Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
07/18/2019 03:00 PM Senate 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 | |
| Office of Management and Budget: Overview and Impacts of Cbr Sweep | |
| David Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
SECOND SPECIAL SESSION
July 18, 2019
3:03 p.m.
3:03:50 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bill Wielechowski
ALSO PRESENT
Neil Steininger, Chief Budget Analyst, Office of Management
and Budget, Office of the Governor; Paloma Harbour,
Division Director, Office of Management and Budget; David
Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division; Senator Cathy
Giessel; Senator Jesse Kiehl; Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson;
Representative Kelly Merrick; Representative Andy
Josephson; Representative Geran Tarr; Representative Dan
Ortiz; Representative Bart LeBon; Representative Sara
Hannan; Representative Cathy Tilton; Representative Neal
Foster; Representative Scott Kawasaki.
SUMMARY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and BUDGET: OVERVIEW and IMPACTS OF
CBR SWEEP
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
^OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and BUDGET: OVERVIEW and IMPACTS OF
CBR SWEEP
3:05:20 PM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that it was substantially
difficult to move money to and from the Constitutional
Budget Reserve (CBR). He remarked that the concern was
about the impacts of the CBR sweep. He remarked that it was
a legal and accounting question about what funds could be
swept. He remarked that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) had provided a list of what would be considered
"sweep-able." He shared that the Legislative Auditor had
provided a list of what would be considered previously
sweep-able. He remarked that the committee would continue
to understand the mechanics of the sweep. He added that
there were also concerns about the reverse sweep. He shared
that the legislature must proceed with the understanding
that there would not be a vote to use the money from the
CBR.
3:11:30 PM
NEIL STEININGER, CHIEF BUDGET ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced himself.
PALOMA HARBOUR, DIVISION DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, introduced herself.
Mr. Steininger discussed the presentation, "State of
Alaska; Office of Management and Budget; Constitutional
Budget Reserve Sweep Overview; Presentation to the Senate
Finance Committee; July 18, 2019" (copy on file). He
highlighted slide 3, "Sweep Guidelines":
The CBRF and its repayment or "sweep" provision
The Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund ("CBRF") was
established by constitutional amendment in 1990 in
article IX, section 17 of the Alaska Constitution.
There are four subsections to this constitutional
amendment:
(a) Revenue into the CBRF money received from
the termination of administrative and judicial
proceedings involving mineral revenues is
deposited into the CBRF;
(b) Expenditures from the CBRF by majority vote
only if "the amount available for appropriation
for a fiscal year is less than the amount
appropriated for the previous fiscal year" and
the appropriation is limited to the amount
necessary to make total appropriations equal to
the amount appropriated in the previous year;
(c) Expenditures from the CBRF by a three-fourths
vote of the members of each house the
Legislature can appropriate from the fund for any
public purpose if such a supermajority vote is
obtained; (d) Repayment requirement "If an
appropriation is made from the budget reserve
fund, until the amount appropriated is repaid,
the amount of money in the general fund available
for appropriation at the end of each succeeding
fiscal year shall be deposited in the budget
reserve fund. The legislature shall implement
this subsection by law."
3:14:48 PM
Senator Hoffman queried the amount of money owed to the
CBR.
Mr. Steininger replied that it was $14 billion.
Co-Chair Stedman shared that the CBR had accumulated debt
over the most recent six years.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked the method in determining whether
the $14 billion was enough.
Mr. Steininger responded that the revenue into the CBR was
dictated by the constitution, so it was not necessarily a
choice of how much money would be put into the CBR.
Ms. Harbour furthered that it was known how much was owed
to the CBR based on how much was withdrawn from the CBR.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that $14 billion was withdrawn
from the CBR, so that was the "line or the norm." She also
asserted that it was anomaly, meaning that it was
impossible to reach $14 billion again, because the volumes
of revenue stream would not meet that amount.
Ms. Harbour replied that the $14 billion was owed, because
that amount of money was withdrawn over time.
Mr. Steininger furthered that the repayment provision was
in the constitution, and was intended to be a constraint on
borrowing from savings. He explained that the borrowing of
$14 billion was a fact that the state must contend with,
and consider when making budget decisions.
Co-Chair Stedman announced that it was considered an
interest free loan.
Mr. Steininger looked at slide 5, "Sweep Guidelines
Continued":
? Funds for which the legislature has retained the
power to appropriate from and that are not available
to pay expenditures without further legislative
appropriation subject to the sweep unless a
constitutionally dedicated fund or not in the general
fund
? Funds that list purposes for which money in the fund
can be used but still require a second appropriation
to spend from the fund subject to the sweep unless a
constitutionally dedicated fund or not in the general
fund
? Money in funds that is already validly appropriated
to a particular purpose not subject to the sweep
? Federal funds are not considered subject to the
sweep
? Other trust funds such as the Public Employees
Retirement Fund that can only be used for a specific
stated purpose under law such as constitutionally
permissible dedicated funds and pension funds should
not be swept
? Donations - the portion of a fund that comprises
money donated to a fund for a particular purpose
should not be included in the sweep
? Public corporation funds
? Public corporation accounts/funds are not subject to
the sweep unless the money is in an account or fund
that cannot be accessed by the corporation without an
additional legislative appropriation (eg. PCE)
? Receipts subject to refund eg. Alaska Marine
Highway, University tuition or student housing, not
subject to the sweep
3:22:41 PM
Senator Hoffman remarked that the second to last bullet,
and noted that the prior governors did not believe that the
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) to be a "sweep-able" item,
which he agreed. The current administration believed the
opposite, and felt that it would be determined through the
legal process.
Mr. Steininger looked at slide 6, "Sweep Information and
Details":
? Estimated amount to cover all program shortfalls
$115 million UGF
? Section 8 would appropriate the funds needed to
address the shortfall
? All accounts will be swept after the reappropriation
period
? FY19 expenditure true-up period
? Finalized in late August early September
? Fund balances will be known at this time
? Notable differences between Legislative Audit and
OMB/Law/Division of Finance
? Power Cost Equalization
? Higher Education Investment
? Program Receipts and Carryforward
? Vaccine Assessment Account under prior fund
structure
Mr. Steininger remarked that OMB had not received every
bill from every vender, so the state was currently in a bit
of an unknown time. He remarked the notable differences
between the list from Legislative Audit; Legislative
Finance Division; and OMB. He noted all of the items on the
slide's list.
3:27:00 PM
Senator Olson asked how long it would be until the monies
in the account were spent.
Mr. Steininger asked for clarification.
Senator Olson asked how the money would return to the PCE,
if the PCE was considered a non-sweep-able fund.
Mr. Steininger replied that he was not an accountant and
could not speak to how the money was actually transferred.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the question was - if the fund
was swept whether there would be appropriations.
Mr. Steininger responded that they were categorized
depending on the different funds.
3:31:24 PM
Co-Chair Stedman recalled a meeting from July 9, 2019, at
which the committee was informed that the money would not
be appropriated out of the scholarship fund after June 30,
2019. He stated that recipients were notified that the
checks would not be in the mail, because there were no fund
balances available. He assumed that the PCE had similar
notifications, until funds were available.
Mr. Steininger replied that he was not aware of exactly
which notifications had gone to multiple parties by the
various departments with programs that were affected by the
PCE and higher education funds. Those two funds had the
most immediate issues with expenditures.
Co-Chair Stedman asked that Mr. Steininger provide
information at a later date about the formal notifications
from OMB in connection with PCE.
Senator Hoffman stated that he would ask that specific
question to the recipients of the higher education fund,
and the PCE fund. He understood that the notification had
been given to the recipients of the higher education fund.
He explained that he, as a resident of Bethel, was eligible
for PCE assistance, and he had not been notified. He
wondered why the administration notified one group of
people affected by the sweep, and not others.
