Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/30/2015 01:00 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 | |
| HB1001 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB1001 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 1001
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, making capital appropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
1:06:39 PM
Co-Chair Neuman explained that the meeting would entail a
high level overview of the new Committee Substitute (CS)
for HB 1001. He instructed committee members to submit
written questions that would be addressed during the next
meeting.
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, reviewed
the changes in the new CS. He directed attention to the
"2015 Legislature Operating Budget Agency Summary FY16
Conference Structure" (copy on file) that contained the
numbers and language sections summary of unrestricted
general funds (UGF) in HB 1001. He cited the totals listed
in column one: Statewide total of $54.954.5 million and
Fund Transfers of $39 million, and noted that the CS
contained approximately $94 million of additional
unrestricted general funds. He turned to the numbers and
language sections all funds summary titled, "2015
Legislature Operating Budget Agency Summary FY16 Conference
Structure" (copy on file) and pointed to column one that
identified $217.660 million of new spending above the
adopted Conference Committee Substitute (CCS) [CCS HB 72]
operating budget totals.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that the four columns specified
the additional funding by department and type of funding.
Representative Wilson asked whether the summary was the
difference between the CCS and the new CS and wondered
whether additional money above the $217.660 million and $94
million was added.
Mr. Ecklund explained that contained in both summaries the
Department of Corrections (DOC) listed a savings of
$4.108.2 million, which reflected the Medicaid expansion
portion of the CS. The net increase in the bill was
$217.660 million of all funds.
Representative Wilson pointed out that the CS contained
"new numbers that do not show up because of the Medicaid
expansion decrease." Co-Chair Neuman offered that the
Medicaid expansion discussion would occur in depth next
week. Representative Wilson asked whether the committee
would re-examine the entire operating budget or only the
increases in the CS version. Co-Chair Neuman explained that
presently, the committee was reviewing the CS which
contained the differences between the conference committee
numbers and the governor's new bill.
1:12:43 PM
Mr. Ecklund referred to section 5 of the governor's version
of HB 1001 which reflected the Medicaid expansion portion.
He observed that the section contained negative and
positive spending appropriations; the negative numbers
reflected savings.
Representative Gara referred to the UGF summary "Non-
Additive Items, Fund Transfers" listing and asked why the
fund transfers number ($39 million) was added to the UGF
total of $54.954.5 million. Mr. Ecklund responded that the
amount reflected $39 million of new general fund spending
which necessitated an appropriation into the public
education fund. Representative Gara asked for
clarification. Mr. Ecklund responded that on page 15,
Section 7 of the CS, a fund transfer of $118 million was
appropriated from the instate natural gas pipeline fund to
the public education fund. He detailed that the CCS
transferred $157 million from the pipeline fund and the
difference of $39 million reflected in the CS was
appropriated from general fund dollars.
Representative Gattis commented about the CS. She wondered
why the CS only contained the changes between the CCS and
the governor's version of HB 1001. Co-Chair Neuman
reiterated that the bill reflected the differences between
the CCS and the governor's version of HB 1001.He emphasized
that the CS only contained the differences.
Representative Gara announced that the governor did not
work with the Minority when drafting HB 1001.
Vice-Chair Saddler assumed that CCS HB 72 [APPROP:
OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS] would become law and whatever
proposed changes that were adopted would be rolled into HB
72. Co-Chair Neuman answered in the affirmative.
1:18:12 PM
Representative Gattis expressed her struggle to understand
the strategy with proposing the Committee Substitute. She
asked whether whatever changes were adopted would be rolled
into HB 72. Co-Chair Neuman restated that the CS only
contained the governor's requested changes to streamline
the process and make it "easier to understand" and would be
rolled into CCS HB 72.
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, expressed her appreciation for the
work of the Legislative Finance Division, Mr. Ecklund, and
Joan Brown from Co-Chair Neuman's staff on the new CS
version of HB 1001. She explained that the new Committee
Substitute outlined the governor's priorities and was a
"much simpler approach" to the process. The intent of HB
1001 was to keep budget negotiations ongoing. She stated
that the budget included funding for education, Medicaid
expansion, and adjusted for items that were "cut too far
and would have a substantial impact" on government
operations. She emphasized that the legislation was a
vehicle to keep discussions going and work towards a
"funded budget." She announced that the administration was
"flexible" in its goal to achieve a funded budget and
willing to work together to reach a compromise.
Representative Gattis voiced that she did not hear Ms.
Pitney say that "this was the only thing on the table". She
inquired whether everything in the budget was open for
discussion. Co-Chair Neuman answered that the items in the
CS were contained in the governor's version but in a much
simpler form.
1:25:14 PM
Ms. Pitney spoke to the Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA)
included in the CS for union employees:
State-wide Unallocated Appropriation Total:
$35,367,600.
Ms. Pitney explained that one of the changes in the CS
version was to leave the funding and language intact for
the bargaining unit's union contracts and maintain the
ability to engage in "good faith" negotiations to gain
concessions rather than break contracts with the
understanding that non-union employees would not receive
pay raises.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that the appropriation was found on
line 32, pages 3 through 4 of the legislation.
SHELDON FISHER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
explained that he intended to "aggressively" negotiate the
contracts as they expire. Presently, the Department of
Administration (DOA) was in the process of negotiating with
bargaining units representing approximately 17,000
employees and with other units representing 10,500
employees set to expire within the next 12 months. He
related that the administration believed in honoring the
commitments that were already made and funded the COLAS
(Cost Of Living Adjustments).
Co-Chair Neuman talked about the passionate discussions on
the floor about the state facing huge deficits and the
legislators support for state employees. However, in light
of the deficits the legislature adopted provisions that
denied pay increases for both union and non-union
employees. He recounted that the 2.5 percent pay increases
were negotiated three years ago. He wondered why it was so
important for the administration to increase the budget by
funding pay raises when the state was facing severe
deficits. Commissioner Fisher thought that as contracts
expired the state should negotiate a new salary schedule.
He believed that the state should honor the contracts and
commitments that were previously negotiated in good faith
in order to maintain a sense of trust with the bargaining
units.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether there could be legal
repercussions from denying the non-union employees their
COLA while giving it to the union employees. Commissioner
Fisher replied that each employee group has its own
"structure" and he believed that there was no legal
liability. Vice-Chair Saddler wondered about the moral
effects of denying the COLA to the exempt employees.
Commissioner Fisher related that over the long-term the
state had been fair and equitable to both the union and
exempt units and intended to continue to do so.
1:32:17 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that increases would be given
to union employees and that in the future non-union
employees would receive a COLA. Commissioner Fisher
responded that historically, there were years when the
exempt employees were given the COLA and union employees
were not and vice versa. He felt that differences existed
between negotiated outcomes over the two groups in any
given year but when examined over the long-term benefits
were consistently fair.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for clarification on the plan
going forward. He discerned that, in fairness, the
department intended to give the exempt employees a raise.
Commissioner Fisher was not prepared to answer the
question. Vice-Chair Saddler restated his question about
exempt employee morale. Commissioner Fisher believed that
the non-union employees generally understood the state's
predicament. He indicated that all employees will be
"challenged" and feel stress under the fiscal crisis. He
did not feel that the present proposal would have "a
dramatic impact on morale above and beyond the stressful
environment of which we are operating under."
Co-Chair Neuman reminded members that there would be more
detailed information provided in future meetings. He
requested that members ask question in line with
"information gathering" for their written questions for
more in-depth answers in a future meeting.
Representative Wilson understood what Commissioner Fisher
was saying. She conveyed that denying the raises was a way
to spread out the cuts over the departments so more
employees could keep their jobs. She believed that the COLA
was negotiated in good faith without the knowledge of how
low oil prices would decline. She wanted to understand the
negotiation process better for future decision making to
avoid a similar situation in the future. Commissioner
Fisher indicated that in the future contracts would be
negotiated with more flexibility with the future in mind,
such as the ability to reopen negotiations with a change in
oil prices.
Representative Wilson wanted to better understand not only
salary issues, but also the step increases, health
insurance, and other benefits in regards to contract
negotiations.
1:37:55 PM
Representative Gattis felt that granting the COLA increase
was sending employees "the wrong message" and hoped that
people realized the situation the state was facing.
Representative Gara was confused about which of the
contracts were included in the legislation. He agreed with
the concerns over morale issues related to denying a
"statutory" pay increase. He asked whether the union
contracts that were negotiated but not yet approved by the
legislature was included in the bill. Commissioner Fisher
replied that he needed to confirm whether the contracts
referred to were included in the legislation. He did not
believe so.
Co-Chair Neuman requested a historical comparative of
salary increases.
Representative Gara asked whether the COLAS that were
negotiated in the past were also removed by the legislature
in the CCS. Commissioner Fisher responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Pruitt asked what would happen if the
legislature chose not to fund the contracts. He wondered
how the administration would handle that scenario.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the administration would
honor the contracts. In the absence of funding, each
department would identify the amount of funding for the
raises and find it in savings. He maintained that there
would be additional layoffs under the unfunded scenario.
Representative Pruitt asked for perspective on future
expectations in the upcoming negotiations. Commissioner
Fisher agreed with the request.
1:43:41 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the governor had committed
to signing CCS HB 72 as adopted by the legislature into law
and that HB 1001 would be an addendum to HB 72. Ms. Pitney
responded that the current budget was "unfunded" and the
governor had not committed to signing "anything."
Representative Edgmon stated that the governor's intent of
the bill was to create a pathway for achieving a three
quarter vote in order to attain a Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR) draw in the House of Representatives. Ms.
Pitney responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Pitney addressed page 2 of the bill starting with the
line items for the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED):
Teaching and Learning Support Total: $2,599,700
Alaska Learning Network $599,700
Pre-Kindergarten Grants $2,000,000
Ms. Pitney explained that DEED was the "hardest hit" in the
CCS budget. The non-formula components were decreased by $18
million, which reflected a 31 percent decrease in general
funds. The inclusion of the funds still represented a 26
percent decrease in non-formula funding. She commented that
all of the items except for one in HB 1001 was include in
the governor's original budget which included $250 million
in budget reductions. She expounded that the Alaska Learning
Network provided distance education mostly to rural
communities in the form of courses that were required for
the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS) Scholarship.
Representative Gattis commented that the funding in the CS
was actually additional funding rather than just less of a
reduction.
Representative Wilson asked why the items were the
governor's priority and why reductions were not found
someplace else as an offset to the increases. Ms. Pitney
maintained that the administration felt the unfunded items
would cause "more damage than necessary." She reiterated
that the legislation was a vehicle to bring the parties
together in negotiations to achieve a funded budget.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that the items in the CS were
items the governor believed were important enough to add
back into the budget. Ms. Pitney concurred with the
statement.
1:51:46 PM
Representative Wilson emphasized that every item was
"vetted in subcommittee and there were reasons" for their
removal. She wondered why the governor deemed the
subcommittees were wrong in their choices and what Alaskans
would lose if the items were not funded. She opined that
all she heard was that the items were the governor's
priority and the funding should be added back into the
budget.
Ms. Pitney affirmed that the items were the priority of the
governor and acknowledged that it was the right of the
legislature to appropriate funds and welcomed the
discussion regarding funding the governor's priorities.
Vice-Chair Saddler reported that the governor indicated he
would decrease the budget 16 percent, if elected, during
his election campaign. He requested a reconciliation of the
governor's current priorities that he believed represented
a "dramatic shift" from his priorities during his campaign.
He wondered how adding spending was a "tool" to achieve a
funded budget under the circumstances.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Vice-Chair Saddler if he had any
specific questions regarding the two items that were listed
under DEED. He recognized that the issue was "emotional."
Ms. Pitney responded that the governor had talked about a
16 percent budget cut in recognition of declining oil
prices but wanted to institute the cuts over time. She
contended that the budget including the items in the CS
reflected an 8 percent reduction in the operating budget
compared to last year's budget.
1:55:59 PM
Representative Gattis expressed her confusion over whether
the items in the CS reflected what the governor wanted or
was demanding or were included to begin budget
negotiations.
Ms. Pitney commented that the bill reflected the governor's
priorities but was flexible to reach the goal of a funded
budget and recognized that the bill was "in the
legislature's court."
Co-Chair Neuman reiterated that the items were the
governor's priorities but the legislature would decide
whether to fund them or not.
Representative Gara asked about the Alaska Learning Network
(AKLN). He asked whether AKLN was funded in order to meet
the former governor's merit scholarship policy to provide
access to the courses necessary to qualify for the
scholarship.
Co-Chair Neuman requested that DEED supply additional
information regarding the program. Representative Gara
offered to withdraw the question. Co-Chair Neuman
reiterated that the committee would examine each item in
greater depth in subsequent meetings.
Representative Gattis stated that education was her Finance
Subcommittee and hoped to have a further discussion to hear
why he replaced the funding for the items her subcommittee
cut.
VALERIE DAVIDSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, spoke to the line items for the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS) in the CS:
Children's Services Total: $1,330,500
Front Line Social Workers: $1,000,000
Family Preservation: $330,500
Departmental Support Services Total: $$1,175.000
Public Affairs $50,000
Commissioner's Office $125,000
Administrative Support Services $875,000
Information Technology Services $125,000
Agency-wide Appropriation Total: $2,218,500
Agency-wide Unallocated Appropriation: $2,218,500
Commissioner Davidson began with page 2, line 19, Front
Line Social Workers and reported that the amount would fund
seven social workers using Children Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) funding. She moved to line 20, and noted
that the restored funding for the Family Preservation Grant
Program helped children remain in the home as opposed to
out of home placements. She delineated that there were
currently a record number of 2,500 children in the state in
out of home placements. She turned to lines 21 through 27,
Departmental Support Services and stated that the
transaction reversed interagency transfers totaling $1.175
million. She continued with lines 28 through 30 and voiced
that the Agency-wide Appropriation of $2.218.5 million
reversed an unallocated reduction.
2:01:56 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the CHIP funding for front
line social workers and asked what CHIP funding was.
Commissioner Davidson relayed that CHIP stood for
Children's Health Insurance Program. She detailed that
previously the federal government would grant bonuses to
states for CHIP enrollment. Subsequently, the bonuses were
stopped. The funds were used for a variety of purposes and
some funding remained. The $1 million appropriation for
front line social workers was taken from the remaining CHIP
bonus grants in order to help reduce the record number of
children in out of home placements.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the CHIP money was a long-
term funding source. Commissioner Davidson responded in the
negative. Co-Chair Neuman asked how the department
anticipated funding the positions after the CHIP money was
expended. Commissioner Davidson responded that it was the
department's hope that some tribal health organizations
that partner with DHSS and were able to provide services
through a program called 4-E would assist in reversing the
out of home placement trend.
Co-Chair Neuman requested more information on how the
department planned on supplanting the federal funds for the
social workers.
Co-Chair Thompson referred to the original operating budget
and shared that the appropriation was in the amount of $2
million in federal funding and added 20 front line social
workers. The amount was reduced to $350 thousand for 3
front line social workers. He asked whether with the
combined appropriations from the CS and the CCS there would
be a total of 10 front line social workers. Commissioner
Davidson responded in the affirmative. Co-Chair Thompson
pointed out that the funding was not expected to continue
in future years.
2:06:50 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler was not clear whether the funding for
the social workers in the CS was in addition to or included
the 3 positions funded in conference committee.
Ms. Pitney replied that the social worker positions funded
in the CS was in addition to the positions funded in CCS
HB72.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the funding included all of
the related equipment necessary. Commissioner Davidson
explained that it would include some equipment. Co-Chair
Neuman related that in prior years when he was Chair of the
House Finance DHSS Subcommittee he proposed $1.5 million
for 10 frontline social workers and $348 thousand for
equipment.
SANA EFIRD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, affirmed the statement.
Representative Wilson asked whether the funding was
specifically for certified social workers or case workers.
Commissioner Davidson answered that the funding included a
variety of positions necessary besides licensed social
workers. Representative Wilson requested information
specifying the exact positions the social worker funding
would include.
Representative Gara understood the CS budget was a "kick-
start effort" to drive budget negotiations.
Representative Gara mentioned a workload study that was
done a few years prior that concluded the Office of
Children's Services (OCS) was understaffed by 45 employees
and in the ensuing years the number of foster youth
increased from approximately 1,800 to 2,500. He noted that
13 positions were added last year. He was certain that the
7 additional positions included in the CS was not
sufficient to solve the problems facing OCS. Commissioner
Davidson answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for more information to support the
need for the increase in social workers.
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to reconcile the difference
between the social workers requested in CCS HB 72 and
amount requested in the CS.
2:13:07 PM
Ms. Pitney responded that the particular program was
supported by the administration in HB 72 and the additional
funding in the CS was "additive to the money in HB 72."
Representative Pruitt surmised that HB 1001 was an addendum
to CCS HB 72. He wondered what would happen if the governor
did veto CCS HB 72. He asked whether HB 1001 would become
the budget vehicle. He thought that was the source of the
committee member's confusion. Ms. Pitney replied that CSS
HB 72 was adopted but remained unfunded. She expounded that
HB 1001 was an entirely new budget that encompassed the
conference committee version and the changes reflected in
the CS. Subsequent to the introduction of HB 1001, Co-Chair
Neuman's staff and LFD suggested narrowing the conversation
specifically to the changes from the CCS. The CS was
created as an addendum that mirrored any changes that
differed from the conference committee version. She voiced
that under the assumption that the CBR vote would happen
the changes adopted would "slide in." She reiterated that
the legislation was a vehicle to begin a "compromise
discussion" to arrive at a "funded budget."
Co-Chair Neuman noted that the scenario was up for
discussion. He recounted that CCS HB 72 was adopted by the
legislature, the governor disagreed with some of items and
introduced a new piece of legislation to add back his
priorities.
Representative Wilson remarked that the governor submitted
a new operating budget in HB 1001 and asked whether that
was the governor's intent. Ms. Pitney replied that the
governor's intent was to get a compromise discussion
started to achieve a funded budget. Representative Wilson
asked whether the governor did or did not intend to put a
new operating budget forward. Ms. Pitney responded that the
bill was merely a mechanism to start a dialogue that would
end in compromise and achieve a funded budget. She remarked
that the administration accepted the approach of the CS
versus a bill including the entire budget.
Co-Chair Neuman repeated his statements regarding
introduction of the CS that only included the governor's
priorities.
2:18:50 PM
Representative Wilson declared that she would not vote to
increase the operating budget. She felt that the Finance
subcommittees "well vetted" the departments budgets and
without a bill that included the entire budget in order to
"exchange" cuts for any of the priorities adopted, the CS
ended the discussion for her.
Vice-Chair Saddler announced that he agreed with
Representative Wilson and that "it was not clear" how the
budget process was going to proceed and with what bill.
Ms. Pitney explained the change in the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR):
Administration and Support Services Total: $4,900,000
North Slope Gas Commercialization: $4,900,000.
Ms. Pitney continued that an increment was requested to
pursue gas commercialization contracts. The entire request
was for $13 million and part of the amount was funded
through Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP). The amount in
the CS brought the funding back to the full funding level
requested in the governor's budget. She remarked that gas
commercialization was a huge revenue opportunity and a
"high priority for the governor." She continued with two
items in the Department of Public Safety (DPS):
Alaska State Troopers Total: $500,000
Alaska Wildlife Troopers Aircraft Section: $500,000
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Total:
$1,500,000
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
$1,500,000
Ms. Pitney noted that the first item restored partial
funding for the helicopter service located in Fairbanks.
The second item restored half of the funding for the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA).
The administration cut the funding to $1,500,000 and moved
it from the Governor's Office to DPS in the governor's
budget request. The funding supported prevention programs.
Co-Chair Thompson asked who received the $1.5 million in
funding. Ms. Pitney answered that the money was
appropriated directly to the CDVSA and was focused on
prevention. Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the funding
went through the Anchorage Police Department. Ms. Pitney
responded that the funding he cited was a capital budget
item awarded as a grant directly appropriated to the police
department.
Representative Gara asked whether the $1.5 million the
administration was trying to add back was included in the
governor's original proposal. Ms. Pitney responded in the
affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the proposed $1.5 million
would restore the council's budget to $3 million. Ms.
Pitney replied that the CDVSA budget for prevention
programs would amount to $1.5 million with adoption of the
CS. She informed the committee that the council had
operating funds in addition to prevention money that
primarily funded grants for shelters.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for more information about the
council and its efficacy rate.
MARK LUIKEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES, discussed the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities' (DOT) item in the CS:
Marine Highway System Total: $7,000.000
Marine Vessel Operations $7,000,000
Commissioner Luiken indicated that the increment on page 3,
line 21 allowed the department to maintain its current
commitment to passengers based on the schedule that was
published on October, 2014.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the funding supported
existing reservations. Mark Luiken answered in the
affirmative. Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the funding
was a one-time increment. Mark Luiken answered in the
affirmative. He reported that the department would prepare
a much more conservative schedule for FY 2017 at the level
of expected funding.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what the total budget was for the
Alaska Marine Highway System. Co-Chair Thompson responded
that the total was $147 million. Co-Chair Neuman remarked
that $7 million equated to .5 percent of the marine
highway's budget. He wondered why the cut could not be
absorbed by the department. Commissioner Luiken answered
that the cut would be absorbed through service cuts
beginning on July 1, 2015. Co-Chair Neuman requested more
information regarding routes and scheduling. Commissioner
Luiken stated that the options would be explored in the
next budget cycle.
2:27:49 PM
Ms. Pitney continued with the University of Alaska (UA)
item:
University of Alaska Total: $7,000,000
Budget Reductions/Additions System-wide: $7,000,000
Ms. Pitney offered that $7 million out of the $29.8 million
(8.1 percent) reduction was restored in the CS. The funding
in the CS would bring the reduction to $18.9 million which
represented 5 percent of the university's budget.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the $7 million included
money for the union university employee contract COLA. Ms.
Pitney responded that the contract funding for the
university was included in the CS under the contract
section (beginning on page 3, line 30). Vice-Chair Saddler
wondered what specific programs the money would fund. Ms.
Pitney responded that the Board of Regents was currently
making decisions to determine which programs would be cut
and added that many cuts would be necessary to reach the
$18.9 million threshold.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for further information on the
university's budget. He stated that the legislature worked
hard to address the state's budget deficit and adopted a
budget that fell short of the three quarters vote required
to access the CBR. He further reiterated the CS process. He
suggested that the CS would be a "tough sell" for the
legislature.
2:32:35 PM
HB 1001 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|