Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
06/02/2021 04:00 PM Senate CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB69 AND HB71
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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(FIN) am(brf sup maj fld)(efd fld)
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; and making capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, and reappropriations."
SCS CSHB 69(FIN) AM S
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, and reappropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
and
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71(FIN) am
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making
supplemental appropriations; and providing for an
effective date."
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71(FIN)
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making capital
appropriations and supplemental appropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
4:03:06 PM
Chair Foster invited Alexei Painter, Director of the
Legislative Finance Division to join the committee at the
table. He noted that the committee would be addressing open
items in HB 69 and HB 71 based on the motion sheets
distributed to members and dated June 2nd (copy on file) on
the departments of:
FY 22 OPERATING
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
LEGISLATURE
^DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
4:03:27 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT the following within the
Department of Administration budget:
Item 1 Senate
Items 2-4 Senate
Item 5 House
Item 6 Senate
Representative LeBon OBJECTED to items 2, 3, and 4.
Chair Foster indicated the committee would set items 2, 3,
and 4 aside.
There being NO OBJECTION, items 1, 5 and 6 for the
Department of Administration's budget were ADOPTED.
Chair Foster invited Representative LeBon to speak to his
objection to items 2, 3, and 4.
Representative LeBon relayed that in House Finance and on
the floor of the House the amendment passed with the intent
language that the Department of Administration would
realize a savings over the following budget year. The
amendment helped to define a target savings of at least 5
percent. He hoped the language could be kept in the budget.
Chair Foster read the intent language:
"It is the intent of the Legislature that Shared
Services of Alaska prioritize cost saving efforts and
achieve a cost savings of at least 5 percent."
Chair Foster indicated the dollar amount associated with
the intent language was $329,000 and $163,000 of cuts to
interagency receipts (IA) within DOA.
Chair Stedman commented that when looking at the issue
within DOA it was nice to put downward pressure on the
operations of the state. The legislature had done so for
the previous several years and thought it would continue
for a handful of years. He supported the Senate's position
to not have the items in the budget.
Senator Olson remarked he did not understand the resistance
to making things clearer to the public especially when
people looked at the associated documents. He saw no harm
in keeping the items in the budget.
Chair Foster understood that when the department came
before the legislature and the issue was discussed the
intent was to realize savings through shared services.
However, the department wanted to give it a year to see
what kind of savings could be attained. In combining the
amounts, the intent language indicated wanting to see a
savings of 5 percent making a cut of about $500,000. He
thought the department wanted some time to realize a
savings before inserting a number. He asked Mr. Painter to
comment.
4:07:28 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, had
heard the same discussion in committee that the intent of
the department was to phase in the cuts over a number of
years.
Senator Olson asked what the advantage was to have the
reductions phased in over time.
Mr. Painter responded that in the first year the Office of
Management and Budget was working with DOA to set up rates
in advance. Building in the reductions in the first year
would not match with the rates that had already been
adopted. Allowing the department to see how the
consolidation worked and adjust the rates accordingly in
the second year was the intention of the department.
Senator Olson asked if the fishermen were in favor of the
rate changes they would be seeing. Mr. Painter asked
Senator Olson to repeat his question. Senator Olson asked
if fishermen were in favor of the rate changes they would
be seeing in the future. Mr. Painter was not sure of the
Senator's question. Chair Foster asked a clarifying
question to Senator Olson. Senator Olson asked if
commercial fisheries were being discussed. Chair Foster
clarified that the committee was discussing the budget for
DOA.
Representative LeBon pointed out the language was included
to signal to DOA that the legislature was watching. The
intent language was a reminder of the pledge the department
originally made to achieve savings. By keeping the language
intact, the issue would remain alive.
Representative LeBon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
4:10:11 PM
AT EASE
4:10:46 PM
RECONVENED
Chair Foster clarified that the motion was to adopt items
2, 3, 4. There was an objection which was maintained. A
"yes" vote would be in favor of the Senate version to
exclude the House language.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Stedman, Merrick, Bishop
OPPOSED: LeBon, Olson
The MOTION PASSED (4/2). Items 2, 3, and 4 for the
Department of Administration's budget were ADOPTED.
4:11:53 PM
AT EASE
4:12:10 PM
RECONVENED
Chair Foster stated the actions closed out all items for
the Department of Administration.
^DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
4:12:32 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT the following within the
Department of Fish and Game budget:
Items 1-11 Senate - All Items
Item 12 House; Modify fund source, 1199 sport
fish enterprise fund
Representative LeBon OBJECTED for discussion. He asked
whether item 5 was a one-time only increment.
Senator Olson OBJECTED to item 1 and item 10.
Chair Foster would take the objection to all items. He
directed Mr. Painter to comment on item 5.
Mr. Painter responded that the general fund increment was a
one-time item. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) receipts were over-appropriated in the FY 22 budget
due to reduced revenue in the current fiscal year. The one-
time general fund amount would enable the department to
utilize less of the receipts and get through the year
without going negative in the account.
Representative LeBon asked if the one-time condition was
self-correcting or whether there was a plan to correct the
issue.
Mr. Painter replied that the one-time effect was due to the
Covid-19 pandemic. It was expected to be a one-time issue.
Representative LeBon also OBJECTED to item 12 for
additional clarification.
Chair Foster conveyed item 12 had to do with the funding
for the Crystal Lake and the Douglas Island Pink and Chum
(DIPAC) Hatcheries. He asked Representative LeBon if he had
a specific question.
Representative LeBon noted it was a one-time increment. It
was his understanding that a surcharge on sports fishing
licenses had provided funding for the fish hatcheries. Now
that the one-time sport fishing surcharge had ended, the
fund would bridge the following year when the sport fishing
surcharge was expected to take place and fund the
hatcheries. He asked if his understanding was correct.
Mr. Painter responded, "That is correct."
Chair Foster noted Senator Olson had questions on items 1
and 10.
Senator Olson thought the items appeared to be identical.
He asked for clarification.
Chair Foster indicated that both items opened the Wrangell
office. He explained that the committee was accepting the
Senate's structure not to consolidate Commercial Fisheries.
The committee would be keeping the regions broken out to
include Artic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK), Southeast, Statewide,
and others. The House version referred to reopening the
Wrangell office with the allocation of Commercial Fisheries
under consolidation. The committee was opting for the
Senate version which kept everything broken out. He
continued that item 10 referred to the House version and
item 1 referred to the Senate version. He invited Mr.
Painter to comment.
Mr. Painter relayed that Chair Foster was correct in his
explanation. He added that the Senate's items 1-4 were
mirrored in the House's items 7-10. All of the items were
identical, just in different structures.
Senator Olson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative LeBon asked if the decision not to
consolidate came with a zero fiscal note. It was his
understanding that when consolidating, the goal was
typically to achieve a savings. The governor's budget
proposed to consolidate the areas into one. He wondered if
there would be any fiscal impact accompanying the decision
not to consolidate. He wondered if the decision was
money-neutral.
Mr. Painter believe the agency stated there would be
efficiencies moving to a consolidated structure. However,
there were no actual funding reductions associated with the
consolidated structure.
Representative LeBon WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, items 1 through 12 for the
Department of Fish and Game's budget were ADOPTED.
^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
4:19:24 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT the following within the
Department of Natural Resources budget:
Item 1 Senate
Item 2 House
Items 3-5 Open
Representative LeBon OBJECTED to item 1.
Representative LeBon relayed that the item was intent
language. He realized there was an argument over the
constitutionality of the intent language. However, the aim
was that the state would do no harm to a private sector
business that was engaged in the business of selling
gravel. The intent language was designed to protect public
sector businesses from unfair competition from a state
agency selling gravel out of a state gravel pit. He
encouraged members to leave the language in the budget.
Chair Stedman thought that although the language provided a
good point, it violated the confinement clause of the
constitution and did not fit in an appropriating budget. He
opined there were numerous attempts to insert intent
language into the budget. He believed the two chairmen
needed to work together over the winter to streamline
things. He opined the legislature was gravitating towards
violating the confinement clause through intent language.
He suggested that intent language be offered in a separate
bill in the future rather than in the operating budget
bill. He also thought the agency had the authority to carry
out the intent language whether or not it was inserted in
the budget.
Senator Olson realized there was a confinement clause, and
there were questions as to whether the language would be
relevant. However, he had been in the private sector until
he was elected to his legislative seat and did not like
when public money was competing. He was in full support of
the intent language in item 1 in spite of some of the
issues related to the confinement clause in the
constitution
Chair Foster read the intent language:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Natural Resources sell gravel or fill
extracted from state land at cost to any federal,
state, or local agency or public corporation working
on a public project not competing with private
industry.
Chair Foster summarized that DNR would sell gravel at cost
to other federal entities as long as it did not compete
with private industry. He agreed with Senator Stedman that
in terms of the budget, the legislature should stay away
from making policy calls in an appropriations bill. Policy
changes should be taken up in separate legislation. He
thought the legislature would work to reduce intent
language in the future.
Representative MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stedman, Foster, Bishop, Merrick
OPPOSED: Olson, LeBon
The MOTION PASSED (4/2). Items 1 through 5 for the
Department of Natural Resources' budget were ADOPTED.
^DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
4:24:30 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT the following within the
Department of Public Safety budget:
Item 4 House
Item 5 House
Item 7 Open
Item 9 Open
There being NO OBJECTION, items 4, 5, 7, and 9 for the
Department of Public Safety's budget were ADOPTED.
^LEGISLATURE
4:25:00 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT the following within the
Legislature's budget:
Item 5 Senate
Item 6 Senate
Representative LeBon OBJECTED to items 5 and 6.
Representative LeBon asked about the intent of removing
legislative per diem from the numbers section and being
placed in the language section. His understanding was the
intent was to stop paying per diem after day 120.
Chair Foster clarified that Representative LeBon was
objecting to items 5 and 6. He asked if Representative
LeBon had any more to add.
Representative LeBon wanted clarification regarding the
conditional language that stated after day 120 the
legislature would not collect per diem. He asked if he was
correct.
Chair Foster indicated his understanding was that the items
moved per diem from the numbers section to the language
section. He asked Mr. Painter to comment.
Mr. Painter responded that the language simply stated that
the amount of $1.995 million was appropriated for the
purpose of per diem. The language did not specify that the
money was limited to 120 days.
Representative LeBon asked if the amount which was slightly
under $2 million was approximately equal to 120 of per
diem.
Mr. Painter responded, "Yes."
Chair Foster clarified that the items were not eliminated
the dollar amount, it was simply moving the dollar amount
from the numbers section to the language section. He asked
if he was correct.
Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative.
Representative LeBon asked if per diem would cease if the
items were adopted, 120 had been reached, and $1.995
million had already been spent on per diem. He asked if he
was correct.
Mr. Painter replied that through the appropriation, yes.
However, it would not limit the legislature's ability to
transfer money from other appropriations for the purpose of
per diem.
Chair Stedman thought it would be nice for Mr. Painter to
explain to the public the difference between the numbers
section and the language section. He noted it was an
archaic term outside of the committee table.
Mr. Painter replied that the numbers section appropriations
were an allocation within a larger appropriation of the
legislative operating budget. Agencies had the ability to
transfer money within an appropriation. As a numbers
section item, the legislature could transfer money from one
allocation to another. As a language section item, the
transferability was limited because it was its own
appropriation for a specific purpose. However, the language
did not specifically state 120 days. He confirmed that it
would be more difficult to transfer the money around
because it was a language appropriation.
4:29:06 PM
Chair Stedman understood that the way the language was
written and placed in the budget would preclude employees
from getting paid. The only people getting paid would be
legislators. He thought the intent and implementation were
two different things. He thought things needed to be
cleared up.
Senator Olson asked that if the committee were to adopt the
items would the payments to legislators and employees
cease.
Mr. Painter replied that the language was specific to
legislators' salaries and allowances. In previous items
that had already been addressed by the conference committee
there were items that would impact legislative staff. The
current items would only impact legislators' salaries and
allowances.
Senator Olson clarified that if the committee accepted the
items which would move the amount to the language section,
legislators' per diem would stop after 120 days.
4:30:47 PM
AT EASE
4:32:19 PM
RECONVENNED
Mr. Painter clarified that the funding provided 120
days-worth of funding. After that time, the legislative
session would be over, and legislators would be in a
special session. The was a separate appropriation for
special session contingencies. Special session funding was
not funded by the appropriation being discussed whether it
was in the numbers section or the language section.
Representative LeBon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Bishop, Merrick, Olson, Stedman, Foster
OPPOSED: LeBon
The MOTION PASSED (5/1). Items 4 and 5 for the
Legislature's budget were ADOPTED.
Chair Foster stated the actions closed out all items for
the Legislature's budget.
Chair Foster relayed that when the next meeting date and
time had been determined, the details would be noticed on
BASIS on akleg.gov.
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADJOURN. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|