Good afternoon everyone welcome to join appropriations. Like to welcome my pages if you would raise your hands Marks Coocks, John Ellen, Will Sabo, Emilio Wellman thank you for being here today. I don't have a list of our Sargent of arms if you would raise your hand just give us a way we will appreciate it, thank you for been here. We are gonna go right into our agendas this afternoon and I would welcome senator brown to the podium to discuss education lottery. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you ma'am chairman. I think this is a follow up on where our last meeting kind of concluded as you know lottery is an important piece in trying to put this budget together and I thought I would talk about the positions again were out in may be the house at then hope we get some back and forth on this issue. Right now the Senate position is pretty much what we were at today which is a 1% amount used for advertising and that new amount according to Barry Boardman will create about a hundred sixty million dollars that the Senate plans to use store the teacher pay in its proposal that 1% also does not have any restrictions on the advertising it pretty much leaves things as they ate today. The house proposal as my understanding is to raise the amount that can be used for advertising to 2% but includes several restrictions that in our opinion creates a lot of uncertainty on those dollar amounts that can be used moving forward. To us it's almost I guess it puts is in a position of where you saying let's put restriction on the lottery but at the same time let's increase advertising about 2%. So it's almost counterproductive in our opinion to take that approach so again our position in the lottery is to maintain the 1% on advertising. You have seen the new numbers that it creates which is another one hundreds sixty million and the Senate plan it to use to for teacher pay. I would like to get some thoughts from the house on the thought process on the lottery numbers and maybe we can get some back and forth as far as lottery dollars go. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you sensor Brown. Comments and questions from the committee? Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you ma'am chair. Yeah I have a short and of it is that we did an exploration to find additional revenue. In that exploration we discovered there were some methodologies offered by the lottery to increase the amount of money coming from a lottery to education. Our congress obviously feels very strongly about the honest lottery act and a number of those provisions which we have indicated may be have some ability to negotiate those fair provisions but you know the idea was generate revenue for education from a known and very reliable source that we obviously are using to the tone of a, I guess now we up to 500 and 84 million. The exploration up to this point in terms of senator Brown what you got there, hundred and sixteen. I think the exploration of the house conducted has born few because obviously we have more money now that we are looking at this stage of for education and then we did when we begin that process obviously we were really different at the moment it's matter of since Dr. Boardman went back and further refine those numbers as we have moved along. The difference is really 29.5 million dollars. It may could be more could be less as we have discussed on the continue to pinning on
[0:00:00.0] Scenarios that Dr. Boardman put forward and that are out there. So, I mean we understand the senate’s position and I think you all understand our position. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the follow up for us is that 2% you are talking about generating about 29 more million dollars to get a 2% on advertising. So, basically doubling the advertising amount but because of the restrictions you are only generating 29 million to try to workout some differences, we have consider some options about possibly raising the percent of advertising without the restrictions to accomplish the same time and it would take very little difference, I want to give you an example, if you go to one and a quarter percent advertising you generate about 20 million dollars. So, you can raise that amount just a small amount whatever the restrictions and accomplish the same thing that’s just a thought that we have kind of consider out there to the house to see it’s something you may consider. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senate Brown. Senator Hunt… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman, I was just thinking we have passed the lottery bill in 2005, I don’t believe there is a person in this chamber within the house of the senate they voted for it. And here we are telling increase in the advertising, is that some that really wanna be doing? We have got a stable situation at 1% I just can’t see increase in that, increase in the advertising allowance, secondly and then we really wanna cover up our airways with lottery advertising, buy your lottery ticket, hit it rich, I mean do we want that kind of atmosphere in North Carolina? I don’t think so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator Hunt, further questions or comments from committee? Senator Jackson… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman, Representative Dollar would you ___[02:25] for question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman and thank you Representative Dollar, could you explain to me a little bit of that process? And why I would decide to do what you did with the lottery numbers? Just a little more in depth, Senator ___[02:43] I’m trying to figure out why we would be doing this with this particular fund? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you Senator Jackson. I think it’s really straightforward I mean the Senator ___[03:01] is correct that those of us who are here at the time about 10 years ago or so now 10 years ago most of us voted against, not everybody but most of us voted against the lottery at that time but it get passed and it survived a court challenge which some people were engaged in and I have not seen and I may have missed, they may have been bill filed in the senate or the house that I have missed but I can’t recall since 2011 a bill being filed to repeal the lottery. So, obviously we are sequent enough with we are kind of where we are, where we are and I think everybody takes that reality is real. So, on the house side we are looking for revenues given that we came into the session with far or less revenues than we are anticipating from last year and we were looking at, “Okay, what are the options out there?” So, we clearly had ask the lottery, “What will be your options to generate additional dollars for education?” Because I think that’s a lot of people have been talking about is additional dollars for education and they brought forward their options and off course those options have been since scrub through our caucus as I mentioned before fairly strongly that if there was additional advertising, if they wanna to make sure that advertising and I think it gets it… [0:04:58.3] [End of file…]
Rep. Dollar: Under the concerns Senator Hunt had expressed, that you would have the Honest Lottery Act go with that in order to make sure that the advertising wa at least mathematically truthful. So that was thinking, both to generate additional dollars for education as well address the concerns expressed by Senator Hunt and others. I think as I said before, you know, in any event, however this particular issue goes in the final budget agreement, one good thing that has come out of it is that cleaerly we have been able to find some other non-recurring money over there, and we were better able to find the baseline lottery number so that obviously we have more availability to us in the education area than when we originally started. Speaker 2: Thank you Representative Dollar. Did you have a folow-up Senator? Senator Jackson: I do have a follow up. If Representative Dollar will humor me once more for a follow up. (YIELD) Thank you. I;m still trying to get my brain wrapped around this thing because I was not here in 2005 when it was passed. If I had a been I would have voted against it. And if some of my fellow members had been here as well we probably wouldnt have a law written today as close as that vote was from what I understand. So, in light of that, if we were to take the house budget as you presented the lottery, in your mind would that mean that we would actually be voting for a lottery? To increase it, in a sort of round-about way we would be voting for a lottery? Speaker 2: Rep. Dollar? Rep. Dollar: Well I wouldnt' think so, I mean everyone has to formulate thoughts in their own mind. I mean obviously we're already accepting and the senate is already accepting additional money from the lottery where we stand today. From where we stood, 'cause my understanding is that in the offer here is 116 million from the lottery over and above the original money that was coming in from the original baseline enacted. But, again Senator Jackson, It's not a huge amount of money that your talking about when your talking about, you know, 584 million dollars thats coming in from the lottery. We're talking about 29.5 million so it's not a huge amount of money. And for those who are concerned about the lottery, obviously, the Honest Lottery Act i would think would be of interest to potentially to some members who had misgivings at the beginning. Speaker 2: Thank you Senator Dollar. Senator Brown? Brown: Representative Dollar, in the lottery number 64 million of that are non-recurring numbers. And with the additional restrictions on advertising - first of all with non-recurring dollars you've got some uncertainty built into those numbers already. Then we add the uncertainty on top of that with the advertising restrictions as well. That's a major concern for us. How do you feel about those concerns? I just, again, you've already taken one concern and added another one to it. Speaker 2: Sorry, are you posing a question for Senator Dollar? Dollar: Well I can go by Dr. Boardman's analysis. Who analyzed it as moving from 1% to 2% in the advertising and the effect of the Honest Lottery Act which when the physical note was originally done in March of 2013 there was no physical impact determined on revenues. Dr. Boardman, in going through and giving an ubiased look at it said you wouldn't take in as much on the new money with apparently no impact on the regular revenues and (clip ends)
[0:00:00.0] So, you are talking about small moves there and the big picture of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did you have any follow up Senator Brown? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just say we are 29 and off on this issue, it’s a, ___[00:18] things maybe some, maybe I think it’s not a lot of money but I think it is important if we get this number settled because to move forward I think every dollars gonna be important. I think I have mentioned something that we would consider looking at is a house willing to at least move on a different proposal or a plan to try to meet in the middle of this at least try to settle this issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recognized Hallway. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I have a little frustration here as we talk about the lottery and we are concerned about more advertising but state…We are in the game of business or we are not? If we don’t wanna be in the game business let’s just get out altogether we can later head on ___[01:05] or not, we won’t have to worry a bit about taking money from poor people or whatever, 29 million dollars I just don’t see that’s a big deal, if we are gonna this slow moving on this thing the lottery ___[01:20] the Christmas folks, who wants to get this thing moving and get it rolling and as I was mentioned the other day our proposal now, we are not dependent on any of this lottery money to fund teacher salaries, we did our house budget, we are now order to place or we are not, again for word about advertisement let’s just do way with all up, there is no, we are only getting a couple of hundred million dollars from the lottery but forgive 400 million suddenly we have become centers I mean it’s, I voted against it, I was against it in very beginning but I think that we need to just quite to move a little quicker than what we are doing and this is one time stuff we are going to be here forever. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brown did you have a comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will just say I gave an option of where we might move I would hope you to consider that move. I think maybe we can move on the salaries and… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have two more questions Senator Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. This maybe actually for staff and I don’t know ___[02:23] but and whoever I respond to be the best, when we look at 1% with no restrictions, we have an expected value here 116 million and what I’m looking for is somebody can give me whether it’s a conference ___[02:40] or just a sense of variants, it’s expected in that number and what happens to that variants when you increase the advertising dollars to 2% which we have looked at and separately when you add the restrictions what happens to that variants again, we have talked about how these ads confusion to it there is a way to get an actual calculation of how much that it’s coming through and I wanna see staff maybe able to respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator ___[03:12], Mr. Boardman is here and can respond to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very important at fiscal research first with respect to conference Senator Bill I will say that unfortunately, and the business producing a point that’s we don’t get to budget on an ___[03:30] so that’s what we are focused on. I will say with respect to the lottery it is volatiles driven by the lot of different drivers, it can’t only being number one. So, we try to take a very cautious or conservative approach when we put that number out there and I think that same approach was taken this time as in the past if you look back over the last several years, you will see that generally that the lottery numbers are under protected and that’s harm of that caution. So, if I had to say is there are a marginal pair of plus or minus we try to work in basic conference senate bills plus or minus 5% confidence but that doesn’t mean our point estimate is right in the middle, we will tend towards the more cautious number, we make that estimate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Boardman, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you give me at least a sense of what happens to those variants when you add one variable and increasing advertisement and then an additional variable for including for what are these advertising restrictions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Boardman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you again those two items are treated as relatively independent of that so we analysis that I provided for your static, we take the base and look at, okay let’s increase the advertising, what type of impact kind of return per dollar of advertising? [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]
[0:00:00.0] …One expect that gives us one set of scenario but the base the fundamental point, estimate base hasn’t changed and then we look at the marginal changes and advertising what type of changes on that base would occur? So, those are two separate events that we are measuring if you would choose both policies would be the some of those two events. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Boardman, one more question on lottery, Senator Hind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank Senator Harridan, I just want to comment on advertising recurring is spending 1% of revenues, lot of revenues on advertising, that’s about 17.5 million dollars, if we double that we are gonna be 35 million dollars annually. Can you imagine that Coney Allan___[00:48] atmosphere that we are gonna have buy a lottery tickets right now and get rich quick, I just can’t see it in North Carolina plus it’s tremendous diminishing returns on advertising dollars that first 1% we are generating an excess of 500 million dollars, the next 1% generates a little over 30 million dollars, just worth it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further comments, Representative Dollar closing comment on… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, just one other observation and certainly leave it at this, when the lottery started out I believe we were about 34% is coming into education and that has dropped. So, I think it stand about 26% of the actual gross revenues are into education. So, I think I mean obviously that’s not a short session issue but I do think it’s one of the things that should concerned everyone, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brown do you have the closing lottery comment or do you like to move on the salaries and benefits? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just think it’s important, we settle this difference so we can move on because again it’s just we are talking about 30 million dollars and we have got to come together at sometime. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Chair recognized that Senator Brown discuss salaries and benefits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We got our hand out I would like to get out if we could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now, we are waiting for the pass that these documents, all documents from this meeting will be available on the senate appropriations website at the close of meeting today or at the end of the day today, okay, as passed out. [Pause] Senator Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman. I thought I would just hand out the sheet to kind of give you a comparison on teacher pay and before I get into that for the past three years our budget has really concentrated on medicate getting that strike and we felt like this year for the first time we could concentrate on teacher pay and we felt that was important because as you guys and everybody here knows we have spent about two billion dollars on medicate and we just felt like it was we have already some ___[04:08] and we felt like teacher pay was a place to put it. And the first chart gives you an idea of how much money would be spent on teacher pay in each of the three plans? The government’s plan was about 100 million, our plan was about 468 million and I think the house plan was 178 million. This is just a different way to look at it, I want those plans would mean as far as how your pay would increase overtime, you can see on the senate plan as compared to the other plans, how quickly teacher pay would get to $50,000 per year level, a much quicker plan… [0:04:59.8] [End of file…]
Speaker: Also as far as percentages go, the senate plan woudl increase teachers pay by eleven percent. The house plan by five percent. The average salary on the senate plan would be $51,198. On the house plan it was $48,234. But I think the most important number that we're dealing with here is this next number. The third number. Which would move us on the national ranking from 47th to 27th as far as teacher pay in the nation. And you can see where the house plan would move us. It would be 37th. Also in the regional side of things, we are next to last in the region. This would move us third in the region. On the house plan it would leave us 7th out of the 10 states that are within the region. And finally this is a snapshot of the teacher pay where our current salary is, what the median regional pay is, what the average regional pay. What our plan would put us, then you can see the US median/average salary as well. This is a little history, and I think this is important because it shows where North Carolina was at, what happened over some time and where this would put us, I guess, back. And as you can see in the '06-'07 year, North Carolina ranked 24th in the nation in teacher pay. And you can see how quickly that dropped. And in the region we were second for many years, and then we dropped from 2nd to 7th, then to 10th, then on the national level we went all the way down to 46th. Our plan would get us back to 27th which would be close to the top as we've ever been, I guess, nationally. And also 3rd in the region. We think these are important numbers and you know there is a lot of debate, I guess, on different types of pay, incentive pay as well, and I think we can continue to debate those. And I think we should maybe find ways to reward our best teachers. But I also think that we've got to get in the game as far as teacher pay goes nationally, and I thought the senate plan would do just that. Again this also addresses the piece that I think most of us agreed on which was a starting pay fix. This would move starting pay pece. This would move starting pay for teachers to 33,000 a year. That's close to a little over a $2,000 pay increase for beginning teachers. Another importan piece of our plan is that it also eliminates the old schedule that had about 37 steps in it. This plan reduces that down to about 18 steps and the maximum would be about $5,000 a month or $50,000 a year for the plan. One thing too that we're willing to put on the table is we would be willing to offer this plan and not relinquish career status to be paid on this schedule. i think that is a move the senate is willing to make. WE also deal with the master's teacher pay, and I think this was agreed, I think in February when the Governor and the Speaker and the Pro-tem got together and proposed the beginning pay at $33,000. One of the other issues that was talked about at that time was the master's pay piece. And our piece will allow any teacher that has taken one course by August 1st of 2013 to remain eligible for the advanced degree supplements moving forward. And I think that was a provision, again, that was agreed upon by all three parties at that meeting in February. Our proposal includes that. As far as other pay goes, I'll go through that briefly. In education, the non-certified personnel our plan offers a $618 salary that includes benefits. That's a 2.2% salary increase. Other - (Clip Ends)
Employees under education provides a thousand dollar salary increase. That's including salaries as well. We also have the thousand dollar increase for most other state employees and on average this is about a 1.8 percent salary increase for other state employees as well. I know for magistrates and assistant deputy clerks we also allowed them to take the step instead of the increase. That's in our budget. As far as ?? goes our budget proposed a .8 percent increase. Those I guess were the highlights of what our plan will do. It's similar to what you've seen. I think the key piece of that is the tenure piece that we're not tying to this piece schedule. And I hope that you see the importance of taking care of teachers in this particular package as you look at the history. One time, I think as a state we could be proud of being in the middle of the pack, and then we were at the bottom of the pack, this puts us right back in the middle of the pack again. So madam chairman, with that I know that the House would like to respond to that so I'll open the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Brown. Also I'll just note that we do have staff available for any questions that might need to be referred to staff. Representative Holloway? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Thank you madam chair. Senator Brown, I'm glad to hear that you are willing to consider relinquishing the tenure piece of your budget. And certainly, when you look at this piece, scale or this graph that you've got here, the Senate looks mighty good. And you certainly look like you support teachers, and the House, we equally, we want to give our teachers and state employees pay raises but the piece that's left out of this puzzle is how you got to this number. And in your budget you essentially lay off every single teacher assistant in the state to get to the number that you're at and we protect all the teacher assistants. And when we have our budgets and we hear from our constituents, we haven't heard not one negative comment from our plan which gives a little over five percent, protects the TAs, we've got things like Read to Achieve going on and we want kids to learn to read by third grade. We know that doesn't happen just in third grade. It starts at home. It starts in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade. We'd be taking all the TAs away from those teachers and taking a valuable resource from them. So if I could, I'd like to, and I'd like to have a follow up too, Senator, but. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam chair, I'd like to clarify something if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This does not take all the teacher assistants away. This leaves the teacher assistants in kindergarten and first grade. It does take the teacher assistants in second and third grade, and with that there is also flexibility for the schools to be able to move the TAs around as needed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Did you have a follow up, Representative Holloway? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, but Senator Brown, also that money for the TAs, counties have flexibility and even taking a cut for second and third grade, counties use a lot of that money to fund teachers. We've got Wake County CFO here, David Neder, he's here with us. I'd love for him to come forward and just talk about what a proposal that you guys are proposing, what that would look like for the school systems in Wake County or other counties, and talk about what those cuts would mean to them. Could we have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, at this time we're only accepting comments and questions from committee members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Well very good. But that's something at some point though. I mean we need to talk to these folks and even if you're just gonna cut it in second and third grade assistants, that's still gonna have a tremendous impact on our children. It's gonna lower the number of teachers in the state, and I think that we've got such a strong, positive reception from our House plan. I mean, I'm glad that you all want to give more, but it's just where you're getting the money to do it. That's what we have an issue with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brown. All right, Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank my good friend Holloway and I respect him greatly, we work together on education. There's a couple of things that we do need to clear up. Many systems hire locally paid teachers. They also have the flexibility of taking a teacher and converting that dollar amount and buy nearly two full time teacher assistants. Some of them have done that. With creative scheduling, you'll see more of that taking place.
[0:00:00.0] So, the net will not be the 7,400 Teacher Assistance that we are talking about, it will be considered to be less in that but we have not increased class load for teachers and we have not reduced any teachers. So, when you say we are loosing teachers in our budget that is not correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your comment Senator Tillman, further comments or questions from the committee? Senator Brown… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hacker I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a question Senator Brown, like Representative Hallway the TA issue is to me bothers me a lot, what percentage are you looking at if you are include the TAs what percentage raise you are looking if you put the TAs back? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, one year of TA is about 116 million dollars, I would have to back into those numbers to figure that out. So, I hate to tell you the wrong numbers but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman if you would hold for just moment. Representative ___[01:16]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman. The model that we are trying to preserve just put in place by Governor Hunt a number of years ago by adding Teacher Assistance in there and just take out one aspect of it as far as Representative Hallway brought it forward was about the ability of reading and that model gives us results where at least half of our kids aren’t reading proficiently and to say that the Teacher Assistant is something that is really missing in the, would be missing in the scheme of things, they have been in place for all that period of time and if you look at results you see that the reading proficiency is diminished significantly well below what we accept is an acceptable standards and I believe what the senate is trying to do is find another model and that is upgrade the quality of the teacher we fully recognize at the quality of education comes from having the best and brightest teacher and by having the pay scale increase 11% that is designed one to attract with especially the $35,000 salary increase but also to retain the best and really do, really read by the time the rate a graduate. So, if you look at the big picture Teacher Assistance really had function as well as people keep writing about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator ___[02:36], Representative Hallway. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you. Senator ___[02:40] I do wanna respond just to that I would also point out that we have been cutting funds away for teacher assistance for years, superintendents foolishly have spent the money sometimes on other things and maybe things that they need but almost in this entire state they are very few of any Teacher Assistance in third grade which is a vital grade, they are already in faced our second grades so one could argue that maybe there is not enough there to help with the ___[03:07] but Senator Tillman they know I love you, I will tell you all time you are my favorite Senator but now I have talked to my superintendents and I have talked to them and they have taken money that we have given them last year in the budget for TAs and they take that money and they convert some of those dollars and the teachers and if we cut some of the TA money then there is gonna be less dollars if they have going to their system. Now, I don’t understand how that’s gonna end up without producing fewer teachers but I just really think that the TAs are important, I think having the extra hand is an asset to the teacher, these classes even though we have an increased some but an extra person there to break a child out in the small group, they help them with their reading or whatever, I just see that as being an important and again we don’t wanna put anybody out of work, we wanna keep these folks to have a job with a job the number that we could actually move on and I’m not saying this is a house position but it is dollars that would not impact jobs, this is about not 10 million dollars that’s the averages, that’s what the enrollment growth is calling for new TAs and we could actually bypass not 10 million and not layoff anyone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But we wanna keep the folks with the job and we also wanna keep folks and teachers with the good pay and like I said, we have got nothing but positive comments from all educational groups on our budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank your for your comments. Senator Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hallway, I appreciate your comments but I think you touched on one of the real problems with Teacher Assistance. I think even yourself have now admitted that the money been spent on Teacher Assistance and been used for Teacher Assistance. And again, that’s part of the problem we have… [0:05:00.0] [End of file…]
There are lots of studies out there that look at teacher assistance and what kind of impact out has on student results and most of them, if not all of them will tell that it has very little to do with student result and again I think we can say problems will teacher assistance if the money is not being useful to start with and then if you look study after study and teacher assistance have no positive results in the end that's the pace to teacher assistance. Again this is one of the issues this is on the ?? I am sure to make negotiation on just like all this pace and like lottery is but again I think what we want to show today on the Senate side which is the numbers who we are today what we like to be and what will out take us to get there and to get there you have to make some hard choices I understand that and I think we all do and probably the hardest thing about being in the house or the Senate is some time you have to make hard choices and they are not easy to do and you are going to get criticized no matter what you do in most cases but again what you put your priority I guess is the question we will ask do you want to be someone ?? 27th and 3rd in the region or you want to still be 37th in the nation near the bottom in the region I guess that's one of the questions we can ask in debate. But again to do that you have to make hard decisions and I know they are difficult and I understand that but again we will try to negotiate this out I think this today will try to lay out why the Senate propose the budget it proposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you senator. I think we passed out our senator offer in, if Senator Brown if you will just walk us through that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I can walk you through it not a lot has changed I think the biggest pieces that have changed is on the reemergence we have agreed on that number now between the house and the Senate which was what line four then if you go again to the lottery piece where the hundred sixty million that's line 32 where the hundred sixty million the house is still on hundred sixty five million that's a key piece. On the next page we agreed on the last week on Medicaid short file and the Medicaid rebase reserves line 40 and 41 so those are in place now. And then if you start looking pretty much at the pay starting with line 62 and for the next line as you can see the difference in what the pay would cost and what the call will cost as you compare the house and Senate budgets and then I guess you can look at the bottom line the inappropriate pieces will move in forward. Again this is a Senate offer we understand this is a, there's gonna be take and move forward we are willing to do to sit down and want the house to do that. I just felt like it was important because teacher pay has been I guess the top issue of session pretty much and what we gonna do with teacher pay and I guess the Medicaid piece and I just thought it was important we look at numbers and understand why the Senate came up with numbers we came up with. Again once how we are 24th in nation in teacher pay. Even with our plan we only get to 27th and one time for many many years we ate second in the region what our plan we just get third in the region. So we still don't even to get buy to we were one time but I think this is a big step to try to get us closer what we were one time. We would love to see some offers or count offers from the house and will continue to negotiate this and give faith I think we’re can find some common ground but I think it's important to lay out why proposals are put out there and I hope we have done that today. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you senator Brown. Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you ma'am chair. I can give classification on your offer here on line
I'm sorry, line 44. The line 44 in your offer where you have $228 million in reductions in Health and Human Services and as we've discussed and as has been known now for several weeks, $59 million of that is not achievable because it was an assessment that was not allowable under the Federal guidelines, these days. I think there was another $14 million on the reduction that was, as I understand from staff, that's not achievable, $73 million. If you can explain why that has not been adjusted or how you make up that $73 million or why it still be there as a reduction that's not an achievable reduction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar you're posing that as a question then? To Senator Brown? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To Senator Brown, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, you and I have talked about this last night. We will find those dollars. It has not been adjusted yet, but I told you we would find those dollars somewhere in this budget to get that balanced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator Brown. I appreciate everyone coming to the meeting. Tomorrow will be our next meeting at 10 AM. No further comments or questions, we're adjourned, thank you.