Print 🖨

The Committee on Appropriations S/C on Article I, IV, V met on February 21st to discuss the agencies below:

  • Office of the Attorney General
  • Comptroller of Public Accounts
  • Texas Commission on the Arts
  • Bond Review Board
  • Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
  • Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications
  • Emergency Services Retirement System
  • Employees Retirement System & Social Security Benefit Replacement
  • Texas Ethics Commission
  • Texas Historical Commission

A video archive can be found here

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Office of the Attorney General

Harrison Gregg, LBB

  • Presentation
  • $1.3B in all funds $7.8M decrease
  • Item H reduction of $2.9M in GR and $5.6M in federal funds
  • Item L decrease of $14.3M in appropriated receipts
  • Recommend $109.4M out of fund 469 decrease of $43.3M
  • Recommend $32.4M out of fund 4510 for victim’s assistance grants
  • Recommend addition of contingent rider to enable sexual oriented businesses to be set and adjusted in GR act
  • Recommend $95.3M in victims assistance grants $14.7M increase
  • $43.2M was appropriated to AG for antitrust litigation against Google
  • Childs Port IT Modernization Project, phase 2 was provided $47.3M last biennium
  • Federal funds estimated at net decrease of $.9M
  • Recommend amendment of language to rider 7
  • Recommend modifications to rider 9 include $14.M in GR for crisis centers
  • Recommend deleting rider 32, rider 33, rider 34
  • Recommend adding rider 37
  • Recommend adding contingency rider 38
  • Exceptional items total $150.6M in all funds

 

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas

Brent Webster, Assistant Attorney General

  • Listed all the Agencies functions and revenue generated
  • AGs office litigating over 3,800 cases
  • Thankful for the legislatures for 5% salary increase
  • Exceptional item, asking for 12% increase salaries attorneys
  • Asking for support regarding Google litigation
  • Asking for additional resources for child IT project
  • Asking for request to extend funding receipt for IT projects
  • DeAyala- Why is the Google litigation proceeding slower than anticipated?
    • We were on the fast track in Texas, but they filed a multi-district litigation and moved us to New York which has significantly slowed down the project. We are trying to decide if we should stay in multi district litigation or just stay in Texas. The DOJ has filed almost the exact same case we have filed. We also have 3 other cases against Google.
    • Webster- Will add that the NY judge has ruled in our favor
  • Gonzalez- When it came to the Google lawsuit, it was a cost sharing component with other states correct?
    • Webster- We are in the process of a cost sharing agreement with them right now. AG Paxton did the bulk of the work.
  • Gonzalez- Texas has been the only state to spend any money right now correct?
    • With litigation like this, Texas cost will be paid first. Any investment we make in this case will be paid back to the State should we win.
  • Gonzalez- What is the timeline for your cost sharing agreements with the other states?
    • We’re in the process of that right now, our number one priority is to try and find a way to get back onto Texas ground
  • Gonzalez- How much money have you already spent?
    • Michelle Price, CFO for AGs office- we expended $3M total
  • Gonzalez- Of the $3M spent where did it go to, and how much do you think will be spent on outside council?
    • The amount we have spent of the $3M about 1/3 for outside council and 2/3 for consultants. Based on how the case is looking right now the bulk of the cost will be on compiling experts assuming it goes to trial.
  • Spiller- So previously y’all said that you have 3,800 cases pending, are the vast majority child support related?
    • Paxton- Child support is a separate bucket, we have about $1.6M child support cases
  • Spiller- Aside from the Google lawsuit, with the other cases do you do most of them inhouse?
    • Generally a high percentage of our cases are done in house
  • Spiller- When you do agreements with outside council is it based on hourly?
    • Webster- There is a statute in Texas that might look like a contingency, but they are billing hourly and there is a percentage cap
  • Spiller- The $19.3M you ask for the Google case is a one-time thing, or do you think you’ll come back and ask for more?
    • Our hope is to finish it before this biennium ends, but if not we will come back and try and be good stewards about it
  • Spiller- When you recover money, where do the funds go?
    • We produce more money than we cost, and we are pretty proud of the money we have brought in historically
  • Spiller- The targeted salary increases would total 17%, the 5 you ask for and the 12% in your exceptional items is that correct?
    • Paxton- We are profit center for the state, but if I keep losing talented attorneys because other people can pay more, we cant keep making the state money
  • Spiller- Would most of the IT cost be up front?
    • Most of it, $125M is upfront then it’s done
  • Gonzalez- How much more is the staff that’s leaving getting paid at other agencies?
    • I don’t have the numbers, but I can give you an example, one of our attorneys we were paying $185K and UT hired him at $360K and then he came, and cherry picked some of our attorneys.
  • Gonzalez- Are you doing any exit interview to see if they are leaving based off of pay or other reasons?
    • Price- percentage of employees sighting better pay as reason for leaving has nearly doubled
  • Gonzalez- What is the average time crime victims are having to wait to get payments from the AGs office?
    • Webster- I don’t have the average time on hand, a lot of the delays come from the process the legislature requires that they have to go through.
  • Gonzalez- Can you inform the committee the terms of your settlement with the plaintiffs of the whistleblower case?
    • Chris Hilton, Chief of general litigation divisions for AG– the key monetary term of the settlement is a total of $3.3M to settle case with all the plaintiffs
  • Gonzalez- Is the OAG asking for the state to pay the $3.3M?
    • Under the Whistle blower act the OAG is the proper defendant, under state law the agency is the defendant that money needs to be appropriated by the legislature, and that is typically done through the miscellaneous claims process
  • Gonzalez- If the legislature decides not to pay the $3.3M what happens then?
    • Because this is pending litigation I don’t want to get into to many specifics. The agreement was contingent on legislative funding. It was a settlement that we made in order to save money for the state of Texas. It was the prudent thing to do to minimize litigation risk, and for that reason it was a settlement that was in the interest of the case.
  • Gonzalez- How much has the state already spend on the defense of the whistle blower case?
    • The defense of the case is necessarily costly because we have had to use outside council for it due to conflict issues. Because we have had to use outside council we have had to spend close to $600K, that’s one of the reasons why the $3.3M actually saves money for the state compared to litigation the case to final judgment.
  • Johnson- It takes legislative power to have the $3.3M paid out, correct?
    • That’s correct under the GAA there is a $250K cap where by agencies can settle litigation without having to come back to the legislature. Most employment cases are well below that cap so its something the legislature not here about it. Since the $250K cap was exceeded that’s why legislative appropriation is required
  • Johnson- So again if this legislative body does not pay it, what would be the next step?
    • Again, pending litigation I don’t want to get into too many details. Under the terms of the settlement, it is contingent upon all necessary approvals. It is difficult to predict exactly what would happen
  • Johnson- Is the case against the state of Texas or is it against General Paxton?
    • The case is against the state of Texas and that’s true of any whistleblower act employment case. Thats the law that this body passed, it was first enacted in the 80s and was last touched in 1993. Its very clear that the agency is the proper defendant. In every single whistleblower case the so called whistleblowers are talking about the acts of one or a few specific employees, but the entity is always the defendant. That’s true of every whistleblower case
  • Johnson- So if this body does not vote for it, General Paxton would you be willing to pay for it out of your campaign account?
    • I don’t want to speak for the AG, but there is no whistleblower case where any individual has paid anything because the individual is not liable under the terms of the statute. Under the terms of the settlement there is no admission of fault or liability or wrongdoing by any party.
  • Johnson- But there was fault found though, correct? That’s why the supreme court came back with the settlement.
    • Thats not correct, the case is at an early stage as a procedural matter even though it’s been pending for a while. The Texas supreme court has not weighed in yet on this case.
  • Johnson- So this is just an offer on behalf of the state to quicken the case?
    • We entered settlement discussion 3 weeks ago. It was a time with litigation uncertainty for both sides and that is a good time to explore the possibility of settlement. For that reason, the AG authorized us to explore that topic. We filed a notice with the Texas supreme court saying we would attempt to settle and go into mediation. We asked the supreme court to temporarily stay the case. At that time one of the plaintiffs made a filling saying they would not participate in mediation and under no circumstances would they agree to settle to case. About two weeks later notified the court we have a settlement on behalf of all 4 plaintiffs. So, there was no ruling by the supreme court. We began these discussions because it made good sense as a litigation matter to mitigate the risk to the state
  • Spiller- Is there a signed mediated agreement in this?
    • The MSA is public and signed. It is enforceable under the civil practice and remedies code and rule 11. We are negotiating final settlement terms now
  • Spiller- It is subject to the approval of the legislature and the governor as well correct?
    • That correct, all of our employment settlements, include language that makes it contingent on necessary approvals. In this case because of the $250K cap that also requires legislative approval
  • Spiller- Is it in the early stages of discovery and where would the case otherwise be subject to the settlement?
    • Procedurally we are at an early stage. There has been some initial motions practice and one hearing that’s occurred. No discovery has occurred.
  • Spiller- I’m assuming if the settlement were not approved that the case would proceed to trail or subject to other disposition?
    • Because its pending litigation I don’t want to get into to many specifics what may or may not happen. We are petitioning for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case outright under the text of the whistleblower statute
  • Spiller- Do you have any kind of forecasting absent the approval of the $3.3M about what the potential cost would be?
    • Absolutely it was the major factor we decided to settle. The $3.3M would essentially be our cost of defense if we win if we lose the damage exposure would potentially be much higher. Financially speaking there would be no upside for the state
  • Allison- Where did the $600K already spent come from?
    • Its out of the General Budget, it went through our outside council contract approval process
  • Allison- What’s the issue with the Supreme Court that’s been stayed?
    • We have filed a petition for review on the legal issue of whether there is liability under the whistleblower act. Where the person at the center of the allegation is the elected official themselves. We think the fair reading is that it does not cover those situations. There is dispute between the parties on that and the supreme court has not yet made a determination as to whether or not it will accept the petition for review.
  • Allison- The DOJ has recently said they are going to investing the underlying actions is that correct?
    • That is outside my scope of expertise. I am aware of the reports related to that, but I don’t have any personal knowledge.
  • Gonzalez- Was there active for the state to take this case? because the agency could have technically denied it, because you have denied other agencies in the past.
    • Webster- When we decline other state agencies we allow them to get outside council. Many times, that occurs because there is a conflict or other state agencies are involved. We have never prevented anyone from defending themselves. We have not been declining and then leaving them without representation
  • Gonzalez- Does the OAG pay for outside council if y’all actively deny them?
    • Most of our denials of representation are because the agency request that we deny. So, they would pay for that lawyer out of their own fees.
  • Gonzalez- But that doesn’t happen 100% of the time, sometimes y’all have denied an agency without them requesting, is that correct?
    • That is a very tiny percentage. Over the last year there were 60 of these denials, most of the occurred because they asked for it. The second most common denial is because the statue did not allow us to represent them. A very tiny subset there has been an issue of constitutionality, so we cant take a position in a case that violates the constitution.
    • Paxton- There are other cases where they ask us to take a position that is opposite of a position we have taken on other cases. We can take a position that is opposite a position we have taken in the past on other cases.

 

Comptroller of Public Accounts

Charles Smith, LBB

  • Presentation
  • $694.5M in all funds an increase of $29.6M
  • Increase of $30.5M in GR for salary increases
  • Relocation of 6.5M to budget for full staffing
  • Funding for CAPPS is $96.8M in GR funds
  • Recommend deletion of rider 20
  • Exceptional item $6.4M in GR for raises in audit and enforcement division
  • Exceptional item for $18.1M to develop new accounting software

 

Comptroller of Public Accounts Fiscal Programs

Charles Smith, LBB

  • Presentation
  • $1.77B in all funds decrease of $34.3M
  • 43 FTEs increase of 23
  • Increase of $151.8M in GR for mixed beverage tax reimbursements
  • Increase of $34M in GR to reverse method of finance swap
  • Addition of $350M in GR for grant program for rural county law enforcement
  • Intention to fund full payout of $243.8M for Texas guaranteed tuition plan decrease of $27.4M
  • Modify riders 9, 10, 15, 22
  • New contingent rider for grant program
  • Deletion of capital budget rider
  • Deletion of rider 23

 

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts

  • Explained the duties and functions of the agency
  • Exceptional item $6.4M to increase staff salaries
  • Exceptional item $18.1M funding for legacy fiscal modernization project
  • In addition to exceptional items mentions the need to maintain offices in cities across the state
  • Last session legislature created Texas broadband office, thankful for the additional 23 FTEs
  • Gonzalez- Can you give a quick update on where we are on the opioid abatement?
    • We have received some funds to the state, 15% of it is to be distributed by the legislature, 15% goes to local entities across the state, 70% goes to opioid abatement council.
  • Johnson- Can you give me more information on how the broadband rollout is going?
    • There two buckets of funding, we have been approved to distribute $300M to the state of ARPA funds. The second batch of funding is in the Federal infrastructure bill, the federal map will determine how much Texas will receive, we estimate it would be around $2-4B. The first batch of funding will go out in the next 6 months.
  • DeAyala- The two buckets of funding are not intended for subsidy for the consumer, correct?
    • That is correct, its only for infrastructure build out

 

Commission on the Arts

KJ Curtis, LBB

  • Presentation
  • $23.4M in all funds a decrease of about $2.2M
  • Rider 5 has been revised
  • Exceptional items total $8.1M, included increase to grant program and request to increase staff salaries

 

Gary Gibbs, Executive Director for Texas Commission on the Arts

  • First exceptional item is $3M for a grant for arts organization
  • Budget for this grant has been stagnant since 2014, had a 30% increase in demand for grants
  • Second exceptional item is $5M for 50 cultural districts
  • Number of eligible applicants for this program has doubled
  • Third exceptional item is for additional funding for salary increases
  • Largest turnover our agency has had
  • Gonzalez- Who are the matches for the grants?
    • In can be earn income, it can philanthropic gifts from individuals or foundations
  • Gonzalez- Is there also a population growth, that has caused the amount of people you have to serve?
    • When I came to the agency Texas’ population was at 19M, and now its 30M. We rank 38th in per capita funding for the arts
  • Gonzalez- What is the harm in us ranking so low for the arts?
    • Corporations in particular look for cultural amenities, especially in this day and age. Its important to the economic development for the state.

 

Bond Review Board

Harrison Gregg, LBB

  • Presentation
  • $2 million in general revenue funds which is double from the current biennium
  • One funding change related to salary adjustments for the agency’s executive director or its exempt position
  • Bond review board reported that the issue debt was 1.11%, combined issued and authorized but unissued debt was 2.25%
  • Debt is sitting at $64.4 billion
  • Bond rating is at AAA or the equivalent of all three major credit rating agencies
  • Private activity bond program has increased from FY 2014 with $2 million in revenue being collected in FY 2022
  • There is a rider that would enable the agency to carry forward unexpended balances within the biennium from FY 2024 to FY 2025
  • Budget requests include $705,000 in all funding
    • Additional funding for staff positions
    • Capitol IT project for website updates

 

Rob Latsha, Executive Director of the Bond Review Board

  • Agency has brought in 1.2 million in general revenues
  • Exceptional item that is brought back is for competitive funding for critical positions
  • Fourth exceptional item is for the agency to save workflow and create a web form that would allow for bond councils to input data into a website, reducing work
    • Items 2 and 3 were dropped from their request
  • Chair Gonzalez – When people leave, is pay the major reason why people leave?
    • Yes, pay is one of the reasons we are losing staff
  • Chair Gonzalez – When was the last time your agency saw an increase in staff pay?
    • 2014, but we can get more up to date information to you as well

 

Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas

KJ Curtis, LBB

  • Presentation
  • Recommendations include $600 million in funding, primarily General Obligation Bonds
    • Increase of $5.7 million
  • Item A is a technical adjustment of $6.2 million in general obligation bonds
  • Rider for the transfer to DSHS for the cancer registry
    • CPRIT is required to transfer GO bonds proceeds to DSHS per the rider
    • Lowered requests by $6.2 million
  • Agency has updated projected issuance with final issuance expected in quarter four of 2034
  • CPRIT return on investments, as of October, they have received $7.6 million in revenue sharing

 

Wayne Roberts, CEO of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas

  • Requesting the amounts and provisions included in HB 1
    • Especially for proposed 5% cost of living adjustment for classified state employees
  • Include the same COLA for the same exempt salary positions as well


Commission on State Emergency Communications

George Purcell, LBB

  • Presentation
  • Overall recommendation would reduce appropriation of the commission by $161.9 million
    • $29.2 million in GR funding as well
  • General revenue of $21.3 million has been added as a new method of finance
  • Item A removes main federal grant for the upcoming biennium
  • $150 million from the coronavirus state recovery fund for expansion of 911 services across the state
  • Item B shows reduction of appropriations from fund 50/50 911 services offset by general revenue
  • Item C directs more funds towards poison control centers
  • Item D is a reduction of funding due to the completion of the 911 next generation transition in the state program
  • Item 1 on selected fiscal issues is projected fund balance for fund 50/50, revenue sources have seen decline due to exiting of RPCS the CSEC program
    • To address decline, Rider 9 required commission to come up with new funding measures
    • 3 million dollars is the recommended funding amount
  • Item 2 is information on Departure of the lower Rio Grande development council RPC
    • Reduced revenue from this is $5.2 million
  • Item 3 is on distribution of $150 million from federal coronavirus funds, majority of funds are not going to emergency service districts not a part of statewide 911 program
  • Deleting two riders, unexpended balances for ESI project and 911 service fee reporting requirement
  • Agency requesting authority and funding for the executive director’s salary above the 2.3% provided in the base bill

 

Kelly Merriweather, Executive Director for the Commission on State Emergency Communications (CSEC)

  • 77 RPC, regional planning commissions in the program
  • It does include GR in the MOF for the first time in their 30-year history
  • Chair Gonzalez – are you concerned for funding mechanisms of this agency considering there is a decline in the dedicated fund
    • Yes ma’am, it is a concern and has been for many years, this was predicted though
    • Current fee level of 50 cents per specifically on the wireless fee that is of concern, it will not provide sufficient revenue to fund the appropriation
  • Chair Gonzalez – does this affect all 911 entities in CSEC?
    • Yes, it does affect them all
    • Funding caps were implemented in the mid-80’s, it is out of date
  • DeAyala – Is the wireless fee set by the state of Texas?
    • Yes, it is a set rate by the legislature, the cap for wired fees is set by the legislature
  • DeAyala – What rate would allow for appropriate funding?
    • 75 cents would generate sufficient revenue for the short term, 0.85 cents would generate sufficient revenue to 2027

 

Emergency Services Retirement System

Jerry Romero and Tiffany white, Vice Chair and Executive Director Texas Emergency Services Retirement System

  • There has been a decline in funding of this agency
  • In FY 2022, about $8.3 million was paid out from this agency
  • There is a cap of 10 FT employees, they are operating at 50%
    • Recruited at minimum salary
    • Request to be moved to mid-point salary range at $61,000 per year
  • Chair Gonzalez – Are you supporting communities that are more rural as well?
    • Yes, we are, and we are trying to encourage other departments that are not members of TESRS so they can have additional benefits

 

Employees Retirement System & Social Security & Benefit Replacement Pay

John Posey, LBB

  • Presentation
  • Recommendations for all funds are $7.98 billion
  • Recommendations increase ERS by $227 million or 16% over the biennium
  • Recommendations increase group benefits program by $265.5 million or 7%
  • Payroll will grow approximately 0.77%
  • Legacy payments to pay off the unfunded liability for the ERS plan
    • Agency estimates shortfall in those methods of finance primarily due to issues with federal funding
  • HB 1 funds legacy payments going forward solely out of General Revenue and state highway funds
  • LECOS program for retired law enforcement is a top funding priority
  • Total recommendations are $808.2 million for the biennium
  • This plan according to ERS is on the path to depletion, estimated to the year of 2045
  • Unfunded liability of $715 million
    • Current contributions to this program are not sufficient to fund the program
  • Recommendations in HB 1 include $750 million in all funds to address unfunded liability and $38.8 million dollars to increase state contribution
  • JRS2 retirement fund, according to ERS is also on a path to depletion
    • Estimate is it will be depleted in the year of 2069
    • Unfunded liability of $89 million
  • Recommendation for this fund is to include $105 million to address the unfunded liability and $6.5 million to increase the state contribution
  • Public Safety benefits program for survivors of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, estimates are an increase from $13.8 million per year to now $51.9 million
    • ERS says increase is due to COVID-19 deaths
  • Group benefits program will have state contributions to the full amount for member only group insurance and 50% of family coverage
  • Retiree membership will grow 3.5% and active membership will grow 1%
  • Impact of COVID-19 on group benefits, including testing and vaccine administration, cost for FY 2021 was $107.3 million
    • Fewer services led to a $57.8 million reduction from the $165.1 million total
  • Most increases in cost trends are increases in prescription drugs
  • The contingency reserve fund balance is expected to be depleted in FY 2027, due to increases in healthcare expenditures
  • ERS has four funds that are expected to have a balance of $37.3 billion at the beginning of FY 2024
  • ERS has two riders in article 9, reflecting that agencies pay a 0.5% to retirement and a 1.0% contribution to health insurance
  • ERS’s LAR contained exceptional items related to the unfunded liability of the JRS2 and LECOS program. They have had another actuarial evaluation with new data costs, updated and all funds cost is $24.9 million for the biennium
    • Agency has a rider to do another actuarial evaluation to be released in March
  • Spiller – Could you explain the shortfalls with the legacy payments and the issues with Federal funding?
    • In HB 2, there was an estimate of Federal funds to be at $171.4 million for a two-year period, the shortfall is expected to be $157.7 million
    • ERS working with comptroller and found to access some of these funds, agencies might have to reduce programs due to federal regulation
  • Chair Gonzalez – what about your packet on social security?
    • Social security and benefit replacement pay, all appropriations total to $2.2 billion, increase of $234 million from FY 2022, 2023
    • Social security recommendations total 237.3 million dollars or increase of 12% over the biennium. Included assumption of payroll growth of 0.77%
    • Benefit replacement pay (hired before September 1st, 1995), recommendations are to decrease all funds in this benefit by $3.2 million over the biennium
    • Rider has been updated for social security recommendations by the comptroller

 

Porter Wilson, Executive Director for the Employees and Retirement System of Texas

  • 133,000 total contributing employees, least amount of state employees contributing since 2012
  • Large growth in retirees, 107,000 retirees in 2017 to 122,000 today
  • Of the 133,000 people, only 70% of these come from 5 state agencies
    • HHSC has the largest, 33,000 employees
    • TDCJ with 30,000 employees
    • TXDoT, 13,000 employees
    • DFPS at 12,000 employees
    • DPS with 10,000 employees
  • Four retirement plans, three are pre-funded, one is pay as you go
  • ERS plain, LECOS plan, and JRS2 is pre-funded
  • JRS1 is pay as you go for judges on the bench pre-1986
  • All state employees contribute to state pension plans and to social security
  • 401k and 457 plans are voluntary, but all state employees are opted into the 401k plan at 1%, 70% of them stick in with the plan
  • Main ERS fund was short up with passage of SB 321, legacy payments had $510 million fixed amount over a 33 year period
  • Law enforcement benefits and JRS2 were not addressed last session
  • LECOS and JRS2 would have no unfunded liability with passage of the funding request, saving $6.8 billion in interest
  • Actuarial results are coming in mid-March
  • 615 benefits are directly funded 100% by general revenue, growth of this benefits program is indexed to inflation
  • Chair Gonzalez – On slide 2, can you explain implications of having higher noncontributing members?
    • State contributes 10% of employee salaries to pay for benefits, employee contributes 9.5%, paying off a piece of the unfunded liability as well. Non-contributing members just mean having a high-turnover workforce issue
  • Chair Gonzalez – Is there anything that the legislature should be aware of more?
    • We will answer any questions you have even more if you do need it

 

Texas Ethics Commission

George Purcell, LBB

  • Presentation
  • Overall recommendations would increase appropriations by $254,000, under 4% from the previous biennium
  • Additional general revenue will complete transition of agency’s electronic filing system and for funding increases on salaries
  • First included items as policy issues, reduction in the introduced bill of the agency’s FTE cap, exceptional item to fund positions
    • Requesting $1.1 million
  • Second included item concerns the electronic filing system used by the agency, large disclosure filings crashed the system
    • Agency had asked for an exceptional item for $748,000 to transition to the cloud
    • They received a $200,000 grant from the Governor’s office to fix the issue with Amazon Web Services
    • $247,000 is needed to fix the transition for the upcoming biennium
  • $3.2 million in total requests for additional exceptional items
    • Lump sum and retirement payments requested by the agency for the appropriations of retirements rider

 

Randy Erben, Vice Chairman of the Texas Ethics Commission, Jim Tinley, General Counsel at the Texas Ethics Commission

  • TEC has a 500% increase in filings from 2015
  • Requesting for more funding for salaries, bringing employees to the SAO mid-point
  • First exceptional item is an increase to the General Counsel salary which is exempt

 

Texas Historical Commission

KJ Curtis, LBB

  • Presentation
  • Funds total to $75 million, a decrease of $59 million from 2022, 2023 biennium
  • 41 FTE increases which is offset by a decrease of five due to a federal grant ending
  • Combined decrease of $61.6 million made up of general revenue, ARPA, and economic stabilization
  • Decrease of $400,000 of the sporting good sales tax due to the agency carrying forward and spending down balances
  • Revenue increases in General Revenue for program support at non-historic sites
  • 3 largest funding projects include the courthouse preservation grants, the Washington on the Brazos site, and the National Museum of the Pacific War
  • Sporting Goods sales tax have 7% allocated to the Historical Commission which are authorized to be spent on 28 named sites in chapter 442 subchapter C
  • Recommended amount of $35 million for 2024, 2025 biennium
  • Estimated to be at $33.2 million now due to sporting goods sales tax allocations being decreased
  • Recommendations for two new riders for new expended balance authority for the Washington on the Brazos and Mission Socorro archeological sites
  • More exceptional items not included in recommendations, updated to 15, coming to $219.2 million and one FTE
  • New exceptional item is to support the Texas Holocaust Genocide and anti-Semitism advisory commission

 

Catherine McKnight, Vice Chair of the Texas Historical Commission

  • THC requests $45 million to continue the courthouse preservation program
  • Requesting $7.5 million for continuation of maintaining the Museum on the Pacific War
    • Requesting 25 FTEs for our historic sites and 16 FDE for other agency programs
  • Requesting $300,000 each biennium to provide for computers and IT equipment for staff
  • Requesting a capitol authority rider to spend $2.5 million on site deferred maintenance
  • Holocaust Genocide and anti-Semitism advisory commission is requesting $200,000 and one additional FTE

 

Public Testimony

Liz Boyce, Texas Association Against Sexual Assault

  • Currently less than a third of Texans have access to a rape crisis center; appreciates funding increases in the base budget

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club

  • Lone star program money helps the state save money and save the planet
  • SECO might be overwhelmed due to short staffing; get SECO federal funding or help report on the funding so that SECO can get credit on the lowering of ozone air pollution spending
  • M Gonzalez – Read Cyrus’ letter and appreciates his support of the comptroller’s office

 

Rahul Sreenivasan, Policy advisor with Texas 2036

  • Comptrollers budget wants to raise the cap so that the state broadband plan will be expanded
  • There is a minimum 25% match component that can be met with private and public resources, but however this match is met they recommend that Texas plan to maximize its broadband dollars
  • 88% of voters indicated it was important that Texas draw down the maximum amount of dollars to support broadband
  • ~60% thought it was very important
  • The frontloaded approach saves the state 1.4 billion over the next 31 years
  • If the legislature put another billion in, they would save 9 billion
  • M Gonzalez – What is 2036 doing to socialize these 9.5 billion savings to the state?
    • This is part of it and there are a lot of open-ended spending items that deferred to the committee to make decisions; kind of leaving the prioritization up to the committee
  • M Gonzalez – For the fresher members this is extremely important?
    • Yes

 

Ann Graham, Executive Director of Texans for the arts

  • Public funding for the arts is a high return investment and improves the lives of all Texans
  • Initial request for 3 million but is asking for 5 million on top of this for funds for grants on exceptional item number 1
  • The line item for these grants has not increased since 2014 but there is an enormous need for them
  • There were over 30 million in grant requests in 2022 alone but they could only provide 5 million
  • Supports the Texas Cultural Trust request for 5 million as well
  • M Gonzalez – Thank you for your advocacy. You want 5 million on top of the agencies initial request?
    • Yes, an additional $5m on exceptional item number 1
  • M Gonzalez – So fund and add is what you’re saying
    • Yes

 

Nancy Seliger, Board Member for Texas Cultural Trust

  • The economic benefit of the arts for Texas is more than 6 billion annually; totals 380 million annually for tax revenue
  • Designated areas known as cultural districts are the epicenters of art in the state, fueling the economy
  • 51 cultural districts around the state and the demand is growing yearly
  • Support item 2 increasing the grant funding by 5 million
  • M Gonzalez – The cultural art district in the chairs district is fantastic

 

Robert Sarton, Self

  • Thanks committee for including funding in HB 1 for CPRIT
  • His son had Leukemia and recovered but when the speaker was a child that was guaranteed death
  • The increase in survival rate is not free and there are long term effects of the treatment
  • CPRIT is focused on helping avoid those for future generations

 

Ayana Stromberg, Self

  • Appreciates continued support of CPRIT cancer research in TX
  • CPRIT work will prevent other people from being incorrectly diagnosed and avoiding extreme options of treatments

 

Leon Colas, Board Member with AFCSME

  • More than 100,000 Texans receive monthly ERS payments
  • The time has come to invest in ERS
  • With a 33-billion-dollar surplus there is an opportunity to do even more than what is laid out in HB1
  • Wants 3 things: 1) Invest in ERS, 2) approve a COLA for all retired state workers so they can catch up with price increases, 3) provide a 13th check that they have not received in 25 years

 

Ann Bishop, Texas Public Employees Association

  • There is a need for a 13th check for retirees because of the increase in cost of living
  • There is a mechanism that when ERS becomes actuarily sound there is a check that is for retirees that have been retired for 20 years or more; will go into effect when ERS can afford it
  • Asks they look at that mechanism and improve upon it
  • Earlier the chair asked about people leaving the state and the impact of keeping their money in the ERS; from a fund perspective when people are vested, they will age into retirement but when they are not vested and leave their money in the ERS they will earn 2% per year in investment
  • That is a liability for the state since they owe the money but on the other hand the ERS can invest and make more than the 2% in terms of overall funds

 

Tyler Sheldon, Texas State Employers Union

  • Neglecting current retirees since 2001
  • Urges committee to look into cost-of-living adjustments for retirees
  • It is time sensitive as retirees are struggling to live

 

Richard Jankowski, Department of Public Safety Officers Association

  • Hopes to cover the normal costs of officers’ supplemental retirement plans
  • Supports 13th check for retirees if there are additional funds

 

Bill Hamilton, Retired State Employees Association

  • Encourages committee to keep priorities of retirees in mind
  • Wants the fund to be actuarily sound; paying in advance saves $5 billion