3:35:31 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked that the presenter share which
recipient groups had and had not received notifications.
Co-Chair von Imhof appreciated the discussion about the
Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS).
Co-Chair Stedman suggested that there be a discussion of
the list on slide 7.
Mr. Steininger discussed slide 7, "Funds Subject to Sweep
Not Listed on Legislative Audit Presentation":
1005 General Fund/Program Receipts 1201 Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission Receipts
1049 Training and Building Fund 1211 Cruise Ship
Gambling Tax
1109 Test Fisheries Receipts 1213 Alaska Housing
Capital Corporation Receipts
1139 AHFC Dividend 1214 Whittier Tunnel Toll Receipts
1140 AIDEA Dividend 1218 146(c)
1141 RCA Receipts 1226 Alaska Higher Education
Investment Fund
1150 ASLC Dividend 1234 License Plates
1154 Shore Fisheries Development Lease Program 1247
Medicaid Monetary Recoveries
1155 Timber Sale Receipts 1249 Motor Fuel Tax Receipts
1156 Receipt Supported Services 1254 Marijuana
Education and Treatment Fund
1162 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rcpts
3205
Alaska Historical Commission Receipts Account
(Partially
Sweep)
1169 PCE Endowment Fund 3223 Abandoned Vehicle Fund
1173 Miscellaneous Earnings 3233 Fish and Game Civil
Fines and Penalties
1195 Snow Machine Registration Receipts N/A
Reappropriations of FY19 Operating Appropriations
1200 Vehicle Rental Tax Receipts
Co-Chair Stedman requested that acronyms not be used in the
presentation.
Mr. Steininger explained the meanings of the acronyms.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether there would be a trigger
of operational challenges when the account balances went to
zero on July 1, 2019.
3:40:45 PM
Mr. Steininger replied that there were no operational
concerns related to the dividends. He stated that several
other items on the list had operational impacts. He
highlighted the education and treatment fund had
appropriations that exceeded the anticipated revenue.
Co-Chair Stedman looked at the license plate provision, and
wondered whether there was another operational issue.
Mr. Steininger replied in the affirmative. He agreed to
provide further information.
Mr. Steininger looked at "FY20 Operating Budget Issues
Related to CBR Sweep" (copy on file).
3:41:46 PM
AT EASE
3:42:44 PM
RECONVENED
3:42:47 PM
Co-Chair Stedman looked at slide 8, and the list of funds.
He noted that the dollar amount was approximately $115
million, but it was the shortfall amount. He queried the
estimate of the sweep amount.
Mr. Steininger replied that the current sweep estimate was
in the range of $2 billion.
3:46:36 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for more specifics.
Mr. Steininger looked at the middle section of the
document, which had several items in the Department of
Administration (DOA) Office of Public Advocacy, Public
Defenders Agency, the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED) Rural Energy Assistance
Program, several items in the Department of Corrections
(DOC), the items in the Higher Education Fund, Library
Operations, and laboratory services in Department of Public
Safety (DPS). He stated that the Department of Revenue
(DOR) had appropriations from the funds for the management
of the funds, so much of the operations from the Treasury
Division were funded with some of the funds. The other two
items were the re-appropriation of operating budget
appropriations that lapsed in FY 19.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for explanation.
Mr. Steininger replied that in the Governor's Office and
Legislative Branch there were unspent monies from FY 19
that were re-appropriated to capital projects. He stated
that there was guidance from the Department of Law (LAW)
that those balances were subject to the sweep.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the discussion of the slide
was complete.
Mr. Steininger replied that he was looking at the document
that showed the budget issues related to the CBR sweep. He
noted that one of the sections showed the issues related to
the sweep of carryforward balances. The primary issue was
the Division of Corporations, Business, and Public
Licensing in DCCED. He noted that it was listed as unknown,
because there was not a good estimate of the amount of
carry-forward balance that would be swept. He explained
that the operational issue was that the division operated
on a two-year cycle for their licensing, so they relied on
the ability to carry the first year of revenue to
operations in the second year. He explained that many
others with carry forward balance would be collecting
revenues through the course of the year, and the issues
would not be as pronounced immediately, but would become
issues later in the fiscal year. The final section were
areas where general tax revenues populated a fund.
3:50:12 PM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether there was an affect on
the ability to service the securitization of the tobacco
bonds.
Mr. Steininger replied that it was tobacco taxes that
populated the funds and were used in the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS). He stated that it was
not the tobacco securitization.
Senator Hoffman noted that seniors had been notified that
they would no longer receive the Senior Benefits. He did
not see on the list where that fund was a sweep-able item.
Mr. Steininger replied that the Senior Benefits was funded
with general funds, so was not related to the issue of the
reverse sweep.
Senator Hoffman wondered what authority the administration
sent out notification to senior population.
Mr. Steininger replied that the item was part of the vetoes
of the Operating Budget.
Senator Hoffman stressed that average annual payment that
those customers in the community of Noorvik, was $2077 per
year per customer. He stressed that the communities in his
district did not have cash available, and remarked that it
was a substantial budget hardship for those individuals.
Co-Chair von Imhof remarked that a three-quarter vote would
affect all the funds.
Mr. Steininger felt that the question could be answered
with slide 4.
3:55:00 PM
Senator Bishop noted the third bullet on slide 5, and felt
that the subjects were not subject to the sweep. He
remarked that Ms. Harbour understood how those funds were
collected. He wanted to ensure that his comments would help
the working people of Alaska. He felt that the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) might have a
potential hole in their budget.
Ms. Harbour stated that the list was preliminary with rough
estimates.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the list may grow and the
impacts would expand until a determination of a solution.
Mr. Steininger addressed slide 4, "Potential Solution":
An amount equal to deposits in the budget reserve fund
(art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State of
Alaska) for fiscal year 2019 from subfunds and
accounts in the general fund including the power cost
equalization endowment fund (AS 42.45.070) by
operation of article IX, sec. 17(d), Constitution of
the State of Alaska, not to exceed the amount
necessary after appropriations and deposits to the
subfunds and accounts from fiscal year 2020 revenues,
to fund appropriations from those subfunds and
accounts made in ch. 1 -3, FSSLA 2019, and any other
appropriation bills effective in fiscal year 2020, the
general fund to the subfunds and accounts from which
those funds were deposited into the budget reserve
fund.
Ms. Harbour furthered that it included PCE.
Mr. Steininger stated that the intention of the language
was to be broad enough to include all the impacts of the
sweep to ensure that all impacts were met in a way that was
robust enough to not worry whether an appropriation to fill
a hole would be insufficient.
4:00:30 PM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the first option would be to do
nothing and a second option would be to have a second
appropriation bill to backfill all negative fund balances
that would be needed for FY 20.
Mr. Steininger replied that the potential solution
displayed in the presentation would pay back approximately
$2 billion of the debt to the CBR.
Co-Chair Stedman shared that there would likely be a draw
from the CBR.
Senator Hoffman looked at slide 8, "FY2020 Estimated
Program Shortfall Due to Sweep ($ Thousands)":
Shortfalls Due to Sweep:
? Alaska Energy Authority Power Cost
Equalization: $32,355.0
? Alaska Court System Trial Courts: $1,198.0
? Dept. of Commerce Corporation Business and
Professional Licensing
? Dept. of Corrections Physical Health Care:
$4,045.3
? Dept. of Corrections Population Management:
$4,036.4
? Dept. of Education Alaska Performance
Scholarship Program: $11,750.0
? Dept. of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission Receipts: $5,142.9
? Dept. of Health and Social Services Vaccine
Assessment Program: $21,000.0
? Dept. of Health and Social Services Alcohol
Receipts Shortfall: $1,542.5
? Dept. of Health and Social Services Tobacco
Receipts Shortfall: $2,626.5
? Dept. of Law Civil Division, Regulation
Affairs Public Advocacy: $2,384.1
? Dept. of Law Criminal Division, Criminal
Justice Litigation: $1,602.7
*See full list provided in packets: FY20
Operating Budget Issues Related to CBR Sweep
Senator Hoffman wondered how the administration would fund
the shortfall.
Ms. Harbour replied the estimated total needed to fill the
hole was approximately $115 million, and the proposed
solution on slide 2 would fund those shortfalls with the
general fund.
Senator Hoffman wondered where the general fund was at.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that there were several accounts
from which to draw, and the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) would be discussing the different balances.
^DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
4:07:35 PM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, looked
at slide 3, from the OMB presentation, "Sweep Guidelines":
The CBRF and its repayment or "sweep" provision
The Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund ("CBRF") was
established by constitutional amendment in 1990 in
article IX, section 17 of the Alaska Constitution.
There are four subsections to this constitutional
amendment:
(a) Revenue into the CBRF money received from
the termination of administrative and judicial
proceedings involving mineral revenues is
deposited into the CBRF;
(b) Expenditures from the CBRF by majority vote
only if "the amount available for appropriation
for a fiscal year is less than the amount
appropriated for the previous fiscal year" and
the appropriation is limited to the amount
necessary to make total appropriations equal to
the amount appropriated in the previous year;
(c) Expenditures from the CBRF by a three-fourths
vote of the members of each house the
Legislature can appropriate from the fund for any
public purpose if such a supermajority vote is
obtained; (d) Repayment requirement "If an
appropriation is made from the budget reserve
fund, until the amount appropriated is repaid,
the amount of money in the general fund available
for appropriation at the end of each succeeding
fiscal year shall be deposited in the budget
reserve fund. The legislature shall implement
this subsection by law."
4:11:09 PM
Mr. Teal displayed the document titled, "Bold items are
unconstitutional under Hickel v. Cowper":
Sec. 37.10.420. "Money available for appropriation"
defined.
(a) For purposes of applying art. IX, sec. 17(b),
Constitution of the State of Alaska,
(1) "the amount available for appropriation" or
"funds available for appropriation" means
(A) the unrestricted revenue accruing to the
general fund during the fiscal year;
(B) general fund program receipts as defined
in AS 37.05.146;
(C) the unreserved, undesignated general fund
balance carried forward from the preceding fiscal
year that is not subject to the repayment
obligation imposed by art. IX, sec. 17(d),
Constitution of the State of Alaska; and
(D) the balance in the statutory budget reserve
fund established in AS 37.05.540;
(2) "the amount appropriated for the previous
fiscal year" means the amount appropriated from
the
(A) constitutional budget reserve fund under
the authority granted in art. IX, sec. 17,
Constitution of the State of Alaska; and
(B) same revenue sources used to calculate
the money available for appropriation for
the current fiscal year; and
(3) "the amount of appropriations made in the previous
calendar year for the previous fiscal year" means
appropriations made from sources identified in (2) of
this subsection for a fiscal year that were enacted
during the calendar year that ends on December 31 of
that same fiscal year.
(b) If the amount appropriated from the budget reserve
fund has not been repaid under art. IX, sec. 17(d),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Department of
Administration shall transfer to the budget reserve
fund the amount of money comprising the unreserved,
undesignated general fund balance to be carried
forward as of June 30 of the fiscal year, or as much
of it as is necessary to complete the repayment. The
transfer shall be made on or before December 16 of the
following fiscal year.
(c) In this section, "unrestricted revenue accruing to
the general fund" or "unreserved, undesignated general
fund balance carried forward" is money not restricted
by law to a specific use that accrues to the general
fund according to accepted principles of governmental
or fund accounting adopted for the state accounting
system established under AS 37.05.150 in effect on
July 1, 1990.
(d) An appropriation under art. IX, sec. 17(b),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, requires an
affirmative vote of the majority of the members of
each house of the legislature. An appropriation under
art. IX, sec. 17(c) requires an affirmative vote of
three-fourths of the members of each house of the
legislature.
4:14:36 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof queried the definition of
"appropriation" when the legislature had set up a statute
to create a formula for appropriation. She surmised that
the Higher Education Fund was set up to appropriate, based
on the number of students; versus, putting into the budget
every year by guessing the number of applicants. She
wondered whether the Court rule to say that statute was an
appropriation.
Mr. Teal used the example of the Vaccine Assessment Fund.
He stated that it had previously been subject to the sweep,
and was still currently subject to the sweep, even though
the law made it non-sweepable. That law did not take effect
until July 1. He stated that the fund was just like
scholarships, in that the statutes were changed.
Co-Chair von Imhof felt that a possible solution in the
previous presenter's slides would be to include something
to further clarify the meaning of an appropriation.
Mr. Teal replied there could have been statutory changes to
avoid the impacts of the expansion of the sweep.
Co-Chair von Imhof wondered whether there was a conflict
with Hickel v. Cooper.
Mr. Teal replied in the affirmative.
4:20:34 PM
Senator Wilson surmised that the information was to change
the statute to not end in this circumstance.
Mr. Teal agreed, but it was too late to change the statute.
Senator Wilson noted the option to reverse the sweep. He
wanted to find the quickest path forward to lift the
burden.
Mr. Teal replied that he did not believe the issue was
constitutionality in terms of the sweepable decision. He
felt that the constitution did not provide enough guidance.
He asserted that the constitution stated that, "you shall
implement this by law." He felt that the problem was that
the statutory guidelines were missing, and it was too late
to implement statutory guidelines.
4:25:49 PM
Mr. Teal looked at the document title, "Funds Subject to
Sweep" (copy on file).
4:31:37 PM
Mr. Teal looked at page 2.
Mr. Teal continued to address the spreadsheet.
4:37:56 PM
Senator Wilson wondered whether the ERA be protected by
Article 9, Section 7 of the constitution by dedicated
funds, and then returning to Section 15, which addresses
the Permanent Fund: "all tax proceeds should not be
dedicated for an purpose except for Section 15."
Mr. Teal replied that the section also stated, "the
Earnings Reserve was general fund, unless otherwise
provided by law."
Senator Olson remarked that the Hickel v Cooper opinion
seemed to be in conflict with the Wielechowski case. He
asserted that it seemed that there was advocacy that the
answer to the question of sweeping versus non-sweeping. He
felt that the real answer was that the ERA should be
sweepable and go into the general fund.
4:40:37 PM
Mr. Teal replied that Senator Wielechowski noted the
conflict between the two rulings. He stated that, under the
new ruling, he felt that the ERA was in the general fund,
and was subject to the sweep.
Mr. Teal continued that there would be incredible pressure
to reverse the sweep, if the ERA were subject to a sweep,
because there would be no dividends.
Mr. Teal continued displaying the spreadsheet.
4:46:44 PM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the meeting had 15 minutes
remaining.
Co-Chair Stedman shared that there was reverse sweep
language in the budget bill, but there were not enough
votes to implement it.
4:49:53 PM
Senator Olson looked at endowments, and how they provided
services. He looked at PCE, and noted that the money came
from the interest to cut down on the power issues for some
subscribers and provided for community assistance. He
wondered what happened to the interest, if the PCE fund was
swept.
Mr. Teal felt that, although the swept occurred on June 30,
no money would be moved for a while.
ADJOURNMENT
4:53:26 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 071819 7-10-19 Letter to Finance Committees Chairs re PCE Fund Sweep.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |
| 071819 Letter to Finance Co-Chairs 7-12-19.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |
| 071819 Funds Subject to Sweep.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |
| 7.18.19 SFC CBR Sweep Presentation 2.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |
| 071819 FY20 Budget Issues Due to Sweep.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |
| 071819 LFD sweep document.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |
| 071819 LFD Funds Subject to Sweep.pdf |
SFIN 7/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 2002 Capital Budget |