Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
08/23/2021 03:00 PM 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 | |
| Constitutional Budget Reserve Sweep Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
THIRD SPECIAL SESSION
August 23, 2021
3:02 p.m.
3:02:39 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson (via teleconference)
Senator Natasha von Imhof (via teleconference)
Senator Bill Wielechowski (via teleconference)
Senator David Wilson (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Alexei Painter, Director, Legislative Finance Division;
Senator Jesse Kiehl.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Megan Wallace, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Alaska
State Legislature.
SUMMARY
^CONSTITUTIONAL BUDGET RESERVE SWEEP OVERVIEW
3:04:58 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
discussed, "Constitutional Budget Reserve Sweep Overview"
(copy on file). He looked at slide 2, "CBR Sweep
Mechanism":
The CBR sweep provision was established in Article
IX, Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution:
(d) Repayment requirement "If an appropriation is
made from the budget reserve fund, until the amount
appropriated is repaid, the amount of money in the
general fund available for appropriation at the end of
each succeeding fiscal year shall be deposited in the
budget reserve fund. The legislature shall implement
this subsection by law."
Mr. Painter relayed that he would touch on the important
clauses within the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR)
sweep provision. He noted that the state had a CBR
liability for many years, and then in the mid-2000's the
state repaid the liability. Starting in FY 15, the state
began drawing from the CBR again, and currently had an
approximately $11 billion to $12 billion liability
(depending upon the interpretation).
Senator Hoffman quoted the last sentence of the CBR sweep
provision. He asked what, if anything, the legislature had
done to establish what was swept. He noted that the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) Program had never been part of
legislation establishing the fund as a "sweepable" item,
and the matter had to go to court to be resolved. He
thought the broader question pertained to the lists of
items that were sweepable. He asked how many of the items
had been determined to be sweepable by state law.
Mr. Painter thought that his next slide would address
Senator Hoffman's question.
Co-Chair Bishop mentioned the $10 billion to $12 billion
that was owed to the CBR. He thought the liability to the
CBR functioned as a natural spending limit due to the time
it would take to repay the funds.
3:08:23 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Painter to provide a rough idea
of the amount owed to the CBR, as well as interest rates
and payment terms.
Mr. Painter replied that the amount owed was approximately
$11 billion to $12 billion, and that there was a dispute
between the administration and the Division of Legislative
Audit regarding $1 billion of the amount. There was no
interest on the debt, and the terms considered the amount a
debt until it was paid. The section of the constitution set
up the mechanism, which dictated that at the end of the
year the General Fund (GF) would be deposited into the
reserve fund. The exact mechanics of the repayment
functioned was somewhat in dispute. In the years of budget
surplus, the Senate had directly deposited funds to the
CBR, allowed funds to be swept to the CBR, or a combination
of both.
Mr. Painter looked at slide 3, "Reverse Sweep":
? The "reverse sweep" is an appropriation from the CBR
that returns swept funds back to the original subfund
or account. The "reverse sweep" is an appropriation
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), and requires a 3/4 vote to
pass.
? The sweep is effective at the end of a fiscal year
(June 30) and the reverse sweep is effective on the
first day of the following fiscal year (July 1).
Mr. Painter noted that in appropriation language, often the
legislature would reverse the sweep only for the sub-
accounts and not for the GF itself because the GF balance
was reset by the sweep back to zero at the beginning of the
year.
Co-Chair Bishop commented that the three-quarters vote
(required to access the CBR) cost the legislature time and
money. He believed there should be no monetary policy in
the constitution.
Mr. Painter highlighted slide 4, "Statute Implementing
Sweep Was Found Unconstitutional":
? AS 37.10.420 was intended to implement the sweep.
The Supreme Court in Hickel v. Cowper found this
statute unconstitutional in 1994.
? Since then, the executive branch has had to
implement the sweep without statutory guidance. The
list of sweepable funds has been driven by legal
interpretations of Hickel v. Cowper.
? The legislature could pass a new statute that
attempts to define which funds are sweepable, but
absent this or a court case the administration's
interpretation is operative.
3:12:36 PM
Senator von Imhof considered slide 3 and slide 4 and
interpreted that the sweep was found unconstitutional and
then it had to be implemented "by hand."
Mr. Painter replied that the statute that had implemented
the sweep and determined what was sweepable had been found
unconstitutional rather than the sweep itself. The
interpretation of what was subject to the sweep had been
subject to reading the footnotes of the Hickel v. Cowper
case in the absent of a statute.
Mr. Painter addressed slide 5, "How the Sweep Works":
? The Department of Administration's Division of
Finance (DOF) accountants calculate the sweep while
preparing the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
(ACFR). The sweep represents unreserved, undesignated
fund balances of the general fund subfunds.
? DOF accountants calculate the sweep in September as
the ACFR is prepared yet the amount of the sweep is
posted in the financial records as of the end of the
fiscal year (June 30th).
? After the ACFR is prepared (historically by the end
of October), the ACFR is audited by the legislative
auditor. The sweep amount is adjusted as necessary.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that the most recent account
balances had not been available till February.
Mr. Painter affirmed that previous two years numbers had
been delayed.
3:15:31 PM
Mr. Painter looked at slide 6, "Changes in Interpretation
for FY19 Sweep":
? Starting with the FY19 sweep, the administration
expanded the scope of the sweep to include additional
funds.
? Most significantly, the sweep was expanded to
include the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Fund and the
Higher Education Investment Fund.
? While this added only a few new funds, it greatly
increased the affected balances: in FY20, those two
funds accounted for $1.4 billion out of the $1.5
billion swept to the CBR.
Senator Hoffman discussed concerns with participants in the
PCE Program being responsible for the cost of higher rates
due to the lawsuit regarding the sweep. He asked how the
individuals would get reimbursed for the months of July and
August, since the lawsuit regarding the sweep was proven to
be null and void.
Mr. Painter did not know the answer and agreed to check
with the Alaska Energy Authority, which administered the
program.
Senator Hoffman asked if Mr. Painter thought the
individuals should be reimbursed.
Mr. Painter believed that the state had funded for the
entire year and that the entire amount should be paid out.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that funds such as the PCE Fund were
deemed unsweepable for years, until there was a change from
the current administration with a legal opinion from the
Department of Law.
Co-Chair Bishop commented that the legislature should have
engaged in a lawsuit at the time.
3:19:26 PM
Mr. Painter highlighted slide 7, "Impact of Litigation on
Sweep Interpretation":
? The Alaska Federation of Natives brought a lawsuit
against the administration challenging the
sweepability of the PCE Fund.
? On August 11, a Superior Court ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs, finding that PCE should not be subject to
the sweep because, although it was available for
appropriation, it was not part of the general fund.
? The Superior Court decision also indicates that
other funds that are statutorily established outside
the general fund should not be swept, although this is
not directly ordered.
? LFD is reviewing the sweepable funds list to
determine whether other funds should be reclassified,
although it is up to the administration to reclassify
them in the absence of further litigation.
Most notably, the Statutory Budget Reserve
likely should not be subject to the sweep under
this ruling based on statutory language that
places the fund as a "separate fund in the state
treasury" rather than in the general fund (see
footnote 77 of the decision). This fund has long
been considered sweepable.
The Higher Education Fund was established in
the general fund and would not be affected by
this ruling.
Senator Hoffman asked about Mr. Painter's opinion on the
chances of the Higher Education Fund not being a sweepable
item, since it was never included previously in the sweep
by the legislature or governors (as was the PCE Fund).
3:21:53 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA
STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), replied that she
had not seen a specific legal opinion from the Department
of Law regarding classification of the Higher Education
Investment Fund. She continued that the difference between
the Higher Education Fund and the PCE Fund was that it was
specifically created by the legislature in the GF. Even
though it was used as an endowment fund, the money rested
in the GF by statute. She continued that based on the
analysis in Hickel v. Cowper as well as the analysis of the
court in the recent Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
case, there did not appear to be anything to indicated that
the Higher Education Fund was exempt from the sweep because
it remained available for appropriation by the legislature.
