Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
02/17/2020 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 | |
| HB205 || HB206 | |
| Fy 21 Finance Subcommittee Closeouts | |
| Department of Administration | |
| Department of Health and Social Services | |
| Department of Transportation and Public Facilities | |
| Office of Governor | |
| Department of Fish and Game | |
| Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| Department of Education and Early Development | |
| Department of Public Safety | |
| Department of Military and Veterans Affairs | |
| Department of Revenue | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 17, 2020
1:35 p.m.
1:35:41 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Tilton
ALSO PRESENT
Alexei Painter, Analyst, Legislative Finance Division;
Robert Irvine, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston;
Erin Shine, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston; Paul
Labolle, Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Ryan Johnston,
Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Kelly Cunningham,
Analyst, Legislative Finance Division; Liz Harphold, Staff,
Representative Dan Ortiz; Michael Partlow, Fiscal Analyst,
Legislative Finance Division; Caroline Hamp, Staff,
Representative Dan Ortiz; Joe Byrnes, Staff, Representative
Bart LeBon; Amanda Price, Commissioner, Department of
Public Safety; Anne Rittgers, Staff, Representative Bart
LeBon.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
HB 205 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 206 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
FY 21 FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSEOUTS:
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; 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. 206
"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."
1:36:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day. He
indicated the committee would be adopting the Governor's
version of the operating budgets. The only changes made in
the committee substitutes were technical and structural in
nature and were made by the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) and Legislative Legal Services. After the adoption of
the work drafts for both budget bills, the committee would
hear a presentation by LFD regarding the changes that were
made.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 205, Work Draft 31-GH2197\M
(Bruce, 1/24/20) (copy on file).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 206, Work Draft 31-GH2198\M (Bruce,
1/22/20) (copy on file).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster invited Mr. Painter to walk through the
changes to the work drafts.
1:38:24 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
reviewed the changes to the work draft of HB 205. The
changes were technical and conforming changes made to bring
the bill to the legislative drafting manual format. He
noted members should have a document listing the changes.
Summary of Changes from the Governor's Operating Bill
and CSHB 205(Finance)
Work Draft 31-GH2197\M
1. Title: Add "supplemental appropriations."
2. The lead-in language in section 1 on page 2 was
modified to the legislature's standard language
that appears in both HB 205 and HB 206 and that
includes the addition of this sentence, "A
department-wide, agency-wide, or branch-wide
unallocated reduction set out in this section may
be allocated among the appropriations made in
this section to that department, agency, or
branch."
3. Section 8 (page 50, starting line 21): Reorder
sections so that royalty deposits are first.
Reword section (c) so that the net amount to the
general fund is shown rather than the entire POMV
draw.
4. Section 19(e) (page 57, line 7): Reword to
simplify since UA is the only named recipient.
Because the Governor did not include the
appropriations for DOTPF and AEA debt, the
previous formatting with a list of projects is
unnecessary.
5. Section 21(w) (page 65, line 10): Add fiscal year
that the revenue will be collected.
6. Section 22(l) (page 67, line 14): Add "unexpended
and unobligated" to clarify that existing fund
obligations are not affected by this
appropriation.
7. Section 25(g) (page 71, line 18): Change 2020 to
2019 to correct error in Governor's bill.
8. Section 28 (page 72, line 8): Update references
due to reordering of sections.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked Mr. Painter to slow
his pace.
1:44:00 PM
Representative Knopp had a question unrelated to the
changes to the bill. He referred to page 65, lines 7-10
regarding funding for the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC). He wondered about actions by the
legislature in the previous year. He asked if the
legislature was simply transferring receipt authority. He
queried whether the liquified natural gas project was
separate from the Alaska Liquified Natural Gas (AKLNG)
project. Mr. Painter was not prepared to speak about the
section referenced, but could get back to him.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to page 67, line 19 and asked for
more detail about the date change and monies. Mr. Painter
responded that the date change was in a different section
of the bill. He explained the change added the unexpended,
unobligated balance. The item was the transfer of the large
passenger vessel gaming and gambling tax account to the
capital income fund - an undesignated general fund (UGF)
tax. It was being transferred into the capital income fund
in the governor's bill. Some years the same transfer had
been implemented, and in other years the funding had gone
elsewhere. It was a UGF tax and could be spent for any
purpose.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked where the funding had been applied
historically. Mr. Painter believed it went to the general
fund in the prior year. In FY 19 he believed the amount had
gone into the capital income fund. He could provide a
larger history.
Representative Josephson asked for an explanation of the
supplemental appropriation found in HB 205. Mr. Painter
referred to item 10(h) on page 53 of the bill. The
supplemental item was an appropriation of $2.8 million from
the Capstone Avionics Revolving Loan Fund to the Department
of Commerce and Community Development (DCCED) for the
Alaska Development Team. It was a multi-year supplemental
from FY 20 through FY 23. He explained that because the
fund lapsed on June 30, in order to use the receipts, it
must have an FY 20 effective date.
Mr. Painter reviewed the changes to the work draft of
HB 206.
HB 206: Work Draft 31-GH2198\M
1. The lead-in language in section 1 on page 2 was
modified to the legislature's standard language that
appears in both HB 205 and HB 206 and that includes
the addition of this sentence, "A department-wide,
agency-wide, or branch-wide unallocated reduction
set out in this section may be allocated among the
appropriations made in this section to that
department, agency, or branch."
2. Page 10: OMB omitted the second fund source roll-up.
Leg Finance added it, which caused subsequent
sections to be renumbered.
Mr. Painter indicated there were no other changes to the
bill.
^FY 21 FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE CLOSEOUTS
1:48:39 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would be
reviewing the House Finance Subcommittee close-out reports
beginning with the Department of Administration (DOA).
^DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
1:49:15 PM
ROBERT IRVINE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON,
provided some narrative. He read directly from the
subcommittee report:
The Legislature has been grappling with the impacts of
billion-dollar deficits over the last eight years. In
response to the fiscal situation, the Department of
Administration's Unrestricted General Fund (UGF)
budget has been reduced to funding levels last seen 10
years ago.
Subcommittee Meetings:
The subcommittee held a total of 6 meetings; 1 joint
meeting with Legislative Finance and department
personnel to overview the department's budget, 4
meetings with department personnel to examine budget
components in detail, and 2 meetings to consider
amendments and closeout the subcommittee.
During the meetings discussions revolved around future
savings to be realized by the consolidation of
services, savings related to changes with employee and
retiree healthcare, the challenges of recruitment and
retention within the Legal and Advocacy Services
component, and an update from the Commissioner on
public media and rural service issues as well as a
response from a public media representative.
Subcommittee Recommendations:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Administration submits the following
recommendations for the FY 2021 operating budget:
(Dollars in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $67,400.7
Designated General Funds (DGF) $26,075.4
Other Funds $265,003.9
Federal Funds $1,104.7
Total Budget $359,584.7
UGF in the Subcommittee's recommendation is $5,013,200
above the FY21 Adjusted Base and $1,372,700 above the
FY21 Governor's Request. The majority of the UGF
increases are the result of the use of PCE funds to
fund HB 49 fiscal notes during the 2019 legislative
session. This year, UGF will be used to fund the items
included in the HB 49 fiscal notes.
Budget Action:
The Governor's FY 21 budget proposed a total of 28
changes from the FY 21 Adjusted Base budget. After
learning about each item, the subcommittee adopted all
28 changes with unanimous consent.
Some of the highlights of these items:
Increases to pay for Attorney's bar dues for
recruitment and retention purposes.
A funding mechanism change for Office of Public
and Advocacy and Public Defender budgets to use
UGF instead of Power Cost Equalization funds.
An increase of $1,235,000 and 10 new positions
for the Office of Public Advocacy.
Additional travel resources for the Office of
Public Advocacy and Public Defender Agency.
Reductions across multiple budget components to
realize savings as a result of Office of
Information Technology and Shared Services of
Alaska consolidation.
Subcommittee Amendments:
The subcommittee considered three amendments. Due to
ongoing conversations between the department and
public media officials about the needs of Alaska's
public broadcasting community, the subcommittee
allocated only $1 million for public broadcasting
grants. The subcommittee also added $372,700 to fully
fund the request of the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority and fixed an over appropriation of boat
receipts.
Attached Reports:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Administration adopted the attached
reports generated by the Subcommittee and the Division
of Legislative Finance:
DOA Budget Action Worksheet
DOA-Agency Total- Legislative Finance
DOA Wordage- Legislative Finance
DOA Transaction Compare 1- Legislative Finance
DOA- Transaction Compare 2-Legislative Finance
Representative Josephson asked Mr. Irvine about the
subcommittee adding funds to meet the demands of the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA). He asked for
specifics. Mr. Irvine responded that they asked for
$138,000 of Mental Health Trust Authority Authorized
Receipts (MHTAAR) funds and a state match of $372,000.
Representative Wool referred to the report. He wondered
about the increase to pay for the attorneys' bars dues for
recruitment and retention purposes. He wondered what the
cost equated to per individual and per department. Mr.
Irvine indicated that the cost per attorney was about $600.
Representative Wool asked if the fee was annual. Mr. Irvine
responded that it was a yearly fee. He reported that the
fee for the Office of Administrative Hearings was $1700; in
the commissioner's office the cost was $6300; in Labor
Relations the fee was $3500; in the office of Public
Advocacy the amount was $38,000; and in the Public Defender
Agency the fee was $66,000.
1:54:36 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the allocation to Public
Broadcasting. Mr. Irvine responded that the past
appropriation for Public Broadcasting, not including the
satellite infrastructure, had been about $2.7 million. The
committee decided to appropriate $1 million for the radio
portion of the grants.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if discussion had ensued about the
impact on the group of people not receiving $2.7 million.
It was his understanding that the amount was vetoed by the
governor. He asked if there had been statements made about
not having access to the resources.
Co-Chair Johnston responded that there had been several
robust conversations on the topic. She indicated in her
last conversation with Alaska Public Broadcasting, Inc. she
requested an Excel Spreadsheet which she never received.
She thought the state could make a good case for the
$1 million for radio because of health and safety issues
and because radio had great outreach capabilities. She
hoped radio would remain as part of the public safety
structure and stay in the budget.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the Excel Spreadsheet would
eventually be provided. Co-Chair Johnston responded in the
negative. She noted there was concern the Broadcasting
Commission had not met. Impacts had been felt around the
state due to the reduction in funding. However, she could
not speak specifically to how each station had been
affected.
1:58:25 PM
Representative Knopp asked if any of the discussions
regarding the information technology consolidation and
outsourcing had included contracts in the budgeting
process. Mr. Irvine responded that there were many
conversations that had taken place over the prior 5 years
in terms of consolidation and strategies going forward.
Representative Knopp asked if the Cloud had been a part of
the discussions. Co-Chair Johnston believed Representative
Knopp was posing two unrelated questions. First, she
responded that the department had hired a company to help
the state to structure its IT shared services. She felt
much better after conversations with the contractor. She
hoped the consolidation would result in a savings. In
response to Representative Knopp's question about moving to
the use of the Cloud, she reported that the idea was being
researched and would likely create a savings for the state
in terms of time and efforts in keeping servers running.
Representative Knopp thought the state had a 3-year signed
contract with Microsoft for $15 million. He wondered if any
employees had been disbursed or whether the state had
experienced cost savings. Co-Chair Johnston thought there
had been cost savings throughout the department. Mr. Irvine
reported a reduction of 10 positions and an anticipated
savings of about $20 million for the department in the
current year. He thought Mr. Painter might have something
to add.
Mr. Painter responded that there was a letter sent in
response to legislative intent from the department that
outlined the anticipated cost savings through a number of
IT initiatives. He could supply a copy of the information
to the committee. It contained a number of items including
the Cloud.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Mr. Irvine and invited Ms. Shine to
the table.
^DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
2:02:53 PM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON,
reviewed the subcommittee report for the Department of
Health and Social Services:
The Legislature has been grappling with the impacts of
billion-dollar deficits over the last few years. In
response to the fiscal situation, the Department of
Health and Social Services' Unrestricted General Fund
budget has been reduced by $141,638.4 (11.3%) between
FY15 Management Plan and the FY21 Budget recommended
by the House Finance Subcommittee.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Health and Social Services held nine
meetings with department personnel to review
divisions, programs and the FY21 budget requests, and
two meetings to consider amendments and closeout the
subcommittee.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Health and Social Services recommends an
operating budget for FY21 to the House Finance
Committee as follows:
Fund Source:
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $1,109,740.8
Designated General Funds (DGF) $86,436.8
Other Funds $167,710.6
Federal Funds $2,065,065.5
Total $3,428,952.7
The General Fund difference from FY21 Governor's
Request to the FY21 House Subcommittee Recommended
budget is $316.6.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 3,386
Permanent Part-time 26
Temporary 86
Total 3,498
SUBCOMMITTEE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Governor's FY21 budget proposed changes to the
FY21 Adjusted Base. After deliberating and voting on
each item, the subcommittee's recommendations are
outlined below.
Governor's FY21 Budget Items Approved as Requested
The subcommittee recommends the following items be
adopted:
Alaska Pioneer Homes
Increase General Funds for Alaska Pioneer Homes
Payment Assistance;
Reduce unrealizable authority for GF/Program, I/A
Receipts and Statutory Designated Fund;
Behavioral Health
Increase and continuation for MHTAAR funding for
ABADA/AMHB Joint Staffing;
Fund source change for Behavioral Health
Administration;
Children's Services
Increase Federal authority for Front Line Social
Workers and Family Preservation;
Fund source changes for Children's Services
Training, and Subsidized Adoptions &
Guardianship;
Public Assistance
Restore Adult Public Assistance Maintenance of
Effort;
Fund source changes for Child Care Benefits,
Public Assistance Administration, Public
Assistance Field Services, and Quality Control;
Public Health
Accept the Transfer of the Parents as Teachers
Program from the Department of Education and
Early Development to Public Health's Women,
Children and Family Health program;
Increase Statutory Designated funds for Emergency
Programs as a result from legislation passed in
2019 (SB 93);
Fund source changes for Women, Children and
Family Health;
Senior and Disabilities Services
Accept MHTAAR funding for the Rural Home and
Community Based Services Coordinator;
Increase Federal and General Fund Match authority
for maintenance and operation of the Electronic
Visit Verification;
Accept MHTAAR funding for an Alaska Commission on
Aging Planner, a Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education (GCDSE)
Research Analyst III and a GCDSE Employment
Beneficiary Employment Technical Assistance &
Program Coordination;
Fund source change for Senior and Disabilities
Services Administration;
Departmental Support Services
Increase UGF for Office of Information Technology
salary adjustments billed to the department;
Accept an Interagency Receipt technical fix for
Information Technology Services and Rate Review
Increase Interagency Receipts for Rate Review's
authority for the Emergency Medical Transport
Service Payments as a result from legislation
passed in 2018 (HB 176);
Reduce General Fund Program Receipts for Rate
Review's Certificate of Need Program;
Fund source changes for Public Affairs,
Commissioner's Office, Administrative Support
Services, Information Technology Services, and
Rate Review;
Medicaid Services
Increase Federal Receipts and Statutory
Designated funding for Medicaid Services as a
result from legislation passed in 2018 (HB 176);
Increase General Fund Match and Federal authority
for Medicaid Services; and
Increase General Fund Match authority for Adult
Preventative Dental Medicaid Services.
Governor's FY21 Budget Items Approved with
Modifications
The subcommittee recommends the following items be
adopted with modifications:
Behavioral Health
Decrease General Fund Mental Health and Marijuana
Education and Treatment fund source change to a
sustainable level for Behavioral Health Treatment
and Recovery Grants;
Decrease Restorative Justice funding and offset
reduction with General Fund Mental Health
authority for Behavioral Health Treatment and
Recovery Grants to maintain grants at the current
level;
Public Health
Accept the MHTAAR funding for the Emergency
Programs' Comprehensive Program Planning
Coordinator and include General Fund Mental
Health match for the position;
Departmental Support Services
Reduce the Commissioner's Office request for four
additional staff (Deputy Commissioner, Project
Coordinator, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, and Program Coordinator) and
associated funding to include only the Special
Assistant to the Commissioner (06-#219) and the
associated General Fund and Federal authority and
funding.
Governor's FY21 Budget Items Not Adopted
The Subcommittee recommends the following items not be
adopted:
Senior and Disabilities Services
Reject the Federal Receipt authority request for
the Children and Family Preschool Development
Grant the state was not awarded this grant;
Additions and Deletions
In addition to the Governor's FY21 Budget items, the
subcommittee considered and recommends adopting the
following items:
Restore Suicide Prevention Council funding for
suicide prevention grants;
Remove Recidivism Reduction funding from the
Pioneer Homes and Alaska Pioneer Homes Management
allocations and replace decrements with General
Funds; reduce General Funds from the Behavioral
Health Treatment and Recovery Grants allocation
and replace with Recidivism Reduction funding;
Increase the General Fund Mental Health match for
existing MHTAAR funding required for Senior and
Disabilities Services IT Application/Telehealth
Services System Improvements; and
Insert Senior and Disabilities Services
Administration level intent language to require a
report analyzing individuals on the Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities waiver waitlist.
ATTACHED REPORTS
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Health and Social Services adopted the
attached reports and documents:
(Division of Legislative Finance)
HSS Budget Action Worksheet
HSS Multi-year Agency Totals
HSS Transaction Compare FY21 Adjusted Base and
House Sub
HSS Transaction Compare FY21 Governors and
House Sub
HSS Wordage Report
2:10:46 PM
Representative Josephson asked about the waitlist. He
thought there was a general agreement about the number of
people served. Ms. Shine replied that there were several
individuals on the waitlist for the
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities (IDD) waiver.
Although the department submitted a yearly report on the
status of the waitlist, in the intent language the
subcommittee asked for the department to look at whether
the individuals on the waitlist were 100 percent federally
funded or whether they had the economic ability to pay for
services without the waiver.
Representative Josephson had a question regarding
behavioral health. In the previous year, the FY 19 budget
was about $12 million. In FY 20, the legislature funded
$6 million with the hope of doing the 1115 waiver on the
other $6 million. He assumed there was missing unmet need.
He asked if the issue had been discussed.
Ms. Shine responded that there was conversation about the
reduction of the Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery
grants from the previous year and the implementation of the
1115 waiver through the department. The department came to
the legislature stating that many individuals who were
previously unable to bill Medicaid Services were currently
enrolled providers in Medicaid and were billing services.
Therefore, the need was being met. Regarding the reduction
in Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery grants, she did
not believe there were many gaps in the services provided.
The proposed budget did not recommend any sort of reduction
in Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery grants from the
prior to the current year.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to day habilitation services
under the category of Senior and Disability Services. He
asked if the section had received a significant dollar
reduction over the previous year. Ms. Shine did not believe
so. Day habilitation services were not part of the purview
of the previous year's subcommittee or the current year's
subcommittee. She was aware that through regulation the
department had capped the hours of services. The changes
were currently out for comment. The funding for the
specific waiver or service was not discussed in
subcommittee, nor was there a corresponding reduction in
the budget. She would look into the matter and get back to
the representative.
Representative Wool asked about the 4 positions requested
by the department to the commissioner's office. The Special
Assistant position was accepted and the 3 other positions
were rejected. He asked Ms. Shine to speak to the
rejections. He quired if any of the positions were related
to the Office of Children's Services (OCS) and the retired
representative from North Pole, Alaska.
Co-Chair Johnston responded in the affirmative. The
department had the vision of putting all child services
under one deputy commissioner within OCS and Juvenile
Justice. Although it approved of the idea, the subcommittee
had not been properly vetted. The subcommittee had been
uncomfortable providing 4 high-level positions to a
struggling agency. She indicated she had offered the
amendment. She thought the agency should continue to vet
the potential change first. The special assistant position
would be there to assist in the process. She argued that
before restructuring the department, a full understanding
of the existing concerns was needed.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Shine for her presentation.
^DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
2:16:12 PM
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, introduced
himself. He reviewed the subcommittee narrative:
RECOMMENDATIONS: (dollars are in thousands)
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
submits the following recommended operating budget for
FY2021 to the House Finance Committee:
Fund Source:
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $ 157,212.8
Designated General Funds (DGF) $ 105,970.6
Other Funds $ 355,864.3
Federal Funds $ 1,627.2
Total $ 620,674.9
The Unrestricted General Fund difference (UGF) from
FY21 Adjusted Base to the House Subcommittee budget
recommendation is an increase of $14,060.6 of
Unrestricted General Funds, or 9.8%. Since 2015 the
Department's budget has been reduced by $121,391.8.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 2,919
Permanent Part-time 281
Temporary 137
Total 3,337
BUDGET ACTION:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
reviewed the FY2021 budget request and recommends the
following actions:
Accept all of the Governor's budget requests except
the following:
Removal of spending authority from Statewide
Administrative Services $507.1 DGF
Removal of spending authority from Statewide
Procurement $325.0 DGF
SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
recommends that the committee take the following
actions:
Restore non-UGF travel reductions from FY20
$97.2 DGF, $922.0 Other, and 4.0 Fed.
Restore Marine Highway Funding $11,312.9 UGF
and $7,425.7 DGF
ATTACHED REPORTS:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
attached the following reports:
1. Budget Action Sheet
2. Agency Totals
3. Transaction Compare FY21AdjBase
4. Transaction Compare FY21Gov
Mr. Labolle provided additional information regarding the
subcommittee report. He elaborated that the restoration of
$11.3 million UGF to the Alaska Marine Highway System
(AMHS) to further restore service was a member amendment
based on a scenario provided by the department to the
subcommittee. Because of the change and based on the
department's recommendation, the subcommittee denied
$832,000 in reductions to administration and support. The
funds were marine highway funds. He explained that because
of the increased activity in the AMHS, more marine highway
funds would be generated and would be available to the
department.
Mr. Labolle reported that the subcommittee also restored
non-UGF travel reductions from FY 20. The department
attested that approximately $900,000 was transferred from
other components to meet mission-critical travel. The
action should allow more funds to remain in the budgeted
components and represented a zero increase in UGF spending.
Representative Wool asked if $1.6 million in federal
funding was for the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT). Mr. Labolle responded that the vast
majority of federal funds going to DOT came through the
capital budget with very little in the operating budget.
^OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
2:19:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited his staff to the table.
RYAN JOHNSTON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, read the
subcommittee report for the Office of the Governor:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the Office
of the Governor submits the following recommended
operating budget for FY2021 to the House Finance
Committee:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $21,969.1
Designated General Funds (DGF) $0.0
Other Funds $4,021.8
Federal Funds $229.0
Total $26,219.9
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY21
Adjusted Base to the House Subcommittee budget
recommendation is a reduction of $125.0 thousand of
Unrestricted General Funds, which is 0.5 percent below
FY21 Adjusted Base.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 150
Permanent Part-time 0
Temporary 23
Total 173
BUDGET ACTION:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the Office
of the Governor reviewed the FY2021 budget request and
recommends the following actions:
Accept the Office of the Governor's budget proposal,
which includes these highlights:
Transfer International Trade Support to
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development with one position for better
alignment with the program's purpose, -$125.0
UGF
Reduce authority in the Office of Management
and Budget to align with anticipated revenue
and expenditures, -$150.0 Inter Agency Receipts
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Johnston could speak to
the number of positions within the Office of the Governor.
He wondered about the numbers from the previous
administration. Mr. Johnston could get back to
Representative Wool with the information.
Representative Josephson indicated the administration had
cut Judiciary's budget and the legislature's budget for
FY 21. He wondered if it was true that the budgets were not
forwarded as delivered. Mr. Johnston responded, "That is
correct."
Co-Chair Johnston referred to the reduced authority for OMB
for interagency receipts. She wondered if the legislature
and Judiciary had the same costs listed in their respective
budgets.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
replied that the items were separate from what was
currently being discussed. The item was simply a clean-up
measure.
^DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
2:24:27 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited Vice-Chair Ortiz's staff to the
table.
LIZ HARPHOLD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, reviewed the
subcommittee report:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Fish and Game recommends that the House
Finance Committee accept the Department Fish and
Game's FY21 budget:
The numbers-only budget with amendment recommendations
totals (dollars are in thousands):
Fund Source:
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $51,491.8
Designated General Funds (DGF) $14,257.0
Other Funds $67,403.0
Federal Funds $70,126.3
Total $203,269.1
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY21
Adjusted Base to the FY21 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $5.9 thousand
Unrestricted General Funds which is less than 1% below
FY21 Adjusted Base.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 836
Permanent Part-time 606
Temporary 8
Total 1450
Budget Actions:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Fish & Game reviewed the FY2021 budget
request, including amendments, and took the following
actions:
The Governor submitted 13 budget action items. The
House Finance Subcommittee accepted 1 of them. The
House Finance Subcommittee rejected 11 of them and
amended 1.
The item the House Finance Subcommittee accepted is:
Replace funding sources within the State Subsistence
Research and Monitoring Section to align with
anticipated revenue and expenditures
The item the House Finance Subcommittee accepted after
amending:
Reduce support for License Modernization in Sport
Fisheries division by $100.0 UGF instead of the
originally proposed $250.0 UGF reduction.
The items the House Finance Subcommittee rejected are:
• 8 items related to reductions totaling $1,124.8
in the Division of Commercial Fisheries
• 1 item related to a fund source change within the
Division of Wildlife
• 1 item to reduce travel funding for Boards of
Fisheries and Game supplemental meetings
• 1 item to reduce funding in the Habitat Section
Subcommittee Amendments:
The House Finance Subcommittee adopted the following
budget amendment:
• Add $94.1 UGF to the Division of Commercial
Fisheries Central Region for the Prince William
Sound otolith program.
Attached Reports:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Fish and Game adopts the attached
reports:
1. Budget Action Worksheet
2. Wordage Report
3. Operating Budget Transaction Compare between
21AdjBase to HouseSub
4. Operating Budget Transaction Compare between
21Gov to HouseSub
5. Multi-year Agency Totals
^DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
2:27:44 PM
LIZ HARPHOLD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, reviewed the
subcommittee report for Department of Environmental
Conservation:
Recommendations:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Environmental Conservation submits the
following recommended operating budget for FY2021 to
the House Finance Committee:
Fund Source: (in thousands of dollars)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $15,471.0
Designated General Funds (DGF) $25,294.2
Other Funds $17,677.4
Federal Funds $24,356.8
Total $82,799.4
There is no difference in Unrestricted General Fund
use from FY21 Adjusted Base to the FY21 House
Subcommittee budget.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 485
Permanent Part-time 0
Temporary 1
Total 486
Budget Actions:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Environmental Conservation reviewed the
FY2021 budget request, including amendments, and took
the following actions:
The Governor submitted 7 budget action items. The
House Finance Subcommittee accepted 3 of these items.
The House Finance Subcommittee rejected 4 of these
items.
The items the House Finance Subcommittee accepted are:
• Delete an Accountant IV position
• Add I/A authority to Spill Prevention and
Response
• Add Federal Receipt Authority for the Alaska
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
Permitting and Compliance Program
The items the House Finance Subcommittee rejected are:
• A fund source for commercial shellfish testing
• Eliminating the dairy program
• Reduce authority, along with 7 PCNs, in the Spill
Prevention and Response appropriation
• A fund source change within the Division of Water
Quality, Infrastructure Support and Financing
Subcommittee Amendments:
The House Finance Subcommittee adopted the following
budget amendment:
• Add $3,426.0 Ocean Ranger (1205) fund to restore
the Ocean Ranger program
• Intent language requesting the Division of
Environmental Health rename the Dairy Program to
Dairy Safety.
Attached Reports:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Environmental Conservation adopts the
attached reports:
1) Budget Action Worksheet
2) Wordage Report
3) Operating Budget Transaction Compare between
21AdjBase to HouseSub
4) Operating Budget Transaction Compare between
21Gov to HouseSub
Multi-year Agency Totals
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked for clarification
around the reduction of the Ocean Ranger position. She
asked if the cost associated with the position was $342,000
and whether they were designated general fund (DGF)
dollars. She was trying to determine if the amount was for
one or two positions. Ms. Harpold indicated she needed a
minute to consult with Mr. Partlow.
2:31:14 PM
AT EASE
2:32:03 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Harpold responded that the $3.4 million served as a
contract payment for the Ocean Ranger program rather than a
position within the department.
Representative Josephson clarified that the Ocean Rangers
were contractors rather than employees of the state. Ms.
Harpold responded, "That's correct."
Representative Josephson clarified that the subcommittee
restored the Ocean Ranger account for the purpose of an
Ocean Ranger Program. He asked if he was correct. Ms.
Harpold responded affirmatively.
Representative Josephson asked about the elimination of 7
positions. He wondered if they were unfilled positions in
the Division of Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) or if
they were simply not needed.
MICHAEL PARTLOW, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE
DIVISION, responded that 5 of the positions were vacant and
2 were filled. The purpose of the reduction for the
positions had to do with their funding source the oil
hazardous waste fund. The fund was being drawn down faster
than it could be replenished. The fund would likely run out
by 2024 if a reduction in positions was not made.
Representative Josephson asked if Mr. Partlow was talking
about the tax on throughput, the $.05 cents per barrel,
that was being depleted. Rather than fixing the program,
the department was proposing to eliminate it. Mr. Partlow
replied that the reasoning for the reduction was that at
current spending levels, the fund balance would go down.
Debate around increasing revenue for the fund did not come
up.
Representative Wool asked about the subcommittee rejecting
the fund source for commercial shellfish testing. He
assumed that they rejected half of the fund source the
half provided by industry. He wondered if the state's
portion doubled. He asked for clarification. Ms. Harpold
replied that the action the subcommittee took was to reject
the governor's proposed item in its entirely which included
50 percent the state would cover and 50 percent in program
receipts. Therefore, the program would be brought back to
how it had been funded in previous years.
^DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
2:36:20 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited Vice-Chair Ortiz's staff to the
table to review the subcommittee report the for Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED).
CAROLINE HAMP, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, reviewed
the subcommittee report:
Recommendations:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Education and Early Development submits
the following operating budget for FY2021 to the House
Finance Committee:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $50,902.1
Designated General Funds (DGF) $25,669.6
Other Funds $36,425.0
Federal Funds $245,512.1
Total $358,508.8
The total fund difference from FY21 Adjusted Base to
the House Subcommittee budget is -$31,847.8, or a
decrease of 8.2%. The Unrestricted General Fund
difference from FY21 Adjusted Base to the House
Subcommittee budget is $5,529.0, or an increase of
12.2%. The discrepancy between total fund difference
and UGF difference is primarily from the fund source
swap for Mt. Edgecumbe, as described below.
The total fund difference from the FY21 Governor's
budget to the House Subcommittee budget is $570.6, or
an increase of 0.2 percent. The Unrestricted General
Fund difference from the FY21 Governor's budget to the
House Subcommittee budget is also $570.6, or an
increase of 1.1 percent.
Positions:
Permanent Full-Time 268
Permanent Part-Time 14
Temporary 2
Total 284
Budget Actions:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Education and Early Development reviewed
the FY2021 budget requests from the Governor and
member amendments, and submits the following actions
for consideration:
Governor's Budget Action Items
The subcommittee adopted 16 budget action items
proposed by the Governor including:
1) Outsource the Federal Family Education Loan
Program Servicing with an elimination of six
positions and a decrement of $586.3 in inter-
agency receipts
2) Replace the funding source for Mount Edgecumbe
Boarding School from Public School Trust Fund to
General Fund
3) Transition the Public School Trust Fund to the
language section of the appropriation bill
4) Add two residential programs for North Slope
Borough School District and Lower Yukon School
District with an increment of $900.2 in
Unrestricted General Funds
The subcommittee rejected three budget action items
proposed by the Governor:
1) Authority for the State Board of Education to
hold additional in-person meetings; a rejected
increment of $137.0 in Unrestricted General Funds
2) Transfer Parents as Teachers program to the
Department of Health and Social Services; a
rejected decrement of $474.7 in Unrestricted
General Funds
3) Eliminate the Online with Libraries video
conferencing system; a rejected decrement of
$232.9 in Unrestricted General Funds
Wordage Intent: The subcommittee adopted one member's
amendment regarding intent language:
1) It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Education and Early Development evaluate
cost-efficiency measures that preserve access to the
Alaska Online with Libraries (OWL) Program;
considering the use of alternative equipment or
technologies that accommodate equitable access to the
video conference system, while saving unrestricted
general funds.
It is also the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Education and Early Development consult
with all users of the Alaska Online with Libraries
(OWL) Program to evaluate implications of eliminating
the video conference services. The Department of
Education and Early Development shall ensure that if
the Alaska Online with Libraries (OWL) Program is
eliminated, then alternative equipment or technology
is provided. The Department of Education and Early
Development shall prepare a report summarizing the
results from those consultations and the proposed
cost-efficiency measures and submit the report to the
Finance co-chairs, and the Legislative Finance
Division on or before January 1, 2021, and notify the
legislature that the report is available
Committee Discussion:
The subcommittee did not take action on this
particular item but would like to bring it to the
attention of the House Finance Committee. The
subcommittee is concerned about the ending of the
two-year $6 million grants for Pre-K, which
served 9 communities and 812 students. Although
no formal action was taken in regards to the
funding, the subcommittee hopes the House Finance
Committee will evaluate the importance of the $6
million in Pre-K grants and the loss of service
without it.
Attached Reports:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Education and Early Development
adopts the attached reports:
Multi-year Agency Totals
Transaction Comparison between FY20 Adj. Base
and House Sub.
Transaction Comparison between Gov. Amend and
House Sub.
Wordage Report
Subcommittee Amendments (in form of BA Sheet)
Representative Josephson asked if the pre-K grant was left
unfunded because of SB 6 [Legislation introduced in 2020
Short Title: Pre-K/Elem ED Programs/Funding; Reading] and a
grander plan. Ms. Hamp responded that it was 2-year funding
for pre-K grants. The year ended in the prior year.
Representative Josephson referred to the second page
regarding the transition of the Public School Trust Fund to
the language section. He queried the impact of the change.
Ms. Hamp responded that the change was for efficiency and
logistics. She indicated that the Public School Trust Fund
was managed through the Department of Revenue (DOR). Every
time DEED or Mt. Edgecombe School had to make a transaction
the process was cumbersome. They had to coordinate
frequently with DOR and could not make a one-time draw for
what they needed.
2:41:14 PM
Representative Wool noted that the subcommittee rejected
the transfer of the Parents-as-Teachers Program to the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). However,
DHSS accepted the transfer from DEED. He suggested there
was a stand-off and was unclear what would happen.
Vice-Chair Ortiz responded that he would not describe the
situation as a "Stand-off." A decision could be rendered by
the full House Finance Committee. He was certain things
could be worked out. The member that brought forward the
idea of rejecting the transfer was concerned that once the
program was transferred to DHSS, there was a $40,000 fee
that would be added to the administration of the program
under DHSS. He offered that when DEED administered the
program there was not an administration fee. Also, there
was a general notion that the delivery of the educational
program would be better suited within DEED. He reiterated
that the entities would work things out.
^DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2:43:13 PM
JOE BYRNES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BART LEBON, reviewed the
subcommittee narrative:
Recommendations:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department Public Safety submits a recommended
operating budget for FY2021 to the House Finance
Committee as follows:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $179,254.9
Designated General Funds (DGF) $8,737.9
Other Funds $13,209.5
Federal Funds $27,671.3
Total $228,873.6
Positions:
FY 20 Management Plan Budgeted Total 853
FY 21 Subcommittee 903
Difference 51
Difference by Percentage 6.3
Budget Action:
The House Finance Subcommittee on the Department
Public Safety Budget held seven meetings. The
Subcommittee reviewed and acted on the Governor's
FY2021 budget request, with the following highlights:
Reduced spending by $2,764.4 (-1.2%) in
Unrestricted General Funds from the FY 21
Governor's request
Added 15 State Troopers, 5 Court Services
Officers, 3 Aircraft Pilots, and 8Technical and
Administrative Staff Positions to increase
staffing and operational capacity in rural areas
with new State Troopers posted in Ambler (2),
Anchor Point (2), Bethel (1), Dillingham (1),
Emmonak (1), Glennallen (1), Kotzebue (2),Nome
(1), St. Mary's (1), St. Michaels (2), and
Unalakleet (1) ($5,466.9 UGF)
Added $1,000.0 (UGF) for VPSO grantees
The Subcommittee recommends accepting the Governor's
FY2021 request and highlights the following changes:
Denying the Governor's requested added authority
in Alaska State Troopers appropriation to reduce
vacancy -$2,733.9 UGF.
Backing out -$1,480.5 UGF in one-time startup
costs associated with the 15 additional state
troopers for rural areas to be absorbed by the
Department with the anticipated delay in the
recruitment and hiring of the new positions in
FY21.
Establishing a new allocation within the Alaska
State Troopers appropriation for Training Academy
Recruit Salaries to provide greater transparency
with funds previously expended from the Alaska
State Troopers Detachments allocation for trooper
recruit salaries and benefits.
Restoring $250.0 UGF for State support of the
Alaska Wing Civil Air Patrol allowing the State
to leverage additional resources to support
search and rescue efforts in the form of
volunteer hours and adding intent language to
strengthen the liaison between the State and the
Civil Air Patrol.
Adding intent language for the Department of
Public Safety to fill vacant positions and reduce
overtime costs in order to better manage within
the authorized budget and to provide a report
that details monthly hiring and attrition, as
well as overtime costs and contributing factors.
Adding intent language for the Department of
Public Safety to prioritize the deployment of law
enforcement resources to non-urbanized areas that
lack organized governments.
Adding intent language for the Department of
Public Safety to implement the recommendations of
the 2019-2020 Village Public Safety Officer
(VPSO) Working Group.
Attached Reports:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Public Safety adopts the attached
reports:
2021 Legislative Finance Division Reports House
Structure
1. Agency Totals FY2021 Operating Budget
(Attachment A)
2. Transaction Compare between Adjusted Base (21Adj
Base) and House Subcommittee (HSub) (Attachment
B)
3. Transaction Compare between Governor (21Gov) and
House Subcommittee (HSub)(Attachment C)
4. Wordage Report FY2021 Operating Budget
(Attachment D)
2:46:42 PM
Representative Carpenter asked how $250,000 was not paying
for volunteer hours. He did not think $250,000 would be
needed for volunteers. Mr. Byrnes responded that the state
support for the Civil Air Patrol paid for hanger and
maintenance costs and pilot and aircraft readiness. He
continued that while the Civil Air Patrol was made up of
volunteers, overhead costs required a funding source.
Historically, the state had provided support.
Representative Wool asked whether a recruit salary was for
a person just starting in the department or a bonus to
entice someone to go to work for the state. Mr. Byrnes
responded that as the department was currently structured,
recruits were paid out of the detachment allocation. The
restructure added a new allocation specifically for recruit
salaries to show that while individuals were in the law
enforcement academy in Sitka, they were being paid out of a
different set of funds.
Representative Wool queried that it only applied to when
recruits were enrolled in the academy and not working in
the field. Mr. Byrnes responded in the affirmative.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked for more detail
regarding the $1 million UGF for Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) grantees. She wondered what other funds were
being used for the VPSO program. Mr. Byrnes replied that
the appropriation would be additional funding for the
grantees. The FY 21 adjusted base figure for the VPSO
Program was $11.6 million. The $1 million the
representative asked about was an additional $1 million for
the VPSO grantees. He continued that inside the VPSO
working group recommendations, they wanted to restore
funding to FY 18 levels which would bring back the $3
million vetoed from the governor's budget in the prior
year. The amendment restored $1 million of the $3 million.
2:49:46 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked about other funding
sources for the VPSO program. Mr. Byrnes asked if
Representative Sullivan-Leonard was referring to other
funding sources such as federal or local funds. He thought
her question was better directed to the department. He
indicated that the funding from the state that went towards
positions was granted to organizations that hired VPSOs. He
could reach out to the department for more specifics.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard wondered how many VPSO
positions were still open. Mr. Byrnes would have to get
back to Representative Sullivan-Leonard with the
information.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the subcommittee discussed the
$700,000 increment suggested by the department to help with
the consolidation of 9-1-1 dispatch services in the
Anchorage area. Mr. Byrnes responded that there had been
some discussion. The department informed the subcommittee
that the amount was for the second phase of the
consolidation to create an emergency communication center
in Anchorage. There had been previous capital funding to
build out the facility. The $700,000 was to fund positions
for the facility. The department also indicated that there
were additional capabilities that would result from the
consolidation and the use of the enhanced 9-1-1 service. A
note of concern brought up by a member was making sure the
department was working with the telecom utilities to ensure
everything was paired and ready. There were no other
concerns raised in the subcommittee.
Vice-Chair Ortiz assumed that the request for an additional
$700,000 fell within the UGF appropriation of $8.737
million. Mr. Byrnes wondered if Vice-Chair Ortiz was asking
how much was funded from UGF for the item. Vice-Chair Ortiz
asked if the item was tied to UGF dollars. Mr. Byrnes
responded in the affirmative. He indicated the amount was
$872,800 UGF. Vice-Chair Ortiz restated the number. Mr.
Burnes agreed with the figure.
Co-Chair Johnston noted the department had a large number
of new employees who would need to be trained. She asked if
the committee had discussed the time it took to recruit and
train employees and whether members had considered that not
all the positions might get filled. Mr. Byrnes responded
that it was one of the considerations when the decision was
made to back out the one-time cost for the Troopers. The
thought process was that many of the positions would take a
significant amount of time to fill. The one-time costs
could be covered through the time that it might take to
fill the positions. However, the department believed it
could fill the positions relatively quickly.
Representative Merrick asked if the VPSO Program lapsed any
funding in the prior year. Mr. Byrnes indicated he would
take a minute to look at his notes for the number.
2:55:47 PM
AT EASE
3:00:41 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Byrnes answered that the department informed him of the
lapsed funding in FY 19 of about $3.6 million. However,
grantees had raised concern about how the program was being
administered and how funding had been distributed. In
reference to her previous question, the department
currently had 33 VPSOs and 8 individuals hired awaiting
training. The state positions were not vacant position
control numbers that could be tracked. Rather, how funding
was dispersed to the grantees could be traced.
Representative Merrick asked what it would cost to train
the 8 VPSOs. Mr. Byrnes would get back the her with an
amount.
Representative Merrick suspected 8 VPSOs were less than
$3.6 million. She did not see the need for an additional $1
million.
Co-Chair Johnston asked about the lapsed funding. She
wondered if there was concern about contractors wanting to
use the lapsed funding for recruitment and for housing. The
department indicated that it was not an appropriate use of
the funds. She asked for more detail. Mr. Byrnes thought
the question should be addressed by a member that sat on
the VPSO Working Group or by the department. He reported
that the members of the VPSO Working Group and the grantees
that participated raised concerns about how the funds were
being distributed, the intended purpose for the funds, and
the willingness of the department to use the funds for
those purposes.
Co-Chair Johnston wanted to make sure the committee was not
comparing apples to oranges. She was always interested in
unfilled position and not funding them if they were not
going to be filled. She was unclear about the need of the
funds and noted a disagreement about the structure of the
VPSO program.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the DPS
commissioner could assist with some of the questions that
were being posed.
AMANDA PRICE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
reported that at the close of the second quarter in FY 20
the program had expended 35.9 percent of the appropriation.
She expected 50 percent of the appropriation at 50 percent
of the year to be expended. The department had also
provided a comprehensive response to the working group's
findings and recommendations. The department's response
included a significant amount of historical information
over the prior 40 years that brought up issues relating to
retention and recruitment that plagued the program. There
had been a number of white papers and concept papers that
had been put forward over the 40-year period addressing the
issues the program had faced since inception. The
department was currently in the process of adopting one of
the recommendations of the working group: to transfer the
positions administratively that govern the program to the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED).
3:05:36 PM
Representative Josephson remarked that there are 230
villages, a minority of which were served by law
enforcement. He suggested that whatever the issues were, a
significant amount of resources would be needed. He asked
if he was accurate. Commissioner Price responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Wool asked how many communities had a
Village Police Officer (VPO) - different from a VPSO and
not housed within DPS. He wondered if he was accurate.
Commissioner Price responded, "You are correct." She
reported that there was a regulation that required
communities to notify the Alaska Police Standards Council
which was part of DPS when a VPO was hired. It was a
regulation and not codified which the department was trying
to rectify. The department had a list of VPOs from
communities that provided the information to the
department. She did not have the list at her disposal
currently but could provide the number to the committee.
Representative Wool asked if the quantity was similar to 33
VPSOs. Commissioner Price thought the number regulated
through the Alaska Police Standards Council was about 45.
Co-Chair Foster wondered what percentage of villages did
not have any public safety presence. Commissioner Price
thought the question, which had been circulated through
media, was a bit misleading. She indicated that just
because there might not be someone in a particular village
did not mean public safety was not provided to that village
from a hub community. The working group's recommendations
included adopting the hub and spoke model that the Alaska
State Troopers currently used. She explained that it meant
having a VPSO in a community and providing services to
surrounding communities. The model had worked as
effectively as possible within Alaska's geographic
constraints and employment and personnel limitations the
department faced. There was a large number of communities
that did not have a peace office or a police officer
located in their community.
Representative Knopp brought up Representative Josephson's
question about additional resources that would be needed to
fix the problem. He wondered about the grant funds that had
not be utilized. He asked what resources Commissioner Price
was referring to.
Commissioner Price responded that there was a comprehensive
need in Alaska. However, there were housing,
infrastructure, and holding facility challenges. Specific
to the VPSO Program the common goal was to improve public
safety by increasing the number of officers available to
serve Alaska's communities. The challenges that plagued the
VPSO Program were historic and had not been corrected even
though many years of work had gone into attempting to make
necessary changes. She suggested a change of focus from
what the department was doing regarding the VPSO Program to
getting a comprehensive report from each of the 10 grantees
on what their recruitment requests had been; what their
actions had been; and how many times they had been in the
villages conducting recruitment.
Commissioner Price reported that in FY 20 recruitment
efforts were funded to every single grantee that requested
recruitment funding. The recruitment dollars went to the
creation of videos located on social media and linked-in
advertising and impacted the department's ability to
recruit. However, due to the functional and historic
creation of the program looking to hire from a community
for a community, she had questions whether those
recruitment efforts were effective in meeting the goals of
the program.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked the commissioner to review the
difference between a VPO and a VPSO in terms of promoting
public safety.
Commissioner Price responded that a VPSO was a peace
Officer and a Village Police Officer was a police officer
two statutorily different definitions. One of the
challenges with the program was related to the question
itself. She explained that peace officers and/or police
officers working for a non-police agency were challenged
with liability insurance, use of force compliance, and
other such challenges and concerns. It was a direct
question that related to a VPSO's ability to carry a weapon
which statutorily was allowed. However, currently none did
so because of liability concerns. Having a non-profit
employ essentially a police force was one of the structural
challenges of the program. In addition, having a VPSO
present in any community did not negate the need for an
Alaska State Trooper to respond. A Village Public Safety
Officer was a supplement, not a replacement for an Alaska
State Trooper.
Representative Wool mentioned seeing more VPSO vehicles in
the Fairbanks Area than previously. He noted that the
community of Nenana was currently served by a VPSO. In the
past, there were troopers present. He wondered if VPSOs had
been brought into the area because there were not enough
troopers. He asked for clarity.
Commissioner Price replied that the community of Nenana had
a trooper, Trooper Hessler, who was on paternity leave,
which was the reason he had not been physically present.
The community of Nenana had both a trooper and a VPSO
present. She continued that a VPSO had a different set of
hiring, background, and training requirements. The Village
Public Safety Officer was not best suited to complete
complex felony investigations. The historic generation of
the VPSO was to have a first responder that was trained in
fire prevention, law enforcement being one of the
components. They were meant to be a gap until an Alaska
State Trooper was present. The grantees work with the
communities, and there were a number of requirements a
community had to demonstrate before the grantee would
select to place a VPSO in those communities. The decision
where a VPSO was placed rested solely with the grantee and
not DPS.
Representative Carpenter asked about the Tribal Police
Officer (TPO). He wondered if they fell under the Alaska
Police Standards Council. He asked about the funding source
for TPOs.
Commissioner Price replied that the funding for TPOs did
not come through the State of Alaska. They were primarily
funded through the U.S. Department of Justice through
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funding.
Village Police Officers were certified through the Alaska
Police Standards Council, whereas, TPOs were not.
^DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
3:15:16 PM
ANNE RITTGERS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BART LEBON, read from
a prepared statement:
Recommendations:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs submits
the following recommended operating budget for FY2021
to the House Finance Committee:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $22,726.1
Designated General Funds (DGF) $178.4
Other Funds $9,752.9
Federal Funds $32,986.5
Total $65,643.9
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY21
Adjusted Base to the House Subcommittee budget
recommendation is a reduction of $715.9 thousand of
Unrestricted General Funds, which is 3.1% below FY21
Adjusted Base.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 287
Permanent Part-time 0
Temporary 0
Total 287
Budget Action:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs reviewed
the FY2021 budget request, and recommends the
following actions:
Accept the Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs budget proposal, which includes these
highlights:
Transfer of Alaska Land Mobile Radio and State of
Alaska Telecommunications System from the
Department of Administration to the Department of
Military and Veterans' Affairs
Delete one full time administrative assistant
position, -$83.4 UGF
Reduce authority due to janitorial contract
savings, -$123.0 UGF
Reduce authority due to armory divestiture, -
$50.0 UGF
Attached Reports:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs adopts
the attached reports:
1. Agency Totals FY21 Operating Budget (Attachment
A)
2. Transaction Compare between Adjusted Base
(FY21AdjBase) and House Subcommittee (H Sub)
(Attachment B)
3. Transaction Compare between Governor (FY21Gov)
and House Subcommittee (H Sub) (Attachment C)
4. Wordage (Attachment D)
^DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
3:16:43 PM
ANNE RITTGERS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BART LEBON, read from
a prepared statement:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Revenue submits the following
recommended operating budget for FY2021 to the House
Finance Committee:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $27,382.6
Designated General Funds (DGF) $2,626.3
Other Funds $266,235.2
Federal Funds $79,931.2
Total $376,175.3
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 823
Permanent Part-time 24
Temporary 17
Total 864
BUDGET ACTION:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Revenue reviewed the FY2021 budget
request, including amendments, and recommends the
following actions:
Accept the Department of Revenue budget proposal,
which includes these highlights:
Adding funding for the Tax Revenue Management
System Maintenance and Support Costs, $2,221.6
UGF
Reducing Alaska Retirement Management Board
Custody and Management Fees, $-5,000.0 other
funds
Reduce Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
Management Fees, $-21,098.1 PF Gross
Consolidate Fish Tax Group into Excise Tax Group
and Delete Publications Specialist, $-346.6 UGF
Adding funding for Long Term Care Ombudsman
Office travel impacting the health and safety of
Alaskan seniors, $21.7 UGF
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the Department
of Revenue recommends that the committee take the
following actions:
Add to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
appropriation, APFC Operations allocation for the
Incentive Compensation Plan, $2,763.5 PF Gross
Representative Wool asked about the reduction of
$21 million from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
(APFC) management fees. Ms. Rittgers answered that the
reduction was a result of the elimination of their external
investment officer program and bringing it in-house.
Representative Wool asked if the savings of $21 million
allowed for the incentive plan of $2.7 million.
Representative LeBon responded that it was not just an off-
set because of a savings in one area. It was also to retain
and reward performance in a critical area of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC). It was a very
competitive world at large investment houses. The board of
directors requested the headroom to payout performance
bonuses if they were earned. It was up to the executive
director and the board of directors to measure performance
and pay out bonuses as they were warranted.
Representative Wool was glad the issue had been addressed
in a recommendation. He observed there were savings as well
from bringing the investment duties in-house.
Representative Josephson asked if the bonus being discussed
was related to a state employee. Ms. Rittgers replied that
the program was for APFC employees. The awards would be
available to eligible staff contingent on the fund
exceeding its short and long-term policy benchmarks.
3:20:48 PM
Representative Josephson surmised there was $2.7 million
that could be awarded to employees that largely lived in
Juneau. Ms. Rittgers replied in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson asked if the program was new. Ms.
Rittgers believed that the board of trustees first talked
about the program in 2017, and the current year was the
first time the budget recommendation had been put forward.
Representative Josephson was familiar with the nature and
culture of the work and the competitiveness of holding onto
individuals. However, he was unfamiliar with public
employees receiving such a privilege. He had not seen the
policy occur within other agencies. He suggested further
dialog might be helpful. Representative LeBon replied that
investment management expertise at that level was so unique
and competitive. He thought the headroom was critical to
APFC's long-term ability to recruit and retain the high
level of talent that was necessary.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that the corporation had been
bringing in many of its investments in-house. She agreed
that the corporation was starting to save money and make
more money. She concurred with Representative LeBon's
comments. She thought everyone wanted to see the fund grow.
Representative Josephson was not necessarily opposed. He
was thinking about tribal reclaiming and how there were
public employees that had saved the state $100 million. He
asked about the source of $266 million. He wondered if it
came from the Permanent Fund. Ms. Rittgers responded that
largely the fund source came from the Permanent Fund. There
were also other fund sources through the Alaska Retirement
Management Board (ARMB) management fee reduction including
Group Benefits, PERS Trust, Teachers' Retirement, Judicial
Retirement, and the National Guard Fund.
Representative Wool recalled previous conversations with
the executive director about saving money by bringing
certain services in-house and using the savings as part of
a bonus structure. He noted that ARMB was also saving
management fees of about $5 million. He wondered if there
was a parallel program. Ms. Rittgers responded that the
subcommittee put forward the amendment for APFC employees.
However, there were no other amendments for other managed
fund employees.
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the next meeting at
9:00 a.m. the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:25:56 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 205 CS FIN Work Draft v.M21720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| CS HB 206 FIN Work Draft v.M 21720M.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 206 |
| HB 205 & HB 206 Compare v.A to v.M.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 HB 206 |
| HB 205 SubC DMVA Reports Pkt. 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 SubC Reports DPS 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 Subc DOA Reports PKT 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 Subc GOV Reports PKT 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 SubC Reports DHSS 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 SubC Reports DOT 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 SubC Reports DEC 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 SubC Reports DFG 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 SubC Reports DEED 021720.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 Response Gov Closeout MultiYearPositionSum021820.pdf |
HFIN 2/17/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |