Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
02/25/2020 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB234 | |
| HB205 || HB206 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 25, 2020
1:35 p.m.
1:35:02 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-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
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Alexei Painter, Analyst, Legislative Finance Division;
Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Neil
Steininger, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Kelly Cunningham, Analyst,
Legislative Finance Division; Michael Partlow, Fiscal
Analyst, Legislative Finance Division; Representative
George Rauscher.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
HB 205 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 206 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 234 APPROP:SUPP; REAPPROP; CAP; AMEND; CBR
CSHB 234(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation.
Co-Chair Foster indicated the committee would be taking up
member amendments for HB 234, the FY 20 supplemental
budget, and moving the bill from committee. The committee
would also be taking up amendments for HB 205, the FY 21
operating budget and HB 206, the FY 21 mental health
budget.
HOUSE BILL NO. 234
"An Act making supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; amending
appropriations; capitalizing funds; 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."
1:36:21 PM
Co-Chair Foster referenced the amendment packet for the
bill.
Representative Carpenter noted he had just been informed
that the item in his amendment had already been removed
from the supplemental budget.
1:37:06 PM
AT EASE
1:37:28 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: DEED
APPROPRIATION: Mt. Edgecumbe Boarding School
Facilities Maintenance
ALLOCATION: Operational and Maintenance Costs for MEHS
Aquatic Center
Rep. Carpenter
DELETE: 100.0, 1004 Gen Fund
POSITIONS: None
EXPLANATION: Eliminate general funds for operation of
the Mt. Edgecumbe pool.
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained the Mt. Edgecumbe pool
did not have a feasible financial path forward. He did not
support putting an additional $100,000 into a pool that
could not fund itself into the future. He recommended
saving the funds and closing the facility.
Representative Wool recalled there was a fee structure in
the supplemental with a path forward to offset at least
part of the expenses for the pool. He asked for details.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that the amendment pertained to a
state facility that needed to be maintained like any other
state facility. He elaborated that in the prior year, when
the facility was short on funding, Mt. Edgecumbe used money
from its Base Student Allocation (BSA) to maintain the
pool. The school would likely do it again for FY 21 if the
committee adopted the amendment. Ultimately the amendment
would only take away from BSA funding. The pool was being
used for classroom instruction and Mt. Edgecumbe was
currently working with local entities such as the hospital
to use the pool more frequently to generate more door
receipts for the future. There was an increase in door
receipt authority in the FY 21 budget. He believed the
legislature could not continue to ask the district to fund
the pool with BSA funding. He reported that out of the 2010
bond package the Mt. Edgecumbe Aquatic Center funding made
up a very small percentage of project funding. He
reiterated that it was a state facility and, the state was
the overseer of the entire Mt. Edgecumbe school including
the pool. He opposed the amendment.
1:40:23 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard looked at the supplemental
bill. She noted that the reduction of $100,000 did not
eliminate funding for the pool. She asked if there was
still funding in the bill for the pool. Representative
Carpenter confirmed the amendment would only remove
undesignated general funds (UGF).
Representative Knopp asked if the pool had been included in
the capital budget in recent years. Vice-Chair Ortiz
answered that the pool was located in Sitka - it was newly
constructed. He explained that after the pool was
constructed there had been an issue about continued funding
for the pool's operation. The funding request did not have
to do with repairs or maintenance, as it was a new
facility. The funding had to do with getting the pool up
and operating. He hoped the pool would be able to collect
more revenue to be more self-supporting in the future. In
the end, it was a state facility and, Mt. Edgecumbe was
managed by the state. He had heard no comment about a
desire to discontinue operations of the pool.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the amendment.
He remarked that no one was suggesting closing down Mt.
Edgecumbe. He argued that the pool at Mt. Edgecumbe should
be closed because it was not self-sufficient. He did not
think the state should be funding the pool. The reality was
that students and children in the community already had a
community pool to use which existed prior to the building
of the Mt. Edgecumbe pool.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Knopp, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton,
Carpenter
OPPOSED: LeBon, Ortiz, Wool, Josephson, Foster, Johnston
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 1 FAILED (5/6).
Co-Chair Foster indicated there were no further amendments
for HB 234. He wanted to proceed with moving the
supplemental bill from committee. He thought overall the
bill reflected the governors supplemental bill. Nothing
had been added to it. The supplemental budget restored $120
million in Medicaid and provided just under $100 million
for fire suppression among other things.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to REPORT CSHB 234(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations.
CSHB 234(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation.
1:47:03 PM
AT EASE
1:52:02 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; 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. 206
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
1:52:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated the committee would be taking up
member amendments for the operating budget beginning with
the language section.
^AMENDMENTS
1:52:15 PM
Co-Chair Foster directed attention to the amendment packet
and the Department of Natural Resources. He referenced
Amendment H DNR 2.
1:52:46 PM
AT EASE
1:52:57 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 2 (copy
on file):
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
H DNR 2 - Remove Fire Risk Reduction Funding from
Numbers Section
Offered by Representative Knopp
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -5,000.0
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Knopp explained that the amendment would
move $5 million from fire suppression to fire prevention.
He detailed that the Division of Forestry had testified in
the finance subcommittee that through the use of fire
brakes the divisions fire prevention efforts had saved in
excess of $800 million worth of property from being
damaged. The intent of the amendment was to shift funding
from fire suppression to fire prevention. He was aware that
the amendment reduced the funding below the historical
average. It was the department's desire, as it could not
spend $5 million in one year.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked what the fire
prevention budget was presently. Representative Knopp did
not have the figure on hand. He deferred to the Legislative
Finance Division (LFD).
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
answered that the budget for fire suppression preparedness
was approximately $17 million UGF. The amendment would
increase the amount to $22 million. He indicated that $5
million would be spread over a multi-year period of 2
fiscal years.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DNR 2 was ADOPTED.
1:56:14 PM
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H DNR 3
(copy on file):
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
L H DNR 3 - Fire Risk Reduction Multi-Year
Appropriation
Offered by Representative Knopp
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 5,000.0
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Knopp explained the amendment. The change
pertained to the first amendment and created a multi-year
fire risk reduction.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment L H DNR 3 was
ADOPTED.
1:56:48 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H FND 1
(copy on file):
No Further Appropriation Required
L H FND 1 - Capitalize the Abandoned Motor Vehicle
Fund
Offered by Representative Carpenter
1005 GF/Prgm (DGF) 100.0
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained the amendment which
would populate a fund that would be used to remove
abandoned vehicles from roads. The funds were seed funds to
enable the department to remove abandoned vehicles.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the funding would be UGF or DGF.
Representative Carpenter replied that the current law
specified that an abandoned vehicle was a misdemeanor with
a $500 fine. A change proposed in another piece of
legislation would reduce the penalty to a violation from a
misdemeanor and increase the fine from $500 to $1,000. In
addition to the fines, the seed money would populate the
fund.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the money would sit in the fund if
the other legislation did not pass. Representative
Carpenter believed it would be "no harm no foul" because
there was already a $500 fine. There was currently no money
in the fund to spend on vehicle removal.
Co-Chair Foster asked the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) if there were any issues with the amendment
structurally. Mr. Painter replied that the fund existed but
had never had any funding in it. The money could be spent
by the department for the purpose of abandoned vehicle
removal without further appropriation. He concluded that
putting the money in the fund would allow the department to
begin removing vehicles. He did not believe there were any
issues with passing the amendment. The account had been on
the books but never funded.
Representative Wool asked about the designated general fund
(DGF) funding. He wondered where the money would come from.
He asked about the origin of DGF. Representative Carpenter
deferred to LFD.
Mr. Painter answered that the amendment stated that the
appropriation was from fees collected by the Division of
Motor Vehicles. The division lapsed about $35 million to
the general fund and had sufficient program receipt
authority.
Representative Wool WITHDREW his objection.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H FND 1 was ADOPTED.
2:01:14 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins in the audience. He relayed that the next amendment
on page 3 was technical in nature. He believed the
amendment was based on a recommendation of LFD.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H XFR 1 (copy
on file):
Designated Reserves/Endowments
L H XFR 1 - Adjust NPR-A Language to reflect current
PCE Endowment
Offered by Representative Foster
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER
explained the amendment that applied to the Natural
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) funds that had the
potential to lapse. If they lapsed and there were funds
remaining, they would fall into the Power Cost Equalization
and Rural Electric Capitalization Fund, a fund that no
longer existed. The amendment took the funds from the
original fund and moved them to the Power Cost Equalization
(PCE) Endowment Fund, a fund that was active and currently
in use. If there were ever any remaining funds, they would
go into an account that actually existed.
Co-Chair Foster saw no dollar amount. He surmised that the
amendment pertained to any future funds. He understood that
the funds would go into the rural electrification fund
which did not exist. The amendment was merely ensuring that
the funds would go into the appropriate PCE fund. Mr.
Anderson concurred.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his objection.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H XFR 1 was ADOPTED.
2:03:51 PM
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H VRS 4 (copy
on file):
Various
L H VRS 4 - SDPR Carryforward Clarification Amendment
Offered by Representative Foster
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Anderson indicated the amendment provided a technical
fix based from the committee substitute that House Finance
offered in Version U of the bill. The section was removed.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) contacted
Representative Fosters office regarding the effect of
removing the section. The amendment would restore the use
of the authorization of statutory designated program
receipts. He deferred to Mr. Painter to provide a full
explanation.
Mr. Painter noted that in the past statutory designated
program receipts had been considered to carry forward by
their nature. The legislature could not lapse money that
was part of a contract or a donation to the general fund
because it did not belong in the general fund. It had never
required an appropriation before. New language proposed by
OMB to include explicit carry forward language was in the
amendment. It was the belief of some individuals that the
section was necessary and, including the language, did no
harm. It was removed the first time because it appeared
there was no justification for it. However, receipts could
lapse unintentionally without the language. The amendment
would ensure the funds would not lapse.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his objection.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment L H VRS 4 was
ADOPTED.
2:05:37 PM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the committee had addressed
all of the amendments related to the language section. The
committee would move to the numbers section starting with
the Department of Administration.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 1
(copy on file):
Public Communications Services
H DOA 1 - Restore Public Broadcasting Funding
Offered by Representative Josephson
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 700.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson thanked the subcommittee on its
restoration of some of the vetoed funding from the previous
year. His office had received a tally of 372 out of 670
testifiers supporting the item [Public Radio Broadcasting].
The amendment would help with safety and health
considerations for rural communities in particular. People
were worried about their safety at sea and on land. The
amendment would restore a portion of the vetoed funding
which the legislature had said was inadequate.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the money was for the public
broadcasting commission, television, or radio.
Representative Josephson answered that the amendment was
designed to increase the public radio component.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if it was in addition to the $1
million already in the budget. Representative Josephson
answered in the affirmative. He added that during public
testimony most testifiers spoke to funding public radio.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked why an additional
$700,000 was needed, since $1 million had already been
added. She thought legislators needed to be cognizant about
increasing the budget. She did not believe the additional
funds were necessary.
Representative Wool spoke in support of the amendment. He
knew public broadcasting had been cut the previous year and
he supported an increase. He was a little concerned that
the funds were only pertaining to radio. He noted that
Fairbanks had dropped its Gavel programming due to
insufficient funds. He wanted to see television funding
restored as well.
Co-Chair Foster had a similar concern. He had been told by
one member that Gavel-to-Gavel would lose funding and,
another member had said that was not true. He wondered if
Representative Josephson knew the answer. Representative
Josephson did not have the information. He was not wedded
to the language in the amendment. Co-Chair Foster asked to
hear from OMB.
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR asked Co-Chair Foster to restate his
question.
