Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB48 | |
| HB24 | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
2:56:43 PM
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that it was an opportune time to
discuss the new amendment procedures.
2:57:20 PM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION (LFD),
expressed his intent to discuss the new budget amendment
system. He believed the process for legislators and staff
was very similar to the old system. He explained that the
old process had worked but it had been cumbersome, due to
technical or structural errors that occurred. For example,
errors included the misnaming of the agency, allocation, or
appropriation; removing money that did not exist; and a
lack in line item detail. He furthered that it forced LFD
to do a lot of guessing about what the amendment really
meant and what was supposed to be done with the money.
Additionally, under the old system the co-chair had to
track amendments in a spreadsheet because due to duplicates
and other. As amendments were passed LFD had to rekey the
amendments into the budget system. He explained that the
process had required entering the same data at three
different times. He added that often times proposed
language had not gone through Legislative Legal Services
and did not meet its standards. The division had decided in
the past there was something wrong with the inefficiencies
and had been beginning to prepare a new amendment system.
Mr. Teal addressed the new amendment system. He detailed
that the system offered drop down menus on the LFD website
to help avoid technical problems. A new amendment could be
easily added by finance committee members only.
3:01:09 PM
Mr. Teal walked the committee through an explanation and
used the Department of Revenue (DOR) as an example. The
system would help users avoid technical errors. He relayed
that once an amendment was entered correctly the author
could edit, delete, and attach any PDF backup including a
Legislative Legal Services language amendment. It was also
possible to share the material with others. He compared the
system to CAPSIS [Capital Project Submission and
Information System]. The amendment author could let
Legislative Finance Division view the material. The
division would help the author with transaction titles,
catch errors, edit the explanation if desired, and so
forth. Theoretically the process would result in better
amendments.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the amendment author would
continue to have access to edit the amendment once it was
submitted in the system to the finance committee.
Mr. Teal answered that LFD could view the amendment and
edit it if requested by a finance member's office. The goal
was to have errors fixed prior to sending the amendments to
the committee.
3:06:09 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if an amendment could be changed once
it had been shared with other committee members.
Mr. Teal answered that the amendment could be changed after
it had been sent for viewing by LFD, but once the amendment
had been submitted it could not be changed. He explained
that it would prevent the potential for an amendment to be
edited while LFD was loading it.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification that amendments
could be shared with other committee members before being
submitted.
Mr. Teal replied that the amendments could be shared at any
time and cosponsors could be added. That process was
between legislators' offices and was not viewed by LFD.
Representative Wilson asked about looking at positions but
not PCNs [position control numbers] that were funded with
half general funds and half federal funds. With the
assumption that federal funds could probably be put into
other positions still in the department, she asked if it
was possible to pay the salary with all general funds. She
remarked that the department would most likely determine a
way to utilize the federal funds. Alternatively, she
wondered if it had to match the positions.
Mr. Teal answered that an amendment did not have to be
matched. For example, there was a governor's amendment
asking for new positions. It was possible to reverse the
whole thing or choose up to ten different fund codes. He
detailed that it was possible to use general funds but not
the federal funds. The maker of the amendment could chose
whatever option they wanted.
Representative Wilson assumed the best way to do it would
be include information in the explanation about the
rationale for the change.
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative. The goal was to have
an explanation that headed off questions in the committee.
Theoretically it would save time in committee.
3:09:06 PM
Co-Chair Seaton thought it was important for members to
understand how the process worked. He described the process
the committee would use to develop the operating budget. He
read from a prepared statement:
Subcommittees are in the process of closing out and
forwarding their recommendations to House Finance.
When each department's subcommittee report is
scheduled in the House Finance the subcommittee chair
will describe the subcommittee's recommendations.
Then, if amendments were recommended, House Finance
will take up those amendments using the Legislative
Finance amendment report instead of the packets of
amendments that were used in prior sessions. House
Finance will also see the statutory changes proposed
by the subcommittee chairs. Those statutory changes
are listed and briefly explained in the subcommittee
narrative reports and each subcommittee chair will
need to submit their statutory recommendations to each
affected policy committee. We're not voting on those,
those are recommendations that come from the
subcommittee.
In certain circumstances there will be language
amendments that I will propose in addition to the
subcommittee recommended amendments. Those will come
with each department. As Mr. Teal mentioned, I will
have two additional amendments proposed for the
Department of Revenue that we will take up tomorrow
and they're included in the Legislative Finance report
that you have in the file and you should have three
files on your desk. After we go through all of the
subcommittee reports I will also bring forward other
language amendments for the statewide items. That will
be at the end of the process. I just want to reiterate
what Mr. Teal has said in how this is going to
progress. Then we will have a new committee substitute
drafted at that point - this is after we incorporate
the subcommittee proposals and the language amendments
that will generate the CS. Once the committee
substitute is before us, we will take public testimony
on those amendments. After public testimony we will
then take up round two amendments. Any additional
budget amendments from House Finance Committee
members. Those amendments will need to be submitted
via the new operating budget amendment system.
3:12:05 PM
Representative Wilson referred to the DOR and observed
there were amendments. She did not see any amendments for
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA). She
asked for verification that if members did not see any
amendments, someone would give the subcommittee report, but
there would be no accompanying amendments.
Co-Chair Seaton noted there were two amendments [for DOR]
that would be generated in the new system.
Mr. Teal showed the LFD website (on the projector screen)
related to subcommittee reports. The items would be posted
as subcommittees closed out as they were reported out of
committee. He pointed out that the Department of
Administration, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development, Office of the Governor, DMVA, and DOR
had all closed out thus far. Once a department subcommittee
closed out LFD would post the transaction detail,
narrative, and amendment packets. He used DOR as an example
and pointed to the two amendments passed out of
subcommittee (one related to mental health and the other
related to the Tax Division). Subcommittee amendment
packets would also be included on the website. He looked at
the transaction report for DOR and explained that there
were now four amendments - one of the amendments involved
language. He explained that one of the additional
amendments would move paternity testing money from the
language section of the bill to Section 1. The amendments
would be voted on by the full committee. Attached
supporting documents would be the actual Legislative Legal
Services amendment. Any other backup would be attached and
would be in members' packets. The system gave the public
and all legislators the ability to look at amendments well
in advance before they were taken up during the meeting. He
explained that the new system should rectify the past
problem where amendments that members had not seen were
printed right before a meeting.
3:15:54 PM
Representative Wilson asked about DMVA.
Co-Chair Seaton noted members should have the DMVA material
in their packets.
Representative Wilson surmised that unlike the DOR example,
members would not see amendments written for DMVA. She
believed the information shown on the website reflected the
amendment instead. She explained that the DOR amendment
looked more like a format the committee was used to seeing.
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative. He explained that the
website was showing the amendments that were exactly as
passed out by the subcommittee because there were no
language amendments. The subcommittees had purview over the
numbers section of the bill. He elaborated that DOR had two
separate amendments because language was involved. The
website showed what had been done with the decrement and
the transaction type was "wordage," which meant there was
intent added by the committee. Members would have an
opportunity to see the information early and vote on it.
Representative Wilson thought it would be difficult for the
public to understand. She referred to DOR and noted there
were two different types of papers [in the packets]. She
asked for verification that the amendments the committee
was used to seeing pertained only to the language, but
amendments related to the numbers section would appear like
the ones they had just seen for DMVA.
Mr. Teal answered that the "L" in front of the amendment
number was a signal there was backup material. The backup
or supporting documentation would be the amendment prepared
by Legislative Legal Services. The trouble with the
amendment on the screen (shown as a typical amendment with
page references from Legislative Legal Services) was that
most people including finance committee members, had no
idea what the page references meant. Much of the language
was conforming and the amendment did not specify what the
change did. The action of the amendment was actually
described in the new system. The DOR amendment he looked at
moved the cost recovery for paternity testing from language
to Section 1. Hopefully it would be easier for committee
members and the public to understand amendments.
3:19:38 PM
Co-Chair Seaton believed that in the past the language
section changes all appeared in a CS only. He detailed that
amendments had not been seen by other finance members and
the public. The new system would bring all of the
amendments in front of the committee individually.
Representative Wilson appreciated what the chairs were
trying to do. She wanted to ensure they were not looking at
two different types of amendments. She did not want to miss
anything. She thanked the chair for his latitude.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the labeling contingency for the
amendments. The "L" in front of an amendment number
indicated the amendment was a language amendment from the
subcommittee chair of the operating budget. Amendments with
no "L" came from the numbers section, which would be in
subcommittee reports. He furthered that instead of having
the language changes presented at the end in a CS, any
language amendments would be included in members' packets.
He added that statewide amendments would be wrapped into
the language section at the end and would all come before
the committee.
Representative Thompson referred to the subcommittee
reports' narrative, which included recommendations that a
standing committee change statutes for a particular item.
He observed there were quite a few listed. He asked if
members were allowed to object to the items in the process.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the recommendations came
forward from the subcommittee chair. If a legislator
disagreed they could offer a preferred format in the form
of a bill. He clarified that the committee would not be
debating the recommendations by the subcommittee. If
someone disagreed they could communicate to the standing
committee chair or to members and the standing committee
may not go forward with the recommendation. Every House
member had the opportunity to have the input into all
committees and on the House floor. A legislator could
always propose a statutory amendment in the form of
legislation. The goal was to consolidate and look at
budgetary impacts and make recommendations to standing
committees to clean up statutes and get rid of indirect
expenditures. The recommendations would be made by
subcommittee chairs directly to the standing committee. The
information would get reported, but the House Finance
Committee would not discuss and vote on the items that
would come forward as subcommittee recommendations.
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:24:44 PM
Co-Chair Seaton announced that it was Mr. Teal's birthday.
The co-chairs presented Mr. Teal with a present.
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the schedule for the meeting the
following day.