Legislature(2019 - 2020)
12/10/2020 10:00 AM House BUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Approval of Minutes | |
| Executive Session | |
| Final and Preliminary Audit Releases | |
| Special Audit Request | |
| Revised Programs - Legislative | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
December 10, 2020
10:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Chris Tuck, Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Representative Jennifer Johnston (alternate) (via
teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Neuman
Senator Bill Wielechowski (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
FINAL AND PRELIMINARY AUDIT RELEASES
SPECIAL AUDIT REQUEST
REVISED PROGRAMS - LEGISLATIVE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KEN ALPER, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the special audit request.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to a special
audit.
ALEXEI PAINTER, Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented RPLs.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:00:51 AM
CHAIR CHRIS TUCK called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Representatives
Josephson, Foster, Spohnholz, Johnston (alternate) (via
teleconference), and Tuck and Senators von Imhof, Stedman,
Giessel, Hoffman, and Bishop were present at the call to order.
^APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
10:01:28 AM
CHAIR TUCK announced the first order of business would be
approval of minutes.
10:01:33 AM
SENATOR BISHOP moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve the minutes of November 6, 2020. There being
no objection, the minutes of November 6, 2020, were approved.
^EXECUTIVE SESSION
EXECUTIVE SESSION
10:01:54 AM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the next order of business would be an
executive session to consider the final release of the following
audits:
• Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives;
• Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program
Eligibility; and
• Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program
Transportation Costs.
And to consider the preliminary release to the departments of
the following audit:
• Office of Children's Services Compliance with Foster Care
Reform Laws, Part 1.
10:02:22 AM
SENATOR BISHOP moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee go into Executive Session under Uniform Rule 22 (b)
(3), discussion of matters that may, by law, be required to be
confidential. He asked that the following persons remain in the
room or on the phone lines:
• The Legislative Auditor and necessary staff for the
auditor;
• Legislative Legal Services Director Megan Wallace and
necessary legal services staff;
• Any legislators not on the committee; and
• Staff for legislators who are members of the committee.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
10:03:09 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:03 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. for
the purpose of executive session.
12:10:21 PM
CHAIR TUCK called the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
back to order at 12:10 p.m. Present at the call back to order
were Representatives Josephson, Foster, Spohnholz, Johnston
(alternate) (via teleconference), and Tuck and Senators von
Imhof, Stedman, Giessel, Hoffman, and Bishop. Also present were
Representatives Edgmon and Stutes and Senators Wilson and Kiehl.
^FINAL AND PRELIMINARY AUDIT RELEASES
FINAL AND PRELIMINARY AUDIT RELEASES
12:10:52 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the next order of business would be
final and preliminary audit releases.
12:11:07 PM
SENATOR BISHOP moved the following audits be released as final
public reports:
• Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives;
• Department of Health and Social Services, Medicaid and
Children's Health Insurance Program Eligibility; and
• Department of Health and Social Services, Medicaid and
Children's Health Insurance Program Transportation Costs.
There being no objection, the audits were released.
12:11:41 PM
SENATOR BISHOP moved the following preliminary audit be released
to the agencies for response:
• Department of Health and Social Services, Office of
Children's Services Compliance with Foster Care Reform
Laws, Part 1.
There being no objection, the preliminary audit was released to
the agencies for response.
^SPECIAL AUDIT REQUEST
SPECIAL AUDIT REQUEST
12:12:08 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced the next order of business would be a
special audit request.
CHAIR TUCK said he and Representative Spohnholz were making the
request regarding the Department of Revenue (DOR) oil and gas
tax audit process. He invited Ken Alper to present the audit
request to the committee.
12:12:38 PM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, said he may be referring to information in the
committee packet. The first he noted was a special report on
the Department of Revenue, oil and gas tax audit process, dated
June 20, 2014. He also pointed to 11 pages, which start out
with a cover letter to the co-chairs of the Senate Finance
Committee, Senators Steadman and von Imhof, from the Department
of Law (DOL), dated January 16, 2019.
MR. ALPER offered background information that in the last year,
the Tax Division refused to provide Kris Curtis of the
Legislative Audit Division some of the information that she is
statutorily allowed to acquire, information specific to
assessments and settlements. He continued:
That led to there being a qualified opinion - an
asterisk in the statewide single audit - because of a
lack of complete information coming from the
Department of Revenue.
In addition there have been some requests for
information that have been denied from individual
legislators on the grounds that it was confidential.
That is the sort of information that in the past years
has been not considered confidential, and, in fact,
there are specific statutory exceptions to that data
being confidential, meaning aggregated data within the
production tax.
12:14:32 PM
MR. ALPER covered the questions being asked in the special audit
request, which he said fit into three broad categories. The
first couple questions relate to updating the data in the 2014
legislative audit. He said, "We want to make sure that the
production tax audit staffs and workloads are appropriate, that
they have the right number of people that are adequately trained
for the job, and that they have appropriately adapted to the
advanced software that was, in 2014, still a work in progress
but has been fully implemented in this part of their world." He
said that project was funded in the fiscal year 2012 (FY 12)
capital budget, $34.7 million. Also being considered, he said,
is whether the process of "going about the audits" has changed,
what the priorities are, whether there have been changes to
policy, reinterpretations of statute, different ways of making
considerations, or changes to the way the tax is being
collected.
MR. ALPER said the next broad area is the information that was
missing in the statewide single audit, which he noted are items
four and five on the audit request memorandum. He said there
was a question as to whether tax audit assessments may have been
paid using tax credit certificates. He reviewed, "There is a
large overhang of unpurchased tax credit certificates that in
the past the state used to buy as quickly as they came in.
They're now seven-hundred-and-some million dollars outstanding."
He continued:
There was some concern that a major producer that
might have a tax audit assessment might be purchasing
those credits and using it to pay their taxes.
There's no proof of this, but there's also no
information to show that it's not being done, which is
where Ms. Curtis' concerns were. And were that to
take place, there's a constitutional issue, and the
reason for that is the [Alaska] Supreme Court has
determined that a production tax audit assessment ...
is an administrative proceeding, the result of which
has to go into the Constitutional Budget Reserve. ...
So, if a tax audit is being paid for with tax credits,
which is a general fund revenue source, ... it would
be an unconstitutional diversion of money ... from the
Constitutional Budget Reserve without a three-quarter
vote, and that would be problematic. So, we need to
find out if that sort of thing is taking place.
MR. ALPER said the missing piece to which Ms. Curtis has not
been provided access pertains to audit settlement memorandums
regarding disputes and formal processes signed by the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue (DOR). Without those,
Ms. Curtis has not been able to "get enough information to
resolve that." He said there are also questions of whether
taxes are being refiled or settled in advance of a formal audit
assessment request as a way to circumvent the Capital Budget
Reserve Fund (CBRF) issue in an attempt to get certain monies
into the general fund. He said it is necessary to find out
whether deals or settlements are being made on the side.
12:17:57 PM
MR. ALPER stated that that final series of questions on the
memorandum, items six and seven, have to do with specific data
coming out of DOR "that more involves numbers." He continued:
Although the individual taxes and individual tax
assessments on a particular tax payer is clearly
confidential - these are [Internal Revenue Service]
(IRS) rules, state rules - there are exceptions in
statute, specifically AS 43.55.890, that allow for
aggregated information. If there's at least three tax
payers, at least three data points, ... the
administration's allowed to share with the public and
the legislature the total. That keeps individual data
confidential, and here we're talking about taxes,
lease expenditure data; lots of specific data about
the oil and gas operations and spending can be
released in an aggregated form.
We have information on total tax assessments for every
audit cycle going back to at least 2000. From 2000 to
2007, the legislative auditor published in the 2014
special audit what the sum total was.
MR. ALPER noted he was the tax director during some of this
time, and every time a tax audit cycle was completed a
memorandum was published showing the total amount assessed and
the total amount with interest. There is a complete data set
through 2012. He said in the last two years DOR has completed
the 2013 audit cycle and is close to or may have already
completed the 2014 cycle and has declined to share the
information on the total audit assessment, saying that is
confidential information. He relayed that item six in the
memorandum seeks to get that information from DOR.
MR. ALPER said item seven in the memorandum seeks to update the
information referred to previously that says of the assessed
dollars how much remains outstanding and in what category: the
appeals process, in the Office of Administrative Hearings, or in
court. He related that Representative Story, who had made some
of these requests, received an e-mail from DOR in October [2020]
stating that there are no outstanding assessments through 2013.
He said that was surprising information. He pointed out there
was an error in item seven, which refers to $1.3 billion in open
assessments. He explained that the $1.3 billion includes some
assessments that had previously been paid. He said the real
number, through 2012, is approximately $900 million known,
unpaid assessments outstanding as of January 2019. Mr. Alper
said there is also an unknown number that came in for the 2013
cycle, which is, based on recent activity, likely $100-$200
million. He continued:
So, there's a billion dollars, or so, worth of
outstanding audited assessments that are no longer
pending. ... In some way they have been settled or
resolved, which then leads to, "Well, what happened?"
Without the auditor having access to the settlement
memos, we don't know what happened. The only thing we
could piece together is what we know is money that
went into the Constitutional Budget Reserve.
The Constitutional Budget Reserve data exists in two
different forms. You could see the total number in
the revenue sources book. That number includes money
coming in from multiple sources: royalty audits, oil
property tax, corporate income tax, mining taxes, as
well as the oil and gas production tax. The
Department of Revenue puts out an annual report that -
to the extent they can - breaks that out by source.
So, for 2019, the annual report is complete, and we
know that $166 million, resulting from the production
tax, went into the CBRF. For FY 20 the annual report
isn't out yet, but we know from the revenue sources
book that $235 million total went to the CBRF, some
large portion of which would've come from the
production tax. So, we've got a universe of something
approaching, but not quite, $400 million that likely
came from production tax settlements. Out of a
billion, billion-one worth of original audits.
So, the last part of this request is to try to find
out what happened. Was there a change in policy? Was
there a master settlement across the board? ... Why
is it that all of these audits may have only been
settled for 35-40 cents on the dollar?
MR. ALPER said that concluded his presentation, and he offered
to answer questions.
12:22:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked why Mr. Alper thinks the
administration would respond any differently from how it
responded to Ms. Curtis.
MR. ALPER explained that the single audit process is
confidential, and the administration refused the request of Ms.
Curtis claiming confidentiality. He expressed his hope that the
special audit may "shake something lose over there." If not,
the next step may be more adversarial; however, he expressed his
hope that it would not come to that.
12:23:44 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked Ms. Curtis to confirm she is the auditor
for the state.
12:24:20 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, confirmed she is the
legislative auditor. In response to a follow-up question as to
whether [DOR] comes under her purview, she stated that her
position is a constitutional one, and under statute, she has
access to "all information, including that which is
confidential." She further confirmed that the confidential
information allows her to do her job as auditor.
SENATOR STEDMAN then expressed that he expects the situation to
get elevated. He said he would like to know what the next step
would be to protect "the integrity of the financial information
that the legislature and the public has preview to."
CHAIR TUCK remarked that he interpreted Senator Stedman's good
question as being a rhetorical one.
12:25:53 PM
MS. CURTIS said most of the issues she is addressing pertain to
whether the information she is requesting is privileged. The
current administration has denied the Legislative Audit Division
access based on the issue of privileged information; the
division has not had this issue with past administrations. [The
current administration] claims that the information Ms. Curtis
says she needs in order for the Legislative Audit Division to
answer some questions is attorney/client privileged. She said,
"Those are the types of things we're going to have to figure out
in this process."
SENATOR STEDMAN asked what the next step is to ensure the books
can be reviewed to make sure they're "clean."
MS. CURTIS answered that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee has subpoena power. She offered her understanding
that the committee had never exercised this power. She
expressed her hope that "we can work together to come to some
understanding of what is or is not in my purview." She said
another option is that the legislature could specifically state
that she has access to privileged information.
SENATOR STEDMAN stated his concern that "there's nobody watching
the hen house" and billions of dollars are involved. He said
the public and the legislature need to have assurance that the
transactions are documented, justified, in proper form, and
reported within "our financial statements" so that the
legislature, as policy makers, can understand the benefits and
possible pitfalls in any policy pursued. He emphasized the
significance of this issue, and he said his comfort level is not
high. He questioned who, if not the legislative auditor, is
allowed to review the information.
MS. CURTIS responded that if Senator Stedman is referring to the
tax credits, the division can review what is in the accounting
system, and some documents that the department doesn't view as
privileged, thus it has some understanding of what is in the
financial statements. She clarified that in 2019, [the
administration] was not allowing the Legislative Audit Division
access to the administration's subsystem and, when asked for
specific information to follow up on the assessment issue, was
not responsive. She added, "That lead to a qualification. We
are still in progress for the FY 20."
SENATOR STEDMAN questioned how, without an audit, the public is
assured there has been no quid pro quo in dealing with
settlements of credits.
MS. CURTIS answered, "I think that's what this [special] audit
can provide: assurance."
12:30:13 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF expressed interest in hearing about cash
value. She said she wants to know, for example, the cash value
when a certificate is used for a tax payment.
MS. CURTIS asked Senator von Imhof to clarify if she wanted to
know whether the state paid, for example, 80 cents on the dollar
for a $100 credit.
SENATOR VON IMHOF emphasized, "The most important thing of all
is the flow of cash." She said she did her best to follow Mr.
Alper's rapid presentation of a great amount of information.
She stated that she wants to know where the cash flow went and
what was left on the table - "things like that." She allowed
that she may not be phrasing the question just right, and she
suggested she could speak with Ms. Curtis later. She recalled
that Senator Stedman had spoken about the accountability of the
tax credits, and she reemphasized her interest in the matter of
cash flow.
12:31:56 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL, regarding Senator Stedman's comment about
transparency to the public, remarked that the legislature is the
public, having been elected by the public and representing it.
She said there has been a multi-level erosion of legislative
authority in the last two years. Regarding the two-page special
audit request, she turned to item 4, tax credits, and stated
that in House Bill 111, [passed during the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature], legislative intent was articulated that
credits could be used to "satisfy a tax, interest, penalty, fee,
or other charge" that has not been subject to ["an
administrative 19 proceeding or litigation."] She pointed to
the final sentence of item 5 of the special audit request, which
read:
As part of this analysis, determine whether the state
is entering into any form of agreement with the tax
payer outside of the audit assessment process that
could be interpreted to be part of an administrative
proceeding.
SENATOR GIESSEL said, "That, of course is something that we've
allowed them to do." She said Mr. Alper, during his time as the
Tax Division director issued an advisory document resulting in
"a need for the companies to revise their tax filings." She
stated, "Sometimes reading some of these implies that tax payers
have been unscrupulous, and sometimes it's allowed." She
explained she brought that up as "a modifying statement related
to the questions." She expressed that she shares the concern
that the legislative branch and the public are being "pushed to
the side."
12:34:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that Ms.
Curtis had said there is a law that can be triggered that finds
the legislative auditor is allowed to view privileged
information, which, in other words, meant that a legal fix is
not needed because there is a law that applies.
MS. CURTIS answered no. She stated that she had said one option
would be to clarify her ability to look at privileged
information by changing the law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised that a settlement memorandum
is likely to give the statistics of a full and final settlement,
along with some legal jargon, but may not get into the merits of
a full dispute.
MS. CURTIS said she thought Representative Johnson was saying
that evaluating what is happening would involve "a deep dive
into communications between the state and the auditee." She
confirmed that is true, because it is never simple. It involves
looking at all the information available, because an auditor
cannot give a full judgement by viewing a fraction of the whole.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, to Mr. Alper, recalled Senator Giessel
had noted that [House] Bill 111 allowed for some offsetting. He
asked whether there were any constitutional problems with House
Bill 111.
12:38:16 PM
MR. ALPER answered that tax credits can be used to pay a tax
obligation from a prior year, but "only so long as that
obligation would not have to go to the CBRF." He said that led
to the question: "What would that be, for example?" That led
further to the idea that an additional tax due as a result of a
tariff settlement perhaps should not be CBRF money. He said
there had been a large Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) settlement pending at the time House Bill 111 passed,
which led to several hundred million dollars in incremental
taxes becoming due. He said, "We thought perhaps that was the
sort of thing that might be payable with tax credits." He said
working with Senator Giessel on that bill, the goal was to
create a secondary market for tax credits. He said, "We needed
to find a way, with the state not providing the cash, that we
would be able to allow these holders of credits to use them.
One way would be to sell them. So, we thought that perhaps
these tariff settlements might be something outside the CBRF
universe." Mr. Alper said that led to some reclassifying of
previous deposits to the CBRF, with which the legislative
auditor found fault, and there is an approximate $1.2 billion
discrepancy outside the scope of this audit, which is not "so-
called real money" but is "a definition of what we owe back to
the CBRF." Mr. Alper said the short answer to Representative
Josephson's question is that yes, House Bill 111 "allows us to
go back into time," but only to the extent that the underlying
obligation would not be CBRF revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said there is some belief that an
aggressive posture would have brought the state $1.1 billion,
"but we see indications that $400 million was paid." He said,
"That's a $1,000 dividend, and the public may want to know about
that." He indicated that the public may "misunderstand that; it
may be that the oil tax payer arguments were good ones."
MR. ALPER said the total amount of assessments sounds large, but
he advised keeping in mind just how large the oil and gas
production tax is within the State of Alaska's overall revenue
portfolio. It is traditionally the largest revenue item. He
related that between 2006 and 2012, approximately $29 billion in
production tax was collected by the state - all in general fund
revenue. He said the entirety of the auditor assessments for
those seven years, including the amount paid before the
memorandum was written, was approximately $1.5 billion. He said
that is an increment of roughly 5 percent in unpaid taxes found
by DOR. He echoed Representative Josephson's remark that that
amount equals $1,500 for every person in the state, "a billion
dollars outstanding."
12:42:28 PM
SENATOR BISHOP observed that Ms. Curtis was not asking for any
more or less than has been in her purview, and he opined that
the committee should back her up to be afforded the information
for the public.
12:43:12 PM
SENATOR BISHOP moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve the request for a special audit of the
Department of Revenue oil and gas tax audit process made by
Representatives Tuck and Spohnholz. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
^REVISED PROGRAMS - LEGISLATIVE
REVISED PROGRAMS - LEGISLATIVE
12:44:08 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced the next order of business would be Revised
Programs - Legislative (RPLs).
12:44:51 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division, Legislative Agencies and Offices, presented RPLs. The
first was RPL 08-2021-0278, [Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED)] Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, for $850,000 of federal receipt authority for market
access program federal carryforward and Cochran missions. He
said the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) makes an annual
grant to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), and in
FY 20 a portion of this money went unspent because of the COVID-
19 pandemic. He said the USDA will allow ASMI to carry forward
the unspent portion of the grant, which is just under $800,000,
into FY 21. In addition, ASMI anticipates up to two missions
under the Cochran fellowship program, also funded by USDA, at a
cost of approximately $60,000 each. He explained that ASMI's
existing federal receipt authority is insufficient for these
awards, thus it seeks this RPL. He said the Legislative Finance
Division sees no technical issues with this RPL.
MR. PAINTER turned to RPL 08-2021-0279 [Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development], for the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC), for $26,302 of federal receipt
authority for oilfield inspections and mechanical integrity
testing. He noted the committee approved a similar RPL one year
ago. This year AOGCC received a multi-purpose grant from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the underground
injection control program, and its existing federal receipt
authority is insufficient to spend this grant. He said the
Legislative Finance Division sees no technical issues with this
RPL.
12:47:04 PM
MR. PAINTER turned to RPL 08-2021-0296 [Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development], the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA), for $3 million in federal receipt authority in the
capital budget for the AEA Alternative Energy & Efficiency
Program, specifically for the Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric
Project [in Chitina, Alaska]. He said the federal Denali
Commission awarded a $3 million grant fund for this project, and
the matching funds for this grant will be provided by $4 million
from the renewable energy grant fund and a $500,000 in-kind
match from the Chitina Native Corporation. Mr. Painter said
this RPL is attached to a capital project originally
appropriated in FY 13 for AEA's Alternative Energy and
Efficiency Program. That original appropriation was not
specific to one particular project but covered a multitude of
projects within the program; this project would fit within the
scope of that original capital project. Regarding timing, he
said AEA anticipates the project will close out in late 2022,
which takes it into FY 23; however, there is an immediate need
for the funding, because AEA plans to begin design and
permitting in February 2021 and to select the contractor by
April. He said the Legislative Finance Division sees no
technical issues with this RPL.
12:48:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said in the late April/early May time
frame, there was some consternation regarding the legality of
RPLs under the CARES Act. At the time, he said, he learned that
there had to be a budget operating item - some linkage - to a
federal program. He said there was litigation and resolution of
the matter through legislation later in May. He observed, "This
is a capital project outside the five-year lookback or window."
He asked whether there is a technical argument that this RPL is
beyond the scope of what is acknowledgeable by the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee.
MR. PAINTER responded that while the project is from eight years
ago, some of the funds are still being spent; therefore, it is
an open, active project. He said the five-year window can be
extended if projects are ongoing. There would be concern if it
were not still active. He said funding has been appropriated to
this alternative energy and efficiency program in subsequent
years, but those years did not include federal receipt
authority. He explained, "So, by using the FY 13 one, they were
able to increase existing federal receipt authority in line with
the statute." He said the division does not have concerns, but
he can see why it could "raise some flags."
12:51:14 PM
MR. PAINTER moved on to RPL 08-2021-0319, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, for $2.5 million in
federal receipt to increase community block grants for federal
coronavirus community development block grants. He said DCCED
received approximately $6.2 million for the community
development block grants in the federal CARES Act. The existing
block grant appropriation had sufficient federal authority for
the first two distributions of these funds, but not enough for
the third distribution. This RPL is for the third distribution.
He said the Legislative Finance Division has no technical issues
with this RPL. He said the division would assign its fund code
1265 to it, which is a federal fund code to enable tracking of
COVID-19 appropriations.
MR. PAINTER addressed the final item, RPL 07-2021-1173, for the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), Workforce
Investment Board, for $2,190,200 in federal receipt authority,
to cover existing grants in the department's operating budget,
for which it received additional grant funding beyond its
expectations. He said this is attaching to an operating budget
item. He related that the Legislative Finance Division has no
technical issues with this RPL.
12:53:16 PM
CHAIR TUCK thanked Mr. Painter for walking the committee through
the RPLs.
12:53:28 PM
SENATOR BISHOP moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve the following RPLs:
• RPL 08-2021-0278, Department of Commerce Community and
Economic Development, Market Access Program Federal
Carryforward and Cochran Missions;
• RPL 08-2021-0279, Department of Commerce Community and
Economic Development, Oilfield Inspections and Mechanical
Integrity Testing;
• RPL 08-2021-0296, Department of Commerce Community and
Economic Development, AEA Alternative Energy & Efficiency
Programs Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project in Chitina
AK;
• RPL 08-2021-0319, Department of Commerce Community and
Economic Development, Additional Federal Authority for
Community Block Grants; and
• RPL 07-2021-1173, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, Increase Federal Authority for Existing
Grants.
There being no objection, the RPLs were approved.
12:55:20 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|