Co-Chair Foster complied. He understood that Gavel-to-Gavel
had been losing some to all of its funding. He was
uncertain whether it was the case. He wondered if some of
the funding in the amendment should be moved to television.
Mr. Steininger did not know the answer.
Representative Wool spoke to the local Fairbanks
broadcaster. Gavel content was provided for free to the
Fairbanks station, but it did not have the funds to
maintain all of its broadcasting stations. He would support
an amendment to the amendment to open up the funding to
Public Broadcasting in general as opposed to the narrow
focus of radio.
Co-Chair Johnston asked for the breakdown of funding vetoed
in the previous year between public broadcasting and radio.
She thought the majority of the funding was for radio. Mr.
Steininger would follow up with an answer to the question.
Co-Chair Johnston requested to hear the amendment at the
end of the meeting.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his amendment for a later
time
2:14:33 PM
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 1 (copy on
file):
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
H CED 1 - Reduce Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation
Offered by Representative Johnston
1235 AGDC-LNG (Other) -1,715.8
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Johnston explained the amendment which reduced the
appropriation for the Alaska Oil and Gasline Corporation
(AGDC) by 50 percent. She reported that the record of
decision from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) was due by the end of June. So far, the budget
subcommittee had not heard full justification for AGDCs
budget. Therefore, she was offering the amendment.
Representative Knopp opposed the reduction. He recalled
that FERC [AGDC] was given $30 million in receipt authority
in the previous budget cycle, of which they were extremely
frugal in their expenditures. Only $20 million of the $30
million had been transferred and an additional $3.4 million
was necessary to complete the permitting phase of the
project. He agreed that the work on the project would
continue even though the permitting portion with FERC was
nearly completed. He noted a proposed reduction of 7
full-time positions. He was unclear what positions would be
cut, as he had not heard from AGDC regarding the amendment.
He did not want the agency to find itself short on funding
and would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Wool had overseen the subcommittee. The
amendment had been discussed between some members. He had
spoken with Joe Dubler, the acting president of AGDC. He
concurred with Representative Knopp that the agency had
been frugal with authority for $10 million the prior year.
The authority had been reduced to $3.4 million and had cut
several positions. He referenced the personal services
increment of $1.5 million in the amendment. He would not
want to hamper work on a potential pipeline project that
would employ Alaskans. He asked if the amendment stated the
reduction would come from personnel which would result in
layoffs. He wondered if the goal of the amendment was to
make to corporation smaller or if it was to reduce the
potential for overspending.
Co-Chair Johnston answered it was her intention to reduce
the overall spending. She believed it was a worthy
conversation.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW Amendment H CED 1.
2:18:55 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 1 (copy
on file):
Administration and Support
H DOC 1 - Add Funding to Support Recruitment and
Retention.
Offered by Representative Wool
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 400.0
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 2 (copy
on file):
Administration and Support
H DOC 2 - Add Wordage for Recruitment and Wordage
Retention Efforts
Offered by Representative Wool
Representative Tilton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool reported that the wordage outlined the
intent of the legislature for the Department of Corrections
(DOC) to centralize the recruitment and retention office
and to have a minimum of 3 support staff. He noted that DOC
had a large workforce shortage. With the reopening of the
Palmer Correctional Center the department would need to
fill over 200 positions. He mentioned the national
attrition rate which was currently high. The department
also had a forced overtime situation because prisons could
not be understaffed. He had been told by the department
that at one point it had a centralized hiring office.
However, currently, each facility was doing its own hiring.
Some funding was added during the finance subcommittee
process and some funds were just added in the previous
amendment. He wanted to see a centralized office with a
team of people working together to execute a plan. He did
not have an opinion on where a centralized office should be
located. He thought the department needed to double down in
its recruitment efforts. He believed the intent language he
was proposing would assist the department.
2:21:32 PM
Representative Tilton was supportive of the intent
language. She was concerned with the office having to have
a minimum of 3 support staff. She asked how the maker of
the amendment came up with the number of 3 support staff.
