Legislature(2015 - 2016)Anch LIO BUILDING
05/21/2015 03:00 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 | |
| HB2001 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB2001 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 2001
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs and capitalizing funds; repealing
appropriations; 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."
3:13:23 PM
PETE ECKLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, reviewed
the legislation. He pointed out that members had a one page
handout titled, "The FY 16 Operating Budget - Special
Session" (copy on file) in their bill packets that
summarized the bill. He explained that HB 2001 restored any
vetoes that the governor made in CCSHB 72; the operating
budget passed by the Conference Committee (CC). He
explained that HB 2001 restored all of the line item vetoes
made by the Governor. He referred to two additional reports
in the members bill packet titled, "Agency Summary Numbers
and Language (UGF Only)" that he referred to as document
"A" and "2015 Legislature - Operating Budget Agency Summary
- FY16 Post-CC Structure" he referred to as document "B"
that compared the totals from the different versions of the
budget bills. He reported the totals from the various
columns on document A. He related that the CC total on
document A for formula and non-formula programs in
undesignated general funds (UGF) only was $4,059,039.9 and
the total amount the governor enacted after his vetoes was
$1,923,209.5. He furthered that the column titled, "Special
Session Operating" reflected the UGF total in HB 2001 that
was $2,135,830.4. The combined total of the enacted version
of HB 72 (Approp: Operating Budget/Loans/Funds) and HB 73
(Approp: Mental Health Budget) and HB 2001 equaled the same
total as the CC version of HB 72 and HB 73 as adopted by
the legislature. He offered that documents A and B
presented the "mathematical check" for the budget bill
versions.
Mr. Ecklund addressed the document titled, "The FY 16
Operating Budget - Special Session". He read the following
from the document:
HB 2001 essentially returns the operating budget to
the conference committee version.
The bill does the following in Section 1 (of the
numbers section);
1. Restores all vetoes, so that HB 2001 plus the
enacted version of HB 72 duplicates the conference
committee version of Section 1 of HB 72.
2. Restates intent and conditioning language from the
conference committee version of HB 72 as appropriate.
No new intent or conditioning language has been added.
The language sections HB restores all vetoes, so that
HB 2001 plus the enacted version of HB 72 duplicates
the conference committee version of the language
sections fo HB 72. Sections 4 through 7 correspond to
original sections of HB 72 (as shown on the table).
Mr. Ecklund explained that the table showed the changes in
the language section of HB 2001 (Sections 4 through 7) and
where the items were located in the CC version of HB 72. He
further discussed the document. He detailed that Section 8
(from HB 2001) provided access to the Constitutional Budget
Reserve Fund (CBR) under the supermajority rules for FY
2015 and FY 2016. He read the following:
Section 9 repeats language from HB 72 related to the
use of the Higher Education Fund to ensure that the FY
15 budget is fully funded.
Mr. Ecklund elaborated that the governor partially vetoed
many items from HB 72. He specified that one area that was
partially funded was education funding for K through 12. He
revealed that HB 2001 repealed the partial vetoes and fully
restored the original mechanism for funding in HB 72. He
reported that if HB 2001 was adopted education funding
would be "funded exactly the way it was funded in the CC
report of HB 72."
3:18:48 PM
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that HB 2001 restored all of the
vetoes due to lack of funding to be funded to the point of
the CC version of HB 72.
Mr. Ecklund pointed to page 30, line 31 in Section 14 of HB
2001 and read the following:
* Sec. 11. Sections 26(d), 26(e), 33, and 36, ch. 23,
SLA 2015, are repealed.
Mr. Ecklund informed the committee that the repealers
repealed the partial vetoes of K through 12 education
funding. The full funding that was passed for education was
contained within HB 2001.
Representative Kawasaki deduced that HB 2001 added non-
vetoed items to HB 72 and equaled the CC version of HB 72.
Mr. Ecklund confirmed that Representative Kawasaki was
correct. Representative Kawasaki wondered about the meaning
of "appropriate" from the document that Mr. Ecklund read.
Mr. Ecklund explained that the language "in this Act" in HB
72 pertained to the partial veto appropriations therefore,
in order to restore the funding the language had to be
repeated in HB 2001 since it related to the remainder of
the funding in the partial veto.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Reinbold in the
audience.
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to better understand section 11
and asked Mr. Ecklund to re-explain. Mr. Ecklund stated
that Section 11 repealed the K through 12 education funding
formula sections of HB 72 because the sections were
partially vetoed by 72 percent. He delineated that the
"cleanest" way to restore the funding in HB 2001 to the
level of the CC version of HB 72 was to repeal the
remaining funds that were enacted and restate the full
funding in HB 2001.
Representative Wilson wanted to clarify that there was $2.1
billion more in HB 2001 than the enacted version of HB 72.
Mr. Ecklund affirmed that the statement was correct for the
UGF and formula and non-formula area of the budget.
3:23:08 PM
Representative Wilson recalled that the state had roughly
$1.6 billion in other funds that were available for the
$2.1 billion additional expense in HB 2001. Mr. Ecklund
wondered if by "other funds" she was referring to the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) endowment fund containing
approximately $1 billion and the Higher Education endowment
fund with roughly $460 million. Representative Wilson
replied that that besides the funds he mentioned she
understood that other "pots of money" from the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and elsewhere were
available. She was ultimately attempting to discover what
the "bottom line" figure of what was available without
reserve funds. Mr. Ecklund referred to report "B" on page
2, column 4 titled, "Special Session Operating." He
determined that when the number and language sections, and
statewide items and operations were included the column
indicated that the amount needed was $3,100,350.3. He
relayed that the state did not have $3.1 billion in all
other funds but did not know the exact amount.
Representative Wilson wanted to know how the numbers went
from $2.135 billion to $3.12 billion. Mr. Ecklund
communicated that report A summarized agency operations
formula and non-formula funds and report B summarized
formula and non-formula funds and statewide items such as,
debt service, retirement funding, fund capitalizations,
etc.
Representative Wilson maintained that she still "wanted to
see the numbers." Co-Chair Neuman asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson understood that "a lot of different
smaller funds" were available and that the Department of
Revenue (DOR) could provide a list. Co-Chair Neuman
responded that he would ask for the figures from DOR.
Representative Gara reiterated the totals in the various
versions that was discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr.
Ecklund concurred with his statements. Representative Gara
voiced that he did not support the budget in HB 2001 but
wanted to understand the numbers.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Tilton and
Representative Hughes.
Representative Gara asked Mr. Ecklund how certain he was
that the math was accurate in HB 2001. Mr. Ecklund
commented that he was 100 percent confident and that was
the reason he included the summary reports. He reported
that David Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division
could speak to the accuracy of the legislation.
3:30:18 PM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, stated
that he was also confident that the numbers were accurate.
He explained that the governor transmitted the electronic
transactions of the vetoes themselves and he reversed all
of the vetoes which became HB 2001. He restated that
reversing the vetoes restored the budget to the numbers
adopted in the CC version of HB 72.
Representative Gara understood that the governor could not
veto language sections. Mr. Teal answered that the governor
was authorized to veto language sections and did veto
language sections in the CC version and referred to the
table in the document titled, "The FY 16 Operating Budget -
Special Session" that cross referenced the vetoes.
Mr. Teal further explained that the governor could not veto
"intent or conditioning language." He could veto the amount
of money affecting the intent or conditioning language.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that HB 2001 was not
"adjusted to any changes or requests" by the agencies and
that the bill was adjusted to the CC numbers. Mr. Ecklund
responded in the affirmative.
Representative Munoz understood that the governor vetoed
the incorrect version of the operating budget and wondered
how that affected HB 2001. Mr. Teal assured the committee
that the confusion was between the engrossed and enrolled
versions and did not affect HB 2001.
3:34:11 PM
Mr. Teal explained that the engrossed version was sent from
the Chief Clerk's office to Legislative Legal Services for
a final review. Subsequent to the final review the enrolled
version was sent to the governor for his signature.
Mr. Ecklund interjected that the enrolled version could
contain technical corrections.
Co-Chair Neuman discussed the agenda for the following day.
He communicated that tomorrow's House Finance Committee
meeting would be held at 10am to 11:00am and would hear
public testimony on HB 2001 from 11:00am to 2:00 pm. He
encouraged the members of the public to participate and
reminded the public that the focus would be strictly on the
operating budget.
Representative Kawasaki stated that HB 2001 contained
fairly significant changes from the previous version and
asked if the committee would have the opportunity to hear
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Co-Chair
Neuman indicated that Pat Pitney, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor would be
available for questions.
Vice-Chair Saddler reminded the public that they could
submit written testimony if they were not able to testify
in person. Further discussion ensued about the logistics
for tomorrow's meeting.
HB 2001 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 2001 Staff Summary.pdf |
HFIN 5/21/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB2001 |
| HB 2001 Summaries -- Charts A & B.pdf |
HFIN 5/21/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB2001 |