Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/08/2018 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB213 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to unemployment insurance benefits;
increasing the maximum weekly unemployment insurance
benefit rate; and providing for an effective date."
1:34:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the bill was last heard on
February 2, 2018 at which time the committee took public
testimony. There was one amendment that would be offered
for the bill. He invited testifiers to the table.
KENDRA, KLOSTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, relayed
Representative Tuck's apologies for not being present. He
was chairing another committee currently. She was available
for questions.
Representative Wilson understood the amounts were being
changed to be closer to the fiftieth percentile. She
wondered why the scale stopped at $59,500.
PATSY WESCOTT, CHIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, DIVISION OF
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, explained that the current scale
determined the amount at which the department stopped. The
scale increased the benefit in $2 increments, and it
increased the qualifying base period wages in $250
increments. The department stopped the scale when it
reached $510, approximately 50 percent of the state's
average weekly wage.
Representative Wilson asked about the indeterminate fiscal
note. The estimated cost difference, had it been done in
2017, was $456,600. In order to determine the state's share
of increase, she wondered if she would calculate 76 percent
of $456,600. Ms. Wescott responded that the fiscal note was
prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). She
thought it would be better to have a representative from
OMB speak to the fiscal note.
1:37:29 PM
CAROLINE SCHULTZ, POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, introduced herself and asked Representative Wilson
to repeat her question.
Representative Wilson relayed that the fiscal note was
indeterminate because the state did not know what the wages
would be or who would qualify. She supposed it was merely
an estimate. Again, she referred to the cost difference of
$456,600. She asked for clarification about the
calculation.
Ms. Schultz responded that the state paid for state
employee unemployment insurance (UI) claims by associating
a rate with every state employee. The unemployment
insurance rate was .4 percent which went into the working
reserve account. The state paid out terminal leave cash-ins
and UI claims from the terminal leave account. The fund was
underwritten by the .4 percent which came from personal
services. She explained that about 50 percent of personal
services costs were undesignated general funds (UGF), 36
percent were designated general funds (DGF), and the other
14 percent were federal funds. She continued that of
$456,600, about $228,000 was UGF, $164,000 was DGF and
other, and $64,000 were federal funds. Representative
Wilson asked her to restate her answer. Ms. Schultz
repeated the figures. Representative Wilson appreciated the
information.
Representative Grenn asked when the weekly benefit had been
increased last. Ms. Wescott responded effective January 1,
2009. Representative Grenn asked if there had been
automatic adjustments every year. Ms. Wescott responded
that the second portion of the bill would allow for
automatic increases moving forward. Representative Grenn
referred to a note he had from the previous year that 36
states had automatic adjustments. He wondered if that
number had changed. Ms. Wescott responded that the number
was still 36.
Vice-Chair Gara understood why the fiscal note was
indeterminate and was okay with leaving it that way.
However, he thought there might be a problem at the end of
the year because of no budget money being allocated for
what the state knew would be approximately $228,000 of UGF.
He suggested there would be a $230,000 cost at the end of
the year.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the one amendment being
offered was brought to the committee by the bill sponsor.
1:42:17 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file):
Page 9, line 13:
Delete "2019"
Insert "2020"
Page 9, line 28:
Delete "2018"
Insert "2019"
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton was not comfortable with the indeterminate
fiscal note. Fiscal notes were combined into the budget as
appropriations. Without an amount, no money would be
appropriated for the bill if it were to pass. He was unsure
how to handle the matter.
Co-Chair Foster would take an at ease after Vice-Chair Gara
reviewed the fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Gara reported that HB 142, version U, had 2
fiscal notes. The first was a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD). The
appropriation was unemployment and training services and
the allocation was unemployment insurance. The OMB
component number was 2276. The second fiscal note was the
indeterminate fiscal note by OMB that had just been
discussed. It reached across all of the departments in the
state and had an OMB component number of 0.
Co-Chair Foster invited Kelly Cunningham from the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) to the table.
1:46:05 PM
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that because increasing the UI benefits would
touch all allocations, she did not believe there was a way
to generate a fiscal note that would represent every
allocation in the state. The Legislative Finance Division
worked with OMB and DLWD on the fiscal note and concluded
that it made sense to use "various" and for the note to be
indeterminate as long as an amount was included in the
analysis.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the normal course would be to add
the funds as a statewide appropriation when the budget was
reconciled at the end of the year. Ms. Cunningham replied
that there would not be an appropriation in the operating
bill. The costs would not be seen, as they would be spread
throughout the agencies and rolled in with all of the other
benefits that went into salary adjustment increases in the
following year.
Vice-Chair Gara was comfortable with the bill and would
support it. However, he did not want the state to lose 2
employees because of the lack of a fiscal note. Ms.
Cunningham noted that there would not be a loss of 2
employees within DLWD because the cost would be spread
throughout the state agencies.
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Cunningham to repeat her
response, as Co-Chair Seaton did not hear her answer. Ms.
Cunningham explained that because the increase in the UI
benefits would touch all allocations throughout the state,
there would not be an efficient way of generating a fiscal
note. The "various" indeterminate note made sense as long
as the estimated amount was in the analysis.
Representative Wilson asked when the bill would take
effect. Ms. Cunningham replied it would take effect in
January 2019. It would impact half of the FY 19 budget. The
estimated amount for FY 19 would be $115,000, and it would
be $230,000 in the out years starting in FY 20. She noted
it would be automatic.
Representative Guttenberg wanted reassurance that the
indeterminate fiscal note would not end up as a negative in
the budget. Ms. Cunningham understood that the costs would
get rolled in after the fact. Representative Guttenberg
clarified that the cost would be added rather than
subtracted after the fact. Ms. Cunningham responded, "That
is correct."
Co-Chair Seaton confirmed that the legislature had the
ability to do a fiscal note in conference committee if
necessary. He was comfortable moving the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 142 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 142 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by
DLWD and with a new indeterminate fiscal note by the Office
of the Governor.
1:52:25 PM
AT EASE
1:56:25 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 142 Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 213 Letter to House Finance Co-Chairs.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 213 |
| HB 142 Amendment #1 Foster.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 213 Letter to House Finance Co-Chairs.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 213 |
| HB 213 Amendment 1 Gara.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 213 |
| HB142 Support Document - Support Letters 2.7.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 213 - DOR 10yr what if payout.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 213 |
| DOR Response to Amendments to HB 213 2-14-2018.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 213 |
| HFSC Follow Up Public Libraries Receiving OWL Support in FY2018.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DEED Response Qs HFIN |
| HFSC Follow Up FY2018 School BAG Awards by School.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DEED Response Qs HFIN |
| HFSC Follow Up FY2017 E-Rate Overview.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DEED Response Qs HFIN |
| HFSC Follow Up FY15-FY18 Funding by District.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DEED Response Qs HFIN |