Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/24/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB115 | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| Department of Administration Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Department of Environmental Conservation Subcommittee Report | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 24, 2017
1:35 p.m.
1:35:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
ALSO PRESENT
Cheryl Lowenstein, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Administration; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Catherine Reardon,
Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Thomas
Cherian, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Environmental Conservation.
SUMMARY
HB 115 INCOME TAX; PFD CREDIT; PERM FUND INCOME
HB 115 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 57 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the permanent fund dividend;
relating to the appropriation of certain amounts of
the earnings reserve account; relating to the taxation
of income of individuals; relating to a payment
against the individual income tax from the permanent
fund dividend disbursement; repealing tax credits
applied against the tax on individuals under the
Alaska Net Income Tax Act; and providing for an
effective date."
1:36:20 PM
Co-Chair Seaton announced that the committee would not hear
any presentations or take any action on HB 115 during the
meeting. He made members aware of six amendments in their
bill packets related to the Permanent Fund section of the
bill. He relayed that the amendments would not be discussed
that day.
HB 115 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
1:37:19 PM
^DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
1:37:22 PM
Representative Grenn provided a subcommittee report with a
prepared statement:
As subcommittee chair of the Department of
Administration I recommend that the fiscal year 2018
budget for the department include $68,850,000 in
unrestricted general funds and $336,602,000 in total
funds. If amendments are adopted the unrestricted
general fund difference from the FY 15 management plan
to the FY 18 House subcommittee recommended budget is
a reduction of $17,180,200, a 20 percent decrease. The
unrestricted general fund difference from FY 18
management plan to FY 18 House subcommittee
recommended budget is a reduction of $3,104,700, a
decrease of 4.3 percent. I have recommended one
subcommittee budget amendment, four governor
amendments, along with six statutory change proposals,
which I will be forwarding on to the chairs of the
House State Affairs and House Judiciary policy
committees.
1:38:28 PM
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 1 (copy on
file):
GA 1 2/15 Delete Deputy Commissioner (02-1040) No
Longer Needed
Delete a full-time Deputy Commissioner (02-1040),
range 28, located in Juneau, and the position's
associated funding. The Commissioner's Office will
continue to have one Deputy Commissioner to assist in
the oversight of divisions and department initiatives.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that the amendment would
accept the governor's request to delete a full-time deputy
commissioner, a range 28 position located in Juneau, from
the Office of the Commissioner; it would reduce the
personal services line in the Office of the Commissioner by
$173,600 in unrestricted general funds and $15,500 in
interagency receipts for a total decrement of $189,100.
With the passage of the amendment, the commissioner's
office would still have one remaining deputy commissioner
to assist in the general oversight of the department's
operations and initiatives.
1:39:22 PM
Representative Guttenberg was concerned about deleting
positions the legislature interacted with. He wondered if
the department believed it would hamper its ability to
facilitate conversations with the legislature or community.
CHERYL LOWENSTEIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, answered the
department had a number of initiatives that had required
two deputy commissioners. The department had hired some
leaders in Shared Services and the IT [Information
Technology] initiative; it had also done some restructuring
in the Division of Retirement and Benefits (DRB);
therefore, the department believed it was becoming more
self-sufficient with its directors and could afford to let
one deputy go.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment GA 1 was ADOPTED.
1:41:19 PM
AT EASE
1:41:58 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment HDOA 1 (copy on
file):
L H DOA 1 - Actuarial costs for bills introduced by
the legislature
Offered by Representative Seaton
See 30-GH1855J.4, Wallace, 1-31-17 [copy on file].
This amendment rewords section 9(f) in HB 57, version
J, to clarify that the cost of necessary actuarial
work done at the request of the legislature will be
paid for from the general fund for FY17 and FY18.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton read from the amendment description [see
detail above].
Representative Guttenberg thought the work done at the
request of the legislature was currently paid by the
department, an RSS [receipt supported services], or with
general funds.
Co-Chair Seaton answered it was currently unclear. He
detailed that if a Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS)/ Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) bill came
forward, the bill would be required to have an actuarial
fiscal note. He furthered that the PERS/TRS board [Alaska
Retirement Management Board (ARMB)] did not want to pay for
actuarial work for legislative purposes. The amendment
ensured that the General Fund would pay for any actuarial
analysis required for legislative purposes under any
potential PERS/TRS legislation.
Representative Guttenberg supported the idea that work done
by the department at the legislature's request should not
come out of the department's budget.
Representative Wilson remarked that she had looked at the
subcommittee report online, but had not seen the
amendments.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that he was the subcommittee chair
for the language portion of the bill. He explained that the
amendment was a language amendment and he wanted to take up
the language amendments at the same time each department
was addressed.
1:45:10 PM
Representative Wilson wondered where the amendments had
been located prior to the meeting. She asked if the
language reports were in another location online.
1:45:41 PM
AT EASE
1:47:26 PM
RECONVENED
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
explained that under budget reports on the Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) website, there was a House
subcommittee recommendations link that included numbers,
amendments, and narrative. The full subcommittee amendment
packets were also posted online including the narrative,
transaction detail, any language amendments, and supporting
documents. He relayed that member's committee packets
should reflect everything available online.
Representative Wilson surmised that currently there was no
tracking on actuaries of how much the state owed. She asked
if the report had to be separate. She asked about the time
and cost required.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that actuarial analysis depended
on what the bill said. He detailed that that an actuary
would look at how a proposed bill would impact the PERS/TRS
fund and retirement benefits for the foreseeable future. He
asked to hear more from the administration.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the amendment would
alter Section 9(f). He asked if the section pertained
specifically to the PERS/TRS liability was across the board
in all departments.
Ms. Lowenstein answered the language in the bill was new in
the current year. Historically, bill's that impacted the
PERS/TRS system required the department to ask its
actuarial contractor to provide the historic information
and number for the fiscal note. She relayed that DRB only
had $68,000 GF available for actuarial work; the amendment
sought to address anything over that amount.
1:51:11 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if Section 9(f) in HB 57
only referred to the work done in retirement and benefits
and not other departments. Ms. Lowenstein answered in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Seaton asked what an actuarial analysis would cost
if there was any major change in a PERS/TRS bill.
Ms. Lowenstein answered it would depend on the volume of
work the actuary would need to do based on what the bill
intended to do. The actuary would need to look at different
historical information.
1:52:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if there was a separate
cost code for departments to use pertaining to legislative
report requests.
Ms. Lowenstein answered that DRB had a cost collector.
However, she did not believe the codes were the same
between departments.
Representative Guttenberg intended to follow up on his
question with the department.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment L H DOA 1 was ADOPTED.
1:53:24 PM
AT EASE
1:53:46 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 2 (copy
on file):
H DOA 2 - Reduce Available UGF for Training and
Educational Conferences
Offered by Representative Grenn
The Department of Administration historically spends
an average of $37.2 in the Services line item of Labor
Agreements Miscellaneous Items. This allocation is
identified by the Department of Administration as
funding "training, educational conferences, agency
memberships, and employee tuition." While
accommodating provisions in certain bargaining unit
agreements, these services are not statutorily
required, nor are they integral to the Department's
mission or efficiency goals. Reducing the FY18 general
fund authorization for Services will encourage the
Department to operate more efficiently to meet their
mission of providing consistent and efficient support
services to state agencies.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment would reduce the available unrestricted
general funds for training and educational conferences
by $12,500 in the services line of the labor
agreements miscellaneous items. The allocation covers
things like training, educational conferences, agency
memberships, and employee tuition for supervisory
bargaining unit members. Though in some past years
confidential employee association members partially
exempt and fully exempt employees can also attend
those trainings on a space-available basis. Currently
the state is contractually obligated to provide
$50,000 in funding for the training; however, over the
last nine years the Department of Administration has
spent an average of $37,200 for this purpose. This
amendment would cut the historically unused portion of
unrestricted general funds. Bargaining for the
supervisory union agreement will begin the in the fall
of 2018, at which time it may be prudent for the
department to reconsider these costs.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to change the amount to $50,000.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He asked for
clarification about the intent of the amendment to H DOA 2.
He wondered if the amendment would restore or delete
$50,000.
Representative Pruitt proposed a $50,000 decrement.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt believed the chair of the
subcommittee offered the $50,000. He pointed out in the
amendment description that the services were not
statutorily required or integral to the department's
mission or efficiency goals. He questioned whether the
legislature should be funding services that were not
integral to the departments' missions or efficiency goals
or were not statutorily required. He explained this was the
reason he was offering to restore the decrement to the full
$50,000 as included in the original budget.
Vice-Chair Gara wondered what kind of training would
disappear if the remaining $37,000 was deleted. He was
trying to assess whether the proposed amendment to the
amendment was a good idea.
1:57:24 PM
Representative Grenn answered the training included, but
was not limited to conflict management; persuasion
influence; strategic planning; leadership skills;
supervisory training; and communication, coaching, and team
building skills. The trainings were generally decided on
through a survey of the membership and had to be approved
by the DOA commissioner.
Vice-Chair Gara asked what the additional impact of the
conceptual amendment would be. He was trying to determine
what training would disappear if the funding was deleted
completely.
Representative Grenn replied that the state was
contractually obligated to provide $50,000 for the
training. If the funding was eliminated, trainings would
potentially be absorbed through the Division of Personnel
(the trainings would still occur).
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 1.
Representative Wilson remarked that only a portion of the
funding was utilized. She asked what training was currently
occurring. She elaborated that the original amendment
proposed to remove some funding.
Representative Grenn believed the training topics covered
varied from year-to-year based on what the supervisory
union asked for. He deferred to the department for further
detail.
Ms. Lowenstein asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Wilson explained that the department was not
utilizing the entire $50,000 in funding. She referred to
the list Representative Grenn provided regarding types of
training. She asked about the training provided in the
past, including the type and who attended.
Ms. Lowenstein answered that each year the need was
assessed through labor management council - typically a
union and the employees looking at the training needs. She
expounded that a contractor was hired, and staff were
trained. She continued that if seats were available, the
training could be opened to other members like CEA
[Classified Employees' Association]. The department
attempted to give $50,000 worth in training, but when it
was unable to find a good training, the full amount was not
spent.
Representative Wilson asked who the department was training
and what they were being trained to do.
Ms. Lowenstein replied the training under discussion
applied to supervisory staff; supervisory skills were the
biggest need. She noted that the training included a wide
array of topics.
2:01:54 PM
Representative Wilson asked where the $50,000 figure came
from. She reasoned there were online courses available that
cut down on travel expenditures. Additionally, tenured
employees would not need the same training as new
employees. She asked if the union contracts required a
minimum level of training and $50,000 had been the selected
figure.
Ms. Lowenstein answered in the affirmative. The Supervisory
Bargaining Unit contained the language, which had been
added in 1994. The $50,000 amount had been added in 1996.
The budget item was contained in a separate component
outside of personnel. She added it was tracked and used
specifically for that purpose.
Representative Wilson supported the amendment [to the
amendment]. She reasoned it was unnecessary to keep all
$50,000 because the [original] amendment already removed
some of the funding. She stated there were online trainings
available; she surmised the funding amount appeared to be
arbitrary and it had not been utilized. She thought perhaps
the item needed to be renegotiated in the contracts. She
continued that the training did not fit the department's
mission or into the constitution. She understood the amount
did not seem large, but increments added up quickly. She
wanted to ensure the public's money was spent well.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson replied she was speaking about the
amendment to the amendment.
Representative Guttenberg was opposed to the amendment to
the amendment. He discussed that the original amendment
proposed to take out excess capacity (the average amount
the department was not spending annually). He continued
that at some point in the past it had been decided that
supervisory training would be tracked as a separate line
item [in the budget]. He believed there were people in
supervisory roles where it was a smart thing for the state
to do, even though it was not statutorily required. He was
amazed the funding increment was as small as it was. He
noted he had been involved in training and he observed that
funding trainings (even online) was expensive. He commented
that people believed the state could get someone to donate
training, but everyone believed the state would pay for it.
He elaborated the legislature received things from the
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) that
people thought was free, but that the state paid for. He
stressed that the state had an obligation to ensure its
supervisory staff are trained. There were numerous
consequences that created other problems when supervisors
that were not trained. He thought the small decrement of
$12,500 in the original amendment was appropriate, but he
did not support the elimination of the entire amount. He
used the legislature as an example and noted that staff did
not receive trainings. He thought eliminating training for
an entire class of supervisors was unwise.
Co-Chair Seaton opposed the amendment to Amendment H DOA 2
and remarked the state may not have a statutory obligation,
but it had a contractual obligation to provide training. He
continued that generally the state tried not to break its
contracts. The issue could be negotiated in the next
contracts.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend H DOA 2.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
Representatives Kawasaki, Tilton, and Thompson were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION to amend Amendment 2 FAILED (3/5).
Representative Wilson found it interesting that an argument
against the amendment to the amendment had been that the
state should not break its contract [to provide funds for
training]. She pointed out that the original amendment to
remove funding would also break the contract.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOA 2 was
ADOPTED.
2:08:35 PM
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 3 (copy
on file):
H DOA 3 - Accept the Gov's Revised Structure moving
SATS from ETS to Office of Info Tech
Offered by Representative Grenn
This amendment accepts the Governor's revised
structure moving the SATS allocation from the
Enterprise Technology Services appropriation to the
new Office of Information Technology appropriation.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that the amendment would
accept the governor's request to move the State of Alaska
Telecommunication Systems from its current location in
Enterprise Technology Services to the new Office of
Information Technology. The motivation for the transfer was
to align all information technology functions under a
single chief information officer, located in the Office of
Information Technology appropriation. The amendment was
structural in nature and had no direct fiscal impact.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, H DOA 3 was ADOPTED.
2:09:22 PM
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 4 (copy
on file):
H DOA 4 - Accept the Gov's Revised Structure moving
ALMR from ETS to Office of Info Tech
Offered by Representative Grenn
This amendment accepts the Governor's revised
structure moving the ALMR allocation from the
Enterprise Technology Services appropriation to the
new Office of Information Technology appropriation.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained the amendment. The amendment
was structural and had no fiscal impact. He detailed the
amendment would accept the governor's request to move the
Alaska Land Mobile Radio System (ALMR) allocation from the
Enterprise Technology Services to the new Office of
Information Technology. The transfer was necessary to align
all information technology functions under a single chief
information officer.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOA 4 was ADOPTED.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 2 (copy on
file):
GA 2 2/15 New Federal Grant to Comply with Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Federal regulations enacted in July 2015 require the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to audit Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) examiners and trainers every
two years. To meet this new regulation, DMV applied
for the competitive Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) grant in April 2016 and was
awarded a three-year grant totaling $1,434.6 in
September 2016. This amendment provides FY2018 funding
based on an FY2017 supplemental item of $301.5.
Federal authority is needed in order to receive and
expend this new federal grant. The DMV's proposed
FY2018 budget does not contain any federal receipt
authority.
Over the three-year federal grant period, the DMV will
develop a program to insure the State of Alaska
addresses existing FMCSA program findings of on-site
inspections of all third-party testers/examiners,
create strategies for correcting the findings, and
implement sustainable business practices to maintain
federal regulation compliance. This begins with the
purchasing of a Commercial Skills Test Information
Management System (CSTIMS) to be used to track
compliance and progress of the program. This is a
yearly software licensing fee of $36.0 effective in
FY2018. Existing staff will make any necessary
programming changes or updates and will maintain the
database to assure compliance and compatibility with
the CDL Information System Modernization program.
Additionally, the DMV will hire two nonpermanent
positions, an Administrative Assistant II, range 14,
located in Anchorage, and a Training Specialist I,
range 16, located in Anchorage, for the length of the
federal grant responsible for populating the CSTIMS
with CDL provider and employee information to track
compliance and produce progress reports.
The new federal regulations require the DMV to audit
CDL examiners and trainers every two years. There are
90 state and third-party CDL testing facilities
located throughout Alaska, and approximately 80
percent are located on the road system. The DMV will
lease one used vehicle from the state equipment fleet
to achieve compliance and facilitate timely on-site
inspections at these facilities. On-site inspections
will be performed by existing DMV staff.
Currently, the DMV has audited 25 percent of testers
using a highly-manual process. This federal grant
allows the DMV to develop a lasting, efficient program
that will train staff, and track the facilities and
trainers' progress. Once the program is implemented,
DMV anticipates minimal ongoing costs that will be
supported with current resources.
Without this federal grant, the DMV may be unable to
adequately address the findings in the CDL program and
perform federally-mandated auditing. As such, the
division may be cited with a finding for non-
compliance.
The following PCNs are added:
Nonpermanent Administrative Assistant II (02-#018),
range 14, located in Anchorage
Nonpermanent Training Specialist I (02-#019), range
16, located in Anchorage
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment accepts the governor's request to
increase the Division of Motor Vehicles federal
receipt authority by $500,000. In July 2015 federal
regulations were enacted requiring the Division of
Motor Vehicles to audit on a biannual basis commercial
driver's licenses examiners and trainers. To ensure
adequate compliance with this new regulation the DMV
applied for the federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration grant in April of 2016. They were
awarded this three-year grant in September of 2016,
totaling $1,434,600. This amendment is necessary for
the division to receive a portion of these federal
grant funds in FY 18 as the governor's original
proposed budget does not contain any federal receipt
authority.
Representative Pruitt did not object, but wanted to ensure
he understood. He wondered about the impact to the state
once the grant ended. He stated it sounded like the federal
government had enacted something and had provided some
associated funding. He asked if there would be an
opportunity to pay for the item with some fees charged to
commercial drivers when the three years was up.
Representative Grenn deferred to the department.
Ms. Lowenstein answered that the federal funds were to set
a program up within the Department of Administration,
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enable the division to
meet federal regulations and audit commercial driver's
licenses examiners and trainers on a biannual basis. The
intent was to ensure the correct training was provided and
licenses were given. She explained that after the program
was established, the two positions were non-permanent and
would be deleted. There was currently a software cost of
about $36,000 and there would potentially be a fleet
vehicle the state would need to pay for. Aside from those
things, the department was trying to use internal
resources. The grant was for implementing the program and
getting the data in place.
2:13:41 PM
Representative Pruitt asked if the $36,000 software cost
was annual or a one-time cost.
Ms. Lowenstein answered the cost would be an annual
maintenance cost.
Representative Pruitt understood that the positions would
be deleted [after the program was implemented]. He asked if
there was intent to have the $36,000 and the fleet vehicle
covered by fees charged to the individuals applying for
commercial licenses. Alternatively, he wondered if the cost
would be absorbed by DMV.
Ms. Lowenstein answered that a fee was not currently lined
out. There was a cost associated with the type of license.
Additionally, she believed the cost of the license was
being looked at as well. She relayed it was possible the
license cost could increase.
Representative Pruitt asked if the $500,000 [proposed
increase in the DMV federal receipt authority] was for the
next three years or one lump sum over three years.
Ms. Lowenstein replied there was a supplemental of $301,000
for the current year and $500,000 for next year, which
would be used again the following year.
Representative Wilson asked for verification there was no
legislation required to pass the new regulation. Aside from
the staff needed to implement the program, she asked if
there was nothing else required with the legislature to see
exactly what the program would do and what effect it would
have on the DMV and its private contractors.
Ms. Lowenstein confirmed that no legislation was required.
She detailed that the state was trying to meet new federal
regulation to avoid an audit finding.
2:15:55 PM
Vice-Chair Gara knew there was a fair amount of
demoralization going on amongst state employees. He
remarked there had been a number of cuts over the years and
DOA had cut staff. He discussed that the department had
applied for $1.5 million of federal grants to deal with a
federal regulation the state had no control over; the grant
had been received and it was saving the state money. He
appreciated the service of the department's employees and
the hard work the department did to obtain the competitive
grant to offset money the state would otherwise have to
spend. He did not want to be part of any unintentional
message that employees working hard should be demoralized.
Representative Wilson was glad the department went out for
a grant, but she remarked that sadly most of the federal
grants offered by the federal government were for many
other things besides what the state thought they were for.
When it came to truckers it seemed there were more and more
layers imposed on them. She wanted to ensure the funds
would not reduce the number of truck drivers or may
negatively impact the DMV and private contractors. She
underscored the [federal] money would run out and there
would be some continuing cost associated. She believed the
department would need to look to the private sector (either
the drivers or the fees) to collect the funds. She asked if
there was a place to view the regulations. She would not
oppose the amendment, but it was another item that the
state had not been asked to weigh in on. She reasoned that
a large group of workers would be impacted by the
regulations. She concluded that typically it was not a good
thing when the federal government gave the state money to
do something. She requested detail on what the regulation
entailed.
Ms. Lowenstein replied that the department would provide
the requested information.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment GA 2 was ADOPTED.
2:19:04 PM
AT EASE
2:21:24 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Grenn read from a statement:
There were six statutory change proposals approved by
the subcommittee. The first statutory recommendation
I'll forward to the chair of the House State Affairs,
would streamline the Alaska Public Offices Commission
reporting statutes. Ensuring that the commission's
ability to fulfill its mission and more effectively
serve the Alaskan public.
The second statutory recommendation I will be
forwarding on to the House State Affairs will provide
statutory authority to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission to collect fees from certain user groups.
The third statutory recommendation going to State
Affairs would standardize the minimum age across
senior fee exemptions within the Division of Motor
Vehicles.
The fourth statutory change recommendation being
forwarded to the chair of the House State Affairs
Committee would modify or repeal two vehicle
registration fee exemptions with the Division of Motor
Vehicles, reducing foregone General Fund revenues.
