supporters.