top2

SMALLER, SMARTER

-government-

Capitol Review 2-24

Common Sense Legislation for Iowa

School Funding Flexibility

As House Education chair, I am committed to providing flexibility to locally elected school boards by loosening funding restrictions and allowing for more local decision making.  Several school districts have a significant amount of funds sitting in accounts that go unused because they are limited to specific purposes.

No school district is the same, and they each face their own unique challenges and opportunities.  We should loosen funding strings and allow schools to spend some of these funds in the way that meets students’ needs and fits their individual districts best.  I am excited about this legislation, and will be introducing the bill next week.

Smaller, Smarter Government

As Governor Branstad pointed out at the beginning of this session, Iowa has too many state boards and commissions.  This creates additional bureaucracies that lead to inefficient government.  The Governor has proposed House Study Bill 138 to reduce the number of these panels, ensuring a more streamlined, cost-effective state government.  I am already receiving input on this bill and so it will likely undergo changes during the committee process.  The Governor is calling it his smaller, smarter government bill. 

Election Integrity

Iowans should have confidence in their elections.  Measures like voter verification give Iowans assurance that our election system is fair and clean. Secretary of State Pate has proposed a number of election modernizations, as well as voter verification, that are currently going through the committee process. I appreciate Secretary Pate’s commitment to ensure integrity in our elections and look forward to working on his proposal.

A recent Des Moines Register poll finds that 69% of Iowans believe that a government-issued ID should be presented in order to vote.

After School Alliance Even at the Capitol

After School Alliance Event at the Capitol

Capitol Review 2-17-17

The past few weeks I have put forth many pieces of data and facts that are simply not believed, or at a minimum twisted to mean something else.  I want to share with you completely from my heart without statistics, data or information from my staff. 

I care deeply about Iowans, public and private workers and I have a special place in my heart for teachers.  As I have said, my mother was a public school teacher and I believe she was a great teacher.  I believe that almost all our teachers are passionate about their job.  I believe this legislation will not push away passionate teachers, but will attract them.

A paradigm that allows teachers to shine in their giftedness is not an atmosphere of competition; it’s an atmosphere of synergy.  I see the word synergy all over our school buildings.  Please do not listen to the partisan talking points.  This IS about helping schools be better.

I’ve spent 3 days listening to scare tactics and propagandized talking points.  I’m disheartened our discourse had devolved to this.  I’ve been called a “super duper douche” in a statewide email.  This kind of rhetoric is not good for anyone in this state, especially our students.

The atmosphere of intimidation from organizations and individuals, in phone calls, emails, the press, social media, and forums is not good for helping to educate our kids, or advancing any cause.

I believe in my heart, the collective bargaining reform will be good for Iowa.  I did not write the bill, nor have any part in crafting it, other than give some input along the way to the labor committee team.  My colleagues have put in countless hours to write what they believe is a good bill.  They have received input from stakeholders in every aspect of school administration.  It WAS NOT written by the Koch Brothers, or ALEC, or Scott Walker, again partisan talking points.  

After this past weekend, House Republicans heard many ideas to change the bill and make it better.  We did that.  We put several protections back in for teachers and other public employees.

During the course of this bill being passed, the Democrat Party, and some unions have set up an unbelievable scenario of doom that has only exacerbated the destructive discourse.  Things I heard:

-          This will destroy public education

-          Teachers are hated and under assault

-          College students will choose a different path

-          Employees will have no rights to bargain

-          Employees will have no insurance

-          Retirement benefits will be taken away

-          You will be fired just because you are an older employee

I could go on and on with all the untrue things that were said.  None of those things are going to happen.  I will continue to advocate for great schools, great teachers, great communities, and great families.  I will continue to do what I believe in my heart is the right thing.  I have many constituents who support this bill, but are afraid to say it publicly for fear of intimidation by others. 

I will continue to visit schools and listen to principals, teachers, and students.  I will do my best to be fair, honest and non-biased in decisions.  I want to have good dialogue with constituents who are willing to do that same thing. 

The following was written by Representative Ken Rizer, my friend and colleague in the Iowa House.  It explains very well, why this legislation was needed:

After three days of intense debate, today I was proud to vote for public sector collective bargaining reform.  I voted for this bill for one overriding reason:  to save Iowa’s public schools.

Iowa’s collective bargaining law has hurt our schools. Since passage in the early 1970’s, this law’s lack of teeth regarding arbitration has forced school districts to accept annual collective bargaining settlements well above what the districts received in revenue.  Whether the state increased K-12 funding annually by 1%, 2%, 4% or even 6% didn’t matter, as the structure of Iowa’s law ensured that settlement amounts were greater than the districts took in.  Given that 80-85% of a school district’s expenses are in that collective bargaining agreement, this was simply unsustainable. 

As an example, the four school districts I represent (Marion, Linn-Mar, Cedar Rapids, College Community) have received revenue increases the past 2 years of 2.25% and 1.25%, well above the inflation rate and in line with the average .5% annual increase above inflation that our districts have gotten since the early 70’s.  Yet all four of those districts had collectively bargained annual increases of approximately 3.5%.   No organization, whether an Iowa family, a non-profit, a private company or a school district can survive by perennially increasing expenses by 1%-2.25% beyond revenue.  So how did these districts manage, given that expenses were increasing beyond revenue?  They did so by firing new teachers, cutting programs, slowing hiring, and taking other actions to afford the settlements.  The results were larger classroom sizes, fewer educational options for our kids, and stressed-out teachers.

I don’t blame anyone or any group for this unsustainable circumstance.  Union bosses are doing what union bosses do, looking out for their members.  Superintendents are doing what superintendents do, leading their districts in a fiscally responsible way to better educate our kids.  School boards are doing what school boards do, overseeing an educational enterprise the best they can within the law.  Teachers are doing what teachers do, selflessly serving our kids with an intense desire to help kids learn.  Parents are doing what parents do, paying taxes and entrusting their children to a system they expect will provide a top notch education.  And legislators are doing what legislators do, increasing spending for K-12 in real terms with the intention of such increases leading to educational improvements.

So if everyone is doing what they should do, why is the system so broken?  It starts with a flawed arbitration law, which I’ll illustrate in a real-world example. 

Imagine that a school district and a union begin their annual collective bargaining.  The state passes a 2.25% increase for K-12.  The school district then puts an offer on the table of a 2% increase and the union asks for 4%.  If the parties can’t agree, they go to mediation and then arbitration.  Under current law, the arbiter is limited in what he or she may consider.  In addition to the two offers, the arbiter considers 2 primary things:  comparable increases across the state & previous agreements.  To stack the deck in arbitration, union bosses in Des Moines use a “Rule of 100” strategy.  They allow unions in pro-labor districts to bargain while restricting those in less labor-friendly districts to delay.  Once they get 100 of the 333 school districts with high settlements, say an average of 3.5%, they give the unions in less labor-friendly districts the green light to bargain. 

These districts are now stuck.  If they don’t agree to something near 3.5%, which is both the state precedent for comparables and close to last year’s settlement, then they’ll go to arbitration.  In arbitration, the arbiter may only select one of the two proposals.  Given that the comparables and previous year settlements are closer to the union’s offer of 4%, the arbiter will lock the district in with a 4% settlement.  Knowing that the deck is stacked against them, the district settles for 3.5%, well above the 2.25% increase they’re receiving.  This goes on year after year, inflating settlements beyond whatever the state passes for K-12 increases.  It is unsustainable and is hurting our schools. 

I’m proud that my legislative colleagues and I are finally saying, “No more!”  We’re changing binding arbitration so that the highest settlement an arbiter may award is the lowest of the Midwest Consumer Price Index or 3%.  This ensures that our teachers will never get less than a cost of living increase but it rebalances the scales so that school districts have greater leverage to control costs.

The benefits of this change are many.  Rather than being forced to cut teachers and programs to balance their budgets, school districts will now have more money available to hire new teachers and create new programs, decreasing class sizes and increasing educational opportunities.  Combined with our upcoming passage of home rule, they’ll have the authority to innovate, to better attract and retain top teachers in science and math, and to create student-centered literacy programs, among other things.  In sum, we’ll improve education and more effectively use hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Before the Governor has even signed this reform, it’s having a positive effect on my school districts back home, most of which settled this week.  The leverage of this bill has ensured that the settlements are still fair increases but significantly more affordable than previous ones.  This will allow our districts to improve education in a measurable way.

I look forward to the day in the future, when Iowa is once again the top state in the nation in education, to look back at this vote and know that I did my part for my kids, grandkids, and all Iowans.

Pictures From This Week

UNI Day1

UNI Day

UNI Day2

CFRobotics

CF After School Alliance

Capitol Review 2-10-17

My Closing Comments on the School Funding Bill

On Tuesday I ran SF166, on school funding.  These are my comments at the end of a long night of debate (some of the phrasing reflects that these were oral comments on the house floor).

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I began this night asking if we could have a constructive critique of strategies and I want to thank you all because I believe we did that.  Aside from a couple of sidebars, I think we had a good night of discussion and debate on both sides of the aisle and I want to thank everyone for being a part of that. One thing we all, I think, we all can agree on is we care deeply about education in the state of Iowa.  At least that’s the point I’m continuing to try to make with my colleagues across the aisle. 

It’s really not about how much money you put forth as a judgement of how much you care about education.  It is how we look at the whole program and the whole system and can we make it better?

Representative Jones said something that I think went under the radar, which I want to reiterate.  Since being in the majority the House Republicans have never cut education.  Since being in the majority House Republicans have NEVER cut education.  Let me say that one more time, I want to make CLEAR, since being in the majority House Republicans have never CUT education. In fact, we’ve increased $740 million over the seven years.  That’s a 30% increase to education if you do the math.  We’ve had a lot of discussion about numbers and math and where we’re getting our numbers tonight.  Those are pretty simple. $740 million we have put forth in new education dollars over the past seven years.  That’s happened at the same time where all the other areas of state government have declined, except for Medicaid.  Medicaid and school funding are the two areas that have increased.  So everything else is tight.  We are concerned about everything else.

Let me reiterate a couple of the numbers that we did talk about.   We have $200 million of new available money.  Representative Winkler noted, I think it was Rep. Winkler, I’m sorry if it wasn’t, but you noted $243 million.  The $200 million I am getting from, or that amount comes from the actual dollars we spent, not from estimates.  We have $100, approximately, $100 million of built-ins right away, with $42 million in Medicaid, Technology in Innovation Fund, we have to fund and fulfill our cash reserves. So right off the top of that $200 million is $100 million gone.  And we still have to fund higher ed. and state patrol and a plethora of other things. 

So it’s pretty simple, that we can only do so much with the money that we have. But I started out this night talking about the good things that have happened in education, in Iowa, over the past several years.  There are good schools. There are great teachers.  I’ve seen many of them. And Representative Thede says that we have to own this.  I believe we have owned it. 

Every year we hear that SSA numbers from House Republicans’ support is going to cause massive teacher layoffs.  Every year we hear that.  Yet, the latest Condition of Education Report from the D.E. shows that the number of teachers has risen every year the House Republicans have been in the majority.  It’s risen every year.  We own it. 

Coincidentally, the last year that teacher numbers decreased in the state of Iowa, you guessed it, was the year the 10% across the board cut. 727 teachers were cut that year. It’s pretty simple to understand the Republican Majority and our sensitivity to being very careful with the budget and very careful with our increases to education every year and our whole overall scheme of budgeting because we do not want that to happen again.  We’ve owned it.

Every year we hear that SSA number is going to increase class sizes.  And I’ll reiterate some of the things that Representative Moore said. That same report shows that class sizes are remaining steady, in fact increasing in some classes.  We’ve owned it. 

Every year we hear that SSA number will slide us further down the state comparison rankings. We’ve risen from 35th to 27th in the nation.  We’ve owned it. 

Teacher pay has increased again according to that same report, moving us from 26th to 23rd in the nation. Iowa’s graduation rate has increased yearly putting us above 90%, the first state in the nation to achieve that.  We’ve owned it.

As I said in my opening comments, increased dollars is just one of the tools in our tool box for great schools.  We have schools providing proof of tackling difficult problems.  Such as a school Representative Steckman mentioned that has excellent reading scores and the blue ribbon schools recognized by the State Board of Education this year for their work on E.L.L., the achievement gap, and tackling special education.  One of those schools is one of our schools in Cedar Falls, Representative Kressig, Lincoln Elementary.  So I’m proud to own that. 

But we can do better.  We can do better for education in the state of Iowa. We put forth some ideas.  We’re talking about new ideas about flexibility spending and working with collective bargaining and looking at inadequacies. We can do better. And I hope that this body will work together on some of these ideas to work as a body for these goals we’ve talked about in education.

I don’t know if I’ve shared this story before in this body but it was probably the best day of my campaigning. It was the day I was out and about and ran into a woman who said, “Are you Walt Rogers?” I said, “yes.” She said, “Did your mother teach school at Jewett in Evansdale?”  I said, “Yes, she did.” She said, “she was the best teacher I had, and she changed my life!”  That was the best day I had as a campaigner for what we do.  And I think we can all agree that we care deeply about education.  We’ve had a good night of constructive critique of what we can do. Let’s work together the rest of this session on ideas to make education great in the state of Iowa.  We can own it and we can own it together.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you would support and move SF 166.

Collective Bargaining Discussion

There has been a lot of discussion about this proposal, and some of it is misinformation.  So I want to clear up several of the concerns that people have raised with me.    I would like to begin by making one point clear – the bill does not eliminate the right of public employees to collectively bargain.  Here are several other items I’d like to clear up:

  • The bill does not affect private sector unions.
  • The bill does not affect pensions in any way.  Pensions have never been part of the collective bargaining process in Iowa.
  • The bill does not take away health insurance.  Under the bill, government employers will still be required to provide a health insurance plan for their employees.
  • The bill does not mandate that local governments must join a statewide health insurance pool. 

I do believe that it is time for the state to have a thoughtful review of Chapter 20.  The current law went into place during Gov. Ray’s tenure.  Over the last four decades, the scales have been tipped in favor of government sector unions and against management and taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill.  I don’t blame any one entity for this unbalance; it’s just what naturally happens over time when there is a slight advantage to one party over another in negotiations. 

The interesting thing in this whole issue is that we are negotiating with ourselves.  Public employees are concerned taxpayers just like everyone else, and of course they want what’s best for their families.  I do believe this discussion really is about adjusting the scales for a more fair and equitable system that benefits everyone, public and non-public employees and all taxpayers.

One item that should be reviewed is arbitration.  I believe that the arbitrators should have to work within the current financial realities of the local government.  Today arbitrators cannot consider if the employer has enough funds to pay for wage and benefit increases, but they can consider the employer’s ability to raise taxes.  That puts an unfair burden on taxpayers (all of us) and puts pressure on all areas of state government budgeting.  Bargaining agreements really need to live within current financial realities.   It’s sort of like treating taxpayers as an unlimited ATM, and we just can’t sustain that anymore.

Also an arbitrator, currently, is required to consider previous collective bargaining agreements.  Each time something is mandated in a contract, it puts one more finger on the scale tipping it further in one direction. That’s how agreements slowly get unbalanced over time. 

Also, many of the collective bargaining units were originally certified shortly after the law first went into effect.  Currently government sector unions do not need to recertify before they negotiate on behalf of workers. 

Local officials are elected by the voters to address the issues before their communities.  Giving greater flexibility to school boards, city councils, mayors and boards of supervisors will allow these local governments to make decisions to best serve the people they represent, which is all of us, public and private employees.   

More Myths and Facts

Myth: The bill is being rushed through circumventing the normal process.

Fact: The bill received a full subcommittee hearing.  It went through a normal standing committee process.  A public hearing on the bill will be held on Monday at the State Capitol.  The bill will remain on the Debate Calendar for the 3 days which House Rules require.  The bill won’t be debated until Tuesday at the earliest.

Myth: Health insurance is eliminated for public employees.

Fact: Page 46, line 3 of bill explicitly states the employer must offer health insurance.

Myth: Veteran teachers will be fired so school districts can replace them with younger, cheaper teachers.

Fact: It is already illegal to terminate an at-will employee because of age.  That is age discrimination and already against the law. 

Myth: Employees can be dismissed at any time for any reason and employers no longer need “proper cause.”

Fact: Employees have protections against discrimination, harassment, retaliation or any other unlawful practices.  It is already illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on based on protected characteristics such as basis of race, color, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, creed, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability.  Iowa employers with four or more employees must comply with these laws.  This bill does nothing to undo those protections.

The Iowa Supreme Court has also protected employees by ruling that it is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee if the termination would frustrate a well-recognized public policy. This means that an employer cannot terminate an employee for simply exercising his or her rights. For example, it is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee who misses work due to jury duty. Similarly, an employer cannot terminate an employee who sought workers' compensation benefits for an on-the-job injury.  Additionally, statutes prohibit an employee from facing discrimination or being terminated after the employee complained about unlawful discrimination or harassment.

www.higginslawiowa.com/Employment-Law/At-Will-Employment-In-Iowa.shtml

Employers are required to offer unpaid leave in some situations, including:

Family and medical leave. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires employers with at least 50 employees to give eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off per year for illness and caregiving, and sometimes longer. While you are on FMLA leave, your employer must continue your benefits. You have the right to be reinstated when your leave is through. Iowa law also requires employers with at least four employees to provide up to eight weeks of pregnancy disability leave, unpaid, to employees who are temporarily disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions.

Military leave. The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and Iowa law both require employers to allow employees to take leave from work for federal or state military service or duty. Employees must be reinstated after their leave, and may not be discriminated against based on their service.

http://research.lawyers.com/iowa/employment-law-in-iowa.html

Employers may not terminate employees if a contract exists between the parties.  Employment contracts may arise through the policies outlined in an employee handbook provided to all employees. Handbooks may provide employees with expectations regarding disciplinary and termination procedures. Deviations from the policies outlined in the manual may provide a basis for a wrongful termination action against the employer.

http://www.iowa-lawblog.com/2007/10/articles/employment-law/atwill-employment/

Myth:  A statewide mandatory health insurance pool will be implemented.

Fact: Governor Branstad has proposed eliminating health insurance as a mandatory bargaining item.  He is instead proposing we treat health insurance like we treat pension systems – that they are provided outside of the bargaining process.  No one is proposing the elimination of health care for public employees.  The Governor also suggested the idea that public employers could pool together – if they so choose – to create larger risk pools to lower insurance costs for employers and employees.  Suggestions that all public employers would be required to participate is rumor.  Furthermore, that is not something that is expected to be addressed in any review of collective bargaining.   

Myth: The Republican plan repeals the right to collectively bargain.

Fact:  False.  Unions will still have the right to represent bargaining units and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with state employers.  There is no discussion whatsoever to change the process by which private sector employers and employees go about their bargaining processes.

Myth: Public employees are now prohibited from talking to their employers about issues like health insurance and vacation.

Fact: The bill prohibits the union from negotiating on anything except wages.  Health insurance is required to be offered.  The health insurance plan is determined by the employer – just like in the private sector.  Issues like vacation cannot be collectively bargained for by the union.  However, nothing prevents individual employees from talking about these issues with their employers.  It also does not prohibit the employer from offering these kinds of benefits.  Just because a topic is “prohibited” does not mean it is prohibited to be offered in the workplace.  

Myth:  The current law has worked well for decades and any review is politically motivated.

Fact: In 2007 and 2008 the defenders of the current law aggressively pursued significant expansion of collective bargaining and tried to gut Iowa’s Right to Work law while engaging in forced unionism.  If the law is working so well, why did its defenders try and change it? 

Myth:  This is a replay of what happened in Wisconsin.

Fact: The Wisconsin plan was far more expansive.  It included major budget cuts and pension reforms.  The Republican plan does neither.

Myth: Republicans are union-busting.

Fact: The plan gives government workers more freedom and choice in their workplaces.  If a union is unresponsive to their needs, they are free to vote against certification of that union.  If the union is providing value and needed services to those it represents, that union will thrive.  If the idea was to bust unions, then the plan would entirely eliminate any collective bargaining rights for government employees similar to what Virginia and South Carolina do.

Myth: Teachers will be paid less.

Fact: School districts will now have the ability to pay high performing teachers more.  Teachers in high demand subject areas will be able to receive higher compensation.  Districts will be free to develop locally specific pay plans that serve their unique needs and concerns.

Capitol Review 2/3/17

House Moves Forward on $40 Million New Dollars for Schools

House Republicans moved forward this week on a bill to establish school funding for the school year beginning in the fall of 2017.  It was a move done intentionally early this session so schools can plan on their resources when certifying their budgets this spring. 

The bill not only sets school funding, but it also makes changes on the method of setting school aid.             

New Funding - $40 million

The bill increases funding by $40 million or a 1.11% growth rate per student.  $40 million new dollars is provided to schools for the upcoming school year.  There are several numbers within the numbers that determine that final dollar amount, but House Republicans are committed to providing sustainable funding amount.

Changing the process – Providing stability

Current law requires the legislature to set school aid a year before any other budget items are considered and nearly a year before state revenues are known with any degree of certainty.  It’s often a shot in the dark and has led to numerous unsustainable budgeting decisions.  This has resulted in the state short-changing school districts on numerous occasions, by providing less funding than the state is required to provide or through across-the-board cuts, both of which result in local property tax payers picking up the slack, which we want to avoid.

We have argued for years that this process needs to change.  This bill brings the school funding discussion back under the umbrella of the full budget discussion and frames it within the boundaries of the revenue the state is required by law to work within.  It will lead to more knowledgeable decisions based on more focused revenue estimates and provide stability to state budget planning.

The Results

Combining this new funding increase for school districts, the state has now increased school funding by over $730 million over the past 7 years.  Teacher leadership funds are delineated separately due the unique nature of its interaction with school funding overall and to provide clarity to the conversation.

Fiscal Year  (school year) Percent Growth State Cost Per Pupil State Spending Increase-Teacher Leadership Teacher Leadership Increase
FY12  (11/12) 0% $5883 $178 million  
FY13  (12/13) 2% $6001 $29.2 million  
FY14  (13/14) 2% + 2% one-time $6121 $63.2 million + $57 million  
FY15  (14/15) 4% $6366 $148.6 million  
FY16  (15/16) 1.25% $6446 $37.2 million $50.2 million
FY17  (16/17) 2.25% $6591 $81.8 million $53.3 million
  6-yr total increase   $641.5 million + $57 million
FY18  (17/18) 1.11% $6664 $39.9 million $54.0 million
  7-yr total increase   $735.4 million + $57 million

State investment in general K-12 education has increased from $2.446 billion in FY11 to $3.183 billion in FY18, a 30% increase.

Where does that land us in relative terms?

It’s always a popular discussion to see where we fall relative to other states.  Several years ago, according to stats from the National Education Association, we ranked 35th in terms of our per pupil spending on education.  While the numbers aren’t available yet for that year, the trend has been going in a positive direction of National Ranking for Iowa.

School year Iowa’s per pupil expenditures Ranking National Average Distance from Average
2014/15 $10,622 27th $11,709 $1087
2013/14 $10,240 28th $11,356 $1116
2012/13 $9888 26th $10,923 $1035
2011/12 $9645 32nd $10,838 $1193
2010/11 $9425 35th $10,669 $1244

Additionally, teacher pay has not only kept up with the nation, but it saw a slight bump in the latest data.

School year Iowa’s teacher pay Ranking Midwest ranking Midwest states in order
2014/15 $53,408 23rd 6th MI, IL, MN, OH, WI, IA, IN, NE, ND, KS, MO, SD
2013/14 $52,032 25th 6th MI, IL, OH, MN, WI, IA, IN, NE, ND, KS, MO, SD
2012/13 $50,914 26th 6th MI, IL, OH, MN, WI, IA, IN, NE, MO, KS, ND, SD
2011/12 $50,218 26th 7th MI, IL, OH, MN, WI, IN, IA, NE, KS, MO, ND, SD
2010/11 $50,634 25th 6th IL, MI, OH, MN, WI, IA, IN, NE, KS, MO, ND, SD

The Senate has moved on an identical bill for school funding and what is before the House for full consideration will likely move to the Governor’s desk for signature soon.  The House will convene a public hearing on the matter on Monday, February 6, with floor debate following closely afterwards.  I will be leading this meeting and running the bill on the House Floor.

Next Year’s Budget Issues

In FY18 the maximum level of spending will total $7.455 billion, an increase of about $200 million compared to the FY17 budget.

Anticipated built-in expenses include:

  • Medicaid - $42 million
  • Filling state reserve accounts - $20.4 million
  • Technology Reinvestment Fund - $17.5 million
  • Dept. of Corrections pharmaceutical costs - $2.2 million

These built-in expenses don’t include other priorities like funding for K-12 education, higher education, water quality, or additional State Troopers.

With revenue projections being very unpredictable over the last several budget years, a conservative approach to the budget is necessary.  Current law allows the Legislature to spend 99% of available revenue; however, House Republicans will look to spend less than the allowed ceiling in the event that revenue projections are inaccurate again.

Visitors at the Capitol

Adams

Russ Adams, Superintendent in Orange City

Address

PO Box 1142
Cedar Falls, IA 50613

 

Social

PaidFor web   Copyright © 2014 Walt Rogers for Iowa.  All rights reserved.