Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/25/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Budget Overview: Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| Budget Overview: Department of Labor and Workforce Development | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 25, 2012
1:35 p.m.
1:35:18 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thomas called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Sharon Cisna; Larry Hartig, Commissioner,
Department of Environmental Conservation; Clark (Click)
Bishop, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; Brynn Keith, Division Director, Division of
Administrative Services.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
BUDGET OVERVIEW:
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
^BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
1:35:18 PM
LARRY HARTIG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, provided members with a PowerPoint
presentation: Department of Environmental Conservation,
House Finance Overview, Commissioner Larry Hartig, January
25, 2012 (copy on file) and introduced staff.
1:38:22 PM
Commissioner Hartig observed that the department's mission
was to: protect human health and the environment. He
stressed that "protecting human health" refers to how the
department can take care of the environment in a way that
promotes human health. "We all rely on fresh air; we rely
on clean water to drink and good sanitation in our
communities."
Commissioner Hartig reviewed the responsibilities and
functions of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). The Department of Environmental Conservation is a
regulatory agency that sets standards used in permitting
and authorizations, which were primarily issued to those
that discharge pollutants to air, water or land. The
department inspects facilities and assists with compliance,
and implementation of new requirements. The department also
has enforcement duties and responsibilities.
Commissioner Hartig reviewed other duties of the
department:
· Develop standards
· Issue permits
· Provide compliance and financial assistance
· Respond to spills of oil and other hazardous
substances
· Safeguard the quality of food and seafood
· Operate the State Environmental Health Lab
· House the Office of the State Veterinarian
· Regulate pesticides and certain types of use
· Educate and assist the public
· Interact with our federal agency counterparts
· Investigate violations and enforce state law
Commissioner Hartig emphasized has been very supportive of
the shellfish and seafood industry in Alaska; and the
department's work with water and sewer projects: Village
Safe Water Program for communities of a 1,000 or less; and
the Municipal Grant and Loan Program.
1:40:15 PM
Commissioner Hartig noted that there has been little change
in the department's undesignated general fund request. The
Department of Environmental Conservation represented less
than one percent of the state's budget and has the smallest
portions of general funds.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the Department of Environmental
Conservation was one of the newer department's in the
state. He did not see a lot of constitutional support for
the department. He maintained that the major mission of
public health is under Health, Education and Social
Services section. The Department of Natural Resources is
tasked with promoting developing. He observed that many of
his constituents view the department as "backstops and the
guys that slow things down or stop things." He couldn't
provide examples where the Department of Environmental
Conservation speeded things up or put Alaskans to work.
Commissioner Hartig observed that the subcommittee would
have a detailed look at the department's missions and
measure to assure that the budget was closely tied to them.
1:42:35 PM
Commissioner Hartig observed that the department was
created in statute in 1971, which can be found in Title 44,
Chapter 46:
Sec. 44.46.020. Duties of department.
(a) The Department of Environmental Conservation
shall
(1) have primary responsibility for coordination
and development of policies, programs, and planning
related to the environment of the state and of the
various regions of the state;
(2) have primary responsibility for the adoption
and enforcement of regulations setting standards for
the prevention and abatement of all water, land,
subsurface land, and air pollution, and other sources
or potential sources of pollution of the environment,
including by way of example only, petroleum and
natural gas pipelines;
(3) promote and develop programs for the
protection and control of the environment of the
state;
(4) take actions that are necessary and proper to
further the policy declared in AS 46.03.010;
(5) adopt regulations for
(A) the prevention and control of public health
nuisances;
(B) the regulation of sanitation and sanitary
practices in the interest of public health;
(C) standards of cleanliness and sanitation in
connection with the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a camp, cannery, food handling
establishment, food manufacturing plant, mattress
manufacturing establishment, industrial plant, school,
barbershop, hairdressing, manicuring, esthetics,
tattooing and permanent cosmetic coloring, body
piercing, or ear piercing establishment, soft drink
establishment, beer and wine dispensaries, and for
other similar establishments in which lack of
sanitation may create a condition that causes disease;
(D) the regulation of quality and purity of
commercially compressed air sold for human
respiration.
(b) The department's regulations for tattooing
and permanent cosmetic coloring shops and for body
piercing shops must include requirements that
(1) the shop be equipped with appropriate
sterilizing equipment, with availability of hot and
cold running water, and with an appropriate waste
receptacle;
(2) the owner of the shop is responsible for
ensuring that case history cards are kept for each
client for a period of three years after the client's
most recent tattooing and permanent cosmetic coloring
or body piercing;
(3) a practitioner in the shop may use only
instruments for tattooing and permanent cosmetic
coloring or body piercing that have been sterilized in
accordance with methods approved by the department.
Commissioner Hartig reiterated that the department's
relationship to state government was to protect human
health not to slow down development. The department has
tried to be user friendly, but much of their mandate came
from the federal government. Changes in federal law were
tracked to anticipate how they would work or not work in
Alaska. He did not see the Department of Environmental
Conservation's mission as being in conflict to any other
department. He acknowledged that the narrow view of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might conflict with
the state's view.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the department got a "bum rap" in
the public. Commissioner Hartig responded that the
department was trying to do their programs and mission as
best they could without personal involvement. Co-Chair
Stoltze acknowledged the role of the federal government in
driving the department. He reiterated concerns that the
department's major function were in the health, education
and welfare section of the Alaska Constitution, Article 7.
Commissioner Hartig noted that the department works with
the Department of Health and Social Services.
1:48:12 PM
Representative Wilson maintained that the Department of
Environmental Conservation became the liaison to the
federal government, and the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) "front runner", versus "going back to them
and expressing the economics that we may have in our area
that's different than the rest of the states". She asked if
there has ever been federal regulation the department
didn't like or didn't feel was worth the money to
implement.
Commissioner Hartig acknowledged Representative Wilson'
comments and noted that he had received similar questions
from the governor. He explained that the department engages
with EPA every day. He referred to the state's primacy
though the Clean Water Act and water discharge permitting
program. Problems occurred when the state begin issuing
permits that had been issued by EPA. The EPA required a
review of state permits prior to issuance. The process
bogged down state permits over arguments that there were no
legal requirements to make changes recommended by EPA. The
state indicated to the federal government that it would
write the permit and they would be elevated to the
commissioner and regional administrator absence federal
objection. The system worked. He observed that this type of
push back was not always seen and noted other occurrences:
NPR-A development, and Tanana River Bridge. The state tries
to ask the federal government to raise objections early in
the game, so that progress can be made in a timely manner.
Representative Wilson asked if economics were taken into
account, such as the Healy Clean Coal Plant. Commissioner
Hartig agreed and gave backup information regarding the
Healy Clean Coal Plant. The permit was originally issued
over a decade ago. The plant intends to resume suspended
operations. The question was would a new permit need to be
issued due to the change of technologies, or could it be
updated and reissued. The regional administrator agreed
with DEC, but there was a spilt at headquarters. The
department was ready to issue the permit. He observed that
EPA did a 45 day review and did not object to the permit.
He emphasized that the department must follow the law.
Sometimes the department can respond to economic factors
and sometime they can't.
1:53:15 PM
Commissioner Hartig looked at the department's fund
sources. The department received a mix of general, federal,
program receipts and other funds. He reiterated that
general funding was flat at .9 percent of the state's
total.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the changing landscape of
federal funding and what the state should anticipate in
terms of declining federal funding. Commissioner Hartig
thought the primary affect from declining federal funding
would be in the Village Safe Water program. There has been
a 60 percent decline of federal funds in the last ten
years. The program requires 75 percent federal funds and a
25 percent state match. State matching funds were reduced
as federal funds were reduced. The question was how the
state can continue to do projects in rural Alaska with a
declining budget. The state had already stopped doing new
[water and sewer] projects. New projects would slow current
projects as funds were spread thinner. The department was
looking at efficiencies to get price down along with
operation and maintenance questions.
Commissioner Hartig noted declines in federal funds in
other programs; drinking water loans to municipalities have
also been cut. There was competition for funding, which was
difficult for smaller communities.
1:57:35 PM
Representative Gara observed that the state water, sewer
and sanitation policy was dependent on federal funding. He
asked how many communities were operating without flushable
toilets. Commissioner Hartig stressed that there was a
state, federal and local partnership. The challenge was to
protect human health and lower costs through new
technologies. There were 6,000 homes without primary
services (pipe or covered haul systems). He emphasized that
a central water point did not enhance sanitation due to a
lack of convenience. Of the 6,000 homes without systems,
4,000 homes were in communities without the ability to
connect; and 2,000 had systems in place that just needed to
be expanded. He concluded that there were 5,000 homes that
need to be addressed. He pointed out that there were also
aging systems that needed upgrades or maintenance. The
total unmet need was approximately $667 - $700 million.
2:00:46 PM
Representative Edgmon noted that the Bush Caucus was shown
a graph depicting declines in rural areas from all funding
areas. He stressed the effect of the permafrost on safe
water. Commissioner Hartig agreed. He referred to slide 16,
which showed declining federal and state funding to rural
communities.
Commissioner Hartig spoke to permafrost. Some systems have
to be built over the permafrost. Problems also occur when
state systems have to be connected to other systems.
2:03:56 PM
Co-Chair Thomas referred to frozen lines at schools in
Bethel. Commissioner Hartig acknowledged the problem and
explained that some schools had to be shut down due to
frozen lines during Christmas. He stressed that frozen
lines become a food and sanitation problem.
Co-Chair Thomas explained that the lines needed to be
replaced or dug deeper. Commissioner Hartig thought that
there was funding in the governor's capital budget. Co-
Chair Thomas noted his intent to try to move the funds to
the supplemental so that they would be available in the
upcoming construction season.
2:06:07 PM
Commissioner Hartig noted that the Department of
Environmental Conservation was broken down into five
divisions. The first division was Administration Services,
which contains the Office of the Commissioner, and the
Division of Administrative Services. It also included the
environmental crime unit (2 positions) for more serious
environmental violations. These positions served the entire
department and were placed under Administrative Services to
avoid the appearance of influence. The crime unit personnel
were sworn peace officers with enhanced training, who
trained other civil inspectors and investigators.
The largest division was Environmental Health, which
included food safety, pesticide regulation, animal care,
state veterinarian, the Environmental Health Laboratory,
and regulated solid waste facilities.
Commissioner Hartig noted that the Air Quality Division
controlled air pollutants, such as from power plants,
refineries, and cruise ships stack emissions.
2:08:43 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the need for ocean rangers and asked
the status of new rangers and local hire. Commissioner
Hartig affirmed that there had been an increase in local
hire with legislation and more aggressive recruitment. A
report to the legislature was forthcoming. He stated that
there were more than one additional Alaskan hires.
2:10:54 PM
Commissioner Hartig reviewed the Spill Prevention and
Response Division, which was tasked with spill preparation,
response and cleanup.
Commissioner Hartig observed that there were two sides to
the Division of Water: water quality issues (standards,
permitting and compliance) and facilities (Village Safe
Water Program and the Municipal Grant and Loan Program).
Vice-chair Fairclough noted issues with the federal
government in relationship to spill prevention and open
wellheads. She asked if DEC had tried to hold the federal
government accountable for cleanup. Commissioner Hartig
observed that the department tried to work with federal
agencies but pointed out that well closures were the
responsibility of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. The state was responsible if there was an
actual release from the well.
Vice-chair Fairclough referred to wells with sludge or some
sort of by-product sitting on the tundra. Commissioner
Hartig agreed that it would be under DEC jurisdiction if
there were a release. Approximately half of the
contaminated sites in Alaska were federal sites from
federal activities or on federally managed land. He
referred to discussions with senior federal managers.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked how the state holds the federal
government accountable to the standards they issue to
Alaskans that they did not hold themselves to.
2:14:37 PM
Representative Gara referred to rural sanitation problems
and noted the long history of the issue. He suggested that
dependency on federal money has slowed progress. He
questioned the flexibility of federal funds. Commissioner
Hartig emphasized that federal funds were not that flexible
and required a 25 percent state match for every dollar. He
observed that there had been progress and that the state
was down to eight percent of rural communities without
first time service; a decade or two ago it was over 50
percent. The problem was the difficulty of implementing the
final eight percent. These were communities without a good
water source. Solutions could be engineered, but the cost
would be $400 - $500 thousand per system and systems would
have to be maintained. The issue was whether communities
would have the funds to maintain systems if they were
built. There were no federal or state funds available to
communities for maintenance.
Commissioner Hartig observed that there were four
categories of need: those without first time [water or
sanitation] service, where service would be protective of
human health; those with existing systems that need to be
upgraded for human health concerns; those that need
maintenance and help to maintain the state's investment;
and temporary emergencies. He stressed that the state
didn't have funding for emergencies. Seven communities had
greater difficulties with frozen pipes than Bethel, but the
department didn't have the funds to address their needs.
The questioned was how to best put declining funds.
2:18:42 PM
Representative Joule emphasized the need in rural
communities without services. He acknowledged the high cost
of rural systems. He observed that new technologies for
research and development of innovated systems can be used
to replace old systems as well as address the remaining
needs.
2:21:07 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed to state support of rural needs
but emphasized that there were problems in other parts of
the states as well. He stressed that not all the water and
sewage problems were in rural Alaska. He felt that support
would change if there were a statewide program.
2:23:46 PM
Commissioner Hartig spoke to challenges before the
department. Challenges in the Division Environmental Health
were to increase the frequency of high risk food safety
inspections. The department intended to concentrate resources on
high risk facilities. The other big issue was paralytic shellfish
poison testing (PSP), which was critical for recreational beaches
due to the risk to the public and commercial programs. The PSP
testing was critical for expanding commercial programs. There
have been more incidents of PSP in areas with Dungeness crab. The
program was expanded to include Dungeness crab. One position was
added for Paralytic Shellfish Poison testing, while the
department lost six positions throughout the department.
There was an increment request for PSP testing.
Commissioner Hartig noted that there was also an increment
for fish tissue testing. The department worked with the
Department of Natural Resources to look for mercury,
pollutants and pesticides. Fish were tested at DEC's
laboratory. The request included funds to backfill for lost
federal funds. The program would allow the department to
respond to concerns and to track trends over time.
2:27:22 PM
Commissioner Hartig observed that the challenge of the
Division of Air Quality was to continue to work with
communities in the Fairbanks area: Fairbanks, Fairbanks
North Star Borough, and North Pole. He acknowledged energy
costs in the area. The department's mission was to work
with the community to mitigate wood smoke issues and align
with health standards.
Commissioner Hartig reviewed the Division of Spill
Prevention and Response (SPAR). The division's biggest
challenge was declining revenues from the 470 Fund, which
provides a five-cent surcharge on each barrel of crude oil.
The Prevention Account was funded by a four-cent surcharge
on each barrel of crude oil, which paid for the programs
within the Division of Spill Prevention and Response.
Funding had declined with production. The fund has had a
surplus, which would be depleted by FY 14. The department
anticipated a FY 14 shortfall of $1.5 million. An increment
or increased surcharge would be needed to stabilize SPAR. A
$6 million increment in FY 14 would provide level SPAR
funding over the next four years with a four-cent surcharge
on each barrel of crude oil. Without an increment the
division would need significant cuts.
2:30:21 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze suggested a different strategy, increased
production. He stressed that increased revenue was an
alternative to an increased tax on a diminishing commodity.
Commissioner Hartig acknowledged Co-Chair Stoltze's remarks
and observed that the department has worked with the
Department of Natural Resources and other agencies to
identify prospects for development. The department's ten-
year plan showed an 8.3 percent increase associated with
increased workload and associated OSH development and heavy
oil.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the Response Fund
had always been capped at $50 million. Commissioner Hartig
explained that the Response Fund has been five-cents a
barrel; four-cents went to the prevention account used for
the operating budget for SPAR. One-cent went into the
Response Account and would only be triggered if the fund
fell below $50 million. The intent was to retain sufficient
funds to respond to any future spills. He explained that
the department needed to access the fund three or four
times per year. The commissioner must first authorize the
request to access the fund; then send notice to the
legislature and the governor within 24 hours. Cost recovery
against the responsible party was required by state law
after the spill was resolved. Recovered funds would be
placed into a holding account and would be reappropriated
back into the Response Account by the legislature. The one-
cent a barrel would apply if the Response Account fell
below $50 million. The surcharge has varied between four
and five cent a barrel.
2:34:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg noted that small spills were more
prominent and wondered whether the $50 million represented
a sustainable level to handle larger spills.
Commissioner Hartig responded that the party that caused
the spill had primary responsibility to respond. The state
required industry preparedness through required spill
prevention and contingency plans. The department was the
backup and would not provide additional assistance unless
it were a big event or required significant government
oversight, or if the party that caused the spill did not
respond as quickly and as thoroughly as they should; in
that case DEC would have the legal ability and requirement
to take over responsibility.
Co-Chair Stoltze recollected that the original intent was
to cap the fund at $50 million and maintained that it
became a funding vehicle for government spending. He did
not believe that it was ever envisioned that the money
would become a government funding vehicle.
Commissioner Hartig clarified that use of the fund had
changed to tie more directly to spills.
2:38:38 PM
Representative Gara agreed that the [470 Fund] funds were
intended for spill response and not government programs. He
questioned how the department would compensate for a
funding shortfall.
Commissioner Hartig anticipated a general fund increment
would be needed. He explained that the department had
worked with the legislature on interim solutions. He
observed approximately $1.9 million a year went into the
prevention account. The department stopped paying for items
that did not promote prevention and response. The division
has remained relatively flat in terms of general funds.
Commissioner Hartig referred to a $1 million capital
request for new technologies to be used in the Village Safe
Water program. The intent would be to fund pilot programs
for future projects in rural Alaska. He emphasized that
technologies currently exist that could benefit rural
Alaska.
2:42:31 PM
Co-Chair Thomas encouraged the department to keep in mind
that the state would be in a deficit at the current seven
percent rate of growth.
2:43:38 PM
At EASE
2:55:23 PM
RECONVENED
^BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT
2:55:23 PM
CLARK (CLICK) BISHOP, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, provided members with a PowerPoint:
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, FY13
Budget Overview, House Finance Committee, Commissioner
Click Bishop, January 25, 2012(copy on file) and introduced
staff. He also recognized previous commissioners.
Commissioner Bishop Mission observed that the department's
mission has been the same since statehood: Provide safe and
legal working conditions and advance opportunities for
employment.
Commissioner Bishop observed that core services included
statutory and regulatory assistance and enforcement to
protect Alaska's workers through wage and child labor law
enforcement, workplace safety compliance and enforcement,
mechanical device inspection, and overseeing State of
Alaska Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. He noted
that the department did not initiate very many regulations,
but had worked to streamline and discard unnecessary
regulations.
Commissioner Bishop discussed income replacement, which was
the anchor of the department. Injured, unemployed and
permanently disabled workers fall under income replacement.
3:00:22 PM
Commissioner Bishop stressed the strength of the
department's workforce development mission. He observed
that the mining industry paid compliment to the
department's successes in bringing together industry, the
University of Alaska and the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development to train a workforce. He emphasized
that the department could not be successful without the
support of the legislature, the appropriation body. The
department tried to maximize training dollars in "legacy
jobs," high paying jobs.
3:02:47 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough observed that unemployment benefits
totaling $293,184,753 were distributed to 69,723 insured
workers and asked if the number was up or down from the
previous year. Commissioner Bishop thought that the number
was slightly up.
Commissioner Bishop observed that the department was
recognized as one of the best in the nation in terms of
getting payments out in a timely fashion. He shared a press
release commending the Alaska Department of Labor and
Workforce Development's Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Tribunal in the Employment Security Division:
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce
Development's Unemployment Insurance Appeals Tribunal
in the Employment Security Division received a
national award for performance excellence in quality
and timeliness of its appeal decisions during the
federal fiscal year 2011.
The Appeals Tribunal, led by Chief of Appeals Janne
Carran, holds hearings and issues decisions on appeals
from benefit and tax determinations issued by the
Employment Security Division. The decisions can be
further appealed to the commissioner of labor, and to
the Alaska Superior and Supreme Courts.
Using two criteria - Alaska scored 85 percent or
higher on quality of appeals, and issued decisions
within 12 days - the state ranked highest in the
nation among small states.
Commissioner Bishop explained that the U.S. Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Administration required all
states to issue 60 percent of its decisions within 30 days
of the date an appeal is filed to a tribunal.
3:05:16 PM
BRYNN KEITH, DIVISION DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, discussed slide 4. The Department of Labor and
Workforce Development's general fund request was low, 1.6
percent of total state general funds. The department's
overall budget was approximately $198.6 million; 52 percent
of the budget was federal. Other funding, which was
predominantly interagency receipts was 13 percent. General
fund was roughly 34 percent.
Ms. Keith spoke to the decline in federal funds. She noted
that the decline had been soften by one-time funding
streams, which were not expected to continue.
Co-Chair Thomas turned the gavel over to Vice-chair
Fairclough.
3:07:09 PM
In response to a question by Representative Doogan, Ms.
Keith observed that WSCAA stands for: Workers Safety and
Compensation Administration Account.
Ms. Keith noted that the department's position count was
down 26 positions. The department's position count had been
declining since 2008 due to a change in the business model,
as a result of uncertainty in federal funding. The
department had moved from permanent full-time positions to
temporary positions to allow the department to be nimble in
meeting grant needs.
3:09:24 PM
Ms. Keith discussed WSCAA. The department requested a
change the financial support of $2,000.0 in ongoing
operating expenses from WSCAA to unrestricted general funds
due to fund sufficiency concerns. She observed that WSCAA
was established in 2005 by the legislature to create an
ongoing stable funding stream for the Workers' Compensation
and Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) programs. The fund
was created through employer fees. Workers' compensation
insurance was a percentage of their premiums; for the self-
insured it was percentage of their benefits. Funds going
into the fund were declining, while operating costs had
increased. In 2005, the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission and the Fraud Unit were rolled under WSCAA,
without additional funding. The cost of running WSCAA
programs went up approximately $1.5 to $1.9 million
annually.
Ms. Keith observed that declines in revenue were caused
both by a decline in paid premiums and fewer payouts. The
fund faced a $2 million shortfall in FY 13. Without
additional funds the Workers' Compensation and Occupational
Safety and Health (OSH) programs would be underfunded.
Commissioner Bishop spoke to what would occur if the
program was lost. He observed that 25 states operate state
OSH plans; the remainders were administered by the federal
government. He stressed the importance of administrating
the state's program. He emphasized that premiums were going
down due to safety in the workplace. The department has led
the charge in workplace safety.
3:13:47 PM
Ms. Keith reviewed requests related to the Alaska
Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC). The first request
supported increased operating expense not otherwise
supported due to unrealized program receipts. A decision
was made not to raise AVTEC tuition and to keep it
affordable so Alaskans could participate.
Representative Edgmon noted that there were seven
participants in the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS)
program from AVTEC and questioned if the number was low.
Commissioner Bishop could not respond since the data was
new.
Ms. Keith, in response to a question by Representative
Doogan, explained that the state had the authority [to take
in funds], but the department cannot actually realized the
authority. The department had hoped to receive additional
funding through tuition increases, but the decision was
made to keep tuition low.
3:15:54 PM
Representative Joule noted some crossover with university
programs. He expressed support for AVTEC, but felt that the
Kotzebue vocational center had been neglected. He advocated
support for the other state funded technical school.
Commissioner Bishop observed that the department had an
agreement with the University of Alaska to track student
success.
Commissioner Bishop also acknowledged comments by
Representative Joule and observed training at the Alaska
Technical Center (ACT). Representative Joule recognized
support for the Alaska Technical Center in Kotzebue but did
not feel it had equal support to AVTEC. Commissioner Bishop
promised further discussions.
3:20:50 PM
Commissioner Bishop mentioned the Fisherman's Fund. The
fund was healthy. The number of days it took to process a
claim for an injured fisherman was decreased from 34 to 20.
The department's target was 10 days. He explained that
progress was slowed by struggles with employee turnover and
training time.
Co-Chair Thomas asked if the fund was stable. Commissioner
Bishop noted that the fund paid out $783 thousand in the
last year.
3:23:30 PM
Ms. Keith noted that the department's budget included a
request for a nursing program at AVTEC ($226.8 UGF, $100.0
DGF). The AVTEC program would be a two year program. The
intent was to be a career ladder for AVTEC students already
in other AVTEC programs, such as the Certified Nursing
Assistant (CAN), or Licensing Practical Nurse (LPN), to the
two year program. Many of the AVTEC students were
considered "non-traditional". She stressed that the program
could give these students an entry into high wage, high
demand career.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked if demand was broken out
between first year nurses on the streets and senior nurses,
as to who was actually needed in the health care
environment. Ms. Keith responded that the data did not
allow a division based on experience. She acknowledged that
employer's "ideal candidate was not a baby nurse".
Vice-chair Fairclough observed that nurses have been
labeled as a high area of need, but suggested that health
care providers such as hospitals were looking for
experienced nurses. She mentioned the Alaska Native Health
Consortium where nurses can have their loans paid off in
exchange for work. She recalled an issue around competition
with the university programs.
Commissioner Bishop stressed the importance of the program
to the administration and explained that he met with the
university multiple times over the interim. The department
had recently received approval for the curriculum from the
Board of Nursing. He observed support from the Executive
Committee of the Alaska Workforce Investment Board, and the
Providence Board of Nursing. He maintained that the
programs were complimentary.
3:29:04 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough acknowledged that the programs were
complimentary but observed that the decline in state
funding required more discussion on what was the highest
need. She pointed to the long wait list with the
university.
Commissioner Bishop stressed the value of "doubling down"
on a program. He referred to the successful efforts to
increase engineering graduates in the university system;
engineering graduates were increased to 67 percent since
2001.
3:31:47 PM
Co-Chair Thomas expressed concern that the state would be
left with the general fund cost for programs begun with
federal funds. He emphasized that the university had a
program in place. He questioned how workers could get
experience without a chance to work. He gave the example of
a Haines girl that had to go out-of-state for work.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that it could be especially
hard for nurses in small communities to find work in their
communities.
3:34:23 PM
Ms. Keith observed that there were two requests for the
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. The first request
was for Project Search, which was a cooperative program
with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority and
Department of Health and Social Services. The program would
put [disabled] high school seniors in a complex work
environment to teach work skills and self-esteem. The
program would also demonstrate that disabled youth could be
good employees. The request would be an extension of a
pilot program.
Ms. Keith observed that the department was also asking for
an increase for independent living centers. The role of the
independent living centers was to keep people in the
community and allow disabled of all age groups to remain in
their homes. Transportation and other services were
coordinated through the program.
Ms. Keith noted two requests for the Workers' Compensation
Benefits Guaranty Fund. The fund covered those injured
while working for uninsured employers. The department asked
for increase authority to cover increased benefit payments
and a collections officer. A collections office was
expected to bring in $500 - $600 thousand in additional
collections. Representative Edgmon clarified that both
requests were for general fund program receipts.
ADJOURNMENT
3:37:28 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:37 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOLWD FY13 Budget Overview HFIN 1-25-12.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DEC Presentation for HFC 1.25.12.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DEC HFIN Overview RESPONSE.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOLWD Overview Response 12512.pdf |
HFIN 1/25/2012 1:30:00 PM |