JAC Index – Thursday January 22, 2015 pm2 Supplemental budget markup continued Representative Harshman is the Chair for the day. 1/22/2015 3:36:17 PM Gaveled in Harshman; Any members have bills on General file? We will work Governor’s letter. Take #1 off. Gov letter 2. I move to divide this letter. Cap of 475 million. We set it up. We deposited 220M in July. Largest deposit maybe ever. Looking at coal lease bonus forecast is only a couple million would go over the cap, maybe 25 M rolling in. Richards: FY 15 unprofiled earnings could be in the 50 M range, below the 5% so not unreasonable to think about 50M Ross: same policy as PMTF, 5% spra. Richards: 50 M is conservative Ross: expected when Richards: June 30, 2015 Harshman: I move to raise to 600M. Perkins: coal lease money loss. Capital construction in next 3 or 4 years, will drop from what it has been. If we trap it before it spills over. I think we will be looking for money to finish schools and think we will have to take it from GF Harshman; Gov Rec as Amended is adopted. Richards: Meeting JAC position is different than JEC. JAC only identified a couple paraprofessionals and support services. The 6 M salary continued. Harshman: 2 of the 4 components. Difference in cost is about 7 M? Willmarth: Block grant it would add 6 M for the two components. Then keep in the six million so it would be 12 M Harshman: gov rec did not take out the six million Willmarth: it did. JAC six million with guarantee. JEC would be 15 M net the six million. 21 m -6M= 15 Harshman: which is 7 M more than Oct.: How much of an increase over the budget last year. Two year budget JAC increased the request for the supplemental budget. I think the net is 7. Now I have heard maybe it is 3. Willmarth: Explanation – letter JAC and JEC. Difference between the two positions is about 3 M. The six million is already in the budget. Richards: Since the 6 M is in the budget, take it off the table. JEC is 15 M. JAC is 6 M so that is a difference of 9 M. compare 5.7 to 15 M, Harshman: if we approve the gov rec, it will be an increase from our general position for how much Richards: 15 M if … Perkins: Oct approved 3 components Richards: Explanation of difference in JEC and JAC. 3 components vs. 4 Stubson: motion discussion Willmarth: believe that motion failed Harshman: choices: Stay with position last year, adopt what we did in Oct, adopt gov rec or some position in between Burns: confusion. JAC is 5.7 M, Gov rec 15 M, excluding six = a little over 9 Richards: yes it is on the profile 15 M gov inc, JAC 5.7 Ross: Does it automatically bump up the recalculation no matter which you go with. Willmarth: unknown. It is for the legislature to decide. Burns: Recalibration is supposed to be based on the cost of education so I don’t understand how 5.7 m or 15m makes a difference on the recalibration. Willmarth: Consultants determine our cost. Cost difference is 80 M difference. The legislature pays out 80 M more than what the consultants determine our costs are. During recalibration, the consultants will determine the cost again. It is the legislature’s decision to go above or beyond. Courts have said you will fund. Burns: only difference I find is the cost of living index. Any other reason a school might lose money Willmarth: enrollment is the main reason. Regional cost adjustment. A more experienced teaching staff retires. Teacher experience is in the model Nicholas: which district in Sheridan Wasserburger: pass Hastert: What does the court say on ECA? Harshman: history of ECA Willmarth: model established 2006-2007. In 2008 provided x. 2014 block monitor grant report is on the website. 12.27 cumulative %. 2007 = zero. Recalibration 2012 -13 = zero 2013-2014= zero . Current school year provided .95%. Under current law 1.57% for next year. Hastert: What is supreme court ruling on ECA Tanya: The court did not require an ECA. It is leg resp. to model the cost and determine how to fund the inflation. No determination for a particular index. Wasserburger; Do our statutes require an ECA? Tanya: 21-13-309 Statute Hastert: cost based model and consultant’s model but we have a legislative model. We are taking care of capacity issues but not district needs as far as staff and supplies. There is a lot more stress on the school districts than we have in the past Harshman: Leg model 100 M over consultant’s model? Willmarth: 2011-2012 school year about 101M, went down last year to 84 M. This school year the estimate is 90 M. Harshman: partly a result of the inc. we gave. AS a policy issue are we going to fund the consultant model or the legislative model. K-12 adjustment, principals in every school, Over the last 5 years, there has been an attempt to bring those lines together. Districts can lose money due to regional cost adjustment. Campbell got rolled in with Lusk. Campbell is with Niobrara, Crook and Weston so it brings down the regional cost. We need to learn about as a committee Connolly: The language used in the statute is up to the legislature to decide how inflation and cost of education are funded. S Prof staff, non professional staff, material, energy are the components. Has the legislature made a decision about inflation with respect to …? Willmarth: 2010 Educational materials supply component was well above the cost so adjust the model for materials every year. …. Connolly: JEC – Each year we would vote on the amount of money for increase in utilities based upon inflation. Willmarth: We would present the information to JEC. We would identify the indices and amounts. Those would occur regardless of JAC action. JAC would have to take action on funding levels. Educational material and utilities would be adjusted in the cost basis model. Hastert: WE have put the demands of the legislature onto the school district. 16 to 1 student/teacher ratio, demand to buy supplies. Willmarth: the model school districts are funded upon are the components and funding the legislature has voted on. Hastert: We have responsibility..cost of living. ECA is for inflation Harshman: Div 2 motion is Gov rec. Stubson: move to amend gov rec to JAC recommendation Harshman: oct 2014 recommendation. Add the 2.7 Time out. Harshman: amend gov rec to the JAC oct recommendation. Burns: how much does it add? Harshman: we voted to increase in oct. Burns: counts the six million one- time already profiled plus the 5.7 M Harshman: yes Hastert: difference is what. (Harshman (M) Not adopting the full amount the JEC recommended. I speak against the motion. Not fully funding the demands we have made to the school districts. Most districts are going into their reserves. We have not allowed districts to keep up with inflation. Connolly: resist the amendment. Keep to gov rec and JEC recommendation. Cost of living increases were taken into account. Less money going into the pockets of teachers because of failure to increase the ECA. Giving yearly increases for materials and utilities, need to take care of our people. Ross: I am struggling with whole concept that we are coming back with a recalibration to fully fund schools. Why are we doing this at this time? Eaten up all of our readily available money. Burns: Does LSO have a breakdown by district? Willmarth: not now, can get it to the district. Memo provided to Gov by cost component. 2 M for non professional staff. 3.7M for materials. Burns: I thought these models were in a block grant model. What is their requirement to spend it that way? Willmarth: There is no requirement. They can spend the money as they see fit. Harshman: 4 components and we funded two of them and a liitle bit in another component. Wasserburger: Against the amendment, did not fund 2 components. This is not an ECA. 2005 recalibration was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. Would like to move back to that. Perkins: ECA in biennial budget. If this motion passes, it leaves intact the ECA voted upon in the budget session Richards: it is an increase over that amount Perkins: model is based on cost of education. If model includes cola’s, it cannot be rolled back into the model. Be precise when we talk about the cost model. COLA’s are adjustments in between the recalibration. Harshman: on and against the motion. Third recalibration in 10 years. Always waiting to take action based upon when the recalibration will be done. Big change is the regional cost adjustments, big impact on districts and not in positive way. Hastert: Can they do what they want within the block grant. The school districts manage the grants. Calibration. Last time we cut the last JAC recommendation in half. Now we are cutting this one even more so. We are only funding two components. This is for the past. Recalibration is for the future, should not be part of this discussion. Stubson: The notion that we have not honored our commitments is not based in fact at all. We gave an ECA last year, have one for next year, cost studies are to be the basis. Districts spend block grants on whatever they want, including salaries. Data shows there is not cost pressure on the salaries. JAC recommendation is overly generous and not supported by the facts given. It is a compromise. Harshman: motion of Oct meeting adopted> End gov letter 2 1/22/2015 4:24:57 PM Gov letter 9 –University of Wyoming, High Altitude Burns: gov rec motion, 2015 contingency, seconded. Motion, as amended, passed. Gov letter 14 – Task Force on Forests Harshman: gov rec. 15 month salary of $705,000. Fire suppression account funding. Seconded. Greear: Could revisit in next budget. Funding time limited. Motion time limited to 15 months, seconded. Burns: needs to be time limited. Rec, as amended, carried. Gov letter 8, local government funding Harshman: Divide into 3 components. $2.6M severance tax distribution account overpayment error, moved by Burns, seconded. Ross: accounting issue, no funding. Greear: speak against. Motion failed. Stubson: amend to 0, seconded. Motion carried. Harshman: $6.4 municipal solid waste cease and transfer loan and grant program Stubson: amend to 0, seconded. Greear: would rather fund with 2016 contingency amend, seconded. Amendment failed. Motion to $0 funding passed. Nicholas: fund at $0 for $25M for local governments, seconded. Connolly: Resist $0 funding. Nicholas: Municipalities getting more money than ever before. Motion carried. Gov letter 10, Fire Borrowing Authority Harshman: borrowing authority up to $20 million from pooled fund investments Gov rec, seconded. Motion failed. Governor Letter 15, Title 25 Stubson: Amend gov rec but allow Health Department to flex within agency budget to cover costs. Connolly: Motion to have footnote for department to report to JAC on Title 25 findings. 1/22/2015 4:52:35 PM Gov Letter 3 – Court Security Richards: high and low alternatives as provided by Supreme Court. Harshman: Motion to take $1M from severance account to provide funding, seconded. Perkins: See section (e), page 14 in revisions/amendment packet. Must provide matching monies. Total of $875,576. Harshman: accept amendment. Nicholas: fund this schedule on low end of $560,000 and if a county wishes the high end cost of $1.92M, must match 50/50. Perkins: Some improvements are very basic, some improvements are not. Burns: Don’t know which counties will accept or not. Provisions? Perkins: How pick counties and why 10%? Chose those who are considered hardship counties on direct distribution. Amendment to amendment failed. Motion, as amended, carried. Gov letter 4, Wyoming Grown Harshman: gov rec, carried. Gov letter 5, Wyoming Veterans Memorial Park in Cody Harshman: gov rec Burns: gov rec, amended to $0, seconded. Greear: Motion to amend to $100,000 with 50% matching funds, 2016 contingency, seconded. Burns: Should be funded with private funds. Moniz: Maintenance of park? Amendment to amendment failed. Motion carried. Gov letter 6, Mineral Royalty Grant Program Harshman: $33M fund, reduced appropriation to $30M. Was line item vetoed, but $3M available. $125,000 still available. Part of SLIB program. Wasserburger: Motion to reduce to $0, seconded. Motion carried. Gov letter 7, Clean Water State Revolving Harshman: Gov rec, passed. Gov letter 11, Employee Group Insurance Harshman: Gov rec no 1 alternative, seconded. Carried. Gov letter 12 – Merit Retention for Executive Branch Employees Harshman: How much spent from last year’s appropriation? Richards: None spent, change in flexibility. Moniz: Gov rec. Ross: If redirect, then into biennium. Motion failed. Burns: Motion to revert back into general fund this year and de-appropriate, seconded. Motion carried. Gov letter 13, Department of Corrections Harshman: gov rec. Greear: limit flexibility for a period of time? Motion carried. Gov letter 16, Tribal Health Gov rec, motion carried. 1/22/2015 5:20:19 PM Harshman: adjourn until 8:30 a.m. Friday, round robin upon noon recess.