Ms. Wallace continued to reason that the legislature must
appropriate out of the Higher Education Fund, and the fund
could not be automatically utilized by the administration
absent an appropriation. She furthered that the fund was
currently in the GF, and it was the division's opinion that
if the matter was litigated the court would likely find
that the fund was subject to the sweep, although neither of
the cases that addressed the issue had specifically ruled
on the fund.
Senator Hoffman referenced slide 4, in which Mr. Painter
pointed out that the legislature could pass a new statute
that attempted to define what was sweepable. He asked if
the Higher Education Fund would be sweepable if the
legislature passed legislation indicating it was not.
Ms. Wallace replied that if the legislature were to pass a
new statute implementing the sweep and identified the
Higher Education Fund as not able to be swept, it could be
subject to challenge.. She referenced Hickel v. Cowper, in
which the Alaska Supreme Court looked at Article IV,
Section 19, and specifically noted that while the
legislature was required to implement the section by law,
it must do so within the terms of Section 17 and the
legislature would still follow the court's guidance on what
it meant to be "available for appropriation." She thought
the legislature had other methods of looking at what was
established or how the fund was to be managed if it wanted
to reconsider whether the fund should be subject to the
sweep.
3:26:09 PM
Senator Hoffman thought it was meaningful that the
legislature and prior governors had never deemed the Higher
Education Fund as sweepable. He opined that it was only
because the current administration had deemed the fund to
be sweepable that it had come into play. He assumed that if
all prior governors and legislatures had felt the item was
not sweepable, that the fund should be looked at in the
course of a statute change to comply with the
interpretation of all previous governors and legislatures.
Senator Wilson asked about a list of funds that might be
swept.
Mr. Painter thought the Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
could produce an analysis fairly quickly. He presumed that
the administration was conducting an analysis of whether
there should be changes to the sweepable fund list. He was
not sure of the timeline.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Painter to procure the list as
soon as was convenient.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the legislature could have
the other sweepable funds put into the Statutory Budget
Reserve (SBR) or PCE Fund, and then sweep the funds back
into their respective accounts at 12:01 a.m. of the new
fiscal year.
Ms. Wallace thought the legislature likely had the power of
appropriation to make whatever appropriation decisions it
wanted and could move funds around in the upcoming budget.
She thought there would be risk to go back in time since
the sweep was a constitutional mechanism that happened at
the end of the fiscal year. She thought the legislature
could make a policy choice for future fiscal years.
3:30:02 PM
Senator Wielechowski thought it was an open question as to
what was swept and what was not with regard to the funds
being discussed. He asked, if under the court decision, the
legislature could pass legislation to have the funds swept
back, which would force the governor to file a lawsuit if
he did not want to enact the movement of the funds.
Ms. Wallace reminded that as Mr. Painter mentioned, it was
not certain which funds would or would not be swept. She
did not have the answer to Senator Wielechowski's question,
and reminded that if money was swept into the CBR, it
required a three-quarters vote to appropriate the money out
of the CBR to anywhere else. If the money was not swept, it
would remain in the accounts that it was in at the end of
the fiscal year, as appropriated by the legislature. She
reiterated that there would be risk if the legislature went
back in time and did any kind of appropriating mechanism
that arguably subverted the constitutional sweep.
Mr. Painter looked at slide 8, "Impact of Sweep on the
Budget":
? Based on the list of funds swept in FY20 by the
Division of Finance, the FY22 budget uses $367.4
million from sweepable funds. Subtracting the PCE fund
would reduce that to $321.2 million.
? Not all funds are impacted equally, however. LFD
breaks them into three categories:
1. Immediate Impact: No ongoing source of revenue
to support appropriations.
2. Partial Impact: Ongoing source of revenue that
is insufficient to support appropriations.
3. Minimal/No Impact: Ongoing source of revenue
fully covers appropriations.
Mr. Painter used the example of Designated General Fund
(DGF) taxes as an example of the second type of fund
category listed on the slide.
3:33:58 PM
Senator von Imhof asked about programs covered by sweepable
funds versus the total of the funds themselves.
Mr. Painter thought an upcoming slide would make things
clearer. He commented on the use of the SBR in the FY 22
budget, which was not the same in previous years and
increased the amount of appropriations from sweepable funds
versus other years.
Senator Hoffman asked how much financial impact was
incurred in the accounting program to accomplish the sweep.
He recalled an expense in the millions to reverse the
sweep.
Mr. Painter asked if Senator Hoffman was referencing lost
investment earnings or actual expense.
Senator Hoffman stated "both."
Mr. Painter replied that the Division of Finance would find
the numbers for the sweep as part of the financial report,
so there was no financial impact. He continued that there
was a potential impact to investment earnings if the sweep
reversal did not occur right away. He added that because
the CBR was invested conservatively, and other funds were
invested more aggressively (such as the Higher Education
Fund), there would be a cost. He cited that moving the
Higher Education Fund to the CBR alone would cost $20
million to $25 million in investment earnings in one year.
He summarized that there was a significant cost in
investment earnings by moving the funds to a more
conservatively invested account.
Senator Hoffman emphasized the significance of the numbers
quoted by Mr. Painter and the impact to the Higher
Education Fund. He thought the loss of the $25 million in
investment earnings resulted in denying higher education to
people in Alaska.
3:38:15 PM
Co-Chair Stedman thought that the issue was with politics
rather than finances. He recounted that the committee had
never recommended not reversing the sweep because it was a
costly financial mistake. He reminded that the legislature
reviewed all the accounts at the beginning of the budget
cycle, after the administration had reviewed the accounts
and presented a budget. He emphasized that the accounts
were reviewed by the administration and legislature each
year to ensure there was a prudent minimum balance. He
thought the lost earnings resulted in increasing the
state's deficit. He thought some people thought there were
large account balances with extra funds, which was not at
all the case.
Senator Hoffman emphasized that the money lost to the
students of Alaska through the loss to the Higher Education
Fund was another strong reason for the legislature to
introduce legislation proposing that the fund was not a
sweepable item. He stressed that the education of students
would be in jeopardy every year when the funds were swept,
and millions were lost because of the way the funds were
invested.
Senator Wilson thought Mr. Painter had mentioned that the
administration might not start the sweep right away. He
asked if the administration had started the liquidation
process since it had been over a month since the sweep had
happened.
Mr. Painter relayed that he had only had informal
conversations with the administration on the topic, and the
committee might need to ask the administration directly a
about its plans. He thought given the timing, since the
audit was not complete, the administration did not know how
much money to move.
3:41:53 PM
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the legislature had asked the
question before, and had noted that although the technical
sweep was in the beginning of the fiscal year, the
mechanical sweep could happen as late as November and
December when account balances were known. He reminded that
there was a time when the reverse sweep did not take place
during the regular legislative session, and the legislature
had stepped in the following January because there had been
an "accounting quagmire." He commented on the large amount
of lost revenue that supporters of blocking the reverse
sweep were costing the state.
Mr. Painter highlighted slide 9, "Summary of Impacts by
Category." He thought there was a fourth category of
funding type which was the "immediate impact pending
interpretation," which was the SBR and was either an
immediate impact or did not belong on the list depending
upon how the administration decided to handle it. He
pointed out the first column that showed LFD's projected
sweep balance in FY 21. The next column was the amount used
in the FY 22 budget. The next column was the amount
available after the CBR sweep, which signified the ongoing
revenue for the funds. He pointed out that there was no
revenue for the funds that showed immediate impact. The
final column showed the shortfall due to the CBR sweep.
Collectively there was a shortfall of about $142 million
due to the reverse sweep. The appropriations were currently
in the enacted budget but were unfunded because of the lack
of revenue. The next few slides would address the details
behind each category and the funds that were within.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the $142 million in shortfall
and asked if the amount factored in that the PCE Fund was
not sweepable.
