Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/24/2003 02:22 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 24, 2003
2:22 PM
TAPE HFC 03 - 24, Side A
TAPE HFC 03 - 24, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Harris called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:22 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
none
ALSO PRESENT
Dan Spencer, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Administration; Dave Stewart, Personnel
Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration; Tom Lawson, Director, Administrative
Services, Department of Community and Economic Development;
Jerry Burnett, Director, Administrative Services, Department
of Corrections
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brant McGee, Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy;
Barbara Brink, Director, Public Defender Agency; Steve
Ashman, Director, Division of Senior Services, Department of
Administration; Daniel T. Seamount, Jr., Commissioner,
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Department of
Administration; Jeff Jahnke, State Forester, Department of
Natural Resources; Sharon Young, State Recorder, Department
of Natural Resources; Peter Panarese, Acting Director,
Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources
SUMMARY
Co-Chair Harris convened the meeting at 2:21 pm.
HB 100 "An Act making supplemental and other
appropriations; amending appropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 100 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 101 "An Act making a special appropriation for a grant
to Arctic Power to promote the opening of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas
exploration and development; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 101 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation.
HB 110 "An Act making supplemental and other
appropriations; amending appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing
for an effective date."
HB 110 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act making a special appropriation for a grant to
Arctic Power to promote the opening of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration
and development; and providing for an effective date."
Vice-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Committee Substitute for
House Bill 101, Work Draft 23-LS0555/I.
Representative Croft OBJECTED and questioned for further
clarification regarding changes made in the Committee
Substitute.
Co-Chair Harris observed that the Committee Substitute would
appropriate $2.7 million to Artic Power, $100 thousand to
Kaktovik, and $300 thousand to the Office of the Governor
for the specific purpose of working with the congressional
delegation.
In response to a question by Representative Joule, Co-Chair
Harris clarified that the total appropriation for Arctic
Power would be $2.8 million, of this $100 thousand would be
appropriated to Katovik. The $300 thousand for the Office of
the Governor would be a separate appropriation.
Representative Croft observed that Arctic Power has been
used as the funding source of all the state's efforts and
would funnel funds to Katovik. He noted that there was a
separate appropriation to the Office of the Governor and
questioned why Arctic Power was not used to fund these
efforts.
Co-Chair Harris acknowledged that Arctic Power could be used
to fund the Office of the Governor and indicated that the
issue could be discussed after the adoption of the committee
substitute.
Representative Croft WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, the Committee Substitute, Work
Draft 23-LS0555/I, was adopted.
Representative Croft reiterated his concerns and questioned
why it was felt necessary to break up the appropriation. Co-
Chair Harris responded that the Office of the Governor
requested funding for personnel located in Washington D.C.
who are coordinating efforts. He maintained that this
coordination was especially important during the transition
between administrations.
Representative Whitaker expressed his belief that it was
appropriate to support the Governor's longstanding efforts
to develop ANWR resources.
Vice-Chair Meyer noted a conflict of interest and MOVED to
be excused from voting. Co-Chair Harris OBJECTED.
Representative Hawker also noted a conflict of interest and
MOVED to be excused from deliberations. Co-Chair Harris
OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out a difference in the intent
language in Section 1 of the CS. He explained that the
intent language directs Artic Power to coordinate with the
delegation in Washington D.C.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED to report CSHB 101 (FIN) out of
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 101 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 100
"An Act making supplemental and other appropriations;
amending appropriations; and providing for an effective
date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act making supplemental and other appropriations;
amending appropriations; making appropriations to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Harris discussed the Regular and "Fast track"
Supplemental Budget requests. He expressed an intention to
move the bills out of Committee by early next week, after
amendments had been heard.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Section 1 (fast track)
Program shortfunding was estimated to be $2,200.0 in
May. Caseload growth has added an additional $1,100.0.
An additional $2,473.5 is requested in the regular
supplemental bill to meet the total need of $3,300.0.
Section 1(a) (4) (regular supplemental)
1(a)(4) Program shortfunding was estimated to be
$2,200.0 in May. Caseload growth has added an
additional $1,100.0. An additional $826.5 is requested
in the fast track supplemental bill to meet the total
need of $3,300.0.
DAN SPENCER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION explained that the requests of
$826,500 (Fast track) and $2,473,500 for the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA) were based on current caseload, as
well as projections for the remainder of the fiscal year.
He maintained that OPA had a history of being "short-
funded". A supplemental has been needed in all but one of
the last 19 years. The FY 03 budget was less than the FY 02
budget. The Office of Public Advocacy received a
supplemental appropriation of over $2 million for the past
year [FY02].
Mr. Spencer anticipated that OPA would require a $2.2
million supplemental for FY 03, and observed that the amount
could continue to grow with the caseload. He explained that
the office deals with guardian ad lidum and public
guardianship cases, as well as some criminal cases. He
clarified that most of the budgetary funds were paid to
private attorneys, working under contract with OPA to defend
clients at a highly reduced rate.
Mr. Spencer explained that OPA utilized the previous year's
funding to pay current bills in a timely fashion. He went
on to note that, after the end of a fiscal year, OPA
thth
continued to pay bills in the 13 and 14 accounting month.
He stated that they have paid over $700 thousand to private
attorneys during those periods. He explained that, at the
end of the fiscal year, OPA projected payments for June and
the holdover accounting months, and requested this amount in
the regular supplemental. He noted that the balance,
$826,500, represented projected payments into the month of
May. He pointed out that, if the budget was passed prior to
that time, the figures could be combined into one request.
Co-Chair Harris asked why, for the sixth consecutive year, a
significant amount was requested in the supplemental. He
asked whether the department had been under-funded, or if
caseload growth affected the amount of the request.
Mr. Spencer explained that caseload was one of a number of
factors contributing to the request. He observed that in
the year, which had not required a supplemental, the
Ombudsman completed a report stating that OPA was delaying
payments to vendors due to legislative short-funding.
Mr. Spencer discussed historical trends in caseload size.
Caseload has been affected by population size and
legislative changes. Changes in legislation that shortened
the turnaround time in Child in Need of Aid cases caused
more aggressive litigation. More intensive litigation has
been required in various criminal cases, which were
classified as felonies rather than misdemeanors. He stated
that OPA could not decline to accept court-assigned cases,
and did not have the capability to predict amounts needed to
support caseloads. He pointed out that, over the past seven
years, the amounts requested in the supplemental had been
adjusted during the course of the legislative session as
more information became available.
Co-Chair Harris observed that the two budget requests
totaled over $3 million. He asked if, since OPA cases were
court mandated, this prevented any control over caseload
growth. Mr. Spencer confirmed that this was true.
BRANT MCGEE, PUBLIC ADVOCATE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
testified via teleconference. He explained that the greatest
increase in caseload was in Child in Need of Aid cases, when
the State takes custody of a child due to accusations of
abuse or neglect. He explained that the State represents
the child in these cases, which have become more intensive
in recent years, due to time crunches in the system. He
acknowledged that, while these time efficiencies help to
resolve cases more quickly and are in the best interest of
the children involved, this also made the process more
expensive for the State. He also noted that often the State
is called on to also represent one of the parents involved
in these cases, causing an increase in costs as well.
Representative Joule asked whether the increase in the
amount of children's cases was a result of recent
legislation.
Mr. McGee confirmed that HB 375, passed in 1998, had
increased both the number and the intensity of these cases.
He also noted the intent of the previous Administration to
increase the percentage of investigations by the Division of
Family and Youth Services into reports of harm, which
increases the number of petitions filed, triggering the
appointment of attorneys. He concluded that, although these
changes were positive for the children, they had also
increased costs.
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
Section 1 (a) (5) and (6)
Program shortfunding was estimated to be $1,000.0 in
May. Caseload has added an additional $157.0. Funding
is also included to continue the mental health court
attorney.
Mr. Spencer then discussed the two requests for the Public
Defender's Office: one for $1.157 million from General Fund
for operating costs, and one for $73 thousand from the
Mental Health Trust Authority for a court attorney. He
noted that they would have requested the $73 thousand as an
RPL, but explained that the program was already underway and
that an RPL was not required if the funds were approved
before the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Spencer went on to explain that the agency had
anticipated the need for a $1.2 million supplemental, and
cited the number and intensity of court assigned cases as
necessitating the request.
Co-Chair Harris asked whether in-depth investigation
occurred into the financial situations of those requesting
public defense.
BARBARA BRINK, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, noted that,
due to legislative concerns regarding appointment of cases
to the agency, the court system completed an in-depth study
two years ago, resulting in a change in statute (Alaska
Criminal Rule 39.1). She noted that, due to this Commission
study, procedures had improved: the process had been
tightened, specific assets were listed to account for,
estimates for certain types of cases were determined, and
the rigor with which indigence was reviewed had increased.
She also noted that if any concerns over a defendant's
ability to hire an attorney were raised, these were brought
to the attention of their judicial district.
Responding to a comment by Co-chair Harris, Ms. Brink
clarified that the standard applied was whether or not an
individual, based on their assets and debts, as well as
their location, could afford to retain counsel. She
affirmed her confidence that any mistakes were corrected.
Representative Stoltze asked whether an indigent individual
could request that outside counsel be hired by other family
members.
Mr. Brink indicated that if the individual could obtain
outside counsel that they would not be eligible for the
Division's services.
LABOR RELATIONS
Section 1 (a) (7)
Arbitration settlement with ASEA union on Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) residual claims including interest
of $9,238.36
Mr. Spencer then discussed the request for Labor Relations,
explaining that a settlement had been reached last May from
Fair Labor Standards Act claims dating back to FY 1993. He
stated that the settlement stipulated that the agency
request funding for this fiscal year. The amount of the
settlement was $200 thousand, in addition to statutory
interest from May until the time of the passage of the
supplemental, estimated at $209,800, assuming the bill was
signed in June.
Mr. Spencer also explained that the outstanding claims
represented a liability to the State of $700,000 to $1
million, if all cases were lost, in addition to hearing
officer or other costs incurred. He asserted that the
mediated settlement mitigated financial risk that already
existed.
Representative Croft referred to the February 18 spreadsheet
produced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
asked whether in the Fast track Supplemental, under General
Relief, there was indeed a savings of $300 thousand in the
Department of Administration (Item 1(b), Senior Services).
He noted that in the Department of Health and Social
Services' budget (Section 3(1) of the Fast track
Supplemental), there was a cost of $271 thousand for General
Relief Assistance.
Mr. Spencer noted that the HESS budget was entirely
different than that of Administration. He noted that the
Department of Administration's Senior Services program,
AS47.24 addressed "vulnerable adults", mandating state
assistance when an adult was reported as in danger or
incapable of caring for himself or herself.
SENIOR SERVICES
Section 1 (b) (regular supplemental)
Caseload for general relief program is lower than
anticipated.
Mr. Spencer clarified that the Vulnerable Adults Program
there had been considerable caseload growth in the past,
necessitating supplemental requests, but that no growth had
occurred this year. He maintained his opinion that the
program was currently over funded.
DIVISION OF FINANCE
Section 1 (a) (1) (regular supplemental)
The Division of Finance is incurring substantially more
costs for accounting and payroll data processing
charges, due to both increased usage and rate
increases, and unanticipated increased costs due to
conversion from ADABAS to DB2. (Savings in general
relief program offsets $300.0.)
Mr. Spencer stated that this was an unusual supplemental
request. He explained that the Division of Finance pays for
all costs related to the accounting and payroll system. He
discussed the history of changes in payroll processing. He
noted that the supplemental is based on a rate change from
Information Technology Group (ITG), another Department of
Administration program; the charge back to ITG causes the
need for the supplemental request. He explained that the
reasons for this have to do with cost accounting principals.
He noted that rates were adjusted in the previous year, late
in the budget development process, before an accurate cost
projection could be made. He pointed out that, if the
supplemental was not requested, it would have to be charged
in some way.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Spencer
stated that they anticipated that rates would be down in the
following year and another supplemental request would not be
necessary.
Representative Hawker referred to the contractual services
line as being the item for which funding was requested. He
asked whether the conversion process did not meet
expectations.
Mr. Spencer conceded that the Department had not initially
been aware of the costs of the conversion process. He
confirmed that the process was more lengthy and costly than
anticipated. Responding to a follow up by Representative
Hawker, he stated that the majority of the cost was in
processing time. He also confirmed that the process was the
State's own internal process, which was cost center
oriented. He summarized that charges were made to the State
by the State.
Representative Hawker asked about the income available for
this request.
Mr. Spencer explained that it was a statutory fund in the
Department of Revenue, called Internal Services. He
clarified that the Department of Administration is paying
the costs on behalf of other agencies.
Representative Joule asked why a request for cost
equalization was not present in either supplemental.
Mr. Spencer was not able to answer that question, as it is
not a Department of Administration program.
PIONEER'S HOME
Section 1(a)(2)
Cost of the certified nurse aide and assisted living
aide reclassifications which was effective December 1,
2002. The classification study found that the
positions were underpaid by one range compared to other
similar positions. Affects 323 positions at
approximately $175 per month per position. Total of
$390.7 thousand in General Fund.
Mr. Spencer then discussed the Pioneer's Home and explained
that the request was a result of a study, which compared
compensation levels to other staff in the State system. He
noted that, as a result, the nursing aids were upgraded by
one range, and the Pioneer Home aids were upgraded by two
ranges, which resulted in a net cost increase of an
estimated $700 thousand per year. The request of $390.7
thousand is based on an evaluation of actual cost increases
during the month of December, after the salary adjustment
became effective. He recalled a historical situation of a
raise in pay for nurses in the Pioneer Home, which was based
on a different study. Responding to a question by
Representative Stoltze, he noted that the Division of
Personnel completed the study.
Representative Stoltze cautioned against a classification
study, in which an agency was tasked with evaluating itself.
Mr. Spencer maintained that most classification studies
conducted by the Division of Personnel have generated
internal controversy, since not all positions receive an
upgrade as a result of the studies. He affirmed that the
study in question was extensive, covering nearly 340
positions, dealing with a variety of issues, including
establishing clear standards of comparison.
Representative Stoltze reiterated his question as to whether
any agency would ever conduct its own classification study.
Mr. Spencer asserted that this would not be the case, and
pointed to a similar case regarding employee bargaining
units, which the Division of Personnel contracted out.
Responding to a question by Co-chair Harris, Mr. Spencer
noted that the Pioneer Home study was completed in the fall
of 2002.
Co-Chair Harris observed that the budget of last year stated
that it would not pay for reclassifications, and asked if
this request conflicted with that intent language.
TAPE HFC 03 - 24, Side B
Mr. Spencer cited the action of former attorney general
Bothello determining that this language was an
administrative action and did not intend to create a
condition. He maintained that the State had an obligation
to implement the results of the study. He also expressed
his understanding that the former Administration spoke to
Senator Donley and Representative Mulder about the language,
but stated that he himself was not present for the
discussion.
Responding to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Spencer
confirmed that, if the request were not funded, the cost
would come directly out of the Pioneer Home Budget. He
expanded that this would mean more vacant beds, although not
necessarily a reduction in staff. He also noted that as a
part of fiscal monitoring, the department had, in the past,
brought receipt changes to the attention of the legislature,
but that at this time such changes were not clear.
Representative Hawker asked whether this was a contractual
obligation or a voluntary classification study.
Mr. Spencer confirmed that the study was voluntary. He
explained that a classification study was ordered when it
became apparent that a group of employees, in this case 340
employees, might be misclassified.
Representative Hawker asked whether the obligation to
implement the study results, as referred to by Mr. Spencer,
was a legal obligation.
Mr. Spencer clarified that the obligation to implement the
results of the classification study was statutory. He noted
that, although the division daily faced position
reclassifications, the scope of this particular
reclassification was unusual.
DAVE STEWART, PERSONNEL MANAGER, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, pointed out that the State
Constitution requires that state employment be based on the
merit principal. He referred to the Personnel Act, Title
39, which defines the merit system as containing a
requirement to give like pay for like work. He continued
that statutory changes required effective dates for job
classification changes be paid on the first pay period
following a study. He concluded that the obligation was
therefore statutory.
Representative Croft asked whether a union or other right
existed to request a study be done.
Mr. Stewart responded that union contracts contain language
strongly urging them to request studies each year.
Representative Croft clarified whether a limited right
existed when an employee perceived a difference between
their work and their level of pay.
Mr. Stewart confirmed that, through a grievance process, an
employee could order a study. Responding to another
question by Representative Croft, Mr. Stewart also stated
that, if the study indicated a change in salary level, the
state was obligated to fund the new salary.
Representative Stoltze suggested that such studies might be
examined as a means of containing governmental costs.
OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Section 1(a)(3)
Increased federal grant for the Underground Injection
Control Program.
$14.3 thousand of Federal Funds
Mr. Spencer then addressed the request for the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). He mentioned an
existing federal grant for $105 thousand, dating to FY 2001.
He also noted that the request could have been addressed in
an RPL, but was included in the supplemental since there was
no urgency.
Section 16
16(2) Miscellaneous Claims and Stale-dated Warrants
$3,385.35 General Fund
16(3) Miscellaneous Claims and Stale-dated Warrants
$5,107.28 General Fund
16(4) Miscellaneous Claims and Stale-dated Warrants
$568.03 General Fund
Mr. Spencer referred back to Section 16 of the regular
supplemental. He noted that these miscellaneous warrants
were state checks that had not been cashed within the two-
year limit. He also explained that the miscellaneous claims
referred to debts owed by the state, where bills for
services occurred more than a year after the services were
given, and the funding was no longer available.
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TOM LAWSON, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, referred to the five
items in the regular supplemental request, none of which are
funded by general funds.
Section 2(a)
Retroactive section to ratify the transfer of $51,000
from the disaster relief fund back to the commercial
fishing revolving loan fund in response to
recommendation 20 in the FY01 Statewide Single Audit
prepared by Legislative Audit. 0.0
Mr. Lawson pointed out that this request was generated by an
audit conducted in FY 01, for a program initiated in 1997
involving federal funds. He noted that in 1998, $375
thousand federal funds were appropriated by the legislature
into the Fund. He stated that the purpose was to mitigate
the fishing industry disaster. He explained that, once the
loans from the Fund were closed out, $51 thousand remained
in the Disaster Relief Fund, which was then moved into the
Commercial Fishing Loan Fund. He concluded that the auditor
had objected to this procedure, and recommended that a
legislative appropriation be requested.
Section 2(b)
Change RPL 08-3-0104 for Rural Internet Access from
operating to capital 0.0
Mr. Lawson referred to Section 2(b) of the regular
supplemental. He explained that Regulatory Commission of
Alaska received a federal grant of $7.5 million, which was
included into the operating budget. He stated that, since
the program was not now projected as operational by the end
of the operating budget fiscal year, they sought to transfer
the authorization from the operating to the capital budget.
Section 2( c)
Authority to receive and expend fees paid by licensees
for background checks. The Division of Insurance will
then enter into a contract (RSA) with Department of
Public Safety who performs the background checks.
$200.0
Mr. Lawson then discussed Section 2(c), seeking $200
thousand in authorization for the Division of Insurance. He
explained that the Department of Public safety completes
background checks for licensing in the State. He further
observed that, since the September 11 attacks, the number of
checks had overwhelmed the Division of Insurance, and that
they had requested the process be changed.
Co-Chair Harris asked whether a corresponding decrement
would be found in the Department of Public Safety's budget.
Mr. Lawson did not know the answer, but speculated that
issue had been addressed in past budgets.
Section 2(d)
Authority to receive and expend registration receipts
from the Korea USA economic conference. The 2002
conference was held in Korea; 2003 will be in
Anchorage. Subsequent years' conferences will be held
in other western states. 115.0
Mr. Lawson referred to Section 2(d) regarding an economic
conference in Anchorage. He request seeks authorization to
receive and spend $115 thousand. He noted that due to the
funding source these funds could only be used on the
function.
Representative Hawker noted that the $35 thousand difference
between the receipts and expenses for the conference would
come from the International Trade Marketing's existing
appropriation.
Section 2(e) and (f)
Income is insufficient to fund appropriation due to
stock market declines. Fund source switch from income
to endowment and a reduction of $6,418.6 in the
appropriation, leaving authorization of $4.1m.
(6,418.6)
Mr. Lawson referred to Section 2(e) and (f), regarding the
Alaska Science and Technology Foundation endowment. He
explained that the market value of the endowment had
decreased beneath the original principal investment. He
noted that the request served as a stopgap measure, which
changes the funding source and reduces the spending
authorization. The $4.1 million will cover existing
operations and obligations.
Co-Chair Harris questioned if it is legal for the Alaska
Science and Technology Foundation to use their endowment
funds without legislative approval. Mr. Lawson replied that
the questioned has not yet been answered. He noted that
efforts were being made to alter statute. He added that no
one envisioned that the principle of the fund would be $10
million less than the original investment. He concluded
that this request representative an interim measure.
Section 17
17(a)(1)(A) AR 56381-02 (Delta Junction Economic
Recovery)
17(a)(1)(B) AR 56385-02 (Rural Utility Mgt.)
Mr. Lawson reviewed ratifications dating back to the DCRA
(Department of Community and Regional Affairs). He explained
that a federal grant was closed out before $562.85 dollars
were received. The second ratification is for .83 cents.
Representative Stoltze questioned if there is a minimum
standard to warrant legislative review. Co-Chair Harris
responded that accounting practices necessitated exact
balancing.
Representative Joule reiterated his earlier question
regarding the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program funding.
Mr. Lawson stated that the program was funded at $15.7
million for FY 03. He further speculated that there would
not be a request for additional funding. He acknowledged
that PCE would not be fully funded, and pointed out that
past governors have requested full funding through a
supplemental. Mr. Lawson did not know the required amount
for full funding, but observed that the amount would be for
April through June. Responding to a follow up from
Representative Joule, Mr. Lawson noted that the amount had
been pro-rated. He committed to providing a more specific
dollar amount for the Committee.
Co-Chair Harris summarized that the projected annual cost of
providing power is higher than the actual appropriation,
therefore the payments have been pro-rated. Mr. Lawson
observed that the department anticipated that the amount
would not be sufficient and began prorating from the first
month.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JERRY BURNETT, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS provided information regarding the
department's supplemental requests.
Section 2(a)
Costs incurred due to the November 19, 2002 accident
involving a prisoner transport van at mile 19.5 of the
Seward Highway.
Section 2(b)
Due to increased negotiated contract amount with
Municipality of Anchorage, the department will realize
increased manday billings and needs receipt authority
to utilize those receipts.
Mr. Burnett explained that the requests related to an auto
accident occurring in November of 2002. He explained that
the amount needed to cover the cost of health care for the
three injured inmates was estimated at $1 million. He noted
that the bill requested $500 thousand from program receipts,
which would then replace the $500 thousand, requested in
general funds.
Co-Chair Harris observed that fault had not yet been
determined. Mr. Burnett speculated that, upon completion of
the police report, insurance payments would be pursued by
the State to return to the General Fund.
Section (3) of the Regular Supplemental
Prior year bill for dialysis services for an inmate in
FY2002. The vendor inadvertently billed a wrong party
and recently discovered the error. An appropriation is
needed in order for the department to pay the bill of
$187,680.05.
Mr. Burnett explained that the department received a bill
for a patient for dialysis treatment in FY02. He noted that
the bill was received in June 20002 and was submitted to
Medicare. Medicare remanded the charge to the state of
Alaska. He pointed out that, since the fiscal year had been
closed out, the department could not pay the bill without a
supplemental request.
Responding to a question from Representative Meyer, Mr.
Burnett noted that the patient was no longer in the Alaskan
correction system, but was released on June 18, 2002. He
went on to explain that a final bill for services had been
billed in June of FY 02, and that Medicare had refused
payment.
Responding to a question from Representative Chenault, Mr.
Burnett clarified that the bill is from a private provider
in Anchorage.
In response to a question by Representative Whitaker, Mr.
Burnett explained that Medicare would not pay for a prisoner
in state custody.
Mr. Burnett noted that, in a case like this that required
extensive medical treatment, a policy existed that would
normally transfer an inmate to an out of state provider
where care was more cost effective.
Representative Whitaker asked whether the amount was beyond
what was customary.
Mr. Burnett stated that these were customary.
Representative Stoltze asked whether refusal of the
legislature to pay the amount would aid in negotiating the
bill. Mr. Burnett stated that the Agency was obligated to
pay the stated amount.
17(a)(2)(A) AR 50981-01 (Noncust Fingerprints) $219.77GF
17(a)(2)(B) AR 50982-01 (ADAM Pgm/Univ AK Anc) $66.65 GF
Mr. Burnett noted other miscellaneous requests, which were
to complete bookkeeping, including some stale dated
warrants.
Representative Croft stated his understanding the stale
dated warrants were funneled through Administration.
HB 100 and HB 110 were heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:48 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|