Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/25/2011 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB125 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 125-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
3:30:25 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 125, "An Act moving the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board to the Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development and relating to duties of that department;
and providing for an effective date."
3:30:48 PM
SUE STANCLIFF, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated that the committee
requested an explanation on the fiscal note. The Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) would be transferred from the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) to the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED), and the funding which
is agency receipts is transferred to the DCCED. She advised
that there is not any carryover or administrative costs
necessary to transfer. The DPS essentially removes the ABC
Board from its budget. She asked to read a written statement
into the record, which she read, as follows:
As you all probably know, the Division of Legislative
Finance is automating the fiscal note process this
year to provide improved error checking on the initial
fiscal note submission. Legislative Finance is
working with the Governor's Legislative Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on this process.
Ultimately this new system and the coordination
between government branches and agencies will result
in an improved process.
The initial fiscal noted by the Department of Public
Safety dated 2/8/11 showed an appropriation required
in FY 12 as $429.8, that is $429,000, and showed and
showed an increase of $74.7 thousand in FY 13 through
FY 17. Although those were the amounts shown on the
expenditures and revenues section of the fiscal note,
the analysis explained that those were costs that the
ABC Board expected to incur if they are to relocate to
the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development. As noted in the analysis, the bulk of
that increase was based on an estimate provided by
DCCED. There was no increase of any kind that would
have gone to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in
any circumstances. We prepared the fiscal note based
on advice from OMB about the proper form of the fiscal
note. In particular, it was OMB's understanding that
for the new fiscal note process, both DPS and DCCED
fiscal notes needed to reflect the increased cost even
though only DCCED would have actually had a request
for additional funding. After the fiscal note was
submitted the director for Administrative Services
contacted Legislative Finance fiscal analysts and
questioned why DPS would have a positive note when we
simply should have simply had a negative fiscal note
reflecting the ABC Board leaving DPS. In ensuing
conversations between all parties it was determined
that there had been a misunderstanding of how DPS
fiscal notes should have been shown. DPS then
submitted a corrected fiscal note dated 2/15/11, which
accurately reflects the impact to DPS if HB 125 passes
in its current form, namely that all costs and staff
associated with the ABC Board will be transferred from
DPS to DCCED. The fiscal note now reflects there is a
negative fiscal impact to DPS because those costs will
no longer be reflected in the department's budget. We
apologize for any confusion that may have resulted
from this process.
MS. STANCLIFF related her understanding that staff at OMB has
discussed this situation with Representative Hawker. She
deferred to the DCCED to discuss the respective fiscal note.
She said she hopes this alleviates concerns over the DPS fiscal
note and explains that accurately.
3:35:00 PM
JOELLEN HANRAHAN, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
agreed with Ms. Stancliff's sentiments. She explained the
fiscal note process has been confusing and the department is
working under shorter timelines to try to get fiscal notes
processed. She referred to the DCCED's fiscal note. She
clarified that DPS's fiscal note shows a negative impact and
DCCED's fiscal note shows a positive amount to move the ABC
Board to commerce. The DCCED's fiscal note also shows an
increased cost of $247,500 which reflects a one-time technology
information cost to move the database to the DCCED. It also
lists an ongoing cost to cover the administrative support within
the DCCED.
MS. HANRAHAN elaborated that the fee increase for the
information technology (IT), which is the bulk of the cost
increase, was determined by the DPS and DCCED's technical teams.
The IT teams reviewed whether the ABC Board's data system was
compatible with the DCCED's system. The IT determined some
issues since the DPS system operates differently than the
DCCED's system. The DPS system includes its own firewall that
isolates it from the state's system. Additionally, the DPS uses
an active directory system which is also not integrated into the
state's system. She related that the DB systems are technical.
She likened it to removing the 7th floor of a 15 story building,
but everything within the walls and the foundation supports the
IT function. Thus, all the equipment must be reconfigured since
the DCCED and DPS's support foundations are different. However,
if the 7th floor was relocated to the 9th floor in the same
building, the system would be easier to reconfigure.
MS. HANRAHAN stated that if the ABC Board was on the same state
system it would cost less to integrate the ABC Board to the
DCCED. The additional cost is to replace some of the equipment
that the applications use since the equipment will not be moved.
The DCCED has overhead costs for the commissioner's office and
the administrative services are primarily inter-agency funded.
The department uses an approved allocation plan that is based on
weighted positions and efforts. This plan allocates the
commissioner's office and the administrative services' costs to
the agencies, whereas the DPS is primarily general funded so
most of their costs are not allocated. One small ongoing cost
is the allocated cost for fiscal, budget, IT, human resources,
and statewide support from the agency, including accounting,
travel processing.
3:41:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to whether some automation
would occur as a result of the auto-pay functions. He asked why
the costs never seem to decrease despite the efficiencies
gained.
MS. HANRAHAN answered that the cost allocation plan would be
adjusted over time based on changes in the organization and in
the levels of effort needed. The current projected costs
reflect the FY 12 costs, but level of effort will become more
stable once the board is more established in the DCCED.
CHAIR OLSON conferred with the sponsor and related there are no
additional fiscal notes to consider.
3:43:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 27-LS0378\M.2, Gardner, 2/7/11, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 3, following ";":
Insert "relating to the exercise of peace officer
powers granted by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board;"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 04.06.110 is amended to read:
Sec. 04.06.110. Peace officer powers. The
director and the persons employed for the
administration and enforcement of this title may, with
the concurrence of the commissioner of public safety,
exercise the powers of peace officers when those
powers are specifically granted by the board. Powers
granted by the board under this section may be
exercised only when necessary for the enforcement of
the criminally punishable provisions of this title,
regulations of the board, and other criminally
punishable laws and regulations, including
investigation of violations of laws against
prostitution and promoting prostitution described in
AS 11.66.100 - 11.66.130 and laws against gambling,
promoting gambling, and related offenses described in
AS 11.66.200 - 11.66.280. Unless authorized by a
search warrant described in AS 12.35.010 - 12.35.120,
nothing in this section authorizes the use of magnetic
card keys or identification cards to access private
clubs."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:44:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1, line 3, of Amendment
1, which is additional language necessary for the title change.
He referred to page 2, line 6, which removes the requirement for
key cards. He said he heard from managers of clubs and
patriotic organizations that they needed to obtain
identification or key cards. He related that the clubs should
not have to provide the cards and this language would remove
that requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER made a motion to conceptually amend
Amendment 1, on line 18 after "of" insert "metal keys," and on
line 19, after "card keys" insert ",". This would remove the
requirement for private clubs to have magnetic card keys or
metal keys unless authorized by a search warrant described in AS
12.35.010 - 12.35.120, he stated.
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment to Amendment
1 was adopted.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being
no further objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
3:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved to report HB 125, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 125(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.