LATC reviews fund condition and revenue projections; members press DCA for clearer month‑by‑month reporting

Department of Consumer Affairs budget staff presented the LATC committee’s expenditure projections and fund condition statement. The presentation included prior‑year actuals, current‑year projections, and multi‑year forecasts that showed the committee beginning with approximately $1,153,000, spending roughly $821,000 in the reporting period and projecting a 2025–26 year‑end fund balance in the neighborhood of $1,202,000 (about 10.6 months in reserve under the office’s assumptions).

Members’ questions and requested clarifications
Committee members asked staff to provide: (1) a consistent month‑by‑month comparison (prior year vs. current month 13 vs. budget) to understand apparent irregular jumps in months of reserve across out‑years; (2) an explanation for increases in the statewide general administrative charges that show oscillating amounts in alternate years; and (3) line‑level explanations for why some departmental services and IT lines show higher actuals than budgeted amounts.

Members also reiterated interest in whether fee reductions might be feasible if the fund balance remains healthy; staff noted the projections include a conservative 3 percent ongoing increase to account for salary and retirement cost adjustments and cautioned that future legislation or unanticipated personal‑service obligations could increase expenditures.

Budget context and staff response
DCA explained the fund condition is a snapshot in time and that revenue assumptions include investment income, initial license and renewal fees, and smaller receipts from citations and delinquent fees. Staff committed to asking the budget office to provide more detailed breakdowns and to respond to members’ specific questions in a follow‑up report.

Ending: LATC tasked staff to request more granular month‑by‑month comparisons and to provide explanations for the specific line items members flagged. Members said they will continue to monitor fund condition closely given the committee’s prior fee‑setting decisions.

Note: the committee also reviewed and voted to approve minutes from the July 24 meeting (roll‑call: three yes, two abstentions) and discussed governance items; those votes are summarized in the Votes at a Glance article.