Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/12/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB65 || HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 12, 2013
2:25 p.m.
2:25:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Austerman called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Joan Brown, Staff, Representative Alan Austerman; Pete
Ecklund, Staff, Representative Alan Austerman.
SUMMARY
HB 65 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
CSHB 65(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation.
[Note: The meeting was recessed until 9:00 a.m.
on March 14, 2013 and CSHB 65(FIN) reported out
of committee at that time. See March 14, 2013
minutes for detail.]
HB 66 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
CSHB 66(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation.
[Note: The meeting was recessed until 9:00 a.m.
on March 14, 2013 and CSHB 66(FIN) reported out
of committee at that time. See March 14, 2013
minutes for detail.]
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, amending
appropriations, and making reappropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
2:25:37 PM
Co-Chair Austerman discussed that the committee would hear
operating and mental health budget amendments during the
meeting. He shared his intent to incorporate amendments
into a CS that would be heard the following morning at 9:00
a.m. He anticipated reporting the bill from committee
during the meeting.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if staff would present technical
explanations. Co-Chair Austerman responded in the
affirmative.
2:27:38 PM
Co-Chair Austerman pointed to Amendment 1 that was a
combination of technical amendments to the legislation:
OFFERED BY: Representative Austerman
Part A
DEPARTMENT: Administration
APPROPRIATION: Violent Crimes Compensation Board
ALLOCATION: Violent Crimes Compensation Board
DELETE: $300,000 Crime Victim Compensation Fund
(1220)
EXPLANATION: This amendment more closely aligns the
expenditure authorization of the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board to the anticipated funds available
in the Crime Victim Compensation Fund.
Part B
DEPARTMENT: Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
APPROPRIATION: Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
ALLOCATION: Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
ADD: $5,400, General Fund Program Receipts
(1005)
DELETE: $5,400, Unrestricted General Fund
Receipts (1004)
EXPLANATION: The Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
Board's budget is primarily program receipts. In FY
12, funding was transferred to the ABC Board from the
Department of Administration for ETS/EPR Chargebacks
and for Office of Administrative Hearings. This
amendment replaces all UGF in the allocation with
General Fund Program Receipts.
Part C
DEPARTMENT: Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority
ALLOCATION: Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority
ADD: $9,300, Alaska Industrial Development &
Export Authority Receipts (1102)
DELETE: $9,300, Unrestricted General Fund
Receipts (1004)
Part D
DEPARTMENT: Corrections
APPROPRIATION: Inmate Health Care
ALLOCATION: Behavioral Health Care
DELETE: $260.0 MHTAAR (1092) IncM transaction
ADD: $260.0 MHT AAR (l092) IncT transaction
with a funding date range of FY14-FY16
EXPLANATION: The Mental Health Trust Authority
provided an end date ofFY16 for this item. A temporary
increment (IncT) transaction is more appropriate when
funding is added to the base for a specified time
period.
Part E
DEPARTMENT: Education and Early Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Teacher Certification
ADD: $10,200, General Fund Program Receipts
(l005)
DELETE: $10,200, Unrestricted General Fund
Receipts (1004)
EXPLANATION: The Teacher Certification budget is
primarily program receipts. Starting in FY08,
transfers and salary adjustments added a small amount
of UGF to the budget. This amendment replaces all UGF
in the allocation with General Fund Program Receipts.
Part F
DEPARTMENT: Law
APPROPRIATION: Civil Division
ALLOCATION: Torts & Workers' Compensation
DELETE: $10,400, Unrestricted General Funds
(1004)
DEPARTMENT: Law
APPROPRIATION: Civil Division
ALLOCATION: Labor and State Affairs
ADD: $10,400, Unrestricted General Funds
(1004)
EXPLANATION: Although all UGF was transferred from
Torts to Labor and State Affairs in FY13, FY14 salary
adjustment calculations and an associated fund source
change placed $10,400 of UGF in the Torts allocation.
This is the only Unrestricted General Fund Receipts
(UGF) within the Torts & Workers' Compensation
allocation. This amendment transfers the $10,400 UGF
from the Torts & Workers' Compensation allocation to
the Labor and State Affairs allocation.
Part G
DEPARTMENT: Public Safety APPROPRIATION: Fire and
Life Safety
AMEND: The amount appropriated by this
appropriation includes up to $125,000 of the
unexpended and unobligated balance on June 30, 2013,
of the receipts collected under AS 18. 70.080(b).
EXPLANATION: Based on excess balances for the past
three fiscal years, $125,000 appears to provide
sufficient carry forward potential for the Fire and
Life Safety appropriation.
Part H
DEPARTMENT: Public Safety
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Police Standards Council
AMEND: The amount appropriated by this
appropriation includes up to $125,000 of the
unexpended and unobligated balance on June 30, 2013,
of the receipts collected under AS 12.25.195(c), AS
12.55.039, AS 28.05.151, and AS 29.25.074 and receipts
collected under AS 18.65.220(7).
EXPLANATION: This conditional language has been
included in the Alaska Police Standards Council
appropriation for several years with a cap of$125,000.
Removal of this cap was requested in the FYl4
Governor's request and is being restored with this
amendment.
Part I
DEPARTMENT: Public Safety
APPROPRIATION: Statewide Support
ALLOCATION: Statewide Information Technology
Services
AMEND: The amount allocated for Statewide
Information Technology Services includes up to
$125,000 of the unexpended and unobligated balance on
June 30, 2013, of the receipts collected by the
Department of Public Safety from the Alaska automated
fingerprint system under AS 44.41.025(b).
EXPLANATION: This conditional language has been
included in the Statewide Information Technology
Services (formerly Alaska Criminal Records and
Identification) allocation for several years with a
cap of $125,000. Removal of this cap was requested in
the FY 14 Governor's request and is being restored
with this amendment.
Part J
DEPARTMENT: Transportation and Public Facilities
APPROPRIATION: Design, Engineering and Construction
ALLOCATION: Central Design and Engineering Services
Page 35, lines 24-27, amend as follows:
The amount allocated for Central Design and
Engineering Services [COMPONENTS] includes the
unexpended and unobligated balance on June 30, 2013[,]
of [THE] general fund program receipts collected by
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
for the sale [AND] or lease of excess right-of-way.
ALLOCATION: Northern Design and Engineering Services
Page 35, lines 30-33, amend as follows:
The amount allocated for Northern Design and
Engineering Services [COMPONENTS] includes the
unexpended and unobligated balance on June 30, 2013[,]
of [THE] general fund program receipts collected by
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
for the sale [AND] or lease of excess right-of-way.
ALLOCATION: Southeast Design and Engineering Services
Page 36, lines 5-8, amend as follows:
The amount allocated for Southeast Design and
Engineering Services [COMPONENTS] includes the
unexpended and unobligated balance on June 30, 2013[,]
of [THE] general fund program receipts collected by
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
for the sale [AND] or lease of excess right-of-way.
APPROPRIATION: Marine Highway System
ALLOCATION: Marine Vessel Operations
Remove "Southeast Alaska" from the transaction
decrementing $2,861.0 from this allocation. The
decrement would then apply to generic service level
reductions, cost control and efficiencies.
Part K
AGENCY: Legislature
APPROPRIATION: Budget and Audit Committee
ALLOCATION: Legislative Audit
ADD: $100,000, Unrestricted General Fund
Receipts (1004) IncT (FY14-FY15)
DELETE: $100,000, Unrestricted General Fund
Receipts (1004) Inc
EXPLANATION: Because this increment is associated
with a specific audit, a temporary increment is more
appropriate than an addition to the base budget.
JOAN BROWN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, explained
the different parts of the Amendment 1. Part A deleted
$300,000 from the Crime Victim Compensation Fund from the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board to align the funding of
the board with the amount anticipated within the fund. Part
B included a fund source switch for the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) Board; unrestricted general funds was deleted
and replaced with program receipts. Part C replaced $9,300
of unrestricted general fund receipts with Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority, (AIDEA)
receipts. She communicated that many of the items were
small amounts of salary adjustments that had accumulated
over time (the AIDEA item was related to part of the core-
services distribution that had been made). Part D changed
an IncM (maintenance increment) transaction to an IncT
(temporary increment) because it was for a temporary two-
year period.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Representative
Holmes OBJECTED for discussion.
Ms. Brown continued to explain the amendment. Part E
replaced $10,200 of unrestricted general fund receipts with
general fund program receipts. She moved to Part F and
detailed that previously all of the general funds had been
transferred from the Torts and Workers' Compensation
allocation to the Labor and State Affairs allocation; the
amendment would transfer the remaining general fund amount.
Parts G through I put a cap of up to $125,000 on the carry
forward amount. Part J included wording changes to Section
1 of HB 65 related to the Central, Northern, and Southeast
Design and Engineering Services under the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT). The words
"Southeast Alaska" had been removed from a Marine Highway
System increment in order for the allocation to apply to
the entire Marine Highway Vessel Operations. Part K
included a technical change in the Legislative Audit
allocation; an increment had been changed to an IncT
because it related to FY 14 and FY 15.
Vice-Chair Neuman commented on the amendment related to the
removal of the words "Southeast Alaska" in Part J. He
explained that the change clarified that equal reductions
had been made to each part of the state. He believed it was
important to point out so the public understood the
committee's efforts to treat the state regions fairly. He
referred to a conversation with the DOT commissioner
related to the Southwestern ferry route.
2:33:17 PM
Representative Gara pointed to parts A and B of Amendment
1. He wondered how the removal of $300,000 from the Crime
Victim Compensation Fund would not take away money from the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board.
Ms. Brown replied that when the committee had adopted a CS
the prior week it had reduced money going into the Crime
Victim Compensation Fund by $674,000. The board's budget
was $2.8 million; of the total, $1.8 million was from the
fund. The reduction of $300,000 would equalize the
expenditure authorization as a result of the $674,000
reduction in the CS. She noted that there was some carry
forward expected.
Representative Gara queried the rationale for reducing the
money designated for the Crime Victim Compensation Fund.
Ms. Brown answered that the reduction had been made in
order to return to the 90/10 percent split of the Permanent
Fund Dividend criminal funds between the Department of
Corrections and the Crime Victim Compensation Fund.
Representative Gara asked whether the funds under Part B of
Amendment 1 would be removed from the alcohol tax. Ms.
Brown replied Part B would switch the fund source from
unrestricted general funds to ABC Board's normal program
receipt fund source.
Representative Gara asked if the alcohol tax was the normal
fund source.
2:35:53 PM
Ms. Brown replied in the negative; the ABC Board's normal
fund source was general fund program receipts.
Representative Holmes WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
OFFERED BY: Rep. Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Administration
APPROPRIATION: Enterprise Technology Services
ALLOCATION: ALMR Payment on Behalf of Political
Subdivisions (new)
ADD: $500,000 general funds (1004)
EXPLANATION: The Governor's budget included a
$500,000 language appropriation to the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. The
department would have transferred the funds to the
Department of Administration as a payment on behalf of
political subdivisions for the Alaska Land Mobile
Radio system under a cost allocation methodology
adopted by the Department of Administration. This
amendment retains the original purpose of the funding
without the unnecessary transfer between departments.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Austerman explained that Amendment 2 would add
$500,000 in general funds to the Alaska Land Mobile Radio
(ALMR) system. He highlighted that a certain amount of
money was allocated every year in revenue sharing and other
means. The increment was on behalf of political
subdivisions.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the absence of the funds would
take money away from communities or whether the Department
of Administration could absorb the loss in its budget.
Co-Chair Austerman responded that municipalities would have
to absorb the costs if the increment was not funded.
2:37:33 PM
Representative Thompson pointed out that without the
amendment communities would be charged. He provided detail
on amounts that communities would be responsible for in the
absence of the amendment: the City of Fairbanks would be
responsible for $95,000, the borough's share would be
$56,000, the North Star Fire Department's share would be
$8,000 (the department's budget was small and $8,000 was
its total training budget), and Salcha Fire and Rescue
would owe $1,600 (they did not have the money to spend). He
added that many small fire departments did not have the
funding available.
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether the cost
allocation methodology was the same as the methodology
currently used by Department of Administration.
Co-Chair Austerman believed so, but was not positive.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that the
intent was to use the existing language utilized for
reimbursement rates under ALMR. He surmised that the
numbers listed by Representative Thompson were in alignment
with existing methodology.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:
OFFERED BY: Rep. Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
ALLOCATION: Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
LANGUAGE: Amend section 12(h)(3) page 59, lines
15-17, to read:
(3) The sum of $7,286,400[$7,772,200] from the
general fund, for the purpose of matching industry
contributions collected by the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2012;
EXPLANATION: This reduction of $485,800 is 1/16th of
ASMI's unrestricted general fund appropriation, the
same percentage general fund reduction that was
assessed to tourism marketing. ASMI has sufficient
general fund program receipt carry forward revenue to
mitigate the impact of this general fund reduction.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Austerman explained that Amendment 3 removed the
same amount of general fund money on a percentage basis
from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) as was
taken from tourism marketing.
Representative Gara asked if the amendment allocated
$500,000 less to ASMI than the budget subcommittee
recommended. Co-Chair Austerman replied that the
subcommittee recommendation had been to remove $1 million.
Representative Gara concluded that Amendment 3 would only
remove $500,000 from ASMI's general fund appropriation.
2:40:06 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that no one was suggesting giving
the tourism industry exclusive use of state's natural
resources. He made a remark about the fishing industry's
exclusive use of Kachemak Bay.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Wilson and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Education & Early Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching & Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Student & School Achievement
DELETE: $2,611,800 general funds (1004)
DELETE THE FOLLOWING INTENT:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
department work with the Association of Alaska School
Boards and school districts to ensure that
digitization One-to-One funding is used to provide
professional development in the form of training for
teachers involved in working with new technologies.
The legislature wants to ensure that equipment
purchased with the digitization funding be used to
full advantage to provide the best and most complete
education experience possible. The department is
requested to report to the legislature by January 15,
2014, regarding the progress and status of the
project.
ALLOCATION: Online with Libraries (OWL) (new)
ADD: $761,800 general funds (1004)
ALLOCATION: Live Homework Help (new)
ADD: $138,200 general funds (1004)
EXPLANATION: This amendment deletes $2.6 million GF
that was accepted in subcommittee (of the $5.9 million
requested by the Governor for digitizing education in
Alaska). It also creates two new allocations within
Teaching and Learning Support and funds them at the
amounts requested by the Governor. This amendment
reduces the subcommittee recommendation by $1,711,800.
With the approval of this amendment, the Alaska
Learning Network (AKLN) ($1.1 million) and Statewide
Technology Rollout ($3.9 million) will not be funded.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that Amendment 4 deleted
$2,611,800 general funds and reallocated $761,800 to the
Online With Libraries (OWL) program for 100 community
library/schools. The amendment would also provide $138,200
for the Live Homework Help program. She furthered that the
amendment removed funding from the Alaska Learning Network
and the one-on-one digital learning program. She detailed
that the digital program would have eventually needed a
minimum of $16 million with a 60/40 percent split between
state and district funds respectively. She stated that due
to the uncertainty of future state funds, investment in the
programs was too costly.
2:42:13 PM
Representative Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. He stated
that the amendment reduced the subcommittee's
recommendation for digital learning funds. He supported the
Live Homework Help and OWL programs, but he did not support
the removal of $1 million from the Alaska Learning Network
and $3.9 million from the one-to-one technology program. He
stressed that money for the Alaska Learning Network was
important because the program allowed rural students to
access quality courses that would enable them to qualify
for the governor's Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS). He
emphasized that the highest quality courses came through
the learning network on a consistent basis. He stated that
the goal was to provide rural students with the same
opportunity as urban students. He emphasized that if the
state was going to invest in digital learning, it should do
it right. He was open to the deletion of a portion of the
$3.9 million because the one-to-one technology program had
not been explained well and more information was needed;
however, he was uncomfortable deleting the entire amount.
He would not be surprised by a law suit if the state did
not provide access to the courses necessary for APS
eligibility.
2:45:22 PM
Representative Wilson responded that the Alaska Learning
Network had been started two years earlier with federal
stimulus funding. She stated that stimulus funding had not
been intended for the implementation of programs because
states would be responsible for funding the programs when
federal money ended. She furthered that the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) had used the federal
funding for programs; there were 138 students
participating. Her staff had called all school districts
(when the increment had been denied the past year) to
determine whether schools had access to other online
learning; she had been assured by all districts that they
did have other access. She stated that the Alaska Learning
Network contained 40 programs. She opined that another
entity could fund the item; she believed the program could
be self-sufficient.
Representative Gara did not believe the state should punish
schools that were receiving less per-student funding
currently than they were four years earlier because federal
funding could not be replaced. He stressed that funding
decisions should be based on the worthiness of a program
and not whether it had been funded with federal money; he
believed the [Alaska Learning Network] program was worthy.
Vice-Chair Neuman stated that funding had increased
considerably for schools over the past four years. He
believed the programs were great, but stated that the money
was not available. He supported Amendment 4.
2:48:07 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
4.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Holmes, Stoltze, Austerman
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gara, Kawasaki
The MOTION PASSED (8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 5.
2:49:32 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Wilson, Thompson, Neuman, Munoz,
Edgmon, Holmes, Costello, Stoltze and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Education and Early Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Early Learning Coordination
ADD: $100,000 General Fund (1004)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores $100,000 to the
Best Beginnings program. Best Beginnings is a public
private partnership that works to ensure children in
Alaska begin school ready to learn in communities
statewide.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson explained that Amendment 6 would
restore $100,000 to the Best Beginnings program. She
detailed that public testimony indicated the importance of
the program. She pointed to matching funds given to
communities.
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 6 by
increasing the amount by $37,500.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that Best Beginnings had
received $937,500 the prior year. He stated that Amendment
6 would restore part of the funding. He did not believe the
program deserved to be cut. He opined that the state had a
patchwork of inadequate early learning services. He
furthered that Best Beginnings had been doing a good job
with the small amount of money it had received. He opined
that a 3.5 to 4 percent reduction from the program's prior
year budget was not justified. He asked to restore the
money to the prior year funding level. He noted that flat
funding the program would not keep up with inflation.
2:51:31 PM
Representative Edgmon believed the issue epitomized the
difficulty of making tough choices. He supported the
underlying amendment because it restored some of the
funding for Best Beginnings. He would like to see the
entire amount restored, but understood that tough choices
were necessary. He opposed the amendment to Amendment 6.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
6.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Holmes, Munoz, Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
2:53:22 PM
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 6.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Munoz and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environmental
Conservation
APPROPRIATION: Spill Prevention and Response
ADD: It is the intent of the legislature
that the Department of Environmental Conservation
provide recommendations to the legislature on or
before the start of the second session of the Twenty-
eighth Alaska State Legislature, January 21, 2014,
that identify ways to manage the oil and hazardous
substance release prevention and response fund as a
viable, long-term funding source for the state's core
spill prevention and response initiatives. The plan
should include an analysis of prior expenditures from
the fund for the remediation of state-owned
contaminated sites and a proposal to expeditiously
remediate state owned contaminated sites.
EXPLANATION: The Department of Environmental
Conservation has noted in its detail budget submission
that managing the oil and hazardous substance release
prevention and response fund as a viable, long-term
funding source for the state's core spill prevention
and response initiatives is critical, according to the
Legislative Finance Division.
Agency projections show that revenues collected from
the four-cent per barrel conservation surcharge are
not adequate to fund spill prevention and response
programs. The surcharge revenue is the primary funding
source for the prevention account and that revenue is
not sufficient to sustain Alaska's core spill
prevention and response program over the long term.
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2015, annual funding
available from this account will be at least $5
million less than will be required to continue the
current level of service. Members of the House Finance
Department of Environmental Conservation Budget
Subcommittee expressed an interest in working with the
administration to find a way to address this
shortfall. This intent language encourages the agency
to do so.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz explained that the Spill Prevention
and Response Fund was funded with a $0.05 per barrel of oil
surcharge. The fund was anticipated to be running at a
deficit by FY 15; approximately $5 million less than the
projected amount needed to provide the current level of
service. The amendment contained intent language directing
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to
provide specific recommendations to the legislature the
following session on how to make the fund solvent over the
long-term.
2:54:26 PM
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. He
supported the amendment and believed the intent was to make
the fund solvent to address remediation issues.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 7 was ADOPTED.
2:55:07 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Munoz and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environmental
Conservation
APPROPRIATION: Water
ADD: It is the intent of the legislature
that the Department of Environmental Conservation, to
the extent feasible, make information regarding cruise
ship mixing zones, including geographical areas,
available to the public on the agency's web site.
EXPLANATION: The House Finance Department of
Environmental Conservation Budget Subcommittee
discussed how to help keep the public better informed
about cruise ship discharges, especially near fishing
grounds and other areas. The agency is working on ways
to post on-line more information about its activities.
This intent language encourages the department to
continue doing so in regards to its cruise ship
program.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Munoz explained that Amendment 8 was a
result of budget subcommittee work for DEC. She elaborated
that the amendment included intent language directing the
department to make information regarding cruise ship
discharge available to the public on its website to the
extent feasible. She believed the amendment was in line
with the department's current work to upgrade online
information reporting.
Representative Kawasaki discussed reservations with the
language "to the extent feasible" related to dealing with
the department. He was concerned that the language may
allow the department to report the following year that the
change was not feasible. He rejected the notion and
believed that DEC could easily include the information
online. He noted that the department received the
information digitally and that it was easy to track a
ship's location. He MOVED to AMEND Amendment 8 to delete
the language "to the extent feasible."
Co-Chair Austerman asked for verification that the
amendment would remove the language "to the extent
feasible."
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED to amendments that were not
written out.
2:57:29 PM
Representative Kawasaki offered to write the amendment to
Amendment 8. Co-Chair Austerman would hold Amendment 8
while an amendment was drafted.
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 9.
2:58:10 PM
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10:
OFFERED BY: Representative Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Fish and Game
APPROPRIATION: Commercial Fisheries
ALLOCATION: Westward Region Fisheries Management
ADD: $150,000 Test Fisheries Receipts (1109)
EXPLANATION: This provides additional funding so the
golden king crab observers are funded from test fish
receipts as are the observers for the Bristol Bay red
king crab and snow crab fisheries. This request is
unanimously supported by the Crab Observer Oversight
Task Force.
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Austerman explained that Amendment 10 related to
the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) practice of
managing fisheries with industry funded management costs.
The amendment funded a test fisheries receipt that would
allow DFG to conduct a test fishery with crab in order to
manage biomass and to determine how much to release to
fishermen. He believed the amount would come off the top of
the quota fishermen were allowed.
Vice-Chair Neuman surmised that the test fishery observers
would catch the fish, the product would be sold to a
canary, and DFG would receive proceeds for the sale. He
asked for verification that the item would be funded by
receipts from the proceeds.
Co-Chair Austerman replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for verification that the
allocation was not an increase in the budget. Co-Chair
Austerman answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 10 was ADOPTED.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Thompson and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Military and Veterans' Affairs
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Aerospace Corporation
ALLOCATION: Alaska Aerospace Corporation
ADD: $2,918,700 General Funds 1004
LANGUAGE: AMEND Sec. 17, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY
AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS, by adding a new subsection to
read:
(b) If the Alaska Aerospace Corporation does not
secure a multi-year commercial launch service contract
for the Kodiak Launch Complex on or before June 30,
2013, the appropriation from the general fund to the
Alaska Aerospace Corporation, Alaska Aerospace
Corporation allocation in sec. 1 of this Act shall be
reduced by $3,000,000.
INSERT a new bill section to read:
Sec. --. CONTINGENT EFFECT. The appropriation
made in sec. 17(b) of this Act is contingent as set
out in sec. 17(b) of this Act.
EXPLANATION:
In FY13 the State of Alaska provided a one-time
increment of $8.0 million GF. It was the State's
understanding that Alaska Aerospace Corporation [AAC]
would not become wholly dependent on the State to
provide funding for operations and maintenance. The
State understands that AAC has potential contracts
that will be fulfilled in FYI4. To that end, the
legislature will provide funding in FY14 to AAC to
allow AAC to secure a contract by June 30, 2013. If no
multi-year commercial launch service contract is
secured by that date, funding will be reduced by $3.0
million.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson explained Amendment 11. He
communicated that the Alaska Aerospace Corporation fell
under the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. The
corporation had requested $8 million for its operating
budget, but the finance subcommittee had recommended
reducing the number to $5 million. He explained that the
corporation felt that the reduction would hamper its
attempt to secure a contract for launch in August 2014. The
amendment would restore funding to the corporation with the
caveat that failure to secure a multi-year launch contract
by June 30, 2013 would mean a $3 million reduction in
funds.
3:01:06 PM
Representative Kawasaki agreed with the amendment's
underlying concept. He asked whether multi-year commercial
launch contracts were typical. He pointed to backup data
that seemed to indicate that contracts had duration of one
year. He wondered whether the amendment would be too
stringent.
Representative Thompson replied that the amendment was
intended to be stringent. He relayed that the corporation
had conveyed that it expected there to be one launch per
year under the potential contract. The goal was to let the
corporation know that the legislature was serious about
wanting to see production and the development of a good
business plan. He reiterated that the language was
restrictive; he had not spoken to the corporation about the
amendment. He believed the program was great, which had
been implemented to diversify the state's economy and to
involve the universities in rocket technology. There had
not been any production for a couple of years and he hoped
to see that change.
3:02:34 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed out that the amendment was a
compromise. He believed the Alaska Aerospace Corporation
would get the message that a business plan was needed and
that it was not an "unending cash cow" of legislative
appropriations.
Co-Chair Austerman informed the committee that two years
earlier the corporation had come forward with a $40 million
request for sustaining funds ($10 million per year for four
years) to allow the corporation to redo its business plan.
The result had been a $4 million appropriation the first
year, $8 million the second year, and $8 million in the
current year. He shared that the new executive officer had
communicated that the fourth year request would be reduced
to $6 million. He stated that the $32 million total request
was for sustaining funds to keep the corporation's doors
open. He agreed that the legislature should not continue to
fund something that would not work and stated that the
amendment would put the corporation in a position to ensure
that it would work.
3:03:58 PM
Representative Kawasaki liked the language in Amendment 11,
but wanted to make a change. He MOVED to AMEND Amendment 11
by increasing the $3 million reduction to $5 million. He
stated the language would read:
...the general fund to the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation, Alaska Aerospace Corporation allocation
in sec. 1 of this Act shall be reduced by $5,000,000.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki agreed that the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation should be on its way to becoming self-
sufficient. He stated that the amendment would put the ball
squarely in its court. He referred to budget subcommittee
discussions related to an amount the corporation would need
to operate. He believed the corporation should be heading
in the direction of looking at transferring assets over to
a private developer or a private contractor that could
operate the asset. He believed the $3 million the state
intended to provide the corporation would provide the
corporation with the latitude to explore the options. He
agreed with the amendment but opined that it needed to be
more specific.
Co-Chair Austerman voiced objection to amending Amendment
11. He explained that Amendment 11 would take $3 million
from the corporation if it failed to secure a contract by
July 1, 2013; whereas the proposed amendment to Amendment
11 would take $5 million. He believed that for an operation
of the corporation's size it would take some time to close
down. He stated that reducing funding by $5 million may not
allow the corporation to close down in an appropriate way.
3:06:53 PM
Representative Thompson agreed and objected to the proposed
amendment to Amendment 11. He furthered that a reduction of
$3 million would leave the corporation with $5 million to
carry it through the end of January 2014. He provided a
scenario in which the corporation came up with four
launches for the following year; the funding under
Amendment 11 gave the opportunity for the legislature to
provide a supplemental appropriation in January 2014 to
allow the corporation to continue. He stated that the
amendment gave the corporation the opportunity to work
towards something; if nothing came to fruition the money
would enable it to sell or lease out the complex. He
stressed that reducing the budget by $5 million would only
give the corporation funds for approximately 3 months of
operation.
Representative Gara agreed with the amendment to Amendment
11. He pointed to frustration with the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation. He stated that there had not been a launch in
the past two years and that there was no contract for a
launch in the future. He had heard a promise from the
corporation that it was on the verge of securing a
contract; however, the possibility of a contract kept
getting pushed further out into the future. He agreed that
the corporation should be given until June 30, 2013 to
determine a plan, but he did not believe it needed $5
million if no launches had been secured at that time. He
believed if no launches had been secured it would be time
for the corporation to find an operator to run the facility
at no cost to the state or to consider selling. He believed
$3 million would allow the corporation to continue
negotiating into the following year for rocket launches. He
opined that leaving the corporation with $5 million would
let it run an empty facility. He believed $3 million would
keep the facility's integrity intact and to allow the
corporation to determine a way to sell it.
3:09:38 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman spoke against the amendment to Amendment
11. He pointed to a business plan that had been laid out by
the Alaska Aerospace Corporation. He stated that the
corporation needed a certain amount of structure within the
facility itself; the contracts would not be obtained if it
could not demonstrate the structure. He furthered that the
funding would provide the corporation with one more
opportunity to secure contracts by June 30, 2013. He
stressed that if the corporation did not have resources
available to move forward on contracts the legislature was
essentially "cutting them off at the feet."
Representative Kawasaki provided a wrap up on the
amendment. He referred to discussion in the budget
subcommittee related to a cold operation option. The
subcommittee had asked the corporation why it needed 42
staff when there had been no launches in the past two
years; the corporation responded that staff was needed in
order to work to get a launch done. He referred to the
possibility that a contract could be signed in August for
four future launches. He remarked that there had been 18
lifts in 12 years. He believed the corporation's projection
of three launches in 2015 were speculative at best. He
opined that $3 million was an adequate amount of money for
a cold operation (where engineers would not be needed).
Co-Chair Austerman shared that he lived where the launch
facility was located. He detailed that two weeks earlier 25
to 35 people from the Department of Military Defense had
visited the facility, in preparation for a possible launch
contract for the fall of 2014. He noted it was the only
contract the corporation was considering currently. He
stated that the current staff was needed in order to meet
with prospective clients. He agreed with other comments
about the length of time the state should continue to fund
the corporation. He supported the original amendment and
believed it worked to put the corporation on notice to come
up with a viable business plan or figure out how to close
down the operation.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
11.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz,
Neuman, Stoltze, Austerman
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
There being NO further OBJECTION Amendment 11 was ADOPTED.
3:14:21 PM
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Costello and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Natural Resources
APPROPRIATION: Oil and Gas
ALLOCATION: Oil and Gas
LANGUAGE: Page 62, following line 2:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The amount necessary, not to exceed $600,000, is
appropriated from the general fund to the Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, for the
purpose of retaining expert contractors to examine
commercial terms for service of the North Slope gas
commercialization project and ensure compliance with
the terms of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act license
under AS 43.90.100 -43.90.260."
Representatives Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Costello explained that the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had requested a one-time increment
of $600,000 to retain expert contractors to examine the
commercial terms for North Slope gas commercialization and
to ensure compliance with the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act
(AGIA). The subcommittee had recommended changing the
increment from a one-time occurrence to including it in the
language section of the budget; the change would enable the
department to use up to $600,000, but DNR would no longer
be able to spend the money in other areas.
3:15:22 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
reiterated the amendment's purpose. He believed that the
governor had designated $25 million in the operating budget
for AGIA and the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC). He stated that the items under the amendment were
already part of the entities' job. He furthered that under
the AGIA terms, if TransCanada or ExxonMobil were doing the
work, the state was currently responsible for up to 90
percent of the costs. He guessed that the full $600,000
would be spent if allocated. He stressed that the state was
running in a deficit mode. He believed reductions needed to
be made where they were possible.
Representative Kawasaki asked whether the amendment would
restrict the Division of Oil and Gas by specifying that it
would be required to retain expert consultants for
commercial terms. He noted that current language provided
the entity with more autonomy related to decision making.
3:17:44 PM
Representative Costello replied that in the past DNR had
used the one-time increment for the specific purpose
outlined in Amendment 12. She furthered that it had been
the budget subcommittee's desire that the allocation move
into the language section for appropriation on an as-needed
basis. She noted that the amendment also included
sideboards around the budget item.
Vice-Chair Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
12.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Gara, Kawasaki, Holmes,
Munoz, Thompson, Austerman, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Neuman
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 12 was ADOPTED.
3:19:15 PM
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Costello and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Natural Resources
APPROPRIATION: Oil and Gas
ALLOCATION: Oil and Gas
LANGUAGE: Page 62, following line 2:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The amount necessary, not to exceed $500,000, for
costs related to royalty oil and gas valuation
matters, including audit disputes, reopener provisions
under royalty settlement agreements, establishing
minimum royalty values, disposition of royalty in
kind, and similar matters is appropriated from the
general fund to the Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Oil and Gas, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2014."
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Costello explained that the DNR budget
subcommittee recommended moving $500,000 from the base for
royalty arbitration in which DNR would argue on behalf of
the state against oil companies to obtain hundreds of
millions of dollars that the state believed it was owed
based on royalty valuation. She furthered that the entire
request equaled $1.3 million; $500,000 would come from the
capital budget and $800,000 had come as an operating budget
request. The amendment would mean a reduction of $300,000
to DNR. She communicated that the oil companies would not
know the amount of funds used but they would know that it
would not exceed $500,000. She believed that the work was
significant.
Representative Gara agreed with the importance of the
ability to litigate the cases against high powered
attorneys. He pointed to the original $1.3 million request
and asked if the $500,000 was an increment to the
subcommittee budget.
Representative Costello replied that the increment had been
in the base and the budget subcommittee had moved it into
the language section. She elaborated that the additional
$500,000 request was included in the capital budget.
3:21:41 PM
Representative Gara asked if the operating budget cost was
$800,000 and the capital budget request was $500,000.
Representative Costello replied that $500,000 would be
included in the operating budget language section if the
proposed amendment passed and $500,000 would be included in
the capital budget if approved.
Representative Gara asked for verification that without the
amendment there would be zero funds allocated to the item.
Representative Costello replied in the affirmative.
3:22:17 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for clarification on the total
proposed expenditure. He wondered if the amendment added
$500,000 to the amount the agency would receive.
Representative Costello answered that without the amendment
the royalty arbitration work would not receive any funding.
Vice-Chair Neuman pointed to a capital budget request for
funding of a portion of the increment. He surmised that
without the amendment the division would still receive some
funding.
Co-Chair Austerman explained that without the amendment
there would be zero operating funds designated for the
item. The capital budget could contain partial funding for
the item.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION Amendment 13 was ADOPTED.
3:23:58 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Munoz and Austerman
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska
APPROPRIATION: University of Alaska
ALLOCATION: Budget Reductions/Additions -
Systemwide
DELETE: $36,000,000 University of Alaska
Restricted Receipts (1048)
EXPLANATION:
This amendment would reduce unrealized University of
Alaska Restricted Receipts, Fund Code 1048 (Designated
General Funds), by $36,000,000 to an amount that comes
closer to reflecting how much the University of Alaska
raises in tuition, fees, and other sources.
Previous University budgets have included significant
receipt authority that is unrealizable, according to
discussions with University officials and members of
the House Finance University of Alaska Budget
Subcommittee. This over-authorization for "hollow
receipts" creates the appearance that the University
has more funding than what it can generate.
For example, in Fiscal Year 2012, the legislature
authorized nearly $314.1 million in University
receipts. The University ended that fiscal year
generating almost $272.4 million -a difference of
roughly $41.7 million.
This $36,000,000 amendment neither reduces revenue to
the University nor affects spending in Fiscal Year
2014. It is a technical adjustment to provide more
accurate receipt information for this Designated
General Fund source.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Munoz explained that Amendment 14 would
remove $36 million in hollow receipt authority [for the
University of Alaska]. The subcommittee had discovered
hollow receipt authorities embedded throughout the
university budget, which made it difficult to know the true
line item expenditures in different areas of the budget.
The amendment would retain the university's ability to
raise federal funds; there was approximately $10 million in
federal receipt authority. She furthered that there was
close to $10 million in designated general fund receipt
authority above the amount currently collected in tuition
fees and from other revenue sources. She summarized that
the reduction would provide a more accurate reflection of
the actual university budget.
Representative Gara provided a scenario where a university
professor obtained private grants totaling $50 million. He
wondered if the amendment would allow professors to accept
the private grant funding above the $36 million in
unrealized receipts.
Representative Munoz replied in the affirmative. She stated
that the university could ask the Legislative Finance
Division [Correction: Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee] for a language amendment that would be brought
forward in the following legislative session.
Co-Chair Austerman corrected that the agency was
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. Representative
Munoz agreed.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee had the authority to
approve the grants during the interim.
3:27:12 PM
Representative Munoz replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara remarked that he would only be upset if
the university was denied use of grant money it raised. He
doubted that the situation would occur.
Co-Chair Austerman commented that on average the university
had somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million to $45
million annually in unused receipt authority.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION Amendment 14 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Austerman and Costello
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska
APPROPRIATION: University of Alaska
ALLOCATION: Anchorage Campus
DELETE: $250,000 general funds (1004)
EXPLANATION:
This amendment deletes the funding for the second year
of a two-year project of the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) on Alaska Education Policy
Research.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Austerman addressed Amendment 15. He referenced a
lengthy discussion from the prior year related to how to
handle education funding throughout the state. He referred
to an education task-force that had been established. A
bill addressing the issue had not passed, but the Senate
had recommended putting two installments of $250,000 into
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) on Alaska
Education Policy Research. He had recently met with ISER
staff and had learned the first installment of $250,000 had
not been spent. The amendment would remove the second
installment of $250,000 from the FY 14 budget, with the
understanding that the money would be allocated at a later
time when ISER could demonstrate that it was actively
working to understand the education system across the state
and how it should be funded.
3:29:44 PM
Representative Kawasaki had not spoken directly with ISER,
but believed that the legislature needed to keep all
agencies accountable to money they received. He did not
want to cut funds if ISER had not fully encumbered the
initial $250,000 because it was waiting on the additional
funds; if that was the case he surmised that contingency
language may be more appropriate that would allow ISER to
show what the legislature expected.
Representative Gara agreed with the amendment as long as
ISER understood that it was supposed to use the first
$250,000 for a work product and not solely a work product
plan. He believed the entity could generate a good work
product for that amount.
Co-Chair Austerman replied that the budget amount included
a page of instructions for ISER.
Representative Gara believed the legislature would also
work to determine an education funding plan.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 15 was ADOPTED.
3:31:29 PM
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 16.
Representative Edgmon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17:
OFFERED BY: Rep. Edgmon
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska
APPROPRIATION: University of Alaska
ALLOCATION: Bristol Bay Campus
ADD: $55,000 UGF (lO04) $55,000 Univ Rcpt
(1048)
EXPLANATION: There is presently a waiting list for
the Bristol Bay Campus Nursing program and this
request will help fund the nursing faculty member.
Producing more nursing graduates will help meet
employer needs and fill the increasing statewide
demand for nurses, specifically nurses for rural
Alaska.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Edgmon explained that the amendment would
provide the Bristol Bay Campus with a faculty position that
would help it to continue a local nursing program. He
pointed to the program's success and noted that it had
graduated its first class. Graduates were eligible for
employment opportunities at the regional hospital. He
furthered that the program had a waiting list. The campus
had identified a number of candidates for the position.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 17 was ADOPTED.
3:33:21 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18:
OFFERED BY: Rep. Munoz
LANGUAGE: AMEND Sec. 21, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, by
adding a new subsection to read:
(--) The sum of $90,000 is appropriated from the
general fund and $27,800 in receipts of the University
of Alaska as described in AS 37.05. 146(b)(2) for a
total of$117,800 to the Juneau Campus of the
University of Alaska for the Center for Mine
Training."
This section has an effective date of July 1, 2013.
EXPLANATION:
The University of Alaska Center for Mine Training at
the Juneau Campus was created in June 2011 after Hecla
Greens Creek donated $300,000 to the program. It is
becoming an internationally recognized center for
training miners with state-of-the-art training aids,
faculty, and facilities. It works in cooperation with
the University of Alaska Mining and Petroleum Training
Service to provide Mine Safety and Health
Administration training, such as entry-level mining
classes, that lead to good-paying jobs in Alaska
mines.
The $117,800 request is for the center's training
director who also serves as an assistant professor who
teaches courses supported by the Hecla Greens Creek
donation as part of the Hecla Greens Creek Mining
Training Career Pathway. The director teaches two
statewide introductory courses that serve as the first
steps in a pathway that leads to a career in mining.
Students then enter a UA Mine Mechanics Occupational
Endorsement and Power Technology Associates of Applied
Sciences certificate programs with an emphasis in
diesel mechanics all funded by the Hecla Greens Creek
donation. The director also operates amine simulator
and represents the UA mine training program locally,
regionally, across the state, nationally, and
internationally.
This program creates jobs in Southeast Alaska. By
putting this appropriation in the language section, it
assures that this program will be funded.
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Representative Munoz explained that the amendment would
provide funding for the mining training director position
at the University of Alaska Southeast. She communicated
that the program had initially been funded with a grant
from the Hecla Greens Creek Mining Company. A statewide
course was also offered to high school students for dual
credit. She shared that the program had been successful in
training and preparing individuals for jobs at Hecla and
Kensington Mine. She expounded that other mines in
Southeast Alaska were training individuals through the
program in anticipation of opening on Prince of Wales
Island.
Vice-Chair Neuman believed that the request had been put
forward by the university's Board of Regents and had not
been in the governor's proposed budget. He stated that
there was already legislation that increased the funds and
asked for matching grants from private industry;
transferrable credits could be obtained for corporate
taxes. He stated that there was a partnership with private
industry that would allow mines to partner with schools for
training. He wanted to see increased private partnership
with the education industry where transferrable credits
could be received for various businesses; he stated that
fish, mining, and other taxes could be used. He believed in
vocational education training and understood that the
courses were needed. He remarked that workers were coming
in from out of state for mining jobs. He reiterated his
belief that there were other ways to offer the training
such as public-private partnerships. He pointed to the
current budget deficit. He mentioned his legislation
related to technical vocational education program funds
that would take funds from employees' paychecks and go
towards vocational education in Southeast; the university
would receive 5 percent of funds that totaled approximately
$10.7 million.
3:36:46 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman restated his objection to Amendment 18.
He believed the programs were necessary, but the state was
running in a deficit mode. He noted that there were a
significant number of other training programs in Fairbanks
and in other areas; he would like to fund them all, but he
did not believe the state could afford it.
Representative Gara supported the amendment, but wanted it
to recognize the need of mining programs across the state.
He stated that the Board of Regents had requested
bolstering the mining program at the University of Alaska
campuses in Fairbanks (UAF), Anchorage (UAA), Southeast
(UAS), and in one other location. He believed that with the
exception of a couple of proposals the mining history in
the state had been responsible. The industry provided well-
paying jobs, but positions were frequently filled by out of
state workers. He stressed that the issue was not regional;
there were mines throughout Alaska and students across the
state could benefit from the jobs. He wanted to see funding
for the other campuses as well.
3:38:58 PM
Representative Wilson spoke against the amendment. She
recalled a similar discussion related to the Alaska
Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) and private funding.
She believed the university had a block grant that would
allow it to fund the program. She mentioned micromanagement
and UAF programs needing instructors.
Representative Kawasaki supported the increment, but
wondered if it would be more appropriate to leave it under
the Consolidated Alaskan Mining Initiative (CAMI) to allow
the Board of Regents to determine the best way to
appropriate the funds. He communicated that the amendment
went to the Board of Regents' original FY 14 CAMI request.
The request was over $702,000 and included certification in
Fairbanks and was associated with the Anchorage mining
industry and a mining initiative in Fairbanks.
3:40:56 PM
Representative Munoz spoke in support of Amendment 18 and a
terrific program. She had visited classrooms and had seen
youths with limited opportunities complete the program
successfully and transition into high paying jobs. She
stated that without the money the program would probably go
away.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
18.
IN FAVOR: Costello, Edgmon, Gara, Kawasaki, Holmes, Munoz,
Thompson, Austerman, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Neuman, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION
Amendment 18 was ADOPTED.
3:42:29 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Munoz, Thompson, Edgmon and
Austerman
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska APPROPRIATION:
University of Alaska
ADD INTENT:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska use funding appropriated by the
legislature to pay operating costs associated with
opening new facilities.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz explained that Amendment 19 would add
intent language directing the university to use funding
appropriated by the legislature to pay the operating costs
associated with opening new university facilities including
a life sciences building in Fairbanks and a number of
facilities on the Kenai Peninsula.
Representative Edgmon spoke in support of the amendment; he
believed it represented a compromise. He relayed that the
amendment asked the university to reach within its own
funding to pay for a number of buildings that would begin
servicing students. He mentioned a new facility on the
Bristol Bay campus. He hoped the intent language would help
the university make the right choices when it came to
getting the buildings and programs up and running.
3:44:00 PM
Representative Gara spoke to the operation of buildings and
noted that the legislature had funded a number of
university buildings statewide; the science facility in
Fairbanks would cost approximately $2 million to get
operating. He was not aligned with the committee on the
amount of funding included in the budget for the
university. He stressed that the money would come out of
classroom funding and other. He stated that he would
support the amendment because the university had to keep
its buildings open.
Vice-Chair Neuman supported the amendment. He believed the
university's total operating budget was slightly under $1
billion and that its FY 14 request was for an increase of
approximately $18 million; $16 million of the increase had
been approved. He thought the university's budget was doing
well in comparison to other many other budgets. He noted
that the university served a significant number of specific
needs including mining operations.
Representative Kawasaki spoke against Amendment 19. He
provided an example of a new dorm facility in a rural area
and surmised that operating costs would be high. He stated
that the intent language specified that if the university
wanted to see a building opened and needed capital
improvement money, it may need to think about raising
tuition to cover costs. He believed the issue represented a
slippery slope when the legislature was stepping into the
Board of Regents territory.
3:47:23 PM
Representative Thompson supported Amendment 19 because it
would allow the regents to determine how to make the funds
work in particular areas. He stated that the intent applied
to the opening of new buildings that the state had funded
through bonding or grants. He pointed to the $108 million
life sciences facility in Fairbanks as an example. He
mentioned a new building in Representative Edgmon's
district that would cost $246,000 to open and operate. He
stressed that the state could not let a brand new building
sit empty. He added that perhaps the state should determine
how building maintenance would be funded prior to
construction. He relayed that the amendment would make sure
the regents understood that they were responsible for
determining where they would take the funds from the
university's $946 million budget.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
19.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson,
Wilson, Costello, Stoltze, Austerman
OPPOSED: Kawasaki
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 19 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20:
OFFERED BY: Reps. Wilson and Thompson
LANGUAGE:
AMEND Sec. 25, FUND CAPITALIZATION, by inserting a new
subsection after subsection (g) to read:
(h) The sum of $125,000,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority sustainable energy transmission and
supply development fund (AS 44.88.660). The
appropriation made in this subsection is contingent on
approval by the Alaska Energy Authority of a loan of
no less than $10,000,000 from the sustainable energy
transmission and supply development fund (AS
44.88.660) for the purpose of advancing the use of
North Slope natural gas in the Fairbanks area.
ADD Contingent Effect to sec 35: The appropriation
made in sec. 25(h) of this Act is contingent as set
out in sec. 25(h) of this Act."
EXPLANATION: Capitalizing the AIDEA sustainable energy
transmission and supply development fund will provide
the financing component to HB 74/SB 23.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 20 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 21:
OFFERED BY: Representative Austerman
DEPARTMENT: Fund Transfers
APPROPRIATION: OpSys DGF Transfers (non-add)
ALLOCATION: Power Project Fund
LANGUAGE:
Add the following subsection on page 74, following
line 11:
"(P) The sum of $10,000,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the power project fund (AS 42.45.010)
for the purpose of making a loan to the Cordova
Electric Cooperative for the Humpback Creek
hydroelectric project. The appropriation made in this
subsection is contingent on the approval by the Alaska
Energy Authority of a loan not to exceed $9,123,000
from the power project fund to the Cordova Electric
Cooperative for the Humpback Creek hydroelectric
project."
Page 77, following line 20: Insert a new bill section
to read:
"Sec. 35. CONTINGENT EFFECT. The appropriation made in
sec. 26(p) of this Act is contingent as set out in
sec. 26(P) of this Act."
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Austerman explained that Amendment 21 would
transfer $10 million from the General Fund into the Power
Project Fund. He detailed that legislative approval was not
required for loans to utilities for up to $5 million. The
amendment enabled the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct
due diligence; it could approve a loan that was not to
exceed $9,123,000.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 21 was ADOPTED.
3:50:45 PM
AT EASE
4:03:29 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Austerman pointed to an amendment to Amendment 8
that had been held for drafting.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to AMEND Amendment 8:
OFFERED BY: Representative Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environmental
Conservation
APPROPRIATION: Water
Amendment to Amendment #8
REMOVE", to the extent feasible," after the word
"Conservation"
EXPLANATION: this ensures the department does
implement the intent of this amendment
Co-Chair Stoltze and Representative Thompson OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki explained the amendment to
Amendment 8. He discussed that the legislature included a
significant amount of intent language in the budget on an
annual basis. He believed that deleting the language "to
the extent feasible" forcefully conveyed exactly what the
legislature wanted without any caveats; it would require
the department to make information regarding cruise ship
geographical areas available to the public on its website.
4:05:06 PM
Representative Munoz shared that the language "to the
extent feasible" did not come out of the subcommittee. She
supported the deletion of the language.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
8.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki, Holmes, Munoz, Costello, Edgmon,
Austerman
OPPOSED: Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Stoltze
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
the amendment to Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 8 as amended was
ADOPTED.
4:07:35 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Education and Early Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Early Learning Coordination
ADD: $242,500 General Funds (1004)
EXPLANATION: Restores Governor's FY14 budget
proposal for Parents as Teachers, a cost-effective
Pre-Kindergarten effort for students who do not attend
Pre-K classes. In FY13, legislation (SB 182) was
passed to fund this effort with three years of an
additional $3.3 million to reach students across the
state. That fiscal note was vetoed down to $492,500.
This amendment restores funding to the base amount
requested by the Governor in his FY14 budget.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara communicated that Amendment 22 would
restore the governor's proposed funding recommendation for
the Parents as Teachers program. He explained that a number
of years earlier several legislators had begun work to plan
Pre-K funding that was acceptable to the Democrat and
Republican parties. He relayed that there had been
objections in the past related to classroom Pre-K;
therefore an out of the classroom option had been created.
Parents were trained to work with their children on
intellectual development, which put them on an equal to
advanced footing with peers upon entrance into Kindergarten
and 1st grade. The Parents as Teachers program was used
statewide in many conservative states throughout the
country. He stated that the program was proven to work to
improve intellectual capability and reading ability.
Representative Gara relayed that the prior year legislation
with a three-year $3.3 million per year fiscal note had
been passed that would extend the Parents as Teachers
program across the state. The governor had vetoed the bill
and had reduced the fiscal note to $492,000 for each of the
three years. The governor included the funds in his
proposed FY 14 budget and it had been cut by $242,000 in
subcommittee. He stressed that preparing students for
learning would improve student and school success. He
listed classroom Pre-K, home learning, and other as ways to
increase improvement. He relayed that the current increment
would only provide service for 300 to 400 families. He
believed the funding should be part of the state's
education plan to provide students with tools for success.
He stated that if children did not receive early education
by 3 or 4 years of age they would have trouble through high
school, more money would be spent on remediation and
special education services, and graduation rates would
decline. He communicated that the amendment was modest and
sought to restore the governor's proposed funding.
4:12:01 PM
Representative Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She discussed the Best Beginnings and Parents as Teachers
programs. She stated that Best Beginnings had over $230,000
in donations and a $130,000 cash match. She stated that
unfortunately Parents as Teachers did not have funds;
however, the program should be able to locate other funding
sources. She furthered that it was becoming increasingly
necessary for programs to look for matching funds and in-
kind matches. She relayed that the intent was to send
Parents as Teachers the same message as Best Beginnings.
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of Amendment 22.
He referenced a supporting document for the amendment
stating that the highest performing children had
participated in Parents as Teachers and in other programs
such as combined preschool and/or center based childcare.
He believed that the debate on the issue should be focused
on one program.
Representative Gara stated that the committee agreed that
Parents as Teachers worked and prepared children for
success in greater numbers. He noted that the only dispute
he had heard was that the program needed to locate private
funding. He discussed that Best Beginnings did receive some
private funding and had a limited budget of approximately
$900,000. He stressed that the people running Parents as
Teachers were busy educating kids and did not have the
extra staff to locate funding that was probably not
available. He remarked that it would be one thing if there
was private money available that the program was missing
out on. He stated that the legislature tended to fund the
school system with public dollars. He hoped committee
members would recognize that the money would lead to
success for many children.
4:15:23 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
22.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Holmes, Munoz, Gara
OPPOSED: Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Stoltze, Austerman
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
4:16:14 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 23:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Education and Early Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Pre-Kindergarten Grants
DELETE: $2,000,000 GF (1004) OTI
ADD: $2,480,000 GF (1004)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores $2 million of
one-time funding to the base budget of the Pre-
Kindergarten Grants as requested in the Governor's
FY14 budget proposal it also restores the $480,000
increment requested by the Governor in this FY 14
budget.
In 2010 the Commissioner of the Department of
Education stated his intention that this 310 student
pilot project would be expanded upon proof that it
enhances student achievement. It has been proven to
enhance learning in a state that ranks 45th in the
nation in 4th grade reading levels.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained the amendment that would
restore Pre-K funding to the governor's proposed level. He
stated that a pilot Pre-K program had been started three
years earlier and the DEED commissioner had relayed that if
the program was proven to work the state would begin
expanding it by approximately $2 million per year; the
pilot program had ended in 2012. He shared that roughly
half of the students previously in the bottom quarter of
standardized testing had advanced out of the category after
the first half of the year. He detailed that the program
resulted in almost a doubling of students testing in the
top two quarters. He stated that the program's
effectiveness had been proven.
Representative Gara furthered that the governor had
requested an additional $480,000 to be added to the prior
year funding of $2 million. He opined that the number
should be higher, but he was satisfied with the increment
as long as the program continued to be expanded to
additional families going forward. He listed benefits of
the program including higher graduation, college, and job
rates. He shared that students were also less likely to be
incarcerated in later years and were more likely to earn a
higher wage upon graduation. He relayed that the current
Pre-K program served approximately 2 percent of eligible
children in the state; the national average (outside of
Head Start) was 28 percent. He stressed that the low
percentage was part of the reason graduation rates were low
in the state. He stated that the additional $480,000 was
not a substantial sum of money and emphasized the program's
success.
4:20:10 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether the program's
results were proven. She discussed testing the students in
Kindergarten through third grades; DEED planned to begin
tracking the current Pre-K students. She wondered whether
Pre-K children were actually reading at higher levels than
others in second or third grade. She relayed that six out
of the eight programs were Head Start; five out of six of
the programs that received the first three years would be
receiving two additional years. She expected that the state
would look at different types of Pre-K programs to
determine which provided the most benefit for the money
spent. She discussed other options apart from funding
current programs with additional money.
Representative Wilson relayed that the $2 million funding
had been changed to a one-time increment in the DEED budget
subcommittee process. She emphasized that the grants would
end the following year. She wanted to ensure the grants
were funding all types of programs including private pre-
schools. She stated that private pre-schools were funded
through the Department of Health and Social Services for
one-income families who may not qualify for Head Start.
She stressed that a pilot project should be done throughout
the state to be fair and to determine programs that work.
She opined that it was not fair for a program that had not
received three years of state funding to compete with a
program that had. She reiterated that the state would be
tracking the programs to determine their results.
Representative Munoz asked whether the entities currently
using the funds would be able to apply for funds and
receive consideration.
Representative Wilson replied that the grant went for one
more year and that entities currently receiving funds would
receive slightly less funding; how it appeared would be up
to the department. She hoped that programs which had
already received four years of funding would see a decrease
and would not be grantees the following year.
4:23:29 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the amendment.
He referenced page 2 of the Amendment 23 package. He
pointed to frequent confusion between various programs
including Head Start, Best Beginnings, early education, and
private Pre-K schools. He communicated that DEED had
relayed that no student attended both a Pre-K and a Head
Start class. He emphasized that when making a commitment to
education, a one-time increment was not sufficient. He was
in favor of restoring the governor's funding increment.
Representative Holmes spoke against the amendment. She
stated that she was a huge believer in education. She
relayed that she had supported reinstating some funding for
the Best Beginnings and Parents as Teachers programs. She
referred to the legislature's process of working to
determine how to continue core services during a time of
potential budget deficits. She believed in Pre-K and opined
that the current budget would allow the program to
continue, while enabling the legislature to analyze how it
would continue to fund K-12 education.
4:26:27 PM
Representative Wilson followed up on Representative
Kawasaki's remarks and stated there were different children
in the Head Start programs because it was all one program.
She elaborated that the department did not track Parents as
Teachers or Best Beginnings as Pre-K programs. Her concern
about duplication related to programs that the department
used essentially as block grants, which had not been
tracked in the past. She noted that tracking would begin
for programs including Parents as Teachers.
Representative Gara believed there was a huge
misunderstanding about the program. He communicated that a
portion of the students used some Head Start services (e.g.
screening, health, and other). He disputed the impression
that many of the children were attending a Head Start
classroom. He stated that children needed to enter
Kindergarten ready to learn if the goal was to improve
school outcomes and to save money in the long-term. He
believed it was a problem that one-fourteenth of Alaska's
children were receiving Pre-K compared to the national
average.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
23.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 24.
4:29:50 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 25:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Children's Services
ALLOCATION: Infant Learning Program Grants
ADD: $400,000 General Fund/Mental Health
(1037)
EXPLANATION: Restores Governor's FY14 budget
proposal The Infant Learning Program provides
screening, evaluation and early intervention services
for children ages 0·3 with developmental delays.
Services provided support rather than supplant the
natural care-giving roles of families, and providers
seek to promote a family's autonomy.
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Representative Gara communicated that the amendment would
restore funding for the Infant Learning Program to the
governor's proposed level of $400,000. He shared that the
program targeted children with hearing and/or visual
disabilities that a parent may not be aware of. The program
provided services to children upon diagnosis in order to
prevent significant developmental delays. He stated that
the cost of the program was minimal compared to the
substantial results it achieved. He pointed to the
importance of identifying Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Autism,
and other in the early years. He furthered that addressing
the issues early on would save money in the long-term.
4:31:21 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
referenced line 31 of a LFD budget worksheet for DHSS. He
relayed that the increment was part of the Bring the Kids
Home program. He noted that a portion of funding had been
reduced in the governor's budget. He pointed to various
increments for the Infant Learning Program including
$175,000 for maintenance and services, $25,000 for early
intervention, $1,500,000 for child abuse prevention and
treatment, $80,000 for positive parenting, and $4,485,000
for other programs. He stated that the budget subcommittee
had worked to spread out [funding cuts] as much as
possible. He mentioned that another committee member was
looking at Infant Learning Programs in the amount of
$7,750,000. He stated that the decrease was small.
Vice-Chair Neuman stressed the importance of reigning in
some of the budgets in order to prevent continued growth.
He remarked that a significant amount of other money was
going into the programs.
Representative Gara understood the difficulty facing the
subcommittee chair. He believed the state's revenue outlook
should be able to support the funding for items such as the
Infant Learning Program.
4:34:14 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
25.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Holmes, Stoltze, Austerman
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 26:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Education and Early Development
APPROPRIATION: K-12 Support
ALLOCATION: Foundation Program
ADD: New Language Section: Sec. 14(b) The sum
of$60,000,000 is appropriated from the general fund to
the Department of Education and Early Development to
be distributed as state aid to districts according to
the average daily membership for each district
adjusted under AS 14.17.41O(b)(l)(A) -(D) for each of
the fiscal years ending June 30,2014; June 30, 2015;
and June 30,2016.
Renumber sections accordingly.
ADD: Intent Language: It is the intent of the
legislature that the FY15 and FY16 budgets shall
include $40,000,000 increments in each year also to be
distributed as state aid to districts according to the
average daily membership for each district adjusted
under AS 14.17.4 I O(b)(I)(A) -(D) so schools can plan
their budgets.
EXPLANATION: This FY14 increment will avoid educator
and staff cuts, which have been seen in Mat-Su,
Anchorage, Kodiak, Juneau and other Alaska
communities. It will allow for the replacement of lost
education staff over the past two years.
The intent language will allow school classroom
funding to keep up with inflation, and will allow
schools to plan their budgets for the coming year as
was intended with forward funding of education costs.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara addressed the amendment. He relayed it
was his only amendment that did not try to restore a
governor's proposal. He explained that the amendment was
aimed at reversing three years of statewide school staffing
cuts. He furthered that funds would be distributed under
the Base Student Allocation (BSA) formula; the goal would
be $60 million the first year and a $40 million increment
in each of the following two years. The first year was
intended to make up for some of the losses and would allow
schools to hire back some of the lost staff. He relayed
that over 200 staff had been lost in Anchorage over the
past three years; there was a proposal to cut over 200 more
the following year. He pointed to various proposed cuts
including 30 teacher positions in Fairbanks; Juneau schools
had lost over 10 percent of its staff and additional cuts
were proposed for the following year; Kenai and Lower
Kuskokwim had lost staff and more cuts were proposed; Mat-
Su student population had increased, but staff had
decreased; the same was true for Kodiak, Northwest Arctic
Borough, Chugach, Nome, Ketchikan, and other.
Representative Gara relayed that the amendment was intended
to reduce the cuts. He stressed that vibrant schools and
students ready to enter the workforce were not produced by
reducing teacher positions. He agreed that the state had
invested a significant amount of money into its schools
over the years; however, claims that the state was spending
record funding on schools counted money that could not be
used in classrooms. He furthered that when money for the
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and pupil transportation
were backed out, according to a Legislative Finance
Division report, the state was approximately $110 per
student behind where it had been three years earlier in per
student funding (assuming the Federal Reserve Board's
estimate of 1.8 percent inflation for the following year).
He continued that schools had to pay for health insurance
rates that were rising quicker than inflation. He relayed
that the amendment was the best attempt to bring funding to
higher levels for long-term planning. He pointed to
families discussing moving from the state because they
believed there was a lack of commitment to school funding.
4:40:03 PM
Co-Chair Austerman asked about the $60 million in FY 14 and
$40 million in FY 15 and FY 16. He wondered if the numbers
compounded each year. Representative Gara replied that it
would be $60 million the first year and a $40 million
increment in both FY 15 and FY 16.
Co-Chair Austerman asked for clarification on the numbers.
He asked if the cost would be $60 million the first year,
$100 million the second year, and $140 million in the third
year. Representative Gara replied in the affirmative. He
elaborated that the funding would be aimed at keeping pace
with inflation and health insurance costs.
4:41:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
26.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Holmes, Munoz, Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
4:42:31 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 27:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Labor and Workforce Development
APPROPRIATION: Business Partnerships
ALLOCATION: Business Services
ADD: $250,000 STEP (1054)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores 50% of the cut
to the State Training and Employment Program (STEP)
program. The STEP program is funded through a set-
aside from the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. This
program provides training and job skills to people
eligible for unemployment benefits to help them get
back to work in good-paying jobs.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki explained that Amendment 27 would
restore 50 percent of a cut made to the State Training and
Employment Program (STEP). He detailed that the program was
currently funded through unemployment insurance receipts.
He understood that the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund
was solvent. He explained that STEP ensured that
individuals had adequate job skills to account for a
changing economy. He furthered that the program helped put
people to work who were in need of jobs. He spoke to the
importance of access to training that would allow
individuals to obtain available jobs. He noted that Alaska
had been fortunate to weather the fiscal storm occurring in
the Lower 48 and had done so due to programs like STEP.
Representative Wilson remarked that she would be interested
in any information that showed the increment was used to
put Alaskans back to work; she did not believe it did. She
was concerned that much of the funding had been used within
labor unions to train their own workers. She shared that
unions had flown their members to conduct training for
individuals who had gone back to school and were looking
for work. She believed some of the items should be paid for
with union dues. She discussed that $500,000 had been
removed by the subcommittee because the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development (DLWD) was spending faster than
it was recouping. She shared that the goal was to ensure
the funds were utilized to put unemployed people to work or
to help people obtain higher paying jobs.
4:46:01 PM
Representative Gara believed Representative Wilson helped
to relay that the money was being used to put people to
work. He furthered that the department and the governor
were working to spend the money on the most efficient way
to put people to work. He had no objection to money being
used for apprenticeship programs or private vocational
education to put people to work. He expressed his desire
for individuals to receive the best training possible. He
addressed Representative Wilson's comment about unions
paying with their dues and elaborated that Alaskans paid
into the unemployment system. He detailed that the
unemployment system was designed to provide funding to
individuals for job training. He emphasized that the STEP
program worked. He invited members to speak with DLWD about
using independent contractors for training if they believed
it was more efficient. He concluded that without the money
fewer people would be put back to work.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
27.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz,
Neuman, Stoltze, Austerman
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
4:48:33 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 28:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Alaska Court System
APPROPRIATION: Therapeutic Courts
ALLOCATION: Therapeutic Courts
ADD: $1,165,000 General Fund/Mental Health
(1037)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores the Governor's
FY14 budget proposal for base funding of Therapeutic
Courts operating since 2001 in Anchorage, Bethel,
Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan. It also funds the
Governor's requested FY14 increment to expand
Therapeutic Courts to Kenai and Palmer.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 28 by
replacing the funding request increment of $1,165,000 with
a $689,000 increment. There being NO OBJECTION, the
amendment to Amendment 28 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to the motion to
adopt Amendment 28.
Representative Gara spoke to amended Amendment 28. He
explained that the Court System was not ready to expand the
Therapeutic Court System model to Kenai and Homer in the
current year as the contractors and staff had not been
obtained at present; therefore, the requested increment had
been reduced. The amended amendment would restore funding
to the prior year's level for the existing therapeutic
courts in Juneau, Ketchikan, Fairbanks, Bethel, and
Anchorage. He pointed to a population with substance abuse
problems, mental illness, and other. The program provided
"tough love" for individuals. He furthered that the program
required individuals to appear in court once a week to show
they were following education, job training, mental
illness, or substance abuse treatment plans. Individuals
who did not follow their plans were removed from the
program and sent to jail.
Representative Gara shared that criminals not going through
the therapeutic court program had a 39 percent recidivism
rate; however, the recidivism rate was one-third of the 39
percent for individuals going through the therapeutic
courts after one year. He emphasized that two-thirds of the
people had reduced crimes. He stated that the program had
existed for many years and that it worked pretty well. He
elaborated that it was not possible to always cure
individuals with substance abuse problems, mental health
disorders, and other. He furthered that the program saved
prison and law enforcement costs; the program put people to
work instead of in jail. He stated that there was no such
thing as a 100 percent success rate, but he believed the
numbers were better than those in the Department of
Corrections. He noted that criminals convicted of sexual
abuse were not eligible for the program. Low level crimes
and offences such as a third DUI [Driving Under the
Influence] qualified an individual for the program.
4:53:45 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that the reduced funding was
related to a disappearance of federal funds. He relayed
that the Court System had indicated it would pursue funding
elsewhere. He stated that it had not been possible to reach
a compromise during the budget subcommittee process. He
furthered that the system had been receiving federal money
that had not been reflected in its budget. He stated that
the issue was problematic and that the courts did not have
the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) receipt authority. He
explained that the receipt authority had been inserted in
the budget in the event that federal funds could be
located. He elaborated that if the issue was critical they
would find the funds in other locations. He stressed that
the primary issue was a loss of federal funding and
believed there was a non-acceptance from the Court System
on the issue. He remarked that discussion with the Court
System had been limited and that it had not been engaged in
locating an alternative solution.
4:56:40 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the amendment.
He believed that success of the therapeutic court program
had been seen. He addressed the issue of federal versus
state funds and discussed the legislature's process of
weighing the importance of items and determining what was
most effective going forward. He pointed to an ISER report
accompanying the budget amendments (copy on file) that
showed recidivism rates of comparison offenders and
graduates of the program. He stressed that the recidivism
rates of those who underwent the program were roughly half
those of non-therapeutic court graduates. He expounded that
fewer individuals in prison made the program economical. He
emphasized that the state spent an average of $135 per
prisoner in the corrections system. He reiterated the
effectiveness of the program and believed smaller budget
growth in other agencies could potentially occur as a
result.
Representative Gara provided a wrap up on Amendment 28. He
understood that reduced federal funding was a reality and
that the state would need to decide which items to fund. He
stated items that did not make a difference in the lives of
residents included federal overreach or bad policy;
however, the state should not blame the federal government
for taking away funds from something that worked. He
stressed that the state needed to decide how to run
successfully. He was positive there would be increased
costs in the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), the jail
system and other if the therapeutic program was not funded.
He believed the program provided a much cheaper way to deal
with a problem of abuse and violence. He accentuated that
the program reduced violence and institutionalization and
saved money.
5:00:12 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that that there was no blaming of
the federal government for the reduced funding, but that it
was a reality that needed to be acknowledged.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt amended
Amendment 28.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman,
Thompson, Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 29:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Behavioral Health
ALLOCATION: Unallocated Reduction
ADD: $8,368,800 General Funds (1004)
EXPLANATION: Restores Governor's FY14 budget
proposal for Behavioral Health services and grants.
The Division of Behavioral Health serves Alaskans in a
variety of important ways, by acting to: 1) Prevent
and treat mental health conditions; 2) Help Alaskans
with mental illness avoid long-term
institutionalization or jai1; 3) Transition people
from illness to productivity, including stable
housing; 4) Treat Alaskans willing to resolve their
substance abuse problems, and reduce waiting lists for
this treatment; 5) Provide early intervention with
mental health problems so they are caught early, don't
grow, can be treated, and harm and illness are avoided
or minimized. 6) Address and prevent the epidemic of
suicide, particularly in rural Alaska. 7) Fund the
Alaska Psychiatric Institute. 8) Provide Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome support.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that Amendment 29 would
restore $8.3 million of behavioral health funding. He
acknowledged the challenge that faced the DHSS subcommittee
in sifting through a difficult budget. He relayed that the
department had communicated there would be close to $8.3
million less in services to people with FAS, substance
abuse problems, autism, mental health problems, and other.
He discussed that treatment of the various problems
prevented individuals from becoming homeless and
institutionalized at API or other. He pointed to
significant public testimony that the funding had kept
families together and people off the streets.
Representative Gara looked forward to meeting over the
interim to look at programs that did not work; however,
there was no evidence that the behavioral health services
were wasteful. He stated that on the contrary, the services
were underfunded. He referred to testimony by agency
employees that their entities had been flat funded over the
years. He mentioned Nugent's Ranch, which provided long-
term alcoholism care. The program's prior facility had 46
beds; however, the new facility served 26 people because
funding was disappearing (there was currently only funding
for 20 of the beds). He pointed to waiting lists across the
state for treatment programs; the methadone clinic in
Anchorage had a priority for pregnant women, but there was
no room for other addicts. He observed that a lack of
treatment programs would increase crime on the street. He
stressed that the amendment would cut crime and agony and
would keep people off of the street and out of homeless
shelters and would keep families together. He emphasized
that the governor had included $3 million in grant money in
his proposed budget in order to serve the shortfall in
funding over the upcoming three years.
5:05:50 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman understood the passion related to the
issue. He explained that the prior year $9 million in
additional money had been included in the DHSS budget; $700
[thousand] of the amount had been appropriated towards
programs and $8.3 million had been unallocated.
Consequently the $8.3 million had been pulled from the
budget. He emphasized that services to programs had not
been cut. He furthered that the legislature worked to
provide for efficiencies that went back to the department's
commissioner. He shared that earlier in the year the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee had pulled over $7
million from DHSS that the department had worked hard
through efficiencies to obtain. As a result, the DHSS
subcommittee had created a new allocation titled
Performance Bonuses and had appropriated close to $4
million in unrestricted federal receipts through the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act for
performance bonuses. Other language had been included
specifying that if the commissioner found efficiencies,
worked hard, and other that the money would be directed
back to the commissioner's office instead of being swept
into the General Fund.
Vice-Chair Neuman emphasized that the legislature was doing
its best to ensure that the hard work provided by the
department went back to the commissioner for
reappropriation (the legislature would continue to have
oversight on the spending). He informed the committee that
the DHSS budget had grown significantly in recent years and
was currently approximately $2.7 billion. He detailed that
the total reduction to the FY 14 DHSS budget was
approximately $25 million (less than 0.1 percent). He
explained that the behavioral health reduction of
$8,368,800 or a 6.4 percent reduction from the governor's
proposed behavioral health budget; however, the unallocated
reduction could be spread into any allocation within the
division and was not limited to the grants allocation. He
expounded that the flexibility would allow the commissioner
the ability to absorb the money more evenly throughout the
department.
Vice-Chair Neuman addressed how the cuts would impact
behavioral health grantees in FY 14. The budget would
provide approximately $9 million in general funds that
could be carried forward into FY 14. He stated that
depending on how the department used the funds, there may
be no significant impact to the grantees in FY 14. He
detailed that there were about $131 million in behavioral
health appropriations. He stated that the funds were
additional. He stressed that he was not happy about cutting
funding for disabled children; however, he emphasized the
need for capturing growth in the budget. He stated that
budgets would continue to grow if cuts were not made. He
discussed the need to reign in funds in order to allocate
money to capital infrastructure projects.
5:11:09 PM
Representative Munoz asked if the $8.3 million from the
prior year could be fully appropriated to behavioral health
services for FY 14.
Vice-Chair Neuman clarified that $9 million had been added
in FY 13; $700,000 had been appropriated to specific
programs and approximately $8.3 million had been
unallocated. He explained that the $8.3 million was the
funding that would be reduced from the budget.
Representative Munoz wondered whether the money could be
expended FY 14. Vice-Chair Neuman replied in the negative
and stated that the funds had been removed from the FY 14
budget. He added that a one-time decrement was not
possible.
Representative Munoz restated that she was interested in
the one-time $9 million increment from the prior year that
was currently $8.3 million. She wondered whether the money
could be appropriated in FY 14 or if there were
restrictions on the funds.
5:12:51 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman replied that $8.3 million was being
removed from the budget.
Representative Gara remarked that it was unclear whether
the $3 million that was intended to cut back waiting lists
and meet service needs could be used to offset the $8.3
million reduction. He furthered that by removing the $8.3
million from the base it meant the increment would not be
present the following year or in subsequent years. He
continued that the one-time money intended to meet service
needs could be used to replace the $8.3 million, but the
money would not be available the following year. The
department had conveyed that the money would be taken away
from services for seriously mentally ill and emotionally
disturbed. He complimented Vice-Chair Neuman for his work
on a complex budget and his acknowledgment of the many
existing needs.
Representative Holmes noted that the issue was difficult.
She believed the one-time funding was available for use;
therefore, the $8.3 million had been taken out of the
budget because the one-time funding was available. She
clarified that because of the one-time increment there
would not be a reduction in funding. She referred to
discussions with LFD about the possibility of a one-time
decrement so that the money would automatically be built
back into the following year's budget. She communicated
that LFD had relayed that the one-time decrement would not
work. She understood that there was concern the money would
not be appropriated in the future, but she was committed to
looking at the issue the following year. She believed the
cut had been made due to the one-time funding that was
available to back-fill the decrease.
Representative Gara referenced a memo from the DEED
commissioner and believed the department was not certain it
could use more than $6 million of the $9 million that had
been appropriated to meet unmet service needs. He did not
believe it was appropriate to take the money out of the
capital budget because it had been appropriated for an
unmet need for people with mental illness and substance
abuse problems. He stated that because it was unclear
whether all of the money could be used it was unclear that
there would be no cuts in services.
5:18:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
29.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson,
Wilson, Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 30:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara, Guttenberg and
Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska
APPROPRIATION: University of Alaska
ALLOCATION: Budget Reductions Additions -
Systemwide
ADD: $2,000,000 General Fund (1004)
$2,000,000 Univ Rcpt (1048)
EXPLANATION: These funds are intended to be used by
the University of Alaska to fund the High Demand
Program requests. This unallocated increment will
allow the University to determine which programs will
be funded.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
5:18:45 PM
Representative Kawasaki explained that Amendment 30 would
add $2 million back into the University of Alaska Board of
Regents budget request specifically to fund high demand
programs. He furthered that a number of the program
requests were to support specific campus accreditation
needs and requirements. He pointed to mandatory and
comprehensive student advising at the main campuses and at
the College of Rural and Community Development as an
example. He pointed to the need for students to graduate in
a timely manner and detailed that the university had
identified the need as an issue needing attention. He
stated that the legislature had indirectly communicated
that the university should pursue the issue.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that the amendment also
addressed other high demand program requests. He cited
examples including public-private partnerships, the UAF
nursing program, the UAF/UAA clinical psychology demand,
construction and tribal management, and CAMI. He pointed to
support for the issues from the legislature and private
industry. The unallocated increment would allow the
university to determine which programs would be funded.
5:22:03 PM
Co-Chair Austerman asked if the Board of Regents request
had been in the governor's budget. Representative Kawasaki
did not know.
Representative Gara clarified that the increment
represented a portion of the Board of Regent's request on
high demand programs. He elaborated that the $2 million was
the same as the governor's proposed request, which had been
aimed at building operation. The amendment would take the
same $2 million and redirect it towards high demand
classes.
Representative Wilson asked how much the university budget
had grown from the prior year. She wondered whether the
university had room to fund the programs if it chose to do
so.
Representative Munoz replied that the overall growth was
$16 million from FY 13 to FY 14 (half of the amount came
from tuition and the other half was undesignated). She
detailed that the governor's proposed request for
additional funding tied to operational costs of new
facilities had been reduced by $2.3 million. She relayed
that the subcommittee had included language that directed
the Board of Regents to fund the particular operational
costs. The $2.3 million reduction was a reduction in one
appropriation; in the past, there had been seven separate
appropriations for the university. The multiple
appropriations had restricted the university's ability to
locate cost savings across the system. The subcommittee
felt that the reduction had been the most flexible
approach.
Representative Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She communicated that the legislature was not trying to
micromanage the university. She had confidence that the
university would locate funding for programs that it
believed were in high demand.
5:25:04 PM
Representative Kawasaki provided a wrap up on Amendment 30.
He reflected that in the past the legislature had met as a
Committee of the Whole on the university budget and had
taken a close look at how the regents operate and how
college students perform. He shared a personal story about
his father attending the university. He stated that it was
necessary to change the way business was done and to locate
emergent high demand programs including mining. He noted
that mining jobs were some of the highest paying throughout
the state. He discussed student achievement and the
importance of tangible results (i.e. diplomas). He shared
that partnerships with private industry was one of the
underfunded high demand program areas. He discussed the
legislature's desire for the university to focus on
emergent industries including health, biomedicine, and
workforce development in fishing and mining. He stressed
that the university had done a significant number of the
things the legislature had requested. He stressed that the
legislature needed to ensure that the university had
adequate resources necessary to accomplish its goals.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
30.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson,
Costello, Stoltze, Austerman
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 31.
5:28:19 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 32:
OFFERED BY: Representatives Gara and Kawasaki
DEPARTMENT: Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
APPROPRIATION: Economic Development
ALLOCATION: Economic Development
ADD: If a Qualified Trade Association (QTA)
collects $2 million of additional matching funds not
currently in the budget by July 1, 2013 then the
unexpended and unobligated balance of the FY14
appropriation for Tourism Marketing Funding, not to
exceed $13 million, is reappropriated to the QT A as a
grant for a tourism marketing program approved by the
Department.
EXPLANATION: This conditional language allows a
Qualified Trade Association (QTA), such as the Alaska
Travel Industry Association, the opportunity to
receive state funding set aside for tourism marketing,
provided that the QTA is able to raise additional
funds from the travel industry. If this occurs, $13
million of the $15 million appropriated to the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development for Tourism Marketing Funding will be
reappropriated to the QTA.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki explained that in past years the
Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA) had advertised
for the state; similar to convention and visitors bureaus
in Fairbanks or Anchorage. He stated that ATIA had received
state funding because they had been the state's advertising
entity. He communicated that two years earlier a proposal
had been made to bring most of the advertising money back
"in-house" under the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED). Amendment 31 would look at
whether the state should be advertising as opposed to ATIA.
The amendment would also ensure that the state was doing
its due diligence related to finances and to determine that
any qualified trade organization wanting to partner with
the state had "skin in the game" (i.e. $2 million in
matching funds). He believed the private sector had done a
great job showing that it could raise private funds from
groups with a vested interest in the state's tourism
industry and also allowed them some autonomy. The amendment
supported using the private sector instead of a state
department for the advertising function.
Representative Costello spoke against the amendment. She
addressed the amendment's language related to locating $2
million in additional matching funds. She believed the
issue was revisited every year. She offered that $2 million
could be taken from multiple municipal revenue locations
including the $29.2 million in sales tax, $26.7 million in
lodging tax, $15.2 million in dockage revenues, $32 million
in commercial passenger vessel tax, $3.6 million from the
ocean ranger program, $800,000 from the commercial
passenger vessel environmental compliance, $17.8 million
from the Department of Fish and Game licensing tags, $18.4
million from the funds the AMHS collected from visitors,
$20.2 from the Alaska Railroad Corporation, and from
passenger gambling tax. She stressed that the money from
the various locations could be designated if the state
chose to do so; many items in the budgets were designated.
She emphasized that the tourism industry did not receive
credit for revenue it brought to the state.
Representative Costello continued to list various sources
that $2 million could be located within including the $5.7
million vehicle rental tax, and $3.5 million from corporate
income tax. She stated that an argument heard from people
who were unsupportive of the tourism industry and felt that
the industry did not carry its weight was that somehow it
was not possible to attribute the entire revenue source to
tourists. She furthered that 7 out of the 12 revenue
sources (she had listed) that were paid to municipalities
and the state would fully cover the amount paid by the
state for tourism marketing. She provided an example
related to tipping at a restaurant; an 11 percent tip sent
a message that the waitress did a poor job. She stressed
that 11 percent of the total brought in was the amount the
state provided for tourism funding. She communicated that
many committee members had looked for a more stable revenue
source to prevent the topic from being revisited annually.
Representative Costello explained that the marketing
activities had been brought under DCCED's purview and
funding had been reduced by $1 million. She was dedicated
to educating legislators about revenues brought in by the
tourism industry. She furthered that the tourism business
was competitive in Alaska. She stated that it was not
reasonable to compare the industry with others. For
example, entities did not own the mountains around Juneau
and it was not possible to tax based on the mountains. She
felt frustration that the state was not more appreciative
of an industry that provided jobs and provided a
significant financial return to the state. She emphasized
that tourism was a great business to get into and she
appreciated the effort to allow QTA to market itself.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the legislature would be
remiss if it failed to acknowledge that Representative
Costello was the reason the tourism budget included $15
million. He thought the current conversation would be
characterized negatively in the press. He stressed that
Representative Costello had fought the battles related to
the tourism industry funding.
5:36:52 PM
Representative Gara explained that the amendment's intent
was to save money and to get the tourism marketing effort
back into the private sector. He did not intend to make a
headline out of the issue.
Representative Kawasaki expressed that his intention was
not to challenge other committee members. He furthered that
intent of the amendment was to address a policy discussion
he believed the legislature should have. He shared a
personal story about his work history beginning that began
in tourism. He emphasized that the visitor industry played
a substantial role in Fairbanks. He stated that he
supported the visitor industry 100 percent. He communicated
that the amendment spoke to where, how, and who was
advertising on behalf of the state for the state's best
interest. He had not been supportive of moving the
advertising function from the private industry to DCCED. He
believed any qualified trade association could perform
well. He reiterated his support for the industry. He
pointed to international requests from people interested in
visiting the state.
5:40:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
32.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Edgmon, Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to authorize the Division of
Legislative Finance and Legislative Legal Services to make
technical and conforming amendments to incorporate the
amendments adopted by the committee into a CS.
Co-Chair Austerman recessed the meeting until 9:00 a.m. the
following day.
5:42:11 PM
RECESSED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. MARCH 14, 2013
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 65 HB 66 Amendments HB 65.pdf |
HFIN 3/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 65 HB 66 |
| HB 65 Kawasaki Amendment 8A.pdf |
HFIN 3/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 HB 66 Amendments ACTION.pdf |
HFIN 3/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 65 HB 66 |