Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/15/2000 09:36 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 15, 2000
9:36 AM
TAPES
SFC-00 # 27, Side A & B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 9:36 AM
PRESENT Co-Chair John Torgerson, Co-Chair Sean Parnell,
Senator Lyda Green, Senator Pete Kelly, Senator Gary
Wilken, Senator Phillips
Also Attending: Senator Pearce; SHARON CLARK, Legislative
Aide, Senator Miller; JANE DEMMERT, Alaska Commission on
Aging; PAT CARTER, Legislative Aide, Senator Pearce;
NANETTE THOMPSON, Chair, Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
Representative James; JACK KRIENHEDER, Office of Management
and Budget; KEITH GERKEN, Department of Administration;
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, Office of Management and Budget.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 204-EXTEND ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING
Jane Demmert, Alaska Commission on Aging testified. This
bill was held over for further deliberation.
SB 229-REGULATORY COMM. OF ALASKA/AOGCC
Pat Carter, Legislative Assistant, Senator Pearce and
Nanette Thompson, Chair, Regulatory Commission of Alaska
testified. The amended bill was passed out of committee.
HB 112-ESTABLISH ALASKA PUBLIC BUILDING FUND
Representative James, Jack Krienheder, Office of Management
and Budget, Keith Gerken, Department of Administration,
Annalee McConnell, Director, Office of Management and
Budget testified. This bill was held over for further
deliberation.
[Tape malfunction]
SENATE BILL NO. 204
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective
date."
JANE DEMMERT, Alaska Commission on Aging stated that there
are five elements to the auditor's findings, along with a
cost allocation plan. She noted that this finding is in
its final stages of completion and will be provided shortly
to the U.S. Administration on Aging and the Department of
Health and Human Services. She added that there is 63
Commission grantees across the state. She continued that
each Grant award should have a certification in it that
assures, by signature, (page 13 of the audit) that each
grantee is not in a situation where they have been
suspended from receiving federal funding. She stated that
in Alaska's Grant awards, which began as of June 1 of this
year, this provision is outlined. Ms. Demmert continued in
regards to an interface with the grantees that there was a
provision that at the conclusion of each Grant year, the
grantees would be notified about the specific amount of
federal funding received by the conclusion of the fiscal
year. She continued that these notices have gone out in a
timely manner and that the most recent were for the record
of federal funds received in FY99 which closed on June 30.
The Commission is in the process of complying with these
recommendations.
Senator P. Kelly referred to the $1.15 thousand fiscal note
and asked if this was in the base of FY00. He read from
the fiscal note that there will be no fiscal impact as a
result of this legislation, because the costs are already
included in the Governor's budget and wondered again if
this was in light of a base amount for FY00.
Ms. Demmert responded affirmatively.
Senator Green asked where the Commission was on extricating
the long-term care ombudsman.
Ms. Demmert responded that the Commission has provided an
update on their work regarding this question. She noted
that this is a part of the Committee's file and added that
it gave a chronology of the ombudsman consideration. She
continued that this consisted of a sequence that began in
1998-99 and led the Commission to spend an interim period
conducting an extensive review of the long-term ombudsman
and whether to out-station this position. She gave a
rundown of what this process entailed. The Commission
concluded that they would have the strongest office
possible if it did remain in government rather than being
out-stationed in a non-profit organization.
Ms. Demmert continued that they looked at two in-state
agencies, the state ombudsman's office and the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority to absorb this position. She
noted that the state ombudsman's office did a very
intensive review of the considerations they thought
important, especially their ability to provide basic
services as now mandated and the responsibilities inherent
in the long-term ombudsman position. She added that the
state ombudsman's office concluded that it was not in the
best interest of their operations to bring this additional
long-term ombudsman position under their auspices. She
summarized that in the state's ombudsman report they would
be responsive to absorb this position if mandated by the
legislature.
Ms. Demmert referred to the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority, since about 50 percent of the cases handled by
the long-term ombudsman relate to beneficiaries of the
trust. She noted that the trust was in the process of
creating regulations that allow for a grievance mechanism
for beneficiaries. The Trust remains open to further
discussions about out-stationing the long-term ombudsman
office there. She concluded that the Commission adopted an
amendment to their bylaws creating a standing long-term
care ombudsman committee that excludes from membership any
members of the Commission that have any relationship with
the Pioneer Home. She noted that they have a search
committee in place, which is currently conducting
recruitment.
Senator Green stated that she would not be interested in
seeing this legislation pass from the Committee until the
long-term ombudsman is moved out of the [indiscernible.]
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that SB 204 would be HELD for
further deliberation.
SENATE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to the employment of hearing
examiners and mediators by the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska; repealing a requirement that the principal
office of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission move to the same location as the principal
office of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
relating to the sharing of record-keeping facilities
and clerical staff by the two commissions; and
providing for an effective date."
PAT CARTER, Legislative Assistant, Senator Pearce stated
that SB 229 makes technical changes to SB 133, which the
legislature passed last year. He outlined that SB 133
abolished the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) and
established a new regulatory commission of Alaska. He
added that SB 229 makes three changes to SB 133. He noted
that the first of these repeals the provision that SB 133
contained, which statutorily obligated the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) to co-locate with Alaska Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission. He continued that initially
this provision was to achieve cost savings through record
storage facilities, as well as clerical staff, etceteras.
Mr. Carter offered that the Department of Administration
conducted a thorough review and determined that the
economies of scale that they had hoped to achieve could not
be realized. He noted that this was primarily due to the
current lease space that RCA presently occupies. He added
that the rent is cheap where they are located, but the
building cannot accommodate both agencies.
Mr. Carter continued that the second change concerned a
drafting error. He noted that SB 133 allowed the
Commission to employ Hearing Officers, but what the
Commission actually needs is a Hearing Examiner. He stated
that the difference between the two is that a Hearing
Officer need not be an attorney, but a Hearing Examiner is
an attorney. He added that a Hearing Examiner is needed to
adjudicate legal matters during the RCA's hearing process.
He continued that the final revision clarifies that the RCA
may employ and utilize mediators, as well as arbitrators.
He stated that this was the original intent of SB 133,
although the language is slightly unclear and already
challenged.
Amendment #2: Mr. Carter explained that this amendment
clarified language contained on page one, line 12, by
inserting "arbitrators, mediators" after the reference to
administrative law judges. The amended language would
read: "The commission chair may employ engineers, hearing
examiners, administrative law judges, arbitrators,
mediators, experts, clerks, accountants, and other agents
and assistants considered necessary."
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if this conformed to page two,
line 22, which stated, "A decision of a hearing examiner,
an arbitrator, a mediator, or an administrative law judge
is not final until approved by the commission."
Mr. Carter responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Parnell made a motion to move Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that this language might also
need insertion into the title of this bill to conform. He
noted that hearing no objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
NANETTE THOMPSON, Chair, Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
Department of Community and Economic Development testified
via teleconference from Anchorage, stating that she
supported all the comments made by Mr. Carter and urged the
Committee to pass this legislation.
Co-Chair Parnell made a motion to move SB 229, version 1-
LS1351\H with individual recommendations and a zero,
Department of Community and Economic Development fiscal
note from Committee.
Co-Chair Torgerson hearing no objection MOVED FROM
COMMITTEE SB 229.
hb#112
HOUSE BILL NO. 112
"An Act establishing the Alaska public building fund;
and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that the last time the Committee
heard this legislation it was requested that a fiscal note
be provided with necessary fund sources, along with the
application of depreciation per building. He then asked
for the Administration to review their spreadsheet.
Senator Green asked what would happen if this legislation
did not pass.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that the state would "keep
on, keeping on," like they have been.
Senator Green asked if there would be any loss of funds to
the state.
Representative James responded that according to the fiscal
note, $783,000 in federal funds would be lost.
Senator Green noted that this was because the federal
government requires that there be an even [inaudible.]
Representative James responded that "we can't charge them
rent if we don't charge rent across the board."
Senator Green asked if there was anyway that the fee
schedule for this legislation could become arbitrary in
nature. She noted her concern that this legislation would
create new administrative fees charged back to agencies in
an arbitrary fashion.
Representative James asked if Senator Green was referring
to charges related to maintenance or to monies being moved
from the budget to the agencies consistently.
Senator Green clarified that she spoke to situations such
as when departments are charged a fee for an administrative
charge back, such as for Data Processing services. She
wondered if this charge back fee, in this instance, would
be included in a rent payment as allowed for in this bill.
She asked if this would be an arbitrary or a consistent
charge throughout the years.
Representative `James responded that it was her
understanding that the whole purpose of this bill would not
allow for this to happen. She spoke to the established
rental rates, different for each building, as noted. She
added that these rates are based on such things as
maintenance costs and appreciation rates. She continued
that in order to change this rent figure, the value of the
property would have to change.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to personal services on the
fiscal note and asked if it was the intent of this
legislation to hire two individuals to carry out the
designated duties.
Representative James responded that she understood that two
new individuals would not be hired, since presently this
work is being conducted by established employees.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to a new Committee Substitute
(CS), Version "1-LS0522\D before the members. He
encouraged the adoption of this CS since it inserts the
language "covered buildings," and then identifies these as
only the eight buildings referred to in the Office of
Management and Budget spreadsheet. He stated his concern
with legislation that would apply to any other building in
the future not anticipated by this transition.
Senator Green asked if this legislation would anticipate
the acquisition of any other real estate and, if not, would
the legislature need to consider such a transaction in
light of budget concerns.
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that it was not a question of
acquisitions. He added that, in the future, anytime a
piece of property was added to the list, through a purchase
or by lease agreement, this transaction would come before
the legislature. He noted that he had a problem with
charging agencies for depreciation and wondered where
subsequent monies would come from.
JACK KRIENHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of
Management & Budget, Office of the Governor referred to the
related fiscal note for HB 112. He stated that the
Department had built a facilities rent proposal into the
Governor's FY01 budget request. He added that the
department set out to extract the related rent figures from
the Governor's budget and incorporate them into a fiscal
note. He continued that the 35 pages of backup were budget
transactions to implement the rental program. He noted
that the numbers included on the front page of the fiscal
note, the total operating budget of $1.25 million, were in
increments of non-general fund monies. He explained that
this instigates the authority that the affected departments
would need to expend for rental costs, which is non-general
fund money collected from federal funds and other non-
general fund sources. Mr. Krienheder added that the
transfer of money from the Department of Administration and
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities to the
affected agencies to pay rent, are not reflected on the
cover page, since this is essentially "a wash." He
reiterated that this was an effort of moving money from one
department to another, as reflected in the attached
documentation.
KEITH GERKEN, Architect, Division of General Services,
Department of Administration clarified comments made by
Representative James. He stated it was true that the rates
were all by specific building. He added that each building
has their own rate calculation, based on actual expenses.
He pointed out these rate calculations were based on
Federal Office of Management and Budget guidelines in order
that recipients are fairly charged and audited.
Senator Green asked if there was a fair method for
estimating what would be needed in the future, based on a
percentage rate calculated on the value of a building. She
noted that this was the arbitrary figure she worried about.
Mr. Gerken responded that the formula for payment from the
federal government is based on actual costs. He continued
that if any given yearly rate is more or less, the next
year's rent must be adjusted to equalize this. He summed
up that a projection, as Senator Green characterized, is
not allowed.
Senator Green asked for further clarification. She thought
this proposal was based on planning for the future and
allowed for the creation of a formula to pay for
maintenance costs and an improvement fund for the buildings
specified
Mr. Gerken responded that the one increment, which affects
this assumption, is depreciation. He noted that
depreciation is part of what can legitimately be charged
for rent, which is a theoretical calculation. He added
that it must be demonstrated how depreciation is conducted,
and the department has to do so based upon the replacement
costs of the buildings. He pointed out that the federal
government will pay for rent that includes a calculation
for depreciation. He summed up that depreciation is the
"new money" injected into these facilities that allow the
department to keep up with preventative maintenance, along
with renewal and replacement costs. He added that the
related fiscal note reflects these figures.
Senator Green asked if these figures could be manipulated.
Mr. Gerken responded that these figures cannot be
calculated arbitrarily. He added that the methodology for
determining a depreciable basis for a building has to meet
normal government accounting standards. He continued that
the department has used a regressed, replacement value for
the buildings. He noted that once this figure is set, it
is the annual amount that can be charged for a particular
building's depreciation, until this depreciation is gone.
He then used an example of a 30-year life of depreciation
and how this affects the overall calculation. He added
that this calculation can change only if investments are
made to a building affecting depreciation, but these
figures cannot be manipulated. Mr. Gerken summed up that
these upgrades would be part of the yearly budgeting
process.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, Director, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor stated that if the
legislature conducts an unallocated budget reduction and
the Office of Management and Budget has told the agencies
that they are under this rent plan, there will be future
choices to consider. She noted that rent must be paid.
She added that the department will be faced with these
choices in the face of budget cuts, but this will not be
because of the rent plan. She continued that rough choices
would be present regardless of a rent plan in place.
Senator Wilken stated that as he understood this rent plan,
it has to be established by generally accepted accounting
principles. He added that this would include depreciation.
Secondly, he added, in order to capture the $750,000 in
federal money, the state has to follow a certain "Circular
A87," which defines what the state is allowed to consider
as a cost, including depreciation. Thirdly, he concluded,
that if an agency feels they are being treated unfairly,
there is a state system in place to aggrieve these
assessments. He asked if these three assessments were
correct.
Mr. Gerken responded that the first two points were
correct, but he was not sure that there was a process in
place to hear related grievances as noted in the third
assessment made by Senator Wilken. He noted that there was
a process for questioning whether the calculations for rent
payments are correct. He added that this was part of the
reason the department has requested an accounting position,
in order to demonstrate to the federal government that the
calculations as they are figured are correct.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that the rent rate established was
upon general accounting principals. He understood that
appreciation would be included in this, but he asked if the
rental rate was on a cost basis. He added that if this was
the case, a top end could not be definitively established.
He noted that a budget problem could result if more rent
than the general public would charge is assessed, and then
a competitive situation is created between the Department
of Administration's rental rate and private enterprise
rental rates. He added that it was not the department's
intent to do so, but that there was nothing in the present
legislation to prevent this from happening. He noted that
this was not general accounting practice unless rent is
figured on cost, plus depreciation. He offered that profit
and other characteristics would be involved otherwise.
Ms. McConnell referenced a chart created by the department,
entitled "FY01 Facilities BRU Summary by Building." She
noted that these charts reflect an $.88 per square foot
figure that Office of Management and Budget would charge
agencies in the State Office Building. She added that this
chart makes comparisons with other facilities in Juneau
where the state has rental space. She pointed out that
because of profit margins and so forth, the market rate of
the State Office Building would be considerably lower than
what the agencies could hope to get out on the street. She
added, that if utility rates go up next year, there would
be an increase in the cost of maintenance. She continued
that this would be true in the private sector and noted
that this would not be a static change, but certainly
budget pressures will force the Office of Management and
Budget to conduct the building maintenance in a cost-
effective manner.
Mr. Gerken added that the existence of the market rate and
the pressure this puts on the state to keep their rates
down is healthy. He noted that if the state can not
deliver a building rate under market, this should be an
indicator and something that should be questioned.
Co-Chair Torgerson responded that he appreciated this
explanation but still felt as though these costs could
ultimately be manipulated. He added that the depreciation
might be impossible to manipulate if general accounting
practices are followed, but any rate that gets by this bill
could be manipulated. He continued that this potential was
not limited to a rental rate based upon cost, plus
appreciation, but rather on management fees. Co-Chair
Torgerson also took offense with the potential hire of two
employees to carry out this bill's mandates and noted that
next year this employee amount could be increased to four.
He illustrated by this example that other costs could be
added into this base amount, negating its set rate
characteristics. Co-Chair Torgerson explained that he also
had questions regarding the generation of funds from the
depreciation of the Atwood Building and the relocation from
the Frontier Building. He wondered about these
characteristics as being built into the base funds for this
legislation. He noted that he would examine the Office of
Management and Budget's related fiscal note.
Mr. Krienheder emphasized the two new positions created by
this legislation were funded by non-general funds and allow
the state to bring in roughly an additional $1.5 million in
non-general fund money, including federal funds. He
explained that the existing Department of Administration
staff does not have the spare time to take on this project,
which encompasses a significant workload.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked the witnesses to explain the
relationship between the Office of Management and Budget,
the Department of Administration, and the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities. He asked about the
facility manager position allowed by this present bill. He
understood that the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities did not have such a position and if that was the
case, he suggested that the legislature could take two or
three of these positions out of the present budget, since
the state presently funds these salaries. He asked how the
witnesses envisioned the new position interacting with the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.
Mr. Gerken responded that there was presently no fund or
rental program. He stated that there was a new level of
work that must be considered in both the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities and the Department of
Administration related to this new legislation. He noted
that the Department of Administration is the fund manager,
acting as a building owner would for rental pools. He
added that the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities as the property manager for seven of the eight
affected buildings, excluding the Atwood building, is
already accounted for by the Department of Administration.
He continued that the Department of Administration would
essentially enter a contract with the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities to deliver the
maintenance services, which they now deliver to these seven
buildings. He reiterated that there does not presently
exist a management type position that would establish cost
centers, tracking costs, establishing rates and conducting
audits.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if the department was currently
billing the federal government for agency costs, such as
janitorial services and other things.
Ms. McConnell responded that this really depends on the
program since for some, a certain amount of facility costs
have been built into what is recovered from the federal
government. She noted though that this was much more
limited than it could be and the roughly $4.5 million that
is referred to in additional funds is on top of what is
currently being collected. She added that there are many
programs where the state currently does not receive federal
dollars, of which they would be entitled even on a program
that is strictly based on cost reimbursement, such as one
that might be capped at the federal level. She summed up
that what the state receives now is relatively incidental.
Co-Chair Torgerson countered that he did not understand the
fiscal note in light of this assessment. He understood
that the department would be collecting for monies other
than depreciation, namely pure costs.
Ms. McConnell answered that the pure cost was budgeted for
facility maintenance, for example, in the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities. She added that these
costs are presently general funded costs for the agencies.
She added that some of the agencies occupy leased space,
which is partly funded by federal programs. She pointed
out for these specific buildings outlined, that the direct
operating costs are budgeted fund items in the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities or in the case of the
Atwood Building, through the Department of Administration
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if the State was billing the cost
related to Department of Labor and Workforce Development or
whomever else and commented, "we're going after CSED or
their share of the cost of the space that they occupy now."
He asked if the state was recovering actual out-of-pocket
costs for this.
Ms. McConnell responded that in regards to the affected
buildings here, the department does not bill the federal
government, rather, general fund monies are used.
Tape: SFC - 00 #27, Side B, 10:22 am.
Senator Wilken referred to the related fiscal note and more
specifically to the fund source of $713,000. He noted that
this figure was potential federal funds. He continued that
the $66.4 million was the Department of Revenue program
receipts from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the
Tax Division. He asked about the $468.3 figure. [It was
unclear which fiscal note Senator Wilken referred to.]
Ms. McConnell acknowledged that there was other fund
sources such as Retirement and Benefit to consider. She
noted that this agency occupies space in the State Office
Building. She added that this creates an accumulation of
other fund sources which are neither federal, nor general
fund program receipts. She outlined that since the fiscal
note represents costs that are different than today, and
because the Department of Administration and Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities already have general
funds in their budget, what is before the Committee is how
this budgeting will look as a result of this legislation.
She added that the Department of Administration will move
money in order to accommodate the rent plan, for example,
transfer general funds out of the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, but these are not new
dollars to the entire system. She stated this is why the
Committee does not see these funds on the fiscal note. She
confirmed that this fiscal note indicates all of the non-
general fund sources, including the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, the Mental Health Trust Authority, etceteras.
Senator Wilken asked how the $468 thousand figure on the
fiscal note was reached.
Mr. Krienheder noted the budgeting is not shown in this
form within the packet. He noted that the full list would
be Division of Retirement and Benefits; Central Mail Room;
Department of Administration, Risk Management Office;
Permanent Fund Dividend Division; Alaska State Pension
Investment Board; Mental Health Authority; Department of
Revenue; Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Human Resources Investment Council and the Alaska Police
Standards Council. He outlined these agencies along with
the corresponding figures.
Senator Wilken stated that this budget included everything
except Information Technology and the federal funds. He
asked about the $468 thousand figure as new depreciation
dollars and wondered what constituted the cost component
here.
Ms. McConnell stated that these were two different slices,
in other words, the Department of Administration does not
say that the exact dollars from Retirement and Benefits
will go towards depreciation. She noted that in a sense,
everyone's rent is composed of cost expenditures such as
janitorial service and some elements of depreciation. She
added that by looking at the overall revenue sources and
the overall expenditures, it turns out that the department
is able to cover the depreciation essentially with this new
money, even though it is not carved out specifically. She
offered that when the department looks at all the revenues
brought in under this formula, the department can cover the
depreciation expenditure, something which they have never
been able to do before.
Senator Wilken pointed out though that this $468 thousand
figure was supposedly new revenue from a table entitled,
"Depreciation." He confirmed that these were new
depreciation dollars, but the department does not presently
charge the agencies rent. He asked if the department
begins charging depreciation from this day forward, along
with costs such as janitorial services, would this be
considered a new dollar coming into the formula. He
wondered if the department would then use this new money to
help pay for this program and meet the cost of the sinking
maintenance fund.
Mr. Krienheder noted that the table, which Senator Wilken
referred to with the column labeled "depreciation," should
read "new rental funds." He noted that the reason this
page focused on depreciation was to address Co-Chair
Parnell's question about how the department pays for
depreciation without tapping new general fund monies. The
department was attempting to show that this total of new
money available is more than enough to cover their
depreciation cost. He then referred to janitorial, fuel
oil, electrical, maintenance worker figures and noted that
these costs were already included in the Department of
Administration's budget. He continued that this money is
already available.
Senator Wilken asked that if the Committee looked at the
Division of Retirement and Benefit funds, the figure
$178,900 and wondered if this was not the depreciable
amount for this agency but rather the rent that will be
charged them.
Ms. McConnell responded affirmatively and added that the
words "fund available" was intended to show how the
department is able to cover depreciation without relying on
general funds.
Senator Wilken asked why the "Information and Technology"
expenses would not be included in this budget as new money.
Ms. McConnell responded that this amount was already
incorporated in the rate structure for the Division's
entire program as a component of rent. She noted that if
this figure was not built in up front, the department would
have to adjust it at a later date. She added that these
rates have already been calculated as a charge to their
rental space.
Senator Wilken confirmed that the collected $2.4 million
would be applied to operating expenditures and noted a
change of revenue of $783,000. He asked where this figure
was derived.
Mr. Krienheder responded that the change in revenue
reflects new money from non-state sources. In other words,
although the department brings in a total $1.5 million, to
bear on this budget, when the department looked at a change
of revenue line, they decided to count new money into the
state, not counting retirement and benefits. He noted that
this cost would come from that fund even though it is
comprised of non-general funds. He noted that this figure
was comprised of $713,000 in federal receipts, accounting
also for general fund receipts and miscellaneous totals.
He added that he would get back to Senator Wilken on this
breakdown.
Ms. McConnell added that the department discovered during
this process that the typical fiscal note structure does
not adapt very well to what the department is attempting to
illustrate here.
Mr. Krienheder referred to a handout entitled, "FY01
Facilities BRU Summary by Building." He noted that the
first pages gave a good summary by building, (eight in all)
along with the different cost components of rent. He noted
that these categories made up each buildings "total annual
cost," divided by "usable square feet," which results in a
corresponding rental rate. He added that it was a federal
requirement to highlight these costs per building. He
noted that maintenance and operation costs, as actual
expenditures are currently budgeted. He continued that
administration costs are reflected in the fiscal note, as
well as risk management costs.
Mr. Krienheder clarified the total depreciation on the
first page of this handout, and noted that the discrepancy
of the figure, was due to private tenants with leases that
have yet to expire. He continued to the second page, which
was a break out of the same numbers by agencies within each
building. He noted that page three, highlights very
specific totals of rental rates and what non-general fund
sources are available to cover these costs. He then made
reference to this specific information according to agency.
Mr. Krienheder moved to page four, which separates the
Atwood Building from the others since, it is administered
by the Department of Administration, rather than Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if a manager currently existed for
the Atwood building.
Mr. Gerken responded that a contractual property manager,
Pacific Tower Properties, was in place.
Mr. Krienheder noted that the next page was a continuation
of the previous. He then referred to the page entitled,
"Budget>Summary Rev. Allocations," which is the detail that
goes into calculating the rental rates, including total
maintenance and operations, depreciation and again,
separating Atwood out from the other buildings. He
continued that the following page gave a specific breakdown
of the Atwood Building for the benefit of the departments
that moved from the Frontier Building. Mr. Krienheder
noted that the next page gave a department breakdown within
their respective buildings in regards to depreciation,
maintenance, and etceteras. He added that the next page
was a continuation of the same. He noted other
miscellaneous agencies, which were also included in these
figures. He summed up that the last two pages of the
handout was essentially the same information as previous,
but was collated by building rather than department.
Senator Wilken referred to the fiscal note and the figure
of $468,000 outlined in the summary on page one under the
heading "Other," he referenced language that stated, "with
the exception of funds, Information Service Fund (ISF),
Alcohol and Beverage Control Board (ABC) and the Tax
Division." He asked that when this goes into effect, if
the state will hand the other nine or so agencies a bill
for $468,000 in rent and if so, will they be required to
pay this amount. He asked where this money would come
from.
Ms. McConnell stated that one of the reasons the department
has incorporated this rate schedule into the Governor's
budget was because of the complexity of the necessary
transactions. She used the Division of Retirement and
Benefits, as an example of what this agency would owe, for
designated rent amounts in the State Office Building. She
added that each agency had a budget increment for
retirement and benefit funds to cover this rent.
Senator Wilken clarified that the $468,000 amount would be
like match money for the state to claim $713,000 and asked
if the state could not receive this latter amount without
charging departments for the first figure.
Ms. McConnell responded affirmatively. The state must
treat the entities in each building the same way in order
to receive federal money.
Senator Wilken asked what constituted the contractual
amount noted as $1.104 million on the fiscal note.
Mr. Gerken responded that all costs except administrative
costs are reflected in the contractual line item and he
explained why this was so.
Senator Wilken asked if it is true that the agency pays the
"sinking fund," the legislature takes the money out and
appropriates it each year towards janitorial services,
etceteras, according to the contractual language.
Ms. McConnell responded that the appropriations out of the
building fund will cover both annual operating expenses
such as maintenance and capital expenditures such as roof
repairs. She continued that in either event, these budgets
will come to the legislature for appropriation.
Representative James stated that it was her understanding,
that according to the fiscal note, this program allows for
accumulating funds. She continued that when the
legislature was required to make major decisions about
depreciable items, this would come before the legislature
for budgeting and appropriating. She noted that the way
this legislation was drafted, the legislature is required
to appropriate every year and there will be no money left
over. She suggested that the fiscal note should break out
those yearly expenses illustrating a pool of accumulated
money, whereby when needed, money would be appropriated.
Ms. McConnell noted that there would not be any accumulated
money ready for use. She continued that each year, money
will go into a building fund, but Representative James is
correct, the legislature does not necessarily appropriate
every dollar out of this fund within each fiscal year. Ms.
McConnell reiterated that the fiscal note format does not
accommodate this concept very well.
Mr. Krienheder clarified that the intent on the contractual
line shows agency rent payments into the public building
fund, not expenditures out of the public building fund.
Ms. McConnell stated that the fiscal note could be adjusted
to clarify that none of the money will be deposited into
the General Fund, Permanent Fund or any other location, but
will remain in the building fund. She noted that the
department will clarify that not all of the money will be
appropriated out on a yearly basis. She stated that it was
the department's intention that all of the payments would
be deposited into the funds established by this bill.
Senator Wilken asked if language could be inserted to allow
for a "set-aside."
Ms. McConnell responded that the department would come
before the legislature every year with their
recommendations of what kinds of building elements need
replacing. She added that a set-aside situation as
suggested by Senator Wilken could be accomplished, but
continued that a better approach might be established by
making schedule suggestions for necessary repairs.
Mr. Gerken responded to a question by Senator Wilken saying
that this money would go to a pool for all eight buildings.
He added that the Department was in the process of
identifying necessary upgrades for each property.
Representative James stated that she did not like the
present fiscal note as outlined and asked that it be
amended. "If they need to have an appropriation into the
fund, which I don't think they do, it either should be
different than income at the top, or if they do need an
appropriation into the fund, it should be under
miscellaneous, not under contractual." She felt as though
this was misleading and wanted to make sure that money was
appropriated yearly.
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that HB 112 would be HELD and
considered at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 11:02 AM.
SFC-00 SS1 (1) 02/15/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|