 |
| ESPC Home | | | 2003 LAP* Book | | | Background | | | Legislator Profiles | | | Key Votes | | | LAP* Book Home |
|
|
| Numeric List |
|
|
| Accountability |
|
|
|
Health & Human Services |
|
|
| Justice System |
|
|
| Education |
|
|
| State Employees |
|
|
|
Taxation & Revenue |
|
|
|
Wildlife & Environment |
|
|
|
Worker & Public Safety |
|
|
| Tribal Affairs |
|
|
| Senior Citizens |
|
|
2003 General Session
HB 1 and SF 1 were mirror bills introduced in the House and Senate that provided appropriations for the operation of state government.
The process of developing this huge budget bill to fund state government began with former Governor Geringer, who submitted his recommendations to the Joint Appropriations Interim Committee in December 2002.
Next, the Joint Appropriations Committee of the House and Senate held hearings on the bill. During these deliberations, the Joint Committee heard from newly elected Governor Freudenthal, state agency heads, and others. After the Committee hearings, the bill was presented in identical form to the House and to the Senate.
Then each chamber started its own amending process as the bill progressed through three readings (votes). During floor debate, any legislator could offer amendments to add or subtract to any item in the budget bill.
When the two bills passed Third Reading (final vote) in each chamber, they were no longer identical, as different amendments were offered and passed or failed in each chamber. At that point, a conference committee, consisting of five members from each chamber, was appointed to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
The conference committee was allowed to discuss only the differences in the bills. Items that were not amended by either chamber, or that were amended identically, could not be discussed.
Finally, after the conference committee resolved all the differences and once again had a single bill, both the House and Senate voted on it again. When they both passed the bill, it then proceeded to the Governor for his action. On this bill, the Governor can exercise a line-item veto, which means he can veto specific portions of the bill while accepting the rest.
In this 2003 budget bill, the Senate and House passed several identical amendments. They both added $100,000 to the bill to implement the prescription drug consumer information and technical assistance program, which will provide for a statewide prescription drug information hotline.
Both chambers appropriated $125,000 to the Department of Health to continue the existing HIV/AIDS prevention program through June 2004.
Both chambers agreed the state would pay 85% of individual and family health insurance coverage for state employees, and allocated about $23 million to do so.
The House and Senate both accepted the Interim Committee's recommendation to add funding and authorization for five additional full time mineral auditors in the Department of Audit. They also accepted the Interim Committee's recommendation to add funding to the Governor's Office for a new Endangered Species Coordinator position.
And they both provided additional funding, although in different amounts, to the Department of Health to provide services to children with developmental disabilities who are now waiting for assistance, and to serve children in developmental preschools. The House added about $1.4 million from the General Fund, compared to the Senate's addition of about $700,000.
The final compromise bill added $1 million to help children with developmental disabilities who are now on waiting lists for assistance and children in developmental preschools.
In funding for public schools, several areas were modified.
The major maintenance adjustment in the school funding model has been set at 3%, but was due to decrease to 2% this year under legislation from a previous session.
The Senate stayed with the new 2% adjustment, and decreased that part of the education appropriation accordingly.
The House, on the other hand, changed the maintenance adjustment from 2% to 2.5%, and increased the appropriation.
The final version of the bill modified the major maintenance adjustment up to 2.25%, and adjusted the general fund appropriation to reflect the new maintenance adjustment level.
The Joint Appropriations Committee recommended setting the inflation adjustment in the school funding model at 1.7%. The House amended the bill to increase the inflation adjustment from 1.7% to 2.25%, while the Senate left the inflation adjustment at 1.7%.
The compromise bill finally set the inflation adjustment in school funding at 2%.
The Senate authorized $4,325,000 to upgrade computer systems so student test scores could be tracked more carefully statewide, while the House provided no funding for this area. The final bill authorized $1 million for this purpose.
The conference committee also modified the small school hold harmless provisions, by maintaining funding for small schools at the level they received in school year 2001-2002 for the upcoming 2003-2004 school year and providing extra money to cover transportation and special education costs.
The two chambers took a different approach to the use of $21 million that became available as the state changed some accounting practices. The House voted to invest the $21 million in the Permanent Mineral Trust Fund, and to rely mostly on revenue bonds to pay for large building projects such as a business technology center and a new health sciences building at the University of Wyoming.
The Senate preferred depositing the $21 million into the budget reserve account, and using it to pay directly for building projects such as the UW health sciences building and several building restoration projects at the state capitol.
The conference committee put $10 million in the Permanent Mineral Trust Fund and left the rest available for spending.
HB 1 passed Third Reading in the House, 54-6. SF 1 passed Third Reading in the Senate, 20-10. It is difficult to characterize these votes, as the bills were so large and complex, and different legislators had different reasons for voting for or against. Some votes were cast on philosophical grounds, while others were in response to specific components of each bill.