Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/03/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB39 || HB40 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2019
9:36 a.m.
9:36:21 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:36 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance; Representative Delana Johnson;
House Speaker Bryce Edgmon; Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tompkins; Representative Lance Pruitt; Representative Geran
Tarr; Representative Louise Stutes; Representative Matt
Claman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
HB 39 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 40 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 40 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. The committee
would be considering amendments to the operating budget
bills.
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
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."
HOUSE BILL NO. 40
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program, including
supplemental appropriations; and providing for an
effective date."
9:36:57 AM
Co-Chair Foster reported the committee would consider
language amendments first to give Legislative Legal the
maximum amount of time to ensure that all of the wording
was precise. The committee would also take up the numbers
section amendments.
^AMENDMENTS
9:37:41 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked that Amendment LS 1 be moved to the
bottom of the language section.
Co-Chair Foster confirmed that the amendment would be moved
to the bottom of the section.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS
2, 31-GH1905\R.41 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
Page 57, line 6:
Delete "$309,090"
Insert "209,090"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard explained the amendment
contained verbiage regarding the Alaska Court System. She
indicated that 10 percent of filing fees received by the
court system was estimated at $309,090. The request was to
reduce the amount by $100,000. In researching Alaska Legal
Services and what it did across the state for people in
need, she found that there were other entities including
non-profits that could provide similar support.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that Alaska Legal Services fell
under the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development. Legislation was recently passed which gave 10
percent to Alaska Legal Services to ensure that single
mothers who did not have funding were provided with help.
She would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard suggested that in current
times when trying to find every possible reduction within
the state's budget structure, it was important to look at
areas where the private sector could provide support. She
noted several entities that could potentially help.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Knopp, LeBon, Johnston, Ortiz, Josephson,
Foster, Wilson
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment LS 2 FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Foster acknowledged that Representative Delena
Johnson, Representative Sara Vance, and Speaker Bryce
Edgmon were in the audience.
9:41:47 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard WITHDREW Amendment LS 3,
31-GH1905\R.40 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
Page 71, lines 15 -16:
Delete "An amount equal to 10 percent of the
filing fees received by the Alaska Court System
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018,
estimated to be $309,090,"
Insert "The sum of $209,090"
9:42:13 AM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 4, 31-
GH1905\R.35 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
[SEE BELOW]
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson suggested taking up Amendment LS 4 and
Amendment LS 5 together. She noted that Regional
Educational Attendance Areas (REAAs) were connected to the
state's other school debt reimbursement. Usually if one of
them was reduced, both would actually be reduced.
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 4, 31-
GH1905\R.35 (Bruce, 4/1/19) and Amendment LS 5, 31-
GH1905\R.39 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
Amendment LS 4:
Page 57, line 28:
Delete "sec. 23(t)"
Insert "sec. 23(r)"
Page 68, line 30, through page 69. line 4:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 70, line 14:
Delete "(t)"
Insert "(r)"
Page 70, line 22:
Delete "(u)"
Insert"(s)"
Page 77, line 10:
Delete "Sections 23(j) and (k) and 29(b) of this
Act take"
Insert "Section 29(b) of this Act takes"
Amendment LS 5:
Page 57, line 28:
Delete "sec. 23(t)"
Insert "sec. 23(s)"
Page 66, lines 24-29:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 69, lines 5-7:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 70, line 14:
Delete "(t)"
Insert "(s)" 18
Page 70, line 22:
Delete "(u)"
Insert "(t)"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained the two amendments
deleted forward funding of public education, the school
bond debt reimbursement, and the REAA funding.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the amendments reduced the forward
funding by 100 percent.
Representative Carpenter responded that the amendments
would bring the funding down to the level proposed in the
governor's budget.
Representative Josephson thought that the amendments would
inflict too much pain in conjunction with the legislation
continuing a moratorium on school bond debt reimbursement.
He would be opposing the motion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz agreed that it was important to look for
cost savings. However, he argued that the amendment would
be a cost shift to municipalities rather than a cost
savings. He suggested the impact would be significant to
all the school districts and communities throughout Alaska.
Co-Chair Foster recalled that the elimination of the school
bond debt reimbursement program would result in a loss of
$83 million and REAAs would lose approximately $39 million.
He asked if Representative Carpenter intended those
reductions with his amendments.
Representative Carpenter responded affirmatively that his
intention was to bring the numbers back to the numbers
proposed by the governor.
Co-Chair Wilson believed the amendment not only removed the
Undesignated General Funds (UGF), it also took out the
public school funding which removed the entire $99 million
allocated along with the amount associated with the REAA.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up advocating for
fiscal responsibility and the health of Alaska's economy.
He thought a lack of growth was a contributing factor to
many of Alaska's challenges. He suggested that if
legislators were listening closely to the private sector,
business investment in the state would increase when the
legislature chose to act fiscally responsibly. Investment
decision makers he has had in his office were waiting for
members to spend within the state's means over the
long-term. They were waiting for an environment where their
investments would not be swallowed up by state spending.
They did not oppose appropriate taxation but feared they
would be an easy target to finance unsustainable state
spending.
Representative Carpenter continued that in very basic terms
fiscally responsible meant two things. First, it meant that
the state's spending decisions should be limited to revenue
the economy generated and, the state should have the self-
discipline to not spend money it did not have. Second, it
meant that the state's spending decisions and tax policies
should encourage investment in the private sector so it
could grow. He suggested that the legislature should resist
the urge to add spending to the governor's budget, as it
would be doing the wrong thing for the long-term fiscal
health of the state. He asserted that using the Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD) to grow state revenue would not grow
Alaska's economy and would not be sending the message of
fiscal responsibility. It would communicate that the
legislature had no intent to take an appetite suppressant.
Representative Carpenter asserted that a message of fiscal
responsibility was best communicated by having the courage
to reduce state spending to match its revenue and to cap
state spending to reasonable growth. It would be painful,
but he thought the state would learn to spend within its
means. He suggested the state's economy would grow when it
had less state government to pay for. The two amendments
were a portion of the necessary reductions in state
spending as outlined by Governor Dunleavy. The amendments
did not pass judgement on the value of the program it
referred to, as all of the state programs were valued by
someone. The amendments spoke to the idea of being fiscally
responsible. He believed the state had to reduce its
spending.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter,
Johnston, Wilson
OPPOSED: LeBon, Ortiz, Josephson, Knopp, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). Amendment LS 4 and Amendment LS 5
were ADOPTED.
9:49:07 AM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 6, 31-
GH1905\R.12 (Bruce, 3/30/19) (copy on file):
Page 60, lines 6-10:
Delete all material.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson explained the amendment. She relayed that
the amendment removed $1.1 million UGF. The funding for
hotshot crews was federally funded. The stop gap funding
lapsed each year and was not needed because of federal
funding.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
cut would not happen if federal funding was matched.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that it was not matching funds.
The hotshot crews were paid with federal funding. The
appropriation had been included in the past before federal
funding was provided. She indicated that there was an
appropriation in another part of the language section that
provided federal funds for hotshot crews.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Wilson reiterated that federal funding was used
for the activity which remained in the budget. Undesignated
general funds were no longer needed. She urged members to
support her amendment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter,
Johnston, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster, Wilson
OPPOSED: None
The MOTION PASSED (11/0). Amendment LS 6 was ADOPTED.
9:51:47 AM
Co-Chair Foster acknowledged Representative Johnathan
Kreiss-Tomkins and Representative Lance Pruitt.
9:52:19 AM
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 7, 31-
GH1905\R.33 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
[SEE BELOW]
9:52:37 AM
AT EASE
9:55:19 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster called on Representative Knopp regarding
Amendment LS 7 and Amendment LS 8.
Representative Knopp WITHDREW Amendment LS 7 and Amendment
LS 8, 31-GH1905\R.27 (Bruce, 4/1/19)(copy on file):
Amendment LS 7:
Page 66, lines 24 - 25:
Delete "amount necessary for state aid for costs
of school construction under AS 14.11.100,
estimated to be $99,820,500,"
Insert "sum of $49,910,250"
Page 66, lines 28 - 29:
Delete "the amount necessary, after the
appropriation made in (I) of this subsection, 8
estimated to be $83,320,500,"
Insert "$33,410,250"
Page 69, line 5:
Delete "$39,389,000"
Insert "$19,694,500"
Amendment LS 8:
Page 66, lines 24-25:
Delete "amount necessary for state aid for costs
of school construction under 3 AS 14.11.100,
estimated to be $99,820,500,"
Insert "sum of$74,865,375"
Page 66, lines 28 - 29:
Delete "the amount necessary, after the
appropriation made in (I) of this subsection, 8
estimated to be $83,320,500,"
Insert "$58,365,375"
Page 69, line 5:
Delete "$39,389,000"
Insert "$29,541,750"
9:55:58 AM
AT EASE
10:00:11 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated the committee would take up
Amendment LS 9.
10:00:24 AM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 9, 31-
GH1905\R.26 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
Page 68, line 27:
Delete "general fund"
Insert "receipts of the Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority 4 (AS 44.88)"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment would change
the fund source for paying oil tax credits from UGF to
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
funds in the amount of $70 million. The amendment was in
the spirit of the administration. The administration
initially proposed to move over $200 million from AIDEA
funds to support similar items. He asked for the
committee's full support.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated she had not heard from AIDEA
about taking its receipts. She had not been comfortable
with the administration's proposal of using $200 million
from AIDEA previously. If the funding was UGF, she wanted
to make sure the payment would not be the last for tax
credits. She thought the funding source should remain UGF.
Representative Josephson explained that on March 4, 2019,
the Bradner Report indicated that Mr. Boutin, the Executive
Director of AIDEA, told a Senate Finance budget
subcommittee that his group could handle a large transfer
of funds from its investment portfolio. The governor
recommended $264 million. The amendment proposed $70
million, 20 percent of the amount Mr. Boutin had indicated
as safe. He thought the evidence was apparent and would
support the amendment.
Vice-Chair Johnston appreciated the amendment efforts, but
thought it went counter to what she was basing her votes
on. She did not want to go into any type of savings. She
suggested that if AIDEA reported that the amendment fell
within its mission, she would support the amendment.
However, she thought the amendment would result in dipping
into savings. She would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Carpenter was curious to hear back from
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA).
He proposed tabling the amendment.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED.
10:03:33 AM
AT EASE
10:05:43 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to TABLE Amendment LS 9.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for a point of clarification. He
asked if tabling the motion would have the same effect of
moving it to the bottom of the order.
Co-Chair Foster responded that that was how he understood
it but invited Representative Carpenter to respond.
Representative Carpenter commented, "That's not what a
table would do."
Co-Chair Wilson explained that her objection was because
the representative was asking to table the motion until
AIDEA could come before the committee. She did not believe
AIDEA could come before the committee for at least a few
days. She thought time had been provided to vet the
amendments and that the committee should move on. She
suggested that it could be addressed on the floor.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Carpenter, Ortiz, Tilton
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Johnston, Josephson, Knopp,
LeBon, Wilson, Foster
The MOTION to TABLE Amendment LS 9 FAILED (4/7).
10:08:19 AM
AT EASE
10:09:18 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Sullivan-Leonard voiced support for
Amendment LS 9. She had discussed the issue with AIDEA in
her office. She wished the amount was larger. She was aware
AIDEA had proposed over $200 million to pay for oil and gas
tax credits. She thought appropriating $70 million from
AIDEA funds was a smart move. It allowed funds to stay in
UGF where they should be. She liked the idea of using other
avenues to pay the state's obligations including oil and
gas tax credits.
Representative Carpenter asked to increase the amendment to
$200 million.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Representative Carpenter was
offering an amendment.
Representative Carpenter MOVED Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment LS 9. The amendment would increase the funds from
$70 million to $200 million from AIDEA.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED. She clarified that the amount
would be changed to $200 million. The issue was not whether
the state owed the credits. The issue was about taking the
money from another savings account rather than UGF. The
saving account that AIDEA had was for funding projects
which could not get funding from a bank. She had not seen
documentation about whether taking $70 million or $200
million from the AIDEA fund would hamper future projects.
The proposal was something the legislature had never done
before and AIDEA's Board of Directors had not weighed in on
the matter. She would be opposing Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment LS 9.
Representative Josephson opposed the motion to amend
Amendment 9. He indicated that the amount of $70 million
was based on anticipated non-participants in the bond
package. The amount of $200 million did not match the need
assuming the bond package was approved by the Supreme
Court. He would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Carpenter sensed there was confusion, which
was the reason he had wanted to table the amendment in
order to hear from AIDEA. The concept of taking $200
million from the AIDEA account was similar to taking $1
billion from the Permanent Fund Dividends going to Alaskans
for government spending. He did not understand the concept.
Representative LeBon opined that the legislature was on a
slippery slope with the idea of removing capital from an
agency like AIDEA. He could not support $200 million or $70
million. He did not know whether hearing from AIDEA would
change his mind. He stated the agency was the state's
investment bank. He did not support handcuffing the
agency's ability to make major investments.
Representative Knopp agreed with Representative Josephson
that $70 million was the estimated amount owed to those who
were non-participants of the bonding program. He thought
the question was the funding source. He supported the use
of UGF.
10:16:15 AM
AT EASE
10:18:32 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter thought the question before the
committee was whether the legislature wanted to spend $2
million in debt to pay the state's obligation or whether it
wanted to take $2 million from savings.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that when the state paid tax
credits it had to do with who was first in line. She
suggested that the $100 million paid in the previous year
was not paid based on whether someone was willing to take 5
percent or 10 percent reduction. Rather, it had to do with
who was next in line. It might have been the intent of the
original maker of the amendment to only have it apply to
those companies who wanted 100 percent of their funding.
That was not how the program worked. The next company in
line would receive the $70 million until and if the bond
package passed. It was not only about using savings, it was
also about taking money from a corporation that the
legislature put in place for the purpose of development for
projects that could not get lending through traditional
means. She asserted that Alaskans were tired of the
legislature switching fund sources to appear as if it was
saving even though it was not. She thought the games should
stop. The legislature needed to be honest where the money
was from. She also emphasized the need for additional
infrastructure. She did not want to see the savings account
robbed.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on his motion to
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment LS 9. He thought the
state should be paying its obligations. He relayed that $70
million did not cover the states obligation costs, only a
portion of them. Approximately $200 million would cover the
expense. The decision was about whether the state went into
debt or paid it out of savings.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment LS 9.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Sullivan-Leonard
OPPOSED: Johnston, Ortiz, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Tilton,
Merrick, Wilson, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment to Amendment LS 9
FAILED (2/9).
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Louise Stutes in
the audience. He relayed that Amendment LS 9 was under
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
Amendment 9.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Tilton, Merrick,
Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Foster, Wilson
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment LS 9 PASSED (6/5).
10:23:52 AM
RECESSED
2:26:42 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the meeting left off from
the morning having recessed. The committee would continue
to take up amendments in the language section of the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to RESCIND action on Amendment LS 4
and Amendment LS 5
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. He thought it was wise
to keep the amendments together. The action previously
taken on the amendments sent a message to the private
sector that the state could be fiscally responsible.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that Amendment LS 4 and Amendment
LS 5 had to do with school debt reimbursement and forward
funding of education.
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnston, Ortiz, Josephson, LeBon, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter, Knopp,
Tilton
The MOTION to RESCIND Action on Amendment LS 4 and
Amendment LS 5 PASSED (6/5).
Co-Chair Wilson wanted to take up Amendment LS 4 and
Amendment LS 5 separately.
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 4 (copy on
file): [See Above].
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson explained the amendment even though it was
not her amendment. The amendment would affect forward
funding of the state's schools.
2:29:50 PM
Representative LeBon asked how forward funding for the
state's schools would be affected.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that the adoption of the
amendment would essentially get rid of forward funding
education.
Representative Carpenter commented that he was a fan of a
2-year budget. He thought forward funding education was a
great idea. It solved some of the problems at the local
level. However, the appropriation was not part of a
comprehensive fiscal plan - it was a piece-meal approach
that was not fiscally responsible. He thought forward
funding education should be addressed in a comprehensive
manner. He would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked the maker of the
amendment to articulate what the amount would be for
forward funding.
