Legislature(2003 - 2004)
12/12/2003 02:10 PM House BUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
Anchorage, Alaska
December 12, 2003
2:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ralph Samuels, Chair
Representative Vic Kohring (via teleconference)
Representative Beth Kerttula (via teleconference)
Representative Reggie Joule, alternate
Senator Gene Therriault, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Williams, alternate
Senator Con Bunde
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Lyda Green, alternate
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Bert Stedman (Appointee - Designee) (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
REVISED PROGRAM - LEGISLATIVE (RPLs)
EXECUTIVE SESSION
AUDIT REQUESTS
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the division's request to solicit
an award contract for conducting some of the 2005 sunset audits.
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the minimum expenditure for
instruction requirement.
CHERYL FRASCA, Director
Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented all the RPLs to the Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit.
JANET CLARKE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding RPL 06-4-0242.
ROBERTA CARNEY, Staff Officer
Division of Emergency Services
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding RPL 09-4-0078.
JENNIFER WITT, Regional Program Development Manager
Central Region Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding RPL 25-4-6727.
TINA CUNNING
State-Federal Issues Program Manager
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to navigable
waters and RS 2477s.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR RALPH SAMUELS called the Joint Committee on Legislative
Budget and Audit meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. Representatives
Samuels, Kohring (via teleconference), Kerttula (via
teleconference), and Joule and Senators Therriault (via
teleconference), Ben Stevens, and Hoffman were present at the
call to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
SENATOR BEN STEVENS made a motion to approve the minutes of
October 29, 2003. There being no objection, the minutes from
the meeting of October 29, 2003, were approved.
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
CHAIR SAMUELS directed the committee to the contracts for the
sunset audits.
Number 0018
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative
Audit, Alaska State Legislature, requested that the committee
approve the Division of Legislative Audit to solicit and award
contracts for conducting some of the 2005 sunset audits. There
will be 12 boards and commissions that will be up for sunset
during that period. The legislature appropriated additional
money for the division for contracts to cover those sunsets as
well as a Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) benchmarking study. The division is contemplating
issuing two contracts, one for the four boards falling under the
behavioral sciences and another contract for the remaining six
occupational boards. She noted that the remaining two boards,
the Suicide Prevention Council and Earthquake Preparedness,
haven't been under sunset before and thus will be performed in-
house. Ms. Davidson estimated that the contracts for the 10
boards may be in excess of $25,000, which is why committee
approval is required.
CHAIR SAMUELS turned to when extensions are done and asked if
any consideration has been given to try not to have all of these
due at one time.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that when the overall review of the sunset
process occurs, she believes the division will address evening
out the dates of the sunsets. She expected that the sunset
audit might suggest how to improve the entire sunset process,
including the distribution of the [sunset] dates for some of the
boards and commissions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if, through the regular process,
money was appropriated for these kinds of contracts.
MS. DAVIDSON explained that the division received a separate
appropriation of $150,000, outside the division's normal budget.
The aforementioned appropriation was driven by the large amount
of audits coming due in 2005. Rather than holding up the
ongoing audits, the division has, in the past, contracted for
some of the sunset reviews and it has been successful. She
clarified that the division does part of the audit and the
contractor does part of the audit.
Number 0055
SENATOR BEN STEVENS made a motion that the committee authorize
the legislative auditor to solicit and award contracts for 2005
sunset audits. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR SAMUELS directed the committee's attention to the minimum
expenditure for instruction. He explained that the
aforementioned is on the agenda because statutorily the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) is supposed
to report to the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit
regarding the 70 percent expenditure. He mentioned a letter
from the Department of Education and Early Development dated
December 9, 2003, [which is included in the committee packet].
He clarified that the point of this is to determine whether the
practice of [the minimum expenditure for instruction] is
appropriate and whether it should be continued.
Number 0070
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development, informed the committee that members should have a
copy of the State Board of Education & Early Development packet
that includes each of the waivers requested and on which action
was taken. Mr. Jeans explained that the minimum expenditure for
instruction requirement was adopted in 1998 and implemented in
1999. The law was adopted to direct more revenues to the
classroom as well as to provide uniformity in school district
financial reporting. Over the past six years the department has
worked with school districts and made significant improvements
in both areas. The law requires the department to perform two
reviews: one on the budgets due in July and one on the
districts' audited financial statements for those districts that
failed to obtain a waiver and failed to meet the requirement.
If a district's budget is rejected for failure to meet the
minimum expenditure requirement, the school districts have 20
days after the date of rejection to request a waiver from the
State Board of Education. The law requires EED to withhold
state funds after the second full month after the budget has
been rejected unless the State Board of Education & Early
Development grants the district's waiver request or the district
may submit a revised budget that complies with the requirement.
MR. JEANS pointed out that the statute has a very compressed
timeline, as follows: school district budgets are due July 1;
EED reviews the budgets and issues a determination on September
1; and districts have until September 21 to request a waiver.
The department reviews waiver requests and prepares a
presentation packet for the State Board of Education & Early
Development around October 15 and the State Board of Education &
Early Development takes action prior to the end of October. If
a district's waiver request isn't granted, EED must withhold
state aid beginning November 1. Mr. Jeans pointed out that this
law requires school districts, as part of the application, to
submit the waiver request to this committee. However, this
committee hasn't forwarded recommendations to the department in
terms of the waiver request, which may be attributed partly to
the tight timeline. He noted that EED works closely with the
committee to make sure that the committee has copies of the
waiver requests.
MR. JEANS explained that the minimum expenditure requirement was
phased in over a number of years, starting at 60 percent in
1999. The minimum expenditure requirement increased by 5
percent in 2000 and 2001. There were also some modifications
made to the instructional percentage requirement. Therefore,
EED views fiscal year 2002 as the base year for the 70 percent
and thus the department could start to perform some trend
analysis. At this point, the department has discovered two
distinct patterns that it believes will require at least 25
school districts to request a waiver on an annual basis. The
first pattern is that any district in the state that's spending
20 percent or more of its budget on operation and maintenance
won't meet the 70 percent instructional requirement. The second
pattern identified is that any district with a budget of $3
million or less won't meet the 70 percent instructional
requirement because those districts simply don't have enough
revenue or students to spread the instructional cost. He noted
that the department also reviewed the number of schools that met
adequate yearly progress (AYP) this year. Of the 32 school
districts that required a waiver this year, the schools within
11 of those districts met AYP. The reason for the
aforementioned is that at the school level there aren't enough
students to measure in some of the categories and thus the
[school] is waived on that particular category. However, when
rolled to the district level, there are enough students to
measure. Therefore, EED and the State Board of Education &
Early Development don't see a direct correlation to increased
student achievement in terms of measuring student achievement
through the assessment system and how money is being spent in
the district.
MR. JEANS turned to the letter from Roger Sampson, Commissioner,
EED, which is included in the committee packet. The letter
basically says that EED and the State Board of Education & Early
Development believe that the limited resources could be better
used to focus on improving student achievement rather than the
time being spent reviewing district budgets and audits for this
particular requirement as well as the time spent reviewing these
waivers. Mr. Jeans noted that the department does provide the
committee an annual report on April 15th.
Number 0148
CHAIR SAMUELS asked if setting the bar [at 70 percent] has
helped. He commented that whether the waiver is done or not, at
least the districts have to think about it. Perhaps, the bar is
in the wrong spot. He indicated that he would hate not to have
any bar. He asked if going from the 60-70 percent has resulted
in a higher failure rate while the percentage going into the
classroom has stayed the same.
MR. JEANS pointed out that through this process the legislature
did appropriate funds for two additional staff, which are
Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), in the School Finance and
Facilities Section. Therefore, uniformity with regard to how
school districts report their finances [has occurred]. He noted
that the committee packet includes a five-page handout that
reviews the progress of this process. In 1999 there were 13
school districts that were spending less than 60 percent of
their budget on instruction. However, in the 2004 budget cycle,
there is only one such school district. Therefore, tremendous
progress has been made. However, Mr. Jeans emphasized that the
law doesn't allow [the department] to review the degree of
effort that a district makes. The law simply asks whether the
school district made the 70 percent and if not, was it beyond
the control of the district.
SENATOR HOFFMAN inquired as to what Mr. Jeans expected this
committee to do. He also inquired as to whether the State Board
of Education and Early Development is thinking of introducing
legislation to change the direction of the 70/30 program. He
further asked if the State Board of Education and Early
Development is recommending any changes in the two areas in
which [some] districts will never meet the 70/30 requirement or
is it looking to this committee to offer suggestions.
MR. JEANS related that the State Board of Education and Early
Development has had dialogue regarding possible repeal of this
law with the governor's office. He also related his belief that
the State Board of Education and Early Development is trying to
make this committee aware of the efforts that go into reviewing
these budgets on an annual basis. He explained that part of the
reason he is here today is to assure the committee that the
State Board of Education and Early Development and EED aren't
simply rubberstamping these waiver requests. Much time is spent
reviewing these district budgets, which are developed over many
months at the local level. If the committee feels it's
necessary to repeal the minimum expenditure requirement, the
committee would receive support from EED and the State Board of
Education and Early Development. The department has limited
resources and believes that those it does have would be better
directed toward student achievement.
Number 0222
MR. JEANS, in response to Senator Ben Stevens, confirmed that
there were 32 waiver requests submitted for 2004 and the State
Board of Education and Early Development approved those waiver
requests.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS surmised then that since the 70 percent
threshold has been in place since 2001, the waiver requests have
increased from 24 to 32.
MR. JEANS said that additional explanation is required and
directed attention to the five-page handout included in tab 7 of
the report. On page four of five there are descriptions of the
chart of accounts and the categories. In fiscal year 1999, the
categories that counted as instruction were [identified as]
regular instruction number 100, special education, special
education support services, support services student, and
support services instruction. Going into the 2001 budget cycle,
the State Board of Education and Early Development amended the
regulation to include school administration. He explained that
school administration was included because principals are
instructional leaders and thus should count toward the
instructional requirement. He recalled that there was dialogue
with some members of the legislature regarding the
aforementioned because those members thought that the
noninstructional staff should be split out. Therefore, the
category was split into two categories in fiscal year 2002:
school administration and school administration support. Mr.
Jeans returned to Senator Ben Stevens' question and explained
that the districts that met the [specified percentage] decreased
because there was a change in what was counted in the
calculation, but that increased due to the amendment [of what
was included in the calculation]. Therefore, he suggested that
one must look at this starting in fiscal year 2002. Page two of
the five of the handout illustrates the progress made by the
district and the chart at the bottom summarizes the progress
within ranges.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS related his understanding that the
qualification for 70 percent instruction increased after the
decision to include administrative costs in instruction.
MR. JEANS specified that the [waiver requests] dropped to 24 in
2001 when all school administration was included as an
instructional expenditure. Beginning in 2002 principals were
split out from support staff. Therefore, the [districts] only
were able to count half of what was counted the previous year
and thus four additional waivers were required. In fiscal year
2003, it dropped by two districts and for the fiscal year 2004
it increased to 32. He attributed the increase in fiscal year
2004 partially to increases in insurance premiums, fuel oil, and
other fixed costs that the districts have had to absorb.
REVISED PROGRAM - LEGISLATIVE (RPLs)
CHAIR SAMUELS announced that the next item on the agenda would
be the consideration of the RPLs. He explained that the
committee would deal with the RPLs as a consent agenda.
Number 0295
SENATOR BEN STEVENS moved that the committee approve the
following RPLs: 02-4-0039; 05-4-0746; 06-4-0242; 06-4-0245; 09-
4-0077; 09-4-0078; 25-4-3328; 25-4-6727; and 41-4-9018.
CHAIR SAMUELS objected for purposes of discussion.
CHERYL FRASCA, Director, Office of Management & Budget (OMB),
Office of the Governor, began with RPL 02-4-0039, which is for
$33,000 in statutory designated program receipts that would go
to the Office of Public Advocacy for the State Wellness Court.
The aforementioned are grant dollars that are being provided by
an external organization, Partners for Progress, for the State
Wellness Court program.
MS. FRASCA continued with RPL 05-4-0746, which would allocate $6
million to Mt. Edgecumbe High School renovation. The source of
these funds is from the second $25 million received from the
federal Fiscal Relief Act. She reminded the committee that at
its last meeting, it approved the funding for the design of both
a dorm renovation as well as a classroom expansion. At this
time, the request is for construction funding in an effort to
expedite the construction of the project. She said [the
governor] believes this is extremely important as there are over
300 students on the wait list and there is the belief that once
the exit exam results are released the wait list for Mt.
Edgecumbe will increase. This project will allow an additional
80 students to attend Mt. Edgecumbe.
Number 0364
SENATOR THERRIAULT mentioned that the [Department of Education
and Early Development] was unable to provide a timely response
to questions regarding updated estimates of the project costs,
appropriations to date, and essentially can't specify at what
point it is in the plan. He asked if anyone present today could
provide those answers.
MS. FRASCA noted that this project is on the fast track,
although all the funds haven't been counted. The goal is to
allow the department to issue the request for proposals (RFP),
which it can't do until all the dollars are in hand. The
customary supplemental process by which this type of
appropriation would be made during the session would delay the
project for another several months. Therefore, this is an
effort to expedite it. If all of the funds aren't used, the
funds are fungible and could be made available for other
projects.
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked that he doesn't believe it's a
question of whether all the funds will be used or whether there
are surplus funds [rather the concern is whether] there is
ultimately a shortage of funds. Senator Therriault said that he
is supportive of moving forward on the project.
MR. JEANS informed the committee that EED commissioned a master
plan in June 2000 and for a number of years the department has
submitted a capital request. However, the appropriations to
date have been very limited. As Ms. Frasca explained, this
request would renovate a building that isn't currently in use.
The aforementioned would be used for dormitory space. This
request would also allow for classroom expansion in the amount
of five to six classrooms. Mr. Jeans said that [the department]
believes the budget is sufficient to do both of the
aforementioned and have both open and operating in fall of 2005.
SENATOR THERRIAULT expressed concern with regard to potential
cost overruns and said that he is looking for assurance that
this funding will take the project to completion.
MR. JEANS informed the committee that the master plan is $20.8
million, which includes demolition of buildings, American
Disabilities Act compliance, utility upgrades, et cetera.
Therefore, the department will return and request additional
funds to fulfill the needs of the plan. This request is one
small component of the plan that would allow for the expansion
of the residential and instructional program. In further
response to Senator Therriault, Mr. Jeans said the department
believes this request is the complete funding necessary for that
component.
Number 0414
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that [these five to six
classrooms] will be an increase in the operating budget.
MS. FRASCA agreed, but specified that the additional costs will
be for the boarding and lodging costs. In theory, the
additional students are being paid for in other school districts
and thus are factored into the foundation formula. Whatever the
additional cost is, [the administration] will accommodate it in
whatever request that's submitted to the legislature because the
administration believes it's an important alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if this would be done in the next
budget cycle or the one following the upcoming budget cycle.
MS. FRASCA echoed Mr. Jeans' testimony that while the facilities
may not be available until the fall of 2005, the governor has
tasked the department with determining how to handle more
students in the fall of 2004. She noted that the budget to be
revealed on Monday doesn't have the additional dollars for this
project and thus if it's necessary, there will be a budget
amendment to address it. She pointed out that alternative sites
to house students are being reviewed. For example, the notion
of housing some of the students in the Sitka Pioneers' Home is
being reviewed.
Number 0446
DESIGNEE STEDMAN spoke in favor of the Mt. Edgecumbe project,
although he noted that the questions regarding overall funding
are valid. Historically, Mt. Edgecumbe has provided good
education to those attending and has produced numerous statewide
leaders. With the demands for [entrance] into Mt. Edgecumbe
increasing, he said he feels it would be in the best interest to
expand Mt. Edgecumbe. The aforementioned would leave the state
with more leaders from the remote areas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE advised the committee that he has a
daughter who is attending Mt. Edgecumbe.
Number 0470
MS. FRASCA continued with RPL 06-4-0242, which is a request to
receive $700,000 in federal receipts for the Nutrition,
Transportation and Support Services Grants for Seniors. She
explained that when the program was transferred from the
Department of Administration it was an oversight to not move the
federal receipt authority to Department of Health and Social
Services. Therefore, it's not a new grant.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE turned to the fiscal analysis comments and
inquired as to how the 25 percent match would work. He asked if
all of those splitting up would have to come up with matching
money in order to receive [the federal funds].
MS. FRASCA related her understanding that [these matching funds]
are already in the budget.
JANET CLARKE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Health and Social Services, explained that
currently there is a 25 percent match requirement of which 10
percent comes from the local nonprofit and 15 percent from the
state. In fiscal year (FY) 2003, the department requested this
increase and an RPL was approved. However, in the
reorganization that additional increase was left out of the FY
04 budget and thus the matching dollars for the 15 percent of
the state's share are available, consistent with last year's
budget. Furthermore, the grantees were able to come up with the
10 percent local match last year. She noted that there isn't
much of an increase in the match because the grants [increased
from] $625,000 last year to $700,000 this year.
MS. CLARKE, in response to Senator Hoffman, confirmed that the
department expects this grant program to increase to $810,000 in
FY 05, but it's uncertain with regard to FY 06. The match
requirements would increase as well, she noted.
Number 0534
MS. FRASCA moved on to RPL 06-4-0245, which is a request for the
Department of Health and Social Services to receive $10 million
from the Denali Commission for health-related facility
construction throughout the state. She reminded the committee
that in August it approved a $3.6 million RPL for a similar
purpose. The Denali Commission has asked the state to do this
on its behalf because of the state's experience in administering
grants. The department is willing to do the aforementioned.
However, unlike the $3.6 million in which the department didn't
recover any administrative costs, the [Denali Commission] will
pay for some of the support staff to administer the program.
MS. FRASCA explained that RPL 09-4-0077 is a request to receive
$1.6 million in federal receipts for the Juneau Organizational
Maintenance Shop construction. Currently, the Juneau Joint
Readiness Center and a student recreation center is being
constructed through the Department of Military & Veterans'
Affairs and the University of Alaska - Southeast. This RPL
would provide additional federal dollars to the $1.5 million
that is already available.
MS. FRASCA continued with RPL 09-4-0078, which is to approve
receipt of $19.6 million from the federal government for
homeland security counterterrorism grants. She explained that
80 percent of these grant programs is passed through to local
political subdivisions as sub grants. This RPL would be coupled
with $18.2 million that was previously received for similar
purposes and thus it brings the state's total to almost $38
million.
Number 0581
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA acknowledged that the goals and
objectives won't be complete until December 31, 2003, but asked
if Ms. Frasca knew how the allocations will be made to
municipalities.
ROBERTA CARNEY, Staff Officer, Division of Emergency Services,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, specified that the
strategy guidance is what is due by the end of December. The
strategy guidance provides all the assessments from all the
communities that have participated. None of the funds can be
released unless the communities have participated in the
assessment strategy. Today, 31 communities will be eligible for
these grants; out of those 31 communities, there are 16 boroughs
and 15 cities. The assessment process [targeted] communities
with a population base of 1,500 or greater and a few communities
with a specialized weapons of mass destruction threat. The
Aleutians East Borough, the City of Nenana, and Lake and
Peninsula Borough have yet to finish their portion of their
local strategy assessment; the department is working with those
communities to complete that. Once all the assessments are
complete and the federal government agrees to the strategy, each
of the local jurisdictions will receive an application. Ms.
Carney specified that this is a competitive grant process. Each
jurisdiction will be provided the opportunity to specify what
equipment, training, and exercising is necessary. A multi-
jurisdictional review committee is used to make the final
awards. In further response to Representative Kerttula, the
multi-jurisdictional review committee will review the strategy
to ensure that the threat is significant.
TAPE 03-9, SIDE B
MS. CARNEY specified that [the items received] will be those
things related to the strategy and those things that are
allowable.
Number 0653
SENATOR HOFFMAN inquired as to why this is being dealt with
today when there are less than 30 days before the regular
session. He inquired as to why this couldn't be taken up in
regular session by the full legislature.
MS. FRASCA answered that if history is an indicator, the
legislature isn't prone to approve appropriation legislation
immediately "out of the shoot." Because of the December 31,
2003, completion date for the strategies, the [committee] will
be in a position to make immediate or quick awards.
MS. CARNEY pointed out that there is a federal requirement to
make the allocations to the jurisdictions within 60 days of the
award date. Therefore, once the federal government provides the
award, the state has 60 days to make the allocation. She
specified that [the department] can't make an allocation without
the authority.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested explanation regarding the $14
million and the $4 million for law enforcement.
MS. CARNEY explained that the $4 million for law enforcement is
broken down by this formula. She said that $328,000 is for law
enforcement prevention program funds to be awarded at the local
level. Again, that will be a competitive application process.
In further response to Representative Joule, Ms. Carney
specified that the population formula is for Alaska and the
allocation to the local jurisdictions will be solely based on
the competitive process for the 31 jurisdictions that are
eligible. She noted that she could provide the committee with a
list of those eligible jurisdictions.
Number 0676
MS. FRASCA moved on to RPL 25-4-3328, which is a request to
receive $500,000 for terminal building modifications at the
Sitka airport. The state needs to receive these funds in order
to pass them through to the City of Sitka because although the
city owns the passenger terminal, it doesn't own the airport.
The federal airport improvement program dollars need to flow
through the owner. She turned to RPL 25-4-6727, which is a
request to approve $1.6 million for Dillingham trail
construction. This project was moved forward from 2005 to 2004
because of the availability of an asphalt pavement batch plant
that is already in Dillingham.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked if [the $1.6 million] will be
allocated to one of the existing trail programs or the project
itself.
MS. FRASCA deferred to Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities representatives.
Number 0721
JENNIFER WITT, Regional Program Development Manager, Central
Region Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, explained that the project for the Dillingham
trail is specifically in Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska
(TRAAK) within the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). The Dillingham project will specifically be accounted
for as a TRAAK project.
MS. FRASCA turned to RPL 41-4-9018, which is a request for
$150,000 of a federal grant for a felony drug court program that
will allow the admittance of 20 defendants. Also, some money
will be sent to the Department of Corrections to help pay for a
probation officer.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS returned to RPL 06-4-0245. He inquired as
to why the facility rental is so small in the proposal.
MS. CLARKE explained that under the contractual expense items,
facility rental is that portion of the state rent that the 1.5
positions will occupy.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS surmised then that it's [in the existing
facility] and thus the department isn't renting anything.
MS. CLARKE agreed. In further response to Senator Ben Stevens,
Ms. Clarke highlighted that this [RPL] is a proposed budget and
DHSS will be reimbursed by the Denali Commission based on
expenditures. Therefore, if there is no need to travel, there
will be no travel. She further agreed with Senator Ben Stevens
that these funds are reimbursable not contractual.
Number 0771
SENATOR THERRIAULT turned attention back to RPL 09-4-0078. He
asked if there is a list of those grants that are anticipated to
be made or is there a process by which the different agencies
will submit applications for this equipment money. He expressed
his belief that the legislature should track where the money
flows.
MS. FRASCA noted that Ms. Carney had explained earlier the
strategy assessment process and the mechanism by which the
grants will be awarded.
SENATOR THERRIAULT related his understanding that where the
money is going to flow hasn't been decided and there is a
process to decide that. He requested a list specifying where
the money goes.
MS. FRASCA agreed to prepare such a list as well as a list
specifying where the previous $18 million in grants went.
CHAIR SAMUELS removed his objection to the passage of all the
RPLs. There being no further objection, the following RPLs
passed: 02-4-0039; 05-4-0746; 06-4-0242; 06-4-0245; 09-4-0077;
09-4-0078; 25-4-3328; 25-4-6727; and 41-4-9018.
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Number 0800
TINA CUNNING, State-Federal Issues Program Manager, Office of
the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
informed the committee that a portion of the Black River was
issued [to the state], although some additional work was
required. The department just filed Porcupine River this week
and is waiting for the end of the Bureau of Land Management's
comment period on the following rivers: Wood River and Lakes,
Kvichak River, Iliamna Lake, Tazlina River and Lake, and the
Klutina River and Lake. The aforementioned batch was filed on
July 18th and the comment period ended this week. Ms. Cunning
also informed the committee that since she had a staff member
trained in this area who was being laid off, she put him on this
task and thus the hiring has been done and is underway. In
fact, [ADF&G] is working closely with the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) regarding the selection of rivers.
DICK MYLIUS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, related to the committee
that of the four groups that have been filed, the comment period
with BLM ends on Monday. As of earlier in the week, BLM had
received no comments on those, which is a good sign.
Furthermore, no one has filed suit or appeal on the Black River.
Therefore, it seems that the process on the federal side is
working well on the recordable disclaimers.
Number 0838
SENATOR HOFFMAN inquired as to the criteria used to select the
rivers. He also requested a list of the rivers that have been
selected and are under study as well as a list of the landowners
involved.
MR. MYLIUS responded that the rivers initially [filed] are ones
that BLM has previously determined to be navigable and were
excluded from conveyances to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) corporations and such. The Black River was chosen
first partly because a quiet title action had been filed on that
and there were some court records. Mr. Mylius specified that
the rivers being reviewed for selection are the ones that are
largely undisputed or that BLM has determined navigable. He
offered to provide the committee with the list of about 200
rivers that are being reviewed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
SENATOR BEN STEVENS made a motion to move to executive session
for the purpose of discussing confidential audit reports under
AS 24.20.301. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR SAMUELS brought the committee back to order at an
unspecified time.
AUDIT REQUESTS
Number 0870
SENATOR BEN STEVENS made a motion for the following audits for
the Department of Health and Social Services, Alaska Commission
on Aging - sunset audit; Department of Community & Economic
Development, Board of Dispensing Opticians - sunset audit;
Department of Community & Economic Development, Commission on
Real Estate - sunset audit; Department of Health and Social
Services, Division of Behavioral Health and Select Issues -
special audit; Department of Community & Economic Development,
Guides and Transporters - special audit; Department of
Corrections, Department of Administration's Correctional and
Probation Officers Transfer Analysis, to be released to the
appropriate agency/public for response. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS made a motion that the committee withdraw
the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, audit
request that was approved by the committee on June 24, 2002.
There being no objection, the audit request was withdrawn.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit meeting was adjourned
at 3:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|