Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good afternoon Members.

At the February 8th meeting

of the Government Operations & Technology Appropriations Subcommittee our
members had a good discussion regarding the Budget Exercise. I received input
and suggestions, from my Members, towards achieving the funding targets
assigned for the budget exercise. Based on my subcommittees input I have
developed the list I will discuss today. My subcommittees target was:

Target A: $20.6M recurring and $12.8M nonrecurring for a grand total of

$33.4M.
Target B: $52.8M recurring and $17.1M nonrecurring for a grand total of
$69.9M.

To complete the given assignment, our subcommittee utilized a variety of

scenarios for reductions which include agency Schedule VIII-B reductions, fund-
shifts from GR to Trust Funds, redirecting trust fund revenues to GR, the
elimination of certain issues identified for funding in the Long Range Financial
Outlook, and agency reversions from prior years.

To begin, I will go through Target A recommendations. The recommendations

identified in Target A would also be captured in Target B to help achieve its total
as well.

Target A:

In the Department of Business and Professional Regulation - $200K

recurring GR associated with the Business Information Portal can be
reduced; this reduction will not impact DBPR from finishing the work on the
business portal.

In the Department of Financial Services, $24.1M nonrecurring GR funding

for the replacement of the FLAIR System that was included in the Long
Range Financial Outlook can be fund-shifted to a department trust fund in
FY 2017-18 - saving us $24.1M in GR.

1
 Also, $1.0M in recurring GR from the base budget can be fund-shifted to a
trust fund. The fund-shift is possible by increasing a transfer from the
Department of Management Services to support statewide purchasing
operations in DFSs Division of State Accounting & Auditing.

Finally, within the DFS, $21.5M recurring surplus lines revenues can be
redirected from the departments Insurance Regulatory Trust Fund to GR.

Within the Department of Revenue, department Schedule VIII-B reductions

identified $2.2M in recurring GR savings that can be achieved by
eliminating toll free telephone lines, and reducing excess budget from
recently renegotiated contracts.

Members, the specific reductions Ive just mentioned allow us to achieve our
Target A goal.

I will now discuss the issues that allow us to achieve the much larger Target B
goal. As I mentioned earlier, all issues identified in Target A will be included in the
Target B totals to help us achieve that goal.

Target B:

Subcommittee wide, eliminating 302 vacant positions which are vacant in

excess of 90 days can generate $3.7M in recurring GR funding and $12.2M
in trust fund savings.

In the Department of Financial Services, a fund-shift of recurring GR to a

department trust fund, for funding of the Office of Fiscal Integrity, helps us
achieve $725K in GR.

Also, in DFS there are reductions based on prior year reversions of

approximately $1.4M in recurring GR from the Salaries and Benefits,
Expenses, and Contracted Services categories, including 16.00 positions.

2
 Within the Department of Management Services, from Schedule VIII-B
issues, $242K in recurring GR savings for reductions to the Salaries and
Benefits and Expenses categories, and a reduction to the MyFlorida.com
Portal.

Within the Public Employees Relations Commission agency Schedule VIII-B,

a recurring GR reduction from operating expenditures of the commission
provided us with $200K in savings. These reductions would be from the
OPS, Expenses, OCO, and Contracted Services categories.

The Florida Commission on Human Relations agency Schedule VIII-B

provided us $500K in recurring GR reductions from the Salaries and
Benefits and Expenses categories, including 5.50 positions.

The Agency for State Technologys Schedule VIII-B provided us $1.2 million
in savings specifically, $248K recurring GR savings by reducing Contracted
Services. In addition, $1.0M recurring GR reduction by eliminating the
Project Management team, including 9.00 positions.

The Department of Revenue Schedule VIII-B provides us the following

issues by program area:

Property Tax Oversight:

$1.7M GR by reducing the staff which reviews refunds for tax collectors, tax
certificate cancellations, and reducing updates to the instructions manuals
distributed to local property appraisers. This reduction includes 30.00
positions.

3
 Administration and Information Services Programs:

$802K in recurring GR reductions to the Salaries and Benefits, OPS,

Expenses, and Contracted Services categories based on prior year
reversions. These reductions include 5.00 positions.

Child Support Enforcement Program:

$1.8M in recurring GR reductions in the Salaries and Benefits and OPS

categories, postal savings generated from revised mailing practices as well
as the limiting of outbound mail. These reductions include 20.00 positions.

General Tax Administration Program:

$2.5M in recurring GR savings by requiring Re-employment and Corporate

Income Tax filers to submit their respective returns electronically,
eliminating the sales tax collection allowance for paper filers, postal
savings, and the discontinuation of documentary stamp audits. These
reductions include 51.00 positions.

Fund-shift $8.5M GR to trust funds associated with the Operational and

Administrative Cost of the Communications Services Tax and the
Discretionary Local Sales Tax.

$4.5M recurring GR reductions in the Salaries and Benefits, Expenses, and

Contracted Services categories based on prior year reversions; this includes
70.00 positions.

Members, the reduction issues Ive just mentioned, along with those identified in
Target A, allow us to achieve our Target B goal.

The budget exercise was very challenging. My subcommittee reductions are

based on a review of the base budget and the Long Range Financial Outlook
while carefully developing the list of potential reductions to achieve the required
savings while at the same time ensuring that each of our agencies can continue to
meet their core missions and to provide the best quality service to the citizens of
Florida.

4
 The HCAS was asked to make recommendations to meet two targets:

Target A specified that we must generate a total of $180.2M recurring and

$95.6M nonrecurring for a grand total of $275.8M.
Target B specified that we must generate a total of $459.7M recurring and
$114.1M nonrecurring for a grand total of $573.8M.

Committee Members were assigned specific departments to review; however, each

member evaluated the total budget.
Our committee evaluated a number of pieces of information to recommend options for
meeting our targets. This included items included in the Long Range Financial Plan, fund
shifts, trust fund sweeps, Schedule VIII-B reductions, base budget and based on
individuals meetings with agencies and staff.
It became very apparent early on that the bulk of the reductions would need to come
from Medicaid and focused primarily on how we compensate providers. As seen in our
base, Hospital and Nursing Home care encompass the largest silos in our area of the
budget.

Target A:

For target A I would evaluate the following:

The long range financial outlook recommended a Hospital provider rate increase of
$55.2 million based on past actions by the legislature. I would not recommend funding
this increase. It was also a subcommittee recommendation.
I would also recommend a reduction in hospital inpatient and or outpatient
reimbursements of approximately $220.6 million in General Revenue. The reduction
would be achieved through across the board base rate reductions, evaluating
exemption/add on payments and by reviewing policy adjustors to DRGs that have been
increased over the last two fiscal years. Over the last two fiscal years the legislature has
provided an additional $475 million in general revenue for hospitals. A portion of these
funds were to offset LIP losses, but a portion of the increase was also related to new
policies to increase reimbursements for base rates and pediatric and trauma adjustors.
As part of this recommendation we will review the new funding as well as how historical
funding is allocated. (Partial Committee Recommendation)
These two options save us a total of $275.8 million.

Target B:

For target B, the larger more difficult target I would evaluate the following:

In evaluating items included on the long range financial outlook, I would recommend
not funding increases in a variety of areas. In trying to achieve this reduction I felt it was
important that we not provide increased funding in key areas and adopt more of a
 continuation funding. We would recommend not funding issues included in the Long
Range Financial Outlook to save $86.0 million. Items we would not include are the
following:
o Hospital Provider Rate Increases-$55.2 M GR
o General Medicaid Provider Rate Increases-$9.4 M GR
o Increased funding for Central Receiving Facilities-$5.8 M GR
o Increased Funding for Early Steps-$5.6 M
o Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statewide Initiatives-$4.6 M
o Reducing the funds allocated for Maintenance and Repair by 50 percent-$3.7 M
GR
o Research Grants-$1.7 M GR

Again in making a determination not to include these increases we evaluated whether asks
were made in Agency LBRs and whether or not we felt the need was adequately justified.

We would recommend sweeping $70 million in excess cash revenues in trust funds
throughout the HHS agencies.

We would evaluate provider rate payments hospitals and nursing homes as they
encompass the largest part of our budget. This would include taking approximately
$248.6 million in GR reduction based on the policies I spoke about in Target A. This was
also supported through our committee discussions.

We would propose reducing Nursing Home Payments by $75 million GR. A portion of
this may be offset by additional assessment revenues used to increase rates. It is
estimated that approximately $40 million in additional assessment room is available.

Reduce Recurring Project Appropriations by 50%-$45.8 M

Eliminate FTE Vacant Longer than 180 Days-$20.5M (Committee Input)

Reduce TANF Cash Assistance Payments - $13.5 (Committee Input). Based on the last
estimating conference TANF caseloads have gone down saving the state approximately
$11 million in cash assistance payments.

Administrative Reductions (1.5% of our Target)-$8.6M (Committee Input)

We would evaluate CMS Specialty Contracts to achieve a 50% savings -$3.3 M

(Committee Input). Many of these contracts have been in the base for many years. We
propose to review them for necessity and to determine if they are potentially
duplicating other programs.
 Reduce CMS Safety Net Funding by 50% based on current year spending-$2.5 M. This
program received $5 million in new recurring funding last fiscal year. Based on this
years spending patterns only half of these funds are potentially needed.

As you can see, this exercise was extremely challenging, however, given our targets, we were
required to make some hard choices.

Thank you Chairman Trujillo.

Higher Education Appropriations Reduction Exercise Chair Ahern

First, I would like to thank Chair Trujillo for the opportunity to Chair the Higher Education
Appropriations Subcommittee. We have two targets : Target A will eliminate the projected
deficit over the next 2 years and Target B, the more aggressive will eliminate the projected
deficit in one year. Our targets for this exercise were $144.8 Million for Target A and $304.8
Million for Target B. Included in each scenario is a non-recurring target of $38.8 Million.

At our January 11th meeting, I gave each member of my subcommittee a list of over 160
member projects that have been added to the Higher Education budget in the last 10 years that
amount to over $225 Million in recurring funds. I then assigned each member to contact 10 to
12 specific projects to determine if the funds were still being used for the original purpose and
to assess whether continued funding is appropriate. At our last meeting, several members of
the subcommittee reported out the results of their inquiries. In some cases specific projects
were identified as no longer needed the funding, or no longer using the funds for the original
purpose. In addition to those reports, over the last several weeks, individual members have
shared with me what they found. As a result of those conversations and my own review of the
projects, we have identified significant project reductions that can be applied to both our
targets. We will also recommend some of the funded projects be converted to nonrecurring
funds to provide potential reductions in the FY 2018-19 budget. Finally, I realize that other
subcommittees routinely identify these spending decisions with proviso language that describes
who receives the funds and exactly the funding level. This has not necessarily been the practice
in the higher Education subcommittee. I just want to comment how the House rule on projects
will truly affect transparency as it requires each project to be clearly identified in the budget. It
was alarming to see how much has been hidden in this area of the budget.

In order to meet Target A, we will reduce existing projects in the base by $15 Million. This
will include 100% cuts to some projects and percentage reductions to others. Included in the
Long Range Financial Outlook are projected increases in university funding in Tier 2 totaling
$161 Million. This projected increase is based on the average increase to funding over the last
three years. In order to meet target A we will only fund universities at $70 Million of the Tier
2 level anticipated in the outlook. The reduction of $91 million from Tier 2 coupled with the
reductions in recurring projects at will get us to $106 Million target.

The nonrecurring reduction target is $38.8 Million. As many of you may already know, the
State Universities keep any remaining fund balance at the end of each fiscal year. For agencies
that have unspent appropriation, the funds revert back to the treasury and can be appropriated
the following year for any purpose. State Universities retain these unspent funds and currently,
have over $800 Million in aggregated balances among the 12 universities. In order to meet this
$38 million nonrecurring target, we would recommend that universities be required to use
approximately 5% of their fund balance to hold themselves harmless from this one-time cut.
As I stated earlier, the nonrecurring cut is the same under both Target A & B, we would apply
the same approach under target B.
In order to meet Target B, we will reduce existing projects in the base by $25 Million. This
will include 100% cuts to some projects and higher percentage reductions to others than we
took in reaching the lower target. In reaching the total of $266 Million recurring cut, we will
provide no new funding to universities. This decision will save us $161 Million. That will get us
to $186 Million. To meet the remaining $80 million in the target, we looked at the actual
operating budgets of the entities within our purview and the historic funding levels of those
entities.

The Higher Education budget is $7.3 billion and provides funding for workforce education, blind
services, Office of Student Financial Aid, private colleges and Vocational Rehabilitation. Taken
together, these entities account for $1.3 Billion in funding. Florida Colleges account for $1.218
Billion, University medical schools and engineering schools account for $638 Million in funding.
The remaining $4.056 Billion goes directly to funding our 12 state universities.

The state funding only makes up less than 40% of State Universities operating budgets. Their
total operating budgets are $10.3 Billion for the current year.
We reviewed historic funding for universities looking back 10 years and over the last four years
to compare changes pre-and post-recession.

Comparing university funding from four years ago, the state funding has increased 27.4% which
is at a significantly higher rate than other factors that might be used as reference.

University budget growth is significantly higher than:

All other areas within the education budget: 10.6%
The entire state operating budget: 13%
The CPI over that period of time: 4.2%
The number of students attending the universities: 2.7%

With that as a background, we would meet the remaining amount of the target B exercise by
cutting $80 million in university funding taken proportionally to each universitys total
operating budget.

While $80 Million sounds like a large number, remember that the estimated expenditures for
the universities in the current year is $10.3 Billion. This figure does not include funding for IFAS,
the Medical schools or the FSU/FAMU engineering school which would increase the total
funding under university control to $11.5 Billion so $80 million is 7/10th of 1 %.
Higher Education Appropriations Reduction Exercise Chair Ahern

First, I would like to thank Chair Trujillo for the opportunity to Chair the Higher
Education Appropriations Subcommittee. We have two targets : Target A will
eliminate the projected deficit over the next 2 years and Target B, the more
aggressive will eliminate the projected deficit in one year. Our targets for this
exercise were $144.8 Million for Target A and $304.8 Million for Target B.
Included in each scenario is a non-recurring target of $38.8 Million.

At our January 11th meeting, I gave each member of my subcommittee a list of

over 160 member projects that have been added to the Higher Education budget
in the last 10 years that amount to over $225 Million in recurring funds. I then
assigned each member to contact 10 to 12 specific projects to determine if the
funds were still being used for the original purpose and to assess whether
continued funding is appropriate. At our last meeting, several members of the
subcommittee reported out the results of their inquiries. In some cases specific
projects were identified as no longer needed the funding, or no longer using the
funds for the original purpose. In addition to those reports, over the last several
weeks, individual members have shared with me what they found. As a result of
those conversations and my own review of the projects, we have identified
significant project reductions that can be applied to both our targets. We will also
recommend some of the funded projects be converted to nonrecurring funds to
provide potential reductions in the FY 2018-19 budget. Finally, I realize that other
subcommittees routinely identify these spending decisions with proviso language
that describes who receives the funds and exactly the funding level. This has not
necessarily been the practice in the higher Education subcommittee. I just want
to comment how the House rule on projects will truly affect transparency as it
requires each project to be clearly identified in the budget. It was alarming to see
how much has been hidden in this area of the budget.

In order to meet Target A, we will reduce existing projects in the base by $15
Million. This will include 100% cuts to some projects and percentage reductions
to others. Included in the Long Range Financial Outlook are projected increases in
university funding in Tier 2 totaling $161 Million. This projected increase is based
on the average increase to funding over the last three years. In order to meet
target A we will only fund universities at $70 Million of the Tier 2 level
anticipated in the outlook. The reduction of $91 million from Tier 2 coupled
with the reductions in recurring projects at will get us to $106 Million target.

The nonrecurring reduction target is $38.8 Million. As many of you may already
know, the State Universities keep any remaining fund balance at the end of each
fiscal year. For agencies that have unspent appropriation, the funds revert back
to the treasury and can be appropriated the following year for any purpose. State
Universities retain these unspent funds and currently, have over $800 Million in
aggregated balances among the 12 universities. In order to meet this $38 million
nonrecurring target, we would recommend that universities be required to use
approximately 5% of their fund balance to hold themselves harmless from this
one-time cut. As I stated earlier, the nonrecurring cut is the same under both
Target A & B, we would apply the same approach under target B.
In order to meet Target B, we will reduce existing projects in the base by $25
Million. This will include 100% cuts to some projects and higher percentage
reductions to others than we took in reaching the lower target. In reaching the
total of $266 Million recurring cut, we will provide no new funding to universities.
This decision will save us $161 Million. That will get us to $186 Million. To meet
the remaining $80 million in the target, we looked at the actual operating budgets
of the entities within our purview and the historic funding levels of those entities.

The Higher Education budget is $7.3 billion and provides funding for workforce
education, blind services, Office of Student Financial Aid, private colleges and
Vocational Rehabilitation. Taken together, these entities account for $1.3 Billion
in funding. Florida Colleges account for $1.218 Billion, University medical schools
and engineering schools account for $638 Million in funding. The remaining
$4.056 Billion goes directly to funding our 12 state universities.

The state funding only makes up less than 40% of State Universities operating
budgets. Their total operating budgets are $10.3 Billion for the current year.

We reviewed historic funding for universities looking back 10 years and over the
last four years to compare changes pre-and post-recession.

Comparing university funding from four years ago, the state funding has increased
27.4% which is at a significantly higher rate than other factors that might be used
as reference.

University budget growth is significantly higher than:

All other areas within the education budget: 10.6%

 The entire state operating budget: 13%

The CPI over that period of time: 4.2%

The number of students attending the universities: 2.7%

With that as a background, we would meet the remaining amount of the target
B exercise by cutting $80 million in university funding taken proportionally to
each universitys total operating budget.

While $80 Million sounds like a large number, remember that the estimated
expenditures for the universities in the current year is $10.3 Billion. This figure
does not include funding for IFAS, the Medical schools or the FSU/FAMU
engineering school which would increase the total funding under university
control to $11.5 Billion so $80 million is 7/10th of 1 %.
 JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
FY 2017-2018 BUDGET EXERCISE
"TARGET A" "TARGET B"
RECURRING: $90.6 million RECURRING: $223.8 million
NONRECURRING: $36.0 million NONRECURRING: $49.8 million
TOTAL: $126.6 million TOTAL: $ 273.6 million

I REVERSIONS - prior year general revenue funds that were not spent
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $6.4 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Reduces contracted services in the Department of Juvenile Justice
and funds no longer needed to make debt service payments in the
Department of Corrections
II VACANT POSITIONS - long-term vacant positions that could be eliminated
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $4.3 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Eliminates vacant positions -
Department of Legal Affairs - 35 positions
Department of Juvenile Justice - 29 positions
Department of Law Enforcement - 10 positions
III SWEEPS - one-time reductions of state trust fund balances (can be used to meet nonrecurring target).
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $36 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Transfers available cash balances from various trust funds to the
General Revenue Fund -
$13.5 million from the Department of Legal Affairs
$6.5 million from the Department of Law Enforcement
$5 million from the Department of Juvenile Justice
$11 million from the Department of Corrections.
IV FUND SHIFTS - replaces recurring General Revenue funds with trust funds & redirects recurring trust fund revenues to
the General Revenue Fund
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $25.7 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Replaces General Revenue funds with available trust funds -
$2 million in the Department of Legal Affairs
$3 million in the Department of Juvenile Justice
$10 million in the Department of Law Enforcement
$7.2 million in Justice Administration
Redirects $3.5 million of recurring trust fund revenues in the
Department of Corrections to the General Revenue Fund
V APPROPRIATIONS PROJECTS - on-going local initiatives that could be cut from the base budget
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $16.8 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Reduces funding for approximately 55% of appropriations projects
in the base budget - specific appropriations projects will continue to
be evaluated
VI PROGRAM AND SERVICE REDUCTIONS
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $29.7 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Reduces recurring General Revenue funding for various program and
services:
Department of Juvenile Justice $2 million
Reduces day treatment services - $2 million
Department of Corrections $10 million
Renegotiate/re-bid private prison contracts to achieve savings
Department of Law Enforcement $23,000
Eliminates the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
program - $23,000 GR and $4.7 million from trust funds
Justice Administration $8.3 million
Reduces 78 positions from the state attorneys based on decreased
number of case referrals - $5.4 million
Reduces 39 positions from the public defenders based on decreased
number of appointed cases - $2.9 million
State Courts System $9.4 million
Reduces 147 positions from the circuit and county courts based on
decreased number of case filings - $8.9 million
Reduces travel expenses in the State Courts System -
$0.5 million
VII POLICY CHANGES - statutory changes that would generate savings
"TARGET A" TOTAL: $7.7 million "TARGET B" TOTAL:
Revises the process for calculating pre-sentence jail credits -
$6.8 million
Diverts offenders whose most serious offense is drug possession
from prison to drug offender probation if the offender has not
previously been incarcerated - $0.9 million
TARGET A Recurring $90.6 million TARGET B
MET Nonrecurring $36 million MET
$6.4 million
$7.8 million
Eliminates an additional
28 vacant positions in the Department of Corrections (excluding
correctional and correctional probation officer positions)
43 positions in the State Courts System (excluding judges)
$49.8 million
Transfers an additional $13.8 million from various trust funds to the
General Revenue Fund -
an additional $7.5 million from the Department of Legal Affairs
an additional $1.3 million from the Department of Law Enforcement
an additional $5 million from the Department of Juvenile Justice.
$27.7 million
Replaces an additional $2 million of General Revenue funds in the
Department of Juvenile Justice with available trust funds
$17.5 million
Reduces funding for an additional 2% of appropriations projects in the
base budget
$136.1 million
Reduces an additional $106.4 million of recurring General Revenue
funds from the base budget, including:
Department of Juvenile Justice $14.4 million
Reduces an additional $12.4 million from the base budget -
Reduces community supervision services - $2.1 million
Eliminates 54 non-secure and secure residential beds - $5 million
Reduces Juvenile Redirections Program - $1 million
Reduces community intervention services - $4.3 million
Department of Corrections $44.5 million
Reduces an additional $34.5 million from the base budget -
Increases caseloads for correctional probation officers and eliminates
510 positions
Department of Law Enforcement $23,000
Justice Administration $41.4 million
Reduces an additional 353 positions from the state attorneys based on
decreased number of case referrals - $24.5 million
Total reduction - 429 positions and $29.9 million
Reduces an additional 118 positions from the public defenders based
on decreased number of appointed cases - $8.6 million
Total reduction - 157 positions and $11.5 million
State Courts System $35.8 million
Reduces an additional 440 positions from the circuit and county
courts based on decreased number of case filings -
$26.4 million
Total reduction - 587 positions and $35.3 million
Total Reduction -
$28.3 million
Reduces an additional $20.5 million by diverting non-violent offenders
whose Criminal Punishment Code score is 44 points or less from going
to state prison. The projected savings assume that 50% percent of those
offenders would be placed under state supervision at the average per
diem of $4.44.
Recurring $223.8 million
Nonrecurring $49.8 million
Chairs Talking Points 3/15/17 Appropriations Meeting

First, a big thanks to my subcommittee members for their

commitment to the exercise and their thorough review of our PreK-12
base budget.
Even though this was a hypothetical budget exercise, my
subcommittee members seriously worked their way through the PreK-
12 budget and identified several areas that potential reductions could
be considered; these areas included:
o Programs that may not have a direct impact on classroom
instruction
o Administrative compensation at the district level
o Class size reduction
o Student Attire Program
o Certain categoricals in the FEFP
o Recurring projects
An important outcome of this budget exercise was my
subcommittees very thorough and public review of the recurring
projects that are funded in the PreK-12 base budget. I will speak
more about this in a moment.
As a reminder to committee members, the PreK-12 targets for the
budget exercise were
o Target A = $232.7 million
o Target B = $485.0 million
For both targets, $68 million was identified as a reduction in non-
recurring General Revenue. I will tell you that in my budget area, a
reduction in non-recurring GR was difficult to find. So for both of our
targets, there is only $4.7 million in non-recurring GR and everything
else is recurring.
To reach our Target A amount of $232.7 million, originally, we
included reductions in the following areas:
o Cut all recurring projects @ $45.4 million consideration could
be given to potentially switching the funds to non-recurring for
FY 2017-18.
o Cut the Student Attire Program @ $14 million, and
1
 o Do not fund a total of $187.5 million in certain Other High
Priority Needs in the Long-Range Financial Outlook.
However, Ive made a change to this original recommendation as a
result of my subcommittees Feb. 16th meeting.
The budget exercise helped my subcommittee to appreciate the need
to better understand the recurring projects funded in the PreK-12
base; especially since several of these projects have been funded for
10 years or more.
So we undertook a thorough vetting of 37 recurring projects which
included requesting that each recurring project provide specific data
to the subcommittee. As part of this vetting process, it was
communicated through 3 different emails that the data collected on
these recurring projects would be reviewed and discussed at the
subcommittees Feb. 16th meeting.
We accommodated what we thought would be several additional
attendees at the Feb. 16th meeting by requesting and receiving
approval to extend our normal meeting time from 2 hours to 3 hours
and to meet in a larger committee room.
Unfortunately at the Feb. 16th meeting, 16 of the 37 recurring projects
did not have a representative in attendance and therefore,
subcommittee members were unable to ask their questions and/or
receive clarification on any of the data that was provided.
So, Im amending my Target A reductions as follows:
o Cut 16 recurring projects totaling $11.5 million consideration
could be given to potentially switching the funds to non-
recurring for FY 2017-18.
o Cut approximately $19.3 million in School Readiness Funding
this is significantly less than the $47.2 million the Office of Early
Learning proposed as a cut in their Schedule VIIIB. This
potential reduction would result in about 3,200 fewer children
being served (OELs reduction results in 7,900 fewer children
being served. Total number of children served in FY 2015-16
was 207,136.)
o Cut the Student Attire Program @ $14 million.

2
 o And do not fund a total of $187.5 million in certain Other High
Priority Needs in the Long-Range Financial Outlook.
To reach the Target B reduction of $485 million, wed take the
amended Target A reductions plus the following:
o $4.4 million in general revenue funds for the Child Care
Executive Partnership in the Partnership for School Readiness.
o $1 million in administrative reductions in the Department of
Education that were included in the departments Schedule
VIIIB.
o $1 million in funds associated with positions and salary in the
Department of Education and the Office of Early Learning for
positions that are vacant 180 days or more.
o Target reductions in the FEFP to include not funding the
Federally-Connected, Virtual Education Contribution and Digital
Classrooms categoricals and reducing the amount appropriated
to Class Size Reduction.
Again, I want to thank my subcommittee members for their hard work
and support on this budget exercise.

3
Transportation and Tourism Appropriations Budget Exercise

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon Members. During our Transportation & Tourism
meeting on February 7th, our members had a healthy discussion regarding the Budget Exercise
and I received input and suggestions towards achieving the two hypothetical reduction targets
assigned.

I think we all agreed that the exercise was extremely challenging. It was not an easy task, but
thought provoking toward identifying ways of curbing state spending. We paid close attention
to issues identified in the agency Schedule VIII-B reports in meeting our targets, with the
exception of reductions to the Highway Patrol. I think there was broad agreement that none of
our members were interested in taking reductions to law enforcement so that was excluded
from our calculations. We also looked to the Long Range Financial Outlook to cut back on
supplemental spending where possible.

My subcommittees targets were:

To ultimately complete the assignment, our subcommittee utilized a variety of scenarios for
reductions which included Schedule VIII-B reductions, redirecting trust fund revenues to
general revenue, and not picking up all historically-funded issues identified in the Long Range
Financial Outlook.

Target A:

While there was some interest in taking the proposed agency VIII-B reductions, with the
exclusion of law enforcement, these reductions cut across all five of our agencies
totaling approximately $100 million, just shy of our recurring target. However,
members specifically engaged in conversation about opposition to corporate incentives
and suggested eliminating state funding for Visit Florida. A Visit Florida reduction would
total $50 million with an additional $23.5 million coming from Enterprise Florida. A $10
million reduction from the recurring base appropriation set aside for incentives could
also be taken to accomplish this.

1
 Eliminating the Displaced Homemaker Program within DEO, a program whose training
services are duplicated through Regional Workforce Boards, would generate an
additional recurring $2 million in reductions.

The combination of these specific DEO reductions totaling $85 million and agency
proposed VIII-B reductions surpasses our recurring Target A reduction of $105 million.

To achieve our nonrecurring target of $51.2 million, the subcommittee identified $69
million of nonrecurring GR from the Long Range Financial Outlook. These issues would
not get additional funding as proposed in the 3 Year Plan. They include the following
Department of State grant programs: Cultural and Museum grants, Cultural Facilities
grants, Historic Preservation grants as well as library construction grants. This surpasses
our nonrecurring target in both reduction scenarios.

Target B:

The hypothetical Target B more than doubles the need for recurring reductions in
Transportation and Tourism. This is a hefty lift considering the majority of spending in this silo
is nonrecurring, and there is almost no general revenue or recurring projects. Simply, there is
little low hanging fruit to accomplish this task. I do not believe this challenge was lost on my
subcommittee members.

To avoid disabling all of our agencies ability to perform their core missions we would
have to focus more closely on areas of concern, namely reductions to areas in economic
development. This could be achieved through redirecting $186.6 million of recurring
trust fund dollars to General Revenue.
o Specifically, this proposal would eliminate the SEED Trust Fund, redirecting $150
million of documentary stamp tax revenue to General Revenue. Some affected
programs being reduced or eliminated would include: Enterprise Florida, Visit
Florida, Space Florida, economic incentives programs, the Quick Response
Training Program, the Institute for Commercialization of Public Research, and
some associated DEO operations costs.
o The remaining $36.6 million would come from redirecting a portion of the rental
car surcharge to GR. Affected programs from this change would also impact EFI
and Visit Florida, as well as the Southeast US/Japan Association and the
Florida/Korean Economic Cooperation Committee and the Latin Chamber of
Commerce of the U.S. (CAMACOL). These international programs are some of
the few recurring projects in our budget, and they total $600,000.

2
 I suggested to my Members, and it was at least acknowledged, that to achieve our
Target B goal of recurring $269.1 million in spending reductions, we could no longer
avoid some of the more sensitive areas: the housing trust funds or the State
Transportation Trust Fund.

To reach this recurring target, we would have to look at an additional redirect of $82.5
million in trust funds to general revenue. Two possible means of achieving this could
include either:
o Redirecting additional rental car surcharge deposits from the State
Transportation Trust Fund to GR;
o Redirecting a portion of documentary stamp tax revenues from the housing trust
funds to GR; or
o Some combination of both of these options.
In any of these scenarios, funding would still remain available for affordable housing or
our transportation infrastructure projects within the Department of Transportation 5-
Year Work Program.

Finally, as I mentioned previously, all of the nonrecurring issues from the 3-year plan
identified in Target A will be included in the Target B totals.

Mr. Chairman, this is how we would meet our two targets for the budget exercise.