Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/11/2015 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB72 || HB73 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 11, 2015
9:02 a.m.
9:02:55 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Pete Ecklund, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman.
SUMMARY
HB 72 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
CSHB 72 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation.
HB 73 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
CSHB 73 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 72
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, 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."
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"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."
Co-Chair Neuman explained the agenda for the meeting.
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 72(FIN), out of
committee with individual recommendations.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
9:04:25 AM
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, introduced
himself and indicated he would be reviewing the new numbers
resulting from the amendments from the previous day. He
advised that he would be reporting in unrestricted general
funds (UGF) because the difference between UGF, revenue,
and expenditures equaled the state's fiscal gap. The net
effect of all of the different amendments adopted was that
the committee added $10,491,000 UGF. The total reduction
from FY 15, the current fiscal year, in agency operations
non-formula programs was $228,972,000 UGF.
When adding the formula programs from the operating budget
including numbers and language, formula, and non-formula
UGF the state was $376,931,000 below the current fiscal
year. He reported that when people thought of state
government they typically thought of agency operations non-
formula programs. There was a 10 percent reduction over all
of the agencies for non-formula programs from the current
fiscal year. He furthered that if the operating bill passed
the full legislature in its current form and if the capital
budget remained at its currently level of $158.7 million,
the pre-transfer change in UGF revenues from the current
fiscal year would equal a reduction in the budget of $560.5
million from the current fiscal year. He added that the
reduction was an accomplishment. The pre-transfer deficit
if revenues stayed as projected would be $3.26 billion.
9:07:29 AM
Representative Gara asked about $10 million UGF that was
mentioned the previous day. There were funds taken out of
the Alaska Higher Education Investment Fund which were in
the general fund (GF). He asked if Mr. Ecklund considered
those funds unrestricted. He also asked if the money was in
addition to the $10 million.
Mr. Ecklund responded the funds were designated general
funds (DGF) rather than UGF.
Representative Gara commented that they were in the general
fund and asked how much was added.
Mr. Ecklund responded $7.7 million.
Representative Gara asked if the two amounts together
totaled about $17 million to $18 million.
Mr. Ecklund responded, "Correct."
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Ecklund if $7 million added to
supplement funds for other education programs was in the
higher education fund. He wondered if it was different than
the GF.
Mr. Ecklund responded affirmatively. He explained that the
higher education fund had been classified as DGF. The fund
was created to provide scholarships and for the Alaska
Performance Scholarship. The money used in the previous day
was for programs associated with the Alaska Performance
Scholarship.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there were specific purposes that
the funds could be used and strict guidelines upholding
their use of which the committee abided.
Mr. Ecklund pointed out that there were no dedicated funds
per Alaska's Constitution. However, the state had
designated funds. The state stayed within the guidelines
regarding the use of DGF.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there was an addition of about
$10.4 UGF.
Mr. Ecklund responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara maintained his objection.
9:10:04 AM
Representative Gara stated he could not support the bill in
its current form. He suggested that there was still a
budget deficit of between $3.5 billion in the governor's
version of the bill and $3.4 billion in the current form of
the bill. Under either version the state would run out of
savings in 2 years. He suggested that it was not the fault
of the committee and that even if every GF funded state
employee was let go the state would still not solve the
budget gap. He furthered that without shutting down state
government and doing away with agencies such as the
Department of Public Safety and most things people rely on
in the state it was impossible to cut $3.5 billion. He
mentioned that both Republicans and Democrats tried to
identify waste and answer why the state was in its current
situation.
Representative Gara was very disappointed that the state
did not except Medicaid expansion. He estimated an extra
savings of $6.6 billion in the budget by accepting the
expansion. He added that it was 4 thousand jobs, healthcare
for people, and reduced premiums for others in order not to
have to pay for uncompensated emergency room care.
Representative Gara stressed his belief in Pre-Kindergarten
(Pre-K) education. It was proven to increase academic
achievement, to improve college graduation rates, and to
decrease the cost of jail. The studies were evidence-based.
The finance committee removed every single state-funded
Pre-K program in the meeting the previous day. He was
unsure how many other states have taken the same action. He
understood that at least 40 other states had statewide Pre-
K programs. He suggested that Alaska barely had state-
pocked Pre-K. A couple of school districts had a Pre-K and
federally funded Head Start Program of which the state had
increased funding twice in the previous 20 years. The
waiting list for Head Start was extensive. He was
disappointed that the committee was unable to pass either
version of the Kindergarten through 12 funding amendments.
The more modest amendment would have reinstated the amount
of money that was passed in the prior year still resulting
in cuts in the Mat-Su, Fairbanks, and in Juneau. He
furthered that by not restoring the amount of money passed
in the previous year there would likely be cuts in
Anchorage. Among the school districts Anchorage was the
best off financially of because of the reserve fund that
was established. He thought that other districts would be
negatively impacted. He supposed it would be another year
of teacher, guidance counselor, or career counselor
reductions. He did not see how to move education forward in
a state that had the lowest graduation rates in the
country.
Representative Gara brought up his disappointment around
missing the opportunity to make the largest strides in
fixing the system for abused and neglected children at no
cost. He claimed the department had done a very good job in
finding available federal funds to replace state spending.
There had been a proposal to use the money to fix the
foster care system curing the state's 40 percent homeless
rate and 24 percent incarceration rate for foster youth. He
opined that these issues could have been fixed for zero
cost to the state and made things much better for the 2400
youth in foster care. He hoped it was a discussion the
committee could have going forward because he knew that
people on the committee cared. He was uncertain how to make
the situation better when a study had been conducted
confirming the need for an addition of 50 staff in order to
provide basic services. Since the study the number of
foster children had increased by about 500. He reiterated
that the finance committee could have taken action the
previous day to help the system at no cost to the state. He
stated that he was willing to work with folks and that he
had been asked to find cost efficiencies. There were
programs started to provide free laptops and discounted
clothing to foster youth. He had also made attempts to
start a free program to provide foster youth with
imagination library books. He reiterated that the state was
responsible for improving the lives of foster children in
its guardianship. He discussed having proposed a number of
reductions including cuts to money appropriated for the
Susitna Damn that was not obligated or needed. It was a
project that would serve the same people that the three gas
line proposals would serve. All 4 projects would provide
excess power. He believed the state did not need 4 sources
of excess power while the state was in a fiscal crisis. He
concluded that the proposed cuts did not move the ball
forward enough leaving the state running out of saving
within 2 years. He was disappointed but hopeful that
members could find a way to work together to solve the
state's problems. He added that he did not want to be a
state without Pre-K.
9:16:45 AM
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that members would only have one
opportunity to make closing remarks.
Representative Gattis indicated that she was in agreement
with Representative Gara about being disappointed. She was
not sure that Alaskans recognized that the state was
jumping off a fiscal cliff. Her constituents had been very
clear that the legislature did not cut enough out of the
budget. In the spirit of compromise items were added back
in that she personally would not have reinstated. However,
in the same spirit she agreed to add items back in. She
stressed the need to show a sense of leadership by
recognizing where the state was at financially. Although
she struggled with adding $10 million back into the budget,
she acted in the spirit of compromise. She hoped both sides
would recognize that the state did not have the money.
9:18:25 AM
Co-Chair Thompson reported that he was a little confused
about Representative Gara's comments in terms of cutting
from the budget and reinstating items in the budget. He was
aware that folks would be suffering from the cuts that had
been made. However, in looking at the following year, the
circumstances would be more difficult. He forewarned
listeners that there would be further reductions. He
commended the committee for the hard work it had done to
minimize devastating consequences for people in the state
and thanked the co-chairman for the many hours he had
dedicated to try to make thoughtful reductions. He opined
that the committee would be working harder than it ever had
over the following summer months digging into program
details to determine what actions to take. He believed the
stage was being set for the following session. He thanked
the finance committee as a whole for its hard work.
9:20:11 AM
Representative Pruitt agreed that the biggest challenge for
the state was a lack of money. He admitted that he was
uncomfortable with moving the bill forward because of the
withdrawal from savings that the state would have to make.
He looked forward to seeing what the Senate would do with
the bill. He hoped it would consider additional cuts to the
budget. He anticipated working with the co-chairs in
further addressing the budget issues over the interim. He
praised the committee for the efforts it had made in a
short period of about 3 weeks. He admitted there were a few
items he had had to compromise on that were added back in.
He recognized his colleagues that had also compromised. He
wanted to remind Alaskans that prior to applying the cuts
that were made it equaled $20 thousand per household. If
committee members did not spend its interim working on the
budget issues the public would be sent into a spiral that
the state had never seen before. He argued that oil would
not save the state in its current circumstances. He
furthered that if oil came back it would be the worst thing
for Alaska, because every time prior oil came and saved the
state it prolonged making the decisions necessary which in
turn resulted in the current situation. He looked forward
to working with his co-chairs and fellow members in the
following interim to make an effort to further cut the
budget and to have deeper discussions about items
untouchable in the past such as education and Medicare. He
did not want $20 thousand to land on the shoulders of every
Alaskan household. He thanked everyone for their efforts.
9:23:33 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler thanked the co-chairs for their guidance
in a thorough and detail-oriented open budget process. He
opined that cutting $225 million from the budget was a
tremendous achievement not to be taken lightly. He thanked
the House Finance Committee staff, the staff of the
Legislative Finance Division, and his personal staff for
their diligent efforts. As a former staffer he was aware
that the legislators either receive the credit or the blame
but could not do the work without their staff. He
emphasized that the state faced significant budget
challenges with less money to spend. The state had
unlimited needs and desires but limited resources. It was
the mission of legislators to make some difficult and
unpleasant decisions but they were responsible decisions in
the face of the budgets challenges. He conveyed that some
people wanted larger reductions while others wanted to add
funding back into the budget. He pointed to the education
advocates looking for more and more money. He stressed that
any budget was a compromise. He suggested that the
operating budget was a complicated document and process.
The bottom line was that a $225 million reduction in non-
formula dollars was a tremendous achievement. There was
also a $377 million reduction in formula and non-formula
dollars. It was a great start but the budget would have to
be significantly reduced. He estimated that the committee
would return with a sharper perspective on the departments
and their budgets after a long, hard-working summer. He did
not believe the deficit was going away. His constituents
that he had heard from wanted additional cuts.
9:25:43 AM
Representative Edgmon commented on the excellent job the
co-chairs had done in shepherding members through a very
difficult process. He admitted it had been the most
difficult process he had experienced over the several years
as a member of the House Finance Committee cutting the
budget in a significant way. The process involved many hard
choices including saving one program while taking money
from another. Value judgements were having to be made in a
very short period of time. He agreed with one of his
colleagues that the budget reductions were long-term in
nature. He thought part of the challenge for legislators
would be to educate the public and to impress upon people
the reality that the state would have to look at other
sources of revenue. He believed it was incumbent upon
committee members as they looked at agency budgets,
scrutinized additional reductions and downsizing, and made
decisions about priorities that they disseminate
information to constituents in the interim. He suggested
that the state might be entering into an entirely new
fiscal regime that no one anticipated 6 to 10 months
previously. He agreed with Representative Pruitt that the
state might be turning a corner where oil would not be
saving the state again, a scary reality in his opinion.
Arguably the cuts that the committee made were very
judicious cuts but at the same time it was the start of
what could be many years of realigning state government
with the fiscal reality that changed so dramatically. He
reflected that in 2008 the state was earning $10 billion to
$11 billion in oil revenue. Currently the state was earning
only $2.1 billion to $2.2 billion in oil revenue yet had a
budget north of $5 billion including reductions. He would
continue to work with his constituents and encouraged his
colleagues to do the same. He closed thanking the committee
and reiterated that it was just a start.
9:28:06 AM
Representative Guttenberg thanked the committee and staff
for their diligent work. He commented that the state budget
would have to return to sustainable levels. He offered that
many people did not truly understand the state's fiscal
situation. He suggested that people outside of the building
did not understand that if the price of oil shot back up it
would not mean the state would be relieved of its current
situation. There was a problem with production levels and
pass-through in the pipeline. He indicated that he had had
an amendment that addressed a $200 million reduction in the
current year's budget, but all it did was move it down the
road. He was concerned with where the burden of the state
would fall and did not feel the issue had been addressed.
There were two sides of the ledger sheet, income and
expenses. He thought that in all other states a finance
committee such as Alaska's would only handle one of the two
functions. In Alaska the committee was responsible for
addressing both. He opined that the committee had only
addressed one side of the ledger. He did not think the
public fully understood the nature of the fiscal gap and
its expansiveness. The gap was so large that even if all
state employees were taken off of the payroll Alaska would
remain in a fiscal crisis with a $3 billion deficit. He
surmised that it would cost the state more by not taking
certain actions. He cited the example of increased
recidivism rates as a result of not being proactive costing
the state additional money. He proposed thinking more about
the nature of the state and its mission. Regardless of the
budget, he thought the legislature had to consider building
the state to be sustainable. He pointed out that the
development of the internet had helped to close the
challenge of distance within Alaska. It was difficult to
provide services, such as educational services, to people
in rural areas off the road system. The internet and
technology have helped greatly in filling the distance gap.
He reiterated the question he asked about how Alaska
defined itself. He did not feel he had enough information
to make appropriate decreases to the budget. He simply
wanted to have a sustained society. He shared his amazement
in coming to Alaska as a young man in 1969 witnessing a
boom cycle similar to a scene in a Wild West show. He hoped
the state was on the cusp of a huge economic development
such as another major oil line. He did not believe the
state was prepared for such a project as he thought it
should be. He mentioned that besides the pipeline itself
the economic, social, and moral impacts to Alaskan
communities needed to be considered.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the budget
remained a living document, subject to change until the
final vote was taken. He relayed that he would have to
return home to discuss the budget with the people in his
community. He would be talking not so much in number terms
but in terms of how the budget affected people's lives. He
conveyed that additional planning and preparation would
have to be done. He suggested that there were some folks
that were always prepared. He wondered if the budget
prepared the state for the future. He did not think it did.
The money that was reduced in the budget did not have much
of an effect on the graphs to show what was needed to fill
the gap. He believed there were some small numbers that
would have made a large difference for many people. He
believed that best thing the state could do was to provide
opportunities to its children. He expressed his concerns
about lost opportunities for kids as a result of certain
cuts from the budget. He remarked that the legislature was
midway through the session and that things could change.
9:37:00 AM
Representative Wilson acknowledged that the meeting felt
like a funeral. However, she looked at the state's
situation as an opportunity for private enterprise to
flourish. Private businesses would have the opportunity to
step into providing services previously provided by the
state. She suggested that the Power Cost Equalization fund
could be used in certain areas to provide more energy in
the form of windmills and dams in order to serve a larger
need. She also mentioned the possibility of using the
higher education funds for other educational opportunities.
She opined that it was never the intent of the state to pay
for everything. She claimed that private businesses were at
the bottom because they could not compete with the
previously large state coffers. At present, the state was
being forced to step back. She reported that most states
contributed 18 percent to their universities because there
were other ways to fund them. She looked forward to working
with the regents examining new models and how to apply
them. She suggested taking some of the state's educational
entities and combining them into an amazing opportunity for
Alaska's students. She was excited about what it might mean
for the state. The state had the opportunity to grow in
areas that it never had a chance to explore. She asserted
that the entrepreneurship in the state would show amazing
things. She agreed that the state was facing somewhat of a
death of the government system but did not believe it was
necessarily bad. She was excited to see what would happen.
She thought of those who came to Alaska, they either hated
it or loved it. Those who hated it left and those who loved
it made it their home. She furthered that people had an
opportunity in Alaska that no other state could offer. She
affirmed that the state was facing hard cuts which she
supposed should have been done much earlier. She added that
the state got into things it never belonged in. She
anticipated seeing a new style of government and avowed it
would be a better state as a result. The state was
essentially letting folks take their dreams, utilize them,
and make the lives for Alaskans better. Government would
not be getting in the way of residents. She thanked
committee members, particularly the chairman, for their
hard work. She reported that she would be out in different
areas around Alaska in the summer to conduct the necessary
work required.
9:41:19 AM
Representative Munoz thanked the co-chairs and gave kudos
to the committee members. She thought some difficult
decisions had been made. When members found that some areas
of the budget had been cut too deeply, the committee was
willing to entertain revisions to the budget. She
appreciated the fair process. She agreed that it would be
an ongoing effort. She was aligned with Representative
Wilson about Alaskans being very resilient. Alaskans would
come together to find solutions and look at doing things in
more innovative ways. She believed it was a time of
opportunity and challenge.
9:42:15 AM
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the committee process.
He thought cuts were substantial including cuts to the
university, the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, programs dealing with seniors, and the youth
courts. He appreciated members coming forward to try to
find funding to support such programs and agencies. He
recognized that it was a tough budget year and he believed
that significant cuts were needed. However, he felt that
the cuts should not be levied against the most vulnerable
people in the state like seniors and children. The
legislature cut things substantially such as early
education that has proved to have a huge return on
investment. He believed the state would pay for that choice
into the future with higher incarceration costs, court
fees, and costs associated with public safety. He added
that there was a significant amount of work to be done. He
found it challenging because his constituents had expressed
their desire to see additional cuts. He thought they would
want to know why the legislature increased the oil and gas
tax credit section by 12 percent in the following year to
$700 million while the pipeline continued to decline. The
legislature was spending a significant amount of money on
things such as oil and gas development. He suggested that
the state had been promised a million barrels of oil. If
the state could get to a million barrels of oil it would
also have a budget that worked. He claimed that under SB 21
[Legislation passed in 2013 Titled: Oil and Gas Production
Tax], even if the price per barrel increased to a certain
point, it did not help at the state's current production
rates. He reiterated that certain cuts had to be made but
not levied on the backs of the most vulnerable Alaskans.
9:44:40 AM
Co-Chair Neuman explained that the House Finance Committee
started the budget process with the fiscal plan proposed by
Governor Walker consisting of an alteration of Governor
Parnell's budget from December 15, 2014. Governor Walker
and his staff, brand new to their jobs, worked diligently
to craft a budget the legislature could work with. The
committee started its budget process with hearings of
department overviews within the first two weeks of session.
He suspected the overview hearings were completed in record
time. The finance subcommittees started meeting within the
first week of February two to three times per week in order
to review the work of each department. The governor
submitted his amended budget three weeks prior to the
subcommittees closing out their budgets. The numbers were
submitted by the body as a whole as a result of the
committee process. The current budget in front of the
committee was the budget submitted by the House of
Representatives including Majority members and Minority
members alike. He posed the question about whether everyone
on the committee was happy with all of the budget numbers.
He suggested that no one was happy with all of the numbers.
Some members would cut more and some would cut less.
However it was a committee process. He affirmed that he
upheld one standard; to make sure to preserve the committee
process.
Co-Chair Neuman reported that there had been discussions
about people being disappointed in the budget and some not.
He announced that the committee had reduced the budget by
$377 million from the prior year in agency operations. In
the previous year the state had faced a $51 million
reduction. He suggested that a 450 percent increase in
reductions was significant. He wondered how the
circumstance came to be. He asked if the legislature had
spent irresponsibly. He believed that circumstances came
about because of a 60 percent reduction in state revenues
in the prior 6 months. Alaska was vulnerable because it did
not diversify its economy having only one major revenue
source making up 90 percent if its economic base. He
stressed the need to work together to diversify the state's
economy developing more of Alaska's resources. Alaska was a
resource development state and it needed to provide
opportunities for private industries to invest their
dollars into Alaska. The state did not have capital
dollars. The state needs to provide opportunities to
private businesses so they invest their dollars. He
reiterated that the current budget deficit was due to the
loss of 60 percent of the state's revenue in 6 months. He
was proud of the work performed by committee members. The
committee heard public testimony and added an additional
day for people to share their comments. Approximately 20
hours of public testimony was heard. The committee received
between 800 and 1000 emails, all of which he had read.
There were over 500 people who had the opportunity to
provide public testimony. The committee listened to
Alaskans across the state and developed a budget that
represented every one of the emails received as testimony.
The committee developed a budget that represented the views
of the public and of legislators in a combined effort. It
was the responsibility of committee members to dig into the
budget to a greater extent than the public. Since the first
day of session everyone had been working on the budget.
9:49:47 AM
Co-Chair Neuman stated that the committee planned to work
throughout the summer. He suggested that finance members
needed to go out to their communities to make sure they
were better informed about the committee's process. He was
dedicated to doing so. He talked about the need to remove
statues that remained on the books that caused agencies to
have larger budgets. He asked the Legislative Finance
Division to review fiscal notes from the previous 10 years.
There was a document that reflected a review of increases
in personnel costs and GF spending. There was a need to
remove repeal laws that resulted in increased costs to
departments. He added that somethings that worked 10 years
prior did not work currently. He stated that there was a
need to look at whether certain laws made fiscal sense in
the current climate, whether they made good business sense
to encourage investment, or whether they made common sense.
These options would help to further reduce the budget. His
office implemented a recidivism reduction group through an
amendment in HB 266 [the operating budget bill from 2014].
The group worked through the summer with many state
organizations to reduce costs within the Department of
Corrections, Department of Public Safety, Department of
Law, Department of Health and Social Services, and the
Alaska Court System. Participants from the agencies and the
legislature all worked together to propose a plan.
Currently the Goose Creek Correctional Facility was at 101
percent occupancy. Prison costs were $158 per day [per
prisoner] to keep people incarcerated. The costs were paid
out of the state's operating budget. The state needed to
reduce the cost to state agencies through a recidivism
reduction plan. The committee supported a partnership with
the Pew Foundation to design a plan with minimal dollars
which he believed would save the state tens of millions of
dollars.
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that much of the budget consisted
of tax credits, the credits were small produces tax credits
totaling about $700 million. The state had anticipated
paying out about $350 million to $400 million in credits,
$250 million more than was expected. The credits would
expire January 1, 2017. In the following year the
legislature would only be dealing with 6 months-worth of
credits. The state also allowed producers to redeem their
credits in within 1 year rather than 2 years. It allowed
the small producers to have additional fluid capital for
reinvesting in the State of Alaska to produce more oil.
Reviewing past oil prices showed that it had dropped to $9
per barrel but production was also at 1.5 million barrels
per day. Currently production was down to .5 million
barrels per day. The difference between $60 oil and $90
dollar oil was minimal in terms of moving the deficit line.
He suggested that the state had to put more oil in the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline. He affirmed that that SB 21 helped
to facilitate more oil by providing additional small
producer credits. He believed that the credits were
successful, although he expected the amount to be less in
the following year.
Co-Chair Neuman reported that Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) along with Common Wealth North
looked at state spending and asserted that the legislature
could reduce current spending over a 3 year period to $5.5
billion in FY 16, $5 billion the following year, and $4.5
billion in the third year. He believed the legislature had
to review the potential cause and effect of any reductions
being considered. The committee brought the operating
budget down to $5.4 billion, $100 million less than what
was recommended by ISER. He talked about the potential
reduction of $300 million to $400 million in tax credits in
the following year. He surmised that the state could be
close to reaching $500 million in reductions in the
following year. He continued that with further reductions
the legislature might be able to reduce the budget to $4.5
billion within 2 years. He relayed that he spent a lot of
time looking at the numbers. He was proud of the work the
committee had done and anticipated more work. The budget
would be moved over to the Senate where he expected more
discussions and further reductions to occur. He asked
members for their support in moving the bill out of
committee.
Representative Gara WITHDREW OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 72(FIN), out of
committee with individual recommendations.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 72(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation.
9:58:10 AM
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 73(FIN), out of
committee with individual recommendations.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara wanted to make sure there were no
changes since the governor's filing. He wanted to know
whether the House Finance Committee had made any changes.
9:59:27 AM
Mr. Ecklund reported that the changes made in the operating
budget to the different mental health programs would be
rolled into the mental health budget. He did not believe
there was anything Representative Gara was not aware of. It
was mentioned earlier in testimony in the previous week by
Ms. Brown that there was one capital project removed from
the bill. It had been standard practice for the Senate to
reinstate the capital project and to remove others that
would be conferencable items.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 73(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation.
Co-Chair Neuman thanked the committee for all of its work.
ADJOURNMENT
10:00:42 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 72 HB 73 Agency Summaries Final.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 72 HB 73 |