Co-Chair Wilson pointed to page 68, lines 30-31. She read
from the bill. An exact amount was not specified because it
depended upon enrollment, the number of special needs
students, and the location of schools. She agreed that the
legislature needed to start looking 2 years out versus 1
year out. Teachers were hired based on student population.
She suggested that if someone wanted to change the base
student allocation formula, the funding would either be
higher or lower depending on any proposed legislation.
Although the bill did not provide concrete dollar amounts,
it communicated to schools that the state was flat funding
education. It was actually funding less, as the $20 million
was not included.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that the amendment would not
allow forward funding education in FY 21.
2:32:56 PM
AT EASE
2:33:13 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that voting no on the amendment
meant yes to forward funding. He asked if he was correct.
Co-Chair Foster responded, "That's correct."
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Johnston, Ortiz, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Foster,
Wilson
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment LS 4 FAILED (4/7).
2:34:40 PM
AT EASE
2:37:08 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 5 (copy on
file): [See above].
Co-Chair Wilson explained the amendment having to do with
school debt reimbursement which affected municipalities
that had the ability to bond. It would also affect REAAs
that did not bond and had a formula applied.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment LS 5 to insert language from Amendment LS 7
which was previously withdrawn. The amendment would
essentially put 50 percent back in for municipalities.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz supported Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment LS 5. He thought that the original amendment was
a significant and massive cost shifting to local
municipalities by the state not reimbursing local
municipalities for their school bond debt. He supported the
amendment to the amendment because it was less of a cost
shift than the original amendment. He reported that the
intent of the legislature had been to assist municipalities
with their school bond debt. He understood that the
assistance was subject to appropriation. By adopting the
amendment to the amendment, the state would continue to
assist municipalities with their school bond debt, albeit
at a 50 percent reduced level.
Co-Chair Wilson would be opposing the amendment. She
reported that prior to 2015, times were different. The
state had money and could share it with municipalities.
Each of the bonds stated that if the state chose to
appropriate, municipalities could get a reimbursement of
70/30 or 60/40 depending on the project and its scoring by
the Department of Education. She indicated the legislature
made it well known that the state might not be able to
reimburse at 100 percent. Since 2015 bonding had continued.
The Fairbanks North Star School District had bonded because
of a need for repairs. Her constituents paid 100 percent of
the school bond debt because it was their responsibility to
take care of their schools for their children. Although she
appreciated the amendment to the amendment, times were
different, and money was short. She reiterated that the
state made it very clear that assistance was subject to
appropriation. Currently, municipalities bonded rather than
the state, taking responsibility for their debt.
Representative Josephson stated there had been good
arguments on both sides to the amendment to the amendment.
There had been some change in his district after the
passage of the moratorium. He reported that a $50 million
bond failed. He felt that the state was looking at a 10-
year moratorium. He opined that adding a full cessation of
state contribution to a moratorium was more that the state
needed to do. He continued to be disappointed because the
legislature had not resolved the state's fiscal situation.
He thought there could be changes made to state and local
services after a full vetting of what the changes would
look like. Currently, the state had played a role. He
reported that an average home in his district would suffer
a $250 tax increase rather than a $450 tax increase.
2:43:55 PM
Representative Carpenter appreciated the comments regarding
the shifting of burden. He was not callous to realize that
hardship would be felt around the state and that the
legislature's actions were without feeling. If the state
were to stop spending money it did not have, there would be
a shift of responsibility to others who would also have to
be fiscally responsible. The state was in a different time
and experiencing a different budget situation. The
alternative was to take PFD checks to pay for spending.
While people might be faced with a $250 or $500 increase in
taxes at the local level, a family of four stood to lose
$12,000 in PFD checks. It would take all but a small
portion of each of Alaskans' PFD checks to pay for
government spending at the level the state wanted to spend.
He believed it was disingenuous to Alaskans to say that the
legislature could not cut spending so it would take
people's PFD checks. As a fiscal conservative he would
rather pay for things at the local level than he would
taking investment earnings from the PFD to pay for more
state government. He suggested that the goal was to get
Alaska's economy going. He thought the legislature needed
to send a message to business leaders that the state could
control its spending, which meant difficult decisions would
have to be made.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that the original amendment was
to cut the school bond debt reimbursement by 100 percent.
The amendment to the amendment would add back 50 percent.
Therefore, it would essentially be a 50 percent reduction.
It applied to both school bond debt reimbursement and
REAAs. He asked if he was accurate.
Representative Carpenter asked if Co-Chair Foster was
referring to his amendment.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Representative Carpenter's
original amendment applied to both REAAs and school bond
debt reimbursement.
Representative Carpenter replied, "That is correct."
Representative LeBon asked for a dollar amount on the
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster stated it would be $83 million UGF for
school bond debt reimbursement plus $16 million from the
Public School Trust Fund totaling $99 million. The amount
for REAAs was $39.4 million.
2:48:03 PM
Representative Knopp stated that amount for REAAs was
originally $39.389 million. He reported that 50 percent
equaled $19.694 million. The total estimated debt was about
$99.820 million. He indicated that about $16.5 million came
out of the education fund and $83.320 million came out of
UGF. A 50 percent reduction would equal $33.410 million.
Co-Chair Foster stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment LS 5 would reduce school bond debt reimbursement
from $99 million to just below $50 million and REAAs would
be reduced from just under $40 million to just under $20
million.
Representative Knopp agreed with the co-chair that it was
the legislature's job to protect Alaska's schools and
children and to protect Alaska's communities and economy.
He agreed with Representative Carpenter that the goal was
to stimulate the economy rather than tearing it apart. He
advocated for a step-down program to allow people to adjust
which was what the amendment did. In 2016, Governor Walker
Also vetoed 25 percent of the funds to municipalities. He
thought the amendment to the amendment was appropriate. He
noted that there was a bill in play that extended the
moratorium for school bond debt reimbursement. He agreed
with the moratorium based on the state's current situation.
However, he thought the program was still worthwhile.
2:50:32 PM
AT EASE
3:00:05 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment LS 5.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Knopp to first
withdraw his first amendment to Amendment LS 5.
Representative Knopp WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 5.
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment LS 5. He explained that the conceptual
amendment would delete all language in Amendment LS 5 and
replace it with the language from Amendment LS 7:
[See above]
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter asked for clarification.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that the change was a
clarification for Legislative Legal Services. She furthered
that Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment LS 5 equated to a
50 percent reduction for debt reimbursement payments for
municipality bonds and a 50 percent reduction for REAAs.
The amendment was intended to provide additional
clarification.
Representative Carpenter understood the concept being
presented but disagreed with the method in which the
committee was going about implementing it. He continued
that it was important to keep in mind that adding money
into the budget was not the only way to protect Alaska's
communities and schools. He believed a change in thinking
was needed. He suggested that the state's current spending
level was unsustainable, and using the PFD presently, would
resulting in doing away with it altogether in a few years.
He believed that additional taxes would be required in the
future to sustain state spending. He argued that a 50
percent reduction currently would still require the use of
PFD funding to maintain the state's current level of
spending, although reduced. He thought it kicked the can
down the road, just not as hard. Fiscal responsibility was
about making difficult calls and doing what was right to
set up the economy for the future. He argued that the state
had to do a reset. The state was spending too much for what
the economy could support. He compared state spending to
living in a large home that a person could not afford. He
suggested selling the larger home and buying a smaller one.
He continued that moving to a 50 percent reduction was the
same as taking PFDs from Alaska's children.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Knopp, Foster
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Johnston, LeBon, Tilton, Merrick,
Sullivan-Leonard, Wilson
The MOTION to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment LS
5 FAILED (4/7).
3:04:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster returned to Amendment LS 5. He reiterated
that the amendment would reduce school bond debt
reimbursement and REAA funds by 100 percent.
Representative LeBon asked about the dollar amount
reflected in the fiscal note. He thought the amount was
approximately $122 million.
Co-Chair Foster replied affirmatively. He corrected
himself. He indicated the amount was $99 million plus $39.4
million. He conveyed the figure of between $138 million and
$139 million.
Vice-Chair Ortiz was opposed to the amendment. He reminded
the body of the constitution. It specified that it was a
requirement for the state to adequately provide education
for Alaska's youth between the ages of 5 through 18. He did
not think anyone could argue that providing an adequate
education included providing adequate facilities to receive
that education. He agreed with Representative Carpenter's
comments about prioritizing state spending. However, there
was not a constitutional mandate to deliver a full PFD. He
would be voting no on the amendment.
3:06:50 PM
Representative Knopp mentioned that he did not support the
amendment. He preferred a step-down approach to fixing the
state's spending habits. He reported that the impacts of
the amendment equated to a $42 million annual tax burden to
the Municipality of Anchorage, $19 million to his community
municipality, and about $18 million to the Mat-Su
Municipality. He noted additional impacts to REAAs in terms
of construction and maintenance. He thought the reduction
was regressive. One of the reasons for the legislature
holding community meetings was to inform the public of the
potential impacts of the actions being considered by the
legislature. He thought the reduction would be a large hit
in 2 years from 25 percent in FY 16 to what it was
presently.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that initially the amendment was
offered by Representative Carpenter. However, Co-Chair
Wilson moved it and would normally have time for wrap-up
comments. He invited Representative Carpenter to make any
comments.
Representative Carpenter spoke to the fact there was
nothing pleasant about making cuts to budgets that were
going to affect Alaska's schools or any other programs
people counted on. The state was in an unfortunate
situation. It had encountered years of spending that could
no longer be sustained. He thought legislators were being
presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do the
right thing - resetting the state all the way down to the
local level. He suggested that if legislators truly
believed oil revenue in Alaska was a declining resource,
legislators ought to be having the conversation as to how
to live on less. Legislators had been attempting to step
down its spending for several years, and the state was
currently at the point where it was out of reserves. He
opined that businesses did not have the security of a state
spending cap. He compared the situation to trees not dying
because of pruning. Economies did not die because of
pruning either: Economies died because of spending more
resources than were available. He asserted that pruning was
the only thing that would afford the state's economy to
grow.
Co-Chair Wilson reminded members the amendment was about
bond reimbursement. She cautioned that decisions had to be
made and everything had a consequence.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Johnston, LeBon, Merrick,
Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Josephson, Knopp, Ortiz, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment LS 5 PASSED (7/4).
Co-Chair Wilson requested that members keep their comments
limited to the amendments being considered.
Co-Chair Foster agreed with Co-Chair Wilson's comments.
3:12:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 10, 31-
GH1905\R.3 (Bruce, 3/29/19) (copy on file):
Page 72, lines 7 - 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"(f) After the appropriation made in sec. 23(i)
of this Act, the remaining balance of the amount
calculated under AS 42.45.085(d), estimated to be
$454,000, is appropriated from the power cost
equalization endowment fund (AS 42.45.070) to the
renewable energy grant fund (AS 42.45.045)."
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster explained the amendment was a technical
amendment that modified a drafting error for the language
added in the committee substitute appropriating funding
from the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Endowment to the
Renewable Energy Grant Fund. He referred to Section 24(f)
which inadvertently appropriated the entire balance of the
PCE Endowment after appropriations for the PCE Program and
the Community Assistance Funding payments had been made to
the Renewable Energy Grant Fund. The amendment corrected
the language and allocated available PCE Endowment
earnings, not the entire balance of the fund to the
Renewable Energy Grant Fund per statutory formula.
Effectively, if the language was not corrected renewable
energy grants would have had close to $1 billion in
funding. The entire endowment should not be directed to
that purpose. He reiterated that the amendment was a
technical fix.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment LS 10 was adopted.
3:14:35 PM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 11, 31-
GH1905\R.15 (Bruce, 3/30/19) (copy on file):
Page 74, line 6, through page 75, line 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"*Sec. 26. MONETARY TERMS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. The monetary terms for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2020, of each of the
collective bargaining agreements listed in this
section are rejected under AS 23.40.215 unless
separate legislation is enacted that contains
explicit language approving the monetary terms of
that agreement. Money appropriated in sec. I of
this Act may not be used to implement the
monetary terms for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2020, of any of the collective bargaining
agreements listed in this section unless separate
legislation is enacted that contains explicit
language approving the monetary terms of the
collective bargaining agreement. This section
applies to the collective bargaining agreements
negotiated between the state and the following
bargaining organizations:
(1) Alaska State Employees Association, for the
general government unit;
(2) Teachers' Education Association of Mt.
Edgecumbe, representing the teachers of Mt.
Edgecumbe High School;
(3) Confidential Employees Association,
representing the confidential unit;
(4) Public Safety Employees Association,
representing the regularly commissioned public
safety officers' unit;
(5) Public Employees Local 71, for the labor,
trades, and crafts unit;
(6) Alaska Public Employees Association, for
the supervisory unit;
(7) Alaska Correctional Officers
Association, representing the correctional
officers' unit;
(8) Fairbanks Firefighters Union, IAFF Local
1324;
(9) United Academic - Adjuncts - American
Association of University Professors, American
Federation of Teachers;
(10) United Academics - American Association
of University Professors, American Federation
of Teachers."
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson was offering the amendment out of
frustration with not being able to obtain information in a
timely fashion. She noted that the state would renew
contracts. However, contracts had been renewed without
looking at each of them individually. She had heard that
$58 million was being added to the budget due to budget
increases. In looking at things closely, she found that in
some instances there were contracts with a zero percent
increase and others with an increase of up to 7.5 percent.
She indicated justification had not been provided for and
increase or a lack of an increase. For example, the
teachers of Mt. Edgecumbe had a 3 percent increase, while
the Department of Corrections had an increase of 4.5
percent. The Department of Public Safety had an increase of
7.5 percent after an increase from the previous year. She
thought it might be time to start truly looking at the
contracts. She noted the importance of looking at items
such as health insurance benefits and paid time off. She
believed it was time for the legislature to start looking
more closely at the contracts, as they were typically
3-year contracts. She reiterated that it was not until she
had released her amendment that she had a response to her
query from the department.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW Amendment LS 11. She wanted equal
treatment for all employees.
3:17:15 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 12, 31-
GH1905\R.34 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
Page 75, lines 19 - 20:
Delete all material.
Page 75, line 21:
Delete "4,600,000"
Insert "$4,600,000"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained that while the state
spending money on fisheries was important to communities,
it was also important for local communities to look into
their finances, budgets, programs, and services. She argued
that the state could not be everything to everyone. There
were a handful of communities that were benefitting from
the dollars reflected in the amendment. However, she
believed the dollars should come back to the state to
benefit all Alaskans rather than a select few. The
resources belonged to all of Alaska.
Co-Chair Wilson opposed the amendment because there was
legislation in play that, if passed, would make the same
reductions. Although it was appropriate to address the
amendment as part of the operating budget, she wanted
members to know there was a bill that would be before the
committee that would allow for additional vetting of the
funds. She opposed the amendment.
Representative Josephson was opposed to the amendment that
he thought created a game of "whack-a-mole." He thought the
amendment was a problem shifter rather than a problem
solver. He did not know much about the fisheries landing
tax or business tax. He assumed that past legislators
decided it was the right thing to do based on impact and a
public share of revenue. He suggested it was someone else's
revenue.
Representative Tilton provided wrap up. She argued that
although the dollars had gone to communities for a
significant period, the state had done many things in which
it had shared with communities. She suggested it was time
for communities at the local level to look at what they
needed to do to reduce their own budget. She thought the
money should be spread across Alaska, as the money was
generated from a state resource.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Wilson,
Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment LS 12 FAILED (4/7).
3:21:20 PM
Representative Knopp WITHDREW Amendment LS 13, 31-
GH1905\R.28 (Bruce, 4/1/19) (copy on file):
Page 76, line 27:
Delete all material and insert:
"*Sec. 30. Section 4, ch. 6, SLA 2018, and sec.
27(c), ch. 9, SLA 2018, are repealed."
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 14, 31-
GH1905\R.1 (Bruce, 3/28/19) (copy on file):
Page 77, line 3, following "RETROACTIVITY.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 77, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) If secs. 11(b), 15, 30, and 31 of this Act
take effect after June 30, 2019, secs. 11(b), 15,
30, and 31 of this Act are retroactive to June
30, 2019."
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster explained the amendment was a technical
fix. It was based on a recommendation by Legislative Legal
Services that ensured that if the bill took effect after
June 30, 2019 the listed sections would be retroactive to
June 30, 2019. He relayed that the sections included
Section 11(b), the lapsed state extension for the Mt.
Edgecumbe Aquatic Center; Section 15, the appropriation
from the BP corrosion case to the Department of Law to
protect the North Pole area; Section 30, the repeal of the
$19.5 million for the curriculum study funding; and Section
31, the lapsed extension for $27 million to be used for
debt service on the oil and gas tax credit bonding program.
If the language was not added and the budget were to pass,
the BP corrosion funds would not move over to Department of
Law and would have to be moved over after the budget
passed. The curriculum study funding would go into effect
on July 1, 2019 and would need to be pulled back later.
Also, the Mt. Edgecumbe Pool would lose its lapsed funds
and would receive the funds on July 15, 2019. He reiterated
the recommendations came from Legislative Legal Services.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment LS 14 was ADOPTED.
3:23:22 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 15, 31-
GH1905\S.1 (Bruce, 3/28/19) (copy on file):
Page 13, line 22, following "unit":
Insert":
(7) Alaska Correctional Officers Association,
representing the correctional officers unit"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster explained the amendment would add Alaska
Correctional Officers Association language to the mental
health bill. Changes to the salary and benefits language
were inadvertently omitted from the mental health bill,
HB 40. The amendment added the language to the mental
health bill. Normally, all bargaining agreements were
included in both the operating and mental health budgets.
Legislative Legal Services advised the Legislative Legal
Division that by including the language in both bills it
ensured that if there was any cross-over between the
budgets, there would be no conflicts in funding.
Corrections officers and parole officers could be directly
connected to the mental health budget and use mental health
funds. It was another clean-up amendment.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment LS 15 was
ADOPTED.
3:24:51 PM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment LS 1, 31-
GH1905\R.11 (Bruce, 3/30/19) (copy on file):
Page 57, line 10:
Delete "(a)" 3
Page 57, lines 16-21:
Delete all material.
Page 77, line 9:
Delete "ll(b),"
3:25:16 PM
AT EASE
3:29:13 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson explained the amendment related to the Mt.
Edgecumbe pool, a pool that had been completed. There was
money in the budget to enable the facility to collect a fee
for use of the pool. Presently, the money had been utilized
to complete the pool at Mt. Edgecumbe.
Vice-Chair Ortiz was opposed to the amendment. The money
would be used for ongoing maintenance. He stressed that a
large percentage of people attending Mt. Edgecumbe arrived
not knowing how to swim; being able to swim was a valuable
skill. The pool was built in the spirit of supporting the
overall educational program Mt. Edgecumbe offered.
Representative LeBon asked for the fiscal note on the
amendment.
Co-Chair Wilson stated it would be whatever was left over
from the $400,000 appropriated on June 30, 2018. The funds
were funds that were lapsing. The funds would lapse back to
the municipal capital project matching grant fund for other
grants for other schools with needs.
Co-Chair Wilson provided wrap up. She clarified that the
pool was operational, and children were swimming. There
were pools in her district that were maintained by the
municipalities and with dollars provided by the state. The
funds were given to complete the building of the pool. The
pool was built because many children living in rural areas
could not swim which resulted in deaths. She indicated
there was an amendment that would be introduced which would
authorize use of a general fund program to take care of the
operations and maintenance of the facility. She argued that
all schools had to go through the same process for funding
whether through the Base Student Allocation (BSA) or other
grants.
3:33:03 PM
AT EASE
3:34:50 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson requested to roll the amendment to the
bottom of the numbers section based on new information she
had received.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Amendment LS 1 would be
rolled down the list. The committee would look at the
numbers section of the amendments.
3:35:43 PM
AT EASE
3:38:53 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment DOA 1,
DOA 2, and DOA 3(copy on file):
H DOA 1
Public Communications Services
Public Broadcasting Commission
H DOA 1 - Eliminate state grant to the
Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission
Reduce State Grant to the Alaska Public Broadcasting
Commission
H DOA 2
Public Communications Services
Public Broadcasting - Radio
H DOA 2 - Eliminate state grant for Alaska
Public Broadcasting - Radio
Offered by Representative Carpenter
Reduce State Grant for Alaska Public Broadcasting:
Radio
H DOA 3
Public Communications Services
Public Broadcasting - T.V.
H DOA 3 - Eliminate state grant for Alaska
Public Broadcasting - Television
Offered by Representative Carpenter
Reduce State Grant for Alaska Public Broadcasting:
Television
Co-Chair Wilson and Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for
discussion.
Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendments. He
stressed that the state did not have enough money. The
amendments did not pass judgement on the services. The
budget needed to be reduced.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted that while public radio might not be
a necessity in urban communities it was a necessity in
rural communities. He spoke about emergency broadcasting on
public radio. It seemed to him the ability to notify
Alaskan residents of emergencies was a necessity. He
opposed the amendment.
3:41:41 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard supported the amendment. It
was her understanding that areas across the state were
looking at ways to use the private sector for
communication. She stated the budget needed to be reduced.
Representative Tilton stated the amendments did not
eliminate the public broadcasting funding. They would
remove the state grant portion of their funding. She
thought they could get funding from other sources.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the impact of the amendments - a
total of $2.7 million. He asked if it was the full state
UGF.
Representative Carpenter replied it was the full amount.
Representative Josephson opposed the amendment. The
amendments constituted a cut of 3/1600 of the deficit or
.002 percent. He believed every dollar was meaningful, and
the money was meaningful to communities.
3:43:54 PM
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the
amendments. He agreed that state funding was not the only
way to fund essential rural communication. He stated that
reducing state spending would increase the likelihood of
businesses investing in communities.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Wilson,
Carpenter
OPPOSED: Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Josephson, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendments H DOA 1, H DOA 2, and
H DOA 3 FAILED (5/6).
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 4 (copy on
file):
Public Communications Services
Satellite Infrastructure
H DOA 4 - Satellite Infrastructure Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson Reduce State Grant
for Satellite Services.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson reported going through the budget to
determine the constitutional requirements around the
budget. She did not know why the state was giving public
money for the particular grant.
Co-Chair Foster clarified the amendment was a satellite
infrastructure reduction of $879,500 of which $779,500 was
UGF.
Vice-Chair Johnston stated that the issue had been
addressed during the subcommittee process. She explained
that while a small portion went to the public broadcasting
system, most was tied to the state's emergency services for
natural disasters. The two could not be separated which was
the reason for the amount.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW Amendment H DOA 4.
3:47:31 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 5
(copy on file):
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
H DOA 5 - Executive branch 50% travel reduction.
Offered by Representative Tilton
Restores the executive travel reduction included in
the FY20GovAmd budget.
Vice-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton reviewed the amendment pertaining to
the governor's proposed 50 percent travel reduction across
departments. Upon talking with the administration, she
found the various agency reductions in travel were
discretionary travel dollars and did not impair the
function of the agencies.
Vice-Chair Johnston reported that the items had been
discussed in subcommittee. She read something received by
the commission:
"The proposed 50 percent reduction to our travel
budget would have a huge negative impact on our
ability to do our job. Approximately 95 percent of our
travel budget is for our inspectors to travel to the
North Slope and Cook Inlet to perform their essential
functions: To ensure that blowout preventers and other
well safety systems work properly to ensure that wells
passed mechanical integrity tests to ensure that wells
are properly plugged. This travel is actually paid for
with the receipts from the commission."
Co-Chair Johnston reported that the statement was written
by the chair of the commission. She reiterated that it
would impact the commission's ability to do its job.
Co-Chair Wilson surmised the agency would still have
$10,000 per month to travel in Alaska. She thought it was
sufficient.
Representative Knopp commented that the agency would still
have $120,000 for travel, and there were only 3
commissioners. He wondered if some of the monies were used
for staff travel as well as commissioner travel.
Representative Tilton provided wrap up. She had not checked
to see if the travel budget was for staff, but she had been
assured that it was for discretionary travel. She suggested
that a budget of $10,000 per month for 3 commissioners to
travel within Alaska allowed for a significant amount of
travel.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter,
Wilson
OPPOSED: Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Josephson, Johnston, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT H DOA 5 FAILED (5/6).
3:51:43 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 6
(copy on file):
Legal and Advocacy Services
Office of Public Advocacy
H DOA 6 - 50 percent Executive branch travel
reduction.
Offered by Representative Tilton
Restores the executive travel reduction in the
FY20GovAmd budget.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton reviewed the amendment related to the
50 percent travel reduction to departments. She had been
informed that the reductions across agencies was for
discretionary travel. The reduction would not impact the
core mission of the agency.
Representative Josephson stated that the Office of Public
Advocacy had conflict counsel which required travel for
criminal trials, for example.
Vice-Chair Johnston stated the issue had been addressed by
the subcommittee. All of the travel exceptions to the 50
percent were because they would interfere with the agency's
ability to fulfill its responsibilities.
Co-Chair Wilson asked who fell under executive branch
travel versus public advocacy in the following amendment.
She did not want to hinder public advocates from traveling
to help their clients.
Representative Tilton explained that the amendment dealt
with executive branch travel which she had been told was
discretionary and would not affect the core missions of the
agency.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton,
Carpenter, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 6 PASSED (6/5).
3:54:42 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 7
(copy on file):
Legal and Advocacy Services
Office of Public Advocacy
H DOA 7 - Public Advocacy 50 percent Travel Reduction
Offered by Representative Carpenter
Office of Public Advocacy Executive Branch 50 percent
travel reduction.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
3:54:54 PM
AT EASE
3:56:12 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW Amendment H DOA 7.
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 8
(copy on file):
Legal and Advocacy Services
Public Defender Agency
H DOA 8 - 50 percent reduction of executive
branch travel
Offered by Representative Tilton
Restores the 50 percent reduction in executive travel
from the FY20GovAmd.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained that the amendment, like
the others related to travel, was a reduction to what she
had been told was for discretionary travel. The reduction
would not affect the core mission or the primary function
of the agency.
Co-Chair Wilson spoke to her objection. She wanted to
clarify that the reduction would prevent public defenders
being able to see their clients. She wondered if Amendment
H DOA 8 and H DOA 9 were duplicates.
Vice-Chair Johnston reported that in the subcommittee
process it was brought to light that the reduction to
travel would be harmful to the agency.
Representative LeBon asked if she was only speaking about H
DOA 8 or Amendment H DOA 8 and Amendment H DOA 9.
Representative Tilton clarified that H DOA 8 and H DOA 9
were duplicates. She guessed Amendment H DOA 9 would be
withdrawn.
Representative Carpenter intended to withdraw Amendment
H DOA 9.
Representative Tilton stated that the Office of Management
and Budget had made it clear that the agency could work
with the available dollars.
Co-Chair Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter,
LeBon
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, Wilson, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 8 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW Amendment H DOA 9 (copy
on file):
Legal and Advocacy Services
Public Defender Agency
H DOA 9 - Public Defender Agency 50 percent travel
reduction
Offered by Representative Carpenter
Office of Public Defender 50 percent Travel Budget
Reduction.
4:00:02 PM
AT EASE
4:00:15 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 10 (copy
on file):
Legal and Advocacy Services
Public Defender Agency
The Legal and Advocacy Services appropriation consists
of the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) and the Public
Defender Agency (PDA). Both entities collect general
fund program receipts from court fees issued against
individuals represented by OPA and PDA, mainly through
the garnishment of PFDs. The Office of Public Advocacy
also collects program receipts from individuals
receiving public guardian services. The FY2020
Governor Amended operating budget contains $1,949.9 in
general fund program receipt authority for OPA and
$478.2 for PDA.
PDA has been reallocating appellate resources to
address substantial criminal caseload increases in
FY2019. As a result, appellate production has been
insufficient to keep up with case openings. The
backlog has risen from 36 cases not yet assigned to an
attorney to approximately 80 cases and is expected to
increase to approximately 120 cases. The increased
general fund program receipt authority will be used to
curb appellate backlog growth.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Johnston reviewed the amendment. The amendment
would increase the public defender's receipt authority by
$100,000 in designated general funds (DGF). She reported
that the money came from court fees issued against
individuals represented by the Public Defender's Office
mostly through garnishments of offenders' PFDs. The Public
Defender's Office had already over-collected for FY 19
which could amount to about 3/4 positions or be used to
address the backlog of appellate cases.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOA 10 was ADOPTED.
4:01:17 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard MOVED to ADOPT Amendment
H CED 1 (copy on file):
Community and Regional Affairs
Serve Alaska
H CED 1 - Eliminate Serve Alaska
Offered by Representative Sullivan-Leonard
A private non-profit can administer the grants that
Serve Alaska does.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard reviewed the amendment
related to a grant for Serve Alaska, which was part of the
AmeriCorps system. She thought the grant fund could be
better served in the private sector. She believed many
nonprofits would help the AmeriCorps system to do its work
across Alaska as opposed to a State of Alaska grant.
Vice-Chair Johnston was struggling because her oldest son
had been on the AmeriCorps board. She declared a conflict
of interest.
Representative Josephson strongly opposed the amendment.
The amendment indicated it was a 10 to 1 federal receipt
via a general fund match. He thought it was a generous
match. He thought the program should be retained.
4:03:25 PM
Co-Chair Wilson had asked for more information about Serve
Alaska. She had not received a good explanation of why the
state had to have the program. It was her understanding
that if a municipality or borough sought economic
development they could take on a federal matching grant for
funding for AmeriCorps. She surmised the state took on the
program when it had money. She also understood that the
program could continue through municipalities or
potentially through the private sector without the state's
involvement.
Representative Tilton reported that the State of Alaska
contributed $220,000 in matching funds for the program. She
argued that the state was in a deficit situation
scrutinizing every dollars. She indicated the program could
be better served at the local level and would encourage
volunteerism.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained that the committee was looking
at a decrement of over $2 million. In order to receive $2
million from the federal government, there was $22,000 of
general fund monies and $192,000 UGF. He asked for the
source of UGF.
4:06:17 PM
Co-Chair Wilson responded, "general funds."
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that the funds were all UGF. The
reason they were split out was to show the federal receipt
match. The state pitched in another $22,700 voluntarily,
not because it was required. She noted the match funding
could come from municipalities or local businesses. The
state was currently choosing to take on the program.
Representative LeBon asked which communities were
benefitting from the program.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard answered that AmeriCorps
worked all across Alaska in Southcentral, Southwest,
Southeast, and in the Interior. The group assisted in
putting in gardens and helped with park projects within
municipalities.
Representative LeBon thought if the state was shifting the
responsibility of maintaining the program to the boroughs
and municipalities, it might be a good idea to put
communities on notice that the following year the funding
could be cut.
Vice-Chair Johnston agreed with Representative Sullivan-
Leonard in terms of communities. She recalled that
AmeriCorps also worked on state parks.
4:09:05 PM
Representative Carpenter argued that spend money on the
AmeriCorps program versus spending money on Alaska's
schools did not make sense. He did not support the program.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard provided wrap up on the
amendment. The discussion had been ongoing for several
years. She observed that legislators could continue to put
it off, but just because a federal grant could be obtained
did not mean the state should spend its money to do so. She
mentioned nonprofit groups such as the United Way that
might be able to take on the project. She was trying to be
prudent and look for areas of reduction. She asked members
for their support of the amendment.
Representative Carpenter clarified that he supported the
amendment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Johnston,
Knopp, Merrick, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Josephson, LeBon, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT H CED 1 PASSED (7/4).
4:11:35 PM
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 1,
H DOC 3, H DOC 4, H DOC 6 (copy on file):
H DOC 1
Population Management
Institution Director's Office
H DOC 1 - Reverse Unallocated Reduction
in Institution Director's Office
Offered by Representative Knopp
Seeking to reverse the action of House Finance
Subcommittee which placed an unallocated reduction in
the Institution Director's Office to decrease funding
for institutions as inmates are transitioned onto EM
and into CRCs.
