When did Connecticut's 2009 revenue estimate require lawmakers and the governor to revise their budget plans?

Plain-English summary

In 2009, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal interpreted a budget procedure for revised state revenue estimates. A lower estimate required a new legislative plan or governor's budget document only if it left the original planned appropriations above expected revenue. A higher estimate did not force revision merely because the figures no longer matched.

The reason was the state budget rule: estimated revenue had to be at least as high as appropriations, but did not have to equal them. The opinion quoted Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-35: "The total estimated revenue for each fund ... shall not be less than the total net appropriations made from each fund." It applied the same comparison to the governor's submission.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Legislative budget committees at the time

The opinion said the appropriations and finance committees had to prepare and vote on adjusted plans under Public Act 09-214 only when the consensus revenue estimate was below their proposed spending. If the estimate was higher, their plan could show a surplus and they had no legal duty under that provision to revise it.

Governor's budget staff at the time

The AG applied the same rule to the governor's budget document. A revised document was required when the consensus estimate was "less than the appropriations contained in the Governor's original budget document," not merely because the estimate changed.

Common questions

Q: Did a higher revenue forecast force Connecticut lawmakers to redo the 2009 budget plan?
A: No. The AG said the law required revenue to cover planned appropriations, but did not require the two figures to match exactly.

Q: What if the new estimate fell below planned spending?
A: Then the opinion said the affected committees or governor had to revise their original plan or document to address the shortfall.

Q: Did the governor face the same trigger as the legislative committees?
A: Yes. The opinion applied the revenue-versus-appropriations comparison to both submissions.

Background and statutory framework

Public Act 09-214 set up a consensus revenue estimate for the 2009–2011 biennium. The Office of Fiscal Analysis and Office of Policy and Management were to agree on estimated revenue; the State Comptroller would produce an estimate if they did not. The act then called for adjusted committee plans and a governor's budget document "if necessary to address" that estimate.

The AG read "if necessary" against Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-35 and the state constitutional limit on spending above estimated revenue. One sentence in the opinion says the original appropriation and plan would be "less than the consensus revenue estimate" when revision was obligatory. That wording reverses the comparison stated in the opening answer and final conclusion. Those passages consistently identify planned appropriations above the consensus estimate as the trigger.

Citations and references

Acts and statutes cited in the opinion: Public Act 09-214; Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-35; Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-72; Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-74.

Case cited in the opinion: American Promotional Events, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 285 Conn. 192, 202 (2008).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2009-formal-opinions/honorable-donald-williams-senate-president-pro-tempore-formal-opinion-2009007-attorney-general-state

Original opinion text

Honorable Donald Williams Senate President Pro Tempore, Formal Opinion 2009-007, Attorney General State of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

July 28, 2009

The Honorable Donald Williams

Senate President Pro Tempore

Legislative Office Building

Hartford, Connecticut 06106

Dear Senator Williams:

You asked for a legal opinion as to the circumstances under which subsection (b) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214 would require the legislative Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee and the Appropriations Committee (the Committees) to prepare and vote on adjusted appropriations and revenue plans. Similarly, you asked under what circumstances the Governor would have to submit a budget document pursuant to this subsection.

We conclude that Section 3(b) of Public Act 09-214 only requires the Committees and the Governor to prepare and vote on adjusted appropriation and revenue plans if the consensus revenue estimate is less than the revenue estimates used in the original committee plan or gubernatorial document, respectively, such that the appropriations contained in such plan or document are greater than the consensus revenue estimate. Simply put, a new plan or document would be required if the revised consensus revenue estimate would result in deficit spending under the original appropriations plan or document.

Resolution of this issue requires us to interpret the public act. In construing a public act, “the fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature.” American Promotional Events, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 285 Conn. 192, 202 (2008). In searching for the legislative intent, a court looks “first to the text of the statute and its relationship to other statutes.” Id., citing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-2z. If the text of the statute is not clear and unambiguous, it is appropriate to look to the statute’s “legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.” Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 269 Conn. 672, 679 (2004).

Subsection (a) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214 addresses solely this current fiscal biennium, providing for a process whereby the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) and the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) come to an agreement regarding the estimated state revenues for the next two fiscal years. If these two state offices fail to agree on estimated revenues, the State Comptroller is charged with issuing a consensus revenue estimate that is equal to or between the revenue estimates of OFA and OPM.

Subsection (b) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214 provides:

(b) If no budget for the biennium beginning July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2011, has become law by the effective date of this section, then not later than ten days after the effective date of this section, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations and finance, revenue and bonding, shall prepare and vote on adjusted appropriation and revenue plans, if necessary to address the consensus revenue estimate prepared pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, and the Governor shall provide a budget document, prepared in accordance with the requirements of section 4-74 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if necessary to address such consensus revenue estimate. (emphasis added)

Pursuant to this subsection, the Committees must vote on adjusted appropriations and revenues only “if necessary to address the consensus revenue estimate.” In order to determine when such adjustment is “necessary,” we look to the statutory requirements of the appropriations and revenue budget legislation.

Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-35 requires that the state budget act contain funding for the operations of state government and a statement of estimated revenue for each appropriated fund. The statute states in pertinent part:

Such statement of estimated revenue, including the estimated refunds of taxes to be offset against such revenue, shall be supplied by the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to state finance, revenue and bonding. The total estimated revenue for each fund, as adjusted in accordance with this section, shall not be less than the total net appropriations made from each fund.

(Emphasis added.)

Thus, Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-35 requires that appropriations not exceed the estimated revenues, not that they match exactly. Article Third, §18(a) of the Connecticut Constitution contains a similar requirement, stating “The amount of general budget expenditures authorized for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated amount of revenue for such fiscal year.”

If the consensus revenue estimate is higher than the legislative committee’s revenue estimate and the appropriations committee’s budget, the Committees need not revise their original plans under Section 3 of Public Act 09-214 because the expenditures would be less than projected revenues. Such a budget would generate a surplus if actual revenues and expenditures equaled the budgeted amount. Such surplus would then be applied to the state’s budget reserve fund (rainy day account) or to a reduction in bonded indebtedness. Conn. Const. Article Third, §18.

Therefore, subsection (b) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214 only imposes a legal obligation that the Committees revise their budget and revenue estimates if the Committees’ original appropriation and plan is less than the consensus revenue estimate, not equal to it or more.

Even if the Committees are not legally obligated to make such revisions if the consensus revenue estimates are higher, they may wish to do so as a matter of sound public policy and public interest. Revision could reduce any proposed increases in taxes or restore budget cuts to critical safety net programs. These significant results could well justify the Committees’ consideration, despite the absence of legal requirement.

A similar analysis applies to the Governor’s responsibilities. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-72, the Governor must submit a budget that contains a summary of revenue estimated to be received, and a summary of the recommended appropriations, for each fiscal year of the biennium. The budget document must also include any proposed statutory changes either increase or decrease revenues to address any projected surplus or deficit.

The Governor’s budget document must include appropriation and revenue legislation to implement the Governor’s overall budget. Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-74. Since this legislation is the basis for General Assembly action pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-35 and Conn. Const. Article Third, §18, the requirement that the appropriations not exceed estimated revenue applies equally to the Governor’s submission under Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-74.

Thus, similar to the legislature’s responsibility under subsection (b) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214, the Governor would only be required to submit a budget document if the consensus revenue estimate is less than the appropriations contained in the Governor’s original budget document.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL