Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/08/2017 08:30 AM 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 | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| Amendments: All Remaining Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 8, 2017
8:36 a.m.
8:36:36 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:36 a.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 Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Charisse Millet
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
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 agenda for the morning. The
committee would begin with amendments on page 10 of the
packet, "All Remaining Items" starting with H CED 14.
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. 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."
8:37:58 AM
Co-Chair Seaton noted he saw a significant amount of red
around the table and acknowledged that it was International
Women's Day.
^AMENDMENTS: ALL REMAINING AMENDMENTS
8:38:51 AM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW Amendment H CED 14 (copy on
file).
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 16
(copy on file):
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
H CED 16 - Deletes all positions and funding for the
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes all positions and funding for
this allocation from the FY 18 budget request.
Extensive funding is available to the Corporation by
way of Capital funds. The In-State Gas Pipeline Fund
was not created to fund AKLNG, therefore, should be
either reserved for its original purpose, or be
considered unrestricted general funds. Projections
indicate that AGDC will lapse
$5,200,000 in FY 2017.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (See above).
8:40:09 AM
Representative Guttenberg thought the in-state gasline was
a part of Alaska's future. The Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC) continued to work on the right-of-way
for the instate gasline as a back-up for the larger
diameter pipeline. The work needed to continue whether on a
small diameter or large diameter pipeline. He thought it
was short-sighted to pull funding from the project. He
believed the project was much closer to being economical.
He suggested if the project was currently economical it
would have already been built. He spoke about the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) application and the
uncertainty of the project. He did not believe pulling the
authorization back would accomplish anything. He referred
to a letter from the governor to the president of the
United States containing suggestions on what the federal
government could do to help with the project in bringing
additional infrastructure. He thought there were several
opportunities on the horizon for economic development and
noted that the project was at a critical point.
Representative Thompson understood the need to look at
additional revenue options. He did not support the
direction of the amendment. He spoke of monumental meetings
in Girdwood and in Kenai the prior weekend. Finance people
and buyers from around the world participated. He noted the
right-of-way nearing permitting through Denali Park. He did
not want to see the project stopped at present. He thought
the project was important to Alaska's future. He opposed
de-funding AGDC and would not be supporting the amendment.
8:45:22 AM
Representative Pruitt favored the amendment, as he had
offered a similar amendment previously. He spoke to the
fact that initially the project was going to be a part of
the operations of the state. He relayed that when first
approved by the legislature, the project was very
different. The legislature had approved something that had
substantially morphed. Originally, the state was a partner.
Presently, the state was the sole owner and would be
assuming all the risk associated with the project. He did
not believe the project could be viewed the same or treated
the same. Even though the state currently had $100 million
to invest in the project, he wondered if the state was
willing to spend $400 million at the time of the feed
decision. He suggested that the legislature scale back and
rethink the project. He thought the project should be
discussed within the confines of the capital budget rather
than the operating budget. He mentioned that in a recent
slide show AGDC was referred to Alaska's infrastructure
project. He thought that if AGDC was an infrastructure
project, it should be competing with other infrastructure
projects. The governor asked the president to consider the
project shovel-ready. He did not see the project as shovel-
ready as some of the other economic development projects.
He mentioned several other projects by name. He concluded
that the AGDC project was a capital project. He spoke about
conversations he had had with constituents going door-to-
door. Many asked why the state was paying one individual
$750,000 and about a conflict of interest that the person
might have in hiring a family member to run an office in
Houston, Texas. He thought the legislature should ask
itself whether it was willing to take a dollar from every
person's PFD to pay for one person. He thought the project
had been allowed to move forward without checks and
balances. He supported removing the project from the
operating budget. He also thought it was important to try
to answer the question as to whether the state was willing
to move forward and commit to the project. Otherwise, the
state would lose $20 million.
8:49:38 AM
Representative Wilson was not defunding the project, rather
she believed it was a capital project. She furthered that
it was important to be clear what project the state was
funding, as there was confusion.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Thompson, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (3/7). Amendment H CED 16 FAILED.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW Amendment H CED 17 (copy on
file).
Representative Pruitt asked to go back to the language
packet on page 5 related to the particular project.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to AMEND Amendment L H SAP 23
(copy on file).
Representative Pruitt began to read the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton interjected that the amendment was too
technical to address presently.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW the amendment to AMEND
Amendment L H SAP 23.
8:54:16 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 19
(copy on file):
Alaska Energy Authority
Alaska Energy Authority Rural Energy Assistance
H CED 19 - Replace UGF with PCE Endow Funds for Rural
Energy Assistance
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment utilizes PCE funds instead of
Unrestricted General Funds in this allocation. The
projects in this allocation are mostly utilized in
areas receiving PCE in exchange for lower energy
costs.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above). She
noted that in looking at the mission of Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), most of the projects were meant to
displace the use of diesel fuel through sources such as
solar, wind, or biofuels. The idea was that, at some point,
communities could be removed from the Power Cost
Equalization (PCE) program, having substantially reduced
their energy costs. The Power Cost Equalization Fund was
doing well having a balance of about $1 billion. The fund
was able to take care of the PCE costs of communities. She
believed that the point of having the fund was to
ultimately get low-cost energy to areas that were currently
suffering. The state had been using general fund dollars,
but she thought using PCE funds would be a proper use of
the fund.
8:56:02 AM
Representative Guttenberg mentioned that the governor's
budget included a fund change ensuring that all costs
related to managing the PCE program were paid for with PCE
funds. The analysis from the PCE program revealed that some
of PCE's administrative costs had historically been paid by
UGF authority and a rural energy assistance component. He
noted that in the 2018 budget the governor replaced
$381,000 UGF with $381,000 PCE funds. The current amendment
spent PCE funds on things other than the PCE program, which
was not the purpose of the program.
Representative Wilson argued that the program was
ultimately for lower cost energy. She reasoned that the
state should be investing in projects that would reduce the
cost of electricity. The Power Cost Equalization program
was not supposed to go on indefinitely. It was supposed to
help offset electricity costs as well as help with
investments of projects that would lower energy costs. She
added that she thought some communities were devastated
because of basic energy costs. She thought that technology
was key in lowering energy costs.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Green, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H CED 19 FAILED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 20
(copy on file):
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
H CED 20 - Eliminates all General Funds from the
Seafood Marketing (services line)
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes all General Fund Match in this
allocation from the FY 18 budget request. Seafood
Marketing Services funds are available through
alternative sources such as industry participants. The
intent of the Legislature in FY 17 was to eliminate
the need for any general fund dollars to be used for
seafood marketing. Over $20,000,000 is available from
a combination of industry fees and federal funds.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment. She found it
interesting that the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) was still in the operating budget, while the
legislature had moved tourism to the capital budget.
9:00:17 AM
Representative Guttenberg had looked into the history of
ASMI funding. In FY 17, there was legislative intent to
remove UGF for AMSI. He conveyed that the amendment would
take effect in FY 19. The amendment accelerated one year
without replacing the funds for it, pulling it up short. He
reported the funds would be removed the following year. He
suggested in the following year ASMI would not appear in
the budget as a UGF item.
Representative Pruitt agreed with the amendment. He thought
that tourism and ASMI should be treated the same. He agreed
with a step-down approach. However, he believed keeping the
monies in the operating budget was not a good idea, as it
sent the message that it was part of the state's overall
operating expenses. It was perceived as a one-time
increment. He supported the amendment.
9:03:20 AM
Representative Wilson thought it was good to hear there was
a plan. She agreed that if tourism was being placed in the
capital budget, she thought ASMI should not be in the
operating budget.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H CED 20 FAILED.
9:04:21 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 21
(copy on file):
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
H CED 21 - Elimination of Seattle based Marketing and
Sustainability Director positions
Offered by Representative Tilton
This reduction would eliminate the Seattle based
Marketing Specialist and Sustainability Director as
outlined in the Governor's departmental budget detail.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton read the amendment (see above). There
had been recent conversations about stepping the program
down. There had been intent language moving the funding for
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) into the capital
budget. In light of stepping the program down, there were 6
positions that were Seattle-based. The amendment sought to
eliminate 2 of the 6 positions.
9:05:42 AM
Representative Guttenberg indicated that the department was
moving one of the positions to Alaska and another in FY 18.
He thought it was important to allow the agency to do what
it needed to do.
9:07:01 AM
Representative Kawasaki mentioned discussions about whether
the industry participation was there and whether it would
continue to be there in the future. He wondered if, by
removing specific positions, partner sponsorship would be
removed or jeopardized.
Representative Wilson was concerned with why the positions
were in Seattle.
9:08:13 AM
Representative Tilton reported 7 people sitting in the
Seattle office. The largest salary was $161,603 including
benefits. The second largest salary was $160,406. She read
the remaining salaries including benefits from the Seattle
office: $81,307; $161,603; 156,931; and $106,509. She
thought the salaries were high for people outside of
Alaska. The marketing specialist and the sustainability
specialist salaries totaled $263,400. She thought the
industry understood and knew the state would be stepping
down its GF contribution and would have to pay from its
pocket instead. She thought it was disconcerting for
Alaskans that they were paying for positions out of state.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (5/5). Amendment H CED 21 FAILED.
9:10:55 AM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 22
(copy on file):
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
H CED 22 - Replaces intent language in
CSHB 57(FIN),Version U, p.7, lines 13-19
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska provide to the House
Finance Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and
the Legislative Finance Division, by December 1, 2017,
an analysis of Alaska's current broadband coverage and
providers' planned coverage expansions, and a
description of the remaining gaps in statewide
broadband infrastructure and financing.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment was
a re-write of intent language that had already been
adopted. The language was more concise. He read the
amendment description.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H CED 22 was ADOPTED.
9:13:13 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 6
(copy on file):
Education Support Services
Executive Administration
H DOE 6 - Eliminate Special Assistant position
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes a Special Assistant to the
Commissioner and the associated personal service costs
from the Personal Service line of the FY 18 budget
request.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment. She explained
that it was the job of a special assistant to provide
answers to the legislature. She thought legislators could
live without the position.
Representative Ortiz relayed that since 2015, the
department had been cut 38 percent. General funding
positions were essential in meeting the department's
statutory requirements. He suggested that when talking
about the department being cut by 38 percent, it did not
reflect the essential things that were not occurring within
the department as a result of those cuts. He mentioned a
program that supported teachers living in rural Alaska with
their curriculum and with other things having to do with
living in a rural setting. The intent of the program was to
help them sustain their stay and to avoid teacher turn-
over. He thought the proposed cut would add an additional
burden to the department. He would be opposing the
amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the special assistant was
responsible for the fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson responded in the negative. She
reported that the financial officers took care of the
fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson indicated that the position had
nothing to do with the mentoring program that had been
mentioned earlier. The teacher mentoring program was
offered by the department through grants given to past
educators and to the university. Deleting the position
would not impact a program that no longer existed. The
primary duty of the special assistant was to answer
questions from the legislature. She was aware the person
attended the education meetings, but she did not believe
$164,400 was affordable in the state's current fiscal
situation. She relayed that federal dollars were put
towards the position carrying with those dollars the
responsibility of reporting to the federal government. She
asked members for their support of her amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 6 FAILED.
9:18:44 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 7
(copy on file):
Education Support Services
Executive Administration
H DOE 7 - Remove Erin's Law Funding
Offered by Representative Wilson
An appropriation of $200,000 was made to the
Department for the implementation of Erin's Law in
Sec32(c) Ch3 4SSLA2016 P95 L22 (HB256), reversed in
HB256 CC Amendment 29-LS8006A.31 Wallace P2 L6 and
restored as an increment in the FY 18 Budget request
for this allocation. This amendment deletes the
requested increment of $200,000 and removes the
funding from the base budget. Private funds were
available for this program. The department also had
resources and personnel dedicated toward this type of
program.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above). She
furthered that private non-profits had come to her saying
they would pay for any implementation or material that was
needed. They were turned away, being told the funding was
not needed. Additionally, before the law was passed,
Governor Sean Parnell had installed a program addressing
domestic violence and what children should know and what
teenagers needed to do. The state hired a position within
DEED to help districts to assist them. The duty of this
particular person was to make sure that every school had
curriculum. It was her understanding that the Rasmussen
Foundation and the Children's Trust had come forward to be
a part of the discussion and a source of funding but were
turned away. She did not understand why the state would
turn away private funding. It did not make sense to her to
have $200,000 in the base every year.
9:21:29 AM
Representative Ortiz asked for more detail regarding the
money that was turned down. He wondered if she could
provide documentation or specific information about it.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the clarification question
should be addressed in wrap-up.
Representative Ortiz recalled that in the previous year's
vote on Erin's law, the bill received widespread support
for its passage. However, he had heard concerns from
districts about Erin's Law being an unfunded mandate passed
down to local school districts. They did not want to have
to use their budgets to fulfill the requirements resulting
from the legislation. He reported that DEED had received
one-time funding support in the amount of $25,000 from the
Alaska Children's Trust to develop eLearning online courses
to assist district teachers in complying with training
requirements on sexual abuse assault and dating violence
required under the Alaska's Safe Children's Act. The
funding did not address the ongoing costs associated with
delivering such courses to personnel. He reported that 100
percent of the FY 17 appropriation of $200,000 passed
through the districts to purchase materials to provide
training on curricula. The estimated initial start-up costs
for districts to implement the act was $400,000 to $500,000
for curricula. Funding would be needed every year because
of DEED having to purchase new slots for each additional
personnel of the 16,000 district personnel using the
eLearning system. The Alaska Children's Safe Act would
result in many additional staff using the eLearning
program. He expected the number of district staff would
grow to 20,000 once the new law took effect. The money was
needed every year so that districts could comply with the
law. If the money was removed it would be an unfunded
mandate. He opposed the amendment.
Representative Wilson indicated that there were people
ready to step up to the plate. She did not understand the
notion of DEED having its own eLearning program and
charging for it. She spoke of someone in DEED that was
helping with getting the program started. She noted that
some school districts were already in compliance with the
law. The intent of the amendment had nothing to do with
whether the law was good or bad. She wanted to understand
why the state turned private money down and used state
dollars instead.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 7 FAILED.
9:26:50 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 9
(copy on file):
Education Support Services
School Finance & Facilities
H DOE 9 - Eliminate funding for semi-annual school bus
inspections
Offered by Representative Wilson
Semi-annual safety school bus inspections were not the
responsibility of the state but of the districts, so
funding has been removed.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment. She wondered why
the state was paying for school bus inspections when there
were private vendors contracted. She thought it was the
vendor's responsibility to inspect its vehicles for safety
and should be part of the contract with the school
districts.
9:28:08 AM
Representative Ortiz indicated that by statute the school
districts were responsible for inspection of school buses
twice every year. He thought it was simple - the state was
required to do the inspections by statute (AS 14.09.030
(b)(2).
Representative Guttenberg understood the intent by the
maker of the amendment. However, he thought the adoption of
the amendment would result in school buses not being
inspected. He did not believe it was an acceptable outcome.
Representative Wilson thought the state could charge the
company a fee. The law required the state to inspect the
buses, not pay for the inspection. She provided an example
regarding air quality and car inspections. She was certain
the state could require payment for inspections. She did
not want to see students injured. She saw nothing in
statute requiring the state to pay for inspections. The
buses did not belong to the state. She disagreed with the
statement that the legislature would be making buses unsafe
for children. She thought the private companies should pay
for the inspections rather than the state.
Co-Chair Seaton directed Representative Wilson not to
repeat her argument more than once due to time constraints.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 9 FAILED.
9:33:55 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 10
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Student and School Achievement
H DOE 10 - Reduce funding for positions deleted by the
Department and funds were retained in the Service
line.
Offered by Representative Wilson
The Department deleted nine positions in the FY 18
budget request without taking funding reductions in
the Personal Services line item for the positions
deleted. The FY 2017 budgeted cost for these nine
positions was $1,085,317 million. The Department did
transfer $1,070,300 million from the Personal Services
line item to the Services line item with the
explanation that the transfer was made to align
authority as a result of enacted reductions and
deletion of long term vacancies.
This amendment deletes the amount transferred from
personal services to services.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for* discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment. She reflected
that there had been comments made about unallocated costs.
She argued that if a position was not being funded in the
budget the corresponding position control number (PCN)
should reflect a zero amount. If there was an amount next
to the PCN, it meant the state was still allocating funding
for that position. In the case of the items in the
amendment, the funding was being transferred not deleted.
Representative Ortiz explained that the amendments all
reduced personal services funding where the department
deleted positions without deleting all funding for the
positions. In all cases, the legislature made unspecified
reductions to the allocations in the FY 17 budget
necessitating adjustments to positions by the department to
manage the reductions. The money associated with the
positions was already removed in FY 17.
Representative Wilson clarified that the money was not
coming from personal services, but rather, services. She
did not reduce anything from personal services.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson, Thompson
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 10 FAILED.
9:37:03 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 11
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Student and School Achievement
H DOE 11 - Reduce unrestricted general funds to
encourage the use of federal funds.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment reduces the FY 18 General Fund request
of $4,921,700 in this allocation by $4,000,000 and
will require the Department to reallocate federal
funds to fund the programs administered by this
allocation.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment would remove
$4 million out of $4.9 million in UGF budgeted for student
and school achievement. Federal funds must be directed to
federal work. The department already leveraged the federal
dollars it received. There were very few GF positions left.
General fund funding was essential if DEED was to address
state issues and priorities. This particular section in the
budget had been cut 41 percent UGF over the prior 4 years,
since FY 14. Staffing had been cut 30 percent. If the
amendment was adopted there would be no statewide student
assessment, no charter school grants, no school health and
safety project funding, and no report card to the public.
There would be no school district educational
accountability. He spoke of the need for accountability and
the assessment of outcomes. The legislature had been on
record calling for such accountability. The amendment would
move the state in the opposite direction. He opposed the
amendment.
Representative Wilson responded that the allocation took in
$4 million in additional federal funds. She conveyed that
none of the money was matching funds and would leave
$921,700 to cover any extras that were necessary and not
covered under federal guidelines. She spoke of a required
waiver to receive certain federal funds. She thought the
funds could be used to pay for accountability measures
mentioned by Representative Ortiz.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 11 FAILED.
9:40:37 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 13
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
State System of Support
H DOE 13 - Funding deletion for one-time appropriation
for the Best Practice Initiative.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes the one-time appropriation from
the FY 18 budget request in the Grants line item for
the new Best Practice Initiative. This grant provides
assistance to the Department in encouraging school
districts to strengthen and expand innovative student
learning opportunities through effective district-
level partnerships. Schools that want to participate
in this program can utilize individual district
funding.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Ortiz reported that in the governor's State-
Of-The-State speech he challenged Alaskans to come together
to improve the state's educational system through Alaska's
education challenge. The State Board of Education and Early
Development members would chair 5 committees to prioritize
recommendations from Alaskans in 5 priority areas. The
areas included improved student learning, the assurance of
excellent educators, modernization and finance, tribal and
community ownership, and the promotion of safety and
wellbeing. He reported that over the past 3 years DEED's
budget had been reduce by 38 percent. It resulted in a
reduction of the department's capacity to engage in future
planning and analysis. The increment would provide the
funding necessary to ensure that Alaska's voices were
reflected in the Alaska's education challenge. The
department was still in the early planning of the Alaska
education challenge, but approximately $125,000 of the
increment would be used to provide opportunities for public
input, provide community members with written comments,
provide support for travel, provide technology, and provide
staff needed through the end of the calendar year. In
addition, the funds would be used for the State Board of
Education and Early Development members to meet in person
to approve the final draft of the recommendations on
improving education in Alaska and to present them to the
governor and the legislature. The remaining $125,000 would
be for competitive grants to school districts to help
collaborate with other school districts and to share
innovative projects that were making a difference in
student achievement. It would also strengthen and expand
innovative student learning opportunities through effective
district-level partnerships.
Representative Wilson suggested that the state had to pay
schools to work together. Originally, the grant had been a
one-time funding increment to encourage school districts to
strengthen and expand innovation for their students, which
she believed most were already doing. She wondered if it
was something the district felt was worth-while and whether
it could utilize the funding already in place rather than
the state paying extra money.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (5/5). Amendment H DOE 13 FAILED.
9:44:35 AM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 14
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Teacher Certification
H DOE 14 - Decrease funding to personal services and
services.
Offered by Representative Pruitt
There have been steady increases in spending under
Teaching & Learning support every year during our
drop-in revenue. This amendment draws services funding
back to roughly FY08 and FY09 levels.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment was a call to
reanalyze whether the legislature should have increased
funding at the rate that it had the previous several years.
He suggested returning to funding levels from FY 08 and
FY 09. He thought the amendment provided the opportunity to
recognize the state had grown faster than it should have.
The amendment would scale back the funding for teacher and
learning support.
Representative Ortiz reported that in 2016 at the direction
of the legislature the department increased teacher
certification fees to generate enough revenue to fund both
teacher certification and the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission (PTPC) budgets. In FY 18, the budget
was funded by teacher certification fees in the amount of
$916,000. There was $16.4 million in interagency receipt
authority. In FY 08 the actuals were $353,000 primarily
through program receipts plus $5.2 million UGF in real
dollars. He explained that FY 08 funding in the amount of
$353,400 equated to $422,700 in FY 17 dollars.
Historically, the program receipt authorization for teacher
certification was not fully spent. It provided a buffer for
PTPC and teacher certification from a variation in revenue
collection from variation and revenue collection since each
was almost 100 percent dependent on the receipts. For
example, in FY 16 the authorization was $913,000 but actual
expenditures equaled $631,200. The Teacher Education and
Certification Office planned to utilize carry forward
receipts to upgrade their database system to maintain and
improve efficiencies.
Representative Wilson asked why the state was charging its
teachers more for certification if it did not need the
money. The money would go back to the teachers. She argued
that it was difficult to hire teachers and the fees could
be a deterrent in attracting teachers to Alaska. She
suggested giving the teachers a refund if there was extra
funding.
Representative Pruitt appreciated his colleague's argument.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton
[Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 14 FAILED.
9:49:44 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 15
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Child Nutrition
H DOE 15 - Personal Services Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
The Department deleted an Office Assistant position in
the FY 18 budget request without taking a funding
reduction in the Personal Services line item for the
position deleted. The FY 2017 budgeted cost for this
position was $69,659. This amendment deletes the FY 17
budgeted position costs that were not deleted by the
Department from the Personal Services line of the FY
18 budget request.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above). She
explained that the funding, rather than being reduced from
the personal services line, was moved into grants. She
advocated for truth in budgeting. She suggested that with
unallocated cuts the departments were responsible for
assigning where the cuts would be applied. She thought they
were dealing with an accounting issue. If the department
took the money from personal services and left the PCN in
place, the books would show an office assistant PCN with
zero funding in FY 17. The position would still exist, but
the funding would not. However, the books continued to
reflect the position along with its funding. Without her
amendment, the department would be over budget by $69,659.
She asked for support of her amendment.
9:52:07 AM
AT EASE
10:00:46 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DOE 15.
She explained that the $69,700 should be moved from the
personal services line to the grants line.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson relayed that it was brought to her
attention that the $69,700 was shifted to grants and should
be removed from there rather than personal services.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson responded that the funding had
already shifted to the grants line from personal services.
It was the same amount of money, but a different line. The
PCN would be removed.
Vice-Chair Gara thought it was important to discuss the
impact of a reduction. He indicated that the $69,700 was a
decrement from the prior year. A position was unfunded. The
amendment would be another decrement of about the same
amount. He thought it was important to consider what would
happen in the area of child nutrition. He was uncertain if
the maker of the amendment was aware that it would be a
repeat of the same decrement from the previous year.
Representative Wilson clarified that the amendment to the
amendment was shifting $69,700 from the personal services
line item to the line item of grants.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for further clarification.
Representative Wilson replied that personal services would
equal zero and grants would show -$69,700.
Representative Thompson asked if it was still UGF.
Representative Wilson indicated that it was a GF match.
10:04:04 AM
AT EASE
10:04:44 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton recognized Representative Millet had joined
the meeting.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, the Amendment to Amendment H DOE
15 was ADOPTED.
Representative Ortiz spoke in opposition of Amendment H DOE
15. He thought the amendment was an example of not
reviewing the effects of the amendment. He suggested that
if the amendment passed it would have dire consequences.
Department of Education and Early Development laid off an
office assistant position, PCN 05-2300, for the FY 17
budget. Child nutrition programs was primarily funded by
the USDA. In order to receive funds from the USDA in the
amount of $64,712.7 million in FY 16 the State of Alaska
was mandated to provide a small amount of GF match. He
continued that a reduction of the $69,700 would result in
non-compliance with state match requirements by USDA and
would result in the loss of federal reimbursement to pay
for meal programs at schools, Head Start agencies, and
child care centers.
Representative Wilson was unsure why the governor would
make an unallocated reduction within the department if it
was going to be devastating. She acknowledged that the
funds had been transferred. She thought it was about
numbers.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION FAILED (4/7). Amendment H DOE 15 as amended
FAILED.
10:08:42 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 16
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Early Learning Coordination
H DOE 16 - Eliminate Funding for Best Beginnings and
Parents as Teachers
Offered by Representative Wilson
A reduction of $820,000 is made to this allocation,
$320,000 from the Best Beginnings program and $500,000
from the Parents as Teachers program. An appropriation
of $320,000 was made to the Department for the Best
Beginnings program in Sec32(c) CH3 4SSLA2016 P95 L20
(HB256), reversed in HB256 CC Amendment 29-LS8006A.31
Wallace P2 L6 and restored as an increment in the
FY 18 budget request for this allocation. This
amendment deletes the requested increment of $320,000
and removes the funding from the base budget. An
additional appropriation of $700,000 was made to the
Department for the Parents as Teachers program in
Sec32(c) CH3 4SSLA2016 P95 L21 (HB256), $700,000 was
vetoed and $500,000 was restored in the FY 18
Governor's budget request as an increment. This
amendment deletes the requested increment of $500,000
and removes the funding from the base budget. Although
these are good programs they are not the
responsibility of the state to fund and should be
funded through contributions of those that benefit or
private contributions.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Ortiz relayed there had been extensive
conversations about preschool programs at the subcommittee
level. Also, there had been extensive public testimony in
support of these programs. In response to the amendment, he
reported that the Best Beginnings and Parents as Techers
programs reached populations of children not otherwise
supported by DEED services. Best Beginnings was supporting
the implementation of literacy by mailing books to
children, ages 0-5 years. They relied on corporate,
individual, and foundation funds to supply the Imagination
Library. Private participation was already in place.
Parents as Teachers programs provided support for infant
learning, Head Start, childcare resources, and referrals.
These agencies were doing more with less. State support for
Parents as Techers allowed them to extend their services to
provide home visits. Requesting that Best Beginnings and
Parents as Teachers be funded through contributions from
participants would limit the ability to serve rural and
low-income families. The amendment went in the wrong
direction in terms of helping to support Alaska's overall
education system. Research and documentation showed the
strong impact of preschool opportunities provided to
students; setting them up for a greater chance of success
in their K-12 education experience. He did not support the
amendment.
Representative Wilson responded that they were dealing with
grants which did not have reporting requirements to DEED.
The state had many early programs most of which were housed
within the Department of Health and Social Services. She
recalled seeing the Dolly Parton advertisement about Best
Beginnings and how it would be a program supported by the
community. She reported the program having contributors who
might renege on their funding if the state contributed. She
thought having communities involved in the programs made
them better. The programs were started as community
programs, not state programs. She asked the committee for
its support.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
[Vice-Chair Gara was absent from the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 16 FAILED.
10:14:35 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 17
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Early Learning Coordination
H DOE 17 - Reduce Head Start grant by 5 percent
Offered by Representative Wilson
The FY 18 Budget request for Head Start grants in this
allocation is $8,003,700. This is not a mandated
program; therefore, a reduction of 5 percent is made
to the Grants line of the FY 18 Budget request for
these pass-through grants by this amendment.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Ortiz relayed that the Head Start grantees
utilized the state grant they received to meet their
federal 20 percent match for the non-federal share. It
leveraged $300 million in federal Head Start funds that
went directly to grantees. Some programs were not able to
meet the non-federal share in other ways such as local
contribution, parent volunteer hours, fundraising, or other
contributions. He suggested the amendment went in the wrong
direction. The benefits of preschool opportunities had been
documented and proven to be critical and needed in the
state. The amendment would effectively eliminate
opportunities for preschool.
Representative Thompson argued that the $400 thousand cut
was relatively small compared to the program size of $8
million. He thought that the reductions were reasonable and
would preserve the program in the future. He favored the
reduction.
Representative Pruitt agreed that the cut did not eliminate
the program. He did not think Alaska received $300 million.
He thought it was appropriate to focus on the $8 million in
the budget, a 5 percent reduction, and preserving the
program into the future. He thought the discussion was
reasonable.
Representative Ortiz clarified that the number was $30
million rather than $300 million. The $8 million matched
the $30 million.
Representative Wilson explained that the numbers were not
adding up correctly. She noted that with the amendment, the
matching GF would remain in the budget and the state would
still receive the corresponding federal funding. She spoke
to many Head Start programs that had to have their own
buildings, not being a part of the K-12 system. She thought
additional savings could be identified through utilizing
already established school buildings.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
[Vice-Chair Gara was absent for the vote].
The MOTION FAILED (4/6). Amendment H DOE 17 FAILED.
10:20:07 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 18
(copy on file):
Teaching and Learning Support
Early Learning Coordination
H DOE 18 - Personal Services Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
The Department deleted an Education Program Assistant
position in the FY 18 Budget request without taking a
funding reduction in the Personal Services line. The
FY 2017 budgeted cost for this position was $74,260.
This amendment deletes the FY 17 budgeted position
costs that were not deleted by the Department from the
Personal Service line of the FY 18 Budget request.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above). She
would be withdrawing the amendment. However, she wanted to
speak to the fact that the department moved the same amount
to the travel services and commodities line. She emphasized
the importance of the numbers matching correctly. She
thought it was difficult to track where money was being
spent within the department.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW Amendment H DOE 18.
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 indicated that the committee would return
to H DOE 19 at the 1:30 PM meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:22:23 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|