Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/24/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB119 || SB120 || SB121 | |
| Fy15 Budget Overview: Legislative Finance Division | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations and other appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds."
SENATE BILL NO. 120
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, and making
reappropriations; making appropriations under art. IX,
sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of Alaska, from
the constitutional budget reserve fund."
SENATE BILL NO. 121
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program."
9:05:26 AM
Co-Chair Kelly discussed the meeting's agenda.
^FY15 Budget Overview: Legislative Finance Division
9:05:51 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, spoke
to a presentation titled "FY15 Budget Overview"(copy on
file). He stated that the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) was statutorily charged with budget review functions,
which included the overview publication that was intended
to get the committee off to good start for the subcommittee
process; the document had been delivered to members'
offices the prior Wednesday. He pointed out that the state
was facing a deficit in the current fiscal year and that it
had one the prior year as well.
Mr. Teal discussed slide 1 titled "Figure 1. December 2013
Revenue Forecast with Projected Expenditures ($ millions)"
and thought that it appeared that the FY15 deficit may be
the first of many deficits that the state would face in the
next 10 years. He stated that the FY14 pre-transfer deficit
was about $2.2 billion, which represented about 45 percent
of the state's unrestricted General Fund revenue; the
state's revenue was about $5 billion. He pointed out that
the $2.2 billion deficit was reduced by transfers. He
stated that the revenue forecast appeared to be slightly
pessimistic so far and that both the price and production
were a little above the projected amounts; he thought that
the forecast might be about $300 million too low. He
related that if you took off the $300 million and assumed
that the deficit at the end of FY14 was about $1.6 billion,
it would still take one-third of the Statutory Budget
Reserve (SBR) Fund to eliminate the deficit.
Mr. Teal stated that for FY15, the governor's fiscal
summary showed a deficit of about $1 billion; however, this
figure was before the legislature added capital projects.
He assumed that the legislature would add capital spending
to the governor's proposal. In addition to the capital
proposals, there would be $700 million to $1 billion of
retirement assistance that the governor proposed to pay for
with the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) Fund rather
than General Funds. He related that not accepting the
governor's proposal in full and using general funds for the
retirement contributions would represent another $700
million. He stated that the governor's budget showed about
a $1 billion deficit; however, if you added $400 million in
capital projects and used $700 million for retirement
assistance, the budget would be back in the neighborhood of
a $2 billion deficit.
9:10:05 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Mr. Teal was referring to the
unfunded liability and the obligation of the state for $700
million. He noted that one of the options the governor had
suggested was doing a $3 billion cash infusion, but
believed that it was not shown in the budget as spending.
He inquired if the $3 billion would be accurately depicted
as spending rather than a fund transfer. Mr. Teal responded
that technically, the governor's presentation was correct
and that the CBR was not considered unrestricted General
Funds but was considered other funds; the governor's budget
showed the $3 billion in the other funds column as an
expense. He added that the governor also showed the $3
billion as a transfer that withdrew from the CBR and that
it appeared be a net zero; however, it was only a net zero
after transfers. He pointed out that LFD tended to look at
the pre-transfer numbers because it was thought that it was
more in line with cash flow. He stated that when trying to
live within your means, cash flow mattered more than the
post transfer numbers that eliminated a deficit by
withdrawing money from a savings account. He thought that
both the pre and post-transfer numbers were useful and had
different purposes. He believed that it was valid to look
at the infusion as $3 billion taken from reserves that the
state expected to spend perhaps for other purposes.
Mr. Teal relayed that the state constitution required that
the CBR was repaid anytime money was drawn from it and that
the second issue was how it would be repaid. He offered
that at some point in the future, the legislature would
have to use General Funds to pay off the liability to the
CBR; in this sense, it was not a General Fund expenditure
currently, but it would be in the future. He pointed out
that the state constitution only stated that the CBR would
be paid, but did not specify when; as a result, 10 or 15
years could go by before it was paid back.
Senator Bishop inquired if the $3 billion, or whatever the
draw was, would at some point in time show up as General
Fund spending. Mr. Teal replied in the affirmative.
Senator Hoffman thought that the prior year, the
legislature had anticipated a draw of from the SBR of $250
million; this amount had to be adjusted and was
substantially higher than $250 million. He inquired if the
draw from the SBR as of June 30 in the current year had
been closer to $500 million. Mr. Teal responded that the
state was currently looking at a draw from SBR of about
$1.9 billion after transfers; the cash-flow deficit was
about $2.2 billion.
Senator Hoffman inquired what the anticipated deficit had
been. Mr. Teal replied that he was unsure of what the
deficit had been projected to be at the end of the last
session, but thought that it was about $1 billion less.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Mr. Teal was referencing the
deficit from the SBR. Mr. Teal responded that they were the
same answer because the deficit would be filled first from
the SBR.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if the anticipated deficit had been
$250 million. Senator Hoffman stated that his point was
that the deficit turned out to be substantially higher than
was anticipated because of lower oil prices and lower
throughput; the state was farther behind than it had
originally anticipated.
9:15:30 AM
Mr. Teal stated that there was a deficit in FY13 of $250
million and that anticipated FY14 deficit was about $1
billion; however, the FY14 deficit would be closer to $2
billion. He referenced slide 1 one of the presentation and
related that similar deficits were projected throughout the
forecast period. He noted that the forecast expenditures
were based on zero growth in agency operations, a flat $800
million per year capital budge, and that the state was
basically looking at a no growth budget with the exception
of retirement assistance. He furthered that the slide was
not reflective of the governor's proposal, but kept the
state where it was with an increasing amount of General
Funds towards retirement assistance. He noted that the
slide's budget stayed relatively flat and went from $6.7
billion to $7 billion by the end of the period. He observed
that the slide's blue line showed revenue going up a little
and then down a little over the same period; he believed
that deficits would be nearly $2 billion and sometimes up
to $2.5 billion over that time period.
Mr. Teal thought that some may wonder how likely it would
be that the legislature would adopt a no-growth budget. He
noted that he was not before the committee to tell it what
to do or the chances of success, but that he could say that
adopting a no-growth budget would be very difficult. He
relayed that it was difficult to reduce budgets, let alone
having a no-growth budget for many years. He reported that
the annual rate of growth in agency operating budgets had
been over 7 percent annually for the last 8 years.
Co-Chair Kelly noted that the prior year's budget was not a
7 percent increase and that there were indicators that it
was the will of the committee to drastically slow down the
rate of growth. Mr. Teal responded that the FY14 growth had
been quite a bit lower than the previous year and that the
governor's FY15 proposal was almost a no growth budget.
Co-Chair Kelly clarified that he did not want to criticize
the legislators that came before him for the expanded
budgets and that he did not know that he would not have
been in the exact same boat.
Mr. Teal pointed out that the former members may have had
big budgets, but that they also saved a "pile" of money and
had they not set aside $15 billion, the current situation
would be much worse than it was.
9:19:27 AM
Mr. Teal addressed slide 2 titled "Figure 2. Budget
Reserves (CBR and SBR) under the December 2013 Revenue
Forecast and Indicated Expenditure Assumptions($millions)"
and stated that he could depict what would happen if the
revenue forecast was correct and if a no growth budget with
the exception of retirement costs was achieved; he offered
that it was not a pretty sight. He asserted that even if
the state constrained budget growth, reserves of about $15
billion would disappear by 2024; at this time, the state
would be in for a hard landing because without reserves, it
would have to cut $2.5 billion from its budget in a single
year or borrow the funds in order to make it through. He
reported that there were several options available for
reaching a sustainable budget or achieving a softer
landing. He stated that the options included broad-based
taxes such as income and sales tax, as well as eliminating
the Permanent Fund Dividends; both of these options had
proven to be unpopular in the past with both legislators
and citizens. He stated that capital budget reductions were
also a possibility for achieving a sustainable budget and
pointed out that the state had always viewed the capital
budget as the "shock absorber" for the budget. He pointed
out that capital budgets may be high currently, but that
they would drop drastically when the revenues shrank;
however, while this was true, recent budgets had contained
many phased projects. As a result of the phased projects,
the flexibility of reducing the capital budget like in past
was no longer there, assuming that the legislature wanted
to continue fund those types of projects.
Mr. Teal alluded that no one wanted to pull the plug on the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, the Knik Arm Bridge
and Toll Authority, Fairbanks natural gas, or the instate
gasline; however, if spending was not reduced on those
capital projects, capital budgets would be very difficult
to reduce. He offered that one of the state's toughest
decisions would be deciding whether it could afford all of
the major and smaller capital projects and whether it would
have to reduce capital spending and in some cases, take
back money that had been appropriated for some of the big
projects; he added that this was a decision that the
committee would have to make.
Mr. Teal stated that a third option was to review agency
budgets and reported that LFD had prepared look-back graphs
the last several years. He relayed that the purpose of
these graphs were to clearly show what programs and
allocations had increased, while at the same time looking
at what value the state had received for that money. He
reported that the look-back graphs were also prepared to
allow the legislature to look at where the spending
occurred so that it could be unwound if necessary. He
related that reducing the budget was not an easy task any
way you looked at it, particularly when over 60 percent of
revenue was spent on the 3 cost drivers of Medicaid, pre-K
through 12 education, and retirement assistance; he thought
that given the revenue forecast, these 3 items tended to be
almost the entire revenue stream if they were allowed to
continue growing the way they had in the past.
9:24:41 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that the 3 items in reference had
grown rather quickly and thought that a graph had showed
that the 3 main drivers would eat 99 percent of the
operating budget by a certain year; he inquired what year
that was. Mr. Teal responded that it was 2024, but that it
was more important to look at the trend rather than what
year or the number on the top of the graph. He stated that
revenue was going down and the expenditures on the 3 main
drivers were going up.
Co-Chair Kelly recalled giving a presentation in 1998 to a
class at the university. He remembered that PERS and TERS
and was not an issue at the time, but that the state had
been dealing with education and Medicaid. He thought that
at the time, Medicaid had been expanding by sometimes $120
million per year and that it was only a matter of years
before that driver ate the budget; as a result, he
understood what Mr. Teal was trying to portray.
Senator Dunleavy inquired if Mr. Teal had looked at Scott
Goldsmith's work with the Institute of Social and Economic
Research. Mr. Teal responded in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy inquired how closely Mr. Teal's
assumptions paralleled Mr. Goldsmith's. Mr. Teal replied
that they paralleled fairly closely. He noted that Mr.
Goldsmith was looking at attaining a sustainable budget and
thought that Mr. Goldsmith's approach was to convert oil
reserves to some sort of cash flow; he thought that
approach was interesting, but that he did not think of the
issue quite so long term. He opined that 10 years out was a
long time and thought that simply trying to keep in line
with revenue over those 10 years would be hard enough.
Senator Dunleavy inquired if Mr. Teal's assumed structural
deficits paralleled closely to Mr. Goldsmith's. Mr. Teal
responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the state was better off not
doing the $3 billion cash infusion from the CBR that the
governor was suggesting; he further inquired if it would
make the CBR last longer if the $3 billion was left alone.
Mr. Teal responded that any plan to take money from
reserves would reduce future state assistance and that the
governor's plan was to reduce the assistance to $500
million per year. He spoke to slide 2 and related that you
could see a constant, rapid drop and that the money ran out
in FY23. He explained that if one took the $3 billion and
put it into retirement, the future retirement expenditures
would be dropped to $500 million per year. He continued
that if the $3 billion infusion were enacted in the model
on slide 2, the slope of the graph for reserves was a
little lower than it used to be because there were lower
deficits in future years; however, there was a $3 billion
drop and therefore, the cash infusion would not extend the
life of the reserves.