H DOC 3
Electronic Monitoring
Electronic Monitoring
H DOC 3 - Remove Additional Funding
Provided to Electronic Monitoring
Offered by Representative Knopp
Reverse House Finance Subcommittee action that added
funding to Electronic Monitoring in order to
accommodate decrements to Population Management for
institutions.
H DOC 4
Community Residential Centers
Community Residential Centers
H DOC 4 - Remove Additional Funding
Provided to Community Residential Centers
Offered by Representative Knopp
Reverse House Finance Subcommittee action that added
funding to Community Residential Centers in order to
accommodate decrements to Population Management for
institutions.
H DOC 6
Replace CSHB 39 Ver. R Structure (see below) with the
following structure:
APPROPRIATION: Population Management
ALLOCATION: Electronic Monitoring
APPROPRIATION: Population Management
ALLOCATION: Community Residential Centers
APPROPRIATION: Population Management
ALLOCATION: Pre-Trial Services
House CSHB39 Version R Structure:
APPROPRIATION: Electronic Monitoring
ALLOCATION: Electronic Monitoring
APPROPRIATION: Community Residential Centers
ALLOCATION: Community Residential Centers
APPROPRIATION: Pre-Trial Services
ALLOCATION: Pre-Trial Services
EXPLANATION: Move appropriations for Electronic
Monitoring, Community Residential Centers, and Pre-
Trial Services into the Population Management
appropriation. This action will return all three of
these programs to allocations under Population
Management.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Knopp reviewed the amendments. He explained
that in the budget subcommittee process for the Department
of Corrections (DOC) $37 million had been removed from
population management. Funds from population management had
also been reallocated to appropriations for community
regional centers and electronic monitoring. He argued that
the changes took away the ability for the department to
manage the prison population. He continued that there was a
process for community centers and electronic monitoring,
and not everyone qualified. By removing the funds, it would
tie DOC's hand in managing its population. He surmised that
it would result in closures of facilities with a large
reduction. Moving the amount from an allocation to an
appropriation also tied the hands of the department
removing flexibility. He reiterated that the amendment
reversed the change and restored flexibility to the
department.
Co-Chair Wilson stated the amendments would ship 500
inmates out of state and result in the closure of the
Wildwood Correctional Center. She came across the
information at a meeting with OMB. She explained to OMB
that if the legislature's numbers were incorrect, she would
be happy to revise them. She emphasized the importance of
ensuring that individuals left the prison system and went
into a safe environment. She reported that typically when
inmates were shipped out of state they came back to Alaska
worse off than when they left. The Office of Management and
Budget responded with the continued recommendation to ship
500 inmates out of state. They had not provided information
on what prisoners should be sent out of state or any other
significant information.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that using electronic monitoring
and community residential centers would close many prisons.
However, shipping 500 inmates out of state would not close
many prisons. She reported that the contracts with
community residential centers were rewritten to incorporate
additional safety and treatment. She reported that $3
million was added for community residential centers so that
treatment could be utilized in the centers. She surmised
that inmates were reoffending as a result of a lack of
treatment availability.
Co-Chair Wilson reported that presently, Alaska's community
residential centers provided evidence-based cognitive
behavioral treatment targeting criminal thinking, substance
abuse, anger management, and other individual needs. These
things did not happen in Alaska's institutions. She
continued that community residential centers engaged
residents in a multitude of pro-social and positive
activities that tied them back to communities and their
families so they could have a support network upon release.
She observed that these things did not occur in Alaska's
institutions.
Co-Chair Wilson noted that the current classification
system that determined eligibility for referral to a
community residential center could be expanded to better
determine true risk and need so that the residents that
were placed there were more likely to benefit from
available programing. She pointed out that the state could
put electronic monitoring on individuals in community
residential centers and make them better citizens than
leaving them in institutions at $168 per bed without
treatment. She underscored the unacceptable rate of
recidivism in Alaska of 67 percent. She stressed the crime
in the state.
4:17:38 PM
Co-Chair Wilson continued to speak to her opposition to the
amendments. At the end of the day she wanted to see people
punished for their crimes. She asked if the legislature
wanted to ensure that individuals with alcohol, mental
health, and drug problems were treated prior to being
released on the street. The amendment would continue to
operate status quo. She remarked that Wildwood was a good
facility.
4:19:03 PM
AT EASE
5:01:53 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson asked to move Amendments H DOC 1, H DOC 3,
H DOC 4, and H DOC 6 to the bottom of list.
Co-Chair Foster asked the maker of the amendment if he was
okay with moving the items down on the list.
Representative Knopp agreed.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if H DOC 2 was
applicable.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that H DOA 2 would be taken up
separately.
Co-Chair Foster reported that the meeting would go until
5:45 p.m. He wanted to finish the remainder of amendments
in the following day.
Representative Josephson requested that Amendment H DOC 2,
Amendment H DOC 5, and Amendment H DOC 7 be moved to the
end of the amendment stack for consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson objected to the idea.
5:03:56 PM
AT EASE
5:05:22 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 2.
Population Management
Institution Director's Office
H DOC 2 - Intent to comply with relevant regulations
and statutes with regard to inmate transfer into CRCs
and EM
Offered by Representative Josephson
Wordage:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Corrections ensure that
each prisoner transfer from institutions to a
community residential center is done in compliance
with standards for placement in a correctional
restitution center under 22 AAC 05.352
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Commissioner of Corrections and the
Department of Corrections comply with AS 33.30.065
when designating a prisoner to serve a term of
imprisonment or period of temporary commitment by
electronic monitoring.
Explanation:
This language ensures the relevant statutes and
regulations that determine how prisoners are moved to
EM and CRCs are followed when prisoners are
transferred out of institutions.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson clarified that he had not sat on
the DOC subcommittee. However, he learned that the co-chair
had a plan to save the state some money by moving inmates
into community residential centers and the electronic
monitoring program. He was concerned that the department
had not forgotten that under Title 22 of Alaska's
regulations and Title 33 of the Alaska Statutes they had to
follow law. He wanted to assuage any public concerns about
risk to the public. He elaborated that the public had
expressed concerns about people going to halfway houses and
people leaving, vehicles being stolen, and crime spiraling
out of control. He reminded DOC that although the
legislature might want to expedite the programs, it did not
want to at the expense of the public. He reported that
there were detailed rules in place about who was eligible
and what hoops they had to go through. He noted other
considerations including prospects for rehabilitation,
availability of program and facility space, nature and
circumstance of offences, and the needs of prisoners
determined by a classification committee.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked Representative Josephson for the
amendment. She stated that not everyone knew that there
were regulations and statutes that bound the state. It was
never the intent of the committee to simply move
individuals to the community residential centers for the
purpose of population management. The guidelines had been
established to ensure the public was not placed in harm's
way. She further explained ultimately the goal was to help
an individual to be a productive citizen after their
release. She hoped the language in the amendment clarified
that it was not the legislature's intent to let just anyone
out. She wanted to ensure that places available in Alaska
for treatment were being fully utilized. She thought it
would be a wake-up call when all of a sudden 500 Alaskans
were shipped out to another state. She noted individuals
only being a number. She liked the language in the
amendment, as it was stringent regarding eligibility to be
a resident in a CRC or a participant in the electronic
monitoring program.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter supported the amendment. He stated
the prison system was broken and it was up to the
legislature to fix it. He did not know it was necessary to
remind DOC what its responsibilities were. He thought it
was important to understand the problem and he did not want
to make it bigger. He did not want to repeat mistakes and
wanted effective reformation. He stressed it was not
possible to force someone to reform. He thought it was
appropriate that the legislature remind itself to operate
within the law.
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment H
DOA 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilson asked to move Amendment H DOC 5 and
Amendment H DOC 7 to the bottom of the list.
Representative Josephson Agreed.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that Amendment H DOC 1, Amendment
H DOC 3, Amendment H DOC 4, Amendment H DOC 6, Amendment
H DOC 5, and Amendment H DOC 7 were moved to the bottom of
the amendment pile. They would be taken up in the following
day.
