Legislature(2015 - 2016)
05/17/2016 01:24 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 17, 2016
1:24 p.m.
1:24:32 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:24 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Michel, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Rob
Carpenter, Legislative Finance Division; Pat Pitney,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the
Governor; Representative Adam Wool; Representative Lora
Reinbold; Representative Dan Ortiz; Representative Mike
Chenault; Representative Andy Josephson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
SB 138 BUDGET: CAPITAL
HCSCSSB 138 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"no recommendation" recommendation.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the day.
1:25:25 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 138(FIN)
"An Act making and amending appropriations, including
capital appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 138, Work Draft (29-GS2741\Y). There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Thompson invited his staff to present the changes
to the bill.
1:25:58 PM
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, reviewed
the committee substitute, Version Y. He indicated that
there were 5 changes to the bill. He relayed that
previously Section 10 reflecting the Kivalina language was
removed from the bill. On Page 33 the statutory program
receipt funding for the Tok employee was removed. Next he
highlighted that on Page 46, Line 18, Section 27 the Alaska
travel industry appropriation was removed. Lastly there
were three changes near the end of the bill on Page 48.
First, Section 32 was added regarding the Constitutional
Budget Reserve (CBR). Second, on Page 48, Line 9, Section
33 was added. Lastly, on Page 50, Line 3 was added.
Representative Gara apologized for misreading the bill in
the previous day. In a few earlier versions of the capital
budget a number of projects that were ongoing but stalled
in his district had been removed. In the version before the
committee in the previous day the projects had not been
removed. He was under a misimpression and had made some
comments on those items. He admitted he was wrong and
commended the Chair's work and remarked that the projects
would either lapse or not lapse. He referred to Section 27
and commented that the legislature had already made an
appropriation in the operating budget to Alaska Travel
Industry Association (ATIA) for tourism and marketing. He
asked if the $1.3 million in the capital budget was in
addition to the money in the operating budget. He also
wondered whether the money appropriated in FY 15 had been
spent. Mr. Michel was unable to answer his question.
Representative Gara was under the impression the money was
designated general funds (DGF). He elaborated that the
money was used by tourism companies to advertise in a state
vacation planner. He suggested that some considered it a
contribution to the state, he considered it a service paid
by the companies personally. He asked if the money being
discussed was the funding used to advertise in the vacation
planner. Mr. Michel responded in the affirmative. He
suggested that at least the majority of the money was for
that purpose.
Representative Kawasaki asked if there was a TPS [Tax
Performance System] report for the grant under AS
37.05.316. Mr. Michel responded that there was not a TPS
report for the grant.
Representative Kawasaki asked about how ATIA would be using
the funds for visitor statistics program research. Mr.
Michel understood that they would be assuming the
responsibility of making the pamphlet about tourism that
had previously been generated by the state for the previous
two years.
1:30:38 PM
Representative Wilson asked about Page 7 regarding the
federal program match. She indicated that in Version F the
state's portion was $53,967,800 and in the new version the
amount was $54,700,000. She thought the difference was
somewhere on Page 8. Mr. Michel asked for a brief at ease.
1:31:13 PM
AT EASE
1:31:46 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Representative Edgmon had
joined the meeting.
Mr. Michel explained that in Section 26 the DOT match money
reappropriation had to do with the appropriation for the
Friends of the Jesse Lee Home. The city needed about $1
million to tear down the building. The request from the
member of that area was reflected in Version F on Page 45,
Line 30, in the amount of $4.532 million. In the newest
version $3.5 million was being appropriated to the DOT
match, thus leaving $1.032 million in the appropriation for
the Friends of the Jesse Lee Home.
Representative Wilson asked if there was a difference of
$732,200. Mr. Michel stated that it was a difference of
$1.032 million.
Representative Wilson relayed some figures in an effort to
clarify the amount. Mr. Michel stated that he had to go to
his lifeline from LFD.
ROB CARPENTER, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, responded that
the appropriation for the Friends of the Jesse Lee Home was
reduced by about $1 million. However, the backfill for the
match to reach the governor's number of $50 million
required about $732 thousand.
Representative Wilson commented about having heard about
the alcohol fund and whether there was enough money in it.
She asked Mr. Carpenter to inform the committee what was in
the fund and whether the state had overspent.
Mr. Carpenter responded that there was sufficient money for
the level at which the Senate funded the projects. However,
there was concern that the programs funded with the
specific funds within the Department of Health and Social
Services would not be available in future years. It was a
concern regarding sustainability.
1:35:11 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if he had a balance for the
alcohol fund. Mr. Carpenter responded that it was
approximately $7 million.
Co-Chair Thompson asked how much alcohol money was in the
operating budget. Mr. Carpenter responded that he did not
have the exact dollar amount. However, he was aware that it
was a significant amount and funded several programs. The
concern was using money from the capital budget.
Co-Chair Thompson emphasized that there was a concern.
Representative Gara wondered about Page 46, Section 27.
There was a new amount of $1.3 million for the tourism
industry. He wondered if the appropriation had appeared in
any prior version of the budget. Mr. Carpenter relayed that
it also appeared in the Senate's version of the bill.
Representative Gara wondered if it was in the Senate
version, came out of the budget at some point, and was put
back into the budget. Mr. Michel answered that the wording
and the structure of the current version of Section 27 was
the way the Senate had it in the bill. It was changed to
reflect a Tok employee. The language was the same as in the
Senate version.
Representative Gara understood that less funding was being
provided to the tourism industry for marketing than in
current years. He wondered about the money allocated for
marketing in the operating budget. Mr. Carpenter responded
in the negative.
Representative Pruitt commented that in the operating
budget the state employees that dealt with the money were
removed. The responsibility was moved over to the Alaska
Travel Industry Association (ATIA). Somehow the money had
to get to ATIA which he believed was the reason for the
appropriation. He thought the change was ultimately getting
rid of state employees. He had a question regarding Page 2.
He noted a $475 thousand improvement project to the third
floor. He wanted an explanation of what was being done. Mr.
Carpenter indicated that the funding source was the Juneau
Community Foundation.
Representative Pruitt wondered about the mechanisms that
allowed the money to be taken and the improvements to be
made. He asked if he would be allowed to take money donated
to him to improve his office. Mr. Carpenter answered that
it would be called a statutory designated program receipt
similar to what was involved with ATIA. If a non-state,
non-federal entity wanted to give money to the state to
perform a service it could be done. It the case at hand
they were contributing funding for state capital
renovations. He suggested having Pat Pitney answer further
questions on the subject.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Ms. Pitney to the table.
1:40:36 PM
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, responded that in regards to the
donation from the Juneau Community Foundation, it was in
the governor's original budget. When the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did its overview of
the capital budget in the House and the Senate the same
legal question was asked by the Senate. However, the
Department of Law confirmed that the process was
appropriate. She did not have the documents but could ask
someone from the Department of Law to speak to the
committee or provide the documents that OMB provided to the
Senate. She did not have the documents with her currently.
Representative Pruitt wondered if it was possible for other
entities to provide donations for other space. He wondered
if the state could have sought donations for the capital
renovations. Ms. Pitney responded that the donation was
initiated by the foundation. The governor's office had been
approached rather than soliciting a donation. She believed
it would be within the rules to ask for donations. She
thought typically in state government it was called taxes.
She thought there could be a structure implemented to ask
for donations for a number of projects.
Representative Pruitt recalled a movie about the topic.
Representative Munoz relayed that the donation was a very
generous gift from former Commissioner Corbus to make
specific improvements outside of the normal capital program
for the capital city. It was to help fill gaps in funding
to make better capital city infrastructure. The donation
was specific to the Juneau area and to the capital campus.
1:43:39 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for a description of the project
of $475 thousand and how the funding would be used. Ms.
Pitney replied it was to make improvements to the third
floor.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for the particulars of the
project. Ms. Pitney would have to get the information to
him.
Vice-Chair Saddler noted there was a policy regarding such
renovations. Ms. Pitney read a list of improvements
encompassing the third floor renovations. The list included
modernizing and upgrading the ventilation system and
creating a new, usable office space by remodeling the two
areas at the building's stairwells. It also included
installing cooling in the chief of staff's office, in some
of the administrative areas, and in the small conference
room.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if air conditioning was being
provided. Ms. Pitney assumed it would be air conditioning.
They were modernizing the ventilation system.
Vice-Chair Saddler thought it raised interesting questions
about extrinsic money coming into state government for
whatever purpose.
Representative Gara asked for the name of the foundation
providing the funding. He had no problem with foundation
dollars helping to cover the cost of what would otherwise
be a state expense. Ms. Pitney responded that the Juneau
Community Foundation provided the funding.
Representative Gara noted the question as to whether the
state could receive donations for the Anchorage legislative
office building. He was doubtful.
Representative Wilson asked if the donation came with a
specific list of renovations and a guideline of how the
money could be spent. Ms. Pitney replied that the donation
was specific to the third floor. There had been discussion
of the need given the project scope of the existing capital
renovation.
Representative Wilson asked if the third floor would be the
only floor with air conditioning in the building. Ms.
Pitney responded affirmatively and added that it could be
ventilation cooling via a fan. She was uncertain about the
exact system.
Representative Wilson suggested trying it out when she came
back.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the Juneau
Community Foundation had donated considerably to the
legislative campus when the state purchased the Thomas
Stewart Building.
Representative Munoz corrected Representative Guttenberg
that it was a gift from the City of Juneau.
Representative Guttenberg stated that it was along the same
lines: A gift to the legislature.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the House Floor Session had
been moved to 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the House Finance
Committee meeting. He indicated that the committee would be
taking up amendments.
1:48:56 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment was an
appropriation for the Cold Climate Housing Research Center
(CCHRC), a great organization. She reported that the
legislature had funded the organization in the previous
year at $500 thousand with general funds (GF). The
amendment reduced the appropriation from $1 million to $500
thousand. It was her understanding that organizations and
agencies throughout the state utilized the services
provided by the CCHRC and felt they should pay for them.
Co-Chair Thompson spoke to his objection. He relayed that
the CCHRC was an organization that was able to reach remote
portions of the state helping to provide efficiencies.
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) utilized their
services throughout the state. The money being used to fund
the organization was from AHFC dividends rather than from
the state's GF. In the previous year the CCHRC ended up
with $750 thousand but barely scrapped by with all of the
work the organization had.
Representative Gara opposed the amendment because of the
comments made by the chair. He added that the state's
ability to improve energy efficiency had taken a big
setback. The money at the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) had
been largely decimated. He thought the state had to do a
much better job of helping communities save money in energy
costs. He thought the current funding represented a small
step towards that goal. He was concerned about the state's
capacity to work on energy efficiency.
Representative Edgmon would be supporting the amendment. He
pointed out that what was being discussed was AHFC receipts
rather than normal GF. He noted the work the CCHRC had done
in terms of building prototype homes that were energy
efficient, cheaper, and well suited for a rural Alaska
climate. The Cold Climate Research Center had greatly
contributed to providing modern technology for home
building in rural areas, which he felt was vital. He had
been a strong supporter of the Alaska Renewable Energy
Grant Program, and the weatherization program. He agreed
with the comments made by the representative from Anchorage
about the state decimating other very important programs
which was a sign of the times. He continued that the fact
that the legislature was able to find DGF to give to the
CCHRC was very exciting. He would support the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if Representative Edgmon was
supporting the reduction of funding by $500 thousand.
Representative Edgmon corrected himself, "Oh, I am going to
oppose the amendment. Thank you." He supported what was in
the budget and opposed the amendment.
1:53:16 PM
Representative Guttenberg would be opposing the amendment.
He did not agree with the Representative from North Pole
about turning it into a billable product. He relayed that
the standards and the innovative ways of handling Alaska's
unique building circumstances when applied resulted in
savings. The savings came with the use of innovative energy
efficiency measures when building housing. He reported that
when he represented a host of villages along the Yukon
River he was amazed with the lack of quality in which the
homes were constructed to the detriment of the communities.
There were no building standards. The federal government
had granted money to build two-by-four stick homes many of
which were built by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He
claimed a lot of those homes had failed. In the future
homes would be built more efficiently and with set
standards because of the contribution the CCHRC had made.
He claimed that the money savings came as a result of the
work they had done in both rural and urban communities
inside and outside of the state. He thought their
activities should be encouraged. He would be opposing the
amendment.
Representative Kawasaki opposed the amendment. He spoke
about how the University of Alaska system was looking for a
way for the brainy folks and the geophysical institute to
interact with the private sector. The Cold Climate Housing
Research Center worked very closely with private industry
partners. It was not just a publicly funded organization.
He believed about 30 percent of CCHRC's funding came from
private entities. During the Arctic Summit in March they
highlighted what CCHRC was doing. Amazingly, the
organization was doing leading edge things compared to
other arctic nations. He surmised that for a state that had
only been in existence since 1959 it was doing an amazing
job competing with nations that had been working on climate
research for a much longer time. He thought it was amazing
that it had built a model that could bring in private
funds. He opposed the amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered about the amount of the CCHRC's
budget. He was unclear of the $1 million funding coming out
of GF versus funds from AHFC dividends. Mr. Michel
responded that it was AHFC dividends in all of the funds
source books.
Mr. Carpenter added that AFHC dividends were part of the
undesignated general funds (UGF) group. They were GF
dollars.
1:58:20 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered what the total budget was for
the CCHRC. Mr. Carpenter did not have the answer to the
question off the top of his head.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Ms. Pitney to respond.
Ms. Pitney explained that previously she had been on the
board of the CCHRC. She relayed that if her memory served
her right the state's contribution was roughly 20 percent
of their total budget. Their funds included federal,
project, and other membership fee type of funds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked her to be clearer. He wondered if
the $1 million was only 20 percent of their budget. Ms.
Pitney responded that she was speaking strictly from her
past experience. She could not speak to their current
budget. They were a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity. The state
money was one of several funding sources for their budget.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about their other fund sources.
Ms. Pitney explained that the organization received federal
funds and project funds. In other words, CCHRC would be
asked to work with a housing agency which paid for their
transportation and staff time. She provided an example from
her previous career where CCHRC was involved in helping
with the energy efficiency piece. She mentioned the funding
also came through memberships with contractors and window
suppliers.
Representative Wilson asked for a point of order. She
explained that the reason for her amendment had to do with
not having an explanation from the organization as to how
they used the funding provided by the state. She continued
that without representation from the organization only
guesses were being made. She appreciated Ms. Pitney's
previous experience but the subject was the current year's
budget.
Co-Chair Thompson agreed.
Representative Gattis asked that CCHRC speak to the
amendment. She would rather see the amendment rolled to the
bottom to allow for someone to come before the committee.
Representative Edgmon commented that if the maker could not
justify her amendment then he asked for a question on the
issue.
Representative Wilson responded that it was her point that
the legislature was being asked to fund $1 million for the
CCHRC. She had not received any information regarding their
budget. Although it was a good organization, an increase
was being proposed at a time when money was being taken
away from Alaska's seniors and from other projects. She
surmised that the organization performed study and research
rather than doing actual work on homes. She contended that
AHFC was utilizing CCHRC's services and should be paying
for them similar to a private entity. She complained that
no paperwork was provided and the state was proposing to
double what they funded in the previous year. She would
rather contribute the money to the weatherization program.
She thought it was a bad time to be adding more money for
research and study.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the legislature
appropriated $750 thousand in the previous year.
Representative Wilson asked if it was GF that were
appropriated.
Co-Chair Thompson answered affirmatively. He was unclear
whether the funding was from the GF or from AHFC dividends.
Representative Wilson explained that $500 thousand came
from the GF. She was not aware of the additional $250
thousand.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Edgmon, Gara,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
Amendment 1 failed to be adopted.
Representative Munoz asked that Amendment 2 be rolled to
the bottom of the amendments.
2:06:48 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment was a
reduction from $10 million to $5 million for deferred
maintenance for the University of Alaska. She understood
that currently the University already had approximately $19
million in a fund for deferred maintenance. She had heard
but could not confirm that the University tried to keep
around $21 million to $22 million available for
emergencies. The $5 million would satisfy that level. She
reported that in the House Finance University of Alaska
Subcommittee the University had been asked to look at all
of its buildings. She suggested that with the state's
fiscal crisis the University would not be able to keep all
of the buildings it was currently responsible for. She was
expecting a report in the following year regarding building
repairs and a plan for deferred maintenance.
Representative Guttenberg responded that he had heard from
the University of Alaska that it had roughly 40 percent of
all of the buildings in the state. He suggested that $5
million to $10 million did not satisfy what was really
needed to keep up with maintaining its facilities. He
iterated that the $20 million set aside for emergencies was
to be used for things such as a roof going out and other
unanticipated items. He thought the state should provide at
least $10 million. He thought the consequences of the
University not maintaining its buildings would result in
building replacements down the road. He thought many band
aids had been applied and that $10 million was not enough
funding. He thought the legislature had neglected the
University's major maintenance budget. He would be opposing
the amendment, as it did not make fiscal sense.
Representative Kawasaki rose in opposition to the
amendment. He thought the University was doing a
significant amount to restructure and change the way it was
doing business. He commented that the legislature was
currently sitting in a building [the Bill Ray Center] that
had previously been owned by the University of Alaska. The
University was doing prudent things. He reported that there
were over 400 buildings the University owned or had to
maintain. He suggested that every dollar the state did not
spend in maintenance would cost $3-5 in the future. The
amount of money currently in the budget, $10 million, paled
in comparison to the amount of money that the state would
have to pay if it delayed repairs into the future.
2:11:56 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler was in support of the amendment. He
relayed that the state was experiencing difficult times. He
thought that the University already had money set aside for
deferred maintenance and believed it was appropriate to
reduce the appropriation by $5 million.
Representative Gattis supported the amendment. She thought
that due to the restructuring of the University making
changes to owning or maintaining facilities should be
looked at and potentially changed. She thought it was the
beginning of many changes.
Representative Wilson remarked that the University of
Alaska Southeast had made some good decisions. She reported
that the University had 139,329 acres of investment
property and only 12,000 acres of education property. Some
of the property could be sold for commercial and
residential use. She read the intent language placed in the
operating budget by the legislature:
"It is the intent of the legislature the University of
Alaska better utilize community buildings, school
district buildings, and other facilities in close
proximity to its existing brick and mortar campuses
and satellite facilities that have low utilization
rates of face-to-face classes. Only the restructuring
results in a decreased total cost. Furthermore, the
University is to report back to the legislature with a
plan to increase its use of co-location by the 15th
day of the 2017 legislative session."
Representative Wilson thought $5 million was enough to tie
the University over until the following year. She
appreciated members' support.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Neuman,
Thompson
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
2:15:28 PM
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gattis explained that the amendment removed
$2.2 million from the Alaska Land Mobile Radio System
(ALMR). She thought the state needed an emergency
communications system. However, the ALMR system was an old
Department of Defense system given to the state by the
federal government years prior. She thought any money spent
on the system currently would be throwing good money after
bad. She argued that the technology had improved
significantly. She believed that adding money now would
lead to another $50 million invested in the old system over
time. She thought it was an appropriate time to make a
change away from the ALMR system. She suggested looking at
other options. She had visited with different agencies that
indicated they could be part of an emergency system. She
asked for support of her amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to his objection. He relayed that, in
previous conversations, the Department of Public Safety
expressed that if the money was cut for the ALMR system the
department would be left without the technology to
communicate with each other. It was a constitutional
requirement to have communication. He informed the
committee that the ALMR system had been under the
microscope for years and the administration was very aware
that the legislature would like the system gone. However,
something else would have to be in place before taking the
ALMR system offline. If ALMR was removed it would be
detrimental to communication necessary for safety. He
agreed that the program was not ideal but it was the only
system the state had at present. It scared him about
potentially not being able to communicate. He thought the
legislature was sending a strong message to the Department
of Administration that the system had to go. He indicated
reluctantly he would be voting against the amendment.
2:20:26 PM
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the comments made by
the previous speaker. He also agreed that ALMR was an old
system. He remarked that many departments had spent a
tremendous amount on the system but it was outdated now.
However, absent ALMR funding, some folks would be cut from
the communications lifeline. He remarked that Fairbanks had
a redundant system and Anchorage did not use ALMR. There
were several places, though, that used ALMR exclusively. He
would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Guttenberg agreed with the previous 2
speakers. He relayed having received positive feedback
about ALMR from fire chiefs in his district. He spoke in
opposition of the amendment. Although he wished the state
could rid itself of the system, it had to have a
replacement vehicle in place first.
Vice-Chair Saddler remembered ALMR being a sink hole 20
years prior. He could believe the system would be entirely
inoperable if $1 million was not allocated. He concluded a
larger complaint would have come in otherwise. He was
unsure how he would vote on the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that, as the previous Mayor of
Fairbanks, he was familiar with the system. He believed the
system would have to be addressed in the future but wanted
to see the system continue for another year. He hoped a
replacement vehicle would be considered for the following
year.
Representative Wilson would be voting in favor of the
amendment. It was her understanding the state would be
purchasing additional equipment and would get the state
deeper into an investment in the system. She noted hearing
previous comments about taking care of the issue "next
year". She thought it was time to stop making an investment
in the old system. She did not understand the state's
obligation. She wanted to deal with the issue in the
current year.
Representative Gara remarked that he used to be against the
ALMR system prior to several locations signing onto it. The
different locations had purchased equipment in order to
communicate with the state's system. He thought it would be
very expensive to purchase a new system and did not know if
it would be possible to come up with a new system within
just a year. He commented that the state's public safety
system was predicated on the ALMR system. He opined that it
was not an option to defund the program. He would be voting
against the amendment.
2:26:40 PM
Representative Gattis reminded members that the amendment
was talking about $2.2 million which would sign the state
for almost an additional $50 million in the next 5 years.
She remarked that that if the state continued to subsidize
the same program no one else would make a change. She
thought it was a great opportunity to say that the state
had paid enough. She asked for support from members.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis
OPPOSED: Munoz, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Thomson,
Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
Amendment 4 FAILED to be adopted.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that when the state started
taking federal funds for different projects and used state
matching funds, the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) decided what projects it would pursue. Her
understanding was that the only way to stop the department
was to add specific language preventing funds from being
used for a particular project. In her district what she had
found was that even with a number of signatures obtained it
did not stop the DOT from going ahead with certain
projects. However, it would not stop the department from
using GF for anything else in the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP).
Co-Chair Thompson directed members to take a look at the
last page of the amendment. He would call for an "at ease"
to allow for members to read the information. It was a
document from Legislative Legal Services. Basically the
document stated that the intent language could possibly
violate the constitution of the State of Alaska.
2:29:58 PM
AT EASE
2:38:57 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Thompson commented that the opinion from
Legislative Legal Services was that the amendment might be
in violation of Alaska's constitution and potentially
unenforceable. It violated the confinement clause of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. He was not a legal
expert.
Representative Wilson directed the committee's attention to
the middle of the page. She noted that there was a list of
questions that had to be answered. She read directly from
the opinion from Legislative Legal Services:
[T]he qualifying language must be the minimum
necessary to explain the Legislature's intent
regarding how the money appropriated is to be spent.
It must not administer the program of expenditures. It
must not enact law or amend existing law. It must not
extend beyond the life of the appropriation. Finally,
the language must be germane, that is appropriate, to
an appropriations bill.
Representative Wilson reviewed the requirements and
believed that the amendment passed the test.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that there had been other
circumstances where the question arose whether a bill was
constitutional. He thought Representative Gara had talked
about the confinement clause previously. He believed that a
clause could not be placed in a bill that would make the
legislation illegal. He was unsure whether the operating
budget would be considered unconstitutional if an
unconstitutional amendment was inserted.
Representative Gara indicated that he had been incorrect
about the single subject law for most of the session. In
almost every bill the legislature passed if there was an
unconstitutional provision, by law only that portion would
be removed. The only difference had to do with violating
the single subject clause. If two provisions were placed in
a bill that did not belong together because of the
constitution the courts would not know which to remove. The
courts considered it "log rolling" to build votes with one
provision to get votes for another provision. Some courts
have said they would declare the entire bill
unconstitutional. It only had to do with the single subject
issue. In all other bills it was only the unconstitutional
portion that would be removed.
2:42:29 PM
Representative Guttenberg explained that the intent of the
amendment was not to stop the project but to stop the
current design proposal. He asked to be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment. He thought the sponsor would
agree with him that there might be problems. Safety
concerns needed to be addressed at the intersection that
was the main topic. He relayed that the community had
reached out to the DOT with having hundreds of people
submitting their comments and signing a petition. The
amendment would not stop the project but rather change the
current adopted design proposal. His concern was that the
community had risen to ask that the project be done in a
different way but the DOT had not made a change. He
supposed the current design proposal was the issue.
Co-Chair Neuman thought the issue sounded very familiar to
an issue in Big Lake. The legislature appropriated money
for improvements to intersections on some of Big Lake's
roads. The money was moved over to the Matsu-Borough who
decided to build some round-a-bouts even though community
members expressed opposition to them. He understood and
suggested going back to the people to see what they wanted.
Co-Chair Thompson announced that the House Floor Session
had been postponed until 4:00 p.m.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
2:45:32 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment had to
do with alcohol and other drug abuse treatment funds. The
funds returned to the fund it was in. She reported having
received information about the FY 17 Governor amended
[budget]. The available balance was $33,168,500. She did
not believe $1.5 million for the particular project would
decimate the fund. The amendment utilized the funds as
outlined in the original version.
Representative Gara asked where it appeared in the current
version of the bill.
Representative Wilson responded Page 36, Line 10.
Representative Gara thought the Alcohol and drug abuse
treatment and prevention fund should be used for exactly
what it was intended. He was unclear about Page 36, Line 10
and whether it had to do with alcohol and drug abuse
treatment. He supposed it did not have anything to do with
drug and alcohol treatment. He did not know why the state
would use treatment funds for a notification system.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that it was a victim
notification and time management system.
Representative Kawasaki opposed the amendment. He relayed
that the alcohol and drug abuse prevention fund was
established within the Department of Revenue. It was 50
percent of alcohol taxes collected under the same section.
The legislature appropriated a balance to the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) for the establishment and
maintenance of programs for the prevention and treatment of
alcoholism, drug abuse, and misuse of hazardous volatile
materials and substances by inhalant abusers. It was pretty
clear that the fund was to be used for that purpose. He did
not think the money was intended for the correctional
offender management system or the victim information
notification system. It very specifically stated that the
legislature was supposed to use it for the DHSS. He opposed
the amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman expressed concerns with how much money was
left in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment fund. He
stated that with the passage of SB 91 [Legislation passed
in 2016 - Short Title: OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE;
CORRECTIONS] it might be the only money to use as a backup
until savings was realized. He was aware that the fund was
currently stretched. He thought it had already been
overspent by several million dollars in the current year.
He was concerned whether a $1.5 million hole would be left
in the following year if the same programs were needed. He
favored using any additional monies in funds. He reiterated
that the alcohol and drug fund had been overspent.
2:50:05 PM
Representative Wilson relayed that it was $1.5 million of
GF. She believed it was part of SB 91. It would still have
$33,168,500 in the fund for all sorts of programs. She
wondered why funds would be shifted currently without
knowing how much money would be in the fund. She would
rather supplement with GF in the following year and show
the savings in the current year in order to pay for an
upgrade due to a bill that was just passed.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Wilson, Gattis
OPPOSED: Saddler, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
Munoz, Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Amendment 6 FAILED to be adopted.
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 7.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment dealt
specifically with the Kivalina School. In 2011 there was a
lawsuit that was finalized, the Kasayulie case. One of the
results of the lawsuit was that a school had to be built.
There was a price tag to that school. Under the current
bill the allocation amount was short. The governor had
originally put in $7.2 million. The amendment allocated the
remaining amount making the obligation whole. He recognized
there were some dueling legal opinions from lawyers. He was
uncertain if his amendment made sense at the current time.
However, he wanted to put on record that he had concerns
that the state might be violating one of the decrees of the
Kasayulie case.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 8.
2:53:10 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment was
written to Version F and he was trying to find the new
legislative building portion of Version Y. He referred to
Page 24, Line 28. He was certain that if the state was
going to purchase a building the Wells Fargo building [1500
West Benson Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503] would be cheaper
than the old office building [716 West 4th Street,
Anchorage, AK 99501]. He explained that he was not
convinced that enough of a search had been done for a
modest office space in Anchorage. He advocated leasing
rather than buying at the present time.
Co-Chair Neuman reported that as a member of Legislative
Council there had been a significant amount of discussion
regarding the Anchorage office space. The legislature had
given the landlord a 90 day notice to allow for time to
relocate the office. He thought the building currently
being considered to replace the building on 4th Street
would serve the purpose of the legislature well. He
conveyed that the selection of available buildings was
limited. He supposed the biggest challenge over the past
several years was choosing a building. The cost of the
Wells Fargo building was estimated at about $.57 per square
foot which was reasonable. Wells Fargo wanted to maintain
its lease occupying a portion of the first floor which
would provide the state some revenue. There were also cell
towers located on the roof which generated revenue.
Additional parking could be leased as well. He claimed that
the property search had been thoroughly vetted. He had
received several different proposals from other developers
on different buildings. He favored the appropriation to
purchase the Wells Fargo building for a maximum of $12.5
million.
Co-Chair Thompson thought that it was best to purchase the
Wells Fargo building in Anchorage.
2:58:10 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler suggested that, like automobiles, if a
building was only going to be used for a short period of
time then leasing was a better option than buying. He
thought that as long as the State of Alaska and the
legislature existed there would be a need for a legislative
office facility. Therefore, he concluded buying was a
better choice. He would oppose the amendment.
Representative Kawasaki highlighted that the legislature
had been part of a bad deal for a while. Although the Wells
Fargo building was affordable to purchase at $12.5 million
the state could not afford it currently. Such a purchase
would have bad optics. He also stated that the size of the
building was greater than what was needed. He quoted
approximately 4000 square feet per legislator for those
that would be housed there during the interim months. He
thought it would be better to lease office space and would
support Amendment 9.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Amendment 9 FAILED to be adopted.
3:00:47 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment restored
what the legislature had been doing in the capital budget
in prior years until the previous year. The state currently
had 1200 more foster youth in its foster care system than 6
years ago. The state did not have enough adoptive parents
and had the second highest number per capita of children in
the foster care system waiting for an adoptive home. The
state was paying for them in the foster care system ($30 to
$100 per day). The state needed to get the foster care
children into permanent loving homes. The amendment asked
for a modest $75 thousand to do radio and television adds
to recruit needed adoptive and foster parents. He was glad
that the second part of the bill [amendment] for $125
thousand to ATIA had been removed. He suggested that the
amendment was currently a conceptual amendment since the
language following Line 15 had already been removed in a
separate amendment. The way the amendment was originally
written there was a net savings of $50 thousand. He opined
that the amendment was a small project that needed support.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about an amendment to an amendment.
Representative Gara indicated he would present Amendment 10
as a conceptual amendment. The conceptual amendment would
be to add the funding for the recruitment adds.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the amount was $75
thousand.
Representative Gara responded affirmatively. He added that
Legislative Legal Services would have to write the
conforming language.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that part of the conceptual
amendment should be to eliminate the language from Line 15
and below.
Representative Gara was making the amendment conceptual
because he was unsure which of the deletions and insertions
were needed on Page 2.
Representative Wilson objected to the conceptual amendment.
She did not disagree that additional foster care or
adoptive parents were needed. However, she felt the system
was broken. She spoke of people opening up their homes and
their children to foster children and placing their own
children at risk. She spoke of a circumstance where someone
trying to do the right thing by opening up their house to a
foster child ended up jeopardizing their family. She
thought that reevaluating the Office of Child Services
needed to come before recruiting adopting or foster care
parents. She provided an example of a couple in her
district that felt that it was their life duty to become
foster parents. They had previously been foster parents and
had adopted a few children. They had a child placed in
their home temporarily and an allegation was made. The
couple lost all of their children. The issue was still in
play.
Co-Chair Thompson redirected Representative Wilson to speak
to the amendment.
Representative Wilson thought that if the state was going
to run television advertisements it would be important to
be honest about the risks involved for people considering
either being a foster care or adoptive parent. She would
oppose the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson provided a personal example of a positive
foster care outcome. He did not want to paint foster care
parenting and adoption in a poor light.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to the amendment. He suggested
that although the amendment was accompanied by an earnest
desire to help foster care children he had not heard
anything from the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) that it was the most important or most important use
of $75 thousand. He thought there were many social ills
that might also benefit from increased public service
announcements. He provided a list of examples. He also did
not believe that $75 thousand would provide a significant
amount of exposure. He would be opposing the amendment.
3:08:50 PM
Representative Gara spoke to the previous speaker's
statement that he had not heard that it was the most
important use of money in the state. He commented that
there was nothing in the capital budget that was the most
important use of money in the state. If that was the
standard the entire document would get thrown out.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for a point of order. He clarified
that all legislators had opinions about what was most
important. He wanted to get back to the amendment.
Representative Gara talked about a woman in the audience
who had bounced between 47 foster homes. Children were
taken from their families and placed into emergency foster
homes rather than a willing and ready foster family. This
was due to a lack of available foster care homes. He
thought that to not take action would leave things worse
off than to take at least a small action. He hoped for
support of the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz
OPPOSED: Wilson, Gattis, Pruitt, Saddler, Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).
Representative Gara asked that Amendment 11 be rolled to
the bottom as he was awaiting an improved version of his
amendment.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained Amendment 12 which was on
Page 48, Line 12 in the new work draft Version Y. It
addressed one reappropriation of money in the legislature's
budget that was formerly a part of the Legislative
Council's budget, formerly in the task force for
sustainable education, and formerly slated for Legislative
Budget and Audit. The total amount of money was over $5.5
million. The current reappropriation indicated that the
legislature would put $1.5 million of the $5.5 million into
new video surveillance and upgrades to enhance security at
the new Capital Building complex. He wanted to leave that
portion intact. The remaining $4 million would go to the
Alaska Legislature's Legislative Council for renovations,
repairs, technology improvements, and other necessary
projects related to legislative buildings and finance. He
suggested that at a time when the legislature was
attempting to scratch together some nickels here and there
he thought it was best to put $4 million back into the GF
so that it could be used for something very specific. He
thought it was nice for the legislature to have a slush
fund but felt it did not make sense to do so in the current
fiscal climate.
Co-Chair Thompson was having difficulty with 12 because it
did not have an explanation as to how much of the money was
needed for a special session.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the use of the term "slush
fund" had a negative connotation and was inappropriate.
3:15:02 PM
Representative Kawasaki apologized for the use of the term
"slush fund." He thought there were ways to budget things.
The legislature could ask for a supplemental budget in
future years. If the legislature wanted to understand truth
in budgeting legislators needed to start with their own
branch. Potentially $4 million would be directly allocated
to the Legislative Council for an unspecified purpose. He
would prefer clearly defining the purpose of any money
being allocated to the Legislative Council. He supported
Amendment 12.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Wilson
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Neuman,
Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
Amendment 12 FAILED to be adopted.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki referred to Page 50, Line 30.
Amendment 13 was an add-on to lapsed appropriations. He
explained that the legislature had several pots of money.
The current capital budget bill had taken money that was
unexpended and swept those funds back into an account to
ensure that there was money in the future. He thought it
was necessary especially when the legislature was scraping
nickels together. The amendment dealt with other projects
specifically recognized as the "mega projects." Currently
there was over $15.1 million UGF for the Juneau Access
Project, $5 million for the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll
Authority Project, $8.35 million for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, $8.16 for the Ambler Mining District
Industrial Access Road Project, $18.8 million for the
Bragaw Extension/U-Med North Access Road Project, and $2.3
million for upgrades to the Kodiak Launch Complex. The
total amount for megaprojects in Amendment 13 was over
$57.8 million. He argued that at a time when the
legislature was trying to bare down on the budget it was
important to consider whether the state could afford these
major projects. Many of the projects mentioned would
require $102 million in additional funding to reach the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing, the
studies necessary for the project. The question was whether
the legislature would be able to come up with the $102
million to pursue the project just to get to the point of
actually talking about construction of a $3 billion damn.
He surmised the state would not be able to. He felt that,
rather than spending money on things the state would not be
able to afford in the near future, some of the money should
be swept back into the GF and into savings while the
legislature attempted to stabilize the budget.
3:19:55 PM
Representative Wilson indicated that it was her
understanding that some of the funds were requested by the
governor. She had hoped the legislature would receive
information about a plan for each of the mega projects. She
was unclear what funding was still being used. She
expressed her concerns with ending the funding without more
information. She would be opposing the amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the mega projects had all
been looked at several times. It was his understanding that
the Kodiak Launch Complex would be taken over by a private
enterprise. He remarked that the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll
Authority project was self-funded and would have no effect
on the state's budget. The project would not cost the state
a dime. He added that it would require about $3 billion or
$4 billion to update the Glenn Highway to accommodate
capacity. He furthered that he and Representative Gattis
had about 34 thousand constituents traveling back and forth
to town on a road that was over capacity. He remarked that
the Ambler Road was to encourage mining activity in areas
of the state that were currently unincorporated. He opined
that the mining industry within the North Slope Borough was
amazing. He remarked that the money for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric project were federal dollars that were
previously appropriated. He deferred to Representative
Munoz to discuss the Juneau Access Project. He would be
opposing the amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler noted the amendments had been seen at
every phase of the operating and capital budgets for the
past 2 years. They had already been raised. The governor
had issued the administrative order that paused progress on
many of the mega projects. Following the pause, decisions
were made by review that the projects should proceed. In
the case of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric project the
Alaska Energy Authority was directed to finish the resource
studies that FERC required in order to reach a good
stopping point. It was a project considered for decades
that would provide power for the entire railbelt at a very
low cost. The Knik Arm Crossing had already been mentioned.
He stated that the Ambler Road Project had been paused but
the Alaska Industrial Development Export Authority was
directed to proceed with the project and to initiate the
environmental impact studies. The U-Med Northern Access
Project for about $18 million had been debated at every
stage of the budget. It was clear from the information he
had seen that the residents and organizations such as South
Central Foundation, Providence Alaska Hospital, Alaska
Pacific University, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium all desired to see the road go through to
alleviate congestion and make access to the U-Med District
more available to more people. The arguments had already
been heard. He would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Munoz opposed the amendment. She spoke
specifically to the Juneau Access Road Project. The state
had set aside enough money to meet the 10 percent state
match. If the amendment were to pass the state would be
defunding the state's portion of the project. The project
was a $450 million capital project for the region. It was a
top priority to the community of Juneau. She reported that
the city and borough assembly was in support of the
project. Many of the trade unions favored the project. She
listed a number of members. She did not understand why the
state would want to defund such an important project at a
time when going forward the state would be faced with low
capital budgets. She strongly opposed the amendment.
Representative Gara made a remark about decorum.
3:26:37 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that the maker of the
amendment had posed most of his same arguments. He had been
in the construction business and appreciated building
things. However, he believed that everything was on the
table and that the projects being discussed were very
expensive. He thought they could be set aside and picked up
at a later time in the future. He commented that he
understood the Bragaw Extension project was not supported
by any of the community councils or residents. He
reiterated that everything was on the table.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated all of the comments. He
closed by mentioning that when the governor was elected the
price of oil was at about $80 per barrel. Many legislators
expected oil to be at that price. By the time the governor
took office in early December 2014, he realized the price
of oil would not remain at about $80. He issued
Administrative Order 271, the purpose of which was to
declare that the state did not have the cash outlay to
pursue many of the major mega projects including, the
Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road Project, the
Juneau Access Project, the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, the Kodiak Launch Complex, the Knik Arm Bridge and
Toll Authority Project, and the stand-alone pipeline
project. Since December 26, 2014, the legislature had been
trying to decide what to do with the remaining cash that
was unencumbered by the mega projects. He continued that
the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road Project
would cost an additional $3.6 million. The Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project would require an additional $102
million prior to getting to a FERC licensure. He did not
think it was realistic for the state to come up with the
funding. He admitted that the Juneau Access Project was
further along than other projects. It had been a long time
dream for many people in Juneau. The project would require
an additional $574 million following a record of decision.
The state had approximately $120 million set aside at
present. It was possible that the state would receive a
significant amount of federal aid. However, he wondered if
the state would actually get the amount needed. He
continued that the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority
Project was a $1.17 billion project. He reported that about
$250 million had been spent thus far with $5 million
remaining. The project did not cost the state any money but
would in the future. He suggested the remaining $5 million
could be used to buffer the state's savings. The money
associated with the Kodiak Launch Complex, over $22
million, was returned to the state. He reported $2.3
million left for a launch pad that had not been constructed
and would likely not be constructed in the current fiscal
year. Finally, he reported that regarding the Bragraw
Extension there were some groups that supported it, but the
mayor and all of the community councils did not want to use
the money for that project but for other things. He
stressed that the state did not have a significant amount
of money available and the mega projects had a huge dollar
value to them. He thought the money should be returned to
the GF into savings. He urged support for Amendment 13.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Amendment 13 FAILED to be adopted.
3:33:08 PM
Representative Pruitt Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT
Amendment 14.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment would
reappropriate money that was already "out there" for the U-
Med North Access Road Project that was given to the
Municipality of Anchorage. The money would be
reappropriated to the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA).
The University had donated its land to the project and
wanted to see the project move forward. Alaska Pacific
University (APU) had offered its support for the project as
well. The U-Med district master plan, encompassed in a
letter to Senator McKinnon, was in front of the assembly.
He reported that APU was a key contributor to the U-Med
village concept. The village would be on APU land. However,
in order to carry out the master plan the access road would
be necessary. There was also a safety concern at Elmore
Road and Providence Drive. Since the building of the new
arena it had become less safe for their students.
Providence Health was supportive of the project because of
the increased traffic resulting from the new facility at
UAA and the new engineering building. The Southcentral
Foundation was in favor of the project, as it would provide
access to its facility located south of the road. The
Alaska Native Medical Center and the Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium (ANTHC) were in favor as well. He spoke
of ANTHC constructing patient housing and perhaps a new
facility for skilled nursing. A traffic study had been done
and 40 percent of West Anchorage commuters traveled to the
U-Med area and would benefit from the project. He had heard
consistently that there was concern with community
councils. He spoke of the safety aspect of the road which
would provide better medical access in an emergency
situation. He asked members to support the amendment.
3:38:54 PM
Representative Kawasaki indicated that the road would be
seven-tenths of a mile and would cost about $20 million. He
relayed that nine community councils within the immediate
affected area opposed the project. He thought it was
important to listen to constituents in the area who did not
want the extension. The mayor of Anchorage did not want the
expansion either. He was troubled that the amendment
removed $18.9 million from the Municipality of Anchorage to
build the road and gave it to the University of Alaska
System to be used with its discretion. There had already
been a fight earlier about how much money the UA needed to
maintain its 400 buildings. The University had $1 billion
in deferred maintenance. The University was appropriated
$10 million to maintain buildings already constructed and
currently it was asking for $18.8 million to build a new
road. He wondered who would be maintaining the road, a
question he thought every legislator should be asking. He
opposed the amendment because the residents and the mayor
did not want the project. He appreciated the University. He
wondered if the University should be in charge of $18.8
million when there was so much deferred maintenance. He
opposed Amendment 14.
Vice-Chair Saddler supported the amendment. The road would
be on the miracle mile of Anchorage containing the city's
University Medical District. It was a medical campus where
emergency rooms were located and where most doctors were
concentrated. He spoke of trying to get a free-standing
emergency department built in Eagle River to have access to
emergency services closer to home with quick access. Eagle
River was told no and was encouraged to direct residents to
the U-Med district where Providence Hospital received 7
beds that were up for grabs for an emergency department.
Eagle River had been told by DHSS to rely on quick access
to the Providence Hospital for his constituents that needed
emergency services. They were expected to drive through the
U-Med District to get to the ER. It was not just a green
space, but was a place where quick access was needed to
avoid someone potentially dying. It was a path to
salvation, health, life or death. It was very important to
have access to Anchorage's medical facilities. There had
been much debate on the subject and many questions had been
answered. He thought the amendment provided the University
the wherewithal to achieve building the road for the
benefit of all of his constituents and many others. He
thought it was a good deal. He appreciated other members
supporting the amendment.
3:43:20 PM
Representative Gara listened to the exaggerations about
death. He commented that the previous speaker's
constituents would likely go to Alaska Regional Hospital
which the project would not affect. Emergency vehicles and
personnel had override devices to go through traffic
lights. He thought the death argument was very emotional
and inaccurate. He pointed out that $18 million would fly
out of the capital building with the swipe of one amendment
while the state had a deficit of $4 billion. He remarked
that it was a significant amount of money. It was over 200
times more money than the cost of a previous amendment that
would have tried to get parents to children who did not
have them. He thought legislators needed to prioritize what
was of high importance. He continued that it was more money
than the 13 members of his caucus had put into the
operating budget in one amendment. He thought the state had
reached a point where it was not supposed to be doing free
spending. He argued that spending $18 million on a short
road that residents and the mayor had opposed was a bad
idea. He thought the people of the area had a better pulse
on their neighborhoods than the members around the table.
He would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Guttenberg relayed that President Johnson of
the University stated in his letter to the Senate President
that the project would move forward with the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) negotiated with the Municipality of
Anchorage. He wondered if the MOU was still in effect since
the mayor had changed and currently did not support the
project. He relayed that the letter indicated the
University had no intention of maintaining the road and
that it would fall on the shoulders of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT). He was glad to
hear that the University would not be responsible based on
its reduced maintenance budget. He thought that because of
the University's donation of land there might be issues
down the road requiring another reappropriation for the
project.
3:48:02 PM
Representative Pruitt did not know the position of his
community council regarding the project. He typically
attended all of his community council meetings unless he
was in Juneau. Had he been there to vote he would have been
a "no" vote. He appreciated the work of community councils.
However, there were people that felt they should be able to
access the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC), the highest
level trauma center in the State of Alaska (Level 2). He
continued that ANMC treated many of the high level
emergency care cases that arose in Anchorage. For those
folks that live in Mountain View, Eagle River, or any place
in Northern Anchorage they would have to take the long way
to ANMC or Providence. Patients would not necessarily
immediately go to Alaska Regional Hospital, although it was
a great hospital. He did not understand why the project was
so contentious since it was a lifeline. The previous mayor
was in favor of the road. He suggested looking at the
people being served. The people in Northern Anchorage, some
of the poorest people in the city, would be affected. He
thought providing them access to the medical facilities was
the right thing to do. He favored moving the funding over
to the University since the city was not willing to do it.
He asked for support from members.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Neuman, Thompson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).
Amendment 14 was ADOPTED.
3:51:48 PM
AT EASE
4:08:40 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that the committee would be
hearing Amendment 15.
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 15.
4:09:04 PM
AT EASE
4:10:05 PM
RECONVENNED
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment
16.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gattis explained that the amendment replaced
Section 27d with Section 26d of Version G, the Senate's
version of the bill. Additionally the amendment would
reduce the appropriation on Page 8, Line 3 by $5,867,800
for a new total allocation of $36 million. The net effect
would be $5,867,800 in savings to the state by spending
previously appropriated funds rather than appropriating
additional money. The short version was that there was a
philosophical policy difference. There were funds that were
going to be reappropriated for the DOT highway match funds
but the appropriation was reversed. The funds were not
being used which begged the question whether the funds
should be reappropriated as the matching funds.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about the total GF dollar change.
Representative Gattis responded $5,867,800. She was happy
to walk through the section if necessary.
Co-Chair Thompson wanted to confirm the dollar amount. He
anticipated that the amount would be about $11 million.
Representative Gattis responded that $11 million was the
original amount before it was reappropriated. She corrected
herself that she had stated $11 million in a private
conversation and the number should have been $7 million.
She apologized for the error.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for clarification concerning
Section 27d. He wondered which version she was referring
to.
Representative Gattis began with Version G explaining that
the conceptual amendment replaced Section 27d with Section
26d on Page 43 in Version G, Line 7.
4:13:57 PM
AT EASE
4:16:08 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Thompson rolled Amendment 16 to the bottom.
Representative Gara could not locate his amendment.
4:16:25 PM
AT EASE
[4:16:45 PM]
RECONVENNED
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 17.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the language was in the
previous day's version of the bill. The amendment had to do
with a statewide project that was very important in terms
of protecting people from others that engaged in domestic
violence and sexual assault. He thought someone was
available online to provide a better explanation.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that no one outside of the
committee had been allowed to speak to the amendments.
Representative Gara elaborated that the Municipality of
Anchorage ran a statewide database of individuals who had
been engaged in domestic violence or sexual abuse. These
individuals might have probation conditions and get picked
up within the state by a policeman or village public safety
officer. The officer accessed the database to find out
whether the individual was in violation of probation. The
database was maintained in Anchorage and available
statewide. He opined that it was important to know whether
individuals were sexual predators, in violation of
probation, or faced other conditions. The database was
crucial in terms of deciding whether to remand a person to
custody and to keep them away from potential victims. It
was a very important part of the sexual abuse and domestic
violence prevention system in Alaska. He believed that some
people thought the appropriation only applied to Anchorage,
but the database was a statewide tool.
Co-Chair Neuman assumed that the amendment was a
reappropriation of funds left over from the Anchorage
Police Department Training Group Center. It looked as if
$900 thousand remained. The money might have gone towards
some safety improvements in the past. He surmised that it
was a reappropriation of left over funds from prior
projects. He was unaware of any other reappropriations that
had gone into a specific program. He was sympathetic to the
issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. He believed
the program's operating budget was close to $13 million or
$14 million; $1.3 million for administrative duties and the
remainder for domestic violence and sexual assault. He did
not want to do something on the fly. He was unfamiliar with
all of the numbers but he knew that the policy at present
was to take reappropriations and put them towards other
match highway funds for statewide projects.
4:21:48 PM
Representative Gara would understand if the funds could be
matched 9 to 1, but they could not. He relayed that the
Anchorage 42nd Avenue traffic project was not a 9 to 1
match nor was the police department training center roof
replacement project. It was a needed statewide project. He
remarked there had been reappropriations throughout the
bill. The important question he posed was whether it was
something the legislature wanted to do. There had been some
reduction to the domestic violence sexual assault
prevention efforts in the state until some of it was
reversed in SB 91, the omnibus crime bill. Some monies were
placed in training and education programs on batterer
intervention and prevention. He thought the funding would
help to keep predators away from their victims. He believed
it was something the legislature needed to fund. The monies
were left over and were not needed for the projects. He
thought there had been a mistake in the previous day that
some people saw the word "Anchorage" and did not know it
was a statewide project.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if money was being taken away from
other projects.
Representative Gara responded that the funds were not
needed for the projects listed. He conveyed that the
Municipality and the City of Anchorage were in favor of the
amendment. The funds were no longer needed for the
projects.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the funds had been pulled.
Representative Gara claimed that the funds were unobligated
and were not needed for the completion of any of the
projects.
Co-Chair Thompson commented that it sounded like the funds
had already been swept because they were no longer needed
for the projects.
Representative Gara stated that the funds would just be
used.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about matching funds.
Representative Gara responded that the Police Training
Center money was not being used and, he did not believe the
42nd Avenue money was being used for a highway match.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that he received indication from
Mr. Michel that the information was true.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara
OPPOSED: Munoz, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Pruitt, Thompson,
Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
Amendment 18 FAILED to be adopted.
4:26:48 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 19.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Thompson explained that the amendment was born out
of a consultation with the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development. He instructed
Legislative Legal services to craft the amendment to
conform to the newest draft. The amendment deleted the
words "estimate balance" and inserted "not to exceed".
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 19 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz read from Page 7, Lines 19-22:
Alaska Marine Highway System Vessel Overhaul, Annual
Certification and Shoreside Facilities Rehabilitation
Representative Munoz explained that the allocation was $12
million which included $9 million of UGF and $3 million of
DGF. Her issue was that the DGF came from the Alaska Marine
Highway System Fund which had a balance of $12.6 million at
the beginning of the session. The operations budget from
the House removed $2 billion from the fund and the Senate
took an additional $4 million leaving $6 million for the
day-to-day operations of the marine highway. The current
amendment would drop the fund down to $3 million. She was
concerned with leaving the highway system with extremely
low reserves to deal with any unanticipated costs of the
system. Amendment 2 placed $3 million back as UGF and
returned the $3 million DGF to the Alaska Marine Highway
Fund.
Representative Wilson wondered if the budget would be
increased by $3 million.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that the legislature would be
placing $3 million back into UGF.
Representative Wilson clarified that the state would be
spending $3 million more than it was currently.
Co-Chair Thompson answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson commented that the state did not have
the money. She would be a "no" vote.
Representative Gara remarked that the budget had already
been substantially reduced. He suggested that in no normal
year did the state use $9 million from the Alaska Marine
Highway System Fund. It equaled three-quarters of the fund.
The maker of the amendment was trying to keep some money in
the fund to keep it solvent. Originally the reduction of $2
million was taken by the House which seemed appropriate.
The decrease grew to $6 million and currently to $9
million. At some point there would not be an Alaska Marine
Highway System Fund at all. He disagreed with cannibalizing
every fund. He thought it was a modest put-back to maintain
solvency in the fund.
4:30:55 PM
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned that the committee had held to a
stringent commitment of trying to reduce the Constitutional
Budget Reserve (CBR) draw to fund the GF. He thought that
$3 million would remain in the highway fund. The money was
to be used for inspections and similar activities. He
indicated that DOT might have to return to the legislature
with a supplemental request. He did not think in made sense
to put GF dollars into the fund to replace money that was
already in the fund for repairs.
Representative Munoz concluded that the fund helped with
the day-to-day operations. She explained that it was the
fund that received system receipts into a fund that helped
with operations. She stated that the $3 million figure was
way too low for an 11 vessel fleet. It was a 2 percent
reserve. She was certain the department would be back with
a supplemental request to address the low number. She
appreciated support for the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Pruitt, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg,
Kawasaki, Thompson
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Neuman
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
4:34:35 PM
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment
16.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gattis reviewed that the amendment replaced
Section 27d with Section 26d of Version G and reduced the
allocation on Page 8, Line 3 to $36 million. It took the
reappropriations on Page 43, Line 7 through Page 44, Line
3, Page 44, Lines 8-11, Page 44, Lines 30-31, Page 45,
Lines 10-11, Page 45, Lines 16-23, Page 46, Lines 11-12,
Page 46, Lines 15-17, Page 46, Lines 22-28, Page 47 Lines
7-8, Page 47, Lines 12-16. There were 16 items that might
not have been up for a technical reappropriations sweep but
the projects were completed and the money was left over.
She was asking that they go back to the Senate version ad
become part of the DOT federal highway match.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the second part
regarding the reduction of the allocation on Page 8, Line
3. He did not see where there was an allocation reduction
number on Page 8, Line 3 in Version G of the bill.
Representative Gattis was waiting for Version G of the
bill.
4:38:08 PM
AT EASE
4:39:17 PM
RECONVENNED
Representative Wilson stated that when the committee looked
at reappropriations on a previous day many of them were
swept and were to be used as state matching funds. A House
Finance version of the bill incorporating the changes was
published. Later in the same day a newer version was
published that had taken out some of the reappropriations.
Conceptual Amendment 17 would incorporate the full list of
reappropriations. She had talked to the Senate to find out
whether due diligence had been exercised. She had also
talked to DCCED and was informed that each of the
reappropriations had been vetted and reflected left over
funds. She suggested that if members voted in favor of the
amendment, the appropriations would be swept back to the
projects that had been completed that had left over funds,
and used as reappropriated funds versus GF. She furthered
that the left over funds would be used as DOT matching
funds rather than set aside. It would benefit the whole
state equally amongst everyone. She maintained that the
state could not keep using GF monies to backfill when there
were left over monies from projects that were already
completed. She would be voting in favor of the amendment
because she thought it made sense.
Co-Chair Neuman was confused about the amendment and was
unclear about the other body's stand on the amendment. He
had been told the monies were not left over funds and would
be needed for the corresponding projects.
Co-Chair Thompson reported that many of the projects were
from 2014 and 2015. He noted reviewing each of the TPS
numbers and expiration dates. As appropriations expired
they would go back into the GF. For those projects that
remained incomplete the appropriations would not go back
into the GF right away. He wanted to make sure the
legislature was doing the right thing. It was not as if the
funds were going into the wind, they would be swept into
the GF once they expired. He was trying to be cautious.
4:44:21 PM
Representative Edgmon thought he understood the gist of the
amendment. He thought it also hit on the question of the
underlying appropriations and whether each one should be
considered. When he looked at the amendment it appeared
that the federal highway state match was reduced by $6
million. He was hoping the representative offering the
amendment could comment on the match during her wrap up.
Representative Pruitt appreciated what the maker of the
amendment was trying to do and he also appreciated the goal
of the Co-Chair to make sure that money was not being taken
from those projects that were not complete. He noted a
project with an appropriation from 2008 which could be
found in Version G, Page 43, Line 23. The project was
estimated to be $2.6 million. There was a balance of
$32,329 which he supposed was no longer needed. The maker
was attempting to offset GF. In the end, the difference was
comprised of $13.5 million plus $36 million totaling just
under $50 million that the governor sought. He further
explained that the difference was because the current
Version Y had $6.5 million on Page 43 under "D". Some of
the money was removed. Between the previous day's version
and the current version there was an additional change to
the appropriation for the Jesse Lee Home project. He was
unsure whether the adoption of the amendment would override
that particular appropriation. He thought the concept of
the amendment was good and he supported the idea of
potentially offsetting more of the GF with some of the
appropriations. However, he anticipated potential
challenges. He reported that the Friends of the Jesse Lee
home were looking to tear down the building. He wondered if
it was possible to merge amendments to make sure it was
possible for the Jesse Lee Home to be torn down and for any
asbestos to be dealt with properly as well as to make sure
left over monies could be used to offset the GF. He liked
the concept of using the unspent monies to offset the GF.
4:49:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki commented that there was an example
of an appropriation associated with the state neurology lab
that was listed in the Version G that was swept. It was not
being swept in Version Y and he was unclear as to why. He
explained that the construction of the building in
Fairbanks was completed. There was an appropriation of $875
thousand that remained. He supported the concept of the
amendment but wondered if the total amount allocated to the
federal aid highway match would be larger or the same. He
noted that the allocation amount was substantially higher
in Version G of the bill - almost double the amount
allocated from unobligated GF balances.
Representative Gattis summarized that the amendment took
money that the state currently had that was not being used
and would not be used. She indicated that the Senate's
version of the capital budget had been published for about
a month prior. She felt that there had been plenty of time
and opportunity for people to raise their concerns. She
thought putting the money towards infrastructure or roads
where the state received a federal match was a huge benefit
to the state. His intent was not to hurt any ongoing
projects. She had checked with DCCED to confirm which jobs
were completed. She offered to work with Legislative Legal
Services to return to Version G. She hoped the members
understood her intent.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).
Amendment 16 FAILED to be adopted.
4:53:09 PM
AT EASE
4:53:51 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Amendment 11 had been rolled
to the end of the agenda. He clarified that Version 29-
GS2741\Y.3 was being addressed.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11 (Y.3).
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that there was likely concern
that, regarding the issue of domestic violence prevention,
only one community would benefit from a capital budget
item. The general idea on the capital budget was that no
communities were supposed to receive monies for individual
projects. However, statewide items were being addressed.
Amendment 11 was different from the last version in a
number of ways. The money would be used for the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA). The council
granted its money out to grantees based on competitive
grants. The funds would be used for the things deemed most
important by CDVSA including compliance checks and
addressing over-crowded shelters. Alaska had one of the
ugly first or second place rankings for domestic violence
each year. However, the state did not have the necessary
space for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
The funds that were used for shelters had shrunk over the
years. The amendment allowed CDVSA more latitude than a
previous amendment as to how the funds would be used. The
funds would be administered by CDVSA rather than the
Municipality of Anchorage. He asserted that for anyone that
thought the state was doing too much for victims of sexual
assault and domestic violence he disagreed. He added that
the amendment did not harm the state's fiscal situation and
asked for member support.
Co-Chair Thompson was confused about the pages.
4:57:13 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referenced Line 11, 12, and 13 on the
amendment. He relayed that there were several codes listed
on Page 50, Line 12. He referred to Version Y of the bill
pointing to Page 41, Section 24, Line 25. He remarked that
(a) reflected the unexpended and unobligated balance which
included money for the Department of Public Safety for the
P/V Wolstad for engine repower and dry dock maintenance. He
also referred to Section 24 (b) which he was uncertain
whether the references to the Anchorage Police Department
had anything to do with the other funds.
Representative Pruitt wanted to make certain the previous
speaker was better informed. He clarified that the
amendment added a subsection that did not currently exist.
He commented that it was similar to a section removed from
the bill in the previous day.
Representative Kawasaki clarified that in the previous day
the committee had problems with some of the
reappropriations to specific districts. There were several
dealing with Anchor Point and the Kenai area in House
District 11. One of the items was listed under House
Districts 12-28, the Anchorage Bowl area. It read almost
exactly with the exception that the money looked like it
went to the Municipality of Anchorage. He had a personal
issue with it because he agreed with the idea that capital
projects should be limited to statewide projects under the
state's current fiscal situation. He changed his mind and
agreed that it was a statewide project. The information
received from CDVSA and the Municipality of Anchorage
confirmed that people from around the state would benefit.
He favored the language in the current amendment, as it
clarified that it was a statewide project. He thought it
was better for the CVDSA to receive the money directly
rather than the Municipality of Anchorage receiving the
money as a district-specific grant. He supported the
amendment. He reported that the grant was originally 3
years in length from 2017 -2019 as noted in Version F of
the bill. He wondered if the grant was meant to be over
just 1 year or 3 years as originally intended by the House
Finance Committee.
Co-Chair Thompson was curious about highway safety traffic
money, as the amendment referenced Anchorage 42nd Avenue
traffic and safety improvements. He wondered if it was
federal dollars the state was trying to reappropriate.
Representative Wilson thought that the appropriation was
automatically for a 5-year period because of it being in
the capital budget. She wondered if the appropriation had
been put to the test whether it was a capital project. She
did not believe it was a capital project, but rather an
operating cost. In her opinion appropriations in the
capital budget should past both tests; being a statewide
project and being a capital project. She did not feel the
appropriation belonged in the current bill. She would be
opposing the amendment.
[5:03:46 PM]
Representative Gara stated that the amendment used the same
funds as in the previous amendment. They were not funds
associated with federal matches but were unused funds left
over from completed projects. He remarked that
traditionally one-time items had been placed in the capital
budget. He asserted that the appropriation fell into the
category of a one-time item. He relayed that if folks
wanted to leave the language that identified the end of the
fiscal year ending on June 30, 2017 to allow the
appropriation to last 5 years, he would entertain an
amendment to the amendment. He asserted that a certain
portion of the funding would be for a capital project for
sexual assault victim services expanding shelter space. He
reported that the Awake Shelter in Anchorage had been over
capacity for several years. He thought it was true for
other shelters across the state. He reasserted that the
amendment reflected one-time funding and would be a wise
use of money. It would assist victims of domestic violence
and sexual assault. The difference in the amendment was
that it was written clearly that groups statewide could
apply for the grants. He thought the amendment was written
much better given the way the capital budget was presently
being handled.
Co-chair Thompson expressed concerns about taking Sections
24(a) and 24(b) on Page 50 that were capital items and
replacing them with a new section reflecting operations
money.
Representative Gara requested an "at ease" to make a
clarification.
[5:05:58 PM]
AT EASE
[5:06:38 PM]
RECONVENNED
Representative Gara stated that on Page 50 the legislature
was saying that the appropriation would lapse under the
rules of AS.37.25.020. The project was referenced on Page
50, Lines 11-13 as a project that would lapse under the
statute.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that the information was incorrect
and it would not lapse.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Amendment 11 FAILED to be adopted.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that the committee was through
all of the amendments.
Representative Gara wanted to offer Amendment 15 which he
had previously withdrawn.
[5:08:39 PM]
AT EASE
[5:11:42 PM]
RECONVENNED
Co-chair Thompson asked for any further comments on the
bill as amended.
Co-chair Neuman moved to report HCSCSSB 138(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations. He requested
that authorizations be given to the Legislative Finance
Division and to Legislative Legal Services to make
necessary technical changes and conforming amendments.
Representative Wilson objected for discussion. She
expressed her frustration with the lack of time to be able
to do due diligence. She supposed that if more time had
been provided legislators could have better explained the
proposed amendments. She was concerned about GF monies
being utilized in the budget because of not having the
appropriate amount of time. She reported having been in her
office every weekend, early in the morning, and late at
night trying to make sure she was keeping up. However, it
was difficult to keep up when changes were presented
without proper time to vet them. In her opinion she thought
that if the legislature did not get the budget right the
state would be looking to Alaskans to fill the gap. She
would not stop the bill from going to the floor. She was
unsure how she would vote on the floor because she would
spend more time reviewing the bill first. She opined that
when things were done in a rush legislators were not giving
due diligence to the process. She requested that in the
future there would be more time allotted for review and
questions. She continued to provide examples of items she
did not have time to vet. She removed her objection.
[5:16:55 PM]
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Gara felt that the committee could have
moved much further towards a bi-partisan budget and did
not. Every single amendment offered by the minority was
voted down including one that would have provided $75
thousand to help kids that did not have parents. Several of
the amendments failed on the grounds that the legislature
did not incorporate operating items in the capital budget.
He asked that members be honest. There were a number of
one-time operating budget items in the capital budget. It
was a practice that had been done regularly in the past. He
did not want to have a standard that was not applied to all
legislators. He did not feel it was an accurate standard.
He surmised that the problem with the session was that
there were caucus riffs and they did not get repaired when
everything was voted down along party lines. He stated that
that was what had happened on every single budget item in
the current year in both the capital and operating budgets.
He watched $18 million fly out of the room in one of the
amendments which he had not agreed with. He thought there
was spending in the budget that was unnecessary. It was a
small budget. He relayed that he did not feel a huge sense
of cooperation on the budget. He thought it was sad and one
of the reasons why the legislature was still in session.
Vice-chair Saddler began to comment on an issue brought up
by another member.
Co-Chair Thompson redirected Vice-Chair Saddler to speak to
the budget and to his objection.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked about a term he would use in
the future.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
HCSCSSB 138 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation.
Co-chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day.
Co-chair Thompson recessed the meeting to a call of the
chair [note: the meeting never reconvened].
[5:19:17 PM]
ADJOURNMENT
[5:19:17 PM]
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:19 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|