Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/14/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Discussion of the Governor's Fy 2014 Budget Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, amending
appropriations, and making reappropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 91
"An Act making supplemental appropriations, capital
appropriations, and other appropriations; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
^DISCUSSION OF THE GOVERNOR'S FY 2014 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
1:34:16 PM
KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced herself for the record
and related that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
produced a fiscal summary of the budget 3 times per year.
She explained that a summary was produced when the budget
was released in December, which was updated after the
amendments on the 30th day and stated that a final summary
would be released after the budget had been enacted and
signed by the governor. She addressed the document titled
"Governor's Amended Fiscal Summary" (copy on file) and
relayed that there had been some changes on the left-hand
side of the summary related to the FY13 budget; the changes
included the supplementals that the administration had
requested and several adjustments.
Ms. Rehfeld spoke to line 3 of the fiscal summary and to
the revenue adjustment of $48.9 million, which was the
prior year's recovery for the Carlson case [State of
Alaska, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. Carlson].
She explained that the state had been able to recover a
significant amount of the settlement from the case, which
would show on the spring revenue forecast when the
Department of Revenue (DOR) conducted its projection
updates. She pointed out that the revenue adjustment from
the settlement recovery was important to note when looking
at the bottom line regarding the current fiscal year. She
stated that line 10 under agency operations showed the
original budget request from December of 2014 and related
that line 11 depicted the items that were included in a
January supplemental bill; line 12 highlighted the
amendments that had been added that day. She stated that
you could see the changes that were made in each section of
the fiscal summary. She pointed to line 37 of the summary
and related that it showed an adjustment to the $40 million
place holder for the supplemental requests in FY13 and FY14
that had been in OMB's December fiscal summary; because the
supplemental had been so low, the place holder for FY13 had
been removed and had been adjusted down to $20 million in
FY14. She related that OMB had put forward a very small
package of amendments and was keeping the pressure on the
operating budget. She added that OMB wanted to keep this
budget as tight as it could.
1:38:45 PM
Ms. Rehfeld discussed line 68 of the fiscal summary and
related that it depicted what the projected draw from the
Statutory Budget Reserves would be if the current spending
plan was completed; it showed a $322.9 million draw from
the reserve, which was down from OMB's December projection
of $410.8 million. She observed that some big reasons for
the drop in the projected draw were the low supplemental
request and the prior year's recovery from the Carlson
case. She observed that because the comparison point had
changed, the overall budget still depicted a 1.2 percent
increase in operating costs; however, OMB's budget request
had been reduced by about $19.1 million as a result of the
amendments. She offered that the operating budget was very
lean and that OMB had conducted a rigorous review before
the budget had been presented to the committee.
Representative Gara thought he heard Ms. Rehfeld state that
there was a $1.2 billion reduction in the operating budget,
but surmised that she had meant a $1.2 billion reduction in
the total operating and capital costs. Ms. Rehfeld
responded that what she had meant to say was that OMB's
submitted amendments had reduced its overall General Fund
budget in FY14 by $19.1 million in comparison to the
December budget; however, if you compared the governor's
amended request to the FY13 revised numbers on line 7 of
fiscal summary, it showed a 1.2 percent increase.
Ms. Rehfeld discussed the 1 page summary titled "FY2013
Supplemental Summary" (copy on file) and related that it
showed what the original supplemental request was on
January 28; the total supplemental at that time was $24.456
million. She shared that the amendments OMB was currently
requesting totaled $1.3651 million with a $1 million
federal capital request and represented an increase of
$2.3651 million.
Representative Munoz requested that someone point out which
document Ms. Rehfeld was addressing.
Ms. Rehfeld noted that the documents should be in member's
packets.
1:43:57 PM
Ms. Rehfeld continued to speak to the supplemental summary
spread sheet. She related that if the supplemental bill
passed, it would total $26.8211 million, of which $972,500
would be General Funds.
Ms. Rehfeld walked through the items on the supplemental
spreadsheet titled "FY2013 Supplemental Amendments
Submitted February 12, 2013."
Ms. Rehfeld requested a brief AT EASE.
1:45:27 PM
AT EASE
1:47:25 PM
RECONVENED
1:47:30 PM
Ms. Rehfeld thanked the committee for its patience and
addressed page 1 of supplemental spreadsheet titled "FY2013
Supplemental Amendments Submitted February 12, 2013." She
spoke to the first item on line 1, which was the FY13
Alaska correctional officers salary and benefits increase.
She explained that a bargaining agreement had been reached
with the Alaska correctional officers and that line 1
reflected the costs in the current fiscal year. She
explained that the increase would go towards a 2 percent
cost of living adjustment (COLA), health insurance, and
geographic differential. She pointed out that line 1's item
totaled $1.2589 million; $1.244 million of this amount were
General Fund dollars. She added that there would also be an
amendment in the FY14 budget for 920 correctional officers.
She addressed the second item on line 2, which was a
formula component under the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS); the item was the for Title IV-E
participation rate under the federal child-welfare policy.
She explained that there were mandated changes to how the
Title IV-E foster-care participation rate was calculated
and that the federal funds for the program were going down
by $2.5 million; OMB was requesting $2.5 million of general
fund dollars to replace the missing federal funds. She
added that OMB was also requesting the $2.5 million in the
amended budget for FY14.
Ms. Rehfeld continued to discuss the supplemental
spreadsheet and spoke to the item on line 3, which was for
the Office of the Governor; it regarded a redistricting
decision that came out after OMB had presented its December
budget. She explained that OMB was requesting a carry
forward under the redistricting board for $250,000 in the
current year into FY14; there would also be a request in
the FY14 budget for the redistricting board work that was
needed to comply with a court order. She spoke to an item
for the Division of Elections on line 4; OMB was requesting
carry forward of $500,000 for work that the division would
need to conduct under the redistricting. She directed the
committee's attention to line 5, which reflected an
additional settlement under the Department of Law for
$106,200; this settlement was associated with a school-
cleanup sight in the Kuspuk School District for Aniak
vocational schools. She explained that the settlement had
come in after OMB had presented the supplemental to the
legislature several weeks prior.
Ms. Rehfeld discussed page 2 of the supplemental
spreadsheet and pointed to the new capital item associated
with $1 million in federal receipt authority. She explained
that the Government of Japan had provided $5 million to the
United States for the cleanup of the tsunami debris and
that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was
the lead state agency on the cleanup effort; DEC would be
entering into a memorandum of understanding with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the
work regarding the effort. She related that OMB did not
know how much funding for the cleanup efforts would be
allocated to Alaska, but was estimating that it would be $1
million; OMB was requesting the authorization in a
supplemental because the funds would be available in the
coming spring.
1:51:33 PM
Ms. Rehfeld spoke to the 3 re-appropriations on the
supplemental spreadsheet that OMB was requesting under the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. She
stated that lines were 8 and 9 were both for Federal
Aviation Administration authorizations. The request on line
8 was for $15 million for work on the Ambler airport and
the request on line 9 was for $5 million for the Kotzebue
airport runway-safety improvements; the reappropriation was
federal receipt authority from prior National Highway
System pavement and bridge appropriations that were
available to be reallocated to these projects. She
discussed the final item on page 3, which was a
reappropriation of $40 million for the Dowling Road
extension in Anchorage; the source of funds for this
project was also from previously authorized federal
receipts for the National Highway System pavement and
bridge refurbishment program.
Representative Gara expressed confusion regarding
differences between the Governor's Amended Fiscal Summary
and supplemental spreadsheet. He explained that the fiscal
summary showed a total supplemental request of $972,000 in
General Funds, while page 3 of the spreadsheet showed a
supplemental of $3.8 million in General Funds. Ms. Rehfeld
directed the committee's attention to the supplemental
summary. She stated that the General Fund was reduced by
$2.8777 million on the original supplemental request from
January 28; however, the amendments that OMB had put
forward for consideration resulted in a General Fund
increase of $3.8502 million. She expounded that the overall
supplemental General Fund would be $972,500; the summary
showed the original bill amounts and what the total bill
would be with the amendments.
Representative Gara inquired if OMB had added the
supplemental, which had subtracted money, to the
amendments, which added funds. Ms. Rehfeld responded in the
affirmative.
1:54:19 PM
Ms. Rehfeld addressed the document titled "FY2014 Governor
Amended Summary." She related that the agency operations
non-formula requests were negative $3.001 million, but were
a positive General Fund of $3.7838 million. She pointed to
the 3 formula items, which were comprised of $5.720 million
in General Funds and had a total of $4.450 million. She
stated that the correctional officers agreement that had
been previously discussed would be for FY14; it would be
$5.6056 million in General Funds and would have total funds
of $5.671 million. She noted a reduction in debt service of
$17.3 million, as well as a debt service associated with
fund transfers. She stated that although the capital
amendments would not be reviewed in the current meeting,
they were reflected on the summary sheet.
Ms. Rehfeld directed the committee's attention to the 8
page summary titled "FY2014 Operating Amendments Submitted
February 12, 2013." She spoke to line 1, which was under
the Department of Administration (DOA) and was for the
Mandated Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute Trust
Fund that was a requirement under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act; it would be a fee based on the
number of covered individuals. She pointed out that line 1
was a new request and that OMB had not realized that the
ruling from the Internal Revenue Service would be issued
until after the submission of the December budget; the
request was for $65,000 for the new requirement.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act item represented the "first of many"
such items. Ms. Rehfeld replied that she was unable to
answer the question.
1:57:56 PM
Ms. Rehfeld continued to speak to the operating amendment
summary and discussed the item on line 2, which was under
DOA; the item was associated with an increased workload
within the Division of Retirement and Benefits. She stated
that the number of retirees in Alaska was continuing to
increase, but that division's staffing and efforts had not
increased; on line 2, OMB was requesting $171,600 for the
division to manage the increased workload. She furthered
that the administration had been making every effort to
utilize more online and technology based support to manage
the workload and that it believed that the requested funds
would help the division manage the workload. She discussed
line 3 of the summary and indicated that OMB was requesting
$187,500 in program receipts under the DOA's Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV); this item was associated with
centrally issued drivers licenses and identification cards.
She explained that the DMV had been working hard to
increase security to reduce fraud and limit identity theft
and relayed there had been challenges regarding the state's
drivers licenses and identification cards; the centrally
issued process would greatly enhance the administration's
ability to make those documents secure.
Ms. Rehfeld continued to speak to the operating amendment
summary and indicated that the item on line 4 corrected a
mistake. She explained that $155,000 in General Funds had
mistakenly been reduced in the December budget, even though
the decrement had already taken place; OMB did not want to
apply the same reduction twice to the Alaska Energy
Authority. She stated that line 5 was for the correctional
officers and related that every component that had personal
services contained an adjustment for the cost of the
correctional officers in the Department of Corrections'
budget. She spoke to line 6 and related that it was a
request for the Department of Education and Early
Development's (DEED) Mt. Edgecombe boarding school; the
item was associated with dormitory-management contract
costs. She shared that there had been a significant
increase in the dorm-management contract from FY13 into the
FY14 budget. She explained that OMB had been working with
DEED to attempt another option to address the increased
costs, but that the department had been unable to absorb
the money for dorm management; OMB was requesting $305,000
for the item on line 6.
2:01:27 PM
Ms. Rehfeld continued to discuss the operating amendment
summary. She stated that lines 7 and 8 for the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS) were associated with
the pioneer homes' increases in food service, laundry, and
janitorial contracts; the requests were also in the FY13
supplemental. She addressed the item on line 9 for the
Alaska Psychiatric Institute that was associated with
$350,000 in statutory-designated program receipts; the item
was based on the hospital daily rates for Medicare. She
explained that the item would help the institute offset an
increase in the cost of providing service to Medicare
patients. She discussed the item on line 10 for DHSS for
security improvements at the anchorage regional office
building and noted that there was also a supplemental
request before the committee; the item represented funding
for the continuation work of security improvements to
address safety issues. She spoke to the item on line 11 for
DHSS and relayed that it was associated with the federal
unrestricted authorization that made the department
eligible to receive payments under the Children's Health
Insurance Program; the item would allow the department to
continue to receive the funds.
Ms. Rehfeld continued to speak to the operating amendment
summary and related that the item on line 12 was a formula
item for foster-care rate adjustments; this was associated
with a recently completed foster-care rate study, through
which it was determined that OMB needed to increase the
rates. She pointed out that there had also been a court
case regarding the foster-care rates and that OMB was
requesting $2.6 million for line 12, of which $2.11 million
were unrestricted General Funds. She pointed to the item on
line 13 and shared that it was the mandated Title IV
participation rate change, which resulted in a decrease of
$2.5 million in General Funds and an increase of $2.5
million in the governor's budget. She discussed the item on
line 14 and explained that the previously mentioned foster-
care rate adjustment also applied to subsidized adoptions
and guardianships; the same rate study also applied to this
component. She stated that line 14 showed an increase of
$1.85 million, of which $1.11 million was unrestricted
General Fund.
Ms. Rehfeld continued to speak to the operating amendment
summary and pointed to the item on line 15, which
represented a proposed structural change; OMB was
requesting the authority to have the work services funding
remain in DHSS and have that department manage the program.
She explained the in the past, there had been a
reimbursable service agreement with the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development (DLWD), but that the
administration believed that it would be more efficient and
result in less overhead cost if DHSS retained the funding
and did the work. She pointed out that there was a request
to transfer the positions from DLWD to DHSS and that the
inner-agency receipt authorization in the DLWD's budget
would be deleted; items 15 through 20 were all related to
the transfer of the positions.
2:06:52 PM
Ms. Rehfeld continued to address the operating amendment
summary and spoke to the item on line 21, which was for the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). Line 21's request was
for rural-trooper housing and was associated with General
Fund program receipts for rental income for rural housing;
the rates received a COLA every year. She pointed out that
there had also been increases in rural-housing locations
and that OMB was requesting $500,000 for the rental
receipts on line 21; the receipts would be used for the
maintenance of the facilities. She directed the committee's
attention to the item on line 22 that was for DPS; the
request was for $163,800 in General Funds to implement a
radio dispatcher class study that had recently been
completed. She stated that line 22 would affect 43
positions, which would be shifted from radio dispatch to
emergency services dispatchers. She spoke to lines 23 and
24 and related that both items were associated with the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC). She explained
that line 23 was requesting $130,000 in APFC receipts for
the corporation's professional services and contractual
cost increases and that line 24 was requesting $198,000 in
APFC receipts for the compensation plan that the Permanent
Fund used for its employees.
Ms. Rehfeld continued to discuss the operating amendment
summary and discussed the item on line 25. She relayed that
on the fiscal summary, OMB had highlighted the amount of
permanent funds that were needed for inflation proofing, as
well as for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) calculation;
OMB updated this number based on the monthly statement that
it received from APFC. She stated that line 25 showed a $4
million adjustment to the OMB's December projections and
that there would be another adjustment in the new fiscal
summary on the enacted budget; the amendment also made a
technical correction in the language section of the budget.
She spoke to the item on line 26 and related that it was a
request for $1.75 million associated with redistricting;
this item plus the carry forward that was discussed when
reviewing the supplemental would provide about $2 million
for the redistricting board's activities from the current
year until 2015. She concluded that OMB was requesting a
multi-year operating item on line 26.
2:09:55 PM
Ms. Rehfeld continued to address the operating amendment
summary and stated that the item on line 27 was a reduction
of $17.3 million for debt service; the reduction was a
change based on DOR's current estimates of the general
obligation bond debt service and reflected a revised
projection that would save the state $17.3 million in debt-
service costs. She stated that the item on line 28 was a
correction that she had mentioned during a previous
overview hearing. She explained that the governor had been
clear that his intention was to provide an additional
$125,000 to capitalize the Sustainable Energy Transmission
and Supply Development Fund (SETS). She relayed that
although it was reflected on OMB's December fiscal summary,
the actual transaction had not been in the bill; the item
on line 28 represented the language that would actually
make the appropriation from the Alaska Housing Capital
Corporation Fund into the newly established SETS. She
discussed the final item on line 29 and related that it was
associated with an adjustment to the amount of receipts
under the 1 cent surcharge for the Oil and Hazardous
Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund; the
estimate had been $1.9 million, but was now $1.1 million.
She concluded that line 29 showed an $800,000 reduction in
that fund transfer.
Representative Wilson inquired how many dormitories Mt.
Edgecombe currently had. Ms. Rehfeld replied that she
believed there were 3, but offered to confirm the number
with the DEED.
Representative Wilson pointed out that the contract totaled
$141,000 per month and inquired if there had been any
discussion regarding the costs being high. Ms. Rehfeld
replied that the department would be better suited to
answer, but that the contract had been competitively bid.
She added that DEED had worked hard on the contract, which
included coverage of the dorms 24 hours a day 7 days per
week. She offered to have the department get back to the
committee with a response.
Representative Wilson inquired how many contracts had
returned from the competitive bidding. Ms. Rehfeld agreed
to supply the requested information.
Co-Chair Stoltze spoke to the item on line 3 of the
operating amendment summary, which dealt with driver's
licenses. He inquired if the administration had considered
fixing all the driver's license issues in one step by
removing the item from the supplemental and attaching it as
a fiscal note to Representative Lynn's bill. Ms. Rehfeld
responded that she was unable to answer, but offered that
the department would be happy to discuss the issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought that the item on line 3 should be
removed until the committee received a more definitive
answer. Co-Chair Austerman responded that Co-Chair
Stoltze's thoughts were duly noted.
2:14:12 PM
Representative Thompson spoke to line 24 of the amendment
summary. He acknowledged that the Permanent Fund should
have the best managers, but noted that the APFC's employees
were paid more than normal state employees. He conceded
that paying the APFC employees more might be prudent given
the importance of the Permanent Fund, but expressed concern
that the disparity in pay was causing vacancies in other
departments because APFC was offering a higher pay for the
same type of work. Ms. Rehfeld acknowledged that APFC
employees were exempt and that its board established the
corporation's compensation schedule and package. She noted
that that there were also concerns regarding whether the
pay for the state treasury managers was comparable to that
of the managers of Permanent Fund and observed that OMB had
a discussion about the issue every time APFC sought
additional funding for its compensation plan; however, the
request seemed appropriate for the current situation.
Co-Chair Austerman inquired if the request on line 24 was
for staff and not for contracts. Ms. Rehfeld replied in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara observed that APFC did not have the
same incentive built into it to hold down costs as the
legislature and the governor did, which were dealing with
revenues. He mused that he was unsure if the APFC employees
were being treated fairly or if the other exempt state
employees were being treated unfairly, but suspected that
there was a large gap between the raises inside of APFC and
the raises for exempt employees in state government.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if Representative Gara was
referencing classified or exempt state employees.
Representative Gara responded that he was referencing the
employees who the administration raised salaries on.
Representative Gara inquired who was on the Permanent Fund
Board from the administration. Ms. Rehfeld believed that
there were two members from the administration on the
Permanent Fund Board, but deferred the question to Ms.
Achee. She added that the State of Alaska had a dynamic
classification and pay structure that included classified,
totally exempt, partially exempt status, as well as the
independent corporations; furthermore, there were number of
complexities involved with each type. She concluded that a
lot of the same concerns had been discussed during the
formulation of the December budget, but that through more
discussion with APFC, OMB thought it was appropriate to
bring the amendment forward.
2:18:04 PM
LAURA ACHEE, DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION,
ALASKA PERMANENT FUND CORPORATION, replied that she was
unaware of an influx of staff from other departments into
the APFC; moreover, she could site several staff members
who had left APFC to go to other state departments. She
pointed out that when APFC did the market salary surveys
that helped set the pay for its investment officers, it
looked at other public sector investment officers in
similar institutional investment funds across the U.S. and
did not look at private sector investment officers; in this
regard, APFC was attempting to get a very comparable scale
regarding its pay. She related that APFC's HR officer took
into great account what other State of Alaska agencies were
paying regarding such positions as accountants,
administration, and IT staff. She believed that there was a
perception that APFC staff were more highly compensated
than employees of other state agencies, but asserted that
this perception was incorrect. She conceded that some APFC
staff had come from other state agencies, but that the
reverse was also true.
Ms. Achee requested a rephrasing of the Representative
Gara's question. Representative Gara responded that what he
really wanted to know was whether the extent of the raises
was in the 3 percent, 10 percent, or 15 percent range. Ms.
Achee replied that there was a salary management plan that
showed anything from a 0 percent to 7 percent increase that
was based on merit. She related that the 7 percent raises
were incredibly rare and that the raises tended to be more
in the 3 percent to 5 percent range. She offered that a 3
percent to 5 percent raise was comparable to a step
increase in other state agencies.
Ms. Achee related that APFC had to come forward for staff
funding because it was a smaller agency with only 38 staff.
She shared that whereas other state agencies were able to
manage the payment of their step increases within vacancy
rates, APFC was too small to do so; therefore, APFC had to
come forward for funding in its personal services line to
make the payments. She recalled that in past APFC did not
always receive the increment for pay increases and
remembered that the most recent APFC member who went to
another agency did so on a year that increases were not
paid; the employee had felt there had been a promise made
when they were hired regarding yearly increases based on
merit and they had left for another state agency. She
pointed out that the item was important for APFC to recruit
and retain the best employees it could and that in order to
do so, it needed to pay completive wages and keep its
promises to employees that their efforts would be
recognized.
Representative Thompson inquired the APFC employees who
received merit raises would also receive a step increase.
Ms. Achee replied that APFC was completely separate from
the State of Alaska and that the merit increases that it
paid were what would correspond to a step increase that a
regular state employee would receive.
2:22:25 PM
Ms. Achee responded to an earlier comment by Representative
Gara regarding APFC not having the same pressure to control
costs as other state entities, but believed that was not
true. She pointed out that during her tenure at APFC, there
had been a number of increments that had come before OMB
and the legislature that had been denied. She relayed that
APFC worked hard to control costs within its budget with
the recognition that money that was spent was not going
towards the PFD. She recalled that a year or two prior,
Mike Burns had had answered a question in committee
regarding how APFC approached the costs of managing the
Permanent Fund. She remembered that Mr. Burns had stated
that APFC would not approach the management of the fund
from a position of trying to achieve the lowest possible
costs because doing so would result in the lowest returns
and performance. She shared that APFC was seeking to find a
balance between what it was spending and what it was
getting in return; APFC was always mindful that it was
managing the people's money.
Co-Chair Stoltze had a difficult time believing that APFC
had a daily obsession with amount of the PFD.
Co-Chair Austerman inquired if the $198,000 request on line
24 would be used to hire staff or whether it was only for
merit increases. Ms. Achee replied that it was tied to the
estimated cost of providing merit increases for the 38
staff within the APFC. She added that merit increases and
new staff were managed on the same line and that there had
been years where APFC had empty positions because it did
not have enough in the line to pay for new staff.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 91 FY2013_Supplementals_Submitted_February_12_2013_Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2013 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 91 FY2013_Supplementals_2-12-2013_Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2013 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 64 FY2014_Capital_Amend_Spreadsheet.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2013 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 65 FY2014_Operating_Amend_Spreadsheet.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 FY2014_Gov_Amend_Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| FY2014_Governor_Amended_Fiscal_Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2013 1:30:00 PM |
Gov Amendments Summary |