HOUSE BILL NO. 92 "An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for an effective date." Co-chair Halford invited Representative Toohey to join the committee. Representative Toohey presented testimony regarding HB 92. (Testimony is attached.) Senator Rieger asked if the Citizens Review Panel is active. Marveen Coggins, Legislative Aide to Rep. Toohey noted that the Permanency Planning Panel and the Foster Care Review Panel are one in the same. The formal name is the Citizen's Review Panel for Permanency Planning (CRPPP). Co-chair Halford invited Sharon Barton, Dept. of Administration, to join the committee. Ms. Barton testified that since December of 1994, she has supervised the CRPPP in Anchorage. She pointed out the zero fiscal note emphasizing the money for this function has been included in the governor's amended budget. Co-chair Halford read a statement from the OMB instructions on fiscal notes. "Please remember that fiscal notes extending an entity under sunset review should display the ongoing cost of operations and any associated review generated by the passage of the sunset legislation. These types of fiscal notes should be footnoted to indicate that the expenditures are contained in the proposed operating budget, and that the revenues are reflected in the revenue projection." He noted that this is current as of January 20th of this year, consistent with the statute. He pointed out that there does need to be a fiscal note. It does need to note that the money is in the budget. Ms. Barton said that a fiscal note of $170.6 had been submitted with the bill. House Finance replaced it with a zero fiscal note. She noted that the department would be happy to resubmit a fiscal note. Co-chair Halford responded that as long as the fiscal note meets the law, and OMB's guidelines follow the law, the Senate and House Finance Committees can zero it out. The Committees must be presented with the actual cost before a conscious decision to zero it out can be made. Discussion was had regarding the amount of $170.6. Ms. Barton stated that it pays for salaries for 3 staff people who: research and organize the cases; distribute to the panels; recruit the volunteer panels; facilitate the meetings with families; search out family members who need to be in attendance at those meetings; and coordinate with the Public Defender Agency, Public Advocacy Staff, DFYS and others involved in the reviews. Hundreds of hours are donated, but it requires the staff to make them function well. Senator Sharp inquired if these employees are of the Department of Administration. Ms. Barton indicated they are. Senator Sharp asked further about the $170.6. She indicated that $1.0 is allocated for travel, recognizing that supervision comes out of Juneau, making travel to Anchorage a couple times a year necessary. Leasing is now required for the CRPPP as they are needing their own space. Co-chair Halford asked if the amount of $170.6 is in the budget. Ms. Barton indicated that it is. It was not in the Hickel budget, it is an add-on by Governor Knowles. She noted that it was funded at $104.6 in FY 95. At that level it did not fund a staff of three. She indicated that in order to be minimally functional, they must have a staff of three. Co-chair Halford indicated that the House took the fiscal note and zeroed it out saying it was in the budget. He noted that this was not a consistent policy. Co-chair Halford made it clear to the sponsor, that the bill would have a better chance of being funded as a fiscal note rather than through the budget. Co-chair Frank MOVED for passage of HB 92 with individual recommendations. No objection having been raised, HB 92 was REPORTED OUT of committee with the original fiscal note of $170.6 from the Department of Administration. Co-chair Halford asked Senator Phillips to research the funding to bring before the conference committee for final decision making.