Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/16/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| Overview: Governor's Fy 18 Budget Amendments | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| HB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 16, 2017
1:35 p.m.
1:35:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson
ALSO PRESENT
Pat Pitney, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Jane Pierson, Staff, Representative
Neal Foster; Lisa Weissler, Staff, Representative Andy
Josephson; Representative Andy Josephson, Sponsor;
Representative Charisse Millett.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Daniel Wayne, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services.
SUMMARY
HB 23 INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE
CSHB 23(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of
Administration; one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety; and one new fiscal
impact note from the Office of the Governor for
Fund Capitalization.
HB 57 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
OVERVIEW: GOVERNOR'S FY 18 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the meeting agenda.
^OVERVIEW: GOVERNOR'S FY 18 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
1:35:45 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
1:35:54 PM
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, expressed her intent to review
amendments submitted by the governor's office the previous
day. She provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"Governor's Budget Amendments, House Finance Committee"
dated February 16, 2017 (copy on file). She reminded the
committee there was a tremendous amount of backup material
related to each of the amendment items. The backup was
available in members' packets and on the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) website (copy on file). She
shared that the amendments had also been transferred to the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) system. The packet
included amendments to the FY 18 operating and capital
budgets and to the FY 17 supplemental budget.
Ms. Pitney addressed slide 1, which included a summary of
items impacting the FY 18 budget. The total FY 18 amendment
request was $58 million, of which, $2.449 million was
unrestricted general fund (UGF). The majority of the total
fell under the "other funds" category and was comprised of
international airports and highway funds.
1:38:39 PM
Ms. Pitney briefly highlighted slide 2 titled
"UGF/DGF/Other/Fed Summary by Department Ignoring Included
(1137)" and slide 3 titled "Department Two Way Comparison
UGF/DGF/Other/Fed (1191)," which were operating and capital
budget summaries respectively.
Ms. Pitney turned to operating budget amendments for HB 57
and HB 59 on slides 4 through 8. She noted an error in the
title and explained the slides pertained to FY 18 (not FY
17). She began on slide 4, line 1. The first amendment was
to delete a deputy commissioner position from the
Department of Administration (DOA), which would be a
decrease in the budget of $173,000 in general funds and
$15,000 in other funds. Lines 2 and 3 were technical - the
amendment would change where the state was accounting for
the State of Alaska Telecommunications System and the
Alaska Land Mobile Radio (ALMR) for budgeting and
accounting purposes; the two amendments had no monetary
impact, but had a budget structure impact. She moved to
slide 4, lines 4 and 5. Both lines pertained to grant
opportunities that had not previously been accounted for in
the FY 18 budget for the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
and Community Resource for Justice Incorporated.
1:40:49 PM
Representative Wilson pointed to the $500,000 for DMV on
line 4. She asked about the previous fund source for the
item. She wondered if the program had been costing the
state $500,000 in UGF.
Ms. Pitney replied in the negative; the item was the result
of an audit of the state's contracted commercial driver's
license trainers. The audit required more oversight and
evidence that the contractors were meeting the right
standards in the training. The increment was a federal
grant to help the state implement the oversight and
training standards.
Representative Wilson asked for verification the program
was new. She surmised that the audit was based on 2015 law
and that general funds were not used for the item.
Ms. Pitney explained that a federal audit had found the
state to be out of compliance. The federal grant would
enable the state to get into compliance.
Representative Pruitt referred to slide 4, line 5 and asked
for detail about Community Resource for Justice
Incorporated and the other funds included in the increment.
Ms. Pitney replied she would follow up. The group was
recognized by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - the
commission had been the primary driver in moving the
justice reform initiative forward. She did not have
specifics about Community Resource for Justice Incorporated
on hand.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Ms. Pitney to follow up with the
information.
1:43:27 PM
Ms. Pitney referred to slide 5 related to FY 18 operating
amendments. She relayed lines 6, 12, 13, and 17 [on pages 5
through 7] were all related to the Technical Vocational
Education Program (TVEP). She explained that the TVEP fund
was comprised of funding from the unemployment insurance
directed towards training. She detailed there was a formula
distribution to which training providers received funds.
Due to the downturn in the state's economy, it was not
collecting as much unemployment insurance as in the past.
The amendment decreased the amount of money the state
anticipated receiving in FY 18 by $1.3 million. The Student
and School Achievement portion of the distribution was
being reduced by $52,000. Lines 12, 13, and 17 had the
remainder of the reductions.
Representative Guttenberg referred to declining taxes. He
asked if there was an estimate of what would be lost in
training facilities as a result. He remarked that the items
were grants. He asked for the total collected tax amount.
Ms. Pitney answered that she did not know the total
collected tax, but $11.9 million equaled 1.6 percent [0.16
percent per the slide] of the tax [TVEP was funded by 0.16
percent of employee contributions to the unemployment
insurance trust fund]. She moved to line 7 on slide 5
related to child nutrition programs. The increment
reflected an increase of federal funds totaling $10.172
million for the school lunch program and other child
nutrition programs. Line 8 was a technical adjustment to
account for a health insurance rate increase. She explained
that because of the way the receipts worked it had to be a
two-sided transaction. The governor's original budget had
inadvertently missed one side of the transaction. Lines 9
through 11 all related to Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
statutory designated receipts.
Representative Wilson referred back to line 8. She asked
for verification that health insurance for the Student Loan
Corporation had gone up $115,000 in 2017 and it would cost
and additional $197,300 for the health insurance payment.
Ms. Pitney answered that the FY 17 supplemental she had
presented within the past couple of weeks had included a
mid-year health insurance rate increase that accounted for
the $115,000. The mid-year rate increase through an entire
year in FY 18 was $197,000. She stated it was $115,000 in
the current year for a total of $197,000 in the following
year. She clarified that the two numbers were not additive.
1:48:13 PM
Representative Wilson wondered if similar numbers were seen
throughout other departments. Ms. Pitney replied the total
increase for the mid-year was $6.2 million, of which
roughly $4-plus million was UGF. She noted that her $4
million figure could be off. The FY 18 budget submitted by
the governor in mid-December [2016] included the rate
increase and it was in the range of $14 million.
Representative Wilson stated it was a hard item to
understand when the cost was presented in silos. She
thought it may be prudent to have the discussion as part of
the operating budget. She wondered how much insurance had
gone up overall and what the state could expect. She noted
the items were only seen individually and only represented
a portion of a much larger picture. She thought a bigger
discussion would be about action that could be taken to
prevent increases from being so high.
Vice-Chair Gara believed the administration was working on
the issue, but health insurance costs continued to rise. He
was happy to work on the issue with the administration.
Ms. Pitney answered there was an administrative group
working on the [healthcare cost] issue. The more
legislators working with the administration the better. The
goal was to look at costs for all of Alaska - the problem
impacted every employer and residents without access to
healthcare. The state ended up subsidizing the amounts both
indirectly and directly. The cost needed to be addressed
across the board.
1:51:03 PM
Ms. Pitney spoke to lines 9 through 11 that were DFG
projects that private nonprofit entities or industry were
willing to continue through grants. She noted the amounts
were in the other funds category. The three increments were
for a Coho salmon and dive fisheries research projects,
Bristol Bay Science Research Institute watershed projects,
and stock assessment projects, which totaled over $1
million in grants to the state.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification the slide title
should read FY 18. Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Pitney turned to slide 6, lines 12 and 13 related to
TVEP funding. Line 12 included a $448,000 reduction to the
workforce development and line 13 included a $224,000
reduction to Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC).
Line 14 included an increment for the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) totaling $1 million
from the Recidivism Reduction Fund. She explained the money
had been included in a fiscal note and had inadvertently
been left out.
Representative Guttenberg asked how much was currently in
the Recidivism Reduction Fund.
1:52:58 PM
Ms. Pitney did not have the number on hand. The fund
received receipts from the marijuana tax. She believed it
was on track.
Representative Guttenberg believed 50 percent of the fund's
allocations would go towards programs like CDVSA and
rehabilitation programs. He reasoned the programs did not
open overnight and the marijuana industry did not blossom
overnight.
Ms. Pitney turned to line 15 was related to the wording
associated with the change record for the reorganization
and optimization of the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT) design entities. The item included
language-only changes that referenced the requirement for
the feasibility study consistent with union contracts.
1:54:37 PM
Ms. Pitney moved to page 7, line 16 included a technical
adjustment where only one side of the transaction for a
health insurance rate increase for the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS) had been included in the governor's
original proposed budget. She explained that it had been
included in the total.
Representative Wilson requested a list showing how much an
employee had to contribute to their health insurance in
each union and others. She asked about the employee
contributions before the newest contract and at present.
She was interested in the bigger picture instead of looking
at the costs in silos.
Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative. The Department of
Administration (DOA) had provided the information.
Vice-Chair Gara referred to lines 9 through 11 that all
seemed to be new private funds. He asked Ms. Pitney to
point out where the other funds were not private funds. He
surmised that the agencies were probably being asked to
absorb those costs.
1:56:44 PM
Ms. Pitney agreed. She advanced to a University of Alaska
TVEP decrement of $593,000 item on line 17. Line 18 was a
Mat-Su Foundation grant for the therapeutic courts. Lines
19 through 21 pertained to the Judiciary and were all
technical corrections to align its budget with the expected
reality - reflecting an additional $23,000 in general
funds.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to line 15 and asked how the
feasibility study would coincide with scheduled layoffs. He
asked for detail.
Ms. Pitney replied that 76 positions had been deleted in
the FY 18 budget. The positions were anticipated to be
vacant without layoff prior to the end of FY 17. She
explained that consistent with union contracts, layoffs
required a feasibility study. Therefore, there would be no
layoffs prior to the completion of the study.
1:58:50 PM
Representative Grenn asked for the feasibility study timing
pertaining to layoffs.
Ms. Pitney replied there was an elimination of 76 positions
in the FY 18 budget - the positions would cease to exist on
July 1. The administration anticipated all of the positions
to be empty by July 1 without needing a layoff. The
feasibility study would start within the next 30 to 60 days
and should be completed in September or October [2017].
Depending on the direction of the study, there may be
positions put forward for the FY 19 budget.
1:59:50 PM
Ms. Pitney moved to lines 22 and 23 on slide 7.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification the slide pertained
to FY 18.
Ms. Pitney affirmed. Lines 22 and 23 related to the
international airport system budget and its debt service.
She added that a related increment would appear later in
her presentation pertaining to the FY 17 supplemental
budget. She detailed that the international airport system
wanted early redemption of some of its revenue bonds. The
system had planned the early redemption in FY 17, which was
being delayed to FY 18. Therefore, a reduction was
reflected in the system's FY 17 budget and an increase was
reflected in its FY 18 budget. Additionally, the
administration wanted transparency in the borrowing
agreement between the international airport system and the
General Fund (GF). The system used GF while waiting on
receivables from federal international highway funds. Line
23 included a language item specifying that the
international airport system could borrow from GF while
waiting on federal money. The system would pay the GF
interest at the federal rate plus 3 percent or whatever
amount the GF was earning if it was earning more. She
characterized it as a win-win because otherwise the airport
system would have to get a line of credit, which would be
more expensive, and the state would not earn the interest.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that almost every year someone asked
if DOT had finally started getting costs for the Deadhorse
airport to be paid by users. He asked if the airport was
self-funding with user fees.
Ms. Pitney replied she would follow up.
Vice-Chair Gara hoped the self-funding could be achieved.
Ms. Pitney spoke to FY 18 operating amendments on page 8.
Line 24 reflected a change in timing for budgeting. She
explained that the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release
Prevention and Response Fund had been using projected FY 18
receipts to set its FY 18 budget. The item included a
downward adjustment in FY 17. Rather than setting the
budget on the projected FY 18, they wanted to set the
budget based on FY 17 receipts in order to achieve much
more accuracy. The supplemental request would set the FY 17
on FY 16 receipts. It provided more accurate budget
reflection.
2:05:36 PM
Representative Wilson wondered why the funds were UGF
versus designated general funds (DGF). She remarked there
was over $6 million in the specific fund.
Ms. Pitney answered believed that although the funds were
in a segregated fund, they were classified as UGF.
2:06:22 PM
Ms. Pitney advanced to line 25 related to salary and
benefits adjustment for all bargaining units. All
bargaining units had not been included in the original
language - line 25 made the correction. Line 26 reflected a
revised Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) dividend that took place between December 15 [2016
and current day. The dividend had increased from $9.5
million to $12.8 million. Line 26 was a language item, but
reflected an increase in revenue available for state spend.
Vice-Chair Gara asked why a number was not listed if it was
a budget savings. Ms. Pitney replied it was a language item
and a revised revenue estimate of $12.8 million.
2:07:53 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification the money did not
normally go back to AIDEA and reflected a dividend to the
state. Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative; it was money
from AIDEA to the state GF.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification the slide reflected
FY 18 operating budget totals. Ms. Pitney replied in the
affirmative.
2:08:46 PM
Ms. Pitney addressed FY 18 capital budget amendments for HB
58/SB 23 on slides 9 and 10. She referred to line 1 and
explained that she had discussed the item during the
supplementals when a reappropriation had been made in the
amount of $3 million for ALMR. She had testified that
another $1.5 million would be needed. The administration
had looked for additional reappropriations and had been
unable to find them. The line pertained to the remaining
amount that made the current year's maintenance and upgrade
total whole.
Ms. Pitney advanced to line 2 on slide 9 related to the
case management database system for DOA. The increment was
$665,000 to implement a case system consistent with those
used by the Court System and the Department of Law (DOL).
The current system used by the Public Defender Agency and
the Office of Public Advocacy was no longer supported and
needed to be upgraded. There was endorsement from the
courts and DOL that the system would make discovery much
more efficient and timing for court cases would be
improved. Lines 3 through 6 all related to the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Impact Grant Program. The estimate
initially put forward in the FY 18 budget was reduced by
$1.8 million (more than 50 percent), which was related to
the number of leases and rents and royalties on federal
lands shared 50/50 with the state. There was currently a
lease sale underway, which could possibly bring the total
closer to the traditional about $3.5 million. The
allocations were done in January - of the roughly $1.3
million remaining it represented a distribution to various
communities receiving money from the impact grant program.
2:12:16 PM
Ms. Pitney addressed page 10, line 7 that would provide the
Department of Environmental Conservation with the ability
to accept a federal grant for a heating device change-out
program valued at $2.4 million. Line 8 reflected the
inclusion of fleet replacement funds from other funds. She
detailed there was a renewal and replacement process for
agencies using fleet vehicles. The increment would replace
the oldest and highest mileage vehicles on a scheduled
basis. The increment only covered about 5 percent of the
entire fleet. She added that the reason the fund source was
other funds was because it was funds already collected in
the State Equipment Fleet Fund.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that although
the money was going into a fund, the funds were still
basically general funds used for the vehicles.
Ms. Pitney replied it was probably less than half GF. For
DOT, depending on the split between GF and federal highway
funds, it could be as much as 90 percent federal funding.
For Department of Public Safety that participated in the
[renewal/replacement] process with its trooper cars the
funds would be largely GF. In total the increment was less
than half GF.
Representative Wilson asked for a breakdown of the fund,
specifically related to its composition of state versus
federal funds. She asked what constituted old and high
mileage.
Ms. Pitney answered she would provide a complete
replacement schedule. The items on the schedule at hand
covered some vehicles from the 1980s and 1990s; it was
different depending on the vehicles. The schedules included
the replacement time frame and a usage replacement - it was
different depending on the vehicle. She detailed that
trooper vehicles had recently gone from a five-year to a
six-year replacement and from a 100,000-mile limit to
130,000-mile limit. Over the course of the past few years
the refresh schedule had been extended for all types of
vehicles. The administration had a breakdown of exactly
what the $15 million was slated to cover and why those
particular vehicles were on the top of the list for
replacement.
2:16:06 PM
Ms. Pitney referred to the capital amendments total of
$2.199 million UGF and $17 million in total at the bottom
of slide 10. She advanced to an FY 17 supplemental budget
amendments summary on slide 11. The top half of the page
showed the supplemental requests put forward two weeks
earlier in the supplemental bill. The lower half of the
page showed a summary of what the administration was
submitting at present. The most significant item related to
fire suppression expenses. She noted fire suppression had
been inadvertently left out. The total supplemental total
was $14.4 million UGF, but due to the international highway
fund decrease that had been pushed from FY 17 to FY 18, the
actual supplemental total was a negative $8.8 million.
Ms. Pitney discussed slides 12 through 14 titled "FY2017
Supplemental Amendments Submitted February 14, 2017." Lines
2 and 3 on slide 12 were technical adjustments accounting
for expenses incidental to the sale and issuance of general
obligation bonds. The amounts were a negative $3 million
and a positive $745 million - the intent was to match the
FY 17 budget with the anticipated actual issuance costs.
She noted the increments were multi-year appropriations for
the general obligation bond sales. Line 5 included a UGF
increment for the Office of Public Advocacy. She specified
that the reductions to the public defenders and the Office
of Public Advocacy (OPA) had been very tight. The request
was to accommodate the extra effort related to a case in
Palmer; there were five defendants. Public defenders could
have one defendant and OPA was representing four of the
individuals.
