Gop Programs May Carry A Hefty Price Tag Estimates Indicate Some Legislation Could Mean Bigger And More Expensive State Government

House Republicans promised voters smaller, cheaper state government when they were swept into the majority last November.

But the estimated price tag on some of the GOP’s major pieces of legislation shows the Republican revolution could cost taxpayers a bundle, and expand Big Brother’s reach.

Republican legislative leaders question the cost estimates because they are figured by the state budget office, which is under the Democratic governor’s control.

Even if the estimates are wrong by half, there are still tens of millions of dollars of increased cost to be reckoned with.

Take House Bill 1026, a property rights bill passed by the House and now pending before the state Senate.

The bill is an initiative to the Legislature that would require taxpayers to compensate developers and property owners if regulations reduce their property value.

The state budget office estimates the cost of the initiative to taxpayers as “indeterminate, but certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars” during the 1995-97 biennium.

That’s because the bill requires taxpayers to foot the bill for all maps, studies, plans or reports used to determine restrictions on the use of private property “for public benefit.”

Taxpayers also would have to pay for an analysis of the economic impact of any regulation or restraint on private property at least 30 days before adoption.

And taxpayers would have to pay property owners for any reduction in the value of their property caused by any regulation, except those adopted to prevent a public nuisance.

Some local governments say the bill would not only be expensive, it would hobble local governments’ ability to enact land-use restrictions.

If true, that’s all to the good, supporters argue: One way to avoid the costs is to stay away from confiscatory regulations in the first place.

The regulatory reform bill passed by the House, HB1010, also is drawing criticism because of its cost. The budget office estimates the cost at $112 million in lost revenue in the 1995-97 biennium, and $7.8 million in administrative costs.

The bill would require two visits instead of one from inspectors before a business could be fined for breaking a state rule.

The state also would be required to review every regulation on the books, no matter how minor, every seven years.

The GOP’s welfare reform bill, SHB1481, is estimated to cost $28.3 million in the next biennium. That’s partly because state workers would have to spend more time with each welfare recipient preparing a contract under which they would receive benefits and work to get off welfare.

The bill has passed the House Child and Family Services Committee.

House Speaker Clyde Ballard, R-Wenatchee, said he simply doesn’t believe the budget office’s cost estimates, called fiscal notes. “We continue to be mystified by them,” he said.

Ballard promised new estimates when the House Republicans’ proposed state budget comes out later this month.

Ballard and other legislative leaders are so convinced the estimates are unreliable, they want a new, independent body formed to calculate them.

Under the present system, there’s no firm footing for debate, Ballard said. “The debate shouldn’t be on who’s cooking the figures. It should be on the issue.”

House Majority Leader Dale Foreman, R-Wenatchee, said cost estimates generated by Republican Caucus staff are vastly different on the GOP’s major bills.

“Right now, depending on whether you like or dislike a bill, it’s easy to make the fiscal note grow or shrink,” Foreman said.

Some Democrats said House Republicans are passing bills without serious regard to the fiscal notes because their primary goal is fulfilling the GOP Contract with Washington State.

The agenda is to say “We passed these bills and the Senate didn’t like them or the governor didn’t like them,” said Rep. Lisa Brown, D-Spokane.

“It’s more like a continuation of campaign strategy than a legislative strategy, and it makes me think these bills are more about 1996 than anything else,” Brown said.