5:13:08 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 1
(copy on file):
Education Support and Administrative Services
Executive Administration
H DOE 1 - Dyslexia Task Force Funding Reduction
Offered by Representative Carpenter
This would eliminate funding for the implementation of
Dyslexia Task Force recommendations.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment. He argued
that the reductions reflected in the amendment were
necessary to elevate the state's fiscal standing. The funds
had been added by the House Finance Subcommittee recently
and were funds that were supposed to be spent towards the
implementation and recommendations in the report by the
Alaska Taskforce on Reading Efficiency and Dyslexia. The
report was received on the House Floor in the previous
week. The recommendations did not impact the ability to
approve or disapprove the amendment, as the committee had
not had an opportunity to discuss the recommendations. He
understood that reading and combating dyslexia were
essential. However, he believed there were other ways to
address the issues than spend $4.9 million.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified it was $400,000.
Representative Carpenter commented that $400,000 was still
a large number.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard supported the amendment.
She reported she had been on the dyslexia taskforce along
with Representative Drummond. The discussion had not been
about adding a funding source to solve the dyslexia
problem. She understood there were other methods to work on
the problem. She did not think $400,000 was necessary. She
stated that the issue started at home.
5:16:28 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz objected to the amendment. He agreed the
money had been added during the subcommittee process. He
explained the addition of the funds was a result of a major
reduction of $19.5 million to education based on a program
designed to implement a curriculum project. He had argued
for the reduction because reductions needed to be made. A
member of the body had commented that there was no question
that if investments were made to early education and the
ability to read, a tenfold savings would result in the
future of a child's education process. He felt good about
the addition of funds because they were an investment for
young children to read and overcome dyslexia. He thought it
was necessary to look at the issue from the perspective of
the long-term costs of not making the investment early. He
thought that everyone needed to recognize the importance of
investing in people's education and their ability to read.
It would bring savings in the future. He was opposed to the
amendment.
5:19:42 PM
Co-Chair Wilson surmised that dyslexia fell under special
education needs. The state paid 13 times the base student
allocation for special needs children. She believed in
taking care of children with dyslexia. She did not know how
the $400,000 would be spent differently than other money
that went towards special needs. She clarified that voting
in favor of the amendment did not mean a legislator did not
care about kids.
Vice-Chair Ortiz responded that part of the money would go
towards identifying at-risk students and children with
dyslexia and training teachers to identify the problem. The
money went hand-in-hand with the Education Challenge, a
result of the current commissioner's efforts under the
prior and current administrations. The goal was for
children to read by the third grade. He reiterated that the
funds would help ensure that teachers had tools to identify
and address children with dyslexia.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the amendment.
He pointed out the fallacy that the only way to encourage
students to read was to spend state money. He understood
the addition of the funding was well intended. However, he
suggested if he was a teacher he would check out a book
from the library to help with the identification of
dyslexia. He would not need state funding, rather he would
need to care. He reemphasized the need for cutting costs to
the state budget.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Johnston,
Knopp, LeBon, Merrick, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: Josephson, Ortiz
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 1 PASSED (9/2).
5:24:54 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 2
(copy on file):
Education Support and Administrative Services
Student and School Achievement
H DOE 2 - Reduce Kindergarten-3rd Grade Literacy
Project
Offered by Representative Carpenter
The amount of funding is in excess of statutory
requirements.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment to reduce
the kindergarten-3rd grade literacy project by about
$320,000. The request was part of the governor's amended
budget. He conveyed that there were funds that would
provide for pre and post screening assessments for students
in kindergarten through 3rd grade. He noted that mirrored
funding the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) received in the 2014 budget but was removed by the
legislature in the 2016 budget. He continued that
approximately 40,000 students were in grades between
kindergarten and 3rd grade at an average cost of about $8
per student. He reported that there were a number of bills
before the legislature that would help to address early
literacy issues. He thought the state could do a better job
at cost analysis and implementation.
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke to his objection. He was speaking in
favor of the request made by the governor. The
administration requested the $320,000 increment into the
budget. The literacy project would provide for pre and post
screening assessments for students in kindergarten-3rd
grade. The screening assessments would provide schools with
early identification of students who showed signs of
deficits in early literacy. Early identification needed to
be intentional and systematic across the state in an effort
to maintain integrity of the data. He agreed with
Representative Carpenter that there were probably many
places in the state where screening took place without the
$320,000, but there were other locations where it did not
take place. The state needed to provide adequate education
for all of its children.
Vice-Chair Ortiz continued that the data gathered from the
assessments could be used locally by teachers, students,
and parents to intervene as needed. The data would be
entered into the department-hosted statewide system and
would be available to other teachers and schools as
students moved from one school to another. The
appropriation mirrored funding the department received in
the FY 14 budget but was removed by the legislature in the
FY 16 budget. There were approximately 40,000 students in
kindergarten-3rd grade at an average cost of $8 per child.
Alaska could do more pre and post screenings for children
statewide. He reiterated that it also augmented the
Education Challenge and the goals of reading by 3rd grade.
Representative Josephson asked whether it was Vice-Chair
Ortiz's belief that the governor had sought the funds.
Vice-Chair Ortiz replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson reported that although the program was not
new, it had stopped in 2016. She remarked that
kindergarteners from across the state went through the
screening process in order to enter kindergarten. She
wondered if school districts were mandated to screen
students. She asked if the screening being discussed was
different from the ones already being performed by most
kindergartens.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the amendment.
He hoped that currently in Alaska's school teachers were
able to assess whether, by the end of the year, students
were able to read and communicating with parents about any
needed correctional measures. He suggested that additional
money was not needed for a job that should already be being
done.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Carpenter, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon,
Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: Josephson, Ortiz
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 2 PASSED (9/2).
5:31:29 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 3 (copy
on file):
Education Support and Administrative Services
Early Learning Coordination
H DOE 3 - Fund Parents as Teachers at FY 19 level
Offered by Representative Johnston This returns
funding to FY 19 level.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Johnston reviewed the amendment that would
return the Parents as Teachers funding to the FY 19 level.
She argued that although it was a worthy program, the state
could not afford additional funding presently.
Vice-Chair Ortiz rebutted Co-Chair Johnston's statement
that the state could not afford to make the investment. He
suggested that the amendment was essentially stating that
the legislature would rather put the state's money into a
PFD than investing in Alaskan children's education.
5:32:26 PM
AT EASE
5:34:06 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment H DOE 3. He proposed adding $1,994,700 to
$237,000 for a total of $2,231,700.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster thought that by adding the amount it would
match Amendment H DOA 4.
Representative Carpenter agreed.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard thought they should vote
against Amendment H DOE 3 and support Amendment H DOE 4.
Representative Carpenter replied that it was one way to
look at it.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard suggested that the makers
of both amendments should talk.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that H DOE 3 in its original from
would remove the increase of $237,000 that was added in the
subcommittee process. He believed Vice-Chair Johnston was
wanting to remove the increment leaving the funding flat.
In his amendment, Amendment H DOE 4, Representative
Carpenter was seeking to eliminate Parents as Teachers,
Best Beginnings, and Pre-K grants.
Representative Merrick asked if the committee would have
the ability to vote on Amendment H DOE 4 if Amendment H DOE
3 were to pass.
5:37:14 PM
AT EASE
5:45:31 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment H DOE 3.
Representative Josephson understood the effort to hold the
budget line to address revenue concerns. He referenced a
statement by Vice-Chair Ortiz that there might be a repeal
of $19.5 million in education funds. The cuts would exceed
$100 million or more. He thought the program worked and he
associated his comments with those made by Vice-Chair
Ortiz.
Representative Carpenter pointed out they were talking
about $237,000 spent on 50 families. He thought there was a
disparity in how the funds were being distributed.
Vice-Chair Johnston provided wrap up on the amendment. She
somewhat echoed comments by Representative Carpenter. She
acknowledged the worthiness of the program but saw that the
funding was not spread statewide as much as she thought it
should. She suggested flat funding.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Merrick,
Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: Josephson, Ortiz
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 3 PASSED (9/2).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting for the following day.
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 40 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
5:49:45 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 39 Amendments LanguagevR..pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |
| HB 39 Amendments Numbers vR..pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |
| HB 39 Am. Actions Amendments 1-9 Language.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |
| HB 39 Am Actions 4.3 PM mtg.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |