Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/13/1997 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 113
"An Act extending lapse dates for certain prior year
appropriations; making supplemental, capital, and
special appropriations; and providing for an effective
date."
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR provided members with a
sectional analysis of HB 113 (copy on file). In
introductory remarks, she noted that there has been
significant reforms in the supplemental budget process over
the last two years. She emphasized that containing
supplemental spending has been an Administration priority.
She observed that the legislature has indicated that some
areas should be included in a supplemental instead of fully
funded in the operating budget. She observed that specific
disaster funding has been included in supplementals. She
stressed that $8.5 million dollars of the Governor's FY 97
supplemental request was identified during the FY 97
operating budget process. She did not recommend any changes
in the manner that judgement and claims are handled. There
are approximately $2.8 million dollars in judgement and
claims.
Ms. McConnell stated that the Administration is suggesting
that money paid in Cleary fines be appropriated into the
4
Capital Holding Account to indicate to the court that the
State is attempting to deal with prison overcrowding.
Appropriations from the account would still be part of the
normal budget process.
Ms. McConnell noted that unanticipated expenses total $4.5
million dollars. She observed that a request for
supplemental funding of $1.5 million dollars may be
submitted for Power Cost Equalization.
Ms. McConnell reviewed criteria for inclusion in the
Governor's supplemental request. Some items were included
due to their urgency. McLaughlin/Fairbanks Youth Centers,
and Perseverance Trail fall under this category. She
acknowledged previous problems with assumptions that
supplementals would be granted. She urged that decisions on
supplemental requests be made in a timely manner. She noted
that additional requests may be included to help Southeast
Alaska deal with mill closures.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Ms. McConnell
noted that the capital budget would be introduced within the
next two weeks. She clarified that the supplemental request
for Power Cost Equalization would not be greater than $1.5
million dollars. An addition of $1.5 million dollars would
result in a total of $17.3 million dollars for Power Cost
Equalization. She explained that the increase would be in
general fund dollars. She observed that an increase in the
price of oil has increased state revenues in addition to
increasing fuel prices. She noted that additional funding
for Marine Highway fuel costs were allocated from the
General Fund.
Representative Davies questioned if judgments and claims are
paid prior to their authorization in a supplemental
appropriation. He asked why judgments and claims would not
be averaged and funded in the operating budget as is done
for Emergency Services. Ms. McConnell thought that
judgments and claims were not paid until the appropriation
is authorized. She compared judgments and claims to
disaster spending. She emphasized that disasters incur
immediate expenditures.
Representative Davies noted that citizens must wait for
payments from the State. He referred to a constituent that
may need to file bankruptcy due to his inability to receive
payment. He questioned if the variation is greater.
DAN SPENSER, SENIOR ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR explained that judgments and
claims are outside of the normal scope of operations.
Auditors have suggested that there should be a specific
5
appropriation for the payment of a judgement or claim.
Generally, judgments and claims are not paid unless there is
a specific appropriation.
Representative Martin commended Ms. McConnell for cleaning
up the supplemental.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Ms.
McConnell clarified that leasing agreements are on the
fiscal year. She explained that because lease payments are
due on the first of the month, the State receives bills in
June for payment on July 1. She explained that these bills
are paid on June 23, so that they arrive on time. These
costs are transferred into the new fiscal year after that
year's accounting system is on line.
Representative Martin expressed concern with the
identification of an item as an "emergency" procurement.
Ms. McConnell replied that there are no emergency
procurements in the supplemental request. She emphasized
the need to obtain appropriations prior to an emergency.
Representative Kohring asked for further clarification
regarding advanced payments.
SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION reiterated that
checks for lease payments are sent in FY 97 but issued and
accounted against FY 98 appropriations. She maintained that
there is no surplus. Representative Kohring suggested that
all end of year expenditures are not legitimate. Ms. Barton
offered to review expenditures.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Section 1 (a)
$1,018.7 million dollars - Leasing.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-26, Side 2)
Ms. Barton explained that the FY 97 lease budget was reduced
with the expectation that supplemental appropriation would
be needed. She emphasized that long term lease savings are
anticipated.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that if the supplemental request is
approved that the total FY 97 appropriation would be $400.0
thousand dollars more than the Governor's FY 97 request.
Ms. Barton recalled that there was an attempt to manage the
budget down by $400.0 thousand dollars.
6
DUGAN PETTY, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION discussed the Department's FY 97 lease
appropriation. He pointed out that the Department was in a
lease negotiation during the FY 97 appropriation process.
The Department focussed on concentrating resources on the
biggest, highest cost leases in hopes of reducing costs.
The Department was not successful in obtaining a
lease/purchase agreement. He noted that there were some
unanticipated claims.
Co-Chair Hanley demonstrated that after the addition of the
supplemental to the FY 97 appropriation, the FY 98 request
will be $700 thousand dollars less than the total FY 97
appropriation. He asked how the reductions will be made.
Mr. Petty acknowledged that the FY 98 appropriation is
ambitious and aggressive. It is designed to challenge the
Department to continue negotiations to reduce costs. He
explained that at the time the request was submitted, the
Administration was in the process of negotiating the
purchase of the Bank of America building. Co-Chair Hanley
summarized that the Administration is attempting to manage
leases down by approximately $1 million dollars.
Ms. McConnell stressed that the FY 98 Budget Plan
acknowledges that this area will not be fully funded in the
operating budget.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned the true amount that the State is
obligated for leases and how much can be managed down. He
asked if there would be savings from the purchase of the
Bank of America building in FY 98. Mr. Petty stated that
there would be savings in FY 98. He explained that the
State occupies 60,000 square feet of space in the building,
representing approximately $1 million dollars in lease
costs. He explained that there would be approximately $500
thousand dollars in general fund savings after maintenance
and operation costs. In response to a question by
Representative Davies, Mr. Petty clarified that lease
finance and project development costs which include tenant
improvements and moving expenses would be financed over 19
years. The $500 thousand dollars savings factors in
approximately $3.5 million dollars in private tenant income
in FY 98. He discussed financing scenarios. The State
receives funds for the project cost initially. These will
go into an account that will earn interest in the first
couple of years. The full amount of debt service does not
begin until the third or fourth year. Project development
funds would be spent over the first three years.
Representative Martin asked if the State will pay penalties
for breaking any long term leases. Mr. Petty clarified that
the Administration intends to move after leases expire.
7
Leases expire in the year 2000. He did not anticipate any
interim moves. He referred to the Frontier Building lease.
He observed that the lease cost is still higher than the
State will pay on a purchase. He added that the State may
have to pay premium rent on any hold over provisions.
Representative Kohring noted that the Bank of America
building is a premium building. He asked why the State does
not purchase a less expensive building. Co-Chair Hanley
noted that debate will occur when legislation pertaining to
the purchase reaches the Committee.
Section 1(b)
$317.5 thousand dollars - Office of Public Advocacy
Ms. Barton observed that the Administration estimated that
there would be a $500 thousand dollar shortfall in the FY 97
appropriation to the Office of Public Advocacy. The Office
of Public Advocacy has reduced the estimated shortfall to
$317.5 thousand dollars. She emphasized that the request
reimburses contractual expenses.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the total FY 97 appropriation
will be $260 thousand dollars greater than the Governor's FY
98 request with the addition of the supplemental. Ms.
Barton pointed out that caseloads are increasing due to new
legislation and additional patrol officers. She emphasized
that the caseload is driven by court appointed cases. Cases
that are in conflict of interest with the Public Defender
Agency are also referred to the Office of Public Advocacy.
BRANT MCGEE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION observed that the Office of Public
Advocacy was created in 1984. Out of 13 sessions the Office
of Public Advocacy has been forced to ask for a
supplemental. He acknowledged the difficulty of predicting
the caseload. He stated that it is possible to estimate the
cost per case.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. McGee
stated that the Alaska Court System contracted for the
services that the Office of Public Advocacy now provides.
The court spent $956.00 dollars per case for cases
contracted in 1983. The Office of Public Advocacy spent
$606.00 dollars a case in FY 97. The Office of Public
Advocacy reduced the cost per case by more than a third.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Public Defender Agency
received fiscal note funding that had been allocated to the
Office of Public Advocacy in legislation passed in FY 97.
He acknowledged that the supplemental for the Public
8
Defender Agency would have been greater without the
additional fiscal note funding.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr.
McGee reiterated that the Office of Public Advocacy can
provide services cheaper than contracting through the Alaska
Court System.
Section 1(c)
$268.9 thousand dollars - Public Defender Agency
Ms. Barton noted that there were four fiscal notes
authorized for the Public Defender Agency in FY 97. All
four fiscal notes were reduced. The total reduction was
approximately $275 thousand dollars. She emphasized that
the Public Defender Agency had a 19 percent increase in
caseload. By keeping positions vacant the Public Defender
Agency was able to reduce the estimated shortfall from $475
to 268.9 thousand dollars.
BARBARA BRINK, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S AGENCY emphasized
that it is difficult to predict the caseload. She observed
that the Agency handled 17,800 cases in FY 97 at an average
cost of less than $500 hundred dollars per case. The Agency
anticipates exceeding 18,600 cases. She maintained that
there is a minimal level of service that must be provided in
each case. She stressed that the Agency has tried to
maintain vacancies as they become available. She pointed
out that 6 of 13 offices in the State have only 1 or 2
lawyers. She noted the difficulty of maintaining vacancies.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that the FY 98 budget request is
$550 thousand dollars short of full funding.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that there has been a
lot of law and order legislation passed in the past years.
Ms. Brink noted that many of the fiscal notes were reduced
substantially. The FY 96 supplemental was also reduced and
some of the fiscal note funding went to make up that
shortfall. Mr. McGee said he could not remember ever
receiving full funding on a fiscal note. He stressed that
fiscal note costs are accumulative. One bill may not make a
big difference, but accumulative legislation has made a big
impact.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the cost of doing business
is reflected in the supplemental. The addition of the
supplemental request would make the Public Defender Agency
$60.0 thousand dollars below the Governor's original FY 97
request.
9
Section 1(d)
$65.6 thousand dollars - Elected Public Officials
Retirement System
Ms. Barton noted that the request reflects three elected
public officials that will retire in FY 98.
Section 1(e)
$243.3 thousand dollars - Vintage Park Settlement
Section 1(f)
$104.0 thousand dollars - Department of Environmental
Conservation Lab Claims
Mr. Petty explained that Section 1(e) funds an unanticipated
settlement that occurred with a lease acquisition in Juneau.
Five or six agencies are being brought into one location.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-27, Side 1)
Mr. Petty explained that leases were vacated to allow for a
Juneau One Stop. After appeals and arbitration the State
decided to settle. He maintained that the cost to decide
the issue in Supreme Court would have exceeded the cost of
settling with the second low bidder that raised the appeal.
Approximately $53 thousand dollars was paid on back rent.
The hearing officer cost $20 thousand dollars.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Petty
explained that the Department of Administration is
represented by general government attorneys. Department of
Law attorneys provide representation as part of their
general fund budget. In Section 1(f) the Department of
Administration is being represented by an attorney from the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities section
of the Department of Law. This is not covered in the
Department of Law's general fund portion. The client agency
is charged. The costs have been paid.
Co-Chair Hanley asked for more information regarding the
policy on settlements.
Mr. Petty explained that the building that was required
through the RFP process for the Juneau One Stop has been
occupied. Co-Chair Hanley asked if procedures can be
tightened so that bid disputes do not arise again. Mr.
Petty noted that the RFP document has been revised. He
stressed the belief that the Department of Administration
would have won the appeal.
10
Representative Davis asked the status of other One Stop
office's in the State. Mr. Petty stated that there are
approximately five one stop consolidations. He pointed out
that the consolidations are intended to solve problems with
service provision. He did not know if there would be any
savings. He discussed progress in one stop offices around
the State. All offices are constrained by what leases are
expiring. There are five different programs with five
different offices for each consolidation. An attempt has
been made to locate offices in one of the current spaces.
He observed that in the Kenai/Soldotna area that none of the
existing spaces were sufficiently large.
Mr. Petty discussed Section 1(f). He noted that the claim
is the result of a lease acquisition awarded in 1989. A bid
for a laboratory for the Department of Environmental
Conservation was let out in 1989. A claim was filed in 1994
over a dispute with the developer regarding building
requirements. The supplement request represents funding for
the Department of Law to defend against the claim. He
maintained that the claim was not filed timely.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|