Mr. Painter affirmed that the PCE Fund was not listed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how the SBR was accounted for on the
slide.
Mr. Painter relayed that the SBR was shown as the purple
item on the slide and was the "immediate impact pending
interpretation." The SBR was either in the list or if the
administration chose to reclassify the fund it was out of
the list. The $80.7 million from the SBR was counted within
the $142 million.
Co-Chair Stedman thought if the SBR was not sweepable, one
could subtract the $81 million from the $142 million.
Mr. Painter answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman commented on the significant budget
impact.
Senator Hoffman asked if Mr. Painter could explain why the
$80 million shortfall was taking place, and whether it was
due to different investment philosophies.
Mr. Painter stated that he did not want to comment on
politics but the shortfall, as far as he could tell, seemed
to be a political matter rather than a financial matter.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the shortfall was a political mess
that was derived from a matter of political leverage that
had gone awry.
3:46:38 PM
Mr. Painter pointed to slide 10, "Immediate Impact," which
showed two tables. He highlighted that the Higher Education
Fund was shown by itself at the top, with the projected
sweep balance at $416 million, and with $21.8 million used
in the current budget. There was no revenue available after
the sweep because the source of revenue for the fund was
investment earnings, which were not available without a
fund balance. The lower table showed the SBR (Pending
Interpretation of the AFN v. State Decision), which had a
projected blance of $410.7 million if subject to the sweep.
The governor had vetoed $330 million of appropriations from
the source, so only $80.7 million was used in the budget
after the vetoes. There was nothing available after the
sweep, so the $80.7 million was a shortfall assuming the
sweep was not reversed, or the fund was not deemed
sweepable.
Co-Chair Stedman shared a concern about the Higher
Education Fund, which would be available for spending with
a three-quarters vote if it was put into the CBR. He
discussed the revenue that would be generated to provide
education assistance in perpetuity if the fund was left
protected rather than being used to meet a one-to-two-year
budget obligation. He was worried about the funds being
liquidated.
Mr. Painter addressed slide 11, "Items Funded with
Statutory Budget Reserve in FY22 Budget":
? Governor vetoed $320.0 million appropriation for
Permanent Fund Dividends from the SBR, along with
$362.5 million from the general fund.
If the SBR is swept, this would have resulted in a
PFD estimated to be $525. If the SBR is not swept, the
vetoed PFD would have been estimated to be $1,025.
? SBR also funds $4.15 million for School Debt
Reimbursement in FY22.
? SBR was used to fund $76.5 million of capital
projects, including:
$10 million for Mat-Su Borough Pavement Rehab
$9 million for Houston Middle School
$8.5 million for West Susitna Access
$36.5 million of projects in the Department of
Natural Resources, including $10 million for firebreak
construction
$6.3 million of projects in other agencies
3:50:26 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the governor had not vetoed the
$525 PFD and the SBR was not swept (which he thought highly
likely), if the dividend in the fall would be $1025.
Mr. Painter agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman thoguht the shortfall from the dividend
passed by the legislature would only have been $75 per
person.
Mr. Painter agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the PFD had gone from $1,025 to
zero.
Mr. Painter mentioned that when the governor had done his
vetoes there had been no way to know that the SBR status
might change.
Senator Hoffman asked for Mr. Painter to provide a list of
schools that were affected by the $4.1 million in school
debt reimbursement. He thought it would be interesting to
see how the funds were disbursed if the sweep was not
reversed. He wondered if the cost would be passed on to
local governments.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Painter to include the financial
impacts of budget vetoes in Regional Educational Attendance
Area (REAA) schools. He thought there was a discrepancy in
how schools were treated inside and outside of organized
boroughs. He thought the following winter the committee
would be looking at a questionable allocation of dollars
between rural and urban schools, with less going to rural
schools.
3:54:31 PM
Mr. Painter looked at slide 12, "Partial Impact," which
showed a table with a list of funds for which there was a
partial impact that had some ongoing revenue but that was
insufficient to meet all the FY 22 amounts. The first
column showed the projected sweep balance in FY 21, which
collectively $104.6 million. In FY 22, there was a
collective $168.6 million spent out of the funds. The
ongoing revenue to the funds was $129 million, which was
short by $39.5 million versus the appropriations. The funds
listed would have some impact without a reverse sweep to
utilize the fund balance.
Mr. Painter highlighted some of the funds listed, including
the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention
Mitigation Account (also known as the SPAR Fund), which had
a projected $1.5 million shortfall. He noted that OMB's
numbers projected closer to a $3 million shortfall for the
SPAR Fund, and the two offices were working to reconcile
the differences. He listed several funds within the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development that were
accounted for on the slide. There were a few funds listed
from the Department of Environmental Conservation. He noted
that the deficit to the Commercial Passenger Vessel
Environmental Compliance Fund might be smaller than what
was shown on the slide due to an increase in cruise ships.
He highlighted several funds that impacted Department of
Health and Social Services programs. Without access to the
fund balance, there was a substantial shortfall in both the
Recidivism Reduction Fund and the Marijuana Education and
Treatment Fund.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the Capital Income Fund, which
was a "parking garage" for capital projects.
Mr. Painter replied that the fund was currently designated
for deferred maintenance projects throughout the state. He
noted that there was a significant unspent balance in the
fund after the FY 21 budget due to high investment returns
in FY 21. A portion of the balance was to be spent in the
FY 22 budget for deferred maintenance, and there was an
$18.5 million hole between the appropriations and the
expected revenue in FY 22.
3:58:25 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked what kind of protection the state
had within its financial system to prevent overdrawing the
funds. He considered the hypothetical scenario that the
administration returned with a supplemental budget after
there was a shortfall in the budget after the funds were
spent.
Mr. Painter thought the administration was restricting the
funds to prevent overspending. He thought the scenario
might warrant sending letters to grantees to say grants
would be prorated, or curtailing activities. He thought the
administration did not generally budget assuming it would
get supplementals, so it might restrict activities in the
meantime to ensure there was adequate funds.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the administration had done some
vetoes expecting a supplemental budget. He thought the
slide showed a $31 million negative budgetary impact.
Mr. Painter noted that the hole for deferred maintenance in
the Capital Income Fund was $18.5 million, and $31 million
was the projected revenue in FY 22.
Co-Chair Bishop thought that some of the projects had been
vetoed. He shared concern about the SPAR fund, which was
the state's first responder for uninsured hazardous spills
and cleanups on land and water. He thought the matter
needed to be addressed. He had concerns about the impact to
many of the funds listed on the slide.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the impacts were
considerable.
4:01:35 PM
Mr. Painter pointed to slide 13, "Minimal/No Impact," which
showed a table listing funds with minimal or no impact. He
noted that many of the funds had an amount listed $0.0 in
funds used in FY 22. He noted that the funds listed may
have a balance but were not being currently utilized. He
used the example of the Vessel Replacement Fund, which had
been used in previous years but was not being used in the
FY 22 budget so there was no immediate impact. He mentioned
the Railbelt Energy Fund, which had not been used in a
number of years. He noted that some funds had sufficient
ongoing revenue to meet the projected expenditures in FY
22, such as the Technical Vocational Education Program
Account. He noted that there were not many swept funds on
the list.
Co-Chair Stedman though that one positive from the exercise
was a deeper knowledge of the sweepable list of accounts.
He discussed cleanup and closing of accounts.
4:03:26 PM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that some political officials
were costing the state millions of dollars. He thought it
was unfortunate the state needed to go through the costly
exercise to educate state officials. He thought the current
situation accomplished very little and hindered the ability
to fix the state's financial position. He anticipated
working with OMB and the state's auditor to review the
accounts. He commented on the additional work created for
the administration and the auditors for no real benefit. He
mentioned discrepancies in the state's audited statements,
and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's work on
the issue. He emphasized the cost of the change in practice
regarding the constitutional budget sweep.
ADJOURNMENT
4:08:03 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 082321 LFD SFIN CBR Sweep.pdf |
SFIN 8/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |