Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/07/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB91 | |
| Department of Administration - Statewide Information Technology Governance Systems Overview | |
| HB91 | |
| Department of Administration - Statewide Information Technology Governance Systems Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 7, 2013
1:33 p.m.
1:33:35 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Austerman called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Mia Costello
ALSO PRESENT
Karen Rehfeld, Director, Office of Management and Budget;
Paloma Harbour, Acting Division Director, Division of
Administrative Services; Dave Blaisdell, Director,
Administrative Services Division, Department of Law;
Michael Barnhill, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration
SUMMARY
HB 91 SUPPLEMENTAL/CAPITAL/OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
HB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - STATEWIDE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS OVERVIEW
HOUSE BILL NO. 91
"An Act making supplemental appropriations, capital
appropriations, and other appropriations; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
1:35:50 PM
KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
(OMB) provided a spreadsheet and summary page for the FY13
Supplemental Bill, HB 91 (copies on file).
Ms. Rehfeld looked at the summary, and stated that there
was a reduction in general funds requests of $2.877
million; a designated general funds request increase of
$4,200; other funds requests totaled $24.464 million; and
federal funds requests totaled $2.864 million. She noted
that the total operating supplemental request showed a
decrease of $3.344 million. She remarked that the governor
had asked for an additional $5.3 million, based on the
estimates of fire suppression activities for FY13. She
pointed out a request of $3.4 million in disaster relief;
and $900,000 of that request was related to the previous
winter's storms and an anticipation of spring flooding. She
pointed out the $25 million general fund decrement in the
Medicaid decrement. There was a debt service reduction of
approximately $6 million in general funds; and eight
judgments and settlements from the Department of Law (DOL).
The total capital supplemental items totaled $27.8 million,
of which $3.8 million was general funds.
Ms. Rehfeld highlighted some of the sections of SB 42. She
stated that Section 1 was the operating numbers portion of
the bill. Section 2 was the funding summary by department
for the individual items. Section 3 was the capital
summary, followed by a funding summary in Section 4.
Section 5 was the funding summary for all items contained
in both the operating and capital supplemental budget.
1:40:00 PM
Ms. Rehfeld highlighted the items listed in the FY13
Supplemental Bill spreadsheet. Lines 2 and 3 were for the
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board. The requests were
program receipts requested specific to legal assistance,
and maintaining an underage drinking enforcement program.
Both of the requests were in the FY14 budget. She looked at
line 4, which was a request for the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). She explained
that AIDEA requested to participate and assist in several
large project development and financing options; and were
seeking some additional capacity to hire some technical
expertise. The $200,000 in AIDEA receipts was also
requested in the governor's FY14 budget. She explained that
line 5 related to the DFG appropriation for the waterfowl
and sanctuary access permit fees from DFG funds rather than
from program receipts. She stated that line 6 was in
compliance with federal findings. She pointed out that
$303,000 was requested to deposit shooting range fees into
the fish and game fund. She explained that lines 7 and 8
were for the DHSS, and were for food service, laundry, and
janitorial contracts at the Pioneer Homes. She explained
that line 9 was a request for security upgrades at the
Office of Children Services Anchorage Regional Office in
response to recent security threats, and furthered that
there was a request in the FY14 budget related to that
item. Ms. Rehfeld stated that line 10 was a request to
maintain services for child protection programs. She
furthered that line 11 was a request for social worker
class study implementation. That study is now complete.
This request is included in the governor's FY14 budget.
1:46:21 PM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that line 12 was a request from DHSS
for social security income and child support for children
in State custody. There is additional Social Security
Income and child support receipts for protective custody
available. There is also a reduction of federal funds. This
request was included in the governor's FY14 budget. She
stated that line 13 was a fund source. She relayed that
line 14 was a request from DHSS for increased medical costs
for clients in the Division of Juvenile Justice. This
request is included in the governor's FY14 budget. She
explained that line 15 was for an increase federal receipt
authority to provide cash assistance and work services to
low-income families with children to help them with basic
needs while they work toward becoming self-sufficient. This
request, and the request on line 16, was included in the
FY14 Governor's budget.
Ms. Rehfeld shared that line 17 was a correction of an
omitted fiscal note from the previous year. Line 18 was a
one-time request of $137,000 for a general relief program
increase.
1:49:44 PM
Ms. Rehfeld reported that line 19 was a request from DHSS
for Health Care Access and Service Delivery Evaluation and
System Development Funds were available from the Children's
Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
(CHIPRA) based on the Department of Health and Social
Services' performance in managing the CHIP program. These
funds would be used to help oversee and manage health care
services and Medicaid programs through evaluation of health
care services and delivery. Studies to evaluate and
determine the most cost efficient and effective delivery of
health care services and systems and equipment to help
achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness of health
care delivery and reporting capabilities are included in
this request. The impact of this supplemental request was
being considered for a FY14 budget amendment.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that line 20 was for a $25 million
decrement for savings from Medicaid cost containment
measures. She communicated that line 21 was from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) for
department-wide unavoidable lease cost increases. She
explained that line 22 was from DNR for fire suppression
activity.
1:52:02 PM
Ms. Rehfeld announced that line 23 was from DPS to replace
federal pass-through funds from the Alaska Highway Safety
Office, which would cover both Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) and non-DUI related activities. A similar request is
included in the FY14 governor's budget in the amount of
$2.937 million. She shared that line 25 was from the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT/PF), and was a request for legal fees related to Old
Quihaguk Airport; line 26 was for storm water compliance;
and line 27 was for maintenance and operations of New
Akutan Airport. She shared that line 28 was for retiree
health insurance increases for Alaska Marine Highway
Systems unions, and furthered that certain retirees in the
Alaska Marine Highway System bargaining units can elect to
remain covered under their active health plan through the
North West Marine Welfare Trust. Recalculations of premiums
occur annually, based on claims and number of participants.
Bargaining Units include the Inland Boatmen's Union
representing the Unlicensed Marine Unit; Marine Engineer's
Beneficial Association; and International Organization of
Masters, Mates, and Pilots. She explained that line 29 was
from the Alaska Court System (COURT) to provide reasonable
accommodations to assist a hearing impaired judge who was
appointed to the superior court bench in Bethel. She stated
that line 32 was from Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED) for the Petersburg Borough
organization grant, and was a one-time request. She
announced that line 33 was from DOR for the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) San Roberto Mountain View
development project.
1:58:03 PM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that line 36 was from the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG) for wildlife conservation aircraft
maintenance, to allow for general maintenance of aircraft
as Capstone avionics is not feasible in the primary
locations flown by the aircraft. Line 37 was from DFG to
add authority to the Wild/Hatchery Salmon Management Tools
project to receive funding from processors. Line 38 was a
request from the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) for the unobligated balance estimated to be $1.3
million of the federal unrestricted receipts form the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009, for operating costs for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2014. Lines 39 and 40 were from DOL for actual judgment
and settlement costs received as of January 30, 2013. Line
41 was from DOL for the purpose of paying the costs
associated with fast ferry litigation for the fiscal years
ending June 30, 2012; June 30, 2013, and June 30, 2014.
Line 42 was from DNR to extend the lapse date for
permitting and application processing related to the state
gas pipeline right-of-way work related to bringing North
Slope natural gas to market. Line 43 was from DPS to
reappropriate funds for a statewide aircraft hangar
improvement project. Line 44 was from DOR for a
reappropriation for the San Roberto Mountain View
development project. Line 45 was from DOR to reappropriate
funds for an Oil and Gas fiscal systems analysis.
2:03:33 PM
Ms. Rehfeld announced that line 46 was from DOT/PF for
legal fees related to the Ruth Burnett Sport Fish Hatchery.
Line 47 was from DOT/PF for right-of-way carry forward
language. Line 48 through 50 was for debt service. Line 51
was a fund transfer to allow fees from shooting ranges,
sanctuary permits and waterfowl prints to be deposited in
Fish and Game Fund. Line 58 was HB 91 effective date of
April 14, 2013. Line 62 was a request from DNR for the
unpredictable cost of each fire season.
2:09:32 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if each item was necessary to be
placed in the supplemental budget, rather than the capital
or operating budgets for FY14. Ms. Rehfeld replied that
there was constant work analyzing the priorities, and
stressed that the current supplemental bill was relatively
small.
Co-Chair Stoltze looked at line 36, and did not believe
that there was an anticipation of supplemental aircraft
maintenance. He felt that request was more opportunistic,
rather than an emergency. Ms. Rehfeld replied that there
were items that were reappropriations, and if those
reappropriations were not approved by the legislature, the
money would be deposited into the general fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze declared that he had heard that the ABC
Board had been complaining about office and administrative
issues related to moving from DPS to DCCED. The
appropriation in this bill caused suspicion, because he
felt like the ABC Board was not "a team player." Ms.
Rehfeld replied that the legal fees request for the ABC
Board was in the bill, because legal fees were billed
differently in DPS than they were in DCCED.
2:14:13 PM
Representative Gara looked at line 2, and wondered if the
request was an extra $62,000; or if it was receipts that
were moving from DPS to DCCED. Ms. Rehfeld replied that the
request was for increase program receipt authorization,
because DCCED's billing for legal services was greater than
what was paid under DPS. She furthered that DPS's cost
allocation plan was based on number of positions, and
DCCED's cost allocation plan was based on cost for a
specific program. The ABC Board had significant legal
assistance.
Representative Gara wondered if the ABC Board's request for
legal fees was considered an "extra expenditure." Ms.
Rehfeld replied that the request was general fund program
receipts, which come from the licensees under the ABC
Board. She reiterated that, under DCCED, the ABC Board was
billed for the percentage of time that an attorney needs to
spend on the legal work. In DPS, the ABC Board's legal fees
were billed differently. She added that DPS and DCCED could
provide more information.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed with Representative Gara.
Representative Wilson looked at line 21, and queried the
time of the agreement for the change in contracts. Ms.
Rehfeld replied that Anchorage lease came into effect in
April 2012, and the Juneau lease expired in June 2012.
2:19:40 PM
PALOMA HARBOUR, ACTING DIVISION DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, replied that the item on line 21
was a partial year's expense. The lease costs for the Eagle
Street increased in April 2012, and would increase again in
2013 at the time of completed renovations. The costs for
the 8th Street facility increased in July 1, 2012, with an
anticipation of a greater increase once the renovations are
complete at the end of FY13.
Co-Chair Austerman wondered if the Medicaid decrement would
carry forward into the FY 14 budget. Ms. Rehfeld responded
that DHSS had projected an increase in the number of
eligible individuals under Medicaid in FY 14. She pointed
out that the costs were driven by how many people
participate in Medicaid, and the ability of the State to
contain the costs in Medicaid. The DHSS commissioner was
encouraged by the decrement in the current year, however
DHSS was not able to project a decrement in FY 14.
Co-Chair Austerman remarked that the Affordable Health Care
for America Act had addressed expansion of Medicaid, but
the FY 14 did not include the expansion of Medicaid. He
wondered if there were any anticipated amendments that
would address Medicaid expansion. Ms. Rehfeld replied that
she did not anticipate any amendments. She stated that DHSS
had reviewed the impacts, pros, and cons of Medicaid
expansion in order to inform any decision.
Representative Gara looked at line 46, and wondered if in-
house attorneys or private attorneys would be used for the
litigation. Ms. Karen deferred to LAW.
DAVE BLAISDELL, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that the request would pay for
both in-house and private attorneys.
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:25:02 PM
AT EASE
2:26:34 PM
RECONVENED
^DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - STATEWIDE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS OVERVIEW
2:26:34 PM
MICHAEL BARNHILL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, (DOA) displayed the PowerPoint
presentation, "Statewide Information Technology Governance"
(copy on file).
Mr. Barnhill pointed to slide 2, "IT Governance Overview."
The slide included tiers of review. The first step was that
all state departments submit an IT plan on an annual basis;
that plan advances to the Technology Management Council
(TMC); that review funnels to the Enterprise Review Team
(ERT); the Enterprise Investment Board (EIB) is the next
step; and finally, investment decisions were made at OMB.
All executive branch departments annually prepare and
submit IT plans.
Mr. Barnhill reiterated that all departments must annually
prepare and submit IT plans (slide 3). He read from the
slide.
Department IT Plans
IT Plans describe the department's:
IT strategy
IT accomplishments
-non-standard technical solutions
-strategy to migrate to standard technical
solutions
-plan for backup and recovery
-plan for desktop provisioning
-use of the mainframe
-plan to meet storage needs
-plan for desktop and server virtualization
IT Plans set out
-IT project funding requests
-IT projects that require no further funding
-IT operational costs
IT Plans are reviewed and evaluated by the Technology
Management Council (TMC)
2:32:04 PM
Mr. Barnhill believed IT plans had been collected from
departments for 13 years. The documents had been fairly
large in years past, but under the stewardship of former
Director Pat Shire they had been scaled down.
Mr. Blaisdell explained that a reduction to the size of the
plans would make them more useful.
Mr. Barnhill indicated that the plans had been dramatically
reduced (with his hands).
Mr. Barnhill looked at slide 4, "Technology Management
Council."
The TMC consists of:
Director of Enterprise Technology Services (Adam
Paulick)
DHSS IT Data Processing Manager (Tim Banaszak)
DOTPF IT Data Processing Manager (George Crowder)
General Seat 1 (DOA, Gov, Law) (Jennifer McCaul)
General Seat 2 (DCCED, DEED, DOLWD, DOR) (Paul
Hegg)
Public Protection (DOC, DMVA, DPS) (Lonnie
Leibbrand)
Resources (DEC, DF&G, DNR) (Greg Light)
Duties of the TMC:
Sets technology standards for all agencies
Reviews exemption requests
Reviews and makes recommendations regarding
department IT plans
Makes recommendations for new and emerging
technologies
Meets every two weeks
Mr. Barnhill looked at slide 2, again. He pointed to the
dotted line on the right connecting TMV to the
Administravies Service Director's Team (AST). He stated
that AST performed an important function in overall IT
governance.
2:37:00 PM
Mr. Blaisdell slide 5, "Administrative Services Directors"
(ASDs).
This group consists of the administrative services
directors of all departments
-ASD purpose: focus on new initiatives in the
administration of State government, substantive
changes in administrative policies and
procedures, and items that have a fiscal impact
across all departments.
The ASDs meet every two weeks
The ASDs have formed an ASD IT subcommittee
-IT issues are brought to the IT subcommittee by the
ETS Director
-reviews the fiscal impact of IT initiatives
-reviews chargeback rates
-reviews technical issues and their impacts to
business processes
-considers technology needs that may require direct
multiple agency funding
-helps direct monthly IT issues that should be
addressed at enterprise level
Mr. Barnhill slide 6, "Enterprise Review Team, Enterprise
Investment Board, Office of Management and Budget."
Enterprise Review Team (ERT):
The ERT consists of DOA Deputy Commissioner, OMB Chief
Policy Analyst, ETS Director, and ASD/IT Chair
Enterprise Investment Board (EIB):
The EIB consists of DOA Commissioner, Gov Chief of
Staff, OMB Director, ETS Director, ASD/IT Chair
-collectively, ERT/EIB/OMB perform a filtering
and review function of IT project proposals and
policy direction.
-the ERT met twice in the last year to consider
IT project proposals
-adjustments to the IT Governance structure may
be taken up in the future
Mr. Barnhill referred back to slide 2. He stated that the
arrows pointing upward were a structure that was developed
in 2008. The nature of the structure was beneficial,
because the small groups have a large stake in how the
decisions were made. He furthered that there may need to be
a change in structure, so that upper level policy makers
could insert direction in the policy making process.
2:42:42 PM
Mr. Barnhill emphasized that there was a government
structure. He declared that DOA's focus had been almost
entirely internal, and examining how ETS functioned
internally.
Co-Chair Austerman queried the long-term planning process.
Mr. Barnhill replied that the structure would continue to
exist, and the plans would be analyzed based on the tiered
government structure. He furthered that DOA was in the
process of implementing a replacement for the State
accounting and payroll systems. He stressed that the
interface was complicated, and it great need of
replacement.
Representative Munoz queried the number of people that work
on each IT plan. Mr. Blaisdell replied that it varied
depending on the department. He shared that DOL had a small
staff, and DHSS had a very large staff.
2:48:27 PM
Representative Munoz wondered if the process was ongoing.
Mr. Blaisdell responded that DOL's process included a two-
week development phase, followed by a couple of reviews. He
stated that he used the IT plan was used as a tool
throughout the year, but it did not get updated. The IT
plan was a once-a-year project.
Representative Holmes looked at slide 2, and wondered where
the oversight authority was placed in the chart. Mr.
Barnhill responded that the oversight should exist at
multiple levels. He stressed that there were dozens of
interfaces that exist in the enterprise.
Representative Holmes felt that there should be a process
for the departments to work together, for continuity. Mr.
Barnhill agreed that there should be an improvement in
achieving scale. He stressed that DOA was de-centralized in
how IT was managed.
Mr. Blaisdell furthered that there was some dialog between
departments.
Co-Chair Austerman commented that there advanced technology
was of great interest to the legislature, in order to
address the long-term cost savings to the State. Mr.
Blaisdell agreed, and furthered that there were many
exciting technologies that DOA was considering.
2:57:03 PM
Representative Gara wondered if the new technology actual
saved money. He felt that the high cost of technology
implementation may not be worth it. He pointed out that
some people would be laid-off, and worried about those
jobs. He wondered if the new payroll system would actually
save the State money. Mr. Barnhill replied that the new
payroll system was an interesting topic. He announced that
the current payroll system company was implemented in 1990,
and was profoundly old fashioned. The payroll company
currently had 12 customers, and was threatening to file for
bankruptcy. The interface was difficult, and made for
unnecessary manual input. The personnel had a high turnover
rate, and stressed that a new system would greatly improve
employee morale.
Representative Gara wondered if the case-management system
had been analyzed on a cost benefit level. Mr. Blaisdell
responded that a feasibility study had been conducted
geared toward what would happen if the electronic tool was
lost.
Mr. Barnhill clarified that his earlier comments pertained
to the time and attendance systems.
Representative Gara stressed that he made the point because
he wanted to be sure that he was not mandating too much
downsizing in personnel.
ADJOURNMENT
3:05:58 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOA-LAW_IT-Governance(02-07-2013).pdf |
HFIN 2/7/2013 1:30:00 PM |
DOA-LAW IT Governance |
| HB91 FY13 Supplemental Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/7/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB91 FY13 Supplemental Spreadheet Requests 1-28-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/7/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 91 |