Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
11/04/2015 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB3001 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB3001 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3001(FIN)
"An Act making supplemental appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1
29/GS3812\L3 (Wallace/Martin, 11/3/15) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "only"
Following "ending":
Insert "(1)"
Following "2016":
Insert "; or
(2) June 30, 2017, if the work is substantially
completed during the fiscal year ending June 30,
2016, and the money is obligated during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2016"
Page 2, line 1l:
Delete "only"
Page 2, line 12:
Following "ending":
Insert "(1)"
Following "2016":
Insert "; or
(2) June 30, 2017, if the work is substantially
completed during the fiscal year ending June 30.
2016, and the money is obligated during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2016"
Page 2, line 19:
Delete "only"
Following "ending":
Insert "(1)"
Page 2, line 20:
Following "2016":
Insert "; or
(2) June 30, 2017, if the work is substantially
completed during the fiscal year ending June 30,
2016, and the money is obligated during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2016"
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki addressed Amendment 1. He believed
requiring work to be completed at the end of the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2016 provided a very strict timeline.
He referred to prior testimony from David Teal [Director,
Legislative Finance Division] who had relayed the language
was not typical for an appropriations bill. Subsequently he
had listened to testimony in the Senate Finance Committee
where it had been conveyed that the work could be completed
by the specific date and come back to the legislature at
the appropriate time. He believed there were currently "too
many cooks in the kitchen" and that the legislature was
trying to micromanage the agencies. However, he was
comfortable with the legislation if the agencies felt they
could handle the timeline.
Representative Gara understood that there had been
discussions with the Senate Finance Committee and that the
passage of the amendment would result in an extended
special session. He did not believe it was smart to tell an
agency it had to spend all of its money by the end of the
year. He reasoned that an agency would spend all of its
money by the end of the year in an inefficient way. He
believed it was wiser to direct an agency to spend its
money on a schedule that was more efficient. He hoped the
practice would not continue during the upcoming legislative
session. He did not believe the strategy was fiscally
prudent.
9:04:07 AM
Co-Chair Neuman stated that the governor's original bill
did not ask for an extended lapse date. He did not recall
ever seeing a time "where we've extended it out past that."
He stated that the legislature would address the FY 17
budget during the upcoming session. He believed it was
appropriate to address FY 17 requests at that time.
Representative Wilson agreed. She elaborated that the
legislature was "going in through our regular budget
process." She stated that if agencies needed more money
going into the new year there would be the opportunity. She
added that the bill would extend the time until the budget
process was complete. She did not necessarily believe the
department would spend the money just because a deadline
was imposed. She elaborated that the legislature would
monitor the issue. She appreciated that the money would be
coded in a way that would enable the legislature to track
where it was. She wished the same practice was utilized for
more of the departments.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that there would be a tracking
code associated with the expenditures in order to ensure
the legislature knew where the money went.
Representative Gattis agreed that there were tracking
methods. She stated that in any other time she may tend to
agree with the amendment; however, there were many
unanswered questions. She believed the timing was poor for
the amendment. She opined that it was prudent to move
forward, track the dollars, and answer the questions as the
process moved forward.
Representative Guttenberg believed Amendment 1 was relevant
in terms of the dialogue throughout the legislature related
to government not knowing how to do business like the
private sector. He stressed that government would never
succeed at mimicking the private sector. He reasoned that
government could do a comparable job (and had) in other
places, but he did not believe the committee was starting
off on the right track with the current bill. He stated
that when significant people had asked how the government
funded, the answer had been "by phases." He stated that
money had to be spent to get to the next point and at that
point the situation was evaluated. He believed the
amendment introduced the dialogue about what was the best
way to act like a government in a partnership with the
private sector. He believed the dialogue was very
important. He opined that how the state thought about the
issue needed to be changed.
9:07:39 AM
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to report CSSB 3001(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 3001 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 3001 HFIN Kawasaki Amd #1 SB3001.pdf |
HFIN 11/4/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |