Dear  

The House debated, amended and approved HB 2328 on June 25, a budget proposal which embodies the priorities of the House Republican caucus. Floor debate took several hours before the bill was approved by a vote of 110-93, sending the bill to the Senate where the Appropriations Committee took it up on June 26. The amended budget bill proposes to spend $29.1 billion, an increase of $536 million over the current year, although reductions from the Governor's February request have been necessary as a result of revenue collections falling below anticipated levels for the current fiscal year as well as revised projections for the upcoming fiscal year.

No new taxes are anticipated as part of the House Republican plan, although it relies on one-time transfers from various funds, lapsed payments, tax incentive suspensions, and other revenue sources. The plan assumes a one month payment delay to managed care organizations, producing $394 million; this device has been utilized in prior years and was in Gov. Corbett's February proposal. Additionally, a transfer from Tobacco Settlement funds to the teacher's pension system would account for $225 million. The budget also draws funds through a reduced holding period for unclaimed property.

Home and community-based services provided under the Aging Waiver would be covered under the State Lottery fund, freeing up $130 million, and Medicaid savings are anticipated from the Governor's Healthy PA proposal. Approximately $75 million is expected from leasing state forest land for additional shale gas drilling, and as in prior years, Tobacco Settlement funds would be redirected to help fund nursing homes. In addition, the House Republican proposal assumes that the state will receive $300 million from privatizing the state liquor system.

On the expenditure side, funds for county-based human services programs would be funded very close to the levels proposed by the Governor in February, or essentially flat-lined from the current year. CCAP has identified restoration of human services funding over a three-year period as a priority for 2014.

On June 17, the House Judiciary Committee reported SB 1164, introduced by Sen. Dominic Pileggi (R-Chester), which would provide immunity from prosecution for certain offenses, if law enforcement officials are aware of that person's offense only because he reported or transported a person experiencing a drug overdose event. Prior to the final vote, the committee adopted two amendments, the first by committee chair Rep. Ron Marsico (R-Dauphin) to remove the bill's requirement that the person calling for help be the first to do so to receive immunity. The other amendment, sponsored by Rep. Joe Hackett (R-Delaware), adds language allowing law enforcement and fire departments to enter into agreements with emergency medical services to obtain the drug overdose medication Naloxone. CCAP supports expanded access to Naloxone as part of its priority.

The bill came before the full House the week of June 23. Several floor amendments were adopted, including one by Rep. Gene DiGirolamo (R-Bucks), which would require the Department of Health and Department of Drug & Alcohol Programs to develop training and instructional materials about recognizing opioid-related overdoses and administering Naloxone. In addition, the amendment would permit a health care professional otherwise authorized to prescribe Naloxone to distribute it to a person at risk of experiencing an opioid-related overdose or family member, friend or other person in a position to assist a person at risk of experiencing an opioid-related overdose. The amendment was adopted by a 177-26 vote.

An amendment by Rep. Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny) to clarify that existing immunities for emergency responders under the Good Samaritan Law are not limited by the legislation, and a Rep. Hackett amendment clarifying the term "immunity" were also adopted unanimously.

As the Bulletin goes to press, SB 1164 awaits a final vote in the House before going to the Governor's desk.

The U.S. Senate approved a federal workforce reauthorization bill on June 25 by a 95-3 vote. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, H.R. 803, represents a bipartisan and bicameral compromise between the House of Representative's SKILLS Act and the Senate's Workforce Investment Act. 

The compromise bill preserves local governance authority by protecting local control in workforce investment boards and investment areas. H.R. 803 allows local boards the flexibility to address local workforce challenges, including permission to use up to 20 percent of adult workforce funding for incumbent worker and on-the-job training. The compromise would reduce the number of required members from 52 to 19 for local boards, a positive change as some boards were too large to facilitate participation. Additionally, the legislation would standardize performance accountability with the creation of six core indicators for adults and youth to determine workforce program success across federal programs. 

The House Finance Committee recently approved HB 2348, legislation which would prohibit taxing districts from appealing property assessments except in carefully limited circumstances.

Legislation requiring sheriffs to obtain the same certification as deputies was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 17. House Bill 1772, authored by Rep. Kate Harper (R-Montgomery), would require all sheriffs elected after the effective date of the act who do not already hold certification as a deputy sheriff to obtain the education, training and certification, and to meet continuing education requirements thereafter.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has voted unanimously to move legislation clarifying language in the County Pension Law relative to the calculation of cost of living adjustments for retirees. Senate Bill 1078, sponsored by Sen. Sean Wiley (D-Erie), would allow the county to grant a limited COLA, keyed to just the most recent year.

Current law obligates counties at least once every three years to examine whether to grant a COLA, which is to be granted "in accordance with the cost-of-living-index at the time of the review." The law's vague language has led to interpretation that if a COLA is applied it is to be retroactive to the last time a COLA was granted. For most counties, the COLA is infrequently granted, and so going back to the last COLA and compounding forward can yield an unsupportable increase in the benefit.