Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/23/2016 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| Governor's Fy 17 Operating Budget Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 23, 2016
9:12 a.m.
9:12:47 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Kelly called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
David Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division; Lacey
Sanders, Legislative Analyst, Legislative Finance Division.
SUMMARY
FY 17 AMENDMENTS
9:13:10 AM
Co-Chair Kelly informed that the committee had asked the
Director of Legislative Finance to present the operating
budget amendments. He suggested that the members ask
questions as they came up.
^GOVERNOR'S FY 17 OPERATING BUDGET AMENDMENTS
9:13:42 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, stated
that he and other Legislative Finance Division (LFD) staff
would review the amendments. He clarified that he would be
taking a technical approach rather than defending the
amendments from a policy perspective as the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) might. He stated that he would
introduce the amendments and discuss what effect they would
have.
Co-Chair Kelly assured Mr. Teal that his proposed method
was the desire of the committee.
Mr. Teal described that there were three categories of
amendments: amendments spreading the unallocated
reductions, the numbers section amendments, and language
amendments. He specified that the numbers section
amendments, typically known as Section 1, would go to
subcommittees for review; while the language amendments
were not usually assigned to subcommittees for review.
Mr. Teal directed attention to a two-page summary from the
LFD budget system, entitled "2016 Legislature - Operating
Budget; Agency Summary - House Structure" (copy on file).
He noted that the document was a standard agency summary
report, and reflected all three of the aforementioned
amendment categories. He summarized that agency reductions
totaled just over $950,000. There was a large statewide
reduction of $6.5 million, due to the decision to back off
on pension obligation bonds and pay only the actuarial
recommendations. He added that he and LFD staff would
discuss each topic individually as they were reviewing the
transactions.
Co-Chair Kelly asked about the statewide reduction.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the reduction pertained
to pension obligation bonds.
Mr. Teal pointed out a category at the bottom of page 1,
"Statewide Items," which showed a reduction in Debt Service
of $218 million, as well as an increase in State Assistance
to Retirement in the same category. He continued that both
of the changes were related to the decision not to issue
pension obligation bonds, and to simply pay the actuarial
recommendations for state assistance to retirement.
Mr. Teal directed attention the document "Distribution of
FY 17 Governor's Unallocated Reductions (UGF Only)" (copy
on file). He highlighted the yellow column, "Remaining
Unallocated Reduction not Distributed in GovAmend," which
signified if an agency had assigned the unallocated
reductions. He continued that a hyphen listed in the column
indicated that the agency distributed the unallocated
reductions within the agency at net zero. He noted that
there were some agencies with remaining unallocated
reductions. He used the example of the Department of
Administration (DOA), which had a $957,000 unallocated
reduction; $506,000 of which they had allocated, leaving
$450,000 unallocated. He reported that there were no
additional cuts taken. He suggested that the committee
could either direct the subcommittees to take the advice of
OMB (that no additional cuts could be found); or could
direct the subcommittees to find cuts somewhere for the
$450,000 unallocated reduction remaining in DOA.
9:18:20 AM
Mr. Teal thought there might be some confusion regarding
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which ended up
with some unallocated cuts as well as taking a large
reduction in the North Slope Gas Commercialization Office.
He explained that if the amount was counted as an
unallocated reduction, then DNR may have actually reduced
more statewide than the unallocated reduction. He thought
it could be argued that the reduction was merely a
reduction in the budget request, which was very different
than taking a cut to the existing budget. He repeated that
the choice was up to the committee to accept what OMB had
done, or take more cuts in subcommittee.
Senator Hoffman asked if Mr. Teal was aware of how each
department used the vacancy factor as a method to address
unallocated reductions.
LACEY SANDERS, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE
DIVISION, stated that the method varied from agency to
agency, and thought the Department of Law (DOL) had
increased their vacancy rate. She continued that some
agencies, such as the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs, had allocated their unallocated distribution by
taking a mandatory 9-day furlough for exempt positions.