She suggested limiting the amendment to centralizing
recruitment and retention. She thought it was better to
leave it up to the office to determine how many support
staff were needed.
Representative Wool was not trying to micromanage the
department. He did not want there to be one person in
charge with such a large task and a significant amount of
money. He thought the task required a certain minimum
manpower and suggested that at least 3 people were needed
to hire more than 200 people. He did not want the office
understaffed.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard understood and supported
the intent. She asked what feedback the maker of the
amendment received from the commissioner of DOC and from
the administration. She reported speaking with correction
officers about the proposal and understood the incredible
need for retention and recruitment. The department needed
to fill approximately 280 positions quickly. She wanted to
know the premise of the department and whether they
supported the amendment.
Representative Wool found out about the decentralized
process when he spoke with the department. He did not think
the department had made a major effort to hire people. He
believed that the department could not open the Palmer
Correctional Center because it had not made a thorough
recruitment effort. He was unsure of the departments
response to his amendment but, he hoped they would be
supportive of designating some people to the task of
recruitment and retention. He noted the department was
already short-staffed without opening the Palmer facility.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard pointed out that the
department might already have a plan in place. She had not
had communication with DOC regarding the amendment. She
queried the possibility of duplication. She commented it
would be nice to hear from the department on the issue.
Representative Josephson supported the wordage of the
amendment. The committee had already adopted the previous
amendment. He did not believe there was duplication. He
indicated that in January the budget reflected $150,000 for
the item, which he opined was wholly inadequate. He thought
what they were betting on was that $400,000 would save
money on what had been a massive increase in mandatory
overtime. He thought legislators had the right to be unsure
about the department. It had not made the efforts as the
legislature had directed to reopen the Palmer facility. He
concluded that the amendment was fundamental since the
department had backed away from the transfer out-of-state.
He supported the amendment.
2:27:22 PM
Co-Chair Johnston surmised that the additional funding
would not necessarily be used to fund positions. Rather, it
would be used for recruitment efforts driven by an RFP or a
private sector contract. She asked if she was correct. She
wondered if Representative Wool was being too prescriptive.
Representative Wool replied that in subcommittee they had
discussed 3 position control numbers. He was offering
intent language, as he was unable to do so in the finance
subcommittee. The intent was to hire a minimum of 3 people.
The money for the 3 positions would come from $850,000. The
remainder could be spent on promotion and recruitment such
as advertising. He was not being prescriptive about hiring
an outside agency. He hoped to add at least 3 positions
focused on fill positions. He wanted to ensure that there
was enough funding to get the job done. He was trying to
help the department. He noted the department was up to $8
million in overtime costs. He wanted to see overtime
reduced.
2:29:28 PM
Co-Chair Johnston asked if Representative Wool had looked
into and means of measuring the department's recruitment
ability with benchmarks. Representative Wool replied in the
affirmative. The language had not been included in the
amendment but, he was amenable to adding it.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if Representative Wool would be
open to amending the amendment. Representative Wool agreed.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DOC 2. She
proposed including language that required a report from DOC
in January 2021 regarding its efforts in the recruitment
process.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED for clarification. He
asked if Co-Chair Johnston was proposing to strike all
other intent language and only include her proposed
language or to add the language to the end of the
amendment.
Co-Chair Johnston replied that the amendment to the
amendment would add language after, "three support staff."
She wanted the department to provide a report about its
success in recruitment efforts to the finance committee
before January 31, 2021.
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his objection.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 to Amendment H DOC 2
was ADOPTED.
Representative Carpenter moved to MOVED to AMEND Amendment
H DOC 2. He explained that the amendment would strike out,
office have a minimum of three support staff.
Co-Chair Johnston objected.
Co-Chair Johnston found the 3 staff important because it
seemed they had been trying to recruit but in a
decentralized effort. She did not think 3 staff was
unreasonable.
Representative Carpenter stated that the current intent
language directed the department to centralize the
recruitment and retention office. His amendment was to
simply strike the number of people required to do so. If
the department were able to find 2 people that could get
the job done, he thought the department should be allowed
to do so rather than forcing the department to hire 3
staff. The legislature would know in January of the
following year whether the department had been successful.
He thought the hiring of 3 people was presumptuous on the
part of the committee.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her objection.
Representative Wool OBJECTED. He stated that the Department
of Public Safety had 10 people working on the effort. He
stated that three people was the minimum. He thought the
department would welcome added personnel and funding.
2:36:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Wool, Josephson, LeBon, Knopp, Johnston,
Foster
The MOTION FAILED (4/7). Amendment 2 to Amendment H DOC 2
FAILED.
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED his objection to
Amendment H DOC 2 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Wool, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Foster,
Johnston
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO OBJECTION,
Amendment H DOC 2 was ADOPTED as amended.
2:38:31 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 3 (copy
on file):
Population Management
H DOC 3 - Funding to support the in-state increased
population in FY21
Offered by Representative Wool
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 7,409.9
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained the amendment added $7.4
million in support of increased prison population projected
from the passage of HB 49 [Legislation passed in 2019
Short Title: Crimes; Sentencing; Drugs; Theft; Reports].
Representative Knopp asked if the sum of $7.4 million was
in addition to what was already in the governor's budget.
He thought the line item below was a decrement of $17
million from out-of-state contractual services. In the
prior year, the legislature added $16 million to the budget
for the opening of the Palmer Correctional Center. The
amount also accounted for population management. He did not
see a good reason to add another $7.4 million to the
budget. He asked the maker of the amendment to comment.
Representative Wool noted that the reduction of $16.7
million was not for an out-of-state contract, as it had
been removed during the subcommittee process. The purpose
of the $17.9 million was to fund the Palmer Correctional
Center. The legislature provided funding in the prior year
in the amount of $16.7 million. The same level of funding
was scheduled in FY 21. Nothing had been done at the Palmer
facility in the previous year and the $16.7 million was
still intact. The money would be rolled into the following
year. He continued that since the Palmer Correctional
Center was not open and people were still entering the
system, the $7.4 million would accommodate the incoming
prisoners until the Palmer facility was open. The intent
language by the subcommittee indicated an opening date of
January 1. The department reported a different date. In the
meantime, incoming prisoners would be housed in existing
facilities. He deferred to LFD for additional detail.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
agreed that the $16.7 million appropriated in the previous
year for FY 20 was carried forward in FY 21 based on the
supplemental bill recently passed from the House. She
believed the intent of the department was to use the money
to bring the Palmer Correctional Center back online.
Additional inmates were entering the system. The current
amendment of $7.4 million was half of what the governor had
requested to address the increased population in FY 21.
Co-Chair Johnston surmised that the funding would have
accompanied HB 49. She asked if the amount was the
increased funding needed for additional prisoners. Ms.
Cunningham responded, That is correct. She explained that
the fiscal notes were handled in the capital budget in the
prior year and not as a traditional fiscal note. Otherwise,
the money would have gone into the departments base in the
prior year. The proposed amount was half of what it would
have been.
2:43:44 PM
Co-Chair Johnston asked the sponsor if the funding would
cover some of the population that would be transferred to
the Palmer Correctional Center. She did not want to see a
duplication of funds between the Palmer facility and other
state correctional facilities. She thought the amendment
reflected a budget reduction.
Representative Wool replied that the amount was less than
the governor requested, but the Palmer Correctional Center
had $16.7 million. He suggested that some of the funding
could be used for building maintenance to get the facility
reopened. Once the center was opened, it could handle
population. The funding would accommodate the expansion of
population beyond normal projections. He relayed that when
the Palmer Correction Center was opened previously it ran
on less than $16.7 million. The amount was enough money to
operate the facility with money left over for capital
projects. There would be an extra $7.4 million to
accommodate prisoners. The intent of the amendment was to
incentivize the department to get the Palmer facility up
and running as quickly as possible providing $7.4 million
until the facility was opened. He conveyed that the $16.7
million would be enough once Palmer was reopened.
Representative Knopp asked for verification that $17
million was included in the supplemental for Palmer. Ms.
Cunningham answered that the $17 million was the funding
number for an out-of-state contract. She verified that
$16.7 million was appropriated in FY 20 and would be used
going into FY 21.
Representative Knopp asked what the legislature did for the
FY 21 budget effective July 1. He asked if there was an
additional funding increment of $16.7 million for the
operation of the Palmer facility. Ms. Cunningham indicated
there was an amendment removing the Palmer money.
Representative Knopp asked, For the FY 21? Ms. Cunningham
answered in the affirmative.
Representative Knopp began reviewing the numbers again. He
asked for help in understanding the amounts. Representative
Wool understood the complexity of the issue. He detailed
that the legislature funded $16.7 million in the previous
year and, in the current year it was supposed to fund
another $16.7 million. However, the amount was not needed
twice. Instead of letting the previous years appropriation
lapse, as it had not been touched, the money would be used
for the current year and into the following year. The
amount of $7.4 million would house inmates that could not
be placed in the Palmer facility until it opened.
Representative Wool conveyed that out of the $16.7 million
increment, some of it was supposed to be used for capital
projects. He had received different estimates of items of a
wish list for everything that needed to be done to get the
Palmer facility opened. The amount was about $7 million. He
reiterated that between the two sums, $16.7 million and
$7.4 million, the department should be able to open the
Palmer Correctional Center, place prisoners in the
facility, and hold onto prisoners between the present day
and when the prison reopened.
2:48:47 PM
Representative Josephson supported the amendment. He could
not understand how DOC could be surviving currently without
the $17 million. He wondered why the department was not
asking for a supplemental.
Ms. Cunningham answered that DOC had received $3.5 million
the previous year for excess prisoners. She relayed that
the $16.7 million set aside for the Palmer effort was only
for opening up the facility. She did not know if the
department was being starved or not. She thought the issue
of opening up the Palmer facility was different from
dealing with the issue of excess population.
Representative Tilton asked where DOC was going to house
the inmates with the $7.5 million. Representative Wool
replied that sending prisoners out of state was not an
option. The population was presently at 97 percent capacity
which contributed to the urgency of reopening the Palmer
facility. He suggested that a portion of the facility could
be opened. One portion could be opened while another was
being worked on. He indicated Fairbanks had taken the same
approach of doing phased upgrades. The state did not have
many options and needed to get the Palmer Correctional
Center opened. The state had the money aside to do so.
Representative Carpenter requested a brief at ease.
2:51:44 PM
AT EASE
3:03:37 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated the committee had left off with
Amendment H DOC 3 which provided funding to support the
instate increased population in DOC under population
management in the amount of $7.4 million.
Representative Wool replied to Representative Tilton's
question about where prisoners would go. He noted that the
arrest rate had increased with the passage of HB 49. Many
individuals were awaiting pretrial. There was a very large
pretrial population - over half the total prison
population. Individuals awaiting pretrial would either be
housed in community residential centers, otherwise known as
halfway houses, or would be part of the electronic
monitoring program. He continued that removing the
out-of-state option had put more pressure on the department
to open up the Palmer facility.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard WITHDREW her OBJECTION to
Amendment H DOC 3.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 3 was ADOPTED.
3:05:31 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 4 (copy
on file):
Population Management
H DOC 4 - Remove FY21 numbers appropriation
Offered by Representative Wool
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -16,669.1
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained the amendment was a decrement
of $16.7 million for FY 21. The money from FY 20 would be
carried forward. The department would have the same amount
of money to reopen the Palmer Correctional Center. He added
that when he presented the DOC subcommittee report, he had
not received all of the numbers from the department.
Therefore, he was taking up the amendments in front of the
full finance committee.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 4 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 5 (copy
on file):
Health and Rehabilitation Services
H DOC 5 - Funding to support increased in-state health
care costs associated with HB 49.
Offered by Representative Wool
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 4,361.2
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained the amendment was an addition
to cover healthcare costs related to the increased prison
population resulting from HB 49. He suggested hearing from
LFD if there were questions.
Co-Chair Johnston asked LFD to provide more detail about
the appropriation. Ms. Cunningham offered that in the
previous year the health and rehabilitation services fiscal
note appropriated just over $4 million for HB 49. In year 2
the projection was an increase of about $8 million. She
believed Representative Wools amendment would be about
half of the amount going into FY 21 based on associated
uncertainties.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the department thought the
appropriation amount was large enough. Ms. Cunningham
answered that the governor's budget assumed $8 million for
FY 21. The department needed additional funding.
Representative Wool relayed that when he had tried to get
numbers from the department, LFD thought the numbers were
too high and was seeking justification for the $8 million
figure. He had not received any further feedback from the
department. He had gone with the previous number. He did
not know what the department would say to the amount.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 5 the amendment was ADOPTED.
3:10:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster returned to an earlier amendment, Amendment
H DOA 1, which would restore Public Broadcasting funds. He
invited Representative Josephson to move the amendment.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 1
(copy on file):
Public Communications Services
H DOA 1 - Restore Public Broadcasting Funding
Offered by Representative Josephson
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 700.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained what he had learned was
that the allocations for Alaska Public TV or radio came in
three places. His original plan, reflected in the
amendment, was to restore an additional $700,000 to public
radio. He saw wisdom in his choice because of public radio
funding being reduced entirely by vetoes from the previous
summer. The allocation had been reduced by $2 million of a
total appropriation of $2.7 million. He indicated the
amendment would fully restore funding to public radio.
However, television was also deleted entirely in the amount
of $633,000. He thought one way the amendment could be
handled was to split $700,000 between public radio and
public television leaving $350,000 for each allocation. If
someone offered such an amendment, he would consider it a
friendly one.
Representative Wool MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DOA 1 to
equally divide the $700,000 between radio and television.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Johnston mentioned that in subcommittee there was
concern about Gavel-to-Gavel. She recalled the cost of the
service being about $75,000. She had spoken with
representatives from KTOO who did not request the
appropriation.
Representative Josephson repeated that the committee heard
from 670 testifiers who supported public broadcasting.
Representative Carpenter WITHREW his objection.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Wool, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Foster
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick,
Johnston
The MOTION to AMEND Amendment H DOA 1 PASSED (6/5).
Co-Chair Foster returned to the original amendment,
Amendment H DOC 1 as amended.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her objection to the amendment.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Knopp,
Merrick, Johnston
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOA 1 FAILED (5/6).
3:16:16 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 1 (copy on
file):
Education Support and Administrative Services
H DOE 1 - Pre-Kindergarten Grants
Offered by Representative Ortiz
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 4,300.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained that while the amendment
reflected an increase of $4.3 million, he looked at it as a
significant cost savings measure. He thought it was the
ultimate in upstream spending. Statistics showed that
people who read by the third grade had a much higher high
school graduation rate, a much higher college graduation
rate, and a much higher earning potential in their work
life. The amendment was in the name of supporting what the
governor wanted to have a higher percentage of Alaskan
children reading by the third grade. He argued that having
access to pre-K was critical for children to be ready for
school and ready to read. By adopting the amendment, the
state would maintain access to pre-K services that would no
longer be available otherwise.
Representative Ortiz indicated that in FY 19 and FY 20 the
legislature gave a 2-year grant totaling $6 million to
districts for pre-K programs. Ten programs benefited. He
identified the school districts which were affected: The
Alaska Gateway School District, the Anchorage School
District (2 programs), the Bering Straits School District,
the Kodiak School District, the Lower Kuskokwim School
District, the Lake and Peninsula School District, the Nome
School District, the Southwest Region School District, and
the Valdez School District. The programs served a total of
812 students. The 2-year program had ended and would likely
serve significantly fewer students unless the amendment was
adopted. He reported that the subcommittee heard from the