9:28:56 AM
Senator Hoffman directed the committee's attention to slide
2 and questioned what Mr. Teal was assuming would be
capital spending on the out years. Mr. Teal responded that
the assumption was $800 million per year, but noted that it
was merely an assumption. He input a $600 million capital
budget and the governor's proposal into the chart to
demonstrate what it would look like for the committee; he
noted that it did extend the life of the reserves. He
stated that there were other options regarding retirement
and that one that he had discussed with the chairmen was a
more "pay as you go" kind of approach; adopting this idea
just for PERS would represent another change. He relayed
that there were options and that he did not think it was
that gloomy. He added that he was fairly optimistic because
he believed the revenue forecast was slightly pessimistic.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if Mr. Teal could plug in a $50
million per year reduction to the operating budget into the
chart on slide 2 to see what that would look like. Mr. Teal
input the figures and noted that the change that he was
showing was actually a 2 percent reduction per year; it
made the scenario much better, but was actually represented
a reduction of $75 million to $80 million per year. He
showed the committee what a 1 percent reduction per year
would look like and stated that in this scenario the
state's reserves would still be going down, but would
probably extend until the early 30s [2030s]. He thought
that the operating budget was critical and that it was the
growth in the operating budget that had put the state at
its current budget levels; reducing the operating budget by
even $50 million per year would leave the state much better
off in the future.
Mr. Teal stated that he did not look at the chart on slide
2 and think that there was an inevitable crash in 2023. He
shared that in 1998 and other years, the legislature and
the governor had stepped up and held back budgets. He
offered that some could say that oil prices had bailed the
state out, but opined that it had not been just the price
of oil; expenditures had been restrained when they needed
to be restrained.
9:33:48 AM
Mr. Teal continued to address slide 2 and stated that it
was focused more on the future than on the FY15 budget
itself. He noted that Ms. Rehfeld had been to the committee
and discussed the FY15 budget. He stated that he had no
quarrels or differences with Ms. Rehfeld's presentation,
but noted that she was trying to outline the governor's
policy. He did not have much to say regarding the
governor's policy and plans, and related that his
presentation was more technically oriented. He thought that
you could not make good FY15 decisions without looking
ahead; furthermore, regardless of what the committee chose
to do, LFD would be ready to assist with getting through
the FY15 budget or taking a longer-term view of state
revenues and expenditures. He noted that most of his
presentation was taken straight from the overview, which
could be found in the copy room and on the web. He stated
that the overview had the fiscal summary, a review of the
language sections, and a write-up for each of the agencies
for subcommittee work.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if members had larger questions
about the budget for Mr. Teal to address.
Senator Dunleavy observed that the committee could shift
priorities around within the operating budget. He stated
that putting more money into education was fine, as long as
other areas within the operating budget were reduced and
the overall number was not exceeded. Mr. Teal replied that
if the state wanted to hold the line and spent more money
in one area, it would need to spend less on other things.
9:36:02 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough thought that the conversation was
intellectual and wondered if there needed to be criteria
set as budgets were looked at. She pointed out that Alaska
had many years of oil providing its revenue and thought
that looking too far out in the future might result in the
state not making the best decisions with the dollars that
it had today. She wondered what the state was doing to
analyze every dollar that it invested and stated that there
was no magic bullet. She recalled serving on a fiscal
policy subcommittee and stated that it had documented every
project that it could find that was out there in order to
review any options that Mr. Teal had provided; she offered
than none of those options were palatable to Alaskans. She
opined that Alaskans wanted the state to protect the
permanent fund and did not, in her opinion, support a
state-income tax by a margin of 50 percent plus 1;
furthermore, Alaskans did not support a sales tax on top of
other municipal taxes. She opined that given the options
that Alaskans were opposed to, there was very little
opportunity except to examine the reserves and invest them
in a way that had a greater rate of return in order to
start digging the state out of the hole it was in.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that the following Tuesday, the
committee would start talking about investment
opportunities and noted that an issue was whether Alaskans
should invest in a natural gas pipeline; it was yet to be
determined if this was a good move for Alaska. She thought
that if the committee took the gas pipeline under
advisement, it would be an opportunity to invest where the
state might see a greater rate of return on a longer
horizon like a 20-year commitment. She noted for those who
might be afraid of a 20-year commitment that if the Alaska
was in the project as a partner with a company that would
see profits over the 20 years, the state would receive that
profit too and its dollars would be generated twice; the
state's dollar would generate in its ownership interest, as
well as revenue to shareholders.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if there was something that
the state was not considering in the financial markets, if
the committee or LFD was reviewing opportunities regarding
what the Department of Revenue (DOR) was doing in the
state's subaccounts, if there was another way to use the
dollars that were in front of the committee to dig quicker
on behalf of Alaska, and what kinds of financial resources
needed to be utilized to look at every dollar the state was
investing. She thought maybe the committee should look at
the formula driven areas to see if it was getting the
investment return from a financial perspective. She spoke
about education and related that the state was getting a
big bang for its buck in trying to reach all students and
provide them with the best opportunities. She stated that
the committee would "shift in forward", that it needed to
go "faster than 25 miles an hour, but we don't need to
break the speed limit."
