Revenue forecasters urge clarity on sales-tax carve-outs; committee agrees to gross-to-net spreadsheet approach
January 03, 2025 | Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee, JOINT, Committees, Legislative, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee heard three competing revenue forecasts and agreed to use a single gross-to-net spreadsheet method to produce the committee's general-fund revenue recommendation.
Committee co-chair Representative Scott Kocht (Co Chair Cook was referenced in the transcript) opened the session by reminding members the committee's statutory mission derives from the Idaho Constitution and the need to "review the Governor's fiscal years 2025 and 2026 general fund revenue projections and provide advice to the legislature regarding the total estimated revenues expected to be available for appropriation." The committee then heard presentations from the university forecasting group, the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission before debating how to treat recent statutory sales-tax carve-outs in the forecasts.
The forecasting presentations set the context for the debate. Steve Peterson, associate clinical professor at the University of Idaho and representative of the university forecasting committee, said Idaho's near-term outlook shows a small decline in fiscal 2025 followed by strong growth in 2026 and 2027. "We're expecting our projected fiscal year 2025 is about pretty much the same as it was last year, about a -1.5 percent decline," Peterson said, and then forecast "a robust increase of 9.7% in fiscal year 2026 and 7.5% in fiscal year 2027." Peterson highlighted long-run tailwinds (population and income growth) and headwinds, notably an acute housing affordability crisis that he estimated has cost some communities thousands of jobs.
Miguel Lagarreta, president of the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho, focused on property taxes and household impacts, presenting a hypothetical "spud family" budget and noting the effect of recent state property-tax relief measures. Jeff McRae, chairman of the Idaho State Tax Commission, presented the Tax Commission's model-based forecast and emphasized that the commission's numbers reflect the data it collects and are limited to general-fund allocations.
A central point of debate was whether the committee should present a top-line "gross" sales-tax projection (total collections before statutory distributions) or a "net" projection that omits amounts already dedicated by statute to specific funds (for example, amounts directed to public schools, in-demand careers funds, and other statutory distributions). Keith Bybee, the legislature's budget analyst, reviewed the statutory distributions and explained the recent changes lawmakers made in 2022 and subsequent sessions. Bybee noted two provisions from the 2022 extraordinary session: $330,000,000 directed to the public school income fund and $80,000,000 for in-demand careers, totaling $410,000,000, and additional legislative carve-outs and percentage allocations enacted later (including a $125,000,000 school modernization fund and percentage allocations for revenue sharing and transportation). He walked members through a working table of fixed-dollar and percentage-driven sales-tax distributions.
Representative Steven Clow urged the committee to present gross collections so "we're not picking and choosing," and to avoid understating the state's total revenue by omitting statutory allocations from the top line. Several other legislators including Representative Rodmon Ehlers and Senator Patti Woodward supported presenting gross collections with transparent subtractions to produce a single net figure that JFAC would use for appropriation.
After discussion the committee voted by voice to adopt a working approach: use a shared spreadsheet that begins with gross sales-tax collections, then subtracts the statutory carve-outs (both fixed-dollar and percentage-driven distributions) in a single, auditable calculation (the committee directed staff to place the carve-outs on a single line in the working sheet so all members see the same math). The committee asked Keith Bybee to "reverse engineer" nominal gross sales-tax projections and produce the consolidated gross and net numbers for the committee to review. The committee also set an internal deadline: members were asked to submit their forecast inputs by noon Monday to Haley K. Domgaard so staff could compile the combined spreadsheet in time for the committee's reconvening on Thursday, Jan. 9.
The committee's direction is procedural: it does not change statute or appropriate funds. The action produces a single, auditable path from gross collections to the net amount that will be available for appropriation under current law and recent legislative carve-outs.
"If we're going to know the real healthy aspect of the state, how healthy it is, we need to include all the revenue and not'hide income by putting it into a dedicated fund," Representative Julie VanderWaal said during debate, supporting the gross-to-net presentation.
The committee will hold follow-up work between meetings to align definitions, confirm the algebra in the spreadsheet and produce the completed worksheet for an agreed deadline. Staff committed to circulating the spreadsheet and the compiled results by email to committee members once the calculations are completed.
Ending: The committee took a procedural vote to adopt the gross-to-net spreadsheet approach and asked staff to return compiled figures. The committee emphasized speed and auditability: members must submit forecast inputs by noon Monday, staff will produce the consolidated worksheet, and the committee will reconvene to consider the final numbers. No appropriation decisions were made at this meeting.
Committee co-chair Representative Scott Kocht (Co Chair Cook was referenced in the transcript) opened the session by reminding members the committee's statutory mission derives from the Idaho Constitution and the need to "review the Governor's fiscal years 2025 and 2026 general fund revenue projections and provide advice to the legislature regarding the total estimated revenues expected to be available for appropriation." The committee then heard presentations from the university forecasting group, the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission before debating how to treat recent statutory sales-tax carve-outs in the forecasts.
The forecasting presentations set the context for the debate. Steve Peterson, associate clinical professor at the University of Idaho and representative of the university forecasting committee, said Idaho's near-term outlook shows a small decline in fiscal 2025 followed by strong growth in 2026 and 2027. "We're expecting our projected fiscal year 2025 is about pretty much the same as it was last year, about a -1.5 percent decline," Peterson said, and then forecast "a robust increase of 9.7% in fiscal year 2026 and 7.5% in fiscal year 2027." Peterson highlighted long-run tailwinds (population and income growth) and headwinds, notably an acute housing affordability crisis that he estimated has cost some communities thousands of jobs.
Miguel Lagarreta, president of the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho, focused on property taxes and household impacts, presenting a hypothetical "spud family" budget and noting the effect of recent state property-tax relief measures. Jeff McRae, chairman of the Idaho State Tax Commission, presented the Tax Commission's model-based forecast and emphasized that the commission's numbers reflect the data it collects and are limited to general-fund allocations.
A central point of debate was whether the committee should present a top-line "gross" sales-tax projection (total collections before statutory distributions) or a "net" projection that omits amounts already dedicated by statute to specific funds (for example, amounts directed to public schools, in-demand careers funds, and other statutory distributions). Keith Bybee, the legislature's budget analyst, reviewed the statutory distributions and explained the recent changes lawmakers made in 2022 and subsequent sessions. Bybee noted two provisions from the 2022 extraordinary session: $330,000,000 directed to the public school income fund and $80,000,000 for in-demand careers, totaling $410,000,000, and additional legislative carve-outs and percentage allocations enacted later (including a $125,000,000 school modernization fund and percentage allocations for revenue sharing and transportation). He walked members through a working table of fixed-dollar and percentage-driven sales-tax distributions.
Representative Steven Clow urged the committee to present gross collections so "we're not picking and choosing," and to avoid understating the state's total revenue by omitting statutory allocations from the top line. Several other legislators including Representative Rodmon Ehlers and Senator Patti Woodward supported presenting gross collections with transparent subtractions to produce a single net figure that JFAC would use for appropriation.
After discussion the committee voted by voice to adopt a working approach: use a shared spreadsheet that begins with gross sales-tax collections, then subtracts the statutory carve-outs (both fixed-dollar and percentage-driven distributions) in a single, auditable calculation (the committee directed staff to place the carve-outs on a single line in the working sheet so all members see the same math). The committee asked Keith Bybee to "reverse engineer" nominal gross sales-tax projections and produce the consolidated gross and net numbers for the committee to review. The committee also set an internal deadline: members were asked to submit their forecast inputs by noon Monday to Haley K. Domgaard so staff could compile the combined spreadsheet in time for the committee's reconvening on Thursday, Jan. 9.
The committee's direction is procedural: it does not change statute or appropriate funds. The action produces a single, auditable path from gross collections to the net amount that will be available for appropriation under current law and recent legislative carve-outs.
"If we're going to know the real healthy aspect of the state, how healthy it is, we need to include all the revenue and not'hide income by putting it into a dedicated fund," Representative Julie VanderWaal said during debate, supporting the gross-to-net presentation.
The committee will hold follow-up work between meetings to align definitions, confirm the algebra in the spreadsheet and produce the completed worksheet for an agreed deadline. Staff committed to circulating the spreadsheet and the compiled results by email to committee members once the calculations are completed.
Ending: The committee took a procedural vote to adopt the gross-to-net spreadsheet approach and asked staff to return compiled figures. The committee emphasized speed and auditability: members must submit forecast inputs by noon Monday, staff will produce the consolidated worksheet, and the committee will reconvene to consider the final numbers. No appropriation decisions were made at this meeting.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting