Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1997 08:17 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MARCH 25, 1997
8:17 A.M.
TAPE HFC 97 - 75, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 75, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 76, Side 1, #000 - #060.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:17 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Grussendorf
Representative Mulder was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Remond Henderson, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
SUMMARY
HB 75 An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government, for
certain programs, and to capitalize funds; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 75 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 76 An Act making appropriations for the operating
expenses of the state's integrated comprehensive
mental health program; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 76 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
AMENDMENTS:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (DCRA)
1
HOUSE BILL 75
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government, for certain
programs, and to capitalize funds; and providing for an
effective date."
HOUSE BILL 76
"An Act making appropriations for the operating
expenses of the state's integrated comprehensive mental
health program; and providing for an effective date."
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (DCRA)
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt DCRA-#1. [Copy on
file]. Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED.
Representative Grussendorf explained that the amendment
would provide the authority for the Department to receive
federal funding for the first year of a three-year federal
grant. The One-Stop project would aid Alaska in its efforts
to streamline government and at the same time enhance
services for individuals at a community level.
Co-Chair Hanley interjected that his amendment, DCRA-#7,
would also address that concern. The intent was not to
allow any additional programs, but instead, consolidate
current programs in order to save money.
Co-Chair Therriault commented that his reason for objecting
was that rarely are federal funds dispensed without a
General Fund match. Representative Grussendorf noted that
he understood no federal match would be required. Co-Chair
Therriault WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Kohring OBJECTED to adopting DCRA-#1. He
elaborated that the Subcommittee did not believe that the
expenditure was warranted. Following further discussion,
Representative Kohring WITHDREW his OBJECTION to DCRA-#1.
Representative G. Davis inquired if any of the funds had
been used for lease payment. Representative Kohring stated
that there was no lease money involved. The money would be
used for the purchase of equipment and software.
Representative Kohring decided to maintain his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Moses, J. Davies, G. Davis, Grussendorf,
Hanley, Therriault
OPPOSED: Martin, Foster, Kelly, Kohring
2
Representative Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt DCRA-#2. [Copy on
file]. Representative Kohring OBJECTED.
Representative Grussendorf explained that the amendment
would allocate 100% federal funds to provide support
services for the One-Stop Project. One-Stop is a three-year
federal grant to aid Alaska in its efforts to streamline
government and at the same time enhance services for
individuals at a community level. Co-Chair Therriault
questioned the administration and support component of the
amendment. Representative Grussendorf commented that $3
million dollars would be used for computers and programming
so that each department will be able to more efficiently
"track" individuals.
REMOND HENDERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS,
spoke to the money flow structure. The $100 thousand
dollars would be Inter-Agency receipts from the One-Stop
component; $3.6 million dollars was also established as a
One-Stop shop component. The $100 thousand dollars was
RSA'd from that component to the administrative data
processing (DP) component. The DCRA DP staff will take the
lead to develop the system throughout the State.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if the Department had the ability to
make the switch without the Legislature's approval. Mr.
Henderson pointed out that the request includes costs for
travel and directly related contractual expenditures.
Transferring could be processed through an RP, although, the
Department decided to show a true reflection of how the
expenditures would be spent in data processing. Co-Chair
Hanley pointed out that the intent was to co-locate all the
training information offices to one location.
Representative G. Davis suggested that there could be
double-counting unless DCRA-#1 was reduced by the same
amount. Co-Chair Hanley did not agree, pointing out the
transfer and back-out at the bottom. Appropriations are
made by the budget request unit and not by component.
Representative Kohring echoed his concern that the program
would not bring greater efficiency. Co-Chair Therriault
voiced support for the amendment, pointing out that the
money had already been authorized and that now the
Department should be given direction on how to spend those
funds.
3
Representative Martin recommended incorporating DCRA #1, #2,
& #3 into one amendment. Mr. Henderson replied that within
the DP component, the Department would not have the federal
authority to receive the funds. DCRA-#2 allows the
Department to RSA the money to the proper component. He
stressed that "One-Stop" is the only component the
Department could receive the federal funds in.
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to AMEND DCRA-#2, changing interagency
receipts to federal receipts and at the same time reducing
the One-Stop component by $100 thousand federal dollar
receipts. There being NO OBJECTION, DCRA-#2 was amended.
There being NO OBJECTION to the amended DCRA-#2, it was
adopted.
Representative Grussendorf revised DCRA-#3, substituting
interagency receipts to federal receipts and adding a
reduction of $97.7 thousand dollars from the One-Stop
program. Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt the
revised DCRA-#3. [Copy on file]. There being NO OBJECTION,
DCRA-#3 was adopted.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt DCRA-#4. [Copy on
file]. Representative Kohring OBJECTED.
Representative Grussendorf explained that DCRA-#4 would
provide federal funding and a General Fund match for the
Rural Utility Business Assistance (RUBA) program. Passage
of the amendment would provide the State a savings of $4.5
million dollars. Without the funding, the program will
suffer management problems. He added that the program had
been created through the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Co-Chair Hanley asked if those funds could be received
without the General Fund portion. Mr. Henderson commented
that there was a 25% federal match component. Co-Chair
Therriault questioned the need to have a separate program in
DCRA when there already exists a maintenance program in the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Mr.
Henderson responded that RUBA was a technical assistance
program. Employed individuals in that component are local
government specialists, located in Fairbanks and Anchorage;
a portion of the money would also fund contracts in St.
Mary's. The contracts provide assistance to individuals
teaching techniques to operate the utilities for generating
greater revenue.
Mr. Henderson clarified that the $225 thousand dollars was
not new money. It had previously been budgeted in the
Capital Budget and now was being moved to the operating
4
budget. Representative J. Davies pointed out that a rural
sanitation council had been established under both Governor
Hickel and Governor Knowles representing the State and
federal government and the private sector. Their foremost
recommendation was to strengthen the RUBA program.
Representative Kohring countered that the program to date
had a "poor" track record.
Representative Grussendorf argued that RUBA was an excellent
program serving rural Alaska. Co-Chair Hanley noted that he
was supportive of the federal fund receipts portion of the
amendment. Representative Grussendorf MOVED to AMEND DCRA-
$225.0 thousand dollars. There being NO OBJECTION to the
proposed change, it was incorporated.
Representative Martin OBJECTED to the amended DCRA-#4.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Moses, J. Davies, G. Davis, Grussendorf,
Foster, Kelly, Therriault, Hanley
OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin
Representative Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt DCRA-#5. [Copy on
file]. Representative Kohring OBJECTED.
Representative Grussendorf explained that the amendment
would restore funding to the Child Care program which
provides grants to licensed child care providers and deletes
the funding from the Day Care Assistance Programs which
would provide subsidies to low and moderate income families.
Representative Grussendorf amended DCRA-#5, changing the
General Fund amount in the Child Assistance portion from
$2.3 million dollars to $1.6 million dollars. There being
NO OBJECTION to the proposed change, it was made.
Representative Kohring reiterated his objection to the
amended DCRA-#5. He discussed the subcommittee's objective
to reduce overall spending, while investigating subsidies
that go directly to the facilities. The subcommittee felt
that it was inappropriate that dollars go directly to the
facilities and instead recommended that all funding go into
the day care assistance components.
(Tape Change HFC 97-75, Side 2).
Representative Kohring cited his "philosophical
5
disagreement" with the State subsidizing facility owners and
businesses. Representative Martin agreed with
Representative Kohring supporting that the two components be
combined.
Representative Grussendorf countered that there was not a
single large business in the State that was not receiving
some sort of State subsidy or break. The purpose of the
amendment would be to provide facilities and or environments
to keep children from being "warehoused". The State must be
willing to invest that kind of money into an environment for
youngsters in order to create socially responsible people.
He emphasized that day care providers do not make a lot of
money. Their work is about service, providing a valuable
service to adults in the work force.
Representative J. Davies elaborated on the value of funding
for child care facilities. They can not operate on the
revenues received from the parents. Day care workers are
some of the lowest paid workers in the State, consequently,
causing a high turnover rate. He implied that a quick
turnover of teachers for the age group being considered is
not a good thing. Preschoolers need continuity and
stability. Also, facilities do not qualify for the grants
unless they are licensed. That is the important difference
between grant money and the child care assistance program.
Representative Davies suggested that child care facilities
are as important as the public school system. He stressed
that the child care grant program is essential.
In response to Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Henderson explained that
the statute allows for a maximum of $50 dollars per child
distributed through the child care grant program and which
is based upon children in a licensed facility program.
Representative Kohring determined that there was no
guarantee that the day care program would be one of quality
because they were licensed by the State. He cited known
problems within child care facilities. He believed by not
adopting the amendment, parents would then be more empowered
in deciding how the funding for their children would be
spent.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if the amendment was not funded, would
the grant amount per month per child be increased. Mr.
Henderson indicated that it would not. He pointed out that
most areas of the State do not have a waiting list for day
care assistance and perhaps the funding could be used to
increase the subsidy amount to lower economic parents.
Representative J. Davies ascertained that by not allocating
funding for these facilities would cause rates to increase
6
as well as Alaska loosing the federal match dollars. He
stressed that studies clearly demonstrate that licensed day
care is "better quality care" than the non-licensed care.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if federal funds were attached to the
child care program. Mr. Henderson replied there are no
federal funds associated with the child care grant program.
Representative Kelly echoed Representative Kohring's concern
with the amendment. By putting the money into the hands of
the "users of the service" will provide them more power in
the marketplace. He pointed out that the State would never
offer such an advantage to the oil industry. Representative
Grussendorf strongly disagreed. He listed multiple breaks
given to the oil industry through tax reductions and
subsidies. He referenced the bulk fuel and gasohol
situation. Representative Kelly argued that removal of
taxes was a "far cry" from tax subsidies. He criticized the
fact that families put their children in day care centers,
when rather they should be encouraged to raise children
themselves at home.
Representative J. Davies rebutted that if the money was
placed into the hands of the parents, there would be no
direct incentive to be licensed. The parents are
economically strapped and they will be looking for the least
costly facilities. Those will be the ones that do not spend
money on training their staff or money on appropriate toys
for that level of child. Low income parents do not often
know that this is important criteria. He stressed that the
State system will pay in the end with increased juvenile
delinquency, increased problems in schools and increased
people in jail.
Mr. Henderson noted that parents have the option of where to
place their children, whether it be in a licensed or non
licensed facility. Co-Chair Hanley asked if the day care
assistance program included a requirement that those
children be placed in a licensed day care facility. Mr.
Henderson stated that there was no requirement that the
child go to a licensed facility.
In response to a comment made by Representative Kelly, Mr.
Henderson explained that day care licensing was provided
through the Department of Health and Social Services and
that he understood licensing requirements were very
stringent.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: J. Davies, G. Davis, Grussendorf, Moses,
7
Hanley, Therriault
OPPOSED: Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin
Representative Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Grussendorf WITHDREW DCRA-#6. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Co-Chair Hanley WITHDREW DCRA-#7. [Copy on file]. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt DCRA-#8. [Copy on file].
Representative J. Davies OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Co-Chair Hanley explained that DCRA-#8 would provide a
reduction to Municipal Assistance and Revenue Sharing, an
additional reduction from the Governor's request, equaling
6% below the amount appropriated for FY97.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: G. Davis, Grussendorf, Kelly, Martin,
Hanley, Therriault
OPPOSED: J. Davies, Foster, Kohring, Moses
Representative Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Kohring noted for the record that his "no"
vote was because the cuts were not deep enough.
Representative J. Davies stated for the record that his "no"
vote was cast because he did not support property taxes
being raised.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt DCRA-#9. [Copy on
file]. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Representative Grussendorf explained that DCRA-#9 would
restore the $913.4 thousand dollars, cut by the subcommittee
from Energy Operations and would spread the restoration to
the components reduced to fund the circuit rider program
($425.0). The net effect to the rural energy program would
be a $442.7 thousand dollar reduction restoring seven of the
fifteen positions. The proposed subcommittee reduction
would be added to the $400.0 thousand dollar reduction
included in the Governor's proposed FY98 budget.
8
Representative Kohring pointed out that the restoration
would "blow" the cap that the subcommittee worked hard to
achieve. They decided to cut this item, following a
recommendation from a previous House Speaker who had been
involved in establishing the program. She stated that the
intent was that there would be seven personnel positions.
The bureaucracy has blossomed from the original program to
twenty-four individuals. Representative Kohring spoke to
Representative Ivan's concern that there be technical
assistance within the program for the rural areas in order
to provide the needed funding to run the facilities.
(Tape Change HFC 97-76, Side 1).
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Grussendorf, Moses, J. Davies
OPPOSED: G. Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin,
Therriault, Hanley
Representative Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-6).
HB 75 and HB 76 were HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 A.M.
9
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|