Other agencies had taken other reductions, such as deleting
positions that had general funds (GF) associated with them.
She offered to provide the committee with a report
specifically on the transactions in question.
Senator Hoffman expressed a desire to see such a report.
Mr. Teal informed that the committee was provided with two
additional documents; including an 18-page report entitled
"2016 Legislature - Operating Budget; Transaction Detail -
House Structure" (copy on file), which included notes
incorporated into the OMB transactions. He shared that the
transaction notes rendered the report lengthy and hard to
follow. The second document was an Excel summary sheet that
detailed the transactions, and included some notes from LFD
(in the far right column). He thought the spreadsheet would
be much easier to follow; and shared that Ms. Sanders would
review the document, entitled "FY17 Governor's Amendments
(Excludes transactions distributing the unallocated
reductions)" (copy on file).
Ms. Sanders clarified that the report and spreadsheet
included all of the remaining transactions outside of the
distribution for the unallocated reductions.
9:22:00 AM
Mr. Teal explained that the unallocated reduction
transactions (100 or more) were complex and would also be
seen in subcommittee. He clarified that the single page
sheet indicated that most agencies summed to zero, or
allocated the unallocated reductions as expected. There
were a few that did not. He thought that to walk through
all of the transactions would be a burdensome level of
detail.
Co-Chair Kelly expressed understanding.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked how the committee might reconcile
the $2.638 million remaining unallocated reduction that it
had counted on. He wondered if Mr. Teal had any suggestions
as to how to apply the reduction elsewhere.
Mr. Teal recommended that the committee do whatever they
choose. He continued that the House Finance Subcommittees
had been varied in their response. Some subcommittees had
not looked for additional cuts, other had taken some or all
of the unallocated reductions and made further reductions.
He reiterated that the decisions were up to the committee,
and LFD was simply providing the information that $2.6
million of the transactions expected to be allocated to
specific locations in the budget had not been allocated.
Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke to her experience on the Finance
Committees and asked Mr. Teal if it was typical of an
administration to provide a budget to a legislative body
with massive unallocated cuts.
Mr. Teal stated that the previous year had been somewhat
similar, and shared that LFDs response to the matter had
been that unallocated reductions should rarely be used. He
furthered that if unallocated reductions were used, it was
a legislative prerogative. He suggested that the governor
should not submit unallocated reductions, and that her or
his job in submitting the budget was to inform where
reductions were taken. He thought that at the current point
in the budget process, LFD would not expect to see
unallocated reductions. Rather, LFD expected to see
unallocated reductions taken only if the legislature was
unable to find (after working with agencies) an exact area
to cut.
9:26:17 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for an example of the unallocated
cuts from the previous year.
Ms. Sanders recalled that the previous session, the
salaries for FY 16 were included in the budget as a one-
time item. She continued that there had been a direction to
remove the item in 2017. The governor's budget had
reflected the salaries as being removed; while at the same
time added an increment back for an equivalent amount in
each area of the budget, for a net zero. Additionally, an
unallocated reduction equivalent to the incremental amounts
in the governor's submission. The finance committees'
direction had been that they did not want to see the
unallocated reductions, because it was difficult to make
further reductions without knowing where the cuts were
coming from. She explained that the governor's amended
budget had then spread the unallocated reduction, which she
described as a trickle-down effect.
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that the administration had
entered the budget process with unallocated cuts of a large
magnitude that she had never observed before. She wondered
if there had been a previous administration that proposed
such massive unallocated cuts in a budget delivered to a
legislative body. She acknowledged that the legislature
used unallocated cuts at the end of the budget process if
it could not reach consensus.
Co-Chair Kelly followed up to ask if Mr. Teal could
distinguish that the governor's budget the previous year
was that of the former governor. He wanted to clarify that
if LFD was answering questions about unallocated reductions
the current administration may have provided, it would have
been through the amendment process.
Mr. Teal concurred with Co-Chair Kelly. He stated that the
current budget was the first time he had seen a governor
submit a new budget with unallocated reductions. He
continued that there had been unallocated reductions the
previous year.
Senator Olson remarked on the length of Mr. Teal's
employment with LFD. He referred to the Knowles
administration, during a time when there was deficit
spending and a Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) draw-
down that was negative. He thought that former Governor
Knowles had also had unallocated reductions.
Mr. Teal could not recall if there had been unallocated
reductions, and stated that LFD generally examined the end
product of the budget process. He thought it was entirely
possible that at some point previously a governor had
submitted unallocated reductions in the budget proposal
that came to the legislature on December 15, but it would
not have been a common occurrence.
9:30:35 AM
Senator Olson emphasized the importance of addressing the
situation.
Mr. Teal reiterated that it was up to the committee as to
how to address the unallocated reductions. He suggested
that the governor may not have done what the legislature
expected, to allocate the full $16 million of his share of
the unallocated cut.
Ms. Sanders reviewed the document "FY 17 Governor's
Amendments - (Excludes transactions distributing the
unallocated reductions)" (copy on file). She addressed Item
2, a $750,000 request of GF program receipts by DOA. The
department planned to contract with a fee collection agency
to collect accounts receivable from multiple departments.
The department stated that if 5 percent of the current
receivables portfolio of approximately $500 million was
collected, the state would receive about $25 million. She
read a transaction note that inquired if there would be an
offsetting decrement if the service was no longer being
paid for by the department internally.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 3 and Item 4 for DOA; which were
for a statewide single audit, and included a request for
$1.4 million of GF. Item 3 included a request for $932.1
thousand for multi-year funding for increased workload
resulting from the new IRIS accounting system. Item 4 was a
request of $450,000 in Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) to
pay for the Legislative Audit Division to provide services
to LFD. She detailed that cost was increasing from the
existing amount of $300,000 to $750,000.
9:34:08 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked why there was $932,000 on line 3,
when Ms. Sanders had mentioned a request or $1.4 million.
Ms. Sanders explained that she had combined Item 3 and Item
4, for a total of $1.4 million.
Senator Hoffman asked if there was a breakdown of the
outsourcing of the single audit listed on line 3.
Ms. Sanders did not have the information at hand but agreed
to follow up with DOA and OMB to provide him with the data.
Senator Hoffman asked if there was justification for
requesting FY 18 funds the current year when the funds
should be considered for the next legislative session.
Ms. Sanders agreed to look into the matter.
Mr. Teal pointed out that the presentation was a "rough
review" of the governor's amendments, and LFD had not
finished an analysis and still had unanswered questions. He
urged the committee members to ask for detail as Senator
Hoffman had. He thought it would be helpful if the members
indicated specific areas of interest so that LFD could find
answers.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 5, for the Office of Tourism
Marketing and Development in the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED). In the FY 17
governor's budget, the tourism marketing program would have
continued under the department's purview. The amendment
transferred the funds to the grant line, as well as reduced
the receipt authority for statutory designated program
receipts. She furthered that the department was moving back
to a grant to a named recipient, through the Alaska Travel
Industry Association (ATIA). The receipts that were
collected for the visitor's brochure and the booths that
were run would be collected directly by ATIA in the future.
Mr. Teal summarized that DCCED was turning over the tourism
marketing activities to the private sector.
Co-Chair Kelly thought the amendment would restore the
funding arrangement to how it was done in the past.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 6, within DCCED. She explained
that with declining energy costs, the governor's office
submitted a decrement eliminating the entire statewide
project development and alternative energy and efficiency
allocation within the budget. She noted that the
spreadsheet listed all the fund sources that were included.
She relayed LFD's concern (brought to its attention by the
department) was the renewable energy funding that was being
eliminated. She detailed that there were approximately 133
outstanding grants under the Renewable Energy Grant Fund,
and the reduction decremented the grant funding that was
managing the grants.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 7 and Item 8 from the budget of
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED).
The items would add back a total of $2.8 million for Pre-K
grants, the Parents as Teachers Program, and the Best
Beginnings Program.
9:38:32 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked about the fund source in Item 6
listed as "Ren Energy."
Ms. Sanders explained that the Renewable Energy item was
the funding that was managing the 133 outstanding grants.
The funding came directly from the Renewable Energy Fund,
and was a Designated General Fund (DGF) fund source.
Mr. Teal clarified that the issue was that the department
had eliminated their grant monitoring capability,
presumably on the grounds that it would be issuing no new
grants; however there was still 133 grants outstanding that
needed monitoring. He continued that some, or perhaps all,
of the $2 million was something that the department would
be asking to be returned in the budget process. He was not
sure if the matter would come up in subcommittee or would
be a governor's amendment. He presumed that if the
department was going to continue to monitor the outstanding
grants, it would need the funds to do so.
Senator Olson asked about the total of the 133 grants.
Ms. Sanders stated that she could acquire the information
from the Alaska Energy Authority.
Senator Olson asked if the amount was roughly under $2
million.
Ms. Sanders clarified that the outstanding grants were
previous grants that had been appropriated in prior years.
Senator Bishop thought he understood that Mr. Teal was
communicating that there was outstanding grants and it was
important to ascertain if the money was being spent
appropriately, which included expending the $2 million to
do so.
Mr. Teal reiterated that LFD had not finished a thorough
review of the governor's amendments. He opined that it did
not take $2 million to monitor outstanding grants, and
considered that some of the funds may be for other
purposes. He articulated that LFD had not assessed the
details yet and could not provide an amount solely for the
grant monitoring activity.
Ms. Sanders discussed item 9, a $100,000 request in federal
receipts for DEED to digitize newspapers. The funding would
pay for one non-permanent position for the duration of the
project.
Senator Hoffman asked if the digitization was a new or
ongoing program.
Ms. Sanders understood that the project was through a new
grant that DEED was receiving funding for. She added that
the information she received did not have an accompanying
timeline, and LFD was uncertain how long the program would
go.
9:41:59 AM
Ms. Sanders turned to page 2 of the document, and addressed
Item 10. The Office of the Governor requested $29,000 of
statutory designated program receipts to receive a grant
from the Pew Charitable Trust. The grant funding would
allow the Division of Elections to participate in a data
sharing agreement. The grant would pay for 50 percent of
the initial mailing to unregistered voters; and the
remaining 50 percent of funding would come from the Help
America Vote Act funding, which was currently in a capital
project.
Ms. Sanders discussed Item 11, in the Department of Law
(DOL), which would reinstate a decrement that was made in
the governor's FY 17 budget and restore the department's
Dillingham office. After further consideration, the
governor's office had decided to restore the cut that was
submitted, and maintain the current level of funding. The
funding would support one attorney and one support staff.
Ms. Sanders discussed Item 12 in DOL, a request for $50,000
in tobacco cessation education funding as a one-time item.
Due to a multi-state arbitration with tobacco companies, it
was expected that the department would need the funding
beginning in FY 16 and would extend into FY 17. She
detailed that the funding would pay for attorney time,
travel costs, arbitration proceedings, and potential expert
witnesses.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the settlement funds were
originally intended for K-12 education, or if the funds
were intended for general public tobacco cessation
education.
Mr. Teal indicated the latter.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 13, which provided a technical
correction for DOL. The governor's budget had originally
submitted a transaction for $18.5 million in interagency
receipts for Alaska's Liquefied Natural Gas Project
(AKLNG). She continued that because DNR had UGF funding
under fund code 1241 (AKLNG), the money had to be reflected
in DOL's budget as interagency receipts. Money that came
directly from the AKLNG Fund had a different fund code. The
fund code correction was order to avoid duplication in
counting the funds.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 14 for DOL, which was related to
the previous item. The amendment requested a reduction of
interagency receipt authority for AKLNG by $1 million, for
a remaining total of $17.5 million.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 15, for the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA). The item would delete
a division operations manager, which was a vacant position
in the Air Guard Facilities Maintenance Division. She
understood that the position was a middle management
position that operated under a director.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 16, also for DMVA, which would
delete 16 vacant unfilled positions in the Alaska Military
Youth Academy. The authority that went with the positions
was uncollectable receipt authority. She explained that the
academy had received funding from DEED until two years
previously, after which it received GF directly rather than
passing through the department. The amendment would
eliminate the excess receipt authority the academy had
retained since the funding change.
9:46:30 AM
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 17 and Item 18, which would both
delete vacant positions for the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation (AAC) in DMVA. She noted that there was
language in the operating budget bill that allowed AAC to
receive and expend additional receipts if it entered a
contract in which additional positions were needed. The
corporation would have the ability to work with the
governor's office to get the positions established.
Senator Hoffman asked if the AAC would have to go to the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBA) to get
additional positions established, or if the budget language
did not require it.
Ms. Sanders clarified that the language in the budget
allowed AAC to receive and expend the receipts without
going to LBA.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 19 for DNR, which was a summary
of a very large detailed transaction that was in the
members packets of information. The item would reduce
funding for the AKLNG project by $7 million in UGF. The
reduction had to do with timing issues on the AKLNG
project.
Ms. Sanders addressed Item 20 on page 3, which was a
request by the Department of Revenue (DOR) for $50,000 of
UGF in one-time funding due to cash logistics for
anticipated marijuana tax. She addressed Item 21, also for
DOR, which proposed to add a position to the Mental Health
Trust Authority and $150,000 in administration receipts for
data analysis and policy planning. She relayed that Mr.
Teal would address the statewide items on the remainder of
the document.
Mr. Teal addressed Item 23 through Item 30. He summarized
that the administration had made a decision not to issue
pension obligation bonds. He furthered that the decision
would reduce anticipated debt service cost, and Items 23
and 24 reflected resultant large negative numbers. He
explained that if the legislature was no longer depositing
money from the bond proceeds, it would need to go back to
the original actuarial recommendations for state assistance
to retirement; which was approximately $99 million for the
Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), and $116 for
the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). He specified that
the net change was a reduction of approximately $46 million
to $47 million. In addition, there had been a $12 million
supplemental to cover the cost of issuing the pension
obligation bonds. He expected that the supplemental would
be reduced by the same amount, but the action was not taken
in the set of amendments being considered. He added that
the total reduction would be $59 million.
9:49:52 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the reduction was year to year.
Mr. Teal clarified that the reduction was dependent upon
earnings on the bonds. He explained that if the legislature
issued pension obligation bonds, it would be replacing
state assistance costs for retirement with debt service
costs. He discussed the uncertainty of bond returns, and
clarified that the item was a one-time reduction in FY 17.
He added that going forward, the legislature would continue
to pay the actuarial recommended costs, which were
projected to increase yearly.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if the FY 17 reduction was
reflected in the language being considered.
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative. He restated that the
debt service on the bonds would exceed the normal state
assistance to retirement deposit. Consequently, by not
bonding there would be a one-time savings in FY 17 of about
$43 million, and another $12 million of savings in FY 16.
He noted that costs would go up in FY 18 and FY 19.
Mr. Teal addressed Item 32 through Item 34, which were fund
transfers. He explained that Item 32 reflected the
governor's decision to reexamine a planned deposit of $5
million to the Renewable Energy Fund submitted in December
and later reconsidered. He continued that Item 33 and Item
34 were related to money for permanent fund dividends. The
items reflected money that flowed first from the GF (the
royalty proceeds) into the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA),
and then was transferred to the dividend fund. He expected
a supplemental change to happen that would delete the $1.4
billion for the FY 16 dividend. He furthered that beginning
in FY 17, the state would begin paying dividends from
royalties. He informed that there was no need to put the
$1.4 billion from the ERA and put it toward dividends,
which was essentially replaced by the $700 million
appropriation. The $469 million from Item 33, in
combination with another $230 million from the GF would pay
the $1000 dividends in FY 17. He clarified that the amount
used for the $1000 dividend was not in addition to the
anticipated $1.4 billion for the approximately $2000
dividend; rather, the $1.4 was being removed from the
previous year's budget.
Mr. Teal explained that Item 37 was a wordage amendment
that referred to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
and its carry-forward language. The language was standard
year after year, and would be added back after being
unintentionally omitted.
9:54:30 AM
Mr. Teal addressed Item 40 and Item 41 on page 3,
explaining that both items were fund capitalizations that
were excluded from LFD reports. He specified that Item 40
was a $926 million appropriation to the Oil and Gas Tax
Credit Fund. The appropriation was in addition to the $73
million that was already in the governor's budget, for a
total of $1 billion for tax credits. He explained that the
item was submitted as a contingent appropriation, while LFD
considered it was more appropriate as a fiscal note. He
added that if the operating budget bill passed, there would
be a fiscal note attached.
Mr. Teal discussed Item 41, which was capitalization for
the loan fund for tax credits, and which would also be
reflected in a fiscal note.
Mr. Teal addressed Item 44, which was for a sustainable
draw from the ERA to the GF. He noted that when it was
originally submitted the draw was for $3.2 billion
annually, and with the amendment would be increased to $3.3
billion annually.
Mr. Teal pointed out that there was one thing not listed,
which reflected a major policy difference between OMB's
view of dividends and LFD's view of dividends. He furthered
that OMB had reflected the ERA and the payment of dividends
as Designated General Funds (DGF). The implication was that
dividends did not contribute to the deficit, either
positively or negatively, and did not compete with other
expenditures. The fiscal summary did not track permanent
fund earnings nor the amount of dividends that were paid
out. He stated that LFD had discussed the situation
internally for years, and did not want to distort the cash
flow in the fiscal summary. He elaborated that permanent
fund earnings typically exceeded the amount that was paid
out as dividends, and earnings were traditionally not
spent. If a dividend payment was included as a GF expense,
and permanent fund earnings were recorded as GF revenue, it
would distort the financial picture when there was an extra
$3 billion to $5 billion (of earnings) showing as revenue.
Mr. Teal continued discussing the concept of how dividend
earnings were categorized. He relayed that it had occurred
to LFD that it was possible to show an undistorted picture
by showing only revenues used for dividends. Therefore the
fiscal summary reflected the $3.3 billion draw as GF
revenue, as well as the dividend cost of $700 million as
revenue and expense. He thought it was important to
recognize that the ERA had always been available for any
purpose, but it had not been reflected as UGF. He continued
that LFD made the argument that as royalties and production
tax were deposited, which were clearly UGF revenues, that
it changed the character of the fund. He thought it was
important to recognize that the ERA was truly a UGF
account. He pointed out that there was no impact on the
deficit to regard it as such, and thought it clarified that
permanent fund earnings were government expenditures like
any other, and competed with K-12 education and any other
expenditures made by the state.
9:59:45 AM
Senator Olson asked about the elimination of a position in
air guard facilities maintenance for Item 15, and wondered
how many aircraft were being maintained by the Air Guard.
Ms. Sanders did not have the information, but agreed to
follow up at a later date.
Co-Chair Kelly thanked Mr. Teal and Ms. Sanders for their
presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
10:00:47 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 022316 LFD Distribution of FY17 Governor's Unalloc Reductions.pdf |
SFIN 2/23/2016 9:00:00 AM |
FY17 Budget Amendments |
| 022316 LFD FY17 Gov Amend Agency Summary UGF Only.pdf |
SFIN 2/23/2016 9:00:00 AM |
FY17 Budget Amendments |
| 022316 LFD FY17 Gov Amend Transactions with Notes.pdf |
SFIN 2/23/2016 9:00:00 AM |
FY17 Budget Amendments |