Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/19/1993 09:02 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 19, 1993
9:02 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-93, #26, Side 1 (000-561)
SFC-93, #26, Side 2 (561-000)
SFC-93, #28, Side 1 (000-369)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Steve Frank, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:02 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairs Frank and Pearce, Senators Kelly,
Rieger, and Sharp were present. Senator Kerttula arrived
while the meeting was in progress. Senator Jacko was not
present.
ALSO ATTENDING:
Cheryl Frasca, Division Director, Office of Management &
Budget; Bev Reaume, Deputy Director, Division of Boards,
Mary Lou Burton, Finance Officer, Division of
Administration, Department of Fish and Game; Kenneth E.
Bischoff, Director, Division of Administration Services,
Department of Public Safety; Bob Bartholomew, Director,
Administrative Services, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities; Janice Adair, Asst. Commissioner, Chief
Administrative Officer, Legislative Contact, Department of
Environmental Conservation; Mike Greany, Director, and Karen
Rehfeld, Fiscal Analyst, and other analysts, Legislative
Finance Division; and aides to committee members.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 100: An Act making supplemental and special
appropriations for the expenses of state
government; making, amending, and repealing
capital and operating appropriations; and
providing for an effective date.
Cheryl Frasca outlined Section numbers 34 through
57. Section number 54 - Corrections-
Administration and Support: operating costs, was
held over to Wednesday, February 24, 1993. The
bill was held in committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 100:
An Act making supplemental and special appropriations
for the expenses of state government; making, amending,
and repealing capital and operating appropriations; and
providing for an effective date.
CO-CHAIR STEVE FRANK invited Cheryl Frasca, Division
Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to speak to
SB 100.
CHERYL FRASCA directed attention to Section 34, supplemental
funding to the Division of Boards, Department of Fish &
Game. It related to implementation costs of subsistence
legislation that passed during the 1992 Special Session. At
that time, fiscal notes had been submitted to the
legislature but no vehicle was available to fund them during
the special session. In answer to Co-chair Frank, she said
the original fiscal note was for $365.0. The additional
request paid meeting costs incurred by the board of
fisheries and board of game, increased staff, and advisory
council meetings held to review existing statutes and
regulations.
Co-chair Frank asked if a law had been passed to provide a
stipend as well as a per diem for the board of game. BEV
REAUME, Deputy Director, Division of Boards, answered that
last year a change in compensation had been passed for the
game and fisheries boards. She said it was equal to a daily
amount equal to a range 20, step A, plus per diem. Since
the boards tend to decide the number of meetings a year or
two in advance, budget considerations are fairly easy to
predict. Budget problems arise when an issue like
subsistence is involved. In answer to Co-Chair Frank, Ms.
Reaume agreed to let the committee know how many days the
board met.
Co-chair Frank asked what amount was in the FY94 budget for
boards. Ms. Reaume said that $1.8M is authorized but $400.0
of those funds will not be received. In answer to Co-chair
Frank, Ms. Reaume said total staff costs are approximately
$700.0.
SENATOR BERT SHARP asked if the $492.0 was attributable to
just subsistence costs. Ms. Reaume said that the board set
aside specific days or time periods to address subsistence
issues.
SENATOR TIM KELLY asked who prepared the original fiscal
note and why was the estimate off such a large amount. Ms.
Reaume explained that after the subsistence bill passed, the
Dept. of Law realized that after the joint board took
action, every existing regulation became null and void.
This made it necessary for both boards to meet again and
review every regulation on the books insuring they were
consistent with the new law. Ms. Frasca said that the
board's FY94 budget request would equal this years funding
of $1.9M.
Senator Kelly asked why the division felt next years funding
would be as high as this year's. Ms. Reaume said
implementation of subsistence would continue, and the joint
board would meet to deal with non-subsistence areas. In
answer to Senator Kelly, Ms. Reaume stated that a board of
fisheries or game meeting cost the state between $5,500 to
$6,000, and the joint board, $9,000 per meeting. She said
individuals received a stipend of $179 a day plus a per diem
of $80-100 a day.
Co-chair Frank asked why the activity of the boards
increased when the subsistence issue was addressed. Ms.
Reaume said there was much difficulty over designating non-
subsistence areas that had not existed at all. It took two
days to decide on a single designation area because of all
the information that needed to be reviewed. Under the old
law there were many conflicting court cases and opinions
which caused the boards not to act. The board of fisheries
especially has many deferred subsistence proposals that have
been in existence since 1990. The board has continued to
defer them and is now acting on approximately sixty of those
proposals.
Co-chair Frank asked how much the advisory board costs the
division. He also inquired whether the Federal takeover of
fisheries and game management had lessened the work
requirement by the boards or the department. Ms. Reaume
said, in fact, it has caused an increased effort, especially
for the operational division. In regard to board meeting
days, much time is spent on discussing what the federal
subsistence board is doing because of the mixture of state
and federal land.
Senator Sharp noted that the board had consistently reviewed
regulations, customary and traditional findings for fish
stock and game populations, and gathered a wealth of
information for years. He wondered why these issues had to
be reviewed again at such great lengths, starting at the
advisory level and then the boards. He asked how much the
department followed the advisory board's recommendations.
He felt, in some areas, the recommendations from the
advisory board were completely disregarded. He cited one
case where after two years of public participation, the
advisory board plan had virtually been ignored.
Ms. Reaume answered that there was no requirement for either
board to follow the advice of the advisory board. She felt
that attention was paid to advisory opinions but the boards
sometimes chose not to follow their advice. Senator Sharp
asked Ms Reaume to define "contractual" in the amount of
$122.7. She said it included printing, publishing, and
postage of proposal books for public comment, and meeting
space costs which run about $500-$1,000 a day.
Senator Sharp asked if any federal funds had been received
for boards. He cited a federal mandate that said up to 75
percent of the cost of subsistence regulations and
enforcement could be funded for states. Ms. Reaume said
under ANILCA, the state qualified for federal support.
Senator Sharp understood that 80 percent of that federal
money was not forwarded to the states. Ms. Reaume agreed
that legislation allowed up to $5M a year, but the state had
not received more than $1M in the course of any year while
ANILCA was in place. Because the state is no longer in
compliance, it is no longer eligible for any funding.
SENATOR JAY KERTTULA pointed out that the advisory board did
have some statutory responsibility. Ms. Reaume said boards
did have the authority to close hunting seasons for
emergency reasons but that had not happened for some time.
SENATOR STEVE RIEGER asked who reviewed recommendations for
changes in parks. Ms. Reaume said public comment and other
recommendations are taken during the board's hearing.
Advisory committees also hear public comment for local
issues.
In answer to Senator Kelly, Ms. Reaume explained that staff
had been retained for board meeting support. In answer to
Senator Kelly's inquiry, Ms. Reaume said that in FY92, the
board met about 70 days, and the joint board did not meet at
all. In FY93, the board of fisheries met 50 days, the board
of game 48, and joint meetings totaled 12 days. Projected
meeting days in FY94 were, 40-45 days for the board of
fisheries, 35-40 for the board of game, and 20 days for the
joint board. Senator Kelly felt that the number of meetings
did not justify the increased staff costs.
In answer to Co-chief Frank's question, Ms. Reaume said the
increased pay for the board took effect July 1, 1992.
Senator Sharp asked how many full time personnel were
employed by the Subsistence Division. Ms. Reaume said
approximately 28 to 30.
Co-chair Frank asked the amount of the Subsistence
Division's budget. Ms. Frasca stated the general funds
authorized for this year is $1.8M. Co-chair Frank
questioned why the Subsistence Division did not cover these
costs for boards. Ms. Reaume said the Subsistence Division
was spending much more than $8,000 on the implementation of
the subsistence bill. She said this $8,000 was considered
just a small offset for their costs. As it is, they have
put off studies in order to do subsistence recommendations.
She pointed out it had taken an inordinate amount of time
putting together all the stacks of information presented to
the fisheries and game boards.
Co-chair Frank asked again if OMB had asked the Subsistence
Division to pay for these meetings costs. Ms. Frasca said
the Department of Fish and Game had advised OMB about its
projected needs for Subsistence, the Commissioner's office,
Wildlife Conservation, and Sport Fish. At that time,
Subsistence had requested a $53,000 increase, so the request
has been decreased. Co-chair Frank noted that Section 35 in
the amount of $8.0 was the Division of Subsistence's request
for costs associated with implementing subsistence
legislation as discussed.
Ms. Frasca said Section 36 provided $84.3 to reimburse
vendors for the sale of King Salmon tags. She said
legislation was passed last year, proceeds from the sale of
tags go into the F&G fund, but funds from the general fund
must reimburse the vendors for the sale of the tags.
Senator Rieger asked where the vendors were located and how
many tags were sold in different areas. MARY LOU BURTON,
Finance Officer, Division of Administration, Department of
Fish and Game, agreed to provide that information to the
committee.
In answer to Senator Kelly's inquiry, Ms. Burton said she
did not know the origin of the law, but on all sales of
tags, including King Salmon tags, the vendor kept a 5
percent commission, and in addition, by statute, an
additional $1 per tag was reimbursed to the vendor each
quarter from general funds. Senator Kelly asked why that $1
was just not subtracted from the tag. Senator Kerttula
thought that there were two separate statutes and should be
combined. Co-chair Frank asked if there was a bill pending
this year that could be amended to combine the $1 and 5
percent commission. In answer to Co-chair Frank, Ms. Burton
indicated that it would save the general fund approximately
$500,000. She also stated that a resident King salmon tag
cost $10, and a non-resident cost $20. Senator Kelly asked
Ms. Frasca to look at this fee structure and propose a
solution to Labor and Commerce.
Ms. Frasca identified Section 37 which enabled DF&G to
ratify and amend prior year expenditures.
Ms. Frasca said that Section 38 appropriated $134.7 from
DF&G CIP funds where there were unrealized federal receipts
from 1987.
Ms. Frasca directed attention to Section 39 through 44 for
the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Section 39 was a
supplemental for the contract jails program in the amount of
$690.4. Last year the amount was $815.0. Senator Kerttula
asked if it was municipal jails that took care of prisoners
while they were in pre-trial status, and state-charged
prisoners who were serving short-term sentences in their
local communities. She said this was accomplished by
contract. KEN BISCHOFF, Director, Division of
Administration Services, DPS, said most prisoners are jailed
on a state charge so the municipality looks at the prisoner
as the state's responsibility. The majority of funding by
DPS is based on a fixed cost amount. The municipality needs
a certain amount of money to keep the jail open with some
variation by population.
Co-chair Frank than asked why the department was unable to
make a better estimate of contract jail costs. Mr. Bischoff
admitted that DPS had a history of supplemental
appropriation requests. Ms. Frasca added that the
Governor's office did not have enough information for
budgeting contract jails last year, and then the legislature
made a reduction to the bill. Co-chair Frank said that he
felt the committee should have detail for these contract
agreements.
End SFC-93 #26, Side 1
Begin SFC-93 #26, Side 2
In answer to Senator Rieger's inquiry, Ms. Frasca indicated
that the backup gave detail on special services contracts.
He asked for overrun detail in regard to contract and
transportation costs. Per Senator Sharp's request, Mr.
Bischoff agreed to provide a breakdown of cost per day per
bed for class A felonies.
Co-chair Frank asked if OMB had looked at how unallocated
reductions had been spread. She said that OMB indicated to
the department that they were to try to take the reduction
against personal services, and if that was not possible,
apply it as best they could and OMB would review the
reductions with the department after the proposal. To take
the reduction completely out of the crime lab, it would have
jeopardized that activity more than a one or two percent
reduction. She felt that OMB would have to look at the
original funding and possibly it was underfunded in the
Governor's request.
Mr. Bischoff said that the Deputy Commissioner was working
with the Governor's office to form a task force composed of
city managers, police chiefs, a Representative, and a
Senator, in order to bring this program under fiscal
control. Co-chair Frank was in favor of this task force.
Ms. Frasca explained that Section 40 provides for additional
funds of $90.6 for criminal records and identification
programs. These costs are due to a significant backlog of
criminal records and identification processing related to
the Alaska automated fingerprint identification system. DPS
decided the risk of not getting the backlog completed
outweighed the additional cost. She indicated that the
legislature has provided requirements for a lot more people
to be fingerprinted such as child care workers and for
teacher certification. In 1992, 12,000 employment applicant
checks were processed. The system needed to be kept up to
date in case of an arrest. Co-chair Frank asked if fiscal
notes had been provided with the increased requirements to
the department. Ms. Bischoff said some fiscal notes had
been approved at nominal amounts. He said other factors
effected the increase in budget. There was an increase in
the number of records being processed. Also, DPS was
attempting to correct gaps of missing information in the
system accessed by DOL, DOC, and the Courts. The records
are queried about 50,000 times a month by courts, local
police departments, troopers, etc.
Senator Rieger asked if any of the data entry would have to
be duplicated if the computer system is revised. Mr.
Bischoff said that it would not have to be duplicated, and
if an interface was written into the trooper management
information system, it could eliminate 25 percent of the
data entry . Ms. Frasca said that there were some fee
changes being proposed in 1994 for state applicant checks.
Ms. Frasca directed attention to Section 41, a request for
$126.7 for bloodborne pathogens compliance costs. She said
most of the costs were related to disposable protective
gear, training, and vaccinations.
Ms. Frasca said that Section 42 would provide increased
prisoner transportation at a cost of $125.0. Last year a
supplemental of $100.0 was requested. If the FY94 budget is
passed at this level, this supplement will not have to be
requested again. Co-chair Pearce asked if prisoner
relocation was accomplished by state troopers. Mr. Bischoff
agreed and said some court service officers were used at a
lower pay grade. He said the department had looked at
various ways to reduce costs but overall this item had run
about $1M for several years. Discussion followed between
Senator Rieger, Co-chair Pearce, and Mr. Bischoff regarding
what costs were included in this request, and whether
Department of Corrections should be responsible for these
costs. Mr. Bischoff agreed to let the committee know how
many prisoner moves were represented in this request. Mr.
Bischoff confirmed Co-chair Frank's statement that these
costs were for prisoner air transportation between cities.
Ms. Frasca stated that DOC was responsible for moving
prisoners on the road system.
Ms. Frasca directed attention to Section 43, a request for a
$101.4 arbitration settlement for a fish and wildlife
employee. Senator Kelly asked why DPS did not have a law
against the off-duty use of a controlled substance. Mr.
Bischoff said the department was rewriting its entire OPM
and he would let the committee know if one was in effect.
Discussion followed between Mr. Bischoff, Senators Kelly and
Rieger, regarding details of the arbitration.
Ms. Frasca said Section 44 requested $125.0 for the Civil
Air Patrol aircraft maintenance and operation costs.
Senator Sharp stated that this represented a 35 percent
overrun. Mr. Bischoff said last year the legislature
reduced the Civil Air Patrol almost $40.0 and several years
of inflation have caused cost overruns. Federal funds
requested have also been turned down.
Ms. Frasca directed attention to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF) requests
contained in Section 45 through Section 48. Section 45
represented an arbitrator's award for overtime for on-site
construction engineers. BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Director,
Administrative Services, DOT/PF, said that former
Commissioner Keller, Department of Administration, changed
its overtime policy in 1978, and implemented the change to
DOT/PF policy to not pay engineers after 50 and up to 72
hours. The "bubble-time" in between was considered
professional time, and after 72 hours the engineers were
paid overtime. This change was challenged by the union and
arbitration took place. There had been agreements in the
past to pay straight time after the regular 37.5 hours. The
arbitrator ruled that since overtime had been paid before,
negotiation would have to take place before this change
could be initiated. In answer to Senator Kerttula's
question, Mr. Bartholomew said the engineers were now on
straight time again. Co-chair Frank asked if this change
involved any other agencies. Mr. Bartholomew felt there
were few employees affected.
End SFC-93 #26, Side 2
Begin SFC-93 #28, Side 1
Section 46 was a request for Dalton Highway snow removal,
ice control and maintenance related activities in the amount
of $1,222.9. Senator Kerttula asked if charging a fee for
this special use road was under consideration. Mr.
Bartholomew said that Commissioner Turpin, DOT/PF, was
interested in making the Dalton Highway a toll road. There
has been some negotiation between the state and oil
companies to pay fees for the use of the Dalton Highway but
unless they are forced, they will not pay for any services.
Senator Kerttula said he was opposed to this request.
Section 47 was a ratification of the prior year supply and
inventory asset account expenditures dating back to 1985.
Mr. Bartholomew said that this request represented an
accounting clean-up of the inventory accounts and operating
budget. In 1985, the accounting system was changed and
between documents not being processed and lack of internal
controls over inventory, a deficit had accumulated. In
answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Bartholomew said he had no way
of knowing how much was due to pilferage. Senator Rieger
requested language be added to the request that the amount
not exceed $715.0.
Section 48 extends the FY93 operating budget lapse date for
maintenance and operations funding to coincide with the
federal fiscal year. It would enable summer activity costs
to come out of this year's funding.
Ms. Frasca directed attention to Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) requests in Section 49 through 51.
Section 49 replaces unrealized program receipts with general
funds in the amount of $351.2. She said there had been a
delay in regulations to collect fees for seafood and
sanitation activities. Senator Rieger asked how much DEC
had spent to date. JANICE ADAIR, Asst. Commissioner, Chief
Administrative Officer, Legislative Contact, Department of
Environmental Conservation, said that she would provide the
committee with that information.
Section 50 is a request for $109.9 to inspect for paralytic
shellfish poison or crab testing. In answer to Co-chair
Frank, Ms. Adair said that paralytic poisoning in crab was
just discovered this year. This money would pay for
personal services for one micro-biologist, three laboratory
technicians, and laboratory supplies. She explained that
the federal government had placed an embargo on crab until
testing is done. Since Alaskan crab is shipped live, there
is a very short turn around time. DEC recognized the
economic impact of the crab fishery for the state and
decided this program supports that fishery. In answer to
Senator Rieger's question, Ms. Adair said there was no user
fee being implemented for this testing but DEC would
continue to look at that possibility. Senator Kerttula
asked for a report on the crab industry.
Section 51 is a request for the Water Quality Standards
Advisory Group in the amount of $41.4. This organization,
requested by the Governor, had expenses for three meetings
during the fiscal year.
Ms. Frasca directed attention to requests in Section 52 and
53 for Community and Regional Affairs. Section 52 is a
first year organization grant to Yakutat. She explained
this grant was funded by statute but was difficult to budget
in advance. Section 53 is revenue sharing - underpayment
for Central Mat-Su and Greater Palmer fire service areas.
Ms. Frasca stated that Section 54 is a request for the
Department of Corrections operations. Last year, the
department had received a reduction in their budget. The
prison population has continued to grow, and Wildwood,
scheduled to close, had to remain open. Co-chairs Frank and
Pearce agreed to hold Section 54 over until Wednesday,
February 24, 1993.
Section 55 is a request for University of Alaska Fairbanks
snow removal in the amount of $375.0. Senator Kelly felt
this request was too high. He asked if any students were
employed to take care of snow removal. Ms. Frasca agreed to
bring more detail to the committee for this request.
Section 56 is a request by the Courts to fund a law clerk
for the Mental Health Trust Case workload. In answer to Co-
chair Frank's question, Ms. Frasca agreed to ask if the
Attorney General was in support of this request. She said
the clerk had been hired.
Section 57 contained miscellaneous claims and stale-dated
warrants and will continue to be updated. Senator Kelly
asked if there were any other additions to SB 100. Ms.
Frasca said the Department of Health and Social Services had
a small request. She said the Division of Elections also
had a request of approximately $500.0. Co-chair Frank said
that the committee would look at the Division of Elections'
request on Wednesday, February 24, 1993.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|