Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/01/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB51 | |
| SB98 | |
| SB97 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act making supplemental, capital, and other
appropriations, and reappropriations; amending appropriations;
making appropriations to capitalize funds; making an
appropriation under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the
State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date."
This was the third hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities would be continuing its overview of its Regular
Supplemental bill requests.
AT EASE: 9:51:53 AM / 9:53:09 AM
Item 124
Section: 17(i)
RDU: Central Region Highways and Aviation
Supplemental Need: Anchorage snowhaul and equipment fuel,
utilities, sand and steel cost increases.
$1,374,400 General Funds
NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities stated that
these request is the result of fuel, utility, and commodity price
increases as well as an increase of approximately $130,000 relating
to Anchorage snowhauling expenses. Fuel expenses have increased
approximately 30-percent or $500,000; utility expenses have
increased approximately six-percent or $70,000; and steel price
increases have directly impacted the Department's ability to
replace grader blades, culverts, and road signs. Sand, salt and
chemical costs have also increased. Commodity increases amount to
approximately $680,000. The Department's FY 05 Anchorage downtown
area snowhauling budget had been reduced "a little too
aggressively" by $250,000.
Item 125
Section: 17(j)
RDU: Northern Region Highways and Aviation
Supplemental Need: Equipment fuel, utilities, and steel cost
increases.
$1,399,500 General Funds
Item 126
Section: 17(k)
RDU: Southeast Region Highways and Aviation
Supplemental Need: Equipment fuel, sand, chemicals and steel
cost increases.
$263,400 General Funds
Co-Chair Wilken noted that Sections 17(i), 17(j), and 17(k) depict
similar expenses for other regions of the State. Continuing,
however, he asked the reason Anchorage snowhauling expenses were
considered part of the Central Region rather than the Interior
Region.
Ms. Slagle informed that the State has assumed responsibility for
downtown Municipality of Anchorage roads' snowhauling as State
roads transit through the Municipality. She pointed out that snow
removal in Anchorage "is more of an issue" than it is in other
communities through which State roads travel. The State's Anchorage
snowhauling budget was reduced in the FY 05 budget, based on
historical snowfall records; however, snowfall has exceeded those
averages.
Ms. Slagle concurred that Sections 17(i), (j), and (k) are similar
in nature.
Section: 17(l)
RDU: State Equipment Fleet Administration
Supplemental Need: Fuel increases - credit card expenditures
reimbursed by user agencies.
$1,100,000 Highway Working Capital Fund
Ms. Slagle stated that this Fund authorization is specifically
related to fuel cost increases. The State equipment fleet contracts
out the amount of fuel that is utilized, and the various State
agencies are provided a credit card through which consumption
charges are tracked. The bills are submitted to the State Equipment
Fleet, which in turn, bills the agencies for reimbursement. This
request pertains to the authorization to expend those reimbursed
monies.
Senator Stedman asked whether the State could track fuel
consumption by vehicle.
Ms. Slagle responded that the process is designed to track by
credit card rather than by vehicle. Since the credit cards could
also be used for bulk purchases, it would be difficult to track a
specific vehicle's consumption unless a credit card was
specifically used for one vehicle. Mileage and maintenance costs,
however, are tracked per vehicle in the fleet.
Senator Olson asked how the Department addresses the rising
expenses of non-State employees who are under contract to service
Bush Alaska airports.
Ms. Slagle asked for whether the question regards general
maintenance contracts that are in affect for Rural airports.
Senator Olson affirmed that this concern regards those responsible
for such things as snow removal in places like Savoonga and
Shaktoolik.
Ms. Slagle understood that such contracts are bid out and re-
negotiated on a regular basis of approximately two years. This
provides the ability to address increasing expenses.
Senator Olson stated therefore, that when the airport manager at
Salmon Bay contacts him and relays "that the price of fuel just
jumped" by a certain percent that his response would be that he had
to abide by a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
contract that would be re-negotiated every few years. He asked
whether provisions have been made to address such a scenario.
Ms. Slagle replied that further information regarding pricing
indexes for Rural Alaska would be provided. While the Department
does have the ability to incorporate such cost increases into the
contracts for Rural areas, there is no specific need to address
this currently as, had the situation been different, a request of
that nature would have been brought forward. Therefore, she assumed
that such matters are being addressed internally.
Senator Olson voiced that rather than his concern being about the
contracts, his concern is about the increased fuel costs to those
independent contractors.
Ms. Slagle responded that in several instances, independent
contractors utilize State equipment for Rural airport maintenance.
She was uncertain as to whether the fuel used in those cases was
included in the contract conditions or whether the State was
responsible for it. She would clarify this.
Section: 17(m)
RDU: Statewide Information Services
Supplemental Need: Funding for telecommunications chargeback
costs. FY 04 supplemental funding was not built into FY 05
budget, thereby causing a shortfall.
$659,600 General Funds
Ms. Slagle explained that this request is associated with the
amount of funds that the Department pays to the Department of
Administration for its Enterprise Productivity Rate (EPR) usage,
which is specifically associated with technology that the
Department of Administration is providing to the Department. These
rates have been increasing over the years and a similar request was
before the Committee in the FY 04 Supplemental legislation. The
Department's budget has not been adjusted to accommodate this
expense. Some "shifting of rates" did occur; however it did not
alleviate the pressure on the Department's budget as was intended.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the reason that this sort of request is
specific to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
and not to others.
Ms. Slagle responded that these expenses relate to the usage of
computers and associated peripherals such as printers. The current
formula, which the Department of Administration developed a few
years prior, is based on department position counts. This has
"greatly impacted" the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities as it has equipment operators and over 1,800 Marine
Highway vessel employees who work in the field and do not have
access to computers or telephones. Another consideration is that
many of the Department's operations are conducted 24-hours a day.
The combination of these things incurs more of these expenses on
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities than other
departments.
Co-Chair Wilken asked what would occur were this request unfunded.
Ms. Slagle responded that the Department would be required to make
"drastic changes between now and the end of the year." The money
would be drawn from other programs, specifically the highways and
aviation program as those are the programs that have general fund
dollars.
Senator Olson asked whether not funding this request might result
in "risk to life or limb."
Ms. Slagle stated that the response to that question is difficult.
Funding it with existing program general fund dollars would
negatively affect the Department's ability to adequately address
Spring road issues.
Co-Chair Green asked whether general fund dollars were the only
funding option; specifically whether federal funds might be
utilized.
Ms. Slagle stated that federal funds could be utilized for general
administrative support as well as for indirect cost allocation plan
(ICAP) funding which are those funds not designated for a specific
project. However, the Department has utilized available ICAP funds
to the maximum level and there is no further flexibility.
Co-Chair Green asked whether other non-federal funding options
might be available.
Ms. Slagle responded that ICAP funds are calculated as a percentage
of each construction project, whether the funding source is
federal, State, or International Airport Bond Funds. The Department
endeavors to maximize all funding sources.
Section: 17(n)
RDU: Central Region Highways and Aviation
Supplemental Need: King Salmon air traffic control current
year contract.
$68,000 General Funds
Ms. Slagle stated that these funds are in addition to the $44,500
request included in the Fast Track Supplemental bill that was
specific to FY 04 expenses. This request pertains to the costs
associated with the King Salmon Airport Control Tower for FY 05.
Senator Olson commented that funding of this request is imperative
as, from personal experience, he characterized the airport as
resembling a busy mosquito beehive. He noted that this funding
might have averted the incident in which an aircraft had knocked
down the control tower a few years earlier.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this request would advance.
Section: 17(o)
RDU: Human Resources
Supplemental Need: Shortage in realizing savings due to delay
in implementing electronic timesheets.
$140,000 Various Funding
Ms. Slagle informed that funds had been reduced in the Human
Resources component of the Department's FY 05 operating budget due
to anticipation that the implementation of an electronic timesheet
would reduce expenses. However, the implementation of that system
has been delayed and the Department has been required to pay the
Department of Administration for Human Resources services.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that the FY 05 budget
reflected the decrement relating to this system.
Ms. Slagle communicated that a $160,000 decrement was reflected in
the FY 05 budget. A $20,000 general fund decrement of that amount
is not being requested.
Senator Bunde observed that, on numerous occasions, the savings
anticipated to result from consolidation or improved technologies
have not been realized. To that point, he asked whether this
endeavor "would eventually save money."
Ms. Slagle assured that it would, as an electronic timesheet system
would avoid the process of duplicating data entries by staff as
well as any associated errors that might occur in the current
payroll process.
Senator Bunde asked when the anticipated savings would be realized.
Ms. Slagle responded that no related funding is requested in the FY
06 budget, as the system should be in operation.
Senator Bunde hoped this issue would not resurface in the FY 06
supplemental request legislation.
Section: 18(a)
RDU: Capital
Supplemental Need: Airport Improvement Program increase of $18
million in federal funds as allocated.
Total Funds: zero
JOHN MACKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
specified that this request is the result of additional federal
funds being realized late in FY 05. The projects provided for by
this funding would be of Statewide significance and would not
displace existing projects.
Item: 138
Section: 18(b)(4)
RDU: Capital
Supplemental Need: Statewide: Emergency Bridge Replacement
$800,00 Federal Funds
Co-Chair Wilken asked the location of the bridge addressed by this
request.
Ms. Slagle expressed that, rather than being a specific bridge,
this request would allow the Department to temporarily stockpile
goods in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The Department currently has
sufficient material to replace an approximate 100-foot bridge;
however, double that amount of material is required.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that no specific bridge would
be addressed by this request.
Item 136
Section: 18(b)(2)
RDU: Capital
Supplemental Need: Statewide: Comprehensive Highway Safety
Plan.
$500,000 Federal Funds
Ms. Slagle stated that Congressional re-authorization legislation
being considered would require states to develop a comprehensive
safety plan. This funding would further this plan, which would
include crash data, crash patterns, safety and education issues,
and the potential implementation of methods through which to
address these and other issues. She noted that the FY 06 budget
contains a similar request.
Senator Bunde asked whether federal funding would also support the
FY 06 request.
Ms. Slagle concurred.
Co-Chair Green asked when the Safety Plan project began.
Ms. Slagle voiced the understanding that this project has not, of
yet, begun and that this funding would allow for its development.
Co-Chair Green recalled a Committee discussion in which it was
determined that only continuing projects could be included in the
supplemental bill.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the Department's understanding of whether new
programs could begin in a supplemental bill.
Ms. Slagle understood otherwise.
Co-Chair Wilken commented that this might be a policy decision.
Co-Chair Green understood the definition of a supplemental request
to be limited to continuing programs only. To that point, she asked
whether this project could be delayed until FY 06.
Co-Chair Wilken additionally asked whether this request would
require a State match.
Ms. Slagle stated that a State match would be required, and that
the Department does have adequate funding available in its FY 05
match program. Several of the associated projects have begun or are
in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) stage. The Department has
not followed "any type of guideline or policy" that would prohibit
a new project from coming forward. The money is available and the
construction portions of the project could be advertised and begun
as early as May. Beginning projects early in the construction
season would be beneficial "in the long run."
Co-Chair Wilken asked regarding the Match level.
Ms. Slagle responded that the match would be approximately 4.5
percent, provided this was a Surface Transportation Program (STP)
project.
Co-Chair Green noted that a nine percent minimum State match might
be required.
Ms. Slagle voiced that the Department has a variety of federal
highway funding options available, each with different match rate
requirements. The bridge has a 20-percent match rate. Regular STPs
require a 4.5 percent match level.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this concludes department presentations
on both SB 97 and SB 98.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|