House Committee on Finance (02/10/2010)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Date:	02/10/2010	ATTENDANCE

Time:	10:58 AM to 08:31 PM	DelGrosso	X
		Frangas	X
Place:	LSB A	Gerou	X
		Kagan	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Kefalas	X
	Representative Judd	Labuda	X
		Roberts	X
This Report was prepared by		Summers	X
	Ron Kirk	Swalm	X
		Benefield	X
		Judd	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
HB10-1042 HB10-1087 SB10-001		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Postponed Indefinitely Referred to Appropriations

11:04 AM -- House Bill 10-1042 - Concerning the Air Quality Permitting Program

Representative Peniston, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 10-1042 makes several changes to the Air Quality Control Program. Currently, a member of the air pollution control division is required to review and approve all invoices for any permit which required five or more hours of staff time to process. In lieu of this review process, the bill requires the Air Quality Control Commission to report permit information on stationary industrial sources of pollution in its annual report to the public.

Representation Peniston continued by noting that Section 4 makes technical changes to align the legislation with current program policies. It makes explicit an exemption from permitting allowed under the federal Clean Air Act of 1990. It changes the notification requirements for construction permits. Under the bill, entities with a construction permit must notify the department within 15 days of beginning construction activity, rather than 30 days prior to beginning construction activity. It also increases the penalty for open burning from $100 to $1,500 per day.

The following persons testified:

11:10 AM -- Mr. Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, expressed concerns with Section 3 of the bill regarding burning permits. He noted that in our experience, the 30 day notification requirement is important because it gives better notice whenever a new source of air pollution will affect a community. The public is very concerned about when an operation will get underway because if needed, an injunction can be ordered to stop the potential pollution resulting from the burning operation.

11:18 AM -- Mr. Paul Tourangeau, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), responded to questions about the open burning provisions in the bill.

The committee discussed the 15-day permitting process in the bill on Page 4, line 2.

11:31 AM -- Ms. Kirsten King, CDPHE, responded to questions about the permitting process.


BILL:	HB10-1042
TIME:	11:36:50 AM
MOVED:	Roberts
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment A). The motion passed on a 8-2 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Excused
	Kagan	Yes
	Kefalas	Yes
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	Yes
	Judd	Yes

Not Final YES: 8 NO: 2 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:


BILL:	HB10-1042
TIME:	11:42:30 AM
MOVED:	Benefield
MOTION:	Refer House Bill 10-1042, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a 10-0 vote.
SECONDED:	Kagan
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	Yes
	Gerou	Excused
	Kagan	Yes
	Kefalas	Yes
	Labuda	Yes
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	Yes
	Judd	Yes

Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

11:45 AM -- House Bill 10-1087 - Concerning the Elimination of the Requirement that an Employer Withhold Colorado Income Tax

Representative Swalm, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 10-1087 eliminates the requirement that employers deduct and withhold Colorado income tax from an employee's wages starting January 1, 2011. Under the bill, withholding of state income tax from a worker's wages would only occur if the employee and employer voluntarily agree to it.

He continued by noting that individuals who stop having state income tax withheld would still generally be required to file annual tax returns and those with state income tax liabilities above $1,000 would be required to make quarterly estimated payments to the state due to provisions in current law.

Representative Swalm noted that initially, as the bill is written, it gives the employer the option to withhold. He continued by noting an amendment that would allow only the employee to opt out of the withholding requirement. Also, he spoke to a second amendment that would be triggered when an employer gets notice from the state that an employee has not paid income taxes, then the employer would continue to withhold.

Representative Swalm discussed the history of the income tax and the burden that it imposes on taxpayers in America. He noted that we had a system in the 1940s that allowed persons to make quarterly payments.

12:07 PM

The bill was placed on the table for action and Representative Swalm distributed amendments L.002 (Attachment B) and L.004 (Attachment C).


BILL:	HB10-1087
TIME:	12:08:09 PM
MOVED:	Swalm
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.004. The motion passed on a 7-3 vote.
SECONDED:	Roberts
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Excused
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	Yes
	Judd	Yes

Not Final YES: 7 NO: 3 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	HB10-1087
TIME:	12:09:58 PM
MOVED:	Summers
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002. The motion passed on a 9-2 vote.
SECONDED:	Roberts
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	Yes
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	Yes
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	Yes
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	HB10-1087
TIME:	12:12:02 PM
MOVED:	Swalm
MOTION:	Refer House Bill 10-1087, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a 3-8 vote.
SECONDED:	Gerou
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	No
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	No
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 3 NO: 8 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	HB10-1087
TIME:	12:28:08 PM
MOVED:	Benefield
MOTION:	Moved to postpone House Bill 10-1087 indefinitely. The motion passed on a 6-5 vote.
SECONDED:	Labuda
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	No
	Frangas	Yes
	Gerou	No
	Kagan	Yes
	Kefalas	Yes
	Labuda	Yes
	Roberts	No
	Summers	No
	Swalm	No
	Benefield	Yes
	Judd	Yes

Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

12:28 PM

Recess.
01:36 PM

The committee reconvened.

01:36 PM -- Senate Bill 10-001 - Concerning PERA Pension Plans

Representative Andy Kerr, prime sponsor, explained the provisions of the bill and distributed a packet of PERA materials on the legislation (Attachment D). He noted that the legislation makes modifications to the benefit plans of the Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA). The bill makes changes to fully amortize the unfunded liability of each of PERA's divisions to reach a 100 percent funded ratio for each division within the next 30 years. In addition, the legislation: changes the amounts to be contributed by both employers and employees; places a cap on the cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for retirees; creates new contributions and guidelines for working retirees; and increases the age and service requirements among specific groups of employees before they are eligible to receive retirement benefits.

He continued by noting that the bill also requires the PERA board to calculate the aggregate actuarial-funded ratio of PERA's assets as a whole prior to calculating the funded ratio of each division separately. In addition, the bill requires PERA to submit a report regarding the funded status of PERA to the General Assembly on January 1, 2016, and every 5 years thereafter.

02:12 PM

Representative Kerr continued by saying that the state has had a difficult time addressing PERA's unfunded liability saying that the fund is the single largest financial liability in the state of Colorado. He continued by emphasizing that this legislation affects real people's lives and the new economic realities we face. There is an actuarial emergency crisis that gives us the opportunity to address and we postpone action to a future date. He stated that 90 percent of the bill is asking state employees to give up something in terms of benefits. This gives us the opportunity to solve the largest liability the state faces.

The committee discussed the effect of the COLA adjustment on current retirees. The committee noted that the most powerful force in this world is compound interest. Representative Andy Kerr, noted that the worst case scenario is to do nothing and let the fund be insolvent in 30 years. Representative Kerr closed by saying the sooner the problem is addressed, the easier the remedy. PERA was asked to present to the committee.

The follow persons testified

02:25 PM -- Mr. Meredith Williams, Executive Director and Mr. Greg Smith, the PERA General Counsel, testified. Mr. Williams began by explaining the materials before the committee and the original proposal submitted by the PERA Board. Committee members received a handout about the bill, which is included as Attachment D. He explained that the large unfunded liability began with unprecedented declines in the marketplace. Mr. Williams noted that we have to pay off obligations in our working careers, not during the retirement phase. Mr. Williams also explained that the rate-of-return in 2008 was about 8 percent despite the fallout in the markets. Mr. Williams explained the process of the board when formulating the plan.

02:40 PM

Mr. Greg Smith continued PERA's presentation by explaining Senate Bill 10-001. He explained the Board's proposal would increase AED of 24 percent, while the bill would eliminate a statutory increase for the school division. The second provision involves the continuing contribution in the SAED. Mr. Smith also explained that the Board would cap the COLA at 2 percent and index it for inflation. In the event that PERA has a negative rate-of-return, there would be an indexed COLA for three years averaged based on the prior three years inflation rate.

Mr. Smith also explained that SB 10-001 modified salary requirements, the COLA adjustments, and retroactivity of benefits. He continued explaining the provisions in the bill. Mr. Smith discussed the court's position on actuarial necessity, or when the system runs out of money.

The committee discussed a scenario that involved the federal government stepping in and providing aid to the pension plan.

02:53 PM

Members asked what the difference would be for both the state divisions and the school divisions. Mr. Smith stated he did not have the data to respond to the question. Members also asked Mr. Smith about the funding of the SAED contribution and whether the employer would have to pick up that contribution. Mr. Smith explained how the SAED is funded and stated that SAED must be paid whether there are salary increases in that given year or not.

02:58 PM

Mr. Williams noted that many off the pension systems in the United States have taken big hits in their asset bases. We have worked very hard to establish benchmarks and maximize the internal rate-of-return. The Committee discussed post-retirement options for state retirees. After a brief committee discussion, testimony was heard.

The following persons testified:

03:36 PM -- Ms. Norma Anderson, former Majority Leader of the House and Senate, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Anderson provided a history of the federal Social Security Plan and made comparisons to the state's PERA plan. She indicated that initially, state employees had an option of whether or not to join PERA. She continued by discussing the defined contribution plan that was established for legislators because they do not often serve as much time in state employment as other state employees. She stated the retirement plan is a contract between the members and their employees and urged the committee to support the legislation.

03:46 PM -- Ms. Connie Anderson, representing herself as a retired teacher in the PERA system, testified in support of the bill. She stated that in her years of teaching, one of the things she could count on was her retirement. Ms. Anderson stated that the General Assembly needs to find a solution to this problem and asked the committee to support the legislation.

03:49 PM -- Mr. Dan Daly, Colorado Coalition for Retirement Security, testified in support of the bill and discussed the effort that it took to put together the bill by the PERA Board, legislators, and retirees. Mr. Daly stated his support of the bill as amended by the Senate and commented on the COLA provisions and caps in the bill. He concluded by responding to questions from members of the committee and noted that the bill is the best option at this time for the long-term stability of PERA.

04:11 PM -- Mr. Don Shaefer, Friends of PERA Coalition, testified in support of the bill. He expressed his thoughts about the changes in the COLA benefits and acknowledged that changes would need to be made. However, he stated that he does not want to see the demise of the defined benefit plan. He stated that the cost of doing nothing was too great given the economic realities facing the state. He stated all the retirees of PERA should share in the sacrifice of preserving PERA because the future of the plan needs to be ensured.

04:18 PM -- Mr. Walt Cooper, Colorado Association of School Executives, testified in support of the bill.

04:28 PM -- Ms. Karen Wick, Colorado Education Association, testified in support of the bill. She commented on the limited ability of school districts to adjust their budgets in response to the cuts that the budget crisis is demanding.

04:31 PM -- Mr. Miller Hudson, Colorado Association of Public Employees, testified in support of the bill and discussed the retirees that are supporting the legislation. This bill is the best attempt to stabilize the PERA system but cautioned the committee on the perils of the effect of high inflation on the buying power of retirees.

04:38 PM -- Ms. Kathy Zamperini, and Mr. Scott Wasserman, both representing Colorado WINS, testified in opposition toward the bill. Ms. Zamperini began by saying that this bill places too much of the burden on retirees rather than others affected by the legislation. Retirees are experiencing 7 percent increases in health care premiums and the COLA adjustment in this bill will be difficult. She noted that this legislation will result in many state employees leaving the state for the private sector. Mr. Wasserman discussed an option to the bill that would provide for a graduated COLA adjustment rather than the elimination of the COLA in the bill. He closed by saying that the graduated COLA option would protect low-income retirees. Both Ms. Zamperini and Mr. Wasserman said that as amended in the Senate, they withdrew their opposition of the bill but noted that the best options should be found by all parties involved.

04:51 PM -- Mr. Lonnie Westphal, Colorado State Patrol Professionals, testified in support of the bill and shared his experience as a PERA retiree. He closed by discussing the difficulties that retirees will have with the COLA changes but said that the bill is the right thing to do.

04:53 PM -- Mr. Gary R. Justus, representing himself and Save PERA COLA, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Justus stated that the COLA changes in the bill that change the 3.5 percent adjustment that was set in 2000 will cost PERA retirees over $40 billion in the next 30 years. Mr. Justus stated he is opposed to changing the contributions and made reference to an Attorney General Opinion by former Attorney General Ken Salazar. Mr. Justus responded to questions from the committee about the bill and reminded the committee that vested benefits are something that cannot be changed by the unilateral actions of the General Assembly.

05:07 PM -- Dr. Richard Blanke, University of Northern Colorado, testified in opposition toward the bill and suggested a counterproposal to the 2 percent COLA adjustment. He noted that the bill will have the most unfair impact on the low-income retirees. He closed by saying that the 2 percent COLA reduction be distributed evenly between retirees.

05:11 PM -- Mr. Myron Hulen, PERA retiree, testified in opposition toward the bill and discussed the impact of the bill on low-income PERA retirees. He noted that the 2-percent cap will impose a real threat on retirees if inflation runs high. During periods of high inflation, the cap could reduce the buying power of retirees by 64 percent. He closed by saying that the bill should be redrafted that would distribute the change based on four income brackets. Persons who are in the lowest-income tier, would have a progressively-lower COLA cap that would protect the retirees that are low income. He urged the committee to look at alternatives that would be less punitive to low-income retirees and go back to a 40-year funding horizon.

05:20 PM -- Mr. Craig Hilton, PERA retiree representing himself, testified in opposition toward the bill.

05:26 PM

Representative Judd, Chair, distributed a letter of opposition to the committee on the bill from Mr. Len Schiff who could not appear before the committee (Attachment E).

05:33 PM -- Dr. Barry Poulson, Independence Institute, testified in opposition toward the bill and noted that the PERA system is a failure. Dr. Poulson noted that the 8.5 percent rate-of-return will never be realized and noted that like private pension plans, PERA should be using lower discount rates that are equal to conservative bond ratings. The problem with the 8.5 percent assumption is that PERA must invest in risky investments that are not suitable for pension plan long-term stability. These types of investments will result in significant volatility in terms of its funding crisis. He continued by noting that taxpayers are not going to bail out a failed pension system. He closed by saying that in place of SB 10-001, the pension plan needs to be reformed to offer a defined contribution plan.

05:51 PM -- Mr. Tom Thielemier, representing himself, testified against the bill and distributed a study that he authored on SB 10-001 (Attachment F). He stated his views about benefit increases and reducing these benefits. He stated that as a beneficiary, he has a contract with PERA. He closed by discussing the history of legislative changes that resulted in the large unfunded liability and stated that the changes in SB 10-001 are not allowable.

06:07 PM -- Mr. Richard Allen, PERA retiree representing Save PERA COLA, testified against the bill and noted that there are other financial options available to the General Assembly rather than Senate Bill 10-001. He closed by suggesting that the legislature wait a year and create an interim committee to more fully evaluate other options that may be used to address the unfunded liability.

06:12 PM -- Dr. John D. Huff, representing retirees, testified in opposition toward the bill and noted that the COLA adjustment in the bill would violate the contract that PERA has with its retirees. He urged the committee to oppose the bill.

06:18 PM -- Mr. Stephen Smith, retired assistant Attorney General in Colorado, representing himself, testified in opposition toward the bill. Mr. Smith discussed the legal opinions regarding retirement benefits and the contract that PERA has with retirees. Mr. Smith also discussed the constitutionality of changing retirement benefits that are fully-vested and that benefits cannot be reduced unilaterally.

06:12 PM -- Ms. Carol Pace, representing herself, testified in opposition toward the bill. Ms. Pace discussed the formula that determines how much a retiree receives and that this determination results in long-term decisions that retirees make. She continued by noting that the PERA pension plan is a contract that retirees depend on and cannot be reduced by the individual. The contract ensures that the retiree has an option that they can count on. She closed by asking the committee to look at what other states are doing to address unfunded liabilities of state pension plans. She stated that the plan does not have to be fully-funded, 80 percent is fine, and to please look at some other options before voting for this bill.

06:35 PM -- Mr. Charlie Berendt, representing himself, testified in opposition toward the bill and noted that he is mainly concerned with the short-term and not what is going to happen 30 years ahead. He closed by discussing the increases in health care premiums and noted that employee contributions for health care should be raised as an alternative to the COLA adjustment in the bill.

06:38 PM -- Mr. Guy Santo, representing himself, testified in opposition toward the bill. He noted that the state should look at different funding levels and how contributions affect the unfunded liability of the pension plans rather than the alternatives in SB 10-001. There is no protection against inflation in the bill as drafted. The General Assembly should issue full public disclosure by PERA on all options rather than just one option as is considered in the bill. He urged the committee to oppose the legislation.

06:44 PM -- Ms. Kathy Ratz, representing herself, testified in opposition toward the bill and noted that she retired in 2006 with 31 years in the plan. She closed saying that she is very worried that the bill does not provide any protections against inflation and asked the committee to oppose the bill.

06:46 PM -- Mr. Tim Hansford, representing himself, testified in opposition toward the bill and said that the General Assembly cannot unilaterally change the COLA adjustment.

06:48 PM -- Mr. Jim Alexander, PERA retiree, and representing himself, testified in opposition toward the bill and distributed a handout to the committee that speaks to the bill (Attachment G).

06:58 PM -- Mr. Tom Thielemier, representing himself, came back to discuss issues addressed earlier in his testimony.

07:01 PM

Representative Judd, Chair, closed testimony and asked Mr. Williams and Mr. Smith to respond to issues that were addressed in testimony.

07:02 PM

Mr. Greg Smith, PERA, began by discussing the rates-of-return in 2009 and the current funded ratio based on a 15-percent return that will not be audited until mid-2010. He then discussed the affect of the Denver Public Schools (DPS) merger and effect on market values. Mr. Smith moved to the topic of the actuarial projections that were built into the bill.

Mr. Smith discussed the openness of the PERA process to develop options to address the unfunded liability and the input that went into the actuarial analysis by PERA. Mr. Smith continued to discuss the actuarial smoothing process that is used by PERA and the methods that are used to value the plan's assets. He noted that using this, PERA will run out of money in about 26 years. He also stated that SB 10-001 will not reduce a retirement benefit. Mr. Smith closed by discussing the number of scenarios that were considered by all stakeholders in the process to draft SB 10-001 and the events that led up to the DPS merger.

07:18 PM

The committee engaged in a discussion regarding the concerns of retirees in the bill. The committee discussed the conversion of the pension plan to a defined contribution plan. Mr. Smith responded saying that such a change to the existing system would be unconstitutional.

07:21 PM

Mr. Meredith Williams, Executive Director, returned to the table and responded to committee questions regarding the conversion of the current system for new hires to a defined contribution plan-system. He discussed a number of the issues that are tied to defined contribution plans and the issue that the conversion, would not resolve the current unfunded liability. The result is that a solution would still be needed. The committee continued to discuss the issues tied to a defined contribution plan.

07:39 PM

The bill was placed on the table for action.


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:40:36 PM
MOVED:	Kagan
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.055 (Attachment H). After a brief committee discussion, the motion was withdrawn (no vote).
SECONDED:	Kefalas
		VOTE
	DelGrosso
	Frangas
	Gerou
	Kagan
	Kefalas
	Labuda
	Roberts
	Summers
	Swalm
	Benefield
	Judd

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:46:31 PM
MOVED:	Summers
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.043 (Attachment I). (The Chair ruled that the amendment did not fit under the title of the bill (no vote).
SECONDED:	Gerou
		VOTE
	DelGrosso
	Frangas
	Gerou
	Kagan
	Kefalas
	Labuda
	Roberts
	Summers
	Swalm
	Benefield
	Judd

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:48:37 PM
MOVED:	Summers
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.046 (Attachment J). The motion failed on a 4-7 vote.
SECONDED:	Swalm
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	No
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:52:19 PM
MOVED:	Swalm
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.047 (Attachment K). The motion failed on a 4-7 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	No
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:55:49 PM
MOVED:	Gerou
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.049 (Attachment L). The motion failed on a 5-6 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:56:01 PM
MOVED:	DelGrosso
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.051 (Attachment M). The motion failed on a 4-7 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	No
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	07:59:24 PM
MOVED:	Swalm
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.048 (Attachment N). The motion failed on a 4-7 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	No
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	08:00:08 PM
MOVED:	Swalm
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.053 (Attachment O). The motion failed on a 3-8 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	No
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	No
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 3 NO: 8 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	08:02:28 PM
MOVED:	Swalm
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.056 (Attachment P). The motion failed on a 5-6 vote.
SECONDED:	Summers
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Frangas	No
	Gerou	Yes
	Kagan	No
	Kefalas	No
	Labuda	No
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	Yes
	Benefield	No
	Judd	No

Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

08:03 PM The committee engaged in a discussion about the PERA unfunded liability and other issues that were brought up in testimony. 08:19 PM Representative Kerr, prime sponsor, offered his closing comments and final action was taken on the bill.
BILL:	SB10-001
TIME:	08:30:05 PM
MOVED:	Benefield
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 10-001 to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a 8-3 vote.
SECONDED:	Labuda
		VOTE
	DelGrosso	No
	Frangas	Yes
	Gerou	No
	Kagan	Yes
	Kefalas	Yes
	Labuda	Yes
	Roberts	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Swalm	No
	Benefield	Yes
	Judd	Yes

Final YES: 8 NO: 3 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

08:31 PM

Adjourn.