Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/17/2018 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: State of Alaska - Fy2019 Budget Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 17, 2018
9:04 a.m.
9:04:07 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Pat Pitney, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Brian Fechter, Policy Analyst,
Office of Management and Budget.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: STATE OF ALASKA - FY2019 BUDGET OVERVIEW
9:04:58 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the state continued to face
financial problems such as a large deficit. He referenced
fiscal plans such as SB 26 [legislation relating to the
Permanent Fund and the Earnings Reserve Account] and hoped
the legislature could come to a resolution and help the
state move forward. He was optimistic that that the
legislature could work with the administration and finish
the work of the people.
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, looked forward to addressing some
of the issues around the fiscal plan.
BRIAN FECHTER, POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, addressed the presentation "State of Alaska FY2019
Budget Overview" (copy on file).
Mr. Fechter addressed slide 2, "Key Budget Items":
Safer Alaska
Public Safety Investments - $34.0 million; 18
positions
? $2.9 million for enhanced trooper and
prosecutor presence in rural Alaska
? $18.0 million for substance abuse treatment
grants
? $10.4 million for Corrections prison operations
? $0.2 million for statewide drug prosecutor
? $0.6 million for support positions to free
trooper time
? $0.5 million public defender support
? $1.0 million Anchorage prosecutor/investigator
positions
Medicaid
? Medicaid fully funded
Health Care
? $1.0 million for continued work towards health
care authority ($0.75 million) and stakeholder
process for broader Alaska health care reform
strategies ($0.25 million)
Mr. Fechter asserted that the governor's proposed budget
made significant investments in public safety. The budget
also fully funded Medicaid. He reminded that in FY 18 the
Medicaid program was underfunded by about $100 million.
There was an increment of $127 million in the budget for
Medicaid, with the $27 million representing organic growth
in the program.
9:08:11 AM
Mr. Fechter showed slide 3, "Key Budget Items":
Stronger Alaska
Oil and Gas Exploration Credits
? Debt refinancing
? Statutory calculation would pay credits off in
FY2025
? Small producers offered the opportunity to
receive payment today at a discount
? Discount starts at 10%, reduced for
additional future royalty interest
? Discount covers state's financing costs (budget
neutral)
Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Pipeline
?Signed 5-party agreement
?For the first time, interested buyers are
coming to the table
?Natural gas is available to Alaskans, first
and foremost
?Over 12,000 jobs and $2.0 billion in annual
economic activity
?Future revenue stream to the state
?Budget only includes authority to accept third
party investor funds but no additional
state funds requested
Mr. Fechter informed that the budget included a proposal to
finance the state's oil and gas tax credit liability. He
reminded that the state had just over $700 million in
outstanding oil and gas tax credits.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the state's total tax credit
obligation for FY 19.
Ms. Pitney anticipated (under the formula that was
traditionally used) the liability would be $209 million
based on the price of oil.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked how the governor planned to meet the
obligation.
Ms. Pitney informed that through the financing proposal,
the state would have a $27 million debt payment in the
current year, roughly $30 million debt payment the next two
years, and over $100 million debt payment for the remainder
of a ten-year debt service.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the form of obligation for the
debt service.
Ms. Pitney stated that the obligation would be a subject-
to-appropriation bond financing, structured similarly to
the approval provided for pension obligation bonds in 2008.
She stated that an associated piece of legislation would be
read across in the near future.
Co-Chair Hoffman had not seen the bill read across the
previous day.
Ms. Pitney anticipated the bill to be read across in a
week's time.
Senator Micciche wondered if the proposed 10 percent was an
administration fee or comparative to the cost of the bonds
to the state.
Ms. Pitney explained that the admiration was looking for a
net neutral on a net present value basis, and the 10
percent covered the cost of financing. There were ways in
which the administration was contemplating (in the bill)
that would allow small explorers to take a smaller
discount. She qualified that the administration wanted a
net neutral for the state and for the explorers to have
capital in hand.
9:11:49 AM
Senator Micciche asked if the discount to the explorers
brought the state to a break-even status.
Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Fechter continued to discuss slide 3:
Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Pipeline
?Signed 5-party agreement
?For the first time, interested buyers are
coming to the table
?Natural gas is available to Alaskans, first
and foremost
?Over 12,000 jobs and $2.0 billion in annual
economic activity
?Future revenue stream to the state
?Budget only includes authority to accept third
party investor funds but no additional state
funds requested
Vice-Chair Bishop commented on the last bullet on the
slide. He wanted to know if there was any state liability
associated with accepting third party investor funds.
Co-Chair Hoffman referenced a bullet point on the slide and
was interested in making natural gas available to Alaskans
first. He asked for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to provide further written detail of how provision of
gas would be accomplished.
Mr. Fechter spoke to slide 4, "Key Budget Items":
Base Capital Budget
The Governor's FY2019 capital budget prioritizes
annual federal match programs, housing, energy,
maintenance, and information technology.
UGF Total
Federal Match & Leverage $ 103.4 $ 1,108.6
Housing $ 15.0 $ 30.3
Energy $ 1.3 $ 34.2
Maintenance $ 16.3 $ 24.5
Information Technology $ 14.0 $ 87.6
Total $ 150.1 $ 1,285.2
Table in Millions
Mr. Fechter thought committee members would be familiar
with many of the appropriations in the base capital budget
represented on the slide. He was excited that the budget
proposed to use excess Power Cost Equalization (PCE) fund
earnings to support community and energy projects.
Legislation was passed in 2016 to allow excess earnings of
the fund (when available) to be directed towards energy
programs.
Co-Chair Hoffman thanked Co-Chair MacKinnon for targeting
the fund to include energy projects for the people of
Alaska.
9:14:55 AM
Mr. Fechter discussed slide 5, "Key Budget Items":
Stronger Alaska
Alaska Economic Recovery Act
? $800.0 million over 3 years ($280.0 million in
FY2019)
? $1.4 billion in economic impact with federal, local,
and private funds
? Housing, state and school deferred maintenance, and
energy projects
? Many smaller projects to ensure work is started
today, not after years of environmental studies
? School maintenance impacts 60+ communities,
both rural and urban
? Does not grow government, takes care of current
liabilities
? Funded by a 1.5% wage tax, capped at 2 times the PFD
amount
? Receipts designated for high-value capital
projects
? Sunsets in 2.5 years
? Creating jobs and getting the economy working is
priority #1. Reassess in 2022
Mr. Fechter detailed that the Alaska Economic Recovery Act
was contingent upon passage of the wage tax. He
characterized the proposed act as a departure from past
thinking. The administration thought it was important to
solve the fiscal gap but thought the most important thing
was job creation and getting the economy working again. He
emphasized that within the package described on the slide,
there were many small projects rather than a handful of
larger projects.
Ms. Pitney discussed the plan described on slide 5, and
relayed that the administration considered it a short-term
measure that would put people back to work.
Mr. Fechter turned to slide 6, "Key Budget Items," which
showed a table titled "Alaska Economic Recovery Act." He
noted that the administration proposed to reenact the geo-
bond projects that the governor had paused in FY 16. He
summarized that $800 million of state investment from
proceeds of the proposed wage tax would leverage $1.4
billion of federal and local support funds.
Ms. Pitney relayed that the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) had pointed out a discrepancy between the first phase
of the proposed act and the first year's estimated revenue.
The first phase of investment was dependent upon a tax that
would produce $800 million; the cash flow on capital
projects was such that there would be enough revenue at the
time the commitments on the projects were due. The
administration viewed the plan as "a spend and revenue
neutral" that was set aside from the normal operating and
capital budgets.
Co-Chair Hoffman stated that the plan still spent $120
million, which he considered deficit spending.
Ms. Pitney stated that the administration viewed the plan
as a three-year fiscal package on both the revenue and
expenditure side.
9:18:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon heard the presentation reference re-
starting projects that had been put on hold, and the
expenditure of bond proceeds. She asked about the Knik Arm
Crossing project.
Ms. Pitney affirmed that there was a plan for expenditure
of bond proceeds. She stated that the Knik Arm Crossing was
not viewed as a road project, and the proposal referenced
the road between Anchorage and Palmer.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the Juneau Road Access
Project.
Ms. Pitney stated that the Juneau Access Road Project was
not included. The Juneau road project was not in the geo-
bond package and had a "no-build" recommendation. The
general funds (GF) appropriated for the Juneau road were in
two separate appropriations through action done the
previous year. One appropriation was still directed to the
Juneau Road Access Project, and another was directed to
transportation projects in Upper Lynn Canal.
Co-Chair MacKinnon did not know of suspension of the
projects. She asked Ms. Pitney to relay the progress that
had been made on the deferred maintenance plan.
Ms. Pitney recalled the previous year the administration
had provided an overview of $1.8 billion in deferred
maintenance. The legislature appropriated $20 million the
previous year, and the administration had prioritized and
distributed the funds to agencies for the highest-need
projects. The administration had an inventory and was
working on centralizing facilities maintenance to get more
from the existing resources. She offered to provide the
inventory list and prioritization that guided state
deferred maintenance investments.
9:22:00 AM
Senator Micciche referenced an inventory of state
properties on the deferred maintenance list that had been
requested by the legislature two years previously. There
had been consideration of the some of the properties
possibly being surplussed. He asked about the status of the
consideration by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT).
Ms. Pitney stated that consideration of properties for
surplus was an ongoing project. There were no major
facilities that had been determined as valuable to surplus.
There had been minor facilities and parcels that had been
decided upon. She agreed to provide further details at a
later time.
Senator Olson asked what kind of priority list would be
used to examine the list of projects for K-12 major
maintenance.
Ms. Pitney explained that major maintenance statute had a
very solid set of criteria, and there was a process that
happened every fall. On the most recent list there was $172
million in projects that were prioritized. The priority
list was available on the OMB website as well as the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
website.
Senator Olson asked if the administration would follow the
priorities of DEED.
Ms. Pitney stated that it was the intent of the
appropriation to follow the priorities of DEED.
Senator Olson asked if the funds listed on the slide were
the only funds in the budget for major maintenance for
DEED.
Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative.
9:24:16 AM
Senator von Imhof asked what factors were used in listing
and prioritizing projects. She referenced properties that
were municipally owned, state owned, and federally owned;
and referenced a lack of cooperation. She considered
deployment of labor and resources to small communities (for
maintenance) and wondered how the state could collaborate.
She referenced the Denali Commission, which had looked at
dual expenses and ways to reduce redundancy. She wondered
if there were creative ways to look at leasing back some of
the state's assets. She referenced Senator Micciche's
remarks and considered selling smaller assets to allow for
multi-use in the community. She used the hypothetical
scenario of a Native corporation utilizing a state asset,
while the state also used the asset if there was extra
capacity. Under a shared usage the state could share
maintenance costs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed deferred maintenance. She
asked Ms. Pitney if she believed remodeling and furniture
constituted deferred maintenance.
Ms. Pitney considered that remodeling was a part of
deferred maintenance, and furniture could be a necessary
component to make a space usable.
Co-Chair MacKinnon was not sure that remodeling and
furniture was the highest and best use of limited state
funds in the current budget climate. She asked if Ms.
Pitney was personally watching departments expenditures
specifically related to spending funds on safety rather
than remodels.
Ms. Pitney was happy to provide further detail
prioritization of the $20 million appropriated the previous
year. She referenced a remodel project on the 8th floor of
the State Office Building in Juneau. She listed the new
roof project for the geological building. She thought the
vast majority of expenditures would be for building
systems. She stated that the administration's capital
budget coordinator had worked with every department and
considered each agencies list of priorities. She detailed
that there were five criteria that were considered, one of
which was timely execution of the project. The
administration had chosen projects that were more urgent
and readier to execute.
9:29:53 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to the replacement roof for the
Geological Center and wondered if she had referenced the
building located in Anchorage that was purchased two years
previously.
Ms. Pitney stated that the Geological Center was the
building in Anchorage Co-Chair MacKinnon was referring to.
The roof was a known issue at the time purchase.
Co-Chair MacKinnon did not recall being advised of a
forthcoming roof replacement for the facility. She recalled
that the Geological Center had been moved from the
Chugiak/Eagle River community.
Senator Micciche wondered what kind of comprehensive supply
chain logistics that the state might consider and wondered
about efficiencies. He had not seen any relevant
initiatives. He wondered if DOT would be presenting to the
committee.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought have the four major cost drivers
(including DOT) should come before the committee like the
previous year. He thought it was important that members had
an understanding of the major cost drivers in the state.
Senator Stevens asked about the total for deferred
maintenance for the University of Alaska (UA).
Ms. Pitney stated that UA had a deferred maintenance
inventory of roughly $1 billion. She encouraged members to
have a specific discussion on UA deffered maintenance, and
what it was doing on a yearly basis to address maintenance
issues. She stated that UA's ongoing plan was at $50
million annually while endeavoring to keep the backlog from
growing.
Senator Stevens asked if Ms. Pitney thought the amount
listed on slide 6 for UA deferred maintenance was adequate.
Ms. Pitney considered that the funds were adequate. She
discussed the pace of spending and logistics involved in
addressing deferred maintenance.
9:33:59 AM
Mr. Fechter referenced slide 7, "Cost Avoidance -
Efficiency":
Smarter Alaska
Office of Information Technology
The purpose of this centralization is to deliver lower
cost information technology services by leveraging the
purchasing power of the state as a single
organization.
Shared Services
The Shared Services initiative resulted in a ten
percent savings to back-office administrative
functions during its first year. An additional ten
percent savings will be realized in fiscal year 2019.
Facilities Consolidation
The new Facilities Services division strives to place
the right maintenance employee at the right facility
at the right time to better care for state facilities
and realize savings.
Mr. Fechter discussed three centralization initiatives
detailed on the slide, and pointed out savings displayed in
a table on the slide. He detailed that DOT was leading the
Facilities Consolidation.
Ms. Pitney spoke to the Internet Technology (IT)
consolidation. The administration was looking at the Office
of Information Technology (OIT) department to help drive
cost savings in the capital technology upgrades. She
expected that through IT upgrade project coordination, the
state could save 10 percent on the projects.
9:36:40 AM
Senator von Imhof asked what kind of efficiency savings
might be seen at the end of the FY 18 fiscal year.
Ms. Pitney offered to supply the numbers at a later time.
She detailed that the Shared Services Initiative expected a
10 percent savings. There were other departmental
efficiencies, and she would provide additional detail at a
later time.
Senator von Imhof knew that changes took effect slower. She
thought the state would theoretically see the benefits of
efficiencies in the current year.
Ms. Pitney stated that savings were built-in, based on
shared services moving forward.
Senator Micciche asked if the state had employed any
outside consultants to assist with the Smarter Alaska
Initiative.
Ms. Pitney affirmed that there had been a consultant hired
for shared services, that had been very valuable in the
process. There had been several consultants engaged to look
at functions within Department of Health and Social
Services. She thought there was a balance to strike with
bringing in outside entities. She recalled that another
outside advisor had been brought in to consider
appropriations.
9:40:15 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a progress report on the
savings that had been planned for the FY 18 budget. She
thought there were sometimes issues with ideas based on
what had been done in other states.
Mr. Fechter presented slide 8, "Cost Drivers Health
Care," which showed a table listing health care costs
funded directly and indirectly in state budget. He pointed
out that there was a total of $1.4 billion in state funds
were directed towards healthcare. The largest portion of
the total was Medicaid, with $705 million. Other
significant costs came from employee health care. He
thought the support to school districts and local
governments could be seen as a subsidy of what each paid
for employees.
Co-Chair Hoffman commented on the total of $1.4 billion and
stated that there was interest in the area since it was
such a large cost driver.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the $705 million for
Medicaid.
Ms. Pitney informed that the total was comprised of $690
million of GF, as well as Designated General Funds (DGF)
and other funds. The total was an expectation for FY 19.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there would be a
supplemental request for the Medicaid budget, and whether
funds had been adequately placed in the FY 19 budget.
Ms. Pitney stated that the administration strongly believed
it had accounted for the total cost of Medicaid. She
acknowledged that there would be additional enrollment and
had accounted for additional enrollment. The administration
would do everything it could to maintain costs within the
quoted funding total for FY 19.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the amount of the
supplemental request for Medicaid for FY 18.
Ms. Pitney specified that there was a $100 million
supplemental request for FY 18, which did not count the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) reauthorization.
When FY 17 was finished, there was $75 million more than
the budget that was authorized in FY 18.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about chip reauthorization and
wondered if it was a federal reauthorization.
Ms. Pitney answered in the affirmative. She stated that the
difference was funding at a 50 percent federal match versus
68 percent.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if there was any expectation as to
whether the chip would be reauthorized.
Ms. Pitney thought it was uncertain whether the
reauthorization would pass.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the state's options if CHIP
was not reauthorized.
Ms. Pitney stated that short-term options would be to
provide the formula match. In the long term, it would be
necessary to change Medicaid statute.
9:45:57 AM
Ms. Pitney stated that CHIP was a federally funded
children's health program that was partially matched by the
state.
Senator Stevens asked for a breakdown of healthcare costs
for inmate/juvenile justice health. He asked if the
administration projected that inmate healthcare costs would
decrease in the future.
Ms. Pitney did not anticipate inmate healthcare being
reduced int eh future. The administration was doing
everything it could to constrain inmate health. More use of
electronic monitoring and half way houses would result in
lower costs, but there was a balance with public safety.
She agreed to provide further detail on the breakdown of
inmate/juvenile justice healthcare. She estimated that
inmate health cost close to $40 million.
Senator von Imhof referred to the $100 million supplemental
request for FY 18 and asked about the Xerox computer system
and Medicaid eligibility processing. She referred to past
challenges with technology and administrative functions.
She wondered if the supplemental request would cover the
costs associated with the challenges she referenced.
Ms. Pitney stated that the $100 million supplemental was
for provider payments, and additional costs were not
anticipated for FY 18. She continued that some of the
technology upgrades were in the FY 19 capital budget, and
included some Department of Health and Social Services
systems related to Medicaid.
9:49:37 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked Mr. Fechter to elaborate on his
reference to cost savings.
Mr. Fechter stated that the administration had identified
savings in the retiree healthcare system and would speak
further on the matter later in the presentation. He
mentioned a $1 million investment in working towards other
efficiencies.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced the $100 million supplemental
request, and technology improvements for Medicaid that
would be in the capital budget. She asked if the system had
been certified by the federal government.
Ms. Pitney believed that the certification arrived in
December 2017. The system upgrade would require some
support from DHSS.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that the committee would be
having an informational session on Medicaid. She understood
that the state system had not been certified, and mentioned
on-screen advertisements for the health and human services
offered by the state.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought it had been well over a year that
the administration had claimed the state would have
certification for the Medicaid system. He thought further
updates were needed and wanted a more detailed report of
how long certification might take.
Ms. Pitney agreed to provide further details.
9:53:34 AM
Senator Micciche noted that roughly one-third of state
spending was on healthcare, half of which was on the
Medicaid program. He asked how the administration planned
to cap healthcare spending. He spoke about the graph on
slide 9 and expressed concern about increasing spending on
healthcare. He emphasized a need for a cap on healthcare
spending.
Ms. Pitney stated that the administration placed a high
priority on the health of Alaskans. She thought the
economic recession had exacerbated Medicaid enrollment, and
stated that half of enrollment had been associated with
traditional Medicaid. She recalled that during the Medicaid
reform process, many state costs for healthcare were
shifted to federal spending. The state's expenditure for
Medicaid was the same as it was in FY 15 while serving over
75,000 more people. She reminded that healthcare was the
only sector of the economy that was growing jobs in the
state, due to increased federal funding. She stated that
the previous year the state changed provider reimbursement
from 130 percent of Medicare down to 115 percent in the
effort to drive costs down. She stated that Alaskan's
access to healthcare was an important priority of the
administration.
9:56:59 AM
Senator Micciche thought there had been unintended
consequences to Medicaid expansion, and that there had been
incorrect assumptions relating to the expansion population.
He thought access to healthcare was important. He was
concerned that the end result was not reduced cost to the
state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted all Alaskans to have access to
healthcare. She referenced a budget reduction for adult
day-care the previous year and thought people had relocated
to Alaska for the services the state provided. She thought
the health industry was growing because the state was
paying 60 percent of the cost. She recounted that $1.2
billion in federal funds had supported 30,000 Medicaid
recipients the previous year, which had been matched with
GF. She thought the state budget had been propping up most
of the budget of the growing healthcare industry. She
wondered how long the trend could continue.
Ms. Pitney commented that the administration was well aware
of cost increases and was looking to constrain costs.
10:00:26 AM
Ms. Pitney discussed slide 11, "Cost Avoidance
Efficiency," which showed a table titled "Potential Health
Care Budget Cost Avoidance Projections." The slide was part
of the administration's ten-year plan, under which it
planned to maintain healthcare costs at inflation-only
levels. She discussed the trend in healthcare increase, and
identified target savings to constrain healthcare growth as
shown on the slide. She mentioned the implementation of
(EGWP) the Employer Group Waiver Program (EGWP), which
would provide $25.5 million of cost avoidance in the next
year, and $50 million of savings in the following two
years.
Ms. Pitney continued to discuss slide 11. She anticipated
moving forward with savings in the Health Care Authority.
She reiterated that the recession had contributed to
Medicaid enrollment, and anticipated that as the economy
improved there would be declining enrollment. She noted
that not all areas of expected savings were listed on the
slide. She informed that the administration had formed a
group of larger stakeholders (that included private sector
and legislative participants) that was looking at how to
address healthcare costs in the state. The governor's
office was working towards the same end at the federal
level.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked how comfortable the administration
was at keeping the future costs at inflation-level or
lower.
Ms. Pitney believed it was imperative for the state in the
long-term to keep costs at inflation-level or lower. If the
state could keep the costs with inflation, the state would
still remain one of the high-cost areas in the nation. She
did not think the state had a choice in the matter.
Senator Olson asked about EGWP.
Ms. Pitney detailed that the EGWP was an employer group
that included almost every retirement system, and would
start January 1, 2019, the system included a process by
which Medicare would pay for prescriptions that the state's
retiree program paid for.
Senator Olson asked how the state could anticipate future
costs. He wondered about the program's success in other
states.
Ms. Pitney stated that the figures were from the recent
Health Care Authority Feasibility Study; and was based on
experiences in other states and the volume of
pharmaceuticals in Alaska's program.
10:05:39 AM
Mr. Fechter turned to slide 12, "Cost Avoidance -
Efficiency":
State government employment below 2002 levels
? There were 3,000 fewer state government employees in
November 2017 than the same month in 2014, the year
state government employment peaked.
? State government employment is at its lowest level
in 16 years, since 2002. Over this period, Alaska's
population has grown 15%
Mr. Fechter drew attention to a table depicting state
government employment from 2001 to 2017. He qualified that
the data reflected "live bodies" rather than position
control numbers (PCNs).
Mr. Fechter referenced slide 13, "Budget Summary." The
slide showed a table. He noted that there was significant
under-funding of certain programs in the FY 18 budget, and
the slide included supplementals in comparison. There was a
difference of approximately $60 million, largely due to
public safety investment and continued growth in Medicaid.
Co-Chair Hoffman stated that the presentation including the
supplementals was a deviation from all prior
administrations. He asked Mr. Fechter to provide the
committee with a traditional comparison not including
supplemental budgets in order to provide more transparency.
He thought the presentation did not give a good comparison
to prior years' spending.
Ms. Pitney explained that showing the difference from the
FY 18 Management Plan was traditional reporting and was
reflected on the bottom line of the table on slide 13. She
furthered that the bolded line above contained
supplementals, included due to the known underfunded items
from the previous year.
Co-Chair Hoffman stated that prior presentations by OMB had
not included supplemental budgets in the comparison. He
thought it looked as though the deficit was smaller than it
was in reality. He reiterated that the slide was a
deviation from prior presentations by the administration.
10:08:55 AM
Mr. Fechter presented slide 14, "Budget Summary,":
?Provide the legislature with the tools necessary to
pass a timely budget
?Agency budgets fully funded with existing revenue,
ERA draw and SBR
?Certain statewide items CBR-funded (school debt/REAA,
retirement, exploration credits
?While inconvenient, late passage will not
disrupt schools or government services
Mr. Fechter continued discussing slide 14, which also
showed a table. He noted that the budget was structured
differently than past budgets. He drew attention to the
column entitled "FY 2019 Capacity Budget," which showed the
day-to-day operations of state government. The capacity
budget funded on existing revenue, a draw from the
Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account (ERA), and if
necessary a backfill from the Statutory Budget Reserve
(SBR). He stated that the reason the budget was presented
as such, was to give the legislature the tools it needed in
order to pass a timely budget. The budget reflected in the
first column was available through a simple majority vote
and would ensure that day-to-day operations of the
government could continue.
Mr. Fechter continued addressing the budget summary table
on slide 14. He pointed out that the second column, "FY
2019 CBR Items" included items that were inconvenient if
the state was waiting on protracted budget negotiations but
would not stop day to day government services.
Co-Chair Hoffman referred to a meeting the previous summer
with Department of Revenue Commissioner Sheldon Fisher. He
felt it was portrayed that the Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR) should have a larger balance to accommodate
future emergencies. He had gleaned that the state would try
and preserve the CBR. He wondered what had changed from the
meeting to the present time. He thought it was a small
number in comparison to the rest of the budget, but the
implications of needing a three-quarters vote from the
legislature could cause further spending.
Ms. Pitney opined that in a perfect world there should be
$5 million in the CBR or in the SBR. The state remained a
highly volatile revenue state, and even with the Permanent
Fund Protection Act (PFPA). There was estimated to be $2.3
billion in the CBR at the end of 2018. She stated that it
would be prudent to maintain a balance of $2 billion in the
CBR. She thought it was more important to never draw
unsustainably from the ERA. The administration believed
that a trade-off would be to draw a sustainable amount from
the ERA. She stated that a later slide would address a ten-
year plan, which would come close to restoring the CBR to a
$2 billion level.
Co-Chair Hoffman did not think it would be possible to
achieve a three-quarters vote from the other body in order
to access the CBR.
10:13:00 AM
Senator Micciche asked to return to slide 13. He commented
on the immensity of the problem that Co-Chair Hoffman had
referenced. He thought that the slide skipped over the fact
of the increase in spending in the supplemental budget. He
supported the Co-Chair Hoffman's request that the budget
information be presented in the way it had been in years
past. He thought it was important to highlight the problem
of supplemental expenditures.
Senator von Imhof referenced slide 14 and thought by de-
coupling agency funding with other state expenses such as
debt service and retirement; she thought there was a trade-
off between accounting and political influence. She
considered that the proposed budget would work better with
a viable spending cap in place to prevent "budget creep."
She thought the slide was insufficient until there were
other parameters in place.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked about a federal supplemental
budget.
Ms. Pitney specified that the funds were in Medicaid, and
in FY 17 there was an open-ended federal supplemental. In
FY 18, the funds knowingly not included, and the GF budget
for Medicaid was knowingly underfunded in FY 18. The FY 18
supplemental was different than prior years, as in prior
years there was underfunding that was not known. She
reiterated that the previous year, there was underfunding
that was clearly known at the end of the legislative
session.
10:16:51 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the underfunding of Medicaid
was due to the fact that the Medicaid system had not yet
been certified.
Ms. Pitney answered in the negative and stated that there
was a piece of budget language in 2017 that allowed for the
receipt of all federal funds without a specific number. The
administration had considered it more transparent to
receive a set amount of funds rather than open receipt
authority.
Senator Olson looked at slide 14 and referenced the first
column. He asked why the Regional Education Attendance Area
(REAA) school construction budget of almost $40 million was
in the column under CBR items, when it was considered
unlikely that a passing vote would be achieved. He noted
that other school projects were in the capacity budget
columns.
Ms. Pitney stated that there were no other school projects
in the capital budget. The $87 million for listed on the
slide for debt service was for urban school debt
reimbursement. The formula tied the REAA school funding to
school debt. She pondered what items would not stop day-to-
day business, which would allow for a capacity budget with
a simple majority vote. She stated that the administration
had to move $400 million and had moved items into the CBR
category that were payment driven, rather than day-to-day
operationally driven.
Senator Olson mentioned the short construction season in
his district and pondered the viability of building in the
current year if there was a delay from a required CBR vote.
Ms. Pitney recalled the previous year that the operating
budget and capital budget were extended. She acknowledged
that the current budgets could follow a similar protracted
timeline and affirmed that the administration considered
the project important.
Co-Chair Hoffman commented on the "super extended" timeline
of budget passage the previous year hoped that the
legislature would pass the current year's budget in a much
more professional manner.
10:20:40 AM
Ms. Pitney stated that the following 3 slides and graphs
were for reference. The slides detailed relative increases
to the budget, decreases to the budget, fund changes,
mental health, one-time items, and statewide non-agency
related changes. She stated that the slides were a tool for
the committee to use and would make it easier to see what
had moved in the budget.
Ms. Pitney spoke to slide 17, "Budget Detail," and spoke to
the "Community and Energy Support" supplemental item on the
table. She referenced Mr. Fechter's reference to the PCE
program and available earnings for community assistance and
energy projects. The administration made the budget
decision to capitalize the Community Assistance Fund in FY
18, therefore the payout in FY 19 was a full $30 million to
communities. If the fund had been capitalized in FY 19,
there would only be a $20 million payout to communities in
FY 19.
Ms. Pitney spoke to the $14 million that was deposited into
the Renewable Energy Account, which was made effective the
last day of FY 18 and available for use in FY 19 for
projects that would show up in the capital budget.
Co-Chair Hoffman reiterated that the presentation deviated
from prior practices. It was normal for the administration
to include a separate appropriation for supplementals, and
not include the supplemental requests in the operating
budget. He asked about the logic behind the change to a
practice that had existed for decades.
Ms. Pitney stated that in the time she had been director of
the Office of Management and Budget, the office had tried
to include every supplemental that was known before the
budget was submitted each year on December 15. She stated
that if the practice was a departure from previous
administrations, she was not aware of it.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Ms. Pitney was suggesting that
there would be additional supplemental requests coming
forward from the administration.
Ms. Pitney stated that it was possible that there would be
additional supplemental requests that came forward before
the mandated deadline. She believed any such request would
be very minor.
Co-Chair Hoffman mused at the possibility of a negative
supplemental.
10:24:12 AM
Senator Micciche reminded that he was chair of the Senate
Finance Budget Subcommittee for the Department of Health
and Social Services. He recalled that the previous year
there was an anticipated $30 million budget shortfall. He
wondered how to avoid the problem of budget shortfalls and
subsequent supplemental requests in the future.
Ms. Pitney recalled that the FY 18 budget proposed by the
administration for Medicaid was $580 million, and it had
anticipated a $65 million increase. The administration had
taken action to reduce costs and anticipated bringing in
the increase at just over $32 million. Subsequently, the
Medicaid budget was lowered from $580 to $565. The increase
in Medicaid enrollment was a contributing factor in the
budget increase, and the FY 17 year-end numbers were higher
than anticipated. The administration felt that the $100
million budget item (listed on slide 1) fully funded
Medicaid. The administration did not want to be in the
supplemental cycle in the future.
Senator Micciche thought that the budget process felt like
a game. He was concerned that there was a growing
supplemental problem. He alleged that when Medicaid was
expanded, it was done with incorrect assumptions. He was
very concerned about uncontrolled spending and the cost of
Medicaid expansion in the future.
Co-Chair Hoffman concurred with Senator Micciche's remarks
and opined that the legislature agonized over reductions to
the budget but did not spend much time or scrutiny on the
supplemental budget. He thought there should be a more
concerted effort by the administration to operate within
the confines of the budget.
10:28:42 AM
Senator von Imhof appreciated the budget presentation
including the supplemental. She referenced slide 17. She
discussed spending on Medicaid expansion, and wondered what
the state could expect for UGF spending as federal funds
decreased. She asked if the administration had done an
analysis on the topic to look in the near future.
Ms. Pitney stated that Medicaid expansion accounted for
less than $20 million of the $705 million spent. The state
cost for Medicaid expansion was less than $20 million, and
the program was federally funded at 93 percent to 94
percent. The federally funded portion would go down to 90
percent. She thought that if the federal government made a
drastic change and did not fund 90 percent, there would be
a serious policy question for the state to consider. She
detailed that the cost driver was enrollment increases in
the traditional Medicaid program, largely children and
single parent families. She added that the administration
would provide a projection of decreased federal funding
that Senator von Imhof had inquired about.
10:31:29 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked about Ms. Pitney's reference of an
increase in children on Medicaid and questioned the effect
of losing high-paying jobs in the state. He spoke of a
movement at the federal level to allow for insurance to be
sold across state lines, ostensibly to lower costs. He
hoped that the change would come to pass.
Mr. Fechter discussed slide 18, "Deficit Reconciliation,"
which showed an OMB to LFD deficit reconciliation. He was
sure that members had seen the reports from LFD with a
calculated deficit of around $671 million. He detailed that
OMB had calculated the deficit at $477 million; with the
biggest difference being the economic recovery plan and
$120 million gap in cash flow. The measure was meant to be
contingent upon and funded by the new wage tax; therefore,
deficit neutral over a three-year period. He noted that LFD
had denied savings from the EGWP Provisions, because they
were not yet approved by the Retirement Management Board.
Notwithstanding the two items, there were a couple of small
adjustments to dividend figures that OMB had not had; and
the calculated deficit for FY 19 would be near to $525
million.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the deficit as shown on the slide
excluded the obligation to outstanding tax credit
liability, which was a substantial number.
10:34:20 AM
Mr. Fechter turned to slide 19, "Budget Reconciliation to
Fall Estimates." He explained that the previous fall LFD
and OMB came forward with an analysis which included items
that were likely to drive up the FY 19 budget. The slide
was a reconciliation of what was known the previous fall
and the governor's budget that was put forward. He pointed
out an increase in the projection for Medicaid, largely
because it was estimated that payment levels would remain
flat with FY 17 while not factoring in growth for FY 18 and
FY 19. There were smaller differences in inmate health and
debt service. He noted that the largest difference
reflected on the table was the debt financing concept for
exploration credits. He recalled that one of the co-chairs
had stated that if the state paid the statutory amount of
tax credits owed, there would be a $118 million increase to
the budget rather than a $30 million decrease as proposed.
Mr. Fechter continued speaking to slide 19 and pointed out
additional funds used from the Public School Trust Fund,
which would require legislation to be passed in order to
achieve the savings. He mentioned the EGWP provision, and
some adjustments to fiscal notes. The governor's budget
restored the Senior Benefits Program, which would also
require legislation. He added that the economic recovery
plan allowed for a leaner capital budget.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked when the administration would change
course if the plan did not proceed as expected. He thought
it was a lofty idea. He mentioned other ideas such as Vice-
Chair Bishop's similar concept with a different funding
source.
10:37:17 AM
Senator Stevens asked for discussion about the estimated
increase for the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Mr. Fechter explained that the FY 18 budget had funded the
AMHS with a one-time balanced draw-down. Instead of being
subsidized partially by UGF, and partially running off
receipts; it was identified that there was sufficient
balance to draw the system down to a certain point.
Subsequently, $44 million in the budget was shifted from GF
to Marine Highway Funds. The move was a one-time strategy.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for more discussion on the Marine
Highway Fund. She recalled another way that had been
proposed to fill the fund.
Ms. Pitney recounted that as part of the legislative budget
process the governor's budget proposal had funded AMHS in
the traditional manner. There were two components: in FY
17; a supplemental was put forward to capitalize the Marine
Highway Fund, and FY 19 put more burden on the fund. The
supplemental (due to last-minute negotiations) had not come
through and left AMHS funding short. There was a letter
that had been sent to the co-chairs over the summer
regarding the problem. The capitalization had been a one-
time strategy that pushed the funding to DGF.
Senator Micciche asked about the most reliable source of
obtaining a list of various accounts and funds where state
dollars were sequestered. He thought that it might be time
to evaluate and reprioritize such funds.
Ms. Pitney stated that the administration had provided such
a list in the fall and agreed to provide it again. She
considered that it would be prudent to provide the
information in conjunction with LFD so there was more
awareness.
10:42:03 AM
Mr. Fechter referenced slide 20, "Transparency Report,":
The Alaska Budget Transparency Report corrects for
budget strategies to show a more accurate trend:
• Reclassification of unrestricted revenues to
designated or other
• Other general fund offsets
• Retroactive budget items (i.e. multi-year
supplemental appropriations)
• Supplemental items
• Reappropriations
Budget Transparency Proposed Next Steps
• Work with Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee to codify reporting rules
Mr. Fechter stated that OMB wanted to work with the
Legislative Budget and Audit Division in order to create
some reporting rules to more clearly show changes from year
to year. There were a number of budget strategies that
artificially deflated GF spending and made it challenging
for the public to understand the movements of the budget.
Mr. Fechter spoke to slide 21, "Budget Trend (Transparent
Budget)":
Agency operating budgets increased by less than one
percent from FY2018 after accounting for
supplementals:
Investment in public safety of $34.0 million
Higher than anticipated prison population
Increased formula costs of $27.2 million for
Medicaid
Statewide Items (Debt, Retirement, Credits, etc.)
declined 12.6 percent driven by:
? Medicare Part-D Employer Group Waiver Plan
($25.5 million in savings)
? Exploration Credit Financing (more in a later
slide)
Total Operating and Capital reduced by 3.1%
Including the Dividend, total budget is down 1.7% or
$93.1 million
? 30 percent compromise dividend proposed (7.7%
above 2018 levels), estimated at $1,216/Alaskan.
Growing to above $1,500 in 10-years
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Mr. Fechter was referring to GF
spending, or all-in spending including federal funds and
other designated receipts.
Ms. Pitney stated that the slide showed what GF spending
would be in a very stable environment. The slide did not
include federal funds.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the slide could use more
information to inform what funds were used. She referenced
conversations with constituents to explain the rationale of
increasingly using federal funds. She discussed using
federal funds to the highest benefit of the people of
Alaska while the funds were available. She discussed the
state's diminished economy. She thought the budget was
trending upward due to accessing more federal funds than in
the past.
Co-Chair Hoffman referred to the transparency report and
noted that the committee would hear an independent view
from LFD the following day. He thought the report from LFD
might differ from that of OMB.
10:45:49 AM
Mr. Fechter spoke to slide 24, "Expenditure Reductions to
Date," which showed a table/graph that broke down the
transparency report by agency. He drew attention to a wide
range of reductions, noting that many departments had taken
reductions greater than 5 percent, with many in the 20 to
40 percent range. He noted that there was an asterisk next
to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; which denoted that the reduction was due to
the transition of the tourism and seafood marketing
function to the industry and away from GF.
Mr. Fechter discussed slide 25, "Budget Reform":
"We need to get to the point where the largest
employer in the state is not sending a pink slip to
all of its employees every year?.they are not buying
houses, cars, etc?."
Southeast Banker
Ms. Pitney clarified that the author of the quote on slide
25 came from a banker in Southeast Alaska.
Senator Micciche referenced slide 22. He referred to former
Senator Ted Stevens, who was fondly known as "Uncle Ted,"
and had brought in a maximum amount of federal funds to the
state. He thought it was important that Alaskans knew that
the legislature was focused on federal spending increases
as the state worked on UGF reductions. He wished for a
second slide that captured information on federal spending
increases.
10:48:12 AM
Mr. Fechter turned to slide 26, "Budget Reform":
Defining the Problem Consequences of an untimely
budget
? Employees and teachers receive layoff notices
(reduced morale, increases costly turnover)
? Ferries cannot publish their schedule (foregone
revenue)
? Agency staff focusing on government shutdown,
not service to Alaskans
Budget Reform Legislation
? If the Governor fails to submit the budget by
December 15th
? Forgo salary and per diem
? If a budget is not passed by legislative day
91:
? Legislative salaries withheld, per diem
forfeited
? Shift to biennial budgeting
? During the first session of each 2 year
cycle, 2 budgets are passed
? During the second session, a supplemental
true-up is passed
? More time to tackle policy issues
? Avoid lengthy budget negotiations
each year
Mr. Fechter discussed the budget reform legislation as
proposed on slide 26. He noted that the State of California
had enacted a similar piece of legislation; and since
passage there had only been one year in which the budget
was passed late.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how many years the administration
had missed the budget submission deadline of December 15th.
Ms. Pitney relayed that there had been a budget submitted
by the Walker Administration every December 15 each year.
She detailed that the first year of the administration, the
December 15 budget was a non-endorsed budget, but had been
submitted by the deadline.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled a year when the administration
had not submitted the budget in a timely manner and
commented that the budget had been unbalanced and based on
legislation that had to pass. She thought it was open for
interpretation as to whether the administration had
submitted a budget on time. She appreciated the desire for
transparency and commented on the challenging fiscal
climate. She thought the general public was very
dissatisfied with the fighting that was going on in the
legislature in the nation's capital. She thought it was
extremely important that the powers in the constitution
were upheld.
Co-Chair MacKinnon continued her remarks. She referenced
political maneuvers. She was uncomfortable with the
governor's proposal to penalize himself and legislators for
the lack of timely budget passage. She discussed her
personal circumstances. She did not think that the current
per diem rate for legislators was set at the right level.
She discussed the tough decisions that state government was
faced with during a fiscal downturn, and diminished state
savings. She suggested that the governor's proposal could
infringe on the constitution the powers of the legislature.
She commented that legislators lost money by leaving
higher-paying jobs to work in the legislature. She found
the proposal alarming.
10:54:07 AM
Senator Micciche echoed the sentiments of Co-Chair
MacKinnon. He thought there should be a penalty that would
incentivize legislators working better together. He
referenced the challenge of the legislative process and
found the governor's proposal offensive. He referred to
past budget negotiations and suggested that the
administration had caused delays. He thought the
administration should act as part of the team. He thought
the governor's proposal was unconstitutional.
10:56:04 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked to return to slide 24. He wanted to
highlight the work the committee had done in streamlining
government and reducing expenses. He thought the committee
had done so with public support. He thought that well over
50 percent of belt-tightening measures had been initiated
by the committee amidst much criticism. He spoke to right-
sizing government and thought the committee had done a
better job than its counterparts. He restated that it was
important for the government to work together for the
state. He thought the per diem issue was something that the
legislature should decide rather than the executive branch.
He agreed with previous comments.
Co-Chair Hoffman continued his comments. He emphasized the
importance of moving forward in a positive manner. He
commented on the difficulty of making reductions and
generating new revenue. He spoke to the legislative process
and hoped that progress could be accomplished. He
referenced Co-Chair MacKinnon's comments about expending
state savings.
10:59:13 AM
Mr. Fechter stated that the final slides would address
anticipated revenues for FY 19.
Mr. Fechter referenced slide 27, "Revenue for Operating and
Base Capital":
Existing revenue expectation: $2.0 billion
Compromise Permanent Fund Protection Act: (30%
dividend): $2.0 billion
Other revenues: $40 million
CBR/SBR: $477.4 million, Adjusted to $525 million per
recon
? Narrowing the gap reduces uncertainty
? Alaska Economic Recovery Act to addresses the
recession
? Reassessment needed when temporary tax expires
? Savings anticipated to be depleted in FY2025
?Reassess in FY2022 given current oil
price/production levels, success of efficiencies,
market returns, etc.
Mr. Fechter mentioned the Motor Fuels Tax, and a variety of
other bills associated with additional revenues proposed by
various legislators.
Mr. Fechter looked at slide 28, "Revenue Sensitivity,"
which showed a table. He noted that the current budget
balance point was at $90 per barrel (bbl) price of oil, but
that once a fiscal plan was enacted the curve would be
shifted downwards. He discussed different fiscal plans as
listed on the slide. As of January 9, 2017; the price of
oil was $69.02/bbl. He thought it was important to note
that the state's tax system worked on the average North
Slope per-barrel oil price for the year.
11:01:40 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed out that most of the money that
the state spent went back to local communities. She thought
it was not entirely accurate to claim that there was $2.1
billion for government. She used the example of education,
which received over $1 billion, while the state education
department was very small. She referred to an interim
meeting with Ms. Pitney in which she had provided figures
describing how funds were used in communities. She
referenced the Glenn Highway, which was very expensive to
maintain. She asked Ms. Pitney to speak to how much of the
state government budget was sent to communities.
Ms. Pitney stated that over 50 percent of state-funded
dollars went to communities via payments for dividends,
school districts, retirement on-behalf payments for local
governments, school debt reimbursement. Such payments went
directly out to communities. She stated that she would
utilize a slide from the presentation Co-Chair MacKinnon
had referred to in order to provide further detail.
11:04:27 AM
Mr. Fechter thought it was important to note that slide 28
did not include SB 26 revenue limits. At $70/bbl the
Permanent Fund Protection Act dictated that the draw should
be reduced by $500 million as oil and gas royalty and
production tax increased. He thought it was a challenge to
balance the need to have sufficient funding in the CBR
against the need to preserve the balance of the Permanent
Fund for future generations.
Mr. Fechter presented slide 29, "Ten Year Strategy," which
showed a table entitled "FY2019-FY2028 Budget Projection
($millions)." The table showed around a $500 million
deficit in FY 19. Presuming the CBR and SBR balance was
above $1 billion, there would be a $300 million fiscal gap
given the current forecast. The gap represented a
reassessment point that had been discussed earlier in the
presentation. If reductions were higher than anticipated,
or oil price and production increased beyond expectation,
it was very likely that the gap could increase. He thought
it was equally likely that the gap could increase.
11:06:12 AM
Mr. Fechter showed slide 30, "Diversifying Revenues," which
showed a bar graph. He pointed out that historically 85
percent of the state's budget had been covered by oil and
gas revenue, with 15 percent from non-oil and gas revenue.
At current oil price and production levels, only 30 percent
of the state's budget could be funded by oil and gas
revenue. There was 50 percent unfunded portion of the
budget to be filled by savings. The administration
endeavored to generate additional revenue by directing
Permanent Fund earnings towards the budget for government
services and communities; which would still leave a 13
percent savings gap in the near term. He discussed possible
future developments such as the Alaska Liquid Natural Gas
Project and Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, it would be
possible to close the gap.
Mr. Fechter shoed slide 31, "Diversifying Revenues," which
mirrored the previous slide but for the addition of the
Permanent Fund Dividend.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about assistance to communities and
asked if the governor's proposed budget had $30 million
appropriated for community assistance. He stated that
without the appropriation, FY 20's payout could only be a
$20 million payout.
Ms. Pitney stated that until there was a sustainable fiscal
plan, the administration felt (as it had the previous year)
it was not prudent to use GF for community assistance.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought the same was true for any program
and wondered why the administration had singled out a
program that benefitted virtually every citizen in the
state.
Ms. Pitney stated that the $20 million payout in 2020 was
to protect the smallest communities. She thought it was
difficult to share funds with the lack of revenues the
state was experiencing. The administration was pleased that
the PCE fund had excess funds. If there were excess funds,
the administration would consider a supplemental in FY 19.
Co-Chair Hoffman recalled that the committee had sought to
reduce the community assistance payout from $60 million to
$30 in order to protect the program. He thought it was
unfair to put the burden on the program. He wanted the
public to know if was not the desire of the committee. He
did not support further reduction to community assistance.
He thought there were many services and programs funded by
the ERA, and thought it was a choice of the administration
to cut community assistance.
11:10:55 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman reiterated the need for collaboration. He
spoke to the need to get the people's business done in as
cordial a manner as possible.
Senator Micciche thanked Ms. Pitney for her presence. He
acknowledged her difficult position.
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the schedule for the week.
ADJOURNMENT
11:12:33 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 011718 OMB Tax_Credit_Certificates_Bond_Financing_Program_Summary_12-15-17.pdf |
SFIN 1/17/2018 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budget |
| 011718 OMB FY2019_Budget_Summary_Support Material Senate Finance (002).pdf |
SFIN 1/17/2018 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budget |
| FY2019 Governor Budget Overview - Senate Finanace.pdf |
SFIN 1/17/2018 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budget |