Conference committee members reviewing Senate Bill 02/2007 on funding for a state veterans' home left the issue unresolved and adjourned without a final agreement.

Representative Anderson, speaking for the House conferees, said the House proposal would move the salary and health‑insurance costs onto the general fund after the Senate had proposed keeping them on the facility’s special funds. Anderson said the facility expects to need a major replacement of its geothermal heating system “which is going to cost them several millions of dollars to replace that heating system.”

The disagreement centered on whether the home’s payroll lines should be carved out of the state’s vacant‑position (FTE) funding pool. Anderson and other conferees recounted the facility’s argument that, because it must provide 24/7 nursing coverage, it sometimes must pay overtime, hire temporary staff at higher wages or contract agency staff at still higher rates. The committee heard that the facility’s full‑time employment funding pool is funded entirely from special funds.

Committee staff provided the panel an estimate of the facility’s special‑fund balance at the time of the budget submission. Larry, a staff member, said, “When the budget was submitted, their estimate ending balance was, $5,000,007.84.” Anderson and other members said the facility told them it expects a short‑term need to replace its geothermal system at an estimated cost of between $4 million and $6 million, a reason the facility wants to retain its special‑fund balance.

Lawmakers also discussed a proposed $2 per hour salary increase intended to make the veterans' home more competitive locally and to reduce reliance on travel nurses. Representative O'Brien said the Senate added $550,000; the House added another $200,000, bringing the total asked for salary increases to $750,000. Senator Mather said increasing pay can reduce travel‑nurse costs, noting from personal experience that her facility “totally eliminated travel nurses, but we did that by increasing salaries.”

Some members opposed exempting the home's payroll from the vacant‑position pool because portions of the home's salaries are paid from the general fund. One conferee said the budget base included general‑fund support, and the committee debated whether the salary lines are wholly special‑funded or include general‑fund dollars.

With members unable to reconcile the funding‑source split and whether the home’s payroll should be excluded from the vacancy pool, Chairman Davidson adjourned the meeting and said another session would be scheduled. No formal motion or vote was taken on the matter during this meeting.

Votes at a glance: no formal votes recorded; committee adjourned without action.