Statutory change five and six will be forwarded to the
chair of the House Judiciary Committee for
consideration and further explanation. Statutory
change recommendation number five would examine
whether it would be beneficial to add a requirement
that persons seeking public defender services or a fee
waiver for services, sign an affidavit of assets for
qualification. Finally, the sixth statutory change
proposal recommends the exploration of instituting a
nominal fee for Child in Need of Aid case appeals to
the Alaska Supreme Court.
2:23:23 PM
AT EASE
2:23:33 PM
RECONVENED
^DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
2:23:33 PM
Representative Guttenberg provided a report. He relayed the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) finance subcommittee had held seven meetings during
its review of the governor's budget. The subcommittee
recommended accepting the governor's proposed budget with
one amendment. He relayed he would offer three pieces of
intent language as well. He indicated that the governor did
not submit any recommendations for the department the
previous week. The subcommittee's recommended budget
included unrestricted general funds (UGF) of $11,536,600,
designated general funds (DGF) of $44,593,200, other funds
of $58,461,700, and federal funds of $20,356,300, for a
total of $134,947,800.
Representative Guttenberg relayed the management plan
included an increase of general funds of $19.3 million over
the governor's proposed FY 18 budget. He detailed there was
63 percent less UGF in the DCCED budget than there had been
in the state's peak budget year. Only 6 percent of the
department's FY 18 budget was UGF.
Representative Guttenberg reported that DCCED had 512
permanent full-time positions and 5 temporary positions;
the number of employees was down more than 8 percent from
the FY 15 peak. Six of the department's programs were self-
supporting, including the Division of Banking and
Securities; Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing; Division of Insurance; Insurance
Investments, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. In
FY 16 the department had contributed $26.4 million to the
General Fund ($26.4 million after paying for its six self-
supporting programs).
2:26:15 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if there were six amendments
Representative Guttenberg intended to offer.
Representative Guttenberg answered that there were four
amendments.
2:26:54 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 1
(copy on file):
H CED 1 - Add promoting statewide broadband access to
CEDS and report strategies to legislature.
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that the
department include expanding broadband access across
Alaska as a goal in its comprehensive economic
development strategy, and provide to the House Finance
Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the
Legislative Finance Division by December 1, 2017
strategies for promoting broadband infrastructure and
financing statewide.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that he had submitted
the amendment and a separate amendment dealing with the RCA
because of his concern about the lack of the state's
direction for broadband. He read the amendment description
[see above for detail].
Representative Guttenberg relayed that a committee in DCCED
was considering a broad statewide economic development plan
that included broadband. The amendment would provide more
direction and emphasized the importance of the development
of an infrastructure plan that would include broadband.
Representative Pruitt wanted to understand any associated
cost. He wondered if the December 1 timeframe could be
fulfilled. He remarked looking at broadband statewide was a
big task. He asked if the intent was to direct the
department to do work outlined in the amendment. He
believed it sounded like the amendment directed the
department in a policy way instead of asking the department
to look at the feasibility of the issue. He asked for
confirmation the amendment's intent was to ask DCCED to
start the process of the state's involvement in broadband
on a larger scale.
Representative Guttenberg answered that the statewide
fiscal strategy had been paid for and was already
operational. He reported there were federal matching funds.
He explained it was not the intent and there was no
specific plan in place outside of the Alaska Plan - which
was a segment of the Alaska telephone community - to move
forward in a plan. The amendment did not ask for anything
physical in terms of laying wire or conduit or putting up
satellites. The amendment merely asked the department to
include expanding broadband access statewide as its goal in
a comprehensive development strategy. The amendment
underscored the importance of including broadband in the
strategy. He added that the committee was already meeting
in DCCED.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment H CED 1 was ADOPTED.
2:30:49 PM
AT EASE
2:31:01 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 2 (copy on
file):
H CED 2 - Life Alaska Donor Services, Inc. - Donor
Program Offered by Representative Seaton
Funding for the Life Alaska Donor Services, Inc. is
more appropriate in the operating budget bill. Funding
will be used for promoting the donation program. The
Governor included this grant funding within the FY18
capital budget bill. This amendment moves the funding
to the operating budget as it is an ongoing operating
program.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the governor included grant
funding item within the FY 18 capital budget for the Life
Alaska Donor Services Inc. He detailed the item was more
appropriate for the operating budget and funding would be
used for promoting the donation program. He furthered that
money collected by DMV through the voluntary donations to
the Organ Donor Awareness Fund created under AS 13.50.160
was deposited into the Anatomical Gift Awareness Fund and
then granted to Life Alaska Donor Services Inc. for
promotion of the donation program. Life Alaska had served
since 1991 to facilitate the donation process in Alaska.
The program provided tissue distribution to local surgeons,
managed the Alaska Donor Registry, and worked in
partnership with LifeCenter Northwest, the federally
designated organ procurement organization located in the
State of Washington to educate the community about
anatomical donation. Life Alaska also had an extensive
family services bereavement program that provided ongoing
support to families who had lost a loved one.
Representative Wilson asked how much was in the fund at
present. She had never heard of it.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that the grant had been funded for
several years. Since FY 12 the amount had ranged from
$35,000 to $80,000 based on donations that were voluntary.
Representative Wilson asked why it was being done by the
state. She stated it was not a government function. She
remarked that money from license plates went to nonprofits.
She wondered why Life Alaska Donor Services would not be
part of the Pick, Click, Give Program.
Co-Chair Seaton cited AS 13.50.160, which directed the
program. The voluntary contributions were collected through
DMV. He explained there was a donor insignia put on a
driver's license that would allow tissue donation if the
individual was killed in an accident. The program made
tissue donations available through the donor registry for
recipients across Alaska.
2:34:32 PM
Representative Wilson asked if there was an administrative
fee collected by the state associated with the donations.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that he did not know.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment H CED 2 was ADOPTED.
2:34:58 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 3
(copy on file):
H CED 3 - Increase Receipt Supported Services For
Professional Licensing Programs and Boards
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
In FY16 Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing had an unexpended balance of $125,000 in
Receipt Supported services. In order to provide
flexibility for the licensing programs and boards to
make operational decisions, this increment increases
RSS authorization for Professional Licensing by
$500,000.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment
would increase receipt supported services by $500,000. He
specified that in FY 16 [Professional Licensing] had an
unexpended balance of $125,000. The department had
decreased the amount, but the amount was then insufficient.
The increment had been recommended by fiscal analysts to
allow them to use receipt supported services to run the
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, H CED 3 was ADOPTED.
2:36:11 PM
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment H CED 4 (copy on file).
He stated that the department had undergone recent
conversations with the federal government that would
require changes to the proposed language. He planned to
offer a revised version later in the budget amendment
process.
2:36:39 PM
AT EASE
2:36:51 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 5
(copy on file):
H CED 5 - AIDEA to report to legislature firm costs
for Ambler Mining District Industrial Access project
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority provide to
the House Finance Committee, the Senate Finance
Committee and the Legislative Finance Division by
September 30, 2017 a report regarding the proposed
Ambler Mining District Industrial Access project. The
legislature intends that AIDEA's report include: A
firm estimate of the cost of planning, engineering,
permitting and construction of the road and bridges; a
firm estimate of road and bridge maintenance costs for
the first five years of operation; and a list of all
confirmed mining partners and their Ambler Mining
District measured and proven reserves as reported to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that when he had gone
through Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority's (AIDEA) budget for the Ambler Road, there had
been a significant gap between documents provided by the
department and what the department could actually tell the
committee. He detailed there was 200 miles of road and 11
bridges. He remarked that bridges easily cost $20 million
apiece. He reported that the subcommittee had not been able
to get answers to understand the nature of the road and
what it would cost. He noted that some people reported it
would cost $400 million. The amendment asked for a report
by AIDEA estimating the cost of planning, engineering, and
permitting. The report should provide a better picture of
the road and what it would cost. He stated the legislature
had always been told there were business partners
participating in the development of the road; however, "we
could not find any." He wanted to ensure the legislature
had the necessary information when going forward with the
road, which could be considered a mega project.
2:38:46 PM
Representative Pruitt thought it sounded like there were
some things AIDEA was not able to tell the legislature. He
surmised there could be a reason. For example, if AIDEA was
working on a project with certain partners and the
information may be confidential. He referred to language in
the amendment "proven reserves as reported to the
Securities and Exchange Commission"; information he noted
the legislature could look up on its own. He asked if AIDEA
had requested the amendment or if it had consternation
about the issue.
Representative Guttenberg replied he had not been able to
find the name of anyone. He did not expect to receive any
confidential information; it was not the intent of the
amendment. The amendment requested receiving information
about the bare bones of the project. He believed AIDEA
should have concrete cost estimates as it had been working
on the project for a couple of years. He stated it was a
pioneer road and there were no standards, but the project
was working forward to breaking ground. He believed the
legislature should have a better picture. He did not
imagine it would be a comprehensive plan, but the
subcommittee had not been able to get answers to its most
basic questions.
Representative Wilson expressed confusion about the
amendment. She stated that AIDEA did numerous projects and
was its own entity. She asked if AIDEA was currently asking
for money from the state for the project.
Representative Guttenberg answered in the negative, AIDEA
had the money at present. He thought the governor had
allocated more. He furthered that when the subcommittee had
wanted to look at the project, the amount of information
available was only a map and a PowerPoint presentation. He
thought the legislature should have more detail on the
project status because at some point AIDEA would request
more funding from the state. For example, he wanted to know
about the status and if anyone on the other end of the road
wanted the project. He stated it was planned to end in the
Kiana/Ambler area. He wanted concrete evidence the road was
being built to something someone wanted.
Representative Wilson understood AIDEA was not asking for
money. She reasoned it may come back and ask for funds and
at that point she expected the agency to provide more
information to the legislature. However, AIDEA may find
private partners to participate. She believed it was no
longer a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) project because it would have been too expensive due
to all the regulations. She elaborated that AIDEA had a
process to be able to determine what information it needed
to decide whether a project should go forward. She did not
believe the legislature should get involved at present as
the agency was not requesting funding. She thought they
should wait until AIDEA came back to the legislature. She
did not want to set a precedent that the legislature needed
to know more information about every project AIDEA worked
on. She continued that if AIDEA found private and federal
funding, the legislature should encourage that. She thought
the amendment sent the wrong message.
2:43:09 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thought Representative Guttenberg was
merely trying to be fiscally responsible. He explained the
Ambler Road had come up over the years and the legislature
had received very little information. The legislature did
not know whether it was a worthwhile investment; it may or
may not be. He believed the goal of the amendment was to
learn about the scope of the costs. He thought it was
responsible.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson stressed that AIDEA was not asking
for any funding from the state. She agreed that the
legislature would need more information about the project
if AIDEA was requesting funds. She believed there were
other projects AIDEA was currently working on that the
legislature had no insight into cost. She stressed that
AIDEA financed the projects. She reasoned that if AIDEA was
required to give more detail on the current project it
could set a precedent for providing the same information on
other projects even when no state funding was requested.
She did not believe that was the correct approach. She
continued that AIDEA was responsible for conducting due
diligence on a project, selling bonds for a project, and
moving forward. She reiterated that AIDEA was currently
asking for no funding for the project. She hoped it was
able to do the project without asking for funds.
2:45:37 PM
Representative Pruitt opposed the amendment. He agreed with
statements made by Representative Wilson. He detailed that
AIDEA operated as an investment bank. He did not support
that the amendment was asking the agency to move within the
legislature's timeframe. He believed the amendment
micromanaged the agency. He stressed that it had been shown
that when the legislature tried to micromanage AIDEA, it
was unsuccessful. He furthered that if AIDEA requested
funds from the legislature in the future, the legislature
could determine whether it would provide the financing. He
opined that AIDEA should be doing its due diligence on the
project that could potentially bring revenue to the state
via jobs and potentially open access to portions of the
state that paid higher costs. He did not know that
micromanaging by the legislature would provide a better
result. He stressed that AIDEA's role was to invest in
Alaska, which the legislature should let it continue to do
without micromanagement.
2:46:59 PM
Representative Guttenberg explained that AIDEA was a state
agency. He detailed that the project did not have federal
funds because it was a pioneer road - there was no standard
for a pioneer road. He continued that DOT could not build a
pioneer road, which he believed was the reason it had been
given to AIDEA. He stated that bridges and other structures
would have to meet some standard to accommodate heavy
equipment. He wanted the legislature to have a snapshot of
the status. He clarified he was not asking AIDEA to put
something in front of the legislature "to go or not to go,"
because that was not the intent. He stated that the
legislature should require AIDEA to provide detail on a
project it was spending substantial money on. He was not
looking for a finished engineering design, he merely wanted
to know the status, how the agency planned to move forward,
and who the partners were. He wanted to know if partners
were being negotiated. He stated that "we've criticized a
lot over the years for mega projects and roads to nowhere."
He reiterated his desire for a snapshot of the project. He
did not want to go another 10 years and look back and ask
why the legislature had not known the status year earlier.
The amendment asked the agency to provide insight into the
project at present.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Grenn, Ortiz, Pruitt, Wilson
Representatives Kawasaki, Tilton, and Thompson were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H CED 5 FAILED (4/4).
2:50:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 6
(copy on file):
H CED 6 - Regulatory Commission of Alaska study &
report on promoting statewide broadband access.
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska analyze the Federal
Communications Commission's Alaska Plan (FCC Record:
FCC-16-115A1_Rcd, Issued 8/31/16), compare it to the
Alaska Broadband Task Force's Blueprint for Alaska's
Broadband Future (University of Alaska, October 2014)
and provide to the House Finance Committee, the Senate
Finance Committee and the Legislative Finance Division
by December 1, 2017 a description of how the RCA can
promote broadband infrastructure and financing
statewide.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment
asked the RCA to do a gap analysis. He stated that the RCA
was self-supported with fees - the amendment had no cost.
The Alaska Telephone Association's (ATA) Alaska Plan, which
did not include everyone, had been adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC); the ATA was scheduled to
give a presentation to the RCA the following month. He
reiterated that the Alaska Plan did not cover everyone and
did not include all areas of the state or every carrier. In
2014, the legislature had released a Broadband Taskforce
report. Although it had not been complete, there was no one
in the state to provide a snapshot of the status (i.e.
where the gaps were and what was going on). He continued
that the work was in the RCA's mission. Although the RCA
did not regulate broadband in Alaska (the FCC had primacy),
the amendment asked the agency to take a look; the report
would be a gap analysis. He noted the amendment would be
something to be used in conjunction with the previous
amendment he had offered; it would enable the state to plan
what should be done in the future. He stated the amendment
asked for a comparison between what it had and did not
have. He reiterated there was no cost to the amendment; the
RCA already looked at the information.
Representative Wilson asked if there was someone from the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska available.
Co-Chair Seaton replied in the negative.
2:53:35 PM
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, replied the department did not have a specific
representative at the current meeting.
Representative Wilson noted she had gone to the RCA with
questions in the past related to transmission. She
explained the agency was very careful about things they
could and could not weigh in on. She asked if the agency
would feel comfortable weighing in on the issue.
Alternatively, she asked if it would interfere with
decisions the agency had to make as a regulatory
commission.
Ms. Reardon answered that RCA chair [Robert] Pickett was
aware of the language and had not communicated any concerns
about the proposed intent language. She reviewed the
amendment's intent language that requested the RCA to
provide a description of how it could promote broadband
infrastructure and financing statewide. She imagined the
entity could say it did not have a way to provide the
information. However, the RCA had not presented a concern.
Representative Guttenberg understood the concern related to
the regulatory aspect, but he noted that the RCA did not
regulate broadband. He noted the FCC had control of that
aspect.
Representative Wilson was concerned the amendment asked the
agency to perform work that was not in its purview or
expertise. She understood where the amendment sponsor was
coming from because there had been several taskforces and
reports that had all provided the same information. She did
not think the amendment was a bad idea, but she did not
think the RCA was the appropriate agency to do the work.
She thought there may be another entity within DOA that may
be able to do the work. Additionally, she believed the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) had
been the last entity to do the broadband study. She
reasoned the RCA's mission did not pertain to promoting
broadband. She emphasized the agency regulated utilities.
She believed RCA's docket was full and she did not want to
increase its responsibility if it did not have the
appropriate expertise. She remarked that some agencies had
started the work; however, she questioned whether they
would be the appropriate agencies because they had set up
taskforces in the past, but there had been no follow
through. She noted that DEED had done significant work on
the subject.
2:57:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg answered that all the state
agencies he had found, primarily conducted broadband work
pertaining to what state agencies needed. He considered the
bigger statewide picture about where gaps existed. He noted
that the agencies all had a small component. For example,
he had spoken with DEED who had discussed programs, e-rate,
and tribal and Native clinic broadband. He remarked that no
state agency had a comprehensive view of the subject. He
continued that the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, "for transportation modes, has that." He
continued that the RCA was the was the closest entity that
came to looking at the statewide picture outside of state
government. He stressed that broadband and
telecommunication was listed in the things the RCA was
supposed to do. The FCC regulated them, but the RCA had
telecommunications in its mission statement. He noted that
trying to find an agency that considered the big picture
was a failing of the state. He continued that the broadband
taskforce had "sat on the table for these years and
nothing's happened." He explained that the economic
strategy group only looked at the big picture, not specific
things. The amendment asked an entity with regulatory
authority [RCA] for an update on the big picture. He wanted
to know how broadband could be promoted across the state.
2:59:00 PM
Representative Wilson respected where Representative
Guttenberg was coming from. She detailed that if the
conversation was about transmission lines and the number of
utilities she agreed the RCA dealt with those issues
frequently. She underscored that the agency did not deal
with broadband. She thought the frustration was that no one
appeared to be dealing with broadband; there merely
continued to be a lot of talk about the subject. She did
not believe broadband fell under the commission's purview.
She referred to the agency's heavy load and felt
uncomfortable asking the RCA to consider the issue without
expertise. She believed the agency would end up spending
its money, time, and energy on something that was not
within its purview. She did not know the right agency to
consider the issue.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
Representative Ortiz discussed the enormity of the
broadband issue. He expounded the discussion was about
making change and reform, distance delivery, and cutting
the cost of education perhaps through distance delivery. He
emphasized there was a broadband deficiency. The
information was needed. He did not know whether the RCA was
the best suited to provide the information, but he
applauded Representative Guttenberg's effort to get the
information.
3:01:08 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that the Alaska Telephone
Association had convinced the FCC to adopt the Alaska Plan
and seemed to think that the RCA was the appropriate entity
to consider broadband because it was giving its
presentation to the RCA. He did not know of a more
appropriate agency to consider the issue and reasoned that
the issue had to land someplace. He added that every state
agency had a deficiency in broadband. He spoke to the need
for broadband pertaining to education, the correctional
system, telemedicine, and other. He stressed that inaction
cost the state an increasing amount of money.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt
Representatives Kawasaki, Tilton, and Thompson were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
H CED 6 was ADOPTED.
Representative Guttenberg reported that he had no
recommendations to any committees concerning indirect
costs.
^DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT
3:03:35 PM
Co-Chair Foster provided a subcommittee report in a
prepared statement:
The finance committee for the Department of
Environmental Conservation had five meetings focused
primarily on indirect expenditures identified in the
2017 Legislative Finance Indirect expenditure report
and recommends the House Finance Committee budget for
the Department of Environmental Conservation include
the following funding: $15,297,900 in unrestricted
general funds, $29,892,200 in designated general
funds, $12,801,500 in other funds, $23,896,600 in
federal funds, for a total of $81,888,200 for FY 18.
This is a decrease from the FY 17 management plan
unrestricted general fund of $1,530,800, that's a 9.1
percent decrease.
The subcommittee has no recommended budget amendments.
The subcommittee has one statutory change proposal,
which we'll be forwarding to the chairs of the House
Resource Committee. That is a recommendation that the
House Resource Committee bring forward legislation
amending statutes relating to the authorization of the
department to create and/or make adjustments in
permitting, permit fees, other fees, and fee
structures, which are identified in the 2017 Indirect
Expenditure Report. These changes could enable DEC to
capture lost revenue associated with the costs of
regulated inspections and permits.
Representative Wilson shared she had met with the Fairbanks
mayor earlier in the day. She referred to federal funds and
remarked that with the new federal administration numerous
Environmental Protection Agency funds had been frozen. She
noted the budget included a high number of federal funds at
$23 million. She asked what portion of the federal funds
may be in jeopardy. She had been told that the $2 million
in the DEC budget for her borough was in limbo. She was
concerned if the remaining $21 million was in jeopardy.
Co-Chair Foster deferred to the department.
THOMAS CHERIAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,
answered that the department had been working with its
federal funding partners. No federal funds had been
deducted yet. The department believed it would receive the
federal funding reflected in the current proposed budget.
Representative Wilson asked if the legislature may know
before the end of the current session if any of the federal
funding would not be available.
Mr. Cherian answered it was unclear at present and the
department was currently working with the federal
government on the issue.
Representative Wilson noted it was a big concern because
the state relied on the federal funding for myriad things.
She added that the decision to move forward would have to
involve a different discussion if the funds were not all
received.
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton discussed the schedule for the following
week.
ADJOURNMENT
3:08:36 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEC-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DPS-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOA-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 115 Amendment Pkt..pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| DCCED-Subcommittee Packet HFIN1.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| DOC-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 115 Public Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |