Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/15/2016 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB167 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 15, 2016
9:05 a.m.
9:05:55 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Pat Pitney, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
SB 167 APPROP: SUPP/CAP/OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
SB 167 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked the committee to observe a moment
of silence to remember Representative Max Gruenberg, who
passed away unexpectedly the previous day.
SENATE BILL NO. 167
"An Act making supplemental appropriations, capital
appropriations, and other appropriations; making
reappropriations; amending appropriations; repealing
appropriations; and providing for an effective date."
9:07:40 AM
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, discussed the PowerPoint, "FY2017
Budget Overview Senate Finance Committee FY17 Capital and
FY16 Supplemental" (copy on file).
Ms. Pitney turned to slide 28, "FY 2016 Supplemental
Summary" stating that it provided a summary of the
supplemental requests for the current fiscal year. The
slide displayed three tables: current supplemental
requests, prior appropriations for FY 16 from the LNG
special session and from the governor's budget, and a box
enumerating the total of $251 million. She drew attention
to the line for fire suppression, which listed $47.5
million in costs incurred during the fire season the
previous summer and fall. She pointed out small amounts in
formula items, judgements and claims, and non-formula.
Ms. Pitney discussed slide 29, "FY 16 Supplemental:
Administration," which enumerated supplemental items line
by line for each agency. She highlighted line 2, a
Statewide Single Audit Increase for $450 million in
unrestricted general fund (UGF). She explained that "single
audit" was an audit that the Division of Legislative Audit
performed for the state on an annual basis, typically
costing the administration $300,000. She detailed that the
administration had received a bill for $750,000 for the
audit in the current year, and the request was for funds to
cover the remainder of the cost.
9:11:19 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if the state had changed firms or
instituted another change to result in a 150 percent
increase in the cost of the audit. Ms. Pitney stated that
the audit was a traditional financial audit, performed in-
house; and the charge was based on past practice. She
furthered that as budgets became tighter, Legislative Audit
was billing based on a time basis. She thought the cost was
not egregious or inappropriate and accounted for the hours
that Legislative Audit was spending on the task.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would follow
up with Legislative Audit to ascertain if the charge was as
described with regard to billing for hours spent rather
than a traditional flat charge.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the state should consider a
request for proposals for a private external option.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that the Legislative Finance
Division (LFD), and Legislative Audit specifically, were
going to utilize contractors more.
Ms. Pitney continued discussing slide 29, pointing out a
small increase for the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA). She
detailed that OPA's caseload was extraordinarily high in
the fall, partially due to the "Fairbanks Four" case [in
which convictions of four men in the 1997 death of a
teenager in Fairbanks were overturned]. She drew attention
to an additional two items for OPA and for the Public
Defender Agency. She explained that there was a mechanism
for OPA and public defenders to collect funding for
services. The agencies were being more aggressive in the
collection of such funding, and the items represented the
receipt authority necessary for the collection.
Ms. Pitney showed slide 30, "FY 16 Supplemental:
Corrections," and discussed a fund source swap (from UGF to
federal funds) for the amount that was estimated to cover
the number of federal man-days in Alaska state prisons.
There was a provision that the federal government would pay
for federal prisoners in Alaska prisons. She noted that the
administration was trying to follow the principal of
putting in only the minimum amount of items necessary to
manage through the year. She hoped the committee would
recognize that it was a small supplemental package overall.
9:15:31 AM
Ms. Pitney moved to slide 31, "FY 16 Supplemental:
Education," noting that the item request was a technical
correction after LFD had noted a fiscal note from the
second special session the previous year had not made it
into the budget process.
Ms. Pitney showed slide 32, "FY 16 Supplemental:
Environmental Conservation" and discussed a one-time
funding request for a federal grant for the Department of
Environmental Conservation. The funding would provide
cleaner diesel equipment. There were no ongoing commitments
to the grant, which was for $250,000 in federal funds.
Ms. Pitney moved to slide 33, "FY 16 Supplemental: Health &
Social Services," noting that the top two items were
formula programs; one in foster care and one in subsidized
adoption. The two supplemental requests covered the formula
amount for the number of children in the programs for FY
16. She discussed the increased number of children in the
foster care and subsidized adoption programs.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the increase was indicative of a
philosophical shift of the administration.
Ms. Pitney did not believe the increase was based on a
philosophical change, and relayed that there was a strict
checklist of items including more reports of child abuse or
unsafe situations. The criteria for children entering
foster care was already established. She suggested that
staff from the two programs could meet with the committee
to discuss the criteria further if needed.
Senator Dunleavy repeated his question. Ms. Pitney answered
in the negative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was any legislation that
contributed to an increase of almost $6 million between the
two requests. Ms. Pitney answered in the negative.
9:19:18 AM
AT EASE
9:20:42 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) budget subcommittee would be
examining the requests at a more detailed level. He thought
there may have been a change in interpretation of the child
welfare issues, and that presently it was not the time in
which the state could dramatically increase the cost of
operating its departments.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Ms. Pitney if much of the increase in
child abuse reports was due to circumstances in a certain
geographic region of the state. Ms. Pitney thought there
had been a state-wide increase, but did not know of the
specifics.
Co-Chair Kelly related that a few years previously, the
legislature had put increased resources into a specific
part of the state to deal with the issue of lack of funding
for foster care. More social workers were assigned, as well
as court employees. He wondered if the action was related
to the current increase.
Ms. Pitney noted that the situation had been increasing for
the past several years, and was one of the formula programs
that was increasing at a pace that outstripped the funding.
She asserted that there had been a significant increase.
Ms. Pitney went back to slide 33, addressing lines 11
through 13, which pertained to juvenile justice facilities
staffing and health care and totaled $1 million. She
explained that the juvenile justice budget had been
traditionally supplemented by $1 million each year. The
last several years DHSS had authority to move funding
across appropriations, and money had been moved into
juvenile justice. Prior to the authority, there was
traditionally an amount put in the supplemental budget. She
hoped this was the last supplemental request, and relayed
that the administration had requested an increase in the FY
17 budget.
9:24:29 AM
Senator Dunleavy referred to line 14, and asked how
Medicaid expansion had impacted the issue of increased
medical costs for juvenile justice health care.
Ms. Pitney stated that there was a neutral effect since the
individuals were minors and had been covered on the pre-
existing Medicaid. She elaborated that the medical
coverage, for prisoners in the Department of Corrections,
was only in place when outside of the facility in another
medical facility for a 24 hour period of time.
Senator Dunleavy asked Ms. Pitney to provide more detail
about the increase.
Ms. Pitney stated that the medical costs associated with
minors in the juvenile justice system was higher than
anticipated, and had been traditionally under-budgeted.
There had been supplemental requests and/or transfers every
year previously in the areas being discussed.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the amount rose and fell according
to specific medical events.
Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative, and stated that the
cost depended upon the experiences of the individuals that
were in custody.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that lines 11 through 13 were
for staff. She asked Vice-Chair Micciche to provide the
committee with an analysis of why the budget from the
previous year did not contain enough staffing. She wondered
if the Senate or combined legislature had cut staffing, or
if the administration had not requested enough.
Vice-Chair Micciche agreed to provide the requested
information, and furthered that the Office of Children's
Services (OCS) would be before the committee when it
considered SB 226.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Ms. Pitney if the ability to cross-
appropriate was enacted in the FY 16 budget.
Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative, and indicated that
in FY 16, FY 15, and FY 14 there were transfers. Prior to
that time, there was record of supplemental requests.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if some of the costs were being
covered by the ability to cross-appropriate.
Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative.
9:28:46 AM
AT EASE
9:30:07 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to lines 11 and 12, and asked
for the specifics of the requests.
Ms. Pitney clarified that lines 11 through 13 were
associated with staffing at particular facilities
(McLaughlin, Kenai Peninsula, and Nome); and line 14 was
associated to health care in the juvenile justice system.
Co-Chair MacKinnon highlighted line 11, which noted that a
$470,000 increment was included in the FY 17 budget, and
the supplemental request was for $520,000; with a
difference of $50,000. She asked for explanation of the
$50,000, and wondered if it was due to the unallocated cut.
Ms. Pitney explained that the $50,000 was not due to the
unallocated cut; rather, the line was an analysis of the
staffing cost for the facility to get through FY 16. She
was not anticipating juvenile justice to absorb the DHSS
portion of the salary increase. She reiterated that the
requests were actual staffing costs for the facility, and
juvenile justice could not staff their facilities at a
lower cost.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for clarification on the increase
in staffing authority. She thought Ms. Pitney had indicated
earlier that the increase had to do with increased medical
costs. She thought it seemed as though the items were for
increased staff costs in addition to increased wage cost,
because the $50,000 was not for new staff, and appeared to
be the difference in cost between two items.
Ms. Pitney restated that lines 11, 12 and 13 were
associated with the cost of staffing in place necessary to
cover the facilities; and line 14 had to do with health
care costs. Lines 11, 12, and 13 totaled $700,000 in UGF
and was the cost that the juvenile justice system would
incur based on the staffing in place in FY 16. The $470,000
was anticipated as necessary in addition to what the
administration had requested in FY 17.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was any new staff.
Ms. Pitney stated that the requested funding was for
existing necessary facility staff that traditionally had
not been covered by the budget.
Co-Chair MacKinnon mused that if the supplemental was
examined, it would not have to do with medical expenses; it
would reflect that the administration either didn't ask for
enough staff funding, didn't respond to cuts that it was
given, or needed money for wage increases.
Ms. Pitney stated that the administration did not ask for
enough funding in FY 16, because in FY 15, FY 14, and FY 13
a provision had been in place to move money. The DHSS
commissioner could exercise the provision to move money
across appropriations. In FY 16, the commissioner no longer
had the authority.
9:35:05 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that lines 11, 12, and 13 were
misleading. She wondered if there had been a work rule
change negotiated inside of a contract that necessitated
the additional staff expenditures for secure minimum
staffing.
Ms. Pitney responded in the affirmative, and stated that
the facilities were currently staffed to meet the need. The
cost associated with the request was the cost that the
facilities would incur in the current fiscal year to
achieve the required minimum staffing level.
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to Co-Chair MacKinnon's
inquiry about increased staffing authority, and stated that
he would address the question in subcommittee. He did not
expect Ms. Pitney to have expertise pertaining to every
position in the administration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that she wondered if the
positions were contract increases that should have been
responded to inside of the existing budget. She asked LFD
to review the supplemental request to clarify if the
increase was for staffing or increases in unexpected
medical costs.
Ms. Pitney addressed line 15 on slide 33, which was receipt
authority for funds from care providers. She furthered that
the funds were additional to what was required for claims,
and that the state would be collecting reimbursements from
various programs within DHSS.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the authority to collect the
receipts was needed because of Medicaid expansion. Ms.
Pitney stated that the receipt authority necessary was
irrespective of Medicaid expansion, and clarified that she
was referring to past claims prior to the expansion.
9:38:11 AM
Ms. Pitney showed slide 34, "FY16 Supplemental: Law." She
explained that there had been a multistate arbitration with
the tobacco industry, and the state was requesting $50,000
in tobacco receipts to offset costs for participating in
the arbitration. She addressed lines 17 and 18, a request
to replace previously collected fees-for-service between
agencies with a direct appropriation with the two agencies
specified. The Department of Law (DOL) provided legal
services to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(AOGCC), which was a non-GF fee supported service; as well
as for the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), also a
fee supported service. She furthered that Department of Law
did work on behalf of both agencies, which were 100 percent
self-supporting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if AOGCC had communicated that
it did not want the services from DOL. Ms. Pitney had not
heard, and believed that there was a statute that
stipulated the commission received legal services from DOL.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that she would address the issue
in the DOL budget subcommittee. She understood that there
had been a question pertaining to billable hours, and using
commission receipts for billable hours.
Ms. Pitney moved to slide 35, "FY16 Supplemental: Natural
Resources," and addressed line 19, relating to wildland
fire protection. She clarified that the amount listed
represented the cost incurred through FY 16 to date on
wildfires, and the state had a particularly large fire
season the previous fall. She mentioned a fire that had
been in the Wasilla and Houston area, and she confirmed
that the cities had a sales tax.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the state could anticipate any
reimbursement from the federal government for any aspect of
the fires included in the supplemental request. Ms. Pitney
indicated that the state was expecting some reimbursement,
and the amount request was above and beyond the
reimbursement. She pointed out that she could obtain more
detailed expense information per fire incident if
necessary.
Co-Chair MacKinnon inquired as to the amount that had
originally been budgeted for fire suppression activity. Ms.
Pitney was not aware of the amount budgeted, but thought
that there was a ratification for FY 15 as part of the
language section in the supplemental.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that LFD had suggested that the
amount originally budgeted was $6.6 million.
9:42:38 AM
AT EASE
9:42:48 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon communicated that she had received
confirmation from LFD that a supplemental request of the
size indicated in the presentation was typical.
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to cuts that had been made to
the area of wildland fire protection and thought that
consequently there would be a greater differential in
funding needs after a big fire season if the funding
remained at the same level.
Senator Bishop mentioned that he chaired the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) budget subcommittee and stated that
the committee had added back funding for a position that
would apply for federal funding offsets.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the amount requested would
reimburse for actual expenses, or if there were any new
expenses included. Ms. Pitney detailed that the
supplemental request was only for reimbursement of actual
expenses.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Ms. Pitney to address line 18 on
slide 34. Ms. Pitney expanded that the civil division of
DOL did work on behalf of RCA, and the request of direct
funding from the RCA was for the amount of work done.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if line 18 pertained to RCA
receipts and if line 17 had been for AOGCC receipts. Ms.
Pitney answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if there had been a decrement in
the AOGCC section, or if the workload had been shifted. Ms.
Pitney stated that DOL had traditionally billed the AOGCC,
and the direct appropriation would provide direct funding
that would come in immediately rather than billing after
the work was completed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon mentioned that she was the chair of the
DOL budget subcommittee, and thought that DOL wanted a
direct appropriation so that it would have to do the
billing. She wondered if individual agencies might be
challenging what DOL stated it was doing on the agencies
behalf. She considered that the subcommittee would examine
it further.
Vice-Chair Micciche thought there had been a work shift,
and wanted to ensure that the funding was adjusted
accordingly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the previous year AOGCC had
requested the administration approve spending of its own
designated receipts. The administration had not advanced
the request, and she restated that the subcommittee would
reexamine the issue.
9:47:52 AM
Ms. Pitney moved to slide 36, "FY16 Supplemental: Revenue,"
which addressed costs incurred for external investment
counsel on three different funds: the Retiree Health
Insurance Fund, the Public School Trust Fund, and the Power
Cost Equalization Endowment Fund. She explained that there
were external management fees associated with the funds.
Co-Chair MacKinnon related that she also chaired the
Department of Revenue (DOR) budget subcommittee, and
pointed out that two or three fund managers had recently
been hired. She thought that the management fees would have
been reduced, and advised that the subcommittee would be
examining the topic further.
Ms. Pitney stated that the management fees had been
incurred; however, the new investment officers would be
coming on board and the administration hoped that external
investment fees would be reduced in the future.
Ms. Pitney reviewed slide 37, "FY16 Supplemental:
Transportation & Public Facilities," and explained that
items 23 through 26 pertained to components within the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
that had (other than GF) receipt authority to utilize the
amount of revenues available. She detailed that the items
would match the authority with the revenue capacity in the
regions listed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon advised whichever member that chaired
the DOT budget subcommittee to examine the items. She
confirmed that Vice-Chair Micciche chaired the
subcommittee.
Ms. Pitney showed slide 38, "FY16 Supplemental: Capital".
She discussed a capital request for the Alaska Land Mobile
Radio System (ALMR), which was the emergency communication
system across the state. She furthered that the system was
used by DNR, the Alaska State Troopers, and others. She
detailed a supplemental request for $1 million, plus a
reappropriation of approximately $1.2 million to make
necessary upgrades to the system. She noted that the system
was costly, and that the state depended upon the system.
She projected that in FY 18 through FY 19, the request
would be in the $5 million to $6 million range. She
continued that the administration was looking for ways to
mitigate the costs associated with the system, but
characterized it as the "emergency communication backbone"
for the state.
9:51:55 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that he had previously been on a
committee that had reviewed the funding for ALMR, and he
recalled that there had been more federal matching dollars
at the time. He wondered if the federal government had not
lived up to the original agreement, and wanted to look into
the matter further.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had sat on a
subcommittee that included the system for the past several
years. She wanted to see a plan from the administration,
because the federal government had been withdrawing
funding. She discussed costs that had been shifted to the
state, and thought that the federal government was only
participating in funding unlimited transponders that were
perceived as having national security value. She used the
example of a volunteer fire station in Chugiak that used
ALMR to illustrate an example of the state passing costs
down to the cities. She wondered if the state should
consider partnering with land-mobile operators such as AT &
T, Sprint, or GCI. She wondered how ALMR was different than
other networks used by private companies. She emphasized
that the information she had was dated.
Ms. Pitney relayed that administration had looked at
alternatives; the administration recognized that the system
was expansive and was an ever-growing cost to maintain. She
emphasized the need for a state-wide emergency
communication system.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that local communities were
finding it burdensome to access certain systems, and used
an example of diminished cell phone coverage in an area of
her community where it was possible for ALMR to function.
She discussed standardization of communication systems as
additional carriers came into the state, and pondered
alternative emergency systems possible in the future.
9:55:51 AM
Ms. Pitney continued to discuss slide 38. She addressed
line 30, water line repairs for the Anvil Mountain
Correctional Center. She discussed an emergency repair to
the water line the previous spring, and specified that the
$1.84 million request was required to provide a long-term
fix for failing water lines at the correctional center. She
discussed line 31, explaining the request for emergency
repair of the Eklutna Overpass. The request represented the
amount necessary to repair the damages over and above the
insurance settlement. Ms. Pitney clarified that there had
been a settlement reached after the insurance company had
paid, and there was further settlement information
available to members if there was interest.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the frequency at which the
bridge had been damaged, and wondered if the state should
pay to raise the bridge. Ms. Pitney thought the idea was
possibly a good long-term solution.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought there may be a significant
cultural site that was causing delay in fixing the
overpass, and thought that continued need for repairs was
difficult for the community and highway users.
Ms. Pitney discussed slide 39, "FY 16 Supplemental:
Language," which covered the language sections of the
supplemental budget request. She directed attention to line
35, which detailed the re-appropriation for ALMR. She
explained that line 36 was a reappropriation that allowed
the state to match federal transportation funding at a
90/10 match for the Alaska Railroad, which would complete
the Positive Train Control (PTC) upgrade. She specified
that the reappropriation was for the Tanana Bridge, which
equaled just over $1.6 million, and matched with federal
transportation funds that went directly to the railroad
company. She reminded the committee that PTC had amounted
to a $55 million project the previous year, of which the
Alaska Railroad was bonding approximately $17 million.
9:59:31 AM
Senator Dunleavy understood that the railroad was going to
deal with the financing through bonding. Ms. Pitney
clarified that the railroad was able to bond just short of
$35 million, and the request was for the remaining amount
to complete the project.
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the railroad could take the
amount out of its assets. Ms. Pitney discussed the
railroad's bonding capacity, and reiterated that the
funding would be a 90/10 federal match through
reappropriation of a completed project.
Senator Dunleavy did not understand why the railroad was
unable to finance the remaining portion. Ms. Pitney
explained that the companies bonding capacity was for just
over $35 million of the $50 million cost; therefore, the
funds would meet the need of the remaining funds with the
federal matching funds.
Co-Chair Kelly rearticulated Ms. Pitney's explanation to
check for understanding of the funding composition. Ms.
Pitney confirmed that he was correct in that the
supplemental request was for the state's portion of the
funding match to complete the PTC project.
Senator Bishop thought that the railroad companies had
received an increase in PTC funds in a recent
transportation act. [The Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, signed by President Obama in
2015; authorized $305 billion over FY 16 through FY 20 for
highway, highway and motor vehicle safety, public
transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials
safety, rail, and research, technology, and statistics
programs.]
10:02:06 AM
Ms. Pitney discussed line 37, which pertained to judgements
and settlements through January 29, 2016; and equated to
$2.4 million. She noted that there was a placeholder on
line 38 in the case that additional judgements and
settlements were to resolve.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Pitney had referred to
judgements against the state. Ms. Pitney responded in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the DOL finance subcommittee
would expect a briefing on the matter to understand the
details pertaining to the judgments and settlements.
Ms. Pitney discussed line 40, which showed a repeal in the
language section of the budget for the previous year. She
explained that there had been an error in the dates within
the language provision detailing the funds for the FY 16
Permanent Fund Dividend Program PFD appropriation, which
had in fact been paid by previous years funding. She
furthered that the administration would be submitting an
amendment the following day to appropriate funding for the
following fall dividends, which would be consistent with
the governor's plan for a $1000 dividend.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for clarification that the repeal
would modify the incorrect language that was passed the
previous session. Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Pitney noted that lines 41, 42, and 43 were technical
items. She addressed line 46, which she explained was
ratification for fire activity prior to FY 16 that had not
been budgeted in FY 13, FY 14, and FY 15.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the administration was
considering outsourcing or privatizing the bill collection
for items such as overdue child support payments from court
settlements and other circumstances. Ms. Pitney explained
that the collection processes were considered on a shared
service component rather than an item for outsourcing. She
detailed that Commissioner Sheldon Fisher had hired an
individual with significant success with collection efforts
in the State of Ohio. To the degree that the state could
increase its collections, the funds could help support the
shared services division. She anticipated a significant
streamlining of some of the administrative functions of the
shared services area. She reiterated that the collection
effort was one of the funding possibilities that would
support the shared services group. She hoped that
Commissioner Fisher would have the opportunity to provide
the committee with more background on the subject.
SB 167 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:07:28 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|