SENATE BILL NO. 100: An Act making supplemental and special appropriations for the expenses of state government; making, amending, and repealing capital and operating appropriations; and providing for an effective date. CO-CHAIR STEVE FRANK invited Cheryl Frasca, Division Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to speak to SB 100. CHERYL FRASCA directed attention to Section 34, supplemental funding to the Division of Boards, Department of Fish & Game. It related to implementation costs of subsistence legislation that passed during the 1992 Special Session. At that time, fiscal notes had been submitted to the legislature but no vehicle was available to fund them during the special session. In answer to Co-chair Frank, she said the original fiscal note was for $365.0. The additional request paid meeting costs incurred by the board of fisheries and board of game, increased staff, and advisory council meetings held to review existing statutes and regulations. Co-chair Frank asked if a law had been passed to provide a stipend as well as a per diem for the board of game. BEV REAUME, Deputy Director, Division of Boards, answered that last year a change in compensation had been passed for the game and fisheries boards. She said it was equal to a daily amount equal to a range 20, step A, plus per diem. Since the boards tend to decide the number of meetings a year or two in advance, budget considerations are fairly easy to predict. Budget problems arise when an issue like subsistence is involved. In answer to Co-Chair Frank, Ms. Reaume agreed to let the committee know how many days the board met. Co-chair Frank asked what amount was in the FY94 budget for boards. Ms. Reaume said that $1.8M is authorized but $400.0 of those funds will not be received. In answer to Co-chair Frank, Ms. Reaume said total staff costs are approximately $700.0. SENATOR BERT SHARP asked if the $492.0 was attributable to just subsistence costs. Ms. Reaume said that the board set aside specific days or time periods to address subsistence issues. SENATOR TIM KELLY asked who prepared the original fiscal note and why was the estimate off such a large amount. Ms. Reaume explained that after the subsistence bill passed, the Dept. of Law realized that after the joint board took action, every existing regulation became null and void. This made it necessary for both boards to meet again and review every regulation on the books insuring they were consistent with the new law. Ms. Frasca said that the board's FY94 budget request would equal this years funding of $1.9M. Senator Kelly asked why the division felt next years funding would be as high as this year's. Ms. Reaume said implementation of subsistence would continue, and the joint board would meet to deal with non-subsistence areas. In answer to Senator Kelly, Ms. Reaume stated that a board of fisheries or game meeting cost the state between $5,500 to $6,000, and the joint board, $9,000 per meeting. She said individuals received a stipend of $179 a day plus a per diem of $80-100 a day. Co-chair Frank asked why the activity of the boards increased when the subsistence issue was addressed. Ms. Reaume said there was much difficulty over designating non- subsistence areas that had not existed at all. It took two days to decide on a single designation area because of all the information that needed to be reviewed. Under the old law there were many conflicting court cases and opinions which caused the boards not to act. The board of fisheries especially has many deferred subsistence proposals that have been in existence since 1990. The board has continued to defer them and is now acting on approximately sixty of those proposals. Co-chair Frank asked how much the advisory board costs the division. He also inquired whether the Federal takeover of fisheries and game management had lessened the work requirement by the boards or the department. Ms. Reaume said, in fact, it has caused an increased effort, especially for the operational division. In regard to board meeting days, much time is spent on discussing what the federal subsistence board is doing because of the mixture of state and federal land. Senator Sharp noted that the board had consistently reviewed regulations, customary and traditional findings for fish stock and game populations, and gathered a wealth of information for years. He wondered why these issues had to be reviewed again at such great lengths, starting at the advisory level and then the boards. He asked how much the department followed the advisory board's recommendations. He felt, in some areas, the recommendations from the advisory board were completely disregarded. He cited one case where after two years of public participation, the advisory board plan had virtually been ignored. Ms. Reaume answered that there was no requirement for either board to follow the advice of the advisory board. She felt that attention was paid to advisory opinions but the boards sometimes chose not to follow their advice. Senator Sharp asked Ms Reaume to define "contractual" in the amount of $122.7. She said it included printing, publishing, and postage of proposal books for public comment, and meeting space costs which run about $500-$1,000 a day. Senator Sharp asked if any federal funds had been received for boards. He cited a federal mandate that said up to 75 percent of the cost of subsistence regulations and enforcement could be funded for states. Ms. Reaume said under ANILCA, the state qualified for federal support. Senator Sharp understood that 80 percent of that federal money was not forwarded to the states. Ms. Reaume agreed that legislation allowed up to $5M a year, but the state had not received more than $1M in the course of any year while ANILCA was in place. Because the state is no longer in compliance, it is no longer eligible for any funding. SENATOR JAY KERTTULA pointed out that the advisory board did have some statutory responsibility. Ms. Reaume said boards did have the authority to close hunting seasons for emergency reasons but that had not happened for some time. SENATOR STEVE RIEGER asked who reviewed recommendations for changes in parks. Ms. Reaume said public comment and other recommendations are taken during the board's hearing. Advisory committees also hear public comment for local issues. In answer to Senator Kelly, Ms. Reaume explained that staff had been retained for board meeting support. In answer to Senator Kelly's inquiry, Ms. Reaume said that in FY92, the board met about 70 days, and the joint board did not meet at all. In FY93, the board of fisheries met 50 days, the board of game 48, and joint meetings totaled 12 days. Projected meeting days in FY94 were, 40-45 days for the board of fisheries, 35-40 for the board of game, and 20 days for the joint board. Senator Kelly felt that the number of meetings did not justify the increased staff costs. In answer to Co-chief Frank's question, Ms. Reaume said the increased pay for the board took effect July 1, 1992. Senator Sharp asked how many full time personnel were employed by the Subsistence Division. Ms. Reaume said approximately 28 to 30. Co-chair Frank asked the amount of the Subsistence Division's budget. Ms. Frasca stated the general funds authorized for this year is $1.8M. Co-chair Frank questioned why the Subsistence Division did not cover these costs for boards. Ms. Reaume said the Subsistence Division was spending much more than $8,000 on the implementation of the subsistence bill. She said this $8,000 was considered just a small offset for their costs. As it is, they have put off studies in order to do subsistence recommendations. She pointed out it had taken an inordinate amount of time putting together all the stacks of information presented to the fisheries and game boards. Co-chair Frank asked again if OMB had asked the Subsistence Division to pay for these meetings costs. Ms. Frasca said the Department of Fish and Game had advised OMB about its projected needs for Subsistence, the Commissioner's office, Wildlife Conservation, and Sport Fish. At that time, Subsistence had requested a $53,000 increase, so the request has been decreased. Co-chair Frank noted that Section 35 in the amount of $8.0 was the Division of Subsistence's request for costs associated with implementing subsistence legislation as discussed. Ms. Frasca said Section 36 provided $84.3 to reimburse vendors for the sale of King Salmon tags. She said legislation was passed last year, proceeds from the sale of tags go into the F&G fund, but funds from the general fund must reimburse the vendors for the sale of the tags. Senator Rieger asked where the vendors were located and how many tags were sold in different areas. MARY LOU BURTON, Finance Officer, Division of Administration, Department of Fish and Game, agreed to provide that information to the committee. In answer to Senator Kelly's inquiry, Ms. Burton said she did not know the origin of the law, but on all sales of tags, including King Salmon tags, the vendor kept a 5 percent commission, and in addition, by statute, an additional $1 per tag was reimbursed to the vendor each quarter from general funds. Senator Kelly asked why that $1 was just not subtracted from the tag. Senator Kerttula thought that there were two separate statutes and should be combined. Co-chair Frank asked if there was a bill pending this year that could be amended to combine the $1 and 5 percent commission. In answer to Co-chair Frank, Ms. Burton indicated that it would save the general fund approximately $500,000. She also stated that a resident King salmon tag cost $10, and a non-resident cost $20. Senator Kelly asked Ms. Frasca to look at this fee structure and propose a solution to Labor and Commerce. Ms. Frasca identified Section 37 which enabled DF&G to ratify and amend prior year expenditures. Ms. Frasca said that Section 38 appropriated $134.7 from DF&G CIP funds where there were unrealized federal receipts from 1987. Ms. Frasca directed attention to Section 39 through 44 for the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Section 39 was a supplemental for the contract jails program in the amount of $690.4. Last year the amount was $815.0. Senator Kerttula asked if it was municipal jails that took care of prisoners while they were in pre-trial status, and state-charged prisoners who were serving short-term sentences in their local communities. She said this was accomplished by contract. KEN BISCHOFF, Director, Division of Administration Services, DPS, said most prisoners are jailed on a state charge so the municipality looks at the prisoner as the state's responsibility. The majority of funding by DPS is based on a fixed cost amount. The municipality needs a certain amount of money to keep the jail open with some variation by population. Co-chair Frank than asked why the department was unable to make a better estimate of contract jail costs. Mr. Bischoff admitted that DPS had a history of supplemental appropriation requests. Ms. Frasca added that the Governor's office did not have enough information for budgeting contract jails last year, and then the legislature made a reduction to the bill. Co-chair Frank said that he felt the committee should have detail for these contract agreements. End SFC-93 #26, Side 1 Begin SFC-93 #26, Side 2 In answer to Senator Rieger's inquiry, Ms. Frasca indicated that the backup gave detail on special services contracts. He asked for overrun detail in regard to contract and transportation costs. Per Senator Sharp's request, Mr. Bischoff agreed to provide a breakdown of cost per day per bed for class A felonies. Co-chair Frank asked if OMB had looked at how unallocated reductions had been spread. She said that OMB indicated to the department that they were to try to take the reduction against personal services, and if that was not possible, apply it as best they could and OMB would review the reductions with the department after the proposal. To take the reduction completely out of the crime lab, it would have jeopardized that activity more than a one or two percent reduction. She felt that OMB would have to look at the original funding and possibly it was underfunded in the Governor's request. Mr. Bischoff said that the Deputy Commissioner was working with the Governor's office to form a task force composed of city managers, police chiefs, a Representative, and a Senator, in order to bring this program under fiscal control. Co-chair Frank was in favor of this task force. Ms. Frasca explained that Section 40 provides for additional funds of $90.6 for criminal records and identification programs. These costs are due to a significant backlog of criminal records and identification processing related to the Alaska automated fingerprint identification system. DPS decided the risk of not getting the backlog completed outweighed the additional cost. She indicated that the legislature has provided requirements for a lot more people to be fingerprinted such as child care workers and for teacher certification. In 1992, 12,000 employment applicant checks were processed. The system needed to be kept up to date in case of an arrest. Co-chair Frank asked if fiscal notes had been provided with the increased requirements to the department. Ms. Bischoff said some fiscal notes had been approved at nominal amounts. He said other factors effected the increase in budget. There was an increase in the number of records being processed. Also, DPS was attempting to correct gaps of missing information in the system accessed by DOL, DOC, and the Courts. The records are queried about 50,000 times a month by courts, local police departments, troopers, etc. Senator Rieger asked if any of the data entry would have to be duplicated if the computer system is revised. Mr. Bischoff said that it would not have to be duplicated, and if an interface was written into the trooper management information system, it could eliminate 25 percent of the data entry . Ms. Frasca said that there were some fee changes being proposed in 1994 for state applicant checks. Ms. Frasca directed attention to Section 41, a request for $126.7 for bloodborne pathogens compliance costs. She said most of the costs were related to disposable protective gear, training, and vaccinations. Ms. Frasca said that Section 42 would provide increased prisoner transportation at a cost of $125.0. Last year a supplemental of $100.0 was requested. If the FY94 budget is passed at this level, this supplement will not have to be requested again. Co-chair Pearce asked if prisoner relocation was accomplished by state troopers. Mr. Bischoff agreed and said some court service officers were used at a lower pay grade. He said the department had looked at various ways to reduce costs but overall this item had run about $1M for several years. Discussion followed between Senator Rieger, Co-chair Pearce, and Mr. Bischoff regarding what costs were included in this request, and whether Department of Corrections should be responsible for these costs. Mr. Bischoff agreed to let the committee know how many prisoner moves were represented in this request. Mr. Bischoff confirmed Co-chair Frank's statement that these costs were for prisoner air transportation between cities. Ms. Frasca stated that DOC was responsible for moving prisoners on the road system. Ms. Frasca directed attention to Section 43, a request for a $101.4 arbitration settlement for a fish and wildlife employee. Senator Kelly asked why DPS did not have a law against the off-duty use of a controlled substance. Mr. Bischoff said the department was rewriting its entire OPM and he would let the committee know if one was in effect. Discussion followed between Mr. Bischoff, Senators Kelly and Rieger, regarding details of the arbitration. Ms. Frasca said Section 44 requested $125.0 for the Civil Air Patrol aircraft maintenance and operation costs. Senator Sharp stated that this represented a 35 percent overrun. Mr. Bischoff said last year the legislature reduced the Civil Air Patrol almost $40.0 and several years of inflation have caused cost overruns. Federal funds requested have also been turned down. Ms. Frasca directed attention to the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF) requests contained in Section 45 through Section 48. Section 45 represented an arbitrator's award for overtime for on-site construction engineers. BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Director, Administrative Services, DOT/PF, said that former Commissioner Keller, Department of Administration, changed its overtime policy in 1978, and implemented the change to DOT/PF policy to not pay engineers after 50 and up to 72 hours. The "bubble-time" in between was considered professional time, and after 72 hours the engineers were paid overtime. This change was challenged by the union and arbitration took place. There had been agreements in the past to pay straight time after the regular 37.5 hours. The arbitrator ruled that since overtime had been paid before, negotiation would have to take place before this change could be initiated. In answer to Senator Kerttula's question, Mr. Bartholomew said the engineers were now on straight time again. Co-chair Frank asked if this change involved any other agencies. Mr. Bartholomew felt there were few employees affected. End SFC-93 #26, Side 2 Begin SFC-93 #28, Side 1 Section 46 was a request for Dalton Highway snow removal, ice control and maintenance related activities in the amount of $1,222.9. Senator Kerttula asked if charging a fee for this special use road was under consideration. Mr. Bartholomew said that Commissioner Turpin, DOT/PF, was interested in making the Dalton Highway a toll road. There has been some negotiation between the state and oil companies to pay fees for the use of the Dalton Highway but unless they are forced, they will not pay for any services. Senator Kerttula said he was opposed to this request. Section 47 was a ratification of the prior year supply and inventory asset account expenditures dating back to 1985. Mr. Bartholomew said that this request represented an accounting clean-up of the inventory accounts and operating budget. In 1985, the accounting system was changed and between documents not being processed and lack of internal controls over inventory, a deficit had accumulated. In answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Bartholomew said he had no way of knowing how much was due to pilferage. Senator Rieger requested language be added to the request that the amount not exceed $715.0. Section 48 extends the FY93 operating budget lapse date for maintenance and operations funding to coincide with the federal fiscal year. It would enable summer activity costs to come out of this year's funding. Ms. Frasca directed attention to Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requests in Section 49 through 51. Section 49 replaces unrealized program receipts with general funds in the amount of $351.2. She said there had been a delay in regulations to collect fees for seafood and sanitation activities. Senator Rieger asked how much DEC had spent to date. JANICE ADAIR, Asst. Commissioner, Chief Administrative Officer, Legislative Contact, Department of Environmental Conservation, said that she would provide the committee with that information. Section 50 is a request for $109.9 to inspect for paralytic shellfish poison or crab testing. In answer to Co-chair Frank, Ms. Adair said that paralytic poisoning in crab was just discovered this year. This money would pay for personal services for one micro-biologist, three laboratory technicians, and laboratory supplies. She explained that the federal government had placed an embargo on crab until testing is done. Since Alaskan crab is shipped live, there is a very short turn around time. DEC recognized the economic impact of the crab fishery for the state and decided this program supports that fishery. In answer to Senator Rieger's question, Ms. Adair said there was no user fee being implemented for this testing but DEC would continue to look at that possibility. Senator Kerttula asked for a report on the crab industry. Section 51 is a request for the Water Quality Standards Advisory Group in the amount of $41.4. This organization, requested by the Governor, had expenses for three meetings during the fiscal year. Ms. Frasca directed attention to requests in Section 52 and 53 for Community and Regional Affairs. Section 52 is a first year organization grant to Yakutat. She explained this grant was funded by statute but was difficult to budget in advance. Section 53 is revenue sharing - underpayment for Central Mat-Su and Greater Palmer fire service areas. Ms. Frasca stated that Section 54 is a request for the Department of Corrections operations. Last year, the department had received a reduction in their budget. The prison population has continued to grow, and Wildwood, scheduled to close, had to remain open. Co-chairs Frank and Pearce agreed to hold Section 54 over until Wednesday, February 24, 1993. Section 55 is a request for University of Alaska Fairbanks snow removal in the amount of $375.0. Senator Kelly felt this request was too high. He asked if any students were employed to take care of snow removal. Ms. Frasca agreed to bring more detail to the committee for this request. Section 56 is a request by the Courts to fund a law clerk for the Mental Health Trust Case workload. In answer to Co- chair Frank's question, Ms. Frasca agreed to ask if the Attorney General was in support of this request. She said the clerk had been hired. Section 57 contained miscellaneous claims and stale-dated warrants and will continue to be updated. Senator Kelly asked if there were any other additions to SB 100. Ms. Frasca said the Department of Health and Social Services had a small request. She said the Division of Elections also had a request of approximately $500.0. Co-chair Frank said that the committee would look at the Division of Elections' request on Wednesday, February 24, 1993. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.