Opinion ID: 1239050
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Budgeting advantages

Text: The superior court found that the budgeting procedures in HB 201, set forth at AS 47.30.046 and AS 37.14.003-.005, may prove to be significant as the budget for the integrated comprehensive mental health program competes with other needs for general fund appropriations. The mental health budget is given an advantage for inclusion in the governor's budget over the budgets of other state agencies. The mental health budget is given an advantage before the legislature both from its separation from other appropriations and in the required legislative report. Clearly, there are no guarantees of adequate funding or expanded funding for necessary services, but these budget advantages may prove to be significant nonetheless. Weiss argues that the superior court erred in not quantifying the benefit of these budgeting advantages. It would make little sense, however, to require the trial court to quantify the value of such terms; as the court recognized, their significance remains to be seen. However, like the Trust Authority, the budgeting advantages would almost certainly not be established through continued litigation. Therefore, the superior court did not err in considering these procedures a benefit, albeit of unknown value, to the class.