Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/03/2022 01:00 PM 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 | |
| Executive Order 121 - Divide Department of Health and Social Services into Department of Health and Department of Family and Community Services | |
| Presentation: Competitiveness of Alaska's Oil & Gas Regime [continuation] | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 3, 2022
1:04 p.m.
1:04:42 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator David Wilson
ALSO PRESENT
Adam Crum, Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services; Stacie Kraly, Director, Civil Division,
Department of Law; Sylvan Robb, Assistant Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services; Mike Cline,
Director, Corporate Strategy, Gaffney Cline; Nick Fulford,
Director, Gas and Energy Transition, Gaffney Cline.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Joshua Morgan, self, Fairbanks; Joey Tillson, ASEA Member,
Ketchikan; Robin O'Donoghue, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group, Anchorage; Andree McLeod, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 121 - DIVIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES INTO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
PRESENTATION: COMPETITIVENESS OF ALASKA'S OIL AND GAS
REGIME [continuation]
^EXECUTIVE ORDER 121 - DIVIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES INTO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
1:05:45 PM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing Of
Executive Order 121 (EO 121). He relayed that it was the
intent of the committee to hear from the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) and the Department of Law
(DOL). He referenced the names of those who would present
invited testimony.
1:06:36 PM
ADAM CRUM, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, introduced himself. He relayed that in addition
to a presentation, the member's packets contained a
Sectional Summary, support letters, stakeholder engagement
list, and metrics and measures to evaluate the potential
success of the split (copy on file). Additionally, the
packets contained the DOLs response to the Division of
Legal and Research Services memo dated February 14, 2022,
and other supporting materials (copy on file).
Commissioner Crum believed the conversations in other
legislative committees had helped clarify that splitting
DHSS was good for the department and stakeholders. He
asserted that splitting the department was best
accomplished by an executive order, and EO 121 complied
with authorities granted to the governor in the
constitution.
Commissioner Crum addressed a presentation entitled "Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services - Executive Order
121 - DHSS Reorganization" (copy on file). He showed slide
2, Serving Alaskans in all stages of life.
1:07:53 PM
Commissioner Crum showed slide 3, "DHSS today":
DHSS Today
? FY2022 Management Plan Budget: $3,441,891.3*
? Positions (PFT): 3,259
? Programs/Services
o Over 100 programs that serve Alaskans directly
? Major Categories of Services
o Regulatory/Claims Processing/Eligibility for
Services
o Public Health Services
o Protecting Vulnerable Alaskans, Children,
Families (Service/Provider/Provider Based)
* Does not include COVID funds
Commissioner Crum explained that federal partners referred
to DHSS as a mega agency. He asserted that the work the
department did was performed by multiple departments in
other states. He cited that in South Dakota, the programs
and work done by DHSS was spread across four state
departments. He cited that Wyoming, that had a smaller
population than Alaska, spread the work across two
departments. He emphasized that it was the number of
programs delivered, multi-faceted services, and
vulnerability of the primary beneficiaries that indicated
how complex the department was and why the structure needed
to be evaluated. He relayed that the presentation would
further define the challenges due to the number of
programs, staff, and budget size, as well as discuss the
proposed solutions and work throughout the past year.
Commissioner Crum spoke to slide 4, "DHSS is Much Larger
Than Most State Departments, which showed a data table
with employee counts for some DHSS divisions, and a bar
graph depicting employee counts for other departments. He
cited that DHSS had as many employees as five other
departments, the Legislature, and the governors office
combined. There were multiple DHSS divisions that had more
employees than other departments, and all the large
divisions answered to a single commissioner's office.
Commissioner Crum displayed slide 5, "DHSS budget is more
than 12 state agencies combined, which showed a graphic of
a set of scales with DHSS on one side weighed against all
other agencies on the other. He cited that the budget of
DHSS ($3,441,891.3) was greater than the combined total of
12 other departments, the Legislature, the Office of the
Governor, and the Judiciary ($3,300,674). The DHSS budget
was nearly 30 percent of the statewide FY 23 budget.
Commissioner Crum turned to slide 6, "Alaska Department of
Health and Social Services," which showed a flow chart of
the department. He queried what could be done to reduce the
span of control, narrow the focus of management and staff,
as well as be more responsive over time to stakeholders and
employees.
Commissioner Crum discussed slide 7, "Executive Order
Vision":
Executive Order Vision
The Reorganization of DHSS
Goal: Provide proactive, efficient leadership and
management of programs to achieve better outcomes for
Alaskans
Align Current Functions & Programs
1.Direct Care and Services to Alaskans in State
Administered Programs
2.Eligibility for Alaskans & Payment to Providers
Focus
Management to Improve Outcomes
1.Innovation
2.Work Processes
Commissioner Crum turned to slide 8, "Reorganization for
DHSS":
Department of Health & Social Services
? Commissioner's Office
? Finance & Management Services
? Health Care Services
? Behavioral Health
? Senior & Disabilities Services
? Public Assistance
? Public Health
? Alaska Psychiatric Institute
? Juvenile Justice
? Alaska Pioneer Homes
? Office of Children's Services
Department of Health
? Commissioner's Office
? Finance & Management Services
? Health Care Services
? Behavioral Health
? Senior & Disabilities Services
? Public Assistance
? Public Health
Department of Family & Community Services
? Commissioner's Office
? Finance & Management Services
? Alaska Psychiatric Institute
? Juvenile Justice
? Alaska Pioneer Homes
? Office of Children's Services
Commissioner Crum explained that the nine public facing
divisions would have no leadership change or footprint
change but would be aligned accordingly. The alignment of
payments, processes, and programs proposed for The
Department of Health (DOH) would allow further innovations
such as value-based care and focusing on chronic health
prevention efforts. The Department of Family and Community
Services (DFCS) would consist of the facility-based
divisions as listed on the slide. The change would align
the divisions that provided direct care and would make time
for specific attention on issues such as Office of
Childrens Services (OCS) recruitment and retention and
other topics. He mentioned community discussions on future
investment in Pioneer Homes, and issues with deferred
maintenance and licensing concerns.
1:11:53 PM
Senator von Imhof appreciated the information on slide 8.
She understood that by splitting DHSS into two agencies,
there would be a greater focus on a smaller number of
programs to make it more manageable. She thought the
commissioner had identified measurable benchmarks. She
asked if the presentation would address how the changes
would work.
Commissioner Crum said "yes." He informed that there would
be a slide showing metrics and an overview of some near-
term items the department would pursue.
Commissioner Crum addressed slide 9, "Department of Family
& Community Services," which showed the proposed
organizational chart for DFCS. He asserted that the plan
was done in a way to minimize disruption to services,
beneficiaries, or payments to providers. He noted that to
keep services aligned, the Designated Evaluation and
Treatment Services (DET) would be moved from Division of
Behavioral Health to DFCS in order to stay closely aligned
with the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) and help
coordinate Title 47 (involuntary commitment patient
movement between facilities). The change aligned with
pointing the statutes for oversight by DFCS.
Commissioner Crum continued that the primary changes in the
reorganization would occur in the internal Division of
Finance and Management Services (FMS), and staff would be
divided to cover each department. That change would involve
sections such as Internet Technology (IT), grants and
contracts, and finance and budget. The department was
asking for some new and reclassified positions to fill out
FMS staff and commissioners office staff.
Commissioner Crum addressed slide 10, "Department of
Health," which showed an organizational chart of DOH that
highlighted the commissioners office and the deputy
commissioners (FMS) office. He noted that the change was
designed to not disrupt service or payment delivery, with
no change in leadership or footprint for public facing
divisions.
1:14:35 PM
Commissioner Crum advanced to slide 11, "Improved Services
for Alaskans":
? More regular checks in with stakeholder groups
? Improved employee experience and support
? Easier for the legislature to oversee
? More interaction with federal partners to better
manage programs and seek flexibilities that benefit
Alaska
? Better ability to manage crises and focus effort on
long-range, strategic planning
Commissioner Crum emphasized that with the current
structure of DHSS, issues that reached the commissioners
office required all hands on deck. He posited that with
the additional proposed commissioners office and a focused
span of control, leadership would be able to more
effectively work with stakeholders and employees to address
concerns before problems grew. He recounted that the
administration had worked on many crises and referenced a
lack of resources. He used the examples of the Division of
Public Assistance (DPA) backlog of over 15,000
applications, and multiple letters of correction from
federal partners. He asserted that with new leadership,
capital support, and innovation, the department had been
able to work through the problem and create administrative
efficiencies to get rid of the backlog. He discussed the
Covid-19 pandemic response and taking on new funding
sources.
Senator von Imhof mentioned the cost of new employees. She
looked back at slide 7, which asserted that there would be
focus on management to improve outcomes, and innovation in
work processes. She asked the commissioner if the
innovation and work processes would begin when the proposed
split occurred or if the changes had already started.
Commissioner Crum affirmed that the department was
currently trying to implement innovative ideas and
efficiencies and would hit a crescendo after the proposed
split. He referenced the size of the divisions and the
support needed for employees to correct action. He
referenced the need for conversations with federal partners
and other changes that required a lot of managerial
support.
Senator von Imhof thought it was important to be mindful of
the proposed additional financial investment. She
understood the need to spend money to improve outcomes. She
hoped the commissioner could address the benchmarks and how
he hoped to keep costs down for a department that grew
higher than the cost of inflation.
Commissioner Crum stated affirmed that he would address the
topic.
1:18:10 PM
Commissioner Crum continued to address slide 11. He
recounted that in addition to DPA, the commissioners
office and policy staff had taken a great deal of time to
address the Covid-19 pandemic over the previous two years.
He mentioned the goal of providing resources to healthcare
providers around the state and updating guidance to the
public and industry partners. He emphasized the non-
emergent issues in the department, which had not gotten the
same time and attention. He directed attention to the
graphic at the bottom of the slide that showed sticky notes
with urgent issues including: Covid-19, OCS staff
retention, Pioneer Homes maintenance, Opioids, API,
Medicaid, Provider Payments, Birth and Death certificates,
Public Assistance Backlog, and Cyberattack.
Commissioner Crum acknowledged that there were always
issues and crises and there was never a good time for a
move such as the one proposed, but emphasized the
importance decisive action. He emphasized that future
events were unknown and explained that much of the proposed
change was from division leaders with many years in the
system. He did not think the state was putting enough
energy into innovating for the future in facilities,
programs, quality of care, and other issues since the state
was stuck in crisis mode all the time. He asserted that
more bandwidth for each commissioner's office and policy
staff would mean more meaningful engagement, which took
time. He stressed the importance of more meaningful
engagement and innovation.
Commissioner Crum looked at slide 12, "Why an Executive
Order?":
Use of an EO is the proper Governor's authority for
administrative changes under Article III, Section 23
of the Alaska Constitution
The governor may make changes in the organization of
the executive branch or in the assignment of functions
among its units which he considers necessary for
efficient administration.
Commissioner Crum asserted that executive orders were a
useful tool that were specifically contemplated by Alaskas
Constitutional Convention.
Commissioner Crum showed slide 13, "Why Not Legislation?":
? This is not substantive law change
? More certainty on programs remaining unchanged
? Definitive timeline
? Executive Order is a more concise document
? Less disruptive
Senator von Imhof referenced the legislative report from
the Division of Legal and Research Services dated February
14, 2022 (copy on file) that listed some challenges
presented by the EO, and a response by DOL dated February
18, 2022 (copy on file).
1:22:13 PM
STACIE KRALY, DIRECTOR, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
had seen the concerns raised by the legislative legal
division with respect to EO 121, and referenced the
response by the department. She stated that DOL did not
believe that the issues raised by Legislative Legal
Services rendered the EO unconstitutional in any way,
shape, or form, but believed that the EO was well within
the governors authority. She continued that the more
ministerial concerns that were raised, which she
characterized as simple wordsmithing issues, were not flaws
to the EO. The department believed the decisions that were
made and the crafting of the EO was consistent with
previous EOs. she cited that there had been well over 100
EOs in the history of the state.
Senator von Imhof asked if there had been over 100
executive orders.
Ms. Kraly answered yes.
Senator von Imhof asked if there had been over 100
executive orders bifurcating departments.
Ms. Kraly and answered no, and relayed that the
constitution allowed for the governor to change how the
government was structured through executive order. She
referenced examples such as moving the Alaska Pioneer Homes
to DHSS in 2004 and moving the Division of Corrections from
DHSS to its own department.
Senator von Imhof mentioned that there was some
disagreement between Legislative Legal Services and DOL and
wondered if there were remaining technical items that
needed to be addressed. She asked if DOL was comfortable
potentially doing accompanying clean up legislation to
address some gray areas in the EO or items that were seen
differently by Legislative Legal and DOL.
Ms. Kraly thought that many executive orders in the past
had companion legislation that had addressed some technical
corrections, that were done concurrent with the EO or in
subsequent legislative sessions. She stated that such
legislation was a possibility if there were questions that
the department or members of either body thought needed to
be addressed. She continued that additionally, many of the
EOs had been accompanied by a revisors bill. She
referenced some examples provided along with DOLs response
to the memo from the Division of Legal and Research
Services. She summarized that some things could be
tightened up. She continued that the department did not
believe there were any items that needed corrective action
but was not adverse to working with either body or putting
forth legislation itself. She added that the department had
wanted to ensure the EO would happen before making any
decisions about concurrent or companion legislation.
1:26:11 PM
Senator Wielechowski was not sure why the matter was an
executive order. He stated that subject had come before the
legislature the previous year and there had been
significant and justified concern by bipartisan
legislators. He questioned why the governor had not
introduced a bill on the topic. He thought a split was
probably in order. He considered the 100-page EO and
referenced language by legislative attorneys that mentioned
that the EO greatly exceeded the length and scope of prior
executive orders that split or merged executive branch
departments. The language went on to say that the EO
contained a number of drafting errors, introduced ambiguity
into statutes, and amended statutes in a manner that could
be considered substantive.
Senator Wielechowski continued to address the memo from DOL
quoted page 3, which indicated EO 121 contained several
dozen sections that warranted the legislature's
consideration. The memo cited that Section 35 re-enacted 26
statute sections that were currently codified, and many of
the reenactments were problematic. He listed other
references to the EO in the memo, including items that made
substantive changes to law. He opined that the proposed
changes were inappropriate for an executive order. He
asserted the EO would prompt lawsuits which would generate
additional cost. He asserted that the EO was an
unconstitutional a violation of the separation of powers.
Senator Wielechowski thought the EO was the governor's
attempt to pass laws. He pointed out that the EO relied on
Article 3, but failed to cite Article 3 Section 22, which
stated that all executive and administrative offices,
departments, and agencies of the state government and their
respective powers and duties shall be allocated by law
among and within not more than 20 principal departments. He
thought the proposed creation of a new organization and
allocation of powers, functions and duties was a clear
violation of Article 3, Section 22.
Senator Wielechowski thought there were multiple violations
of the constitution and law within the EO. He recalled that
the previous year the administration had avowed to work
closely with the legislature, yet he had not been contacted
by the administration to discuss the proposed change. He
questioned the inability to amend the EO. He reiterated
that it was probably not a bad idea to split the
department, but thought the method was unconstitutional. He
hoped to hear from legislative attorneys on the matter. He
thought the EO would cost the state a great deal and
disrupt the lives of many Alaskans that depended upon the
department for services.
1:30:41 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Senator Wielechowski wanted a
response from the administration or the Division of
Legislative Legal and Research Services.
Senator Wielechowski deferred to Co-Chair Bishop. He
thought the committee could speed hours on the topic. He
lamented the lack of opportunity to make changes through
the committee process. He questioned why the administration
did not submit a bill rather than an EO.
Commissioner Crum understood that the advice from DOL
indicated that it was within the purview of the
administration to go forward with the EO under the
constitution. He commented on the certainty of an EO,
knowing that there was a fixed timeline with a positive or
negative vote. He relayed that the EO did not change the
way programs were administered, and the EO was brought
forward out of sensitivity to the individuals.
1:32:23 PM
Co-Chair Bishop hypothesized that the EO passed, and asked
if Commissioner Crum anticipated follow-up legislation.
Ms. Kraly stated that in many instances, companion
legislation or revisors bills did follow the EO. She
thought it was possible that such legislation would be
necessary, and she thought there would need to be some
evaluation. She thought the concept of reorganization and
management of the executive branch was clearly vested with
the governor under the constitution. She emphasized that
the EO did not allocate or reallocate anything that was not
already allocated to DHSS, but rather was taking a mega-
agency and splitting it. She asserted that the EO did not
make any substantive changes to any existing statute that
had not been passed or vetted through prior legislative
action.
Ms. Kraly understood concerns about the size and breadth of
the proposal, but wanted to be clear that the constitution
did not have a limit on the complexity of an executive
order. She thought that Senator Wielechowski had made a
good point, but questioned the length of a potential bill
if the EO was 100 pages. She emphasized that with a bill,
every program would be subject to review and amendment, and
everything would be at risk. She echoed the commissioners
comments that the EO was being done for reasons of
certainty. She emphasized that no change was being made to
any program currently operating within DHSS. She thought a
bill that opened programs and services to amendment would
be hugely problematic for the people that were served.
1:35:41 PM
Co-Chair Bishop hoped that the change would inspire and
improve efficiencies. He wanted improvements for the
working public, parents, and children.
Senator von Imhof understood Ms. Kraly's comments but
thought there seemed to be a gray area of misunderstanding
that the legislative body would have to work through. She
thought spending more time could sometimes save time later.
She thought there needed to be more time spent on the
matter and hoped there would be communication after the EO
was enacted. She thought there were some technical fixes
that warranted a revisors bill.
Commissioner Crum stated that if the EO were to go into
effect and become law on March 19, it was the
administration's intention to continue to engage with
stakeholders and the legislature. He mentioned being
focused on external stakeholders and acknowledged that the
administration could have done more direct work in engaging
with legislators. He mentioned implementation issues that
could be engaged with over the interim and brought to the
legislature the following session.
1:38:24 PM
Senator Wielechowski affirmed that the governor had the
right to reorganize but did not have the right to
reallocate, and cited Section 22. He asserted that the EO
was a violation of the constitution and was a fundamental
reallocation of the duties and powers of DHSS. He addressed
the assertion that a bill was not introduced in order to
avoid changes by the legislature. He emphasized that the
administration could not avoid the constitutional
obligation to file a piece of legislation because of worry
over legislative changes, which was the legislatures
constitutional authority. He referenced having the same
conversation one year previously. He thought the EO was
replete with drafting errors and mistakes, as well as
substantive changes to the law.
Senator Wielechowski continued his remarks. He reiterated
that the departmental split was not a bad idea and thought
there would be a lot of support in the legislature for the
concept. He qualified that legislators did not like the
fact that the EO was a violation of law and the
constitution. He thought the EO was a heavy-handed attempt
to put something in place without going through the
appropriate process of the legislature.
Commissioner Crum referenced slide 14, "Executive Orders":
Used over the years to realign state agencies to
better serve the public:
? EO 108 moved the Alaska Pioneer Homes and regulation
of child-care facilities to DHSS (2003).
? EO 55 created the Department of Corrections, moving
the duties from DHSS (1984).
? EO has been used by many Governors Egan, Sheffield,
Murkowski, Walker, (etc.)
Commissioner Crum cited that EO 55 was originally disproved
in the year prior to its passage, after being worked on and
then reintroduced and passed into law. The legislature had
provided input and changes were made, which he thought
highlighted that the process worked. He mentioned an idea
that perhaps the legislature could consider putting the
commissioner of DFCS as a statutory advisor to the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA). He mentioned EO 119,
which had pertained to adding a second seat to some
statutory advisory boards.
1:42:03 PM
Commissioner Crum turned to slide 15, "Timeline for the
Executive Order":
? Executive Order 121 was introduced the first day of
session January 18, 2022.
The legislature has 60 days to come together in a
joint session to disapprove the reorganization.
? Upon approval, DHSS will continue to implementation
plans.
? Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Commissioner Crum considered slide 16, "Stakeholder
Engagement: Lessons Learned":
? Meaningful engagement takes time: Leadership needs
to spend more time with both internal and external
stakeholders
? Tribal partners recommended Tribal liaison roles in
each Commissioner's office
? Stakeholders recommended transition liaison
positions in each commissioner's offices
Q and A from stakeholders provided valuable input
which will be utilized in the implementation process
? Repeated engagement ensures better communication and
dispels misinformation
Commissioner Crum emphasized the work done by DHSS to meet
with stakeholders that represented services provided by the
department.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if bullet 2, a tribal liaison, would
be implemented and how it would work.
Commissioner Crum described the title as a role rather than
a certain individual. He recounted having the conversation
with the Alaska Native Health Board, which had asked the
same question as Co-Chair Bishop. He pondered whether the
role would be filled be a single person, or whether the
role be part of a positions job as a policy advisor. He
described that DOH had a robust tribal reclaiming unit
within the Medicaid section, which had consistent
communication with tribal partners. He mentioned the Indian
Child Welfare Act and Tribal Compact Liaisons within DFCS
as examples. He summarized that there would be an
individual liaison position within DFCS, while in DOH it
would be viewed as a role.
1:46:05 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, displayed slide 17:
Department of Family & Community Services
? Office of Children's Services
? Division of Juvenile Justice
? Alaska Psychiatric Institute
? Pioneer Homes
Full Time Positions 1847
Total Budget: $441,319.0
Department of Health
? Medicaid
? Public Health
? Public Assistance
? Behavioral Health
? Health Care Services
? Senior & Disabilities
Full Time Positions 1446
Total Budget: $3,071,214.4
Strategic Investment
GF Match - $668.7
Federal - $470.2
I/A - $1,188.9
Total = $2,327.8
New PCNs = 13
Reclassed PCNs = 10
Ms. Robb noted that the proposed new departments did not
split evenly in terms of the number of positions, and in a
similar manner the budgets did not split evenly. She drew
attention to the investment needed to achieve the
reorganization, listed under Strategic Investment. She
noted that two of the proposed 13 new positions included
two positions that technically resided in other
departments: an administrative services director, and a
department technology officer.
Ms. Robb highlighted slide 18, "DFCS, Departmental Support
Services -7.5 New Positions -- $1,195.0 total," which
showed a table of new 7.5 positions being proposed for
DFCS. She added that the .5 position was a result of a
combined total of three on-call IT support persons slotted
to work a few months throughout the year. The cost of new
positions for DFCS was just under $1.2 million.
Ms. Robb looked at slide 19, "DFCS, Departmental Support
Services - 9 Reclassified Positions -- $397.9 total*,
which showed a table with new positions being proposed for
reclassification. She detailed that many of the positions
in question would provide support for the IT team or
administrative support. The only division proposed to be
split was the support division, which resulted in a need to
backfill in a few places.
Ms. Robb addressed slide 20, "Department of Health,
Departmental Support Services - 5.5 New Positions -- $692.6
total," which showed a table with the 5.5 new positions
proposed for DOH. The half position was achieved in the
same way as described for DFCS, with very part-time IT
positions that were meant to backfill when staff were on
leave or there was a vacancy.
Co-Chair Bishop commented on a position in Fairbanks.
Ms. Robb noted that there had been an on-call IT positions
in Fairbanks for DFCS as well.
Co-Chair Bishop commented on the importance for coverage.
1:49:57 PM
Ms. Robb advanced to slide 21, "Department of Health,
Departmental Support Services - 1 Reclassified Position --
$42.3 total," which showed a table with the one
reclassified position for DOH.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the EO was shared with anyone
in the legislature before it was introduced.
Commissioner Crum answered in the affirmative.
Senator Wielechowski asked who the EO was shared with and
when it had been shared.
Commissioner Crum informed that the administration had
submitted the EO to Senator Wilson's in late October in
order to engage with the Division of Legislative Legal and
Research.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the EO had been shared with
any additional legislators.
Commissioner Crum noted that the administration had needed
a member in order to engage with Legislative Legal
Services. He recounted that Senator Wilson had been present
when Co-Chair Bishop had brought forward the idea the
previous March. Senator Wilson had communicated to the
department that he would be the intermediary.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the EO was shared with only
one legislator before it was introduced.
Commissioner Crum stated that the EO was shared with the
co-chairs of the House Finance as well as some members of
the House Health and Social Services Committee.
Senator Wielechowski asked when the EO had been shared.
Commissioner Crum offered get back to the committee with
the information.
Commissioner Crum looked at slide 22, "Measures and Metrics
- Benchmarks":
Department of Health
? Make progress in meeting the goals for Healthy
Alaskans 2030
? Hire and retain a Finance Officer and full grants
and contracts team
? Issue RFP(s) and awards for new coordinated care
demonstration projects
? Successfully implement an online application for
Medicaid and other public assistance programs
? Improve processing rate for procurement and
contracts to under 90 days
Department of Family & Community Services
? Consolidate licensing regulations for longterm care
facilities, group homes, and foster homes
? Reduce turnover of front-line OCS by 20% within 12
months
? Achieve full census capability at API within 12
months
? Increase recruitment and retention of Juvenile
Justice Officers by 25%
? Improve processing rate for procurement and
contracts to under 90 days
Commissioner Crum noted that the slide addressed some of
the questions posed earlier by Senator von Imhof regarding
measures and metrics. He discussed stability and assured
that programs and services would not be disrupted. He cited
that from July 1 forward, there would be focused internal
alignment. He mentioned grants and contracts staff and
finance staff and high turnover rate. He hoped for a fully
staffed finance staff in the near term after the EO was
enacted. He noted that there were specific items for
improvement with identified timelines and the information
was in the members packets. He mentioned designing the
system of care, and changes to DOH. He noted that Alaska
was one of the last remaining fee-for-service states, and
pressure from federal partners to move toward value-based
care. He emphasized the importance of working with
partners. He mentioned long term health prevention and
health savings.
1:54:03 PM
Co-Chair Bishop mentioned chronic health prevention and
reminded that he had asked Commissioner Crum a related
question during his confirmation hearing.
Commissioner Crum mentioned Healthy You 2022, which was a
department-wide program with different monthly initiatives.
He mentioned a tool kit for businesses. The program had
features addressing activity, mental health, healthy
eating, and long-term healthy choices. He mentioned the
importance of physical activity and health in relation to
the Covid-19 pandemic.
Commissioner Crum showed slide 23, "Implementation."
Ms. Robb referenced slide 24, which showed a flow chart of
ongoing staff and stakeholder engagement and was one of two
slides focused on implementation. She assured that there
was a detailed plan that covered everything from how to
split the department in the states accounting system down
to smaller considerations like the Division of Motor
Vehicles issuing state IDs for both new departments. She
drew attention to the arrow on the far left, which showed
ongoing stakeholder and staff engagement. She commented on
the importance of the ongoing engagement. She noted the
three time periods shown on the slide, which included the
year prior up to introduction of the EO. She mentioned the
largest item in the category was submitting the budget for
the two departments. Another large item was stakeholder
engagement.
Ms. Robb pointed out the 60 day review period shown on
the slide, which was currently in effect. The big focus of
the time period had been engaging with the legislature and
stakeholder outreach, as well as behind the scenes work
preparing for if the EO moved forward. She mentioned
meetings with other departments and being prepared to move
forward once the 60 days was over. The third time period
addressed on the slide was March 2022 Post 60-day
Consideration.
1:58:26 PM
Ms. Robb turned to slide 25, which was a continuation of
the flow chart on the previous slide. The chart showed the
continuing implementation, and she emphasized that the
department would be continuing with stakeholder engagement
and reaching out to staff. She anticipated that the period
of April through the July 1 implementation date would be
very busy with preparatory work. She discussed financial
closeouts in July and August and moving towards longer term
issues in the months beyond. She cited work with the
departments 350 different IT applications in use.
Commissioner Crum showed slide 26, "DHSS Reorganization
Website - reorg.dhss.alaska.gov," which showed a graphic of
the DHSS Reorganization website. He noted that the
department had a public-facing website. He asserted that
the department had tried to update the website with items
that had been submitted to the legislature, including
letters of support. He mentioned letters from the Alaska
State Hospital and Nursing Home Association, the Alaska
Commission on Aging, the Pioneer Homes Advisory Board, the
Governors Council on Disability and Special Education,
AgeNet, and the Alaska Behavioral Health Association. He
noted that department had worked with and met with the
groups, which were large and diverse.
Commissioner Crum displayed slide 27, "More Questions or
Suggestions?":
Questions on how reorganization will impact
stakeholders or providers can be sent to:
[email protected]
2:02:00 PM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
2:02:23 PM
JOSHUA MORGAN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to EO 121, and read from a prepared
statement. He did not feel as though the proposed split
would address the problems faced by the Division of Public
Assistance (DPA). He stated that as a public assistance
caseworker, he saw first-hand results of policy decisions.
He cited that as of December 2020, there was an average of
one caseworker for every 1,400 people on assistance in the
state. He listed assistance programs including Medicaid and
food stamps. He argued that the number was increasing. He
discussed the reduction in caseworkers that approved or
denied benefits, which was demoralizing for staff. He
emphasized the need for more staff to assist Alaskans. He
summarized that the EO added more management rather than
adding more needed staff. He referenced an Ombudsman
investigation. He did not feel the EO was the right way to
deal with issues in the agency.
2:06:14 PM
JOEY TILLSON, ASEA MEMBER, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the EO. She relayed that she was
the chair of the DPA Committee for her union. The committee
had been formed due to numerous complaints from employees
regarding the reorganization associated with the Covid-19
pandemic.
Ms. Tillson continued her testimony. She mentioned staffing
issues and employees working overtime. She referenced
organizational charts with vacant positions being deleted.
She cited numbers of workers statewide, and that the call
center took approximately 1,800 calls per day. She
questioned why money was being spent to split the
department when it could be spent to strengthen the
organization. She referenced a town hall meeting with the
commissioner and a town hall meeting with the division
director. She complained of a lack of policy information
meetings.
2:09:32 PM
ROBIN O'DONOGHUE, ALASKA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the
EO. His organization had closely followed the process of EO
121. He shared the primary concern of lack of public
participation, both from users and from organizations that
worked with DHSS. He thought there was consensus that there
were many problems with the department, but thought it was
unclear whether the restructure would address the problems.
He cited the cost of the proposed split. He pondered how
the split would benefit Alaskans that were having trouble
navigating the system.
Mr. ODonoghue thought it had been confusing to follow the
departments testimony and cited changing numbers of new
positions. He referenced Commissioner Crums testimony
regarding the consultation of staff. He mentioned that
nonprofit service providers had not received any outreach.
He urged members of the legislature to review the EO and
ensure that it was thoroughly vetted.
2:11:51 PM
ANDREE MCLEOD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the EO. She asserted that she
relied on DHSS programs. She thought the EO would
negatively affect people. She thought the EO went against
legislative authority. She asserted that there did not need
to be a new department in order for directors to
collaborate. She did not think there was a need for two
commissioners. She thought there had not been enough public
input. She mentioned the Alaska Psychiatric Institute
(API). She supported a full legislative process.
2:14:54 PM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Commissioner Crum to come back to the
table. He thought it sounded as though there were some
departmental employees that had testified. He suggested
that the commissioner follow up with the employees. He
stressed the importance of employees.
Commissioner Crum agreed. He stated that he had worked with
each division over the previous two years and had done two
town hall meetings regarding the EO. He cited that a number
of employee concerns outside the topic of the EO were
brought forward, and there had been two separate town hall
meetings with staff at DPA. He cited the primary goal of
addressing staff concerns.
Co-Chair Bishop set the EO aside.
Executive Order 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
2:16:34 PM
AT EASE
2:24:35 PM
RECONVNED
^PRESENTATION: COMPETITIVENESS OF ALASKA'S OIL & GAS REGIME
[continuation]
2:24:41 PM
Co-Chair Stedman explained that the committee would
continue to address presentation from earlier in the day.
There was an addendum slide presentation (copy on file)
that would address discussion and questions from the
morning meeting.
2:25:29 PM
MIKE CLINE, DIRECTOR, CORPORATE STRATEGY, GAFFNEYCLINE,
introduced himself.
NICK FULFORD, DIRECTOR, GAS AND ENERGY TRANSITION,
GAFFNEYCLINE, introduced himself.
2:25:40 PM
Mr. Cline noted that at the meeting earlier in the day,
there had been a discussion about the fiscal comparison
slides. There had been questions as to whether the slides
accurately reflected some of the applicable fiscal
components. After some consideration, he had found the
issue. The original slide assumed an oil price of $70/bbl,
and $40/bbl in profit to use as a comparison for government
take components. He thought the calculation had been
distorted. He had prepared a slide that had greater
clarity.
Mr. Cline addressed a slide entitled "Response on Comments
on Fiscal Comparison":
? As noted, the fiscal comparison slide assumed
$70/bbl
In order to focus on the allocation of income, rather
than revenue, we removed costs ($30/bbl) focusing on
the $40/bbl of profit.
If the $40/bbl income is used as the
denominator rather than $70/bbl, the Government
Take elements appear to be disproportionately
high (i.e. higher than the expected outcome).
In fact, the current royalty and tax
percentages were accurately reflected.
The following slide may help resolve the
confusion.
? In our work, we also looked at a $50/bbl case and
this can be extended into broader price scenario
analysis.
? If there are further questions, we are happy to take
them.
Mr. Cline showed slide 3, "Fiscal Comparison":
? Chart illustrates general $/bbl cash breakdown and
tax burden for select jurisdictions over an oil & gas
development's life cycle
Assumes characteristics with new development in
Alaska, including constant cost environment
? In reality each jurisdiction will have numerous
unique characteristics (development timeframe, cost
environment, infrastructure/market proximity etc.)
? Alaska has relatively high government take compared
to select jurisdictions
? Worth noting that some fiscal elements are
considered more burdensome than others
Non-Income based taxes, such as royalty, carry
elevated risk to investors because of timing and
it is not responsive to development/operating
costs
? Many other competing jurisdictions, particularly
non-western, implement asset level contracts
Popular for oil and gas dependent governments
Allows for fiscal terms specific to assets and
reflecting current economic conditions
Often contains various risk mitigations
including fiscal stabilization
2:29:30 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked who Mr. Cline had consulted with
in making changes to the slide.
Mr. Cline explained that he had consulted with Gaffney
Clines petroleum economist. He noted that the slide had
been previously presented for a longer presentation, but it
had been simplified for the purposes of the morning
meeting.
Senator Wielechowski was trying to understand how the state
was shown to have a higher production and property
severance tax than in the Lower 48, which he assumed was
dominated by North Dakota and Texas. He asked about the
standard production tax rate in North Dakota and Texas.
Mr. Cline did not have the answer but offered to get back
to the committee with the information.
Senator Wielechowski asked about royalties. He had heard
over the years that the standard royalty rate in North
Dakota and Texas was 25 percent. He was curious what
royalty rate was being reflected in the slide for the Lower
48.
Co-Chair Stedman suggested that the numerics of the slide
be presented in dollars or percentages for greater clarity.
Senator Wielechowski wanted to see an apples-to-apples
comparison and agreed with Co-Chair Stedmas idea. He
thought Mr. Cline had suggested that Alaska had relatively
high government take compared to select jurisdictions. He
had seen many charts over the years and had seen charts of
other jurisdictions similar to Norway. He asked if there
were other large basins that had net profit tax systems
that had higher taxes than Alaska, and if Gaffney Cline
could provide a chart with the information.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Senator Wielechowski wanted to
get information for jurisdictions over the whole planet.
Senator Wielechowski clarified that he wanted information
pertaining to major producers. He thought Alaska was often
compared to Norway. He wondered at the comparisons being
made when there were other jurisdictions with a much higher
government take.
Mr. Cline agreed that Gaffney Cline could provide more
benchmarks. He explained that the firm chose the
jurisdictions thinking they were good and instructive
examples to explain the issue. He qualified that some of
the benchmarks were contractual.
2:33:28 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked if all oil was equal. He wondered if
oil in Alberta was worth the same per barrel as the oil in
Alaska. He mentioned oil sands production and asked if it
traded on par with Alaska North Slope (ANS) oil.
Mr. Cline stated that the firm had normalized the costs as
if they were the same in all jurisdictions so that the
fiscal elements could be benchmarked apples to apples. He
affirmed that an oil sands project had different costs than
other projects. To illustrate the relative position and
fiscal terms, it helped to normalize the cost.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed different subsurface ownership
and mentioned struggles with whether there were some areas
that could be developed with substantial production but
without a share of all the portions. He thought there was
concern that if there was a policy to stimulate oil
production, funds would be used that would not come back to
the state.
2:36:04 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the issue of life cycle. He
assumed the slide showed the life cycle of a new
development.
Mr. Cline answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman shared concerns related to the government
take and sharing relations for legacy fields. He referenced
an earlier discussion and query about the components across
different price ranges. He discussed new developments
versus old developments, and the blended policy that
affected all companies.
Mr. Cline affirmed that there was nuance in the difference
between legacy assets and existing assets. He relayed that
Gaffney Clines focus had been the fiscal comparison in the
context of new developments, to try and understand the
relative competitiveness for Alaska for new projects. He
agreed that Gaffney Cline could look at legacy assets and
figure out the best way to benchmark them.
Co-Chair Stedman thought much of the work had been done
before and only needed to be updated.
Senator Wielechowski commented that the numbers on the
"Fiscal Comparison" slide did not add up for Alaska nor for
the Lower 48.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the numbers would be clarified
with more work with Gaffney Cline.
Senator von Imhof thought there was an additional slide
that could address Senator Wielechowski's concerns.
Mr. Cline showed slide 4, "Overview of Current Alaska Tax
Burden":
The overview of indicative range of Alaska Oil and
Gas tax burden highlighted to the right:
? Royalty
Illustration assumes 12.5% for Existing Assets & the
higher
16.67% rate for "New Developments"
Property Tax
2% of carried asset value
? Property Tax
35% of field profit less tax credits, subject to 4%
minimum
? State Tax
9.4% State Income Tax
? Federal Tax
21% Federal Income Tax
Mr. Cline addressed the graph on slide 4, 'Indicative Value
per Barrel Breakdown at $70/bbl.' He explained that the
slide showed what data was used in Gaffney Clines
analysis. The slide showed a breakdown of taxes at an oil
price of $70/bbl, for new developments and legacy assets.
He noted that the large difference was capital expenditures
and property tax.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the slide still addressed a life
cycle. He wondered how the firm addressed the life cycle on
the new development versus the other.
Mr. Cline thought the slide addressed the life cycle of a
new development, but he needed to check how the existing
legacy assets were addressed.
Co-Chair Stedman appreciated the clarification of the
slides offered by Gaffney Cline.
2:40:29 PM
Mr. Cline addressed slide 20, "Alaska Competitiveness
Globally":
? Alaska's upstream investment has fared reasonably in
line with global trends:
Some major Alaska operators, such as Conoco and
Hillcorp, have clearly increased Alaska exposure
as a percentage of total capital budgets in
recent years.
Exploration has been healthy in last 10-12
years.
? A key challenge for Alaska and the companies will be
maturing discoveries into developments.
? The projects take years to progress to the
investment decision and years from that decision to
reach production.
? Alaska is entering a critical phase that will be
decisive in long-term production trends.
Mr. Cline summarized that Alaska had fared fairly well for
an investment destination for oil and gas. He discussed a
number of factors that contributed to the critical phase
the state was in before opportunity began to diminish,
including the time taken for projects to mature and
contemporary energy transitions.
Senator Wielechowski thought Mr. Cline was familiar with
discussions about oil taxes that the state had over the
years. He referenced SB 21, oil and gas legislation passed
in 2013, and the promise that the state would receive more
jobs, production, investment, and revenue. He noted that
the promises had not materialized, nor had the same
promises which were made during an initiative the previous
year. He cited a decline in jobs and investment, as well as
a diminished PFD. He asked how other jurisdictions handled
the situation when the industry made promises for tax
breaks which it did not live up to.
Mr. Cline thought Senator Wielechowski's question was
difficult to answer, because it presupposed that the
promises made from a tax policy would necessarily lead to a
certain result. He thought oil and gas companies were
looking at more than just tax policy. He mentioned other
issues such as the regulatory environment, perception of
fiscal stability, and the market environment as opposed to
having a laser focus on tax policy.
2:46:32 PM
Senator Wielechowski emphasized that tax policy was the
only variable the state could change.
Co-Chair Stedman asked to stay on topic.
Senator von Imhof noted that the committee had asked
Gaffney Cline to do an analysis of the costs of the global
supply and demand, energy transition, AK LNG, environment,
the states competitiveness, and the states tax take. She
thought that Gaffney Cline was addressing the requested
topics.
Co-Chair Stedman explained that the presentation was to
address the states global position. He agreed that there
was much more detail to address in some areas, which could
come at a later date.
Mr. Cline continued to address a presentation from the
earlier meeting, "State of Alaska - Alaska's Competitive
Position" (copy on file). He showed slide 21, " Alaska Oil
Moving Forward."
Mr. Cline advanced to slide 22, "Alaska Development
Scenarios":
? There is strong potential for major new
developments, as well as smaller incremental
developments built around existing or new
infrastructure hubs.
? To understand the potential contribution of new
investments to Alaska state revenues and to gauge the
downside risk if new investments are curtailed,
indicative profiles have been developed representative
of Alaska new investment opportunities:
A significant new development justifying a new
infrastructure hub, similar to the Pikka or
Willow developments.
A smaller incremental development tying into an
existing infrastructure or infrastructure
associated with a new development.
? The evaluation summarizes the estimated 'investor
return' and generated 'state revenue' under the
current and proposed tax changes as well as under a
variety of sensitivities.
Mr. Cline recounted that Gaffney Cline had considered
issues of importance, including projects to increase
production. The firm had done an analysis of different
kinds of developments to understand what the impact might
be on state revenue.
2:48:54 PM
Mr. Cline spoke to slide 23, "Pikka Scale Development":
? Material new developments could create new
infrastructure hubs with numerous benefits
Development generates material new state
revenue, US$6-7 Billion over 20 years.
Enables numerous additional incremental
developments (in this example Pikka Phase 2 and
Quokka) detailed on following slide.
Potentially extend TAPS infrastructure life.
? However, developments are more challenging due to:
Significant development risks, capital and time
during the development period.
Up to 20-year time horizon to realize expected
economic returns means perceptions of market,
fiscal and regulatory risk heightened.
Mr. Cline explained that he had done two different types of
analysis, one of which was a major material new development
analysis, which was based on a Pikka-sized development. He
emphasized the importance of the projects that promoted
other incremental developments.
Co-Chair Stedman explained that the committee had seen the
slides many times over the years. He asked Mr. Cline to
address the chart on slide 23 and discuss the time value of
money and tax structures that could delay or advance cash
flow over time.
Mr. Cline looked at the bar graph on slide 23, 'Project
Cash Flows' and observed the red curve going up, which
showed that the initial years of the projects had large
investments early on. The capital investments grew smaller
over time, and after the fifth or sixth year the projects
started to produce a return on investment. He continued
that during the same period, the tax receipts should start
to increase for the state, and over time the project would
plateau and there would be a profitable and productive
period for the state and the company. A decline would
follow. He thought the graph was a classic profile for a
conventional development.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned the Permian Basin and asked if
he could expect to see the same scenario.
Mr. Cline explained that unconventional developments had a
different profile and did not have the same investment
curve. He noted that such developments were high cost, but
once drilling programs were going forward, wells produced
at a high level for a shorter time, while more wells had to
be drilled going forward.
Co-Chair Stedman compared the unconventional developments
to a factory approach.
Mr. Cline agreed.
2:54:26 PM
Senator Wielechowski considered the upfront costs shown on
the graph over years 1, 2, 3, and 4. He asked if the costs
assumed the investment was being done by an incumbent
producer that would be able to obtain net operating loss
credits during the years.
Mr. Cline was not certain how the states tax code worked
under the scenario and restated that the chart showed up-
front capital investments.
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to rephrase Senator Wielechowski's
question. He thought Senator Wielechowski was asking if the
expenditures in the first four years could be taken against
current production to lower the tax rate. He thought the
question was beyond the scope of the discussion. He thought
the slide showed a new entrant to the fields, which would
be different than a company that had been in the state for
20 years.
Senator Wielechowski affirmed that Co-Chair Stedman had
summarized his question correctly. He was interested about
the numbers for existing producers. He thought it was
interesting to note that the state take was shown with an
accounting for future value loss, where the contractor was
discounted for future loss. Further, the loss write-offs
were not included in the numbers. He thought the factors
would have a significant impact on the numbers for the
state and the contractor.
2:57:25 PM
Mr. Cline referenced slide 24, "Incremental Developments":
? Incremental developments tie into existing
infrastructure and benefit from shorter development
periods.
? The returns on the assumed incremental development
are attractive under current prices.
? Each development of this size could add over US$150
MM+ per year in peak years and US$1.5 Bn of total
state revenue.
Mr. Cline relayed that incremental developments could be
extremely valuable and could reach economic potential more
quickly. In looking at incremental development, he had
estimated about 30,000 barrels per day at peak production,
which would deliver significant additional revenues to the
state. He thought the hub developments and incremental
developments had real potential to sustain state revenues
for oil and gas.
Mr. Cline turned to slide 25, "Concluding Remarks":
? Alaska oil & gas faces many challenges going forward
but it remains an attractive oil & gas province.
? New developments are required to offset the historic
downward trend in production and revenues.
? Without new developments there is also a risk
of reaching TAPS minimum production threshold
? New developments will generate jobs and
economic activity throughout value chain
? New developments will be costly and challenging and
operators, investors and lenders need regulatory
visibility and fiscal stability to support financial
decisions for these long-term projects.
? Giant projects are unlikely but new material
developments with numerous smaller tie-backs to
infrastructure hubs offer a path to reversing the
decline.
? The global competition for new investment is fierce
and maintaining an attractive fiscal, regulatory and
administrative environment will be key.
Senator Wielechowski asked about Mr. Cline's understanding
of the TAPS minimum production threshold.
Mr. Cline had heard the figures 250,000 to 300,000 (barrels
per day) and thought the operator had made progress in
bringing the minimum threshold down. He clarified that he
was commenting on what he had read in the public domain.
Co-Chair Stedman commented on keeping TAPS profitably
operational.
3:01:00 PM
Mr. Cline displayed slide 27, "Tax Change Implications":
Upside
? Capturing additional rents from existing production
with low risk of discouraging activity.
Capturing additional rents from new developments but
with higher risk (see downside)
? Securing State revenues to support public
initiatives, including investment in energy
transition.
Downside
? Discouraging new developments, resulting in lower
long term State Revenue and lower economic activity.
? Discouraging investments that could prolong the life
of mature fields.
? Compromising TAPS viability if production decline
continues due to lack of investment.
? Discouraging new exploration which may prevent the
discovery of major new hydrocarbon resources.
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that Gaffney Cline had been a
consultant for the legislature for a decade or so and
helped the legislature through different policy analyses
and changes. He explained that the presentation was
requested in order to give an overview of the worldwide oil
industry and the natural gas market, since the state had a
potential to get gas fields to market. The presentation was
not intended to be an in-depth comparison of the
intricacies of new fields versus old fields, and other
nuances of severance tax.
Co-Chair Stedman thanked Gaffney Cline for the work in
putting together the presentation, and its patience in
answering the members questions.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:05:46 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| EO 121 Summary of New and Reclassified Positions 2.18.22.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Legislative Legal Memo 02.14.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Vehicle to Achieve the Split of DHSS Summary of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Transmittal Letter Sponsor Summary 1.17.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Transition Plan 2.6.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Stakeholder Meetings Lists 3.1.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 Organizational Letters of Support 3.1.22.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 LAW Response to 2.14.22 Leg Legal Memo.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| EO 121 DHSS Reorganization Presentation for SFIN 3.3.22 FINAL.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |
| E0 121 Metrics and Measures 2.25.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
EO 121 |