Vice-Chair Fairclough opined that if the state was running
just to stay away from the fiscal cliff in 2024, it would
not be making the best decisions. She recalled watching the
state go up and down with the price of oil and oil
production. She wondered if the state's horizon should be 1
year, which she thought was a mistake, or if 10 years was
the right timeframe. She expressed concern that looking at
2024 and the fiscal cliff was not making her think
positively about what the best decision for Alaska was
currently. She supported holding the line, but wondered
what the committee could do in its jurisdiction to help
guide Alaska in making good, prudent decisions and inquired
what the committee's strategic plan was.
9:41:23 AM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that when looking at the horizons,
the price of oil versus production, and other factors that
the state rose and fell on, he came to the conclusion that
regardless of the price or production a $6 billion
operating budget was not justified. He didn't think that a
$6 billion operating budget was survivable under any
scenario. He recalled speaking with DOR and relayed that
they had been very optimistic regarding the dollars that
would come to the state treasury from a gasline, although
it had been the mantra for years that a gasline would not
provide much in revenue.
Vice-Chair Fairclough interjected that ownership in a
gasline would provide good revenue. Co-Chair Kelly agreed.
Co-Chair Kelly offered that even with ownership in a
gasline, the state would not survive a $6 billion operating
budget that was growing in addition to other unknowns. He
opined that the state was probably in for some down times
on its returns on investments due to market factors. He
thought that capital budgets, investments, and other things
were all necessary for the committee to look at the future,
but that those were revenue areas; whereas, mostly the
committee members, "for now" were facing expenses that
needed to be addressed. He added that his comments were not
meant to disagree with anything that Vice-Chair Fairclough
had said, but that her comments had made him think about
the issue further.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that Scott Goldsmith had stated
that an operating budget level of 5.5 [billion dollars] was
a sustainable number and wondered how long the state would
have to hold that level if it was achieved.
Co-Chair Kelly corrected that the 5.5 [billion dollars] was
in reference to the total capital and operating budgets and
was not just the operating budget.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that regardless of what the
number was, her point was the time value of money and how
long it would be before that number started going up. She
inquired if the state would have to hold the 5.5 [billion
dollars] for 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or forever. She
noted that Mr. Goldsmith was basing his assumptions purely
on the revenues that were in the ground and the assets that
were there under current assumptions. She inquired how
Alaska could change the dynamics and if there were any
levers within "that" proposal that would allow the state to
do something different.
Vice-Chair Fairclough provided an example that in the past,
there had been a proposed $2000 charge for out-of-state
fishermen who wanted to harvest a king salmon in Alaska;
she clarified for the record that she was not suggesting
using this example and observed that it was extreme. She
offered that the calculation might have been based off the
current king salmon tags that were taken. She concluded
that the state did have options and expressed a desire to
solve the problem. Mr. Teal stated that the number was
roughly $5.5 billion per year, which he had achieved in his
the model by assuming zero growth and a zero capital
budget; however, it did not matter because spending was the
same whether it was capital or operating. He noted that the
point was that the total spending was about $5.5 billion
per year; furthermore, if you looked at what this did to
the reserves on slide 2, the problem went away. He
concluded that his model, which just examined revenues and
expenditures year-by-year, reached very similar conclusions
to Mr. Goldsmith's longer-term view of the world.
Mr. Teal addressed earlier comments about possible
investment opportunities for the state and thought that the
discussions were extremely valuable; however, he suggested
that the committee should consider that it did not have
much time for those discussions. He pointed out that the
longer the delay and the closer Alaska got to that fiscal
cliff, the fewer options there would be. He reported that
Alaska currently had billions of dollars to invest, but
that as money was spent and deficits continued, the
reserves would get lower and lower; as result, Alaska would
not have the same investment capital available.
Mr. Teal addressed Vice-Chair Fairclough's earlier comments
regarding needing to move faster and agreed with them. He
stated that now was the time for the discussions because if
they were started in 2022, the options would no longer be
available.
9:48:15 AM
Senator Hoffman thought that when looking at the drawdown
of CBR and SBR, people needed to realize that the state did
not have a balanced budget without reserves; he opined that
that the average Alaskan did not realize this and that it
was a problem. He offered that the vote on SB 21 the prior
year had been meant to flatten out the oil decline and turn
it around; furthermore, he and everyone else were unsure
when it would turn around or flatten out. He opined that SB
21 had been one of the solutions the prior year and that in
the current year, the state was looking at indefinite
deficit spending unless something happened; he reiterated
that average Alaskan did not realize this.
Co-Chair Kelly thought that Senator Hoffman raised a good
point.
Vice-Chair Fairclough responded to comments by Senator
Hoffman. She noted that the issue was confusing because
Alaska had a changing tax regime and that the "number"
looked very similar to the state's deficit. She offered
that the production and price of oil were "driving almost
all of this"; furthermore, the production had fallen, but
the price had risen. She stated that when looking at the
global market, it appeared as though unless there was a war
or some other event, that oil prices may go down as America
became more energy independent and that Alaska's gas may be
less or more valuable if it could be brought to a spot
market and shipped. She offered that Alaska had to have a
healthy industry and related that it was disheartening to
hear SB 21 tied to "this"; she acknowledged that SB 21 was
part of "it," but that the bill was also part of the
solution as well. She noted that the committee had asked
its finance people to be conservative and that it wanted to
have budget numbers that exceeded projection versus the
other way around where the state did not have the money.
She stated that she did not mind being on the other side of
the conversation on SB 21 and discussing it, but believed
that currently, at a price of $105 per barrel of oil, the
state was performing better; furthermore, it was
anticipated that these numbers would stay the same.
Vice-Chair Fairclough continued to address earlier comments
by Senator Hoffman and noted that the committee could do
the comparison and discuss SB 21, but believed that the
only way that ACES could perform better was in the
progressivity portion if oil prices spiked.
Senator Hoffman shared that his point was that the average
Alaskan did not realize that in the future, the committee
did not foresee a balanced budget without reserves;
furthermore, unless things changed, someday the state would
have no reserves.
Co-Chair Kelly observed that there were disturbing reports
that the Chinese economy might tank, which could drive the
price of oil down dramatically if it happened.
9:52:45 AM
Senator Bishop noted that depending on the modeling, the
state could be out of funding at some point in the future.
He pointed out that the Alaska was focused on oil and gas
and wondered how the state would capitalize and spend its
capital dollars on projects going forward.
Senator Bishop observed that mining was not being discussed
much in relation to the budget issues, but thought that the
industry had added the most jobs in Alaska in the last
several years. He pointed out that Alaska was a resource-
rich state that was 50 years behind the rest of the world
on discoveries. He thought that mining would be a huge
opportunity going forward for Alaska's economy and was a
real bright spot. He stated that there were positives going
forward and that mining ought to be a central driver. He
believed that the state should be focused on projects that
would add revenue to the state treasury going forward.
Co-Chair Kelly noted that one of the problems that the
state always had was that increasing economic development
did not always do things for the treasury because Alaska
did not have the structures in place, such as taxes or fees
that provided significant revenue to the state. He thought
that tobacco provided the second highest amount of money to
the state treasury, which in his opinion was pretty "zany."
9:55:24 AM
Co-Chair Kelly discussed the following meeting's agenda.
SB 119 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 120 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 120 012414 LFD Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 1/24/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 120 |