2:19:52 PM
Ms. Pitney turned to page 13, line 6 related to fire
suppression for FY 17 totaling $15 million. She noted that
her office had sent a response that morning to questions
about the balance of the fire fund and other accounting.
The balance and historical trend was provided in the
information. Line 7 allowed for the extension of money
already appropriated for outside counsel and North Pole
remedial action appropriation related to a Flint Hills and
Williams water issue.
Representative Pruitt understood a conclusion had been
determined. He wondered if some of the state costs would be
covered in the conclusion.
Ms. Pitney knew it was still active, but she did not know
the specifics.
Representative Pruitt thought it sounded like a positive
thing for the state.
Representative Wilson relayed that the state was suing
Williams as well. The agreement was between Flint Hills and
the state. The ongoing litigation was between the city and
Williams to see if the courts would decide whether they had
some kind of share. The other portions would hopefully be
settled after a public gathering in her community one week
from the coming Saturday.
Ms. Pitney spoke to line 8 on slide 13 related to
International Airports Revenue Fund for early redemption of
international airports revenue bonds. She detailed that the
airports had planned to do the early redemption in FY 17
and were delaying it to FY 18 - the FY 17 budget was being
reduced. She noted that earlier in her presentation she had
addressed the FY 18 increase.
2:22:58 PM
Ms. Pitney moved to line 9 included the same language
related to international airport that allowed transparent
borrowing between International Airports Revenue Fund and
the GF effective FY 17. Line 10 pertained to FY 17
estimated collections related to the Oil and Hazardous
Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund. The item
was a reduction in the FY 17 budget based on FY 16
receipts. The last item on line 12, page 14 was a
reappropriation of $10 million for the Izembek Road
project. She explained that the House (through its Joint
Resolution 6) supported the federal action to build a road
through the Izembek area. She explained it was one of the
governor's priorities and had been a long-time priority of
the state. She elaborated that the item would reappropriate
$10 million from projects that had been federalized and no
longer required GF. The supplemental request reduced the FY
17 total by $8.8 million, but included an increase of $14
million in GF for fire suppression and other items.
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:25:06 PM
AT EASE
2:32:29 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to major medical insurance coverage
under the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska for certain surviving spouses and dependent
children of peace officers and firefighters; and
providing for an effective date."
2:32:35 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 23, Work Draft 30-LS0258\U (Wayne,
2/10/17).
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, discussed
the changes in the committee substitute (CS):
The first change occurred when the committee passed
Amendment 1(a), which changed "health" insurance to
"medical" insurance throughout the bill, insuring that
the surviving dependents of a fallen officer is
granted the same level of medical insurance benefits
the deceased employee was receiving at the time of the
employee's death as directed by the bill (see, page 3,
lines 14-16).
The next amendment the committee passed was Amendment
3, as amended. These changes can be found on page 3,
lines 14 through 26, which clarify the level of
insurance that is required, how payments of premiums
shall be paid. Additionally, on page 4, lines 7
through 9 and 13 through 15 large and small
municipalities are defined.
The next amendment that passed was Amendment 4, on
page 3, line 7 that changed age 65 to eligible for
Medicare.
The committee in passing Amendment 10 changed police
to peace officer throughout the bill and defined a
peace officer on page 4, lines 10 through 12 to mean
an employee occupying a position as a peace officer,
chief of police, regional public safety officer,
correctional officer, correctional superintendent, or
probation officer.
The final changes to this bill were made when the
committee passed Amendment 13(a) simplifying how money
is appropriated to the fund.
2:35:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed the committee had passed a number
of amendments the previous week, which had been rolled into
the current CS. He listed people available to answer
questions. He noted that Representative Kawasaki had joined
the meeting.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to the definition of a
peace officer on page 4 line 10. He wanted to ensure there
were no unintended consequences caused by the change to the
definition.
Ms. Pierson answered that the committee had expanded the
definition and had not eliminated anything that had been
previously in the bill.
Representative Guttenberg clarified his question. He wanted
to ensure there were not unintended consequences in other
places.
Co-Chair Foster recognized bill sponsor Representative Andy
Josephson in the audience.
Ms. Pierson deferred the question to Legislative Legal
Services.
DANIEL WAYNE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), summarized his understanding of the
question. He asked for verification that Representative
Guttenberg was asking whether anyone had been dropped from
the definition of peace officer.
Representative Guttenberg replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Wayne answered that he did not believe the change would
have any unforeseen consequences. The previous definition
had included Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities employees and University of Alaska employees who
had general police powers to arrest and so forth. He
believed the individuals would qualify as peace officers
under the bill's updated definition.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that Medicaid did
not count under the legislation, but Medicare did.
LISA WEISSLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
replied that medical, throughout the bill, referred to the
level of coverage at the time of an employee's death, while
major medical came into play for ineligibility. She
addressed whether Medicare was considered major medical and
did not believe it mattered for the purpose - the bill set
the criteria and made it quite specific in terms of
becoming eligible for major medical or Medicare.
2:40:35 PM
Vice-Chair Gara surmised it was the level of health
insurance a person had previously and once an individual
reached the Medicare eligibility age, they received
Medicare.
Ms. Weissler replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson noted Alaska's Medicaid program
covered much more than in some other states. She stated
that Medicaid would be medical insurance. She believed that
it probably would not happen for most of the population
impacted by the bill. She surmised that Medicaid would be
the same as if the state were providing other insurance.
Ms. Pierson replied that she did not believe anyone covered
under the policy would qualify for Medicaid because the
policy would be in effect.
Representative Wilson noted Medicaid did not have anything
to do with whether or not a person had insurance. She
stated that it was related to the individual's level of
income. She detailed that a person qualified for Medicaid
if their income was low enough. She noted that Medicaid was
an insurance policy and because of the extras provided in
Alaska, she wondered if Medicaid would cover the
individuals.
Ms. Weissler replied she did not know how to answer the
question. She referred to a document that had been passed
out [by Co-Chair Foster's office] to the committee that
included definitions for health, medical, and Medicare
(copy on file).
Representative Wilson referred to the definition and
believed Medicaid would fall under the medical insurance
category.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Charisse Millett
in the audience.
2:43:15 PM
Ms. Pierson deferred Representative Wilson's question to
Mr. Wayne.
Mr. Wayne replied that the definition of major medical,
which was included on the handout. He detailed that the
document listed Medicare as a major medical plan under AS
21.55.500 (a definitions section relating to health
insurance, but not necessarily about health insurance being
discussed in the bill); it was the only statutory
definition Legislative Legal Services had found. He asked
for a repeat of the question.
Representative Wilson clarified she was speaking about
Medicaid, not Medicare. She specified that Medicaid is
based on a person's income - a person could apply for
Medicaid at any time. She continued that if a person was
eligible, Medicaid covered health insurance, dental, and
other extras. She was trying to determine that if a person
qualified for Medicaid they would not be eligible for the
other insurance under the bill.
2:45:21 PM
Ms. Pierson answered that Medicaid was usually the payer of
last resort, as long as another insurance was available the
person would not qualify for Medicaid.
Representative Wilson explained that she had been concerned
that an individual may end up going back and forth and
could become disqualified when their income changed. It
would be a hardship on families if they were passed back
and forth between plans. She asked someone to double check
that if a person had a health plan that they may be able to
receive the supplements and would not be disqualified for
the insurance under the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara believed Medicaid did not count as the kind
of insurance a person would receive under the bill. He
reasoned that major medical was defined in AS 21.55.500 as
an expense incurred insurance. He relayed that Medicaid was
not an expense incurred insurance.
2:46:51 PM
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the three fiscal notes associated
with the bill. The first was a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). He explained that DPS
would manage the fund that funded the benefits provided
under the legislation at no cost with existing staff. The
next fiscal note had no OMB component number because it was
the creation of a new fund called fund capitalization. The
note reflected the cost of the program, estimated at
$70,100 in FY 18 through FY 23. The last note was for the
Department of Administration, Division of Retirement and
Benefits and had zero fiscal impact. The Department of
Administration would help DPS manage the new fund with
existing staff.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 23(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Pruitt noted he WITHDREW his OBJECTION to
the adoption of the CS.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 23(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
one new zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration; one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety; and one new fiscal impact note
from the Office of the Governor for Fund Capitalization.
Co-Chair Foster addressed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
2:50:33 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN Governor's Amendments 2-16-17.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 HB 58 HB 95 |
| HB 23 NEW FN FUND CAP 2-16-17.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 23 |
| OMB Response to HFIN Questions 2-16-17.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 HB 59 HB 95 |