Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519

03/05/2018 01:30 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:34:29 PM Start
01:34:29 PM HB285 || HB286
01:36:31 PM Amendments
05:00:12 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Note Time Change --
+= HB 286 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 285 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
Amendments
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                       March 5, 2018                                                                                            
                         1:34 p.m.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:34:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:34 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 Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
Representative Dan Ortiz (via teleconference)                                                                                   
Representative Lance Pruitt                                                                                                     
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
None                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Pat  Pitney,  Director,  Office of  Management  and  Budget,                                                                    
Office of  the Governor;  Quinlan Steiner,  Director, Public                                                                    
Defender  Agency,  Department of  Administration;  Catherine                                                                    
Reardon,  Director,  Division  of  Administrative  Services,                                                                    
Department of Commerce,  Community and Economic Development;                                                                    
Heidi   Teshner,   Director,  Division   of   Administrative                                                                    
Services,  Department of  Education  and Early  Development;                                                                    
Paul Prassing,  Director of Student Learning,  Department of                                                                    
Education and Early Development.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
April  Wilkerson,   Director,  Division   of  Administrative                                                                    
Services,   Department   of   Corrections;   Scott   Kelley,                                                                    
Director, Commercial Fisheries  Division, Department of Fish                                                                    
and Game; Carol Petraborg, Director, Administrative                                                                             
Services, Department of Fish and Game.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SUMMARY                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 285    APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          HB 285 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 286    APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton reviewed  the  agenda for  the meeting.  He                                                                    
reported that  in the prior  week the committee  adopted the                                                                    
new  committee   substitutes  for  the  budget   bills  that                                                                    
incorporated  the first  round  of  amendments. He  provided                                                                    
further detail.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 285                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "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."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 286                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act making  appropriations for  the operating  and                                                                    
     loan  program  expenses  of state  government  and  for                                                                    
     certain   programs;    capitalizing   funds;   amending                                                                    
     appropriations;  making   supplemental  appropriations;                                                                    
     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."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:34:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
^AMENDMENTS                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:36:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DOA  3                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Office of Information Technology                                                                                           
     Alaska Land Mobile Radio                                                                                                   
     H DOA 3 - 3009: Structure/Infrastructure Land                                                                              
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $949.9  and  the  FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request  is  $3947.3.  A  decrement  of  $1,000.0  will                                                                    
     result  in  a  FY  19 budget  request  of  $2947.3  for                                                                    
     structure,    infrastructure    and    land    repairs,                                                                    
     maintenance, rental, and leases.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn  spoke to  his objection.  He explained                                                                    
that the  Alaska Land Mobile  Radio (ALMR)  provided day-to-                                                                    
day  and   emergency  radio  services  for   Alaska's  first                                                                    
responders.  He  detailed  that the  State  of  Alaska,  the                                                                    
[U.S.] Department  of Defense,  other federal  agencies, and                                                                    
local  municipalities used  the service  to help  ensure the                                                                    
public safety  communications system in Alaska  was reliable                                                                    
and available  24 hours per  day. He  agreed that the  FY 17                                                                    
actuals  read   by  Representative  Wilson   were  accurate;                                                                    
however, the  governor's budget included an  additional line                                                                    
item of  $2.6 million for repairs,  maintenance, leases, and                                                                    
rentals.   He  spoke   to   the   importance  of   providing                                                                    
flexibility  to  the  departments   pertaining  to  the  two                                                                    
account  codes.  The  proposed amendment  would  reduce  the                                                                    
agency  budget  far  below  its  FY  17  actual  spend.  The                                                                    
reduction  would   bring  the  agency's  budget   below  its                                                                    
historical spending.  He believed  the amendment  would have                                                                    
unintended consequences on the agency.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton highlighted  that  the amendment  structure                                                                    
looked  at  actuals  two  years   back.  The  committee  had                                                                    
received  a   document  based  on   the  questions   of  the                                                                    
procedure. He  invited the Office  of Management  and Budget                                                                    
(OMB)  director, Pat  Pitney, to  the table  to address  the                                                                    
amendment structure.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PAT  PITNEY,  DIRECTOR,  OFFICE OF  MANAGEMENT  AND  BUDGET,                                                                    
OFFICE  OF  THE GOVERNOR,  conveyed  that  the OMB  document                                                                    
["FY2019 Amendments Based on FY2017  Actuals" dated March 5,                                                                    
2018  (copy  on file)]  covered  many  actuals aligned  with                                                                    
amendments  under   consideration  by  the   committee.  She                                                                    
explained  that through  the  Executive  Budget Actcut,  the                                                                    
legislature  provided  appropriations and  allocations.  The                                                                    
control of  the legislature  was at the  appropriation level                                                                    
and to a  lesser extent at the allocation  level; there were                                                                    
provisions   to   move    across   allocations   within   an                                                                    
appropriation.  She pointed  to an  example in  the document                                                                    
that used  H DOA  3, which looked  at the  lowest accounting                                                                    
class  (3009)  covering items  that  were  also included  in                                                                    
accounting  class  3010.  The   accounting  class  was  very                                                                    
detailed and  provided management with the  ability to track                                                                    
expenditures at a  very low level to  ensure good management                                                                    
information.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Pitney continued  that between  the accounting  classes                                                                    
and allocations  there was also object  type, which included                                                                    
personal  services, travel,  contractual,  and other.  Above                                                                    
the  object  type, the  location  in  the organization.  She                                                                    
provided an  example using ALMR  that included  two spending                                                                    
components.  The  ALMR  allocation   was  shown  above  that                                                                    
information. She explained that  the legislature control was                                                                    
at  that  allocation.  She elaborated  that  the  allocation                                                                    
included different fund  sources. There may be  a lower cost                                                                    
level in  an allocation because  federal funds had  not been                                                                    
received. She continued  that if the spending  was below the                                                                    
budget, the  agency could not spend  if it did not  have the                                                                    
revenue.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Pitney elucidated the allocation  in the particular ALMR                                                                    
component was less  than $1,000 general funds  lapsed at the                                                                    
end of  the year.  From a  budgeting perspective,  less than                                                                    
one  tenth  of 1  percent  of  the  budget was  lapsed.  She                                                                    
believed  it  executed  the   appropriation  level  for  its                                                                    
purpose without overspending. Typically, there  was a 1 to 2                                                                    
percent  flexibility  because  an  agency  never  wanted  to                                                                    
overspend in an allocation or  appropriation - it would mean                                                                    
coming back for ratification.  The ALMR allocation level had                                                                    
been less  than $1,000 -  the funds had been  budgeted under                                                                    
code  3009 and  spent under  code  3010 for  the exact  same                                                                    
function.  She stressed  that it  was necessary  to look  at                                                                    
actuals at  the legislative  control level -  the allocation                                                                    
or the appropriation.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Wilson  found   it  interesting   that  the                                                                    
legislature  only had  control over  a certain  portion. She                                                                    
believed  constituents  felt  that legislators  should  know                                                                    
where the money was being  spent. She asked for verification                                                                    
that  numerous entities  besides  the state  were using  the                                                                    
ALMR service.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Pitney responded  that  the system  was  used by  local                                                                    
police forces  and the [U.S.]  Department of  Defense, which                                                                    
provided federal funding.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  remarked that local  fire departments                                                                    
[in Fairbanks]  used the service.  She believed it  was time                                                                    
for everyone using the service  to begin pitching in for the                                                                    
cost.  She  asked  if  the  state  had  considered  reducing                                                                    
funding  and  asking  other  users   to  contribute  to  the                                                                    
service.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Pitney  responded that the administration  had looked at                                                                    
the  idea.  She detailed  it  was  a  policy call  that  was                                                                    
unrelated to  the amendment. The administration  believed it                                                                    
was in  the state's  best interest to  have interoperability                                                                    
of  its emergency  communications. She  explained that  when                                                                    
the  fire  and  police  departments  had  entered  into  the                                                                    
process it  had been  with an expectation  of what  it would                                                                    
cost  them  to  run  the  system.  She  furthered  that  the                                                                    
administration  had not  elected to  make that  change at  a                                                                    
time when public safety issues were facing the state.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:46:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson argued  that the  chair had  made the                                                                    
rules in  terms of not  being able to apply  percentages for                                                                    
line  items. She  spoke to  transparency and  remarked there                                                                    
were  different  areas  because   the  money  was  going  to                                                                    
different spots.  She elaborated that the  committee was now                                                                    
hearing the funding  was going somewhere in  the area versus                                                                    
to  the  line  item  it  was supposed  to  go  towards.  She                                                                    
stressed that  the legislature  was responsible  for knowing                                                                    
where the money was going.  She stated it would be different                                                                    
if the amendment went all the  way down to the $949,000. She                                                                    
observed there was a $3  million difference. She thought the                                                                    
numbers should  be combined on  one line for clarity  or the                                                                    
administration needed  to be clearer  about where  the money                                                                    
was needed.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Pitney explained that the  line item being discussed was                                                                    
object  class 3009.  She explained  that  the budgeted  line                                                                    
item  pertained   to  structure,  infrastructure   and  land                                                                    
repairs,  maintenance, rental,  and leases.  The expenditure                                                                    
had  been  made  in  object   class  code  3010,  which  was                                                                    
described   as   machinery,  furniture,   office   equipment                                                                    
purchase,  repairs,  maintenance,  rental, and  leases.  The                                                                    
repairs, maintenance,  rental, and  leases were the  same in                                                                    
both object  classes. She continued  that as the  state came                                                                    
online  with the  new accounting  system and  object classes                                                                    
were refined, they  were accounting for the  same thing. She                                                                    
underscored that  the administration was accounting  for the                                                                    
expenditures, but  from a budgeting perspective,  most of it                                                                    
would  be at  the  object  type level  covering  all of  the                                                                    
3000s.  She   argued  the   importance  of   the  accounting                                                                    
precision  that was  different than  a budgeting  precision.                                                                    
She reported that if the  administration had to budget at an                                                                    
object  class code,  the cost  of  accounting and  budgeting                                                                    
would be significant. She  emphasized that "you're operating                                                                    
at  an accounting  level, you're  budgeting at  a management                                                                    
level."  There was  a true  difference between  how the  two                                                                    
worked.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:49:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara disagreed  with the  earlier suggestion  to                                                                    
transfer costs  to municipalities.  He did not  believe that                                                                    
qualified  as  cutting the  budget.  He  explained the  idea                                                                    
behind ALMR was to ensure  local and state authorities could                                                                    
communicate during an  emergency in order to  save lives. He                                                                    
spoke  to the  importance of  understanding what  the impact                                                                    
would be  prior to  suggesting costs should  be taken  on by                                                                    
communities. He disagreed with transferring  the onus to the                                                                    
municipalities which would be seen in property taxes.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  advised members  to keep  their discussions                                                                    
limited to the amendment.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson believed  the topic  was part  of the                                                                    
conversation.  She felt  that at  some point  the state  had                                                                    
taken on  costs that were  not necessarily state  costs. She                                                                    
discussed the state was supposed  to provide basic services,                                                                    
which  had never  really been  defined. She  added that  the                                                                    
state had also started  programs. She questioned whether the                                                                    
state  could afford  to continue  funding certain  programs.                                                                    
She was  not saying  municipalities needed  to pay  the full                                                                    
cost  for ALMR,  but she  wondered whether  the same  groups                                                                    
were all still  part of the program. She  remarked that some                                                                    
people had changed to other  methods because they found that                                                                    
ALMR was too expensive. She  did not believe the program did                                                                    
exactly what  it was supposed  to do when they  first looked                                                                    
at it because it had  become much more expensive than people                                                                    
had thought.  Additionally, federal money had  been used and                                                                    
much of the funding had  been backfilled with state funding.                                                                    
She was concerned about the  cost. She reasoned if the state                                                                    
was looking at other people's  money, it needed to know what                                                                    
the money was being spent on (and not similar things).                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED:  Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,  Ortiz, Gara, Seaton,                                                                    
Foster                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DOA 3 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:52:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DOA  4                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Office of Information Technology                                                                                           
     State of Alaska Telecommunications System                                                                                  
     H DOA 4 - 3003: Information Technology                                                                                     
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $10.1   and  the  FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request is $105.7. A decrement  of $50.0 will result in                                                                    
     a FY 19 budget request  of $55.7 for software licensing                                                                    
     and maintenance, training and consulting.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn spoke to  his objection. He relayed the                                                                    
State of Alaska  Telecommunications System provided reliable                                                                    
telephone network,  data center, and data  processing to all                                                                    
executive  branch departments.  He had  similar concerns  to                                                                    
the prior amendment.  He stated that the  FY 17 undesignated                                                                    
general  funds (UGF)  for the  system was  $4,696,000, while                                                                    
the FY  19 governor's  request was a  decrease of  more than                                                                    
$200,000.  He reported  the fund  sources  had been  reduced                                                                    
over  13  percent since  FY  17.  Another $50,000  decrement                                                                    
would bring the budget below  FY 17 actuals. He believed the                                                                    
organization was  absorbing cuts  already and  an additional                                                                    
cut would have consequences he did not support.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  did not  believe a  $50,000 reduction                                                                    
would be significant  for the office. She  stated the office                                                                    
should know  what the  costs were in  the areas  of software                                                                    
licensing and maintenance, and training and consulting.                                                                         
would make a difference. She  stated that the office had not                                                                    
spent the money in FY 17  in this area. She remarked "if you                                                                    
want to keep mixing the money together that's up to you."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Guttenberg,  Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara,  Grenn, Foster,                                                                    
Seaton                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DOA 4 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:55:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  MOVED to ADOPT  Amendment H DOA 5  (copy on                                                                    
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Legal and Advocacy Services                                                                                                
     Office of Public Advocacy                                                                                                  
     H  DOA 5  -  Improve services  provided  to abused  and                                                                    
     neglected children  by adding  4 Guardian ad  Litems to                                                                    
     OPA.                                                                                                                       
     Offered by Representative Gara                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     The  Office of  Public  Advocacy  (OPA) Child  Advocacy                                                                    
     Unit  represents  the  best  interests  of  abused  and                                                                    
     neglected  children who  are involved  in the  juvenile                                                                    
     courts,  including   Child  in  Need  of   Aid  (CINA),                                                                    
     domestic   violence,   juvenile  delinquency,   private                                                                    
     custody, adoption, emancipation,  and other cases. Most                                                                    
     of  their cases  involve  children in  the foster  care                                                                    
     system and their interest in  quickly finding a loving,                                                                    
     permanent  home for  them, which  will  often be  their                                                                    
     original family.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Guardian Ad Litems (GALs) are  an independent voice for                                                                    
     these  children,  neither  representing the  state  nor                                                                    
     parents.  Unfortunately,  their  current  caseloads  of                                                                    
     100-110  children  (sometimes  more)  are  unmanageably                                                                    
     high.  A   reasonable  caseload  is   approximately  80                                                                    
     children per  GAL. These heavy loads  prevent GALs from                                                                    
     getting  to know  the children  they  are charged  with                                                                    
     representing, and adequately  assessing and speaking on                                                                    
     behalf of  their best interests. In  many respects, the                                                                    
     voices  of GALs  are  the most  critical  in the  child                                                                    
     protection system.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     The  number  of  Guardian  Ad  Litem  appointments  has                                                                    
     skyrocketed in  recent years, growing from  1,076 in FY                                                                    
     12 to 1,949 in FY 17.  Almost all of these are for CINA                                                                    
     cases. A  smaller number are  for custody  and domestic                                                                    
     violence   cases.   GALs    are   court-appointed   and                                                                    
     statutorily required  through AS 44.21.410.   With high                                                                    
     caseloads,  GALS   are  not  able  to   visit  children                                                                    
     regularly and  risk not being  able to know  youth well                                                                    
     enough to  succeed at effectively promoting  their best                                                                    
     interests.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     While  OPA is  using contractors  to meet  some of  the                                                                    
     need,  it  has  been   difficult  to  find  and  retain                                                                    
     contract GALs and ensure high  quality work. Staff GALs                                                                    
     generally provide  higher quality service  because they                                                                    
     have  direct   supervision  and  support   and  greater                                                                    
     knowledge of relevant laws and policies.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Hiring   one   additional   GAL  each   in   Anchorage,                                                                    
     Fairbanks, Palmer, and Juneau  will meet help this need                                                                    
     and bring caseloads down to acceptable levels.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  reported the amendment represented  work he                                                                    
had wanted  to do  his entire career.  He detailed  that the                                                                    
guardian ad litem  section at the Office  of Public Advocacy                                                                    
was   chronically  underfunded.   He   explained  that   the                                                                    
individuals represented  a child's best interest,  either in                                                                    
foster  care cases,  domestic  violence  cases, and  custody                                                                    
cases sometimes  when court appointed. The  individuals were                                                                    
charged to show  up in court to say what  was in the child's                                                                    
best  interest. The  individuals were  supposed to  know the                                                                    
children they represent. Currently,  caseloads were at about                                                                    
110 or more per guardian,  while the recommended maximum was                                                                    
about  80.  He  explained   that  four  additional  guardian                                                                    
positions  could  accomplish  caseloads  closer  to  80.  He                                                                    
explained  it  would  make  a  huge  difference  not  having                                                                    
guardians  show up  in court  to represent  a child  without                                                                    
looking  at their  file beforehand.  The combined  number of                                                                    
cases  for  guardians  ad litem  and  public  guardians  had                                                                    
doubled since 2012  (from 1,076 to 1,949),  while the number                                                                    
of the  workers had  increased by  around two  positions. He                                                                    
felt it was a modest amendment  to try to bring some balance                                                                    
to children's  right to have their  interests represented in                                                                    
court.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  spoke to  her objection.  She thought                                                                    
it  was what  happened  when the  legislature started  doing                                                                    
things  in silos.  She stated  that  unless the  legislature                                                                    
wanted to look at why the  state was taking so many children                                                                    
out of homes, she wondered if  they were going to get to the                                                                    
root of  many of  the increases  that were  tearing families                                                                    
apart. She  did not agree  with only increasing  one portion                                                                    
without understanding the increase in other areas.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara believed  the number of youth  in custody at                                                                    
the Office  of Children's Services had  somewhat stabilized.                                                                    
He relayed the number was not  where he would like it to be,                                                                    
but  without  people  working  in  the  system  it  was  not                                                                    
possible to  get youth out  of the system. He  stressed that                                                                    
the youths lingered, languished,  and got hurt. He explained                                                                    
that the  amendment would put  one guardian in each  of four                                                                    
different offices. Extra  office space was not  needed - the                                                                    
amendment was as efficient as  possible for roughly $450,000                                                                    
(it included no additional office staff).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara,  Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,                                                                    
Foster                                                                                                                          
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION  PASSED (7/4). There being  NO further OBJECTION,                                                                    
Amendment H DOA 5 was ADOPTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:59:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT  Amendment H DOA 6 (copy                                                                    
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Legal and Advocacy Services                                                                                                
     Office of Public Advocacy                                                                                                  
     H DOA  6 - Increase  Public Defender Agency  Funding to                                                                    
     Meet Projected FY19 Caseload                                                                                               
     Offered by Representative Grenn                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     The   Public  Defender   Agency   FY2018  caseload   is                                                                    
     projected to  exceed both American Bar  Association and                                                                    
     Alaska  Division of  Legislative  Audit guidelines  for                                                                    
     maximum   ethically   permissible   caseloads.   Second                                                                    
     quarter data for FY2018  shows substantial increases in                                                                    
     major   case  appointments   across  the   State,  with                                                                    
     increases projected into FY2019.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Per  Alaska Division  of  Legislative Audit  standards,                                                                    
     the  recommended  maximum   ethical  caseload  for  the                                                                    
     Public  Defender Agency  is  60 hours  per  week, or  a                                                                    
     weighted average  of 59 cases per  attorney. The Agency                                                                    
     is currently projecting a weighted  average of 92 cases                                                                    
     per attorney, 56% above the recommended maximum.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     These caseloads are  unsustainable, cannot be absorbed,                                                                    
     and may force attorneys  to refuse case appointments on                                                                    
     ethical  grounds.  Insufficient  resources  will  cause                                                                    
     additional delay across the  justice system, expose the                                                                    
     state   to   liability   for  failing   to   meet   its                                                                    
     constitutional    obligations,    and   increase    the                                                                    
     likelihood  that courts  will take  independent action.                                                                    
     The  State may  then  be required  to contract  private                                                                    
     attorneys  at  a  significantly  higher,  hourly  rate.                                                                    
     Delays on the  side of Public Defenders  will also have                                                                    
     an   impact   on   victims  of   crime   who   have   a                                                                    
     constitutional right to the  timely resolution of their                                                                    
     case.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     This  amendment adds  four Attorney  III positions  and                                                                    
     one  Law  Office  Assistant I  position.  The  attorney                                                                    
     positions  are  expected  to   be  located  in  Bethel,                                                                    
     Ketchikan,   Fairbanks,   and   Anchorage,   with   the                                                                    
     additional   support   staff    position   located   in                                                                    
     Anchorage.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Given  the  Public  Defender  Agency  has  consistently                                                                    
     received   annual   supplemental    funding   to   meet                                                                    
     constitutional obligations,  it is likely  this funding                                                                    
     will  be  requested  through  the  FY2019  Supplemental                                                                    
     Budget,  if not  funded  through  the Operating  Budget                                                                    
     process.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Grenn read  from  the amendment  description                                                                    
[see above]. He read from prepared remarks:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     The  Public Defender  Agency provides  constitutionally                                                                    
     mandated legal  representation to  defendants appointed                                                                    
     by the  court as well  as parents  in Child in  Need of                                                                    
     Aid (CINA) cases.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn  detailed that during  the subcommittee                                                                    
process he had learned the  agency had no control over cases                                                                    
as  they   were  assigned.   The  agency   was  experiencing                                                                    
caseloads  that  exceed  state and  national  best  practice                                                                    
standards.  One example  used the  American Bar  Association                                                                    
guideline for  maximum ethical caseloads of  about 150 cases                                                                    
per attorney per year. He reported  that in FY 18 the Public                                                                    
Defender  Agency  was  projected   to  have  160  cases  per                                                                    
attorney  per year.  In FY  19  the number  was expected  to                                                                    
continually  increase. A  1998  study  by the  legislature's                                                                    
Division  of  Legislative  Budget  and Audit  found  that  a                                                                    
Public Defender  Agency attorney  working 60 hours  per week                                                                    
should  have a  maximum of  59 cases  per attorney,  whereas                                                                    
attorneys  at the  agency had  an  average of  92 cases  (56                                                                    
percent over the recommended maximum).  The agency could not                                                                    
absorb or  predict the increasing  caseloads, which  made it                                                                    
difficult  to  retain  positions.  He  believed  adding  the                                                                    
positions  would significantly  help  victims  and those  in                                                                    
need of defense.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  relayed that a  member from the  agency was                                                                    
available to answer questions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt remarked there  were two amendments he                                                                    
would  offer, which  he  would not  discuss  at present.  He                                                                    
contended  that the  problem was  a management  issue rather                                                                    
than a  money issue. He  looked at FY  14 as a  baseline and                                                                    
included  the  Department  of Law  (DOL)  Criminal  Division                                                                    
(which  includes  Child   Protective  Services),  which  had                                                                    
decreased by  6.5 percent compared  to the Office  of Public                                                                    
Advocacy  and the  Public Defender  Agency  [both under  the                                                                    
Department of  Administration], which  had increased  by 2.3                                                                    
percent. He underscored  there was a 48  percent increase in                                                                    
the  Office  of  Public  Advocacy and  the  Public  Defender                                                                    
Agency, whereas  the increase  in DOL  was 40.7  percent. He                                                                    
had heard  that the system  would be thrown out  of balance.                                                                    
He  stated if  that  were true  he  thought the  prosecutors                                                                    
should  be  increased  at  the  same  rate.  He  stated  the                                                                    
committee continued to hear a  1998 audit being utilized. He                                                                    
did  not  know  whether  there  was  anything  new,  but  he                                                                    
believed it was an old standard to use.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt opposed  the amendment. He highlighted                                                                    
there were many more high-level  attorney IV to VI positions                                                                    
in  the  Public  Defender  Agency  than  in  the  DOL  Child                                                                    
Protective Services  Division. He reiterated his  belief the                                                                    
issue was not  about money, but about  management. He stated                                                                    
that the  situation should  be dealt  with by  adjusting how                                                                    
services  were delivered.  He understood  the state  did not                                                                    
have the money  at present. He spoke to the  need to examine                                                                    
the structure  of an agency  and in this case,  to determine                                                                    
whether it  needed all of its  high-level attorney positions                                                                    
if  other departments  had  fewer. He  did  not believe  the                                                                    
amendment  addressed the  management  issue.  He stated  the                                                                    
department  had   received  an   increase  since   2014.  He                                                                    
reiterated his testimony about decreases  at DOL. He did not                                                                    
believe it was an  apples-to-apples situation; therefore, he                                                                    
did not believe the money increase would solve the issue.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:06:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  argued that if  the amendment did  not pass                                                                    
it  would be  a  hit to  victims. He  underscored  it was  a                                                                    
public  safety   amendment.  In   order  to  have   a  well-                                                                    
functioning  criminal justice  system, it  was necessary  to                                                                    
have enough  prosecutors and  police on  the street.  It was                                                                    
also necessary to have the  ability to process the cases. He                                                                    
stated  that cases  would  languish  without the  amendment,                                                                    
meaning   victims  would   wait  longer   for  justice.   He                                                                    
considered  whether  they  wanted better  public  safety  in                                                                    
Alaska. With a decrease in  prosecutors in recent years, the                                                                    
state  had been  declining  cases.  As prosecutor  positions                                                                    
were  added back,  there was  a  need for  people to  defend                                                                    
individuals   being   prosecuted    (the   requirement   was                                                                    
constitutional). He did not want  victims to wait longer for                                                                    
justice, he wanted the cases  to be processed accurately, he                                                                    
wanted the  guilty to  go to  jail, and  the innocent  to be                                                                    
rightly represented.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson asked  how often  Alaska's courtrooms                                                                    
were empty. She reasoned that  if courts were full and could                                                                    
not take  any more cases,  adding attorneys would  not help.                                                                    
She  wondered how  many cases  per year  were plea-bargained                                                                    
and did not require going  to court. She believed the courts                                                                    
were  always full.  She wondered  where the  cases would  be                                                                    
added if there was no more room in the court houses.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn  responded that getting up  to capacity                                                                    
with attorney positions  was not only about  going to court,                                                                    
but involved  plea bargaining  and other  work. He  asked to                                                                    
hear  from  the  agency  for a  better  description  of  the                                                                    
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  thought it was really  about numbers,                                                                    
not  the  process.  She reiterated  her  understanding  that                                                                    
courtrooms were full every day.  She wondered how more cases                                                                    
would be heard if there was no courtroom space.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:09:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
QUINLAN   STEINER,   DIRECTOR,   PUBLIC   DEFENDER   AGENCY,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF ADMINISTRATION,  stated his  understanding of                                                                    
the question.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  clarified her question.  She wondered                                                                    
how the cases  would go more quickly if  the courtrooms were                                                                    
already at capacity.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner  replied that he  could not speak to  whether or                                                                    
not the court system was  at capacity. He reported the cases                                                                    
were coming  in the door  and the  agency had to  respond to                                                                    
them. When  the agency was appointed  to a case there  was a                                                                    
certain amount  of work it had  to do, much of  the work was                                                                    
done  outside  of  court  including  the  review  of  police                                                                    
reports,  investigation   of  cases,  and   discussion  with                                                                    
clients. He  elaborated it  was the  process by  which cases                                                                    
either resolve as a plea -  which led to court for a hearing                                                                    
and sentencing  - or trial,  but much  of the work  was done                                                                    
outside of the court system's  work. Regardless of the court                                                                    
system's  capacity for  an  additional  hearing, the  Public                                                                    
Defender  Agency  still  had  to  accomplish  the  work.  He                                                                    
reasoned  that adding  attorneys, meaning  the agency  could                                                                    
process its  cases more efficiently, could  impact the trial                                                                    
rate  in a  positive way  that  may be  more efficient  than                                                                    
running  things out.  He explained  that a  lack of  defense                                                                    
lawyers  caused  delays,  litigation  went up,  and  it  put                                                                    
upward pressure on court time.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  asked  what percentage  of  criminal                                                                    
cases the agency  received were plead out and did  not go to                                                                    
court.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner responded that at  some point the cases all went                                                                    
to court, but  the pleading out rate was  probably around 95                                                                    
percent or higher.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Thompson  asked  what  percentage  of  cases                                                                    
going to court got referred to a public defender.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner  replied that the  preceding year 79  percent of                                                                    
felonies  had  been  assigned  to   public  council  and  he                                                                    
believed  57 percent  of misdemeanors  had been  assigned to                                                                    
public council. Historical values  hovered around 80 percent                                                                    
for felonies and slightly over 50 percent for misdemeanors.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara surmised that when  cases were plead out, it                                                                    
did not  occur on day one.  He elaborated that often  all of                                                                    
the  work was  done  until  the eve  of  trial when  parties                                                                    
understood the strengths and weaknesses  of each side of the                                                                    
case. He asked for verification  that cases were often plead                                                                    
out the week or day before trials.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner  agreed that  many cases plead  out at  the last                                                                    
minute. The more complex a  case was, the more work required                                                                    
up  front -  including  reading  police reports,  conducting                                                                    
investigation, and  working with a client.  The less complex                                                                    
cases may  resolve a bit sooner.  All of the work  had to be                                                                    
done  before an  attorney could  recommend a  plea agreement                                                                    
and  work with  the  client had  to be  done  so the  client                                                                    
understood the  case and  trusted that  the lawyer  had done                                                                    
everything that  could be done  to make  the recommendation.                                                                    
He noted  it was  a time-consuming  process that  took place                                                                    
outside of court.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:13:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  mentioned that a  statement was  made about                                                                    
too  many  Attorney  V  and   VI  positions.  He  noted  the                                                                    
amendment  included attorney  III  positions.  He asked  Mr.                                                                    
Steiner  if it  was the  lowest level  attorneys the  agency                                                                    
hired.  He  wondered why  attorney  III  positions would  be                                                                    
appropriate.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Steiner   explained  the  reason  attorney   IIIs  were                                                                    
appropriate was  there had been  recent policy  decisions by                                                                    
the   Municipality  of   Anchorage  to   assume  misdemeanor                                                                    
prosecutions.  He elaborated  that the  misdemeanor caseload                                                                    
relative to  the felony caseload  had decreased.  The agency                                                                    
was primarily  engaged with felony criminal  practice across                                                                    
the   state.  The   need  for   entry-level  attorneys   had                                                                    
diminished  and the  agency was  dealing  with more  complex                                                                    
felonies than  in the past.  Based upon  resource decisions,                                                                    
the  cases  tended  to  be  the  more  complicated,  violent                                                                    
felonies;  therefore, the  agency was  seeking attorney  III                                                                    
positions to address lower level Class B and C felonies.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:14:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton asked  if  the courts  were  in session  on                                                                    
Friday  afternoons at  present. Mr.  Steiner responded  that                                                                    
currently the court system was closed on Friday afternoons.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton surmised  that the  time was  not taken  up                                                                    
with  actual  cases in  court  [on  Friday afternoons].  Mr.                                                                    
Steiner  answered in  the affirmative.  The agency  used the                                                                    
time in the office to work on files and speak with clients.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn  asked about  the consequences  for the                                                                    
state if caseloads were not reduced.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Steiner answered  that if  caseloads  reached 160  [per                                                                    
attorney], the  agency would be  forced ethically  to refuse                                                                    
cases.  There was  a  principle of  ethics  that required  a                                                                    
lawyer not  to accept a  case if they could  not competently                                                                    
handle the case. Not having  enough time would be the reason                                                                    
and the agency would attempt  to refuse cases. He elaborated                                                                    
that if  the court granted,  the state would be  required to                                                                    
pay  private lawyers  at a  much higher  rate. If  the court                                                                    
system  did not  grant the  request and  ordered the  Public                                                                    
Defender Agency to engage the  cases, the resulting problems                                                                    
would be  significant litigation on motions  to withdraw and                                                                    
motions  to  dismiss  as  well  as  substantial  delay.  The                                                                    
litigation,  the  increased  delay, and  the  likelihood  of                                                                    
increased errors  would result  in potentially  retrying the                                                                    
cases.  He would  anticipate a  higher  processing cost  per                                                                    
case,  in  addition to  delays  and  impacts of  failing  to                                                                    
resolve cases in a timely manner.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:16:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster,                                                                     
Seaton                                                                                                                          
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,                                                                      
Amendment H DOA 6 was ADOPTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:17:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 7 and                                                                      
H DOA 8(copies on file):                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Legal and Advocacy Services                                                                                                
     Office of Public Advocacy                                                                                                  
     H  DOA 7  - Delete  10 Attorney  V positions  in Public                                                                    
     Defender Agency.                                                                                                           
     Offered by Representative Pruitt                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The Public  Defender Agency's current  caseloads exceed                                                                    
     the  American  Bar  Association  (ABA)  guidelines  for                                                                    
     maximum  ethically   permissible  caseloads.  Continued                                                                    
     increases  in  civil  case appointments  combined  with                                                                    
     staff  reductions  resulted  in caseloads  that  remain                                                                    
     above  guideline  maximums  even though  criminal  case                                                                    
     appointments  declined in  FY2017. The  Agency projects                                                                    
     that caseloads  will remain  above guideline  limits in                                                                    
     FY2018 and FY2019.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     These amendments  will reduce the funding  for Attorney                                                                    
     V's  in  the Public  Defender  Agency  by $2,104.0.  An                                                                    
     average UGF  cost of 10 Attorney  V's was approximately                                                                    
     $210.0  per  position.  An  average   UGF  cost  of  10                                                                    
     Attorney  II's was  approximately $138.0  per position.                                                                    
     Removing  10  Attorney  V's will  allow  hiring  of  15                                                                    
     Attorney II's for the same cost.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Legal and Advocacy Services                                                                                                
     Office of Public Advocacy                                                                                                  
     H  DOA 8  -  Add  15 Attorney  II  positions in  Public                                                                    
     Defender Agency.                                                                                                           
     Offered by Representative Pruitt                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The Public  Defender Agency's current  caseloads exceed                                                                    
     the  American  Bar  Association  (ABA)  guidelines  for                                                                    
     maximum  ethically   permissible  caseloads.  Continued                                                                    
     increases  in  civil  case appointments  combined  with                                                                    
     staff  reductions  resulted  in caseloads  that  remain                                                                    
     above  guideline  maximums  even though  criminal  case                                                                    
     appointments  declined in  FY2017. The  Agency projects                                                                    
     that caseloads  will remain  above guideline  limits in                                                                    
     FY2018 and FY2019.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     These amendments  will reduce the funding  for Attorney                                                                    
     V's  in  the Public  Defender  Agency  by $2,104.0.  An                                                                    
     average UGF  cost of 10 Attorney  V's was approximately                                                                    
     $210.0  per  position.  An  average   UGF  cost  of  10                                                                    
     Attorney  II's was  approximately $138.0  per position.                                                                    
     Removing  10  Attorney  V's will  allow  hiring  of  15                                                                    
     Attorney II's for the same cost.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  reviewed the amendments.  He surmised                                                                    
that  if  there   was  a  challenge  in   terms  of  [legal]                                                                    
representation  or about  turning people  away, perhaps  the                                                                    
legislature should  look internally into the  agency [Public                                                                    
Defender Agency]  to determine  whether there  was a  way to                                                                    
manage  the cases  differently. The  amendments allowed  for                                                                    
the  addition  of 5  attorney  II  positions if  the  agency                                                                    
reduced its attorney V positions  by 10. The amendment would                                                                    
bring the  total number of  attorney II positions to  15 for                                                                    
the  same  cost  the  department was  currently  paying.  He                                                                    
stated   there  were   100  attorneys   in  the   department                                                                    
[Department  of Administration].  He believed  the amendment                                                                    
addressed multiple concerns. He  detailed that the state did                                                                    
not have  additional cash flow  and the committee  had heard                                                                    
from Mr.  Steiner that the  agency needed  additional people                                                                    
to  manage its  caseloads. He  believed the  prudent way  to                                                                    
handle the situation was to  encourage the proper management                                                                    
of  the department  based on  the scenario  currently facing                                                                    
the  state.  He  stated  the   department  had  received  an                                                                    
increase since  2014, while decreases had  occurred in other                                                                    
state  departments.  He  disagreed   that  it  was  not  the                                                                    
prosecutors and  the troopers  forcing the  conversation. He                                                                    
thought  the  management  of the  department  needed  to  be                                                                    
analyzed.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:20:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara   asked  if   the  amendment   sponsor  had                                                                    
conducted  any  assessment  on  whether  attorney  IIs  were                                                                    
experienced enough to handle high-level felonies.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  replied in the negative.  He remarked                                                                    
there were  100 attorneys in  the department and  he assumed                                                                    
there  was  opportunity  to  shuffle  attorneys  around.  He                                                                    
acknowledged  that some  may not  have  the experience,  but                                                                    
some may be  willing to start the  conversation. He recalled                                                                    
being on  a jury where  the defense attorney had  been right                                                                    
out of  law school  and they  had successfully  defended the                                                                    
client. He  stated that just  because a person may  not have                                                                    
the experience did not mean they could not do the job.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn spoke to  his objection. He appreciated                                                                    
Representative Pruitt  for proposing the hire  of additional                                                                    
attorneys. However,  he did  not believe  replacing attorney                                                                    
Vs who were subject matter  experts and could handle Class A                                                                    
felonies (there had been an  increase in felonies across the                                                                    
state)  was  prudent. He  stated  the  need for  experienced                                                                    
attorneys who could  handle the cases was vital.  He did not                                                                    
support  replacing  the   more  experienced  attorneys  with                                                                    
individuals  directly out  of law  school to  handle complex                                                                    
cases.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson clarified  that she  did not  want to                                                                    
send  the  message  that  the   committee  was  telling  new                                                                    
attorneys they  were not good.  She acknowledged  there were                                                                    
many great attorneys working for  the state - some with more                                                                    
experience than others.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Steiner  to explain the difference                                                                    
between  an attorney  V and  attorney  II. He  asked if  one                                                                    
supervised other attorneys.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Steiner  explained that  an  attorney  V was  either  a                                                                    
supervising attorney  at the highest level  who could handle                                                                    
Class  A and  unclassified  felonies  (homicides and  first-                                                                    
degree   sex   assault   cases)  independently   or   in   a                                                                    
supervisory/training role.  Attorney Vs were  also statewide                                                                    
subject  matter  experts  on practice  or  litigation  areas                                                                    
within  different  case  types.   For  example,  there  were                                                                    
experts who  handle any  litigation surrounding  "guilty but                                                                    
mentally  ill" or  "not  guilty by  reason  of insanity  and                                                                    
competency."  When  attorneys   were  experienced  in  those                                                                    
issues  it   meant  they  could   be  assigned   to  oversee                                                                    
litigation in that  area, which was much  more effective and                                                                    
efficient  than reinventing  the wheel  each time.  Attorney                                                                    
IIs were fresh out of law  school or a clerkship. The impact                                                                    
of  the amendment  would  be fairly  dramatic  - the  agency                                                                    
would lose the supervisory  class and expertise, which would                                                                    
essentially  render the  agency  incompetent  to handle  the                                                                    
cases. As a manager, he  was required to ensure that lawyers                                                                    
were  supervised,  and  that  the  agency  was  handling  it                                                                    
competently.  He  explained  that  because  the  agency  was                                                                    
statewide  and  handled such  a  high  level of  cases,  the                                                                    
positions  were necessary  to ensure  the attorney  IIIs and                                                                    
IVs were litigating in the required manner.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:24:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Thompson  asked how  many attorney  Vs worked                                                                    
for the state.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner  asked if  Representative Thompson  was speaking                                                                    
to  the  entire  state  system   or  the  Office  of  Public                                                                    
Advocacy.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Thompson replied  he was  interested in  the                                                                    
Office of  Public Advocacy. Mr. Steiner  believed there were                                                                    
10 attorney  Vs. He detailed  the agency had  multiple trial                                                                    
unit  supervisors in  Anchorage  as well  as subject  matter                                                                    
experts in  the appellate  division. There  were supervising                                                                    
attorneys  in  Fairbanks,  Kenai, Palmer,  and  Juneau.  The                                                                    
office  was subdivided  on a  regional  basis. For  example,                                                                    
Fairbanks supervised  the Barrow office and  Nome supervised                                                                    
the  Kotzebue office.  The  larger  offices were  supervised                                                                    
independently underneath  the deputy director in  Palmer and                                                                    
Kenai. He  added that  Southeast operated  as a  region. The                                                                    
office was  able to  supervise and  oversee litigation  on a                                                                    
regional basis.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:25:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  stated that  the office  had 10  attorney V                                                                    
positions.  He asked  for  verification  that the  amendment                                                                    
would delete all of the office's 10 supervisory positions.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner replied in the  affirmative. The office would be                                                                    
left  with  no  acting  supervisors  regionally  or  in  the                                                                    
Anchorage office.  He expected the individuals  would resign                                                                    
and  the  office would  no  longer  have the  expertise  and                                                                    
capacity to  oversee and litigate  the high-level  cases. He                                                                    
stated it  would very  likely lead  to a  conflict situation                                                                    
where the office would have to  get out of the cases because                                                                    
it would be incompetent to  handle that many. There would be                                                                    
only a few lawyers left in  the system that would be capable                                                                    
of handling the cases.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt appreciated  the concern. However, the                                                                    
amendment pertained to part of  the continued discussion the                                                                    
legislature  had over  the past  couple  of years  - how  to                                                                    
manage  the current  situation  if the  state  did not  have                                                                    
money.  He  stated  that  the  legislature  had  not  forced                                                                    
things, but  he surmised perhaps  it should be  more active.                                                                    
He understood  there may  be challenges,  but he  stated the                                                                    
agency  had not  been  required to  analyze  its ability  to                                                                    
manage what it had because it  had seen a budget increase in                                                                    
the past  few years. He  remarked that the agency  they were                                                                    
arguing  against  [DOL]  had  seen  a  budget  decrease.  He                                                                    
thought the  amendment was a  reasonable request.  He stated                                                                    
it would do what the agency  had requested by giving it more                                                                    
attorneys.  He reasoned  that  giving  more attorneys  meant                                                                    
something had to  give. He believed people  were telling the                                                                    
legislature  consistently  there  was not  enough  money  to                                                                    
continue to add  to the budget. He thought  it was necessary                                                                    
to reanalyze how the service was delivered.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton                                                                                              
OPPOSED:  Wilson, Gara, Grenn,  Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,                                                                    
Seaton, Foster                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION  to adopt Amendments H  DOA 7 and H  DOA 8 FAILED                                                                    
(3/8).                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:29:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H CED  3                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Community and Regional Affairs                                                                                             
     Community and Regional Affairs                                                                                             
     H CED 3 - 3000 Education Services                                                                                          
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17 Actuals were $130.4 and the FY19 Governor's                                                                           
     request is $230.0. A decrement of $50.0 will result in                                                                     
     a FY 19 budget request of $180.0 in Training,                                                                              
     Educational Conferences, agency memberships, tuition,                                                                      
     books and fees for work-related courses.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg   spoke  to  his   objection.  He                                                                    
explained that  the actuals  GF were  not available  and had                                                                    
not been spent. He  detailed the capital improvement project                                                                    
funds had been underspent. He  explained that cutting the GF                                                                    
would prevent  the department from doing  many things across                                                                    
the department. The GF was used in numerous places.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson stressed  the purpose  of the  budget                                                                    
was to  know where the  money was  spent. She stated  if the                                                                    
legislature  was   not  going   to  figure  that   out,  the                                                                    
departments  should just  provide  an amount  of money  they                                                                    
want.  She was  not  willing to  let  departments spend  the                                                                    
money  wherever they  want to.  She did  not believe  it was                                                                    
what  legislators were  supposed  to do.  She stressed  that                                                                    
legislators  were  responsible  to their  constituents.  She                                                                    
elaborated  that  the  $180,000   was  meant  for  training,                                                                    
educational conferences, agency  memberships, tuition, books                                                                    
and  fees  for  work   related  courses.  She  believed  the                                                                    
department  should come  tell the  legislature if  it needed                                                                    
the money  for other  things. She  underscored there  was no                                                                    
choice but to look into the  details of how money was spent.                                                                    
She reasoned  that before her  constituents were  faced with                                                                    
being taxed for something they  would want to know where the                                                                    
money   was  going.   She   thought   the  legislature   was                                                                    
communicating that  it would not  look at what  the agencies                                                                    
were  saying they  were  spending the  funds  on because  in                                                                    
reality  the agencies  would spend  the funds  wherever they                                                                    
want. She believed it was unacceptable.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Gara,  Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,  Ortiz, Foster,                                                                    
Seaton                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H CED 3 FAILED (4/7).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:33:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MOVED  to ADOPT Amendment H  CED 4 and                                                                    
H CED 5 (copies on file):                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     H CED 4                                                                                                                    
     Community and Regional Affairs                                                                                             
     Community and Regional Affairs                                                                                             
     H CED 4 - 3011: Other Services                                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $59.4   and  the  FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request is  $477.6. A reduction  of $200.0  will result                                                                    
     in a  FY 19 budget request  of $277.6 to pay  for other                                                                    
     services,  including   printer/copy  machine  services,                                                                    
     printing services  and State  Travel Office  fees. This                                                                    
     reduction  will  allow for  a  FY  19 budget  which  is                                                                    
     $218.2 over FY 17 actual expenditures.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     H CED 5                                                                                                                    
     Economic Development                                                                                                       
     Economic Development                                                                                                       
     H CED 5 - 3011 Other services                                                                                              
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17 Actuals were $87.3 and  FY19 Governor's request is                                                                    
     $298.3. A  decrement of $100.0  will result in a  FY 19                                                                    
     budget request  of $198.3 in other  services, including                                                                    
     printer/copy  machine  services, contracting  services,                                                                    
     marketing  collateral   materials,  and   State  Travel                                                                    
     Office fees. This  reduction will still allow  for a FY                                                                    
     19 budget that  is more than twice  the amount actually                                                                    
     expended in FY 17.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  read the amendment  descriptions [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg   spoke  to  his   objection.  He                                                                    
explained that in  FY 17 there were two  federal grants that                                                                    
had  not   been  available  in  other   years,  meaning  the                                                                    
department had been able to  not use UGF. The department had                                                                    
cut its economic  development positions from 16  to 7, which                                                                    
had resulted  on a larger  emphasis of contracting  out. The                                                                    
efforts included  strategic economic  development, expansion                                                                    
of  programs into  communities,  identifying local  business                                                                    
climates, the  Made in Alaska program,  growth maximizing in                                                                    
maritime,  startups, innovation,  and other.  The department                                                                    
had been cut significantly by a 70 percent UGF reduction.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  stressed  that  the  department  was                                                                    
receiving more funding than it had  received in FY 17 and FY                                                                    
18. She explained the amendment  did not mean the department                                                                    
would  receive the  same  budget year  after  year, but  the                                                                    
legislature  would  look at  what  was  actually spent.  She                                                                    
believed that  the department should ask  the legislature if                                                                    
it needed  the money  somewhere else.  She concluded  it was                                                                    
still a gain, not a cut.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson                                                                               
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to  adopt Amendments H CED 4 and  H CED 5 FAILED.                                                                    
(5/6).                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:37:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 6                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office                                                                                       
     Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office                                                                                       
     H CED  6 - Add  Legislative Intent  regarding Marijuana                                                                    
     Regulation                                                                                                                 
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Wordage: It is  the intent of the  legislature that the                                                                    
     July  1,  2019,  appropriation of  the  unexpended  and                                                                    
     unobligated  program receipts  from  the licensing  and                                                                    
     application   fees  related   to   the  regulation   of                                                                    
     marijuana  of the  Department  of Commerce,  Community,                                                                    
     and   Economic  Development,   Alcohol  and   Marijuana                                                                    
     Control  Office, be  limited to  the cost  of marijuana                                                                    
     regulation for  the fiscal year  ending June  30, 2020,                                                                    
     and  that  the  remaining  unexpended  and  unobligated                                                                    
     balance  of program  receipts  from  the licensing  and                                                                    
     application   fees  related   to   the  regulation   of                                                                    
     marijuana  on June  30, 2019,  lapse  into the  general                                                                    
     fund.  It  is  the   intent  of  the  legislature  that                                                                    
     licensing   and  application   fees   related  to   the                                                                    
     regulation of  the marijuana industry be  maintained at                                                                    
     a level that allows for  the sum of $4,646,100 to lapse                                                                    
     into  the general  fund, at  which  time licensing  and                                                                    
     application fees  may be adjusted to  cover anticipated                                                                    
     annual operating costs for  marijuana regulation. It is                                                                    
     the  intent of  the  legislature that  the Alcohol  and                                                                    
     Marijuana  Control Office  report to  the co-chairs  of                                                                    
     the  Finance  Committees  and the  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
     Division  by January  1, 2020,  the  amount of  program                                                                    
     receipts  from  the   licensing  and  application  fees                                                                    
     related  to the  regulation  of  marijuana that  lapsed                                                                    
     into the general fund.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Explanation: 30-GH2564O.14                                                                                                 
     This   amendment  adds   legislative  intent   language                                                                    
     directing the  Alcohol and Marijuana Control  Office as                                                                    
     follows:                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     --In the  FY20 budget,  limit the amount  of unexpended                                                                    
     and  unobligated program  receipts  from licensing  and                                                                    
     application   fees  related   to   the  regulation   of                                                                    
     marijuana  that  are  carried forward  from  FY19  into                                                                    
     FY20, equal to the cost of marijuana regulation.                                                                           
     --All  excess  program receipts  at  the  end of  FY19,                                                                    
     lapse to the general fund.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     --Maintain the level of  licensing and application fees                                                                    
     at a level  that allows for $4,646,100 to  lapse to the                                                                    
     general  fund,  and  once  that  occurs  licensing  and                                                                    
     application  fees   may  be   adjusted  to   cover  the                                                                    
     anticipated  annual   operating  costs   for  marijuana                                                                    
     regulation.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     --$4,646,100  equals  the  total  unrestricted  general                                                                    
     funds used  to implement the regulation  of marijuana -                                                                    
     Actual   expenditures   in   FY15  and   FY16   totaled                                                                    
     $1,812,500   -Actual  expenditures   in  FY17   totaled                                                                    
     $1,248,300 -Appropriation in  FY18 totaled $1,052,500 -                                                                    
     Appropriation in FY19 totaled $532,800                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     --Provide a report by January  1, 2020 to the co-chairs                                                                    
     of  the  Finance   Committee  and  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
     Division on  the amount of  program receipts  lapsed to                                                                    
     the general fund.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  reviewed  the amendment  description  [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  OBJECTED for discussion.  He reported                                                                    
that  he had  been the  chair of  the subcommittee  when the                                                                    
conversation had begun  and the intent in  the amendment was                                                                    
exactly   what   the   subcommittee   had   envisioned.   He                                                                    
appreciated the amendment. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
There  being NO  further OBJECTION,  Amendment H  CED 6  was                                                                    
ADOPTED.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:40:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H CED  7                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska Energy Authority                                                                                                    
     Alaska Energy Authority Rural Energy Assistance                                                                            
     H CED 7 - 2000 In-State Employee Travel                                                                                    
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $33.0   and  the  FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request is $125.0. A decrement  of $50.0 will result in                                                                    
     a FY 19  budget request of $75.0.  With this reduction,                                                                    
     the FY 19 budget request  is more than twice the amount                                                                    
     actually expended  in FY17 for  in-state transportation                                                                    
     costs   for   travel    relating   to   administration,                                                                    
     conventions and meetings, boards and commissions.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg   spoke  to  his   objection.  He                                                                    
explained that  UGF from the  Alaska Energy  Authority (AEA)                                                                    
had been fully  expended. He detailed that  UGF was critical                                                                    
to  many rural  programs.  Since  FY 17,  the  value of  the                                                                    
capital projects  had decreased  and the  statutory receipts                                                                    
were not  collected to equal  the appropriate  authority. He                                                                    
thought changing the amendment  to capital receipts would be                                                                    
appropriate. He did not support a reduction to UGF.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  stated that one  of the things AEA  did for                                                                    
rural  power  systems, especially  now  that  the state  not                                                                    
installing  many new  systems,  was helping  to bring  power                                                                    
systems back  online when  a problem  occurred. He  asked if                                                                    
the cut would affect that function.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Wilson  replied   in   the  negative.   The                                                                    
amendment pertained  to instate travel, mostly  utilized for                                                                    
to  administration,  conventions  and meetings,  boards  and                                                                    
commissions. The amendment did not  have anything to do with                                                                    
emergency  responses. She  stated that  it would  still give                                                                    
the agency  twice as much funding  as it had received  in FY                                                                    
17.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz  asked if  anyone  in  the room  could                                                                    
explain the impact of the amendment on the department.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:43:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CATHERINE  REARDON,  DIRECTOR,  DIVISION  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                    
SERVICES,  DEPARTMENT OF  COMMERCE,  COMMUNITY AND  ECONOMIC                                                                    
DEVELOPMENT, replied that  the UGF received by  AEA had been                                                                    
completely spent in each of  the last three fiscal years; it                                                                    
had  not  necessarily  been  spent on  travel,  but  on  the                                                                    
essential activities  of AEA. The amendment  matched budgets                                                                    
at sub-accounting  levels, but  looking at the  component or                                                                    
RDU level  showed that  UGF had been  needed and  fully used                                                                    
for  things like  community  assistance  for utility  worker                                                                    
training and  other. Cutting UGF  would directly  impact AEA                                                                    
activities.  The  funding  not   used  in  AEA  was  capital                                                                    
improvement project  (CIP) receipts  and some  other funding                                                                    
sources. When  actuals were lower  than budgeted, it  was in                                                                    
funding sources like  CIP receipts that was not  in UGF. The                                                                    
underspending  may have  been in  CIP  receipts. Taking  the                                                                    
difference out  of UGF would definitely  impact the program.                                                                    
She was  glad to  see the organization  was not  spending as                                                                    
much on  travel - it was  spending the money on  other needs                                                                    
to meet community electrical and utility requirements.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:46:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz  asked  if AEA  had  seen  significant                                                                    
reductions in GF support since 2015.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Reardon responded that AEA  was one of the Department of                                                                    
Commerce,  Community  and   Economic  Development's  (DCCED)                                                                    
agencies that had seen the most  cut because it had UGF. The                                                                    
agency had  two RDUs  at one point  with significant  UGF in                                                                    
them. She believed  the agency had lost over  $2 million UGF                                                                    
since  FY 15.  She could  follow up  with further  detail if                                                                    
desired.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:47:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz referenced  the  $2 million  reduction                                                                    
and asked  what the  percentage reduction had  been compared                                                                    
to FY  15. Ms.  Reardon responded she  needed 15  minutes to                                                                    
get an answer to the question.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara   spoke  to  UGF  appropriations   for  the                                                                    
department  and  AEA. He  explained  that  since the  FY  15                                                                    
management plan,  AEA had been  receiving $4.6  million UGF.                                                                    
Currently, AEA was receiving  $874,000, which represented an                                                                    
81 percent reduction.  He stressed AEA was  the state's only                                                                    
energy  agency,  which  was responsible  for  keeping  power                                                                    
systems  running  in  rural  Alaska,  consulted  with  power                                                                    
systems around the  state and on energy  efficiency and cost                                                                    
reduction. He  added that DCCED  had been cut by  75 percent                                                                    
since FY 15.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson   wondered  why  $125,000   had  been                                                                    
budgeted for the  area [of instate travel] if  it was needed                                                                    
in  other areas  within  the agency.  She  wondered why  the                                                                    
funds had not been put in the other areas where needed.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Reardon responded  that the  department did  not really                                                                    
budget at the  level of the dozens and dozens  of codes. The                                                                    
department primarily  watched the main line  items that were                                                                    
seen  by legislators  including  personal services,  travel,                                                                    
contractual,  commodities, and  grants.  The department  did                                                                    
not build  its budgets from  the ground  up every year  - it                                                                    
spent  its  time  trying  to manage  by  looking  at  bigger                                                                    
movements because  the system  allowed moving  money between                                                                    
sub-line items.  She explained that  the department  did not                                                                    
necessarily spend time  deciding how much it  would spend on                                                                    
books and  postage, but on  how much  it had to  provide for                                                                    
the services to  the public in general. She  believed it was                                                                    
true across departments. She added it was not a new thing.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson   countered  that  the   money  under                                                                    
consideration was  in travel. She remarked  that Ms. Reardon                                                                    
was saying that the money was  not needed in travel but that                                                                    
it  had been  needed in  another area.  She stated  that the                                                                    
committee  was  not allowed  to  "do  a  2  percent or  a  1                                                                    
percent," so the only choice members  had was to look to see                                                                    
where  the money  was spent  and where  it had  been in  the                                                                    
past. She reiterated  that the money had  been allocated for                                                                    
travel,  but it  sounded like  the agency  needed the  money                                                                    
elsewhere.  She  thought Ms.  Reardon  was  saying that  the                                                                    
department  did  not  look  at its  actuals  down  to  "this                                                                    
level." She surmised the department  only looked at a bigger                                                                    
picture and did not determine  where it could save the money                                                                    
on a smaller level.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Reardon stressed that the  department did look at how it                                                                    
could save money  throughout the year, which  was the reason                                                                    
there was  unspent funding.  She clarified  that it  was not                                                                    
UGF  that   Representative  Wilson   was  looking   at.  She                                                                    
explained the issue was not  that the agency needed more UGF                                                                    
in another  category and moved  it, it was that  the funding                                                                    
the  department  did  not  use was  CIP  receipts  or  other                                                                    
funding sources.  She underscored that the  department could                                                                    
not move  the money  anywhere else; it  had merely  not been                                                                    
spent  because  the  department did  not  have  the  capital                                                                    
projects  that   used  the  money.   In  other   words,  the                                                                    
legislature may have  told DCCED it could  spend $100,000 on                                                                    
travel; it  had only  spent $25,000 because  it was  all the                                                                    
money  the  department had  from  that  funding source.  She                                                                    
furthered  that if  the legislature  told the  department it                                                                    
could spend $100,000  and it spent $50,000, it  was not that                                                                    
$50,000  UGF could  be taken,  it  was that  $50,000 of  the                                                                    
unspent CIP  receipts could be  taken without  impacting the                                                                    
department's  activities compared  to FY  17. She  clarified                                                                    
that the funding source mattered;  if the funding source had                                                                    
been uncollectible, the department could not spend it.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:52:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  thought Ms.  Reardon was  saying that                                                                    
even though the  department did not need the  money where it                                                                    
was, it may need it  elsewhere; therefore, it wanted to keep                                                                    
it where it was.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Reardon replied  in the negative. She  explained that it                                                                    
had not  been UGF money  in the  first place; it  was hollow                                                                    
authority  (money  the  department  did  not  have)  in  CIP                                                                    
receipts.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson commented  the  department must  have                                                                    
substantial hollow authority.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg 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 to adopt Amendment H CED 7 FAILED (4/7).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:54:23 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:03:04 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H CED  8                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska Energy Authority                                                                                                    
     Alaska Energy Authority Rural Energy Assistance                                                                            
     H CED 8 - 3011: Other Services                                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were $252.2  and  the  FY 19  Governor's                                                                    
     budget request  is $582.0. A  decrement of  $100.0 will                                                                    
     result in  a FY 19  budget request of $482.0  for other                                                                    
     professional services  which is $229.8 more  than FY 17                                                                    
     actual expenditures.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above]. She added  that when she looked up the  UGF and what                                                                    
had  been spent  she  had  made sure  whatever  had been  in                                                                    
personnel services had been taken out first.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg confirmed that  the money had been                                                                    
spent.  He stated  it  was  the same  dialogue  as with  the                                                                    
previous  amendment  about  where  the  appropriate  funding                                                                    
sources were - whether it  was UGF or capital improvement or                                                                    
how they used it.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson stated  the department was responsible                                                                    
for knowing where it spent the money.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Ortiz                                                                               
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara, Seaton, Foster                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H CED 8 FAILED (5/6).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:06:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 9                                                                      
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Regulatory Commission of Alaska                                                                                            
     Regulatory Commission of Alaska                                                                                            
     H CED 9 - Broadband Mapping                                                                                                
     Offered by Representative Guttenberg                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Wordage: It is  the intent of the  legislature that the                                                                    
     Regulatory  Commission  of  Alaska  produce  a  map  of                                                                    
     broadband  coverage  in  the   state,  using  the  best                                                                    
     available  GIS  data  and  technology.  The  Regulatory                                                                    
     Commission   of   Alaska   shall   deliver   a   report                                                                    
     summarizing mapping efforts and  results to the Speaker                                                                    
     of  the House,  the President  of the  Senate, the  Co-                                                                    
     Chairs of  the House  Finance Committee,  the Co-Chairs                                                                    
     of the  Senate Finance  Committee, and  the Legislative                                                                    
     Finance Division, by January 1, 2019.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Explanation: On  December 1st,  2017, the  RCA released                                                                    
     its legislative  report on Alaska's current  and future                                                                    
     broadband coverage  in response  to intent  language in                                                                    
     the FY18  operating budget. This amendment  directs the                                                                    
     RCA  to  follow  up  on   those  efforts  and  continue                                                                    
     developing  maps  that  help determine  the  extent  of                                                                    
     broadband coverage in Alaska.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H CED 9 was ADOPTED.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:06:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 6                                                                          
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Population Management                                                                                                      
     Institution Director's Office                                                                                              
     H DOC 6 - 3001 Financial Services                                                                                          
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $19.2 and  the  FY  19  Governor's                                                                    
     budget request is $226.7  for management and consulting                                                                    
     services. A decrement of $100.0  will result in a FY 19                                                                    
     budget request  of $126.7  which is  $107.5 over  FY 17                                                                    
     actual expenditures.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kawasaki  asked what  the decrement  would do                                                                    
to  the   management  and  consulting  services   that  were                                                                    
requested.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson replied  the amendment  would control                                                                    
how much the department could spend on the items.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kawasaki spoke to  his objection. He reported                                                                    
that  the  total  agency under  the  Institution  Director's                                                                    
Office  was  $1.75  million including  $137,000  in  federal                                                                    
receipts.  Just  over  $20,000 had  come  in  under  federal                                                                    
receipts in  the last fiscal year.  Without more explanation                                                                    
on  how the  reduction would  harm  or help  the budget,  he                                                                    
thought  the  amendment  could   harm  the  federal  receipt                                                                    
funding source. He  referenced a sheet from  OMB that stated                                                                    
an analysis  of expenditures at  the object class  level was                                                                    
insufficient to  determine if there was  authority available                                                                    
for  reductions. Without  further  explanation  of what  the                                                                    
amendment  would  do  he  advised members  to  vote  no.  He                                                                    
MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:08:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  believed the better question  was why                                                                    
the department  had only spent $19,200  in FY 17 and  now it                                                                    
needed  $226,700. She  could not  find a  reason for  such a                                                                    
large increase.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Guttenberg,  Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara,  Grenn, Foster,                                                                    
Seaton                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOC 6 FAILED (4/7).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:09:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Tilton  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DOC  7                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Offender Habilitation                                                                                                      
     Vocational Education Programs                                                                                              
     H DOC 7 - Decrement                                                                                                        
     Offered by Representative Tilton                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Reduce to 2017 final numbers accounting for CPI.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Tilton explained  the amendment. She detailed                                                                    
the prison  system population  was decreasing.  Although she                                                                    
was supportive  of training, the  increment was  an increase                                                                    
of almost  $200,000. She did  not understand why  the budget                                                                    
for  training was  increasing  for incarcerated  individuals                                                                    
when the population was declining.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kawasaki asked if  the reduction was based on                                                                    
the final budget or actuals.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Tilton  replied that the amendment  was based                                                                    
on 2017 finals and increased for inflation.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:10:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  was in support of  the amendment. She                                                                    
believed  it  would  incentivize the  department  for  using                                                                    
treatment  centers outside  of the  institutions. There  had                                                                    
been  significant  subcommittee  discussion  about  Medicaid                                                                    
expansion.  Whether a  person liked  Medicaid expansion  was                                                                    
irrelevant. She stated that  if the incarcerated individuals                                                                    
were  in halfway  housing or  on electronic  monitoring they                                                                    
would be picked  up by the federal government  and the state                                                                    
may have better, more efficient  programs. She had not heard                                                                    
anything  in subcommittee  demonstrating how  successful the                                                                    
system was, but she had  heard the recidivism rate was still                                                                    
over 65 percent.  She believed the high  rate indicated many                                                                    
of the current programs were not working.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  asked  to  hear  from  the  Department  of                                                                    
Corrections (DOC) about the impact of the reduction.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
APRIL  WILKERSON,   DIRECTOR,  DIVISION   OF  ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                    
SERVICES,  DEPARTMENT OF  CORRECTIONS (via  teleconference),                                                                    
replied  that  it  would mean  reduced  funding  for  inmate                                                                    
vocational  education training  services currently  provided                                                                    
within the  institutions. The budget had  been stagnant over                                                                    
the last  several years  at $606,000.  She reported  that in                                                                    
the FY 17 actuals the department had spent $521,500.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz remarked  on  the amendment  sponsor's                                                                    
point   that  the   overall  prison   population  had   been                                                                    
declining. He  asked if the proposed  amendment would result                                                                    
in  less  available  educational opportunities  for  inmates                                                                    
based on the decline in the inmate population.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Wilkerson replied that DOC would  need to take a look at                                                                    
what  level and  what  was currently  provided to  determine                                                                    
whether it would be a reduction  in the service or the types                                                                    
of vocational  education provided versus a  reduction in the                                                                    
number  of  individuals  that   could  attend  the  training                                                                    
services.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  asked   if  the  department  offered                                                                    
vocational  training  anywhere   but  in  institutions.  She                                                                    
wondered why the department did  not offer training in other                                                                    
places.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Wilkerson  replied  in  the  negative;  the  vocational                                                                    
certification  was  completed  within  DOC  facilities.  She                                                                    
reported that  DOC was currently  working on  a work-release                                                                    
type of program, such as the cannery in Kenai.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson asked who  provided the services (i.e.                                                                    
contractors  or  other)  and  how many  had  signed  up  and                                                                    
successfully completed the training.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Wilkerson replied  that she did not have  the numbers on                                                                    
hand. She  detailed that  the vocational  education training                                                                    
was provided  through contracts and  partnership agreements.                                                                    
She offered to follow up with the program numbers.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  asked  if   the  training  could  be                                                                    
provided via  another method such  as in a halfway  house or                                                                    
through  an ankle  monitoring  system  where the  individual                                                                    
received  training   from  the  University  or   the  Alaska                                                                    
Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC).                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Wilkerson  believed  the commissioner  was  working  on                                                                    
implementing those types of options.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:15:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Kawasaki opposed  the  amendment. He  stated                                                                    
that the actual  budget numbers for FY 17  were $521,500. He                                                                    
pointed  out that  the number  would be  closer to  $538,000                                                                    
when adjusted  for inflation.  The amendment  would decrease                                                                    
the  amount by  $107,300, bringing  the allocation  total to                                                                    
$498,700,  which was  short of  the  FY 17  actual by  about                                                                    
$23,000 or $38,000 when adjusted  for inflation. He believed                                                                    
it was  unwise to  cut offender rehabilitation.  He remarked                                                                    
there had been good programs  that had been very successful.                                                                    
He  reported that  a former  co-chair of  the House  Finance                                                                    
Committee had spoken  highly of the work being  done in Mat-                                                                    
Su as  well as in  the Seward woodworking shop.  He believed                                                                    
the  state  could  lose  those  types  of  programs  if  the                                                                    
amendment was adopted.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  corrected that DOC had  not been able                                                                    
to  provide  detail  on  which programs  were  or  were  not                                                                    
working.  She stated  the information  would have  been very                                                                    
helpful when considering the amendment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  remarked that  it  was  up to  the  person                                                                    
offering  the amendment  to know  the impact,  otherwise the                                                                    
committee would have to assume the impacts.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  replied that  she and  her colleagues                                                                    
had  asked and  had received  little to  no response  out of                                                                    
agencies. She  stated that  to get  something on  time [from                                                                    
agencies] was almost impossible.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt tried  to  recall  whether (prior  to                                                                    
2017)  agencies had  participated in  the same  capacity. He                                                                    
stated  if the  discussion was  that members  should not  be                                                                    
asking  questions of  the  departments, he  did  not have  a                                                                    
problem with that, but he  believed it should be consistent.                                                                    
He thought  perhaps the members  around the table  should be                                                                    
the ones to  argue for or against items  instead of bringing                                                                    
agencies in to defend their budget.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Tilton   agreed   with  the   comments   by                                                                    
Representative  Pruitt.  She   believed  that  if  amendment                                                                    
sponsors  were  expected  to provide  the  information  that                                                                    
perhaps departments  should not be  asked to respond  to any                                                                    
questions. She spoke  to the amendment and  shared there had                                                                    
been  a decrease  in [prison]  population. The  numbers were                                                                    
based on  final FY  17 information increased  for inflation.                                                                    
She  stated there  were no  success metrics  and there  were                                                                    
other opportunities.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:19:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,                                                                      
Foster                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOC 7 FAILED (4/7).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H DOE 3 (copy on                                                                     
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     K-12 Aid to School Districts                                                                                               
     Foundation Program                                                                                                         
     L  H DOE  3 -  School consolidation  hold harmless  for                                                                    
     FY19 and FY20                                                                                                              
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     See 30-GH2564O.29                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  current Foundation  statutes  provide  for a  hold                                                                    
     harmless  provision  in   AS  14.17.410(b)(1)(E)  which                                                                    
     provides  a step-down  process  if  a district's  total                                                                    
     school  size adjusted  average  daily membership  (ADM)                                                                    
     decreases  by 5%  or more  from one  year to  the next.                                                                    
     This  provision  provides  a three-year  step  down  of                                                                    
     funds for schools that rapidly lose students.                                                                              
     However,  other school  districts that  have seen  less                                                                    
     dramatic enrollment declines could  still save money by                                                                    
     consolidating schools.  The current School  Size Factor                                                                    
     in statute would cause districts  that did this to lose                                                                    
     state aid, offsetting the savings.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment  would grant an  an amount equal  to the                                                                    
     funding reduction  to the school  district in  FY19, so                                                                    
     the school district is  held harmless immediately after                                                                    
     the school consolidation. This  provision is limited to                                                                    
     consolidation  of schools  within  a single  community,                                                                    
     ensuring that  this does not  cause districts  to close                                                                    
     the  sole  school in  a  community.  The language  also                                                                    
     includes  intent  language  that the  legislature  will                                                                    
     include  similar  language  in the  budget  next  year,                                                                    
     giving districts additional time to prepare.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     There is no change to the budget. Any grant given by                                                                       
     this language would be offset by a reduction to the K-                                                                     
     12 foundation formula.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment description [see above].                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara  stated  the amendment  would  benefit  his                                                                    
school district with consolidation.  However, he wondered if                                                                    
the  funds would  come out  of the  foundation formula  from                                                                    
money available from other schools.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton replied  in the  negative. He  detailed the                                                                    
amendment  involved a  UGF grant  that offset  the reduction                                                                    
that would  be seen through  the foundation formula  so that                                                                    
the  school   district  that  consolidates  would   be  held                                                                    
harmless in the year of consolidation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara remarked  that  the  amendment showed  zero                                                                    
cost, but he  surmised there would probably be  some cost in                                                                    
grants, which was not yet known.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton replied in the  negative. He explained there                                                                    
was  an offset  cost.  Prior to  consolidation, the  schools                                                                    
would  have  been  getting  a  school  size  factor  in  two                                                                    
schools.  When  two schools  consolidated  into  one with  a                                                                    
larger cost  size, there would be  a loss of revenue  to the                                                                    
district because  the consolidated school was  larger and it                                                                    
had less  money coming  from the cost  size. Some  money was                                                                    
saved  in administration  (i.e. there  was no  need for  two                                                                    
principals).  The  amendment  specified  that  if  a  school                                                                    
consolidated  for  efficiency,  the  state  would  give  the                                                                    
school a  grant (in  the year of  consolidation) to  make up                                                                    
the difference.  The amendment encouraged  consolidation and                                                                    
efficiency,   whereas,  the   current  system   incentivized                                                                    
districts to  leave two schools  in place  where populations                                                                    
had been reduced.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:24:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara supported  the amendment. He noted  it was a                                                                    
quirk  in the  education foundation  formula. He  elaborated                                                                    
that the  amendment helped his  district; however,  it would                                                                    
never  help the  Lake  and Peninsula  School District  where                                                                    
there  was  one  school  per community.  He  understood  the                                                                    
amendment could  only address  the one  issue, but  he hoped                                                                    
the  legislature would  "do  right" by  all  of the  state's                                                                    
schools by the end of session.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz testified in  support of the amendment.                                                                    
He  reported  that the  Department  of  Education and  Early                                                                    
Development  (DEED) budget  subcommittee  had discussed  the                                                                    
issue.   He  elaborated   that   representatives  from   the                                                                    
Anchorage area  had communicated that the  current education                                                                    
formula  acted  as  a  disincentive  for  consolidation.  He                                                                    
believed  the amendment  at  least  partially addressed  the                                                                    
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  clarified  that  Anchorage  was  the                                                                    
district  grappling  with  how   to  manage  its  funds.  He                                                                    
reported  the district's  population  had  decreased in  the                                                                    
past  few years  and  was continuing  to  decrease by  small                                                                    
amounts.  The district  had underutilized  schools and  they                                                                    
had not  been able to truly  look at the best  way to manage                                                                    
their   funds  in   terms  of   pulling  a   school  offline                                                                    
temporarily  or   long-term  because  the   funding  formula                                                                    
penalized  districts  for  that   action.  He  believed  the                                                                    
amendment provided a temporary  stopgap solution. He thought                                                                    
the  discussion forced  the legislature  to analyze  how the                                                                    
formula  funding   potentially  discouraged   or  encouraged                                                                    
efficient  utilization  of funds.  He  recognized  it was  a                                                                    
future  conversation.  He  believed  the  amendment  was  an                                                                    
appropriate way  to handle the  issue on a  temporary basis.                                                                    
He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
There being NO further OBJECTION, H DOE 3 was ADOPTED.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:28:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MOVED  to ADOPT Amendments H  DOE 4, H                                                                    
DOE 5, H DOE 6, H DOE 7 (copy on file):                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Education Support and Admin Services                                                                                       
     Student and School Achievement                                                                                             
     H DOE 4 - 3001 Financial Services                                                                                          
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $545.2  and  the  FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request  is $1,115.0.  This  decrement  of $200.0  will                                                                    
     result in  a FY  19 budget request  of $915.5  which is                                                                    
     $369.8 over FY 17 actual expenditures.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Education Support and Admin Services                                                                                       
     Student and School Achievement                                                                                             
     H DOE 5 - 3011 Other Services                                                                                              
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals were  $5,374.5  and  the FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request  is   $6,449.4.  A   decrement  of   $250.0  in                                                                    
     professional activities  will result in a  FY 19 budget                                                                    
     request of  $6199.4 which is  $824.9 over FY  17 actual                                                                    
     expenditures.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Education Support and Admin Services                                                                                       
     Student and School Achievement                                                                                             
     H DOE 6 - 4000 Business                                                                                                    
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  were  $149.4  and  the  FY19  Governor's                                                                    
     request is $217.8. A decrement  of $50.0 will result in                                                                    
     a FY  19 budget request  of $167.8 which is  $18.4 over                                                                    
     FY 17 actual expenditures.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Mt. Edgecumbe Boarding School                                                                                              
     H DOE 7 - 3011 Other Services                                                                                              
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY16  Actuals were  $299.9, FY  17 Actuals  were $101.3                                                                    
     and the FY 19 Governor's  request is $450.8 A decrement                                                                    
     of  $100.0 will  result in  a FY  19 budget  request of                                                                    
     $350.8 which  is $249.5 over FY  17 actual expenditures                                                                    
     and $50.9 over FY 16 actual expenditures.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson read the amendment descriptions [see                                                                      
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:30:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz emphasized that  the student and school                                                                    
achievement budget was 96 percent  federally funded and only                                                                    
3.2 percent GF funded. He  detailed that $151 million of the                                                                    
total  $158 million  student and  school achievement  budget                                                                    
was  federally funded  ($5.1 million  was  GF funding).  The                                                                    
budget section had very little  GF authorization and levered                                                                    
GF funding  to the hilt.  He elaborated that GF  funding was                                                                    
needed  to meet  state obligations.  He asked  to hear  from                                                                    
DEED about the impact of the amendment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:31:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HEIDI   TESHNER,   DIRECTOR,  DIVISION   OF   ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                    
SERVICES,  DEPARTMENT OF  EDUCATION  AND EARLY  DEVELOPMENT,                                                                    
confirmed that  95 to 96  percent of the student  and school                                                                    
achievement  budget  was   federally  funded.  The  proposed                                                                    
reduction in  UGF funding within the  component would impact                                                                    
a  number  of  the   department's  state  mandates  and  its                                                                    
matching  requirements.  She  deferred to  a  colleague  for                                                                    
additional detail.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
PAUL PRASSING,  DIRECTOR OF STUDENT LEARNING,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
EDUCATION  AND  EARLY  DEVELOPMENT,  pointed  out  that  the                                                                    
amendment  would be  a reduction  of  about $500,000,  which                                                                    
would  be another  10 percent  reduction  to the  division's                                                                    
budget. He  elaborated that  the division  had lost  over 20                                                                    
staff and there  had been a reduction of over  50 percent in                                                                    
the past couple  of years. The proposed  UGF reduction would                                                                    
significantly  impact the  component.  He  spoke to  actuals                                                                    
compared to the  current spend and reported that  much of it                                                                    
related  to  an assessment  contract  shown  in the  [budget                                                                    
code] 3001 line. He referenced  $546,000 and explained there                                                                    
had been  two issues. There  was an assessment  contract the                                                                    
division  had   negotiated  with   a  vendor   to  complete.                                                                    
Additionally, a new  vendor had come on  board. He expounded                                                                    
that  the  billing  in  the fiscal  year  had  not  actually                                                                    
occurred  in  FY  17  -  it primarily  impacted  FY  18.  He                                                                    
explained the  division also had a  new five-year assessment                                                                    
contract  (with   DRC),  which   the  request   matched.  He                                                                    
referenced the  3011 [code] line  and communicated  that the                                                                    
large  staff  reductions  had resulted  in  an  increase  in                                                                    
contracts. He  referenced the 4000  [code] and  detailed the                                                                    
division  had  increased  its use  of  technology  including                                                                    
videoconferencing  and sound  system upgrades  in conference                                                                    
rooms to  allow for web  conferencing. He summarized  that a                                                                    
reduction of $500,000 would probably impact staff.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  opposed the amendment.  He stated  that the                                                                    
amendment would ask  the department to budget in  a way that                                                                    
no business would  budget. He shared that he  was part owner                                                                    
of  a restaurant  and provided  a hypothetical  scenario. He                                                                    
detailed if the  restaurant wanted to offer a  new dish with                                                                    
new ingredients  and suddenly it  had to replace all  of its                                                                    
dishware, the restaurant would not  bring that on. He stated                                                                    
the restaurant knew how much it  could budget in a year, but                                                                    
it  did  not know  whether  it  would  be spent  on  dishes,                                                                    
glasses,  services,  raises,  or  other.  He  reported  that                                                                    
Education Support  and Administrative Services  had suffered                                                                    
a  25  percent GF  decrease  (from  $29.8 million  to  $22.3                                                                    
million).   He  stressed   that   the  student   achievement                                                                    
component  had been  cut by  over 50  percent. Additionally,                                                                    
executive  administration  had  been   cut.  He  stated  the                                                                    
appropriation had been  heavily cut over the  past few years                                                                    
and he did  not believe it was in the  state's best interest                                                                    
to cut it further.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  asked for  more information  about the                                                                    
impact  of H  DOE 7  related to  the Mt.  Edgecumbe Boarding                                                                    
School.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:36:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Teshner answered  that  Amendment H  DOE  7 proposed  a                                                                    
reduction of $100,000  to the Public School  Trust Funds for                                                                    
the Mt.  Edgecumbe Boarding School.  She explained  that the                                                                    
reduction  to   the  contractual  line  item   would  impact                                                                    
contractual   obligations   of  the   department   including                                                                    
dormitory  services, food  management, and  other management                                                                    
related services. She pointed  out that reducing $100,000 in                                                                    
Public School Trust  Fund funding would put the  cost to the                                                                    
foundation program;  it did not  represent a  real reduction                                                                    
to the  overall budget  because DEED  had a  projection from                                                                    
the Department of Revenue for a  set amount that went to the                                                                    
foundation program or Mt. Edgecumbe.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked if  "we" went  into contractual                                                                    
services and increased the services substantially.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Teshner answered  that  contractual services  increased                                                                    
with inflation every five  years when negotiations occurred.                                                                    
The  department had  recently done  a  request for  proposal                                                                    
(RFP) for its  dormitory services contract for  FY 19; there                                                                    
was an  increase anticipated that  was not reflected  in the                                                                    
budget.  She   explained  it  would  impact   how  much  the                                                                    
department  would  pay  and the  department  would  have  to                                                                    
reduce services elsewhere  in Mt. Edgecumbe in  order to pay                                                                    
for the expected increases.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson did not  know why DEED was negotiating                                                                    
any kind of  increases at present because the  state did not                                                                    
have the money.  She did not think it made  sense there were                                                                    
contracts costing  $299,000 in  FY 16, dropping  to $101,000                                                                    
in  FY  17,  and  increasing to  $450,000  and  higher.  She                                                                    
wondered  why  the  department  was  increasing  contractual                                                                    
services during a budget deficit.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:38:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Teshner  answered  that the  department  had  tried  to                                                                    
negotiate with  the contractor to  bring the cost  down, but                                                                    
the contractor  had personal services  and other  fixed cost                                                                    
expenses as well  that it could not reduce.  The response to                                                                    
the  RFP  had  been   very  limited  given  Mt.  Edgecumbe's                                                                    
location in  Sitka; there were limited  companies that could                                                                    
provide the service.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  asked  why there  had  been  several                                                                    
contracts costing  $300,000 in  FY 16,  only $101,000  in FY                                                                    
17, and an anticipated increase of over $300,000 in FY 19.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Teshner did not have  the specifics on hand. She offered                                                                    
to follow up with the information.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  clarified  that no  portion  of  the                                                                    
proposed  reduction was  GF match.  The  reduction would  be                                                                    
$4.8  million in  UGF. She  stated the  reduction would  not                                                                    
impact  personnel because  she  had made  sure  that all  GF                                                                    
currently  allocated  to  personnel   had  remained  in  the                                                                    
budget.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Ortiz,  Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg,  Kawasaki, Foster,                                                                    
Seaton                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to  adopt Amendments H DOE  4, H DOE 5,  H DOE 6,                                                                    
and H DOE 7 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:41:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DEC  1                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Administration                                                                                                             
     State Support Services                                                                                                     
     H DEC 1 - Decrease in services.                                                                                            
     Offered by Representative Pruitt                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Decrease  in   services.  Remaining  amount   is  17.5%                                                                    
     increase from the FY17actual to the FY19GovAdj.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  explained the amendment.  He detailed                                                                    
that the  proposed budget reflected a  28.5 percent increase                                                                    
over the  actual from  FY 17. He  believed the  increase was                                                                    
far  above what  was necessary.  The amendment  would reduce                                                                    
the increase to 17.5 percent for state support services.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He stated that the                                                                      
decrement would be an unallocated reduction to the                                                                              
department. He detailed with prepared remarks:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     As part  of the  FY 19  budget request,  the department                                                                    
     transferred  a  total  of  $984,000  in  multiple  fund                                                                    
     sources from the  administrative services allocation to                                                                    
     the state  support services  allocation related  to the                                                                    
     cost   associated  with   the  Office   of  Information                                                                    
     Technology.  So,  this  does not  reflect  an  increase                                                                    
     across the  division or the  department, nor  does this                                                                    
     reflect  any   change  in  services.   In  FY   18  the                                                                    
     department  transferred  eight   IT  positions  to  the                                                                    
     Department of Administration and  the funding for these                                                                    
     positions  shifted  to  the  contractual  line  of  the                                                                    
     department as reimbursable  services agreement with the                                                                    
     Department  of   Administration  to  pay  for   the  IT                                                                    
     services   that  were   received.  Transferring   these                                                                    
     contractual costs  to the state support  services is in                                                                    
     line  with how  the department  pays for  other similar                                                                    
     contractual  services. A  reduction  from savings  from                                                                    
     the  implementation   of  the  Office   of  Information                                                                    
     Technology was  included in the  budget as  a statewide                                                                    
     item  and was  anticipated  that this  would be  spread                                                                    
     proportionally to all agencies.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     If  the  department  were   to  receive  an  additional                                                                    
     decrement  of $278,000  GF in  state support  services,                                                                    
     the Department  of Administration  is going to  have to                                                                    
     cover less of  the department-wide overhead contractual                                                                    
     costs that include a portion  of lease payments, charge                                                                    
     backs  to   DOA,  telecommunications,  IT,   and  human                                                                    
     resource support. These costs  would instead need to be                                                                    
     borne by  other divisions,  which is funding  that they                                                                    
     would otherwise  spend on  programmatic work  and could                                                                    
     result in  a reduction  of services.  Essentially, this                                                                    
     would be  an unallocated  reduction to  the department.                                                                    
     For that reason, I would oppose the amendment.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:44:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt provided wrap  up on the amendment. He                                                                    
believed Co-Chair Foster had stated  that in FY 18 there had                                                                    
been a  reduction in  personnel and  now the  personnel were                                                                    
being added  back in.  From the  FY 17 actual  to the  FY 18                                                                    
management plan,  there was a  reduction of  around $200,000                                                                    
to the particular  line item. He stated  the proposed budget                                                                    
reflected an increase of $912,000  from the FY 18 management                                                                    
plan as  opposed to  the $726,000 increased  from the  FY 17                                                                    
actuals. He  continued that if  the argument to be  made was                                                                    
that there  were additional  employees, the  legislature had                                                                    
adjusted in  FY 18 for the  reduction in FY 17.  He believed                                                                    
the reduction  was within reason.  He reasoned  that instead                                                                    
of it being a 38.5 percent increase  from FY 18 to FY 19, it                                                                    
would  still  be an  increase,  albeit  not as  drastic.  He                                                                    
believed the amendment was reasonable.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster 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,                                                                    
Foster                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DEC 1 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:47:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DEC  2                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Environmental Health                                                                                                       
     Laboratory Services                                                                                                        
     H DEC 2 - Eliminate funding for Dairy Program.                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Pruitt                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The state pays 100% of this program with no fees                                                                           
     generated to offset cost. There is currently only one                                                                      
     business benefiting from this service.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt explained  that  the amendment  would                                                                    
eliminate funding  for the Dairy Program.  He detailed there                                                                    
was only one  dairy in the state that  utilized the program.                                                                    
He elaborated that  the dairy paid zero of the  cost and the                                                                    
state paid 100 percent. He reasoned  if there was a need for                                                                    
a business to have state  government cover some of the cost,                                                                    
it was appropriate  for the business to  participate in some                                                                    
capacity. There  were two employees  that were not  paid for                                                                    
by the dairy. He believed  it was reasonable to request fees                                                                    
or to  tell the dairy  it was responsible for  providing the                                                                    
service.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara asked  where  the program  was located  and                                                                    
what no longer be provided if the program was eliminated.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  believed it was located  in the [Mat-                                                                    
Su] Valley.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara clarified his second question.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt replied  that two  individuals tested                                                                    
the [dairy] product to ensure  its quality. He explained the                                                                    
testing was required in order for  the product to be sold in                                                                    
to the military, prisons, or schools.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:49:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  asked for additional detail  about the                                                                    
dairy. He wondered if the  dairy was safety testing for food                                                                    
provided to schools.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt   replied  that  the  dairy   did  no                                                                    
testing. The Department  of Environmental Conservation (DEC)                                                                    
conducted  the testing.  He believed  the testing  should be                                                                    
done by the farm.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  asked what  the dairy provided  to the                                                                    
state.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt replied milk.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the product was required to be                                                                         
tested and certified by the state prior to being sold                                                                           
commercially.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt replied in the affirmative.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster confirmed there was currently one dairy,                                                                        
but a second dairy was working to reopen. He provided                                                                           
prepared remarks:                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     The  Department of  Environmental Conservation  manages                                                                    
     the Alaska Dairy Regulatory  Program in accordance with                                                                    
     the FDA's  Grade A pasteurized milk  ordinance. They do                                                                    
     that to  ensure that  milk and  milk products  are sold                                                                    
     and  that  commerce  are   manufactured  and  sold  and                                                                    
     delivered  in  a  safe  and  wholesome  condition.  The                                                                    
     pasteurized   milk   ordinance  requires   a   licensed                                                                    
     veterinarian to  oversee a  regulatory program  for the                                                                    
     inspection of  animal health and  care conditions  at a                                                                    
     state's   dairy   farms,   verification   of   sanitary                                                                    
     condition  of  the  facility   and  equipment  at  milk                                                                    
     processing  plants, and  issuance of  permits to  dairy                                                                    
     farms, processing plants, and [indecipherable].                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     While  the   FDA  provides  approval  of   state  dairy                                                                    
     programs,  individual  states  that desire  to  have  a                                                                    
     commercial  dairy  industry  are expected  to  maintain                                                                    
     regulatory  dairy  programs   in  accordance  with  the                                                                    
     pasteurized milk  ordinance. There is no  federal dairy                                                                    
     program in place  to support states where  there is not                                                                    
     one. Without an FDA  approved state program, commercial                                                                    
     dairy  operations   would  be  unable  to   sell  dairy                                                                    
     products   -  milk,   cheese,  yogurt,   butter  -   to                                                                    
     institutions  that receive  federal funds  to subsidize                                                                    
     meal programs  for military,  schools, and  prisons. If                                                                    
     this program were to go  away, Alaska would be the only                                                                    
     state not actively operating a dairy program.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Not  all of  the costs  would go  away as  a result  of                                                                    
     eliminating  the dairy  program  as most  of the  staff                                                                    
     working  directly  with  the dairy  is  conducting  the                                                                    
     testing.  They also  perform work  that supports  other                                                                    
     programs  in the  laboratory  services components  that                                                                    
     need  to be  maintained,  including the  office of  the                                                                    
     state  veterinary  duties  and regulatory  testing  for                                                                    
     other programs.  Three to four positions  would need to                                                                    
     be eliminated to meet this  reduction and work would be                                                                    
     shifted  among the  remaining staff.  There would  be a                                                                    
     reduced   capacity   for   the   environmental   health                                                                    
     laboratory  to turn  around  regulatory  testing and  a                                                                    
     reduced  ability to  respond  in the  event  of a  food                                                                    
     borne illness outbreak.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair    Foster    elaborated   there    were    numerous                                                                    
interconnected things involved  and it was not  as simple as                                                                    
one may think. He opposed the amendment.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:55:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  stated that  it  would  help if  the                                                                    
state  was  not so  over  regulated.  She mentioned  a  fish                                                                    
processing  plant in  Fairbanks that  went through  the same                                                                    
type  of testing  - the  plant could  not sell  commercially                                                                    
without the  same type of  testing. She emphasized  that the                                                                    
fish  processing plant  paid  for all  of  the testing.  She                                                                    
questioned why  one was  subsidized and  the other  was not.                                                                    
She stated  that testing was  required if the  plants wanted                                                                    
to stay  in business.  She continued that  unfortunately the                                                                    
state was  over regulated,  which was  the reason  there was                                                                    
only  one  plant.  She  elaborated that  the  owner  of  the                                                                    
processing plant  would be thrilled  if he could get  all of                                                                    
his testing  done for free.  She explained that  the testing                                                                    
was required  by DEC and  the FDA.  She did not  believe the                                                                    
dairy  program  needed to  go  away,  but she  believed  the                                                                    
pertinent question was whether the  state should pay for it.                                                                    
She  added that  the  fish plant  was  also responsible  for                                                                    
paying laboratory  fees. She believed  the required  DEC and                                                                    
FDA testing were duplicative.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Foster  responded   that  the   discussion  about                                                                    
charging fees  was valid, but  he believed the  change would                                                                    
have to  be made statutorily.  He did not  recommend cutting                                                                    
back the service at present. He opposed the amendment.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:57:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt provided wrap  up on the amendment. He                                                                    
stated  that  the  conversation  had  highlighted  that  the                                                                    
numbers provided by  DEC may not be correct.  He stated that                                                                    
if the $400,000  may impact other programs,  perhaps DEC was                                                                    
not  being  clear about  what  it  spent  the money  on.  He                                                                    
believed the legislature should  have the conversation about                                                                    
the dairy paying for the  testing. He questioned whether the                                                                    
dairy  should  be required  to  pay  $400,000 if  the  money                                                                    
covered  more than  the specific  program. He  wondered what                                                                    
other areas  the department was  trying to shift  money into                                                                    
from  the  funds  allocated  to  the  dairy  plant.  He  was                                                                    
disturbed  to find  out  the $400,000  was  going to  things                                                                    
outside the  dairy program. He  stressed it was  about truth                                                                    
in  budgeting.  He  stressed  that if  the  dairy  was  ever                                                                    
required  to  participate  in paying  for  the  testing,  it                                                                    
should  not have  to  pay anything  beyond  the testing.  He                                                                    
firmly  believed   the  dairy  plant  should   be  asked  to                                                                    
contribute. He reiterated  his belief there was  an error in                                                                    
the department's reporting. He  thought the public should be                                                                    
concerned  if  the  funding  did  not go  to  what  DEC  had                                                                    
specified.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt                                                                               
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster, Seaton                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz was absent from the vote.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DEC 2 FAILED (5/5).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:00:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DEC  3                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Air Quality                                                                                                                
     H DEC 3 - 3011: Other Services                                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY 2017  Actuals were $345.7  and the FY  19 Governor's                                                                    
     budget  request is  $430.0. A  decrement of  $50.0 will                                                                    
     result in a  FY 19 budget request of $380.0  to be used                                                                    
     for printing  and professional  services not  listed in                                                                    
     other categories. This is an  increase of $34.3 over FY                                                                    
     17 actual expenditures.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster  opposed  the  amendment. He  read  from  a                                                                    
prepared statement:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     In FY  17 the  division had only  lapsed a  little over                                                                    
     $2,000 in  funds and they expect  that in FY 18  and FY                                                                    
     19  it will  be about  the same.  So, there's  not much                                                                    
     left over  there. The increased  other services  in the                                                                    
     expenditure detail does not reflect  an increase in UGF                                                                    
     spending;  it's  related   to  other  collectable  fund                                                                    
     sources. Of the $1.7 million  that is in the component,                                                                    
     $1.426 million  is required  maintenance of  effort for                                                                    
     federal awards.  This leaves  about $278,000  left over                                                                    
     when maintenance  of effort  funds are  subtracted. The                                                                    
     division  is already  operating on  a thin  margin. The                                                                    
     department has  indicated that  a reduction  of $50,000                                                                    
     would  turn  development  of   a  regional  haze  state                                                                    
     implementation plan over to the EPA.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster  did not support turning  over state primacy                                                                    
to the federal government on this and most other issues.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:03:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson provided  wrap up  on the  amendment.                                                                    
She surmised  that perhaps the maintenance  of effort should                                                                    
be match  instead of  just GF. She  stressed that  the state                                                                    
was already  shutting wood stoves  down in Fairbanks  due to                                                                    
air  quality.  She  reasoned  that  the  EPA  could  not  do                                                                    
anything  more to  North  Pole than  the  state had  already                                                                    
done. She  reasoned turning  the issue  over to  the federal                                                                    
government  may  not  be  a  bad  idea.  She  remarked  that                                                                    
sometimes primacy  was desired so  the state could  be nicer                                                                    
to its residents,  but she believed the  state had forgotten                                                                    
that. She  explained the amendment  was GF and did  not take                                                                    
away "any  of the  other people who  are doing  what they're                                                                    
supposed to be  doing." She believed the  department did not                                                                    
know what  the money went  to because the component  was for                                                                    
services not  listed in other  categories. She  stressed the                                                                    
legislature was  responsible for  letting people  know where                                                                    
the  money was  spent. She  had learned  during the  meeting                                                                    
that the numbers and categories  did not matter. She thought                                                                    
the legislature  should consider the possibility  that state                                                                    
primacy ended up being more restrictive than the EPA.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson                                                                               
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DEC 3 FAILED (5/6).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:05:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DEC  4                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Water                                                                                                                      
     Water Quality Infrastructure Support & Financing                                                                           
     H DEC 4 - Reduces funding to the Ocean Ranger program.                                                                     
     Offered by Representative Pruitt                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The merger of divisions and responsibilities in DEC                                                                        
     has increased the administrative burden on the                                                                             
     department.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Eliminating the  funding for  the Ocean  Ranger program                                                                    
     will  allow  the  Department  to  focus  administrative                                                                    
     efforts on other measures such  as safe and sustainable                                                                    
     sanitation and water facilities in Rural Alaska.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  explained the amendment  would reduce                                                                    
funding to the  ocean ranger program. He  clarified that the                                                                    
amendment  would not  eliminate  the  $4.00 [per  passenger]                                                                    
charge that brought in about  $3.9 million in the past year.                                                                    
He believed  the program was  duplicative. He  remarked that                                                                    
the amendment  should allow for  more whales to be  built or                                                                    
other  things that  may be  of interest  to communities.  He                                                                    
elaborated  that   the  amendment  did  not   eliminate  any                                                                    
positions  as they  were contracted  out. He  furthered that                                                                    
the  contracted  positions  were  not  necessarily  held  by                                                                    
Alaskans. He  did not believe  it made  any sense to  have a                                                                    
duplicative  program.  Additionally,   the  amendment  would                                                                    
allow for a  conversation in the future  to consider whether                                                                    
the tax should remain.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster opposed  the amendment.  He noted  that the                                                                    
ocean  ranger program  was mostly  paid with  fees. He  read                                                                    
from a prepared statement:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     The ocean  ranger program was  established by  a ballot                                                                    
     initiative.   The  measure   not   only  requires   the                                                                    
     department to  place ocean rangers  on board  all large                                                                    
     cruise ships to act  as independent observers to ensure                                                                    
     compliance   with  federal   and  state   environmental                                                                    
     health,  sanitation, and  safety  requirements, but  it                                                                    
     also sets up the tax.  Even if the budget authority for                                                                    
     the program is  eliminated, the ocean ranger  fee is in                                                                    
     statute and it  will continue to be  collected. The fee                                                                    
     is classified  as an "other"  fund source and  it can't                                                                    
     be  used  for  a   non-designated  purpose.  Also,  the                                                                    
     department would  still be required  by statute  to run                                                                    
     the program.  If it's  the intent  of the  amendment to                                                                    
     eliminate   the   ocean    ranger   program,   as   was                                                                    
    acknowledged, it would have to be done by statute.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz asked  about  the amendment  sponsor's                                                                    
statement that the ocean ranger  program was duplicative. He                                                                    
asked for further detail.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:08:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara spoke against the  amendment. He objected to                                                                    
the  constant  chipping  away  of  a  voter  initiative.  He                                                                    
detailed that the voters passed  a cruise ship head tax that                                                                    
far exceeded  in revenue  the ocean  ranger cost,  which was                                                                    
also  approved  by  voters. He  elaborated  that  the  ocean                                                                    
ranger program had  already been scaled back  and the cruise                                                                    
ship tax  had already  been reduced. He  had opposed  all of                                                                    
the  measures  that  would  have  whittled  away  the  voter                                                                    
initiative.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  provided wrap  up. He  explained that                                                                    
DEC   already  had   existing   registration  and   sampling                                                                    
programs.  Additionally,  the  department  worked  with  the                                                                    
Coast Guard  to regularly sample wastewater  on cruise ships                                                                    
and ferries.  He elaborated that visible  air emissions from                                                                    
cruise  ships were  monitored. He  believed the  program was                                                                    
another burden  on the  department. He  thought it  could be                                                                    
argued  that  the  department was  doing  an  excellent  job                                                                    
monitoring potential violations. He  thought the program was                                                                    
duplicative.  He  agreed  it was  worth  a  conversation  on                                                                    
whether or not  the tax should remain. He  reasoned that the                                                                    
funds could go out to  various communities towards the other                                                                    
aspects the head  tax was allowed to be utilized  for if the                                                                    
program was eliminated.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton                                                                               
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton, Kawasaki                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DEC 4 FAILED (5/6).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:11:38 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:23:38 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DFG  5                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Commercial Fisheries                                                                                                       
     Southeast Region Fisheries Management                                                                                      
     H DFG 5 - 3011: Other Services                                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY16  Actuals  $524.9  and   FY19  Governor  $826.0.  A                                                                    
     decrease  of  $100.0  leaves  $726.0  in  environmental                                                                    
     conservation,  economic  development   fees  and  other                                                                    
     services not yet determined.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above]. She  understood that the  division had spent  all of                                                                    
its money, but  she did not believe it  necessarily meant it                                                                    
needed all of the money.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz shared that  he had participated in the                                                                    
fishing industry as a commercial  trawler with his dad years                                                                    
back. He  had always  heard it said  that the  Department of                                                                    
Fish and Game  (DFG) did the best job in  the world managing                                                                    
the  state's   fisheries.  He  stressed  that   it  required                                                                    
financial investment  to maintain  that status. Since  FY 15                                                                    
the department's  UGF had  been cut by  over 35  percent. He                                                                    
referenced   testimony  in   subcommittee   about  how   the                                                                    
department's ability to manage  the state's fisheries to its                                                                    
constitutional  mandate   to  provide   maximum  sustainable                                                                    
yield,  had  been  reduced due  to  funding  reductions.  He                                                                    
underscored it was  a gamble the state could  not afford. He                                                                    
had  the   same  argument  about  upcoming   amendments.  He                                                                    
stressed that  having the  best industry  in the  world took                                                                    
investment. The state's seafood  industry was the number one                                                                    
producer  in the  country;  it was  also  a major  worldwide                                                                    
seafood producer.  He expounded  the industry  was renewable                                                                    
if it  was managed well.  He deferred to the  department for                                                                    
specific detail.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:27:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SCOTT  KELLEY,  DIRECTOR,   COMMERCIAL  FISHERIES  DIVISION,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF  FISH AND  GAME (via  teleconference), relayed                                                                    
that  the amendment  would require  significant cuts  to the                                                                    
Southeast Alaska  fisheries component. He detailed  it would                                                                    
mean cutting red king crab  and tanner crab surveys and cuts                                                                    
to  dive fisheries.  He  elaborated that  some  of the  cuts                                                                    
would  mean the  state  would no  longer  have the  specific                                                                    
fisheries.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  asked   what  percentage  commercial                                                                    
fishermen  paid  to  the  fisheries  management  by  DFG  in                                                                    
Southeast.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelley answered it depended  on the fishery. Most of the                                                                    
funds came  from commercial crew licenses  and limited entry                                                                    
permittees, which  were significant  for the  Southeast crab                                                                    
fisheries. Additionally, there was  revenue from landing and                                                                    
raw fish  taxes. He did not  have the exact number  on hand,                                                                    
but he offered to follow up  with the information as soon as                                                                    
possible.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson asked how much  the crab study was and                                                                    
who the cost  shifted to. She asked if the  cost would shift                                                                    
to crab fishermen.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelley answered that the  crab fishery included the king                                                                    
crab  survey (costing  about $85,000)  and  the tanner  crab                                                                    
survey (costing about $50,000),  which were currently funded                                                                    
with GF receipts. The surveys  would not be conducted if DGF                                                                    
did not have the GF.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:30:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked if  the costs could  be charged                                                                    
to individuals benefitting from them.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelley answered it had never  been done in the past, but                                                                    
he was  not saying it could  not be done. In  the past, when                                                                    
cuts had  been made, the administration  and the legislature                                                                    
had provided  for test fishing  opportunity. In the  case of                                                                    
the crab surveys, population abundance  for the crab species                                                                    
was at  a level  that would  be highly  problematic to  do a                                                                    
fund swap  to test  fish. Additionally, it  would come  at a                                                                    
significant cost to revenues and harvest.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz provided  additional detail  about the                                                                    
workings of  test fisheries. He  used the example of  a test                                                                    
fishery  that would  promote seine  fishing in  a particular                                                                    
area. He  detailed a  test fishery was  done for  revenue to                                                                    
make up  for the lack of  GF to support the  particular data                                                                    
collection. Consequently,  fishermen stood  by to  allow the                                                                    
test fishery  and experienced lost opportunity.  In order to                                                                    
get  the  industry to  pay  for  some  of the  test  fishery                                                                    
surveys, meant  lost opportunity and cost  to the fishermen.                                                                    
Additionally,  it  meant  less   economic  activity  in  the                                                                    
overall economy, area, and less landing taxes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson provided  wrap up.  She reminded  the                                                                    
committee that  the department did  not know  which services                                                                    
the  money paid  for because  DFG had  yet to  determine the                                                                    
services.  She  believed  if the  reduction  shut  down  the                                                                    
studies,  the  department  would   want  to  make  sure  the                                                                    
legislature  knew  that.  She reminded  members  the  budget                                                                    
included an increase  to the component to  $726,000. She did                                                                    
not know  why the legislature  should allocate the  money if                                                                    
the department  did not  know what the  money would  be used                                                                    
for. She  referred to the  prior conversation  about dairies                                                                    
and fish  processors. She detailed  the state  required many                                                                    
industries to pay to get  up and running and continuing. She                                                                    
surmised  an industry's  fair share  seemed to  vary between                                                                    
industries.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Grenn,  Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,  Gara, Seaton,                                                                    
Foster                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DFG 5 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:34:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DFG  6                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Commercial Fisheries                                                                                                       
     Central Region Fisheries Management                                                                                        
     H DFG 6 - 3010: Equipment/Machinery                                                                                        
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  $114.1  and   FY19  Governor  $355.7.  A                                                                    
     decrease of  $100.0 leaves $255.7 for  equipment rental                                                                    
     and   maintenance  services   and  equipment   operator                                                                    
     charges.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].  She  added  the amendment's  proposed  decrease  of                                                                    
$100,000 would  leave $255,700 for the  component, which was                                                                    
over twice what had been spent in FY 17.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  relayed that that he  would not repeat                                                                    
some of  his arguments  against the previous  amendment, yet                                                                    
some  were applicable  to H  DFG 6.  He referenced  the idea                                                                    
that industry  should help pay  for some of  the assessments                                                                    
and explained that  industry did help pay in  many ways. Not                                                                    
only did industry pay a  landing tax, there were also annual                                                                    
license  fees.   The  fish  processors  paid   for  specific                                                                    
assessments to  be conducted.  He underscored  that industry                                                                    
did  step  forward and  played  a  significant role  in  the                                                                    
payment for services it received.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Kawasaki   noticed   there   were   several                                                                    
amendments related to equipment  and machinery that used the                                                                    
FY  17 actuals.  He wondered  if the  amendment sponsor  had                                                                    
averages for the  years mentioned. He reasoned  there may be                                                                    
a year where  there was a big need  for maintenance services                                                                    
or  equipment rental  and the  following year  the cost  was                                                                    
down because  the work had  recently been done.  He believed                                                                    
the averages were more important than the actuals.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  opposed the amendment. He  relayed that the                                                                    
subcommittee  had  done significant  work  with  DFG and  he                                                                    
reported that the sub-allocation  lines would vary from year                                                                    
to year. The subcommittee had  added money to the DFG budget                                                                    
because the legislature  had cut the department  so far that                                                                    
there had been foregone harvest,  lost revenue, and lost tax                                                                    
receipts from the fisheries. Overall  there were a number of                                                                    
amendments  looking at  items that  fluctuated from  year to                                                                    
year.  He  believed  the  amendments  would  take  away  the                                                                    
department's ability to move money  within an allocation. He                                                                    
continued that the  message of the amendments was  that if a                                                                    
component  went  down  or  up   from  the  prior  year,  the                                                                    
legislature would take the money  off the table. The problem                                                                    
with the  approach was  that it  did not  look at  the whole                                                                    
picture.  Whereas,  the  subcommittee had  determined  there                                                                    
were  foregone harvests  and that  fishery receipts  and tax                                                                    
had been lost.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:39:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  provided wrap up. She  clarified that                                                                    
she had never stated that  commercial fisheries did not play                                                                    
a  significant  role  or  pay   license  and  landing  fees.                                                                    
However, she  believed the legislature expected  many of the                                                                    
areas  to  be cost  neutral  (e.g.  boards and  commissions,                                                                    
doctors, real  estate, and other)  to keep the  state whole,                                                                    
yet  there were  other  areas  that did  not  have the  same                                                                    
expectation. She  stated she would  agree with  the co-chair                                                                    
if she  was taking the  numbers back  to FY 17  actuals, but                                                                    
she  observed  the  gains were  substantial  -  $400,000  to                                                                    
$500,000 and up to several  million dollars. She thought the                                                                    
department  should get  closer  to  the correct  expenditure                                                                    
line  if  the  goal  was  transparency.  She  thought  small                                                                    
fluctuations  were  acceptable,  but   the  changes  in  the                                                                    
component under consideration were not small.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson stated  that  many times  departments                                                                    
communicated  they did  not  know what  the  money would  be                                                                    
spent on,  which she  found unacceptable.  She had  not been                                                                    
able  to  get the  answers  from  the department  about  the                                                                    
percentage of  the costs paid  by the fishing  industry. She                                                                    
believed  that as  state revenue  continued to  decline, the                                                                    
public would  expect the legislature to  ensure the industry                                                                    
was paying  for its  own services. She  thought that  in the                                                                    
cases of  large increases in  budget items that  perhaps the                                                                    
department was spending the funds  elsewhere. She thought it                                                                    
was  necessary to  put  a  squeeze on  the  agencies to  get                                                                    
closer  to identifying  what  the money  was  spent on.  She                                                                    
relayed that she  had not looked at an average,  but she had                                                                    
looked at  several years to  determine whether  numbers were                                                                    
consistent. She  found the budget numbers  to be consistent.                                                                    
She pointed  to the $355,700  and explained it had  been the                                                                    
number the two  previous years. She thought  it appeared the                                                                    
department copied  the budget from  the year before  and did                                                                    
not pay  attention to where  the money was being  spent. She                                                                    
had seen that  the budget numbers had  been consistently the                                                                    
same up to  the current year. In the  current budget process                                                                    
she had seen many components  going back to actuals, whereas                                                                    
"other  services" components  appeared  to  be places  where                                                                    
departments put funds they did not know where else to put.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Guttenberg,  Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara,  Grenn, Foster,                                                                    
Seaton                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DFG 6 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:42:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DFG  7                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Commercial Fisheries                                                                                                       
     Central Region Fisheries Management                                                                                        
     H DFG 7 - 3011: Other Services                                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17  Actuals  $277.5  and FY19  Governor  $1,041.3.  A                                                                    
     decrease of  $200.0 leaves  $841.3 for  printing, copy,                                                                    
     transportation and consulting  services, other services                                                                    
     not yet determined.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  reviewed the  amendment  description                                                                    
[see  above].  She stressed  it  was  over three  times  the                                                                    
amount of money (she had left in the component) from FY 17.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  opposed the amendment.  He underscored                                                                    
DFG had  been cut back by  over 35 percent in  UGF. He spoke                                                                    
to  the implication  the amendments  made  that somehow  the                                                                    
department was  not finding efficiencies. He  remarked there                                                                    
would have to  have been a substantial amount  of waste when                                                                    
the  department's budget  was 35  percent higher  otherwise,                                                                    
the department  had obviously had  to find  efficiencies. He                                                                    
did  not  believe  the  legislature  should  delve  down  to                                                                    
scrutinize  the one  area and  claim  efficiencies were  not                                                                    
occurring. He was very uncomfortable  with the amendment. He                                                                    
explained that  it took financial  investment to be  able to                                                                    
ensure the  state had the best  managed fisheries worldwide.                                                                    
He thought the amendment was a step in the wrong direction.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt wondered why  the department would ask                                                                    
for almost  $700,000 more than  had been  used in FY  17. He                                                                    
stated  that the  amendment would  not reduce  personnel and                                                                    
pertained to  printing, copy, transportation  and consulting                                                                    
services,  and  other  services   not  yet  determined.  The                                                                    
sponsor was  highlighting that the department  had requested                                                                    
an increase  of $700,000  UGF. He  referenced Representative                                                                    
Ortiz's testimony that the department's  UGF budget had been                                                                    
reduced.   He  believed   if  that   were   the  case,   the                                                                    
department's proposal  should have shown a  reduction in the                                                                    
component and an increase in  another component if the money                                                                    
was used elsewhere. He stated  the amendment did not propose                                                                    
to cut the entire amount -  it would reduce the component by                                                                    
$200,000  and  leave  $841,000 remaining.  He  reasoned  the                                                                    
remaining money would be almost  $500,000 more than had been                                                                    
used  in FY  17. He  stressed the  department had  only used                                                                    
$277,000 [in  FY 17]. He had  not heard a reason  to justify                                                                    
why the amendment should not be passed.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz  asked  to hear  from  the  department                                                                    
about the particular item.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:47:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Kelley answered  that any  of the  proposed cuts  would                                                                    
come at  the expense of  stock assessment projects  put into                                                                    
the  field  to  assess fish  populations  including  salmon,                                                                    
crab, or  groundfish. He had  heard some of  the committee's                                                                    
questions   about   the   industry  supporting   itself   or                                                                    
contributing to  the state's economy. He  offered to provide                                                                    
the detail if the committee desired.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that  the committee was addressing                                                                    
H DFG 7 pertaining to fisheries management.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelley  communicated that  a decrease  of any  amount to                                                                    
the  Central   Region  component   would  mean   less  stock                                                                    
assessment,   which   in    general   meant   less   fishing                                                                    
opportunity.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:48:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz had no further questions.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson   provided  wrap  up.   She  reminded                                                                    
members  that  hunting and  fishing  license  fees had  been                                                                    
increased via  legislation. She explained the  funds came in                                                                    
under  DGF.  Additionally,  the  state  began  receiving  an                                                                    
increase  in [federal]  Pittman Robertson  funds when  state                                                                    
license fees had been increased.  She explained that UGF had                                                                    
been replaced with DGF. She reasoned  it may look like a cut                                                                    
to  the department;  however, the  funds  had been  replaced                                                                    
with  other   types  of  funds.  She   elaborated  that  the                                                                    
department  could  not  specify   what  its  other  not  yet                                                                    
determined services were that  fell under the component. She                                                                    
stated the department's testimony  had pertained to surveys,                                                                    
but  the   amendment  was   about  printing,   copying,  and                                                                    
transportation.  She emphasized  that over  three times  the                                                                    
amount of money had been  left in the component. She thought                                                                    
the  committee should  have  received  a better  explanation                                                                    
from the department if the funds were truly needed.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Kawasaki,  Ortiz, Gara, Grenn,  Guttenberg, Seaton,                                                                    
Foster                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 7 FAILED (4/7).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:51:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment  H DFG  8                                                                    
(copy on file):                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Commercial Fisheries                                                                                                       
     AYK Region Fisheries Management                                                                                            
     H DFG 8 - 3011: Other Services                                                                                             
     Offered by Representative Wilson                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     FY17 Actuals $417.7 and FY19 Governor $801.9. A                                                                            
     decrease of $200.0 leaves $601.9 for printing, copy,                                                                       
     transportation and consulting services.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson read  the amendment  description [see                                                                    
above].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton asked  if Representative  Wilson was  using                                                                    
total funds.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  replied she had used  actuals for the                                                                    
area and  had considered whether  the fund source was  GF or                                                                    
GF  match  and  what  was  being  utilized  (after  removing                                                                    
personnel numbers).                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton asked  for verification  that it  was total                                                                    
funds.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson replied in the affirmative.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  clarified   that  the  amendment  included                                                                    
federal  funds;  therefore,  if  there  was  a  shortage  of                                                                    
federal funds, it would mean  cutting UGF because there were                                                                    
not enough  federal funds in  FY 17 to fund  the expenditure                                                                    
so the  expenditure was lower.  He elaborated it  would mean                                                                    
taking  UGF  away  because there  had  not  been  sufficient                                                                    
federal funds  received in FY  17 to make the  actuals where                                                                    
it would have been.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Ortiz referred  to  the amendment  sponsor's                                                                    
remarks that Pittman Robertson funding  had increased due to                                                                    
license fee increases and therefore  DFG really had not seen                                                                    
a  budget  reduction.  He underscored  that  the  department                                                                    
could  not   use  Pittman  Robertson  generated   funds  for                                                                    
commercial  fishing  activities  - there  were  some  narrow                                                                    
windows  where it  was potentially  allowable. He  explained                                                                    
that Pittman Robertson did not  make up for UGF funding cuts                                                                    
to commercial fishing.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:53:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  relayed that Pittman Robertson  funds could                                                                    
only  be  used  for  hunter  access,  trails,  and  wildlife                                                                    
viewing.  He  clarified the  funds  could  not be  used  for                                                                    
commercial fishing.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson clarified  that Representative  Ortiz                                                                    
kept talking about  Department of Fish and  Game in general.                                                                    
Therefore,  her  response had  been  about  GF used  in  the                                                                    
department. Some  of the department  cuts had  been replaced                                                                    
by Pittman Robertson  funds. She explained that  much of the                                                                    
discussion  about recent  amendments  had  pertained to  the                                                                    
department as  a whole.  She elaborated  that Representative                                                                    
Ortiz  had   provided  numbers  pertaining  to   the  entire                                                                    
department  versus  the  specific component  the  amendments                                                                    
pertained to.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton asked to hear  from the department about the                                                                    
impact of the amendment.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CAROL   PETRABORG,    DIRECTOR,   ADMINISTRATIVE   SERVICES,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF  FISH AND  GAME (via  teleconference), replied                                                                    
that in FY  18 the AYK Region component had  lapse just over                                                                    
$17,000 GF.  There had been  an increase in soft  funding in                                                                    
statutory  designated program  receipts to  the Division  of                                                                    
Commercial  Fisheries to  replace prior  GF reductions.  She                                                                    
explained that  the funds  did not  always come  through. It                                                                    
had been  anticipated the department would  be spending more                                                                    
money if  the industry funds transpired.  She expounded that                                                                    
something  that  was not  reflected  in  the components  for                                                                    
commercial  fisheries  was  that  in FY  18  the  department                                                                    
allocated  out   a  facilities   rent  component   that  had                                                                    
previously  resided   in  Administrative  Services   to  the                                                                    
division in  order for expenditures  to be reflected  in the                                                                    
correct division. Therefore, over  $1 million for commercial                                                                    
fisheries was  not reflected  in the FY  17 actuals;  it had                                                                    
been done in the FY 18 budget.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Seaton   asked   for   clarification   that   the                                                                    
reallocation  of   the  rent  receipts  had   increased  the                                                                    
division's budget  and it would  carry through to FY  19. He                                                                    
surmised  it  was a  reallocation  of  funds that  had  been                                                                    
previously reported on another line in the budget.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Petraborg replied  in the  affirmative.  The funds  had                                                                    
previously been recorded  within the Administrative Services                                                                    
Division.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:58:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson provided  wrap up.  She did  not know                                                                    
how the  $1 million  fit into  the amendment  - she  was not                                                                    
clear on whether the division  had gained or lost the money.                                                                    
She did not  believe the numbers came out  right either way.                                                                    
She opined  the department should have  a better explanation                                                                    
of the  funding need  if the  large increase  was important.                                                                    
She  reasoned  if  the  division   needed  $1  million,  the                                                                    
component was only  $800,000, which did not  make sense. She                                                                    
questioned whether the department knew where it was                                                                             
spending the money.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                      
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster,                                                                      
Seaton                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION to adopt H DFG 8 FAILED (4/7).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:59:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 285 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                              
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                              
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the following day.                                                                      
The committee would continue budget amendments during its                                                                       
next meeting.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:00:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
Hb 285 HB 286 Op Budget Amendment-Packet.pdf HFIN 3/5/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 285
HB 286
HB 286 OMB FY2019 Amendments Based on Actuals.pdf HFIN 3/5/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 286
HB 286 HB 285 Amendments with Actions as of 3-5-18.pdf HFIN 3/5/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 285
HB 286