Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/04/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB284 | |
| Overview: Fy 23 Governor's Supplemental Budget | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
"An Act making supplemental appropriations; amending
appropriations; capitalizing funds; and providing for
an effective date."
1:36:04 PM
^OVERVIEW: FY 23 GOVERNOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
1:36:12 PM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, addressed a single-page summary
titled "FY 2022 Supplemental Summary," dated February 1,
2022 (copy on file). The summary divided the governor's
supplemental request into three main categories including
supplementals submitted on December 15, 2021 that were
included in the regular operating or capital budgets,
supplementals submitted on December 15, 2021 as part of the
fast track supplemental bill, and supplementals submitted
on February 1, 2022 in HB 300 as part of the normal process
th
due on the 15 day of legislative session each year. The
supplemental items totaled $954.9 million in unrestricted
general funds (UGF) including $795.6 million as part of the
50/50 dividend plan splitting the earnings reserve percent
of market value (POMV) draw equally between the FY 22
operating budget expenditures and the dividend payment
proposed in the governor's fast track supplemental bill.
1:37:57 PM
Mr. Steininger moved to a [17-page] spreadsheet titled
"FY2022 Supplemental Bill Summary," dated February 1, 2022
(copy on file). He explained the items in the spreadsheet
were organized based on which bill they were included in
and where they were located within the bills. He noted the
spreadsheet also included some capital supplemental items
he had reviewed in a previous meeting. He would move
through those items quickly.
Representative Josephson looked at the one-page summary and
observed that the supplementals in the first section of the
page were attached to the regular operating budget. He
asked if the items had an effective date of May 15. He
wondered what distinguished the items from any other
operating budget item.
Mr. Steininger replied that the items included in the
regular operating or capital budgets had an effective date
prior to July 1, 2022 and were effective in FY 22. The
items had been included in the bills because as the
administration looked to finance a capital budget plan, it
chose to utilize surpluses in FY 22. He described the
method as a spending policy decision whereas traditional
supplemental items tended to be a place where a state
agency may have encountered an unforeseen event resulting
in a budget shortfall and the need for supplemental
funding. He elaborated on the difference between the two
types of supplementals. The first type was a policy
decision the administration had made where it was looking
to start a new activity or start a capital project before
July 1 to either get a "leg up" on the project or find a
financing mechanism to help cover the cost. The second type
included true shortfalls that were unanticipated and
unavoidable.
1:40:49 PM
Mr. Steininger directed attention to page 1 of the 17-page
spreadsheet. The first three items [items 2 through 4] were
part of the numbers section in the fast track supplemental
bill. He noted appropriation bills contained a number
section and language section. Item 2 was the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) Hold Harmless program, which was connected
to the 50/50 dividend proposal to pay a second dividend
payment in FY 22 and would require funding to the hold
harmless program to ensure people were not kicked off of
public assistance as a result of receiving a dividend. Item
3 would address Court System trial backlogs and would
kickstart a reopening of jury trials. He highlighted costs
associated with trying to keep jurors safely distanced
between trials in addition to security costs.
1:41:49 PM
Mr. Steininger moved to item 4 containing $2 million for
legislative per diem. He remarked that he would not review
the capital numbers section that had been reviewed at a
previous meeting. He advanced to mental health operating
items included in the regular supplemental bill (HB 300) on
page 6. The items on page 6 [items 32 through 37] pertained
to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and all showed
negative numbers. He explained that DOC was experiencing
shortfalls due to staffing needs and the need for overtime,
as well as the large number of pretrial inmates housed by
DOC. He detailed the rate of pretrial to sentenced inmates
was much higher due to the case backlog, which was creating
supplemental needs within the department. However, there
had been costs in medical care in institutions impacted by
COVID-19 in a way that had saved money. He elaborated the
department was able to transfer some money from the medical
side of the correctional institution management to the
population side. The items on page 6 reflected the negative
side of the transfer showing money moving out of the
medical side of the department's budget. The money moving
into the institution director's office would be shown later
in the spreadsheet.
Representative Wool referenced the ratio of pretrial to
posttrial inmates. He asked if the majority of inmates in
corrections were currently pretrial.
Mr. Steininger believed so. He deferred to the department.
1:44:35 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), confirmed that
the pretrial inmates currently accounted for 54 to 56
percent of the state's prison population.
Representative Wool asked if the statistic was unusual for
Alaska or other states.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that she would need to follow up.
She noted that Alaska was one of seven unified states
operating both jails and prisons. She did not know what the
current ratio was for the other six states, but she would
provide the information to the committee.
1:45:49 PM
Mr. Steininger addressed items in the operating numbers
section of the regular supplemental bill on page 7. Item 38
pertained to the Division of Personnel under the Department
of Administration (DOA). The item reflected a contract to
maintain an online training platform providing training
resources for state employees and the online evaluation
system. The item included startup costs for the program,
which DOA was looking to implement prior to the start of
the next fiscal year in order to begin transitioning people
over to the new training management system. Item 39
pertained to the Federal Surplus Property Program under
DOA. He explained there were available federal revenues
from selling federal surplus property that could be used by
the department for building expansion.
Mr. Steininger moved to a $250,000 item for the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA) on line 40 related to Medicaid
funding on behalf of OPA clients and the work the office
did to help clients for Medicaid services. The item was a
match to federal funding in the Medicaid program paid for
by OPA. Line 41 included $750,000 to support an increase in
positions and costs in OPA related to the trial backlog
responsible for driving costs in the Court System and DOC.
Line 42 was a grant from the Municipality of Anchorage to
OPA in the amount of $105,000. Item 43 was the first of
several salary adjustments based on a salary agreement with
the Alaska Correctional Officers Association (ACOA).
Representative Josephson asked if the salary adjustments
totaled $10,400.
1:48:32 PM
Mr. Steininger answered the salary adjustments totaled
$10,400 within the Correctional Academy. There were several
increments that would total about $2.5 million. He noted
the number was much larger once all of the correctional
officers in the institutions were included.
Mr. Steininger moved to item 44 pertaining to supplemental
needs within DOC related to additional overtime and
staffing issues and the [high] rate of pretrial inmates.
Items 45 through 50 reflected the opposite side of the DOC
funding transfer discussed earlier. Items 51 through 64
were the other components of the correctional officer
salary study for individual institutions. Line 65 was $4
million within Pretrial Services.
1:50:05 PM
Mr. Steininger addressed item 66 reflecting $2.7 million in
supplemental needs within community residential centers
(CRC). Item 67 was $300,000 for electronic monitoring of
individuals not housed within correctional institutions.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the total supplemental cost
for DOC.
Mr. Steininger answered there were about $4 million net
reductions from the healthcare side. He relayed that
without the reductions, the increase was approximately $16
million. The $4 million reduction brought the number down
to $12 million.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for the reason for the reduced
medical cost.
Mr. Steininger deferred to the department.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that many of the institutions had
experienced COVID-19 outbreaks and the institutions had
consequently been locked down. The situation had resulted
in suspended contracts because providers were not entering
the facilities to provide the programming support. Some of
the contracts had been moved to institutional support staff
at a lower volume, which had resulted in a lapse for the FY
22 budget.
1:53:14 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the savings would go away in the
future as the COVID situation improved.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that the department did not
anticipate the funds being available in the future.
Additionally, DOC did not anticipate the continuation of
some of the higher costs occurring in the institutions. The
department was experiencing a lot of overtime resulting
from staff absences due to COVID-19 related issues. The
department was also experiencing increased contracts. For
example, the department had utilized contractors at a much
greater cost to cover for inmate workers unable to provide
the service for things like kitchen service and food
preparation. She highlighted the cost was reflected in the
supplemental need for the institutions. The department did
not anticipate the savings from the health and
rehabilitation program, but it anticipated reduced costs in
the institutions going forward as operations returned to
normal.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that generally supplementals
implied there were unexpected expenses that were not
covered in the first appropriating budget. He asked if the
DOC costs fell under that category. Alternatively, he
wondered if the administration was trying to jumpstart
initiatives that were perhaps a part of a future budget.
1:55:44 PM
Mr. Steininger answered that DOC was experiencing
unanticipated cost pressures resulting from COVID-19, with
the exception of the bargained COLA agreement with the
ACOA. He noted that the [funding] transfer from the health
side to the institution side was a one-time event for FY
22. He clarified there was not a proposal to adjust the
base budgets going forward. He referenced Ms. Wilkerson's
statement that the department did not anticipate the
savings and costs to be sustained over time.
Representative Wool referenced the mention of overtime
resulting from COVID. He asked if there was a need for
additional payroll to cover overtime costs. He asked if the
funding was already in the budget. He asked if the
institutions were still on lockdown. He wondered if
institutional programs would be restored when lockdown
ended. He asked when that would be.
Mr. Steininger answered that the cost of overtime was part
of the supplemental increase. He explained that overtime
was included in the DOC budget, but it was creating cost
pressures that needed to be accounted for through the
supplemental. He elaborated that part of the desire in
giving a pay raise to correctional officers was to improve
recruitment efforts and to reduce the need overtime
resulting in burnout. He deferred to Ms. Wilkerson for
additional detail.
1:58:19 PM
Ms. Wilkerson responded that the facilities were no longer
in a lockdown status and DOC was following a different
criterion for individuals going into the institutions. The
current terminology used by the department was "outbreak
status." Currently there were eight institutions in
outbreak status due to the number of active COVID-19 cases
in the institutions. The department was continuing to
provide programming with its staff. She detailed that as
the institutions came out of outbreak status, the
department was doing more group programming. She relayed
that as the number of COVID-19 cases dropped in
communities, the department anticipated reimplementing the
contracts. She did not have a date at present.
Representative Wool asked if visitors were allowed in
institutions during outbreak status. He asked if facilities
that were not in outbreak status were open to visitors
including family and attorneys.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that visitors and attorneys were
allowed in person. She added that during the initial COVID-
19 pandemic, DOC had setup computer access to provide
attorneys with virtual access to their clients.
Representative Wool asked if family was allowed to visit
when an institution was in outbreak status. He assumed
family was allowed to visit during non-outbreak status and
that programming was starting to resume.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that in-person visits were not
allowed when a facility was in outbreak status. Visitors
were allowed in the institutions in non-outbreak status.
2:01:18 PM
Mr. Steininger advanced to line 68 on page 9 showing
$180,000 in legal services costs [for the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED)] for the impact aid
[federal] case. He detailed the case pertained to a
disparity test issue that had come up a couple of times
during the current session. Item 69 was an adjustment to
the Technical Vocational Education Program (TVEP) funding.
He noted there were several of the increments, which were
fairly common. He elaborated that the administration
initially budgeted based on a TVEP funding estimate, which
was adjusted during the budget process. Line 70 included a
negative $1 million supplemental for the Broadband
Assistance Grants program. He explained the program was
designed and intended to provide assistance grants enabling
school districts around the state to access broadband. The
program could be used for broadband assistance up to 25
megabits. A school was not eligible for the program if it
could access broadband at a faster speed. He detailed that
as schools moved up to higher rate broadband they were
dropped from the program; therefore, over time, the program
need would decrease. He highlighted there was an adjustment
line in the FY 23 budget to adjust the program down to the
projected level of need.
Mr. Steininger moved to $175,000 in federal funds on line
71 for equipment and utility costs in the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). He explained the
department was continuing to see higher than anticipated
utility costs in its facilities. He noted there had been a
similar supplemental the previous year. The administration
had thought the department would be fine going into the
next fiscal year, but the higher utility costs continued.
The administration was working with the department to
address the issue going forward.
2:03:29 PM
Mr. Steininger advanced to $250,000 for DEC on line 72 to
cover unanticipated legal expenditures. He noted there was
a similar supplemental the previous year, but the case was
ongoing. The item was over and above the normal cost of
legal expenditures incurred by the department. Line 73
included $750,000 for water quality infrastructure
associated with the assumption of 404 water primacy. There
was a similar request for the assumption of 404 water
primacy in the governor's FY 23 budget. He explained the
department was seeking authority early in order to begin
the program startup costs.
2:04:15 PM
Representative Edgmon looked at item 73 and asked if it
presumed the $4.9 million in the governor's FY 23 budget
would pass.
Mr. Steininger confirmed the items would go hand in hand.
Representative Edgmon asked if it was normal to put those
types of items in a supplemental bill. He remarked that a
50/50 PFD was $260 million UGF, which he observed was
sizable for a supplemental bill. He asked if it had been
the practice of the administration.
Mr. Steininger answered that he had spoken to the issue a
bit in response to an earlier question by Representative
Josephson. He explained there were two different categories
of supplemental items. The first included normal
supplemental items resulting from unanticipated needs and
expenditures. He explained that occasionally there was a
policy objective or new program the administration was
looking to start where it sought an appropriation from the
legislature through the supplemental process. He noted the
item [on line 73] fell under the latter category. The
administration was choosing to seek the 404 primacy and DEC
was looking to begin the process in FY 22 in order to get a
head start on establishing the program.
2:06:15 PM
Representative Edgmon wondered whether the practice was
normal. He remarked it had not been the normal process in
supplemental bills based on his experience. He stated that
it had been his experience that supplementals were
unanticipated expenses due to fires, floods, and things of
that nature. He asked what would happen if the $4.9 million
did not survive the budget process. He asked where the
$750,000 in supplemental funds would go. He believed the
funds would go into the department's budget and would be
used for something else. He remarked that the budget
process during his time in the legislature was always
forward looking, but never to bank on something passing
that had not passed yet. He stated that "this raises my
eyebrows."
Mr. Steininger moved to additional federal grant funding
for the DEC Water Quality Division on page 10, line 74. He
addressed adjustments to the Public Employees' Retirement
System (PERS) SB 55 fiscal note from the previous year on
lines 75 through 81 within the Department of Fish and Game.
He explained a piece of the fiscal note was reviewing
federal revenues in each department and determining whether
the change in the PERS billing rate could be negotiated
with the federal partners in FY 22. The items replaced an
unrealizable fund source for FY 22 [resulting from changing
employer retirement contribution].
2:08:36 PM
Mr. Steininger moved to item 84, which included $2 million
in receipt authority for private pay residents within the
state Pioneer Homes (residents living in Pioneer Homes
without need for subsidy).
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated his understanding that private pay
individuals were being asked to pay more according to a
recent bill passed. He asked for verification item 84
increased the receipt authority for the Pioneer Homes to
receive the funds for the increased costs.
Mr. Steininger agreed. He explained that when the bill had
passed, the department had made an educated guess on the
number of private pay residents versus the number of
residents receiving subsidized pay. The receipt authority
[on line 84] trued the budget up to reflect the actual
experience.
Mr. Steininger reviewed line 85, $800,000 in federal
reimbursements for people at the Palmer Pioneer Veterans
Home. Lines 86 and 87 were both requests related to the
cyber-attack on the Department of Health and Social
Services. He detailed that the cyber-attack had shut down
some of the department's systems, resulting in backlogs in
some programs. The department had to hire temporary workers
and contractors to help clear the backlogs. Lines 88 and 89
included additional adjustments to TVEP. Line 90 included
$791,000 in federal receipts to accommodate facilities
maintenance for the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs. Item 91 was $130,000 for the Geologic Materials
Center under the Department of Natural Resources to account
for a drop in revenue collections resulting from the COVID-
19 pandemic. The increment did not cover the entire
shortfall but would enable the center to maintain
operations. There was a similar $500,000 increment on page
12 for the Division of Parks to ensure the continuation of
operations despite the depressed revenues due to COVID-19.
2:11:33 PM
Mr. Steininger looked at row 93 including $1.4 million for
aircraft maintenance within the Department of Public
Safety. He explained that due to COVID-19 the department
was using its own planes more frequently rather than flying
on commercial airlines, which increased maintenance cost.
The cost had been accommodated the previous year with COVID
funds and the current fund source request was general
funds. Line 94 included additional receipt authority for
the [DPS] Criminal Justice Information System. He explained
the funds were receipts received by the department when
background checks were performed for certain parties and
were paid by those parties. Item 95 was $290,000 for DNA
testing turnaround time reduction, working through the DNA
testing backlog. He reported that most of the cost was
accommodated through a capital project, but the remaining
$290,000 was not included.
Mr. Steininger addressed item 96 on page 12. He explained
the state was currently charging retirement systems more
than their actual share for Treasury management [under the
Department of Revenue (DOR)]. The item was an adjustment to
ensure the state was not overburdening the retirement
systems with inappropriate costs. He noted there was a
similar adjustment in the governor's budget. Line 97
included a request from the Treasury Division to purchase
new investment management resources. He noted there was a
similar increment request in the FY 23 budget. He explained
DOR was seeking to purchase the investment management
contracts and licenses before the start of the next fiscal
year. The increment should be taken in consideration with
the other request in the operating budget. Items 98 and 99
in addition to several other items for DOT included fund
source adjustments for the use of Federal Highway
Administration (FHA) Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funding. He
explained DOT had utilized available federal funding in FY
22 and FY 23 to offset UGF. He explained that because the
funding was specific to the federal revenue source, it was
necessary to ensure the funds were placed in the correct
location for the allowable costs. The adjustments netted
out to zero and ensured federal CRRSAA funds were placed
where eligible. He noted the items were to correct a
misalignment in the budgeting process the previous year.
2:15:02 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated his understanding that the original
budget used CRRSAA funding that did not fall within the
eligibility parameters; therefore, UGF funding had been
used instead. He asked for verification there had been no
real increase in UGF because it was made up for in another
location in the budget.
Mr. Steininger explained that rows 98 and 99 and 100
through 104 were shifts from federal funds to general funds
after finding out the items were ineligible for the federal
funding. He elaborated that item 108 on page 14 replaced
UGF in Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) vessel
operations with the same federal funds. The administration
had found another area within the DOT budget that was
eligible for the federal funds. The result was a net zero
change. He noted the action had been taken in the FY 22
budget late in the process; therefore, the current items
were to correct the misalignment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the action added new money to
AMHS that was not included in the original appropriation of
CRRSSA funds.
Mr. Steininger clarified it was not more money, the money
had already been appropriated, but to the wrong spot. He
explained there was no new federal funding coming in. The
action merely pointed the expenditure of federal funds to a
different place that was eligible for the funding.
2:17:55 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz recalled the previous year there had been
a plan to begin using CRRSSA funds to replace UGF for AMHS
operations. He stated it was the plan that had gone forward
in the regular operating budget. He stated his
understanding based on Mr. Steininger's statements that
some of the CRRSSA funds had been used in other areas that
turned out to be ineligible. He asked if his understanding
was accurate.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought Mr. Steininger was saying that the
[federal CRRSSA] funds were being reappropriated to the
AMHS.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz pointed out that the appropriation was not
part of the 18-month original forward funding [for AMHS].
He asserted it was additional funding going to the AMHS.
Mr. Steininger clarified that an equal amount in UGF would
be taken from AMHS to account for the situation. The UGF
would be paid back to highway and aviation maintenance
where the CRRSSA funds had originally been used [and deemed
ineligible].
Representative Josephson asked if it was something the
[federal] treasury would have caught. He asked if it was
Alaska's self-motivated fix or whether a letter had been
received [from the federal government].
Mr. Steininger answered that it was self-motivated but in
partnership with the federal government. He explained the
issue had been discovered during DOT's work with federal
partners. He clarified it was not the result of an audit
finding or anything of that nature.
2:21:09 PM
Mr. Steininger moved to item 105 on page 13 reflecting a
$200,000 increase in DOT program receipts for the Northern
region for right of way activities. Item 106 was also
associated with the adjustment to federal revenues. Item
107 was $279,000 related to a bargaining unit agreement
with Labor, Trades, and Crafts. Item 108 was the AMHS side
of the federal adjustment [discussed previously]. Item 109
was a TVEP adjustment.
Mr. Steininger turned to page 15, capital project items 113
and 114 within the Department of Natural Resources. Item
113 was an EVOSS project for LIDAR collection and mapping
modernization. Item 114 was $200,000 in matching funds for
the National Historic Preservation Fund. He detailed the
appropriation had received $600,000 in federal funds but
the match had been left out of the FY 22 budget. The
supplemental appropriation request would provide the
matching funds. Originally, the administration thought DNR
may find the matching funds through other sources, but that
had not transpired.
Mr. Steininger moved to operating items in the fast track
supplemental bill beginning on line 115. Item 115 was $4.3
million UGF for voter outreach, language assistance, and
election security for the Division of Elections under the
Office of the Governor. Line 116 included $20 million in
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) funding for health and other
response for DHSS due to COVID-19. He relayed DHSS had been
appropriated $20 million in the FY 22 budget. The proposed
increment doubled the amount to ensure DHSS was able to
respond to any new COVID-19 variants. Item 117 was the
completion of the 50/50 dividend split of the POMV draw.
Item 18 was a deposit of $34 million for the Disaster
Relief Fund for continued costs related to the 2018
earthquake as well as additional funds to ensure there was
a balance in the fund in the event of another disaster.
2:23:56 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if item 116, an appropriation of
ARPA funds to DHSS, had been talked about the previous day
during a discussion on ARPA and other federal funds. He
asked if the item was a part of the "already appropriated"
funds category or the "unappropriated" funds category.
Mr. Steininger confirmed the item had been discussed the
previous day. He explained the $20 million increment was
unappropriated and supported a separate $20 million
appropriation that had already taken place. He elaborated
that $20 million in CSLFRF funds had been appropriated to
DHSS for the purpose [of health and other response to
COVID-19]. The additional $20 million added to the original
amount to ensure continued health response.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced a number for unappropriated
funds provided to the committee the previous day. He asked
for verification that item 116 would reduce the number by
$20 million.
Mr. Steininger agreed. He explained for the most part, the
unappropriated funds were spoken for in budget requests
from the governor.
2:25:29 PM
Representative LeBon asked about item 117 related to the
payment of a supplemental PFD. He looked at the item
description on page 14 and observed it was a transfer from
the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) to the Dividend Fund
Account. He asked if the request represented an overdraw of
the 5 percent POMV formula. He asked what percent of the
draw the item reflected.
Mr. Steininger answered that the item did not represent an
overdraw of the POMV draw from the ERA. The full language
in the bill amended the POMV draw language from the FY 22
budget to direct 50 percent to the dividend and 50 percent
to government spending. Item 117 was intended to provide
clarity (in alignment with the governor's 50/50 dividend
plan) that the money to pay the PFD came from the ERA.
Representative LeBon stated that the POMV draw from the ERA
was approximately $3 billion in FY 22.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Representative LeBon asked if the amount was additional
money on top of the $3 billion for FY 22.
Mr. Steininger clarified the funding was $795 million of
the $3 billion to be directed to the PFD. He explained the
bill would reduce the amount from the draw going to the
General Fund and divert the amount into the PFD Fund.
Representative LeBon asked for verification that the action
replaced the dollars with UGF that were from oil revenue
royalty income versus earnings from the Permanent Fund.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
2:27:57 PM
Representative Wool believed that since the POMV draw had
already been appropriated in the FY 22 budget, taking $795
million of the amount for additional PFD funding would
remove funding from other General Fund items that had
already been funded. He considered that additional oil
revenue due to the price increase had given the state more
General Fund dollars. He wondered if the administration was
intending for the additional revenue to pay for budget
items that were previously paid with POMV.
Mr. Steininger agreed that the additional oil revenue would
pay for the General Fund expenditures that otherwise were
paid for out of the POMV draw. He explained the governor's
50/50 dividend plan sought to ensure the ERA draw first
paid for the PFD and then government services.
Representative Wool surmised that instead of the POMV and
oil money all going into a big pot to pay the budget, the
administration was taking half of the POMV to
"retroactively immediately" pay a PFD and using the
remainder to pay the budget. He stated his understanding
the method meant the true 50 percent, not merely in dollar
value, but the actual dollars, were paying the supplemental
and original PFD.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
2:30:18 PM
Mr. Steininger turned to page 16 showing the operating
supplemental language section of the governor's FY 23
budget. The items extended the end date of appropriations
made in prior years for COVID response under DHSS. He
explained that federal guidance allowed the items to be
expended over a longer period of time than the
appropriations were currently active. He highlighted item
119 as an example and explained the Foster Care
Independence program had been appropriated for FY 21 and FY
22; however, the federal guidance allowed the funds to be
spent in FY 23. The budget contained a technical item to
extend the lapse date of the appropriation to allow for the
expenditures.
2:31:37 PM
AT EASE
2:32:51 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Steininger stated that items 119 through 132 all fit
the category of lapse date extensions for federal COVID
relief that could be spent into FY 23. He turned to item
133 on page 16 allowing DFG to use the sale of vessels and
aircraft by the department for maintenance of vessels and
aircraft. He advanced to operating language sections in HB
300 beginning on line 134. The item reflected the extension
of a lapse date of a multiyear appropriation the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development used for occasional
extra costs in labor negotiations. He detailed that the
appropriation had originally been made in FY 15 had been
expended down over time. The department was looking to
extend the ability to access the funds without an
additional cost. Item 135 was for an extension of COVID-19
Relief Fund grants made by DHSS. He explained there had
been changes in the federal guidance late in the process
that allowed for an extension of the way funds were
obligated by grantees. The item ensured grantees receiving
funds from DHSS were able to expend within the full time
horizon allowed by the federal government. Line 136
included $233,000 for judgements, settlements, and claims.
2:35:10 PM
Mr. Steininger turned to a capital scope change on page 17,
line 137. The item was related to the DHSS cyber-attack and
enabled the department to use extra money in the Medicaid
Management Information System capital project to address
cybersecurity needs. The project had been completed and had
approximately $1.7 million remaining. The department had
been incurring costs related to the cyber-attack and was
looking to extend the scope of the funds for use to cover
those needs. Item 138 was a reappropriation of
approximately $4 million for emergency weather and
catastrophic events from completed transportation programs.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for additional detail on the
$232,000 for judgements, settlements, and claims on line
136.
Mr. Steininger stated the item applied to two cases. He did
not have the information on hand and would follow up with
the details.
Representative LeBon echoed the question by Vice-Chair
Ortiz. He asked if line 136 was related to the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute (API) settlement.
Mr. Steininger replied that the monetary terms of the API
settlement were not yet known.
Representative LeBon requested more detail about line 136
including cases and names of the settlements.
Representative Josephson asked if the increment should go
to the Department of Law (DOL) and not OPA.
Mr. Steininger agreed the item pertained to special
appropriations through DOL.
Mr. Steininger thanked the committee.
HB 284 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:38:23 PM
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN - OMB FY2022 Supplemental Bill Summary Spreadsheet 2.4.22.pdf |
HFIN 2/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN - OMB FY2022_Supplemental_Summary_2-1-22.pdf |
HFIN 2/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Attachment 1, Judgements and Settlements Backup.pdf |
HFIN 2/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 284 |
| OMB Response to 02.04.22 HFIN Supplemental Budget Overview Questions.pdf |
HFIN 2/4/2022 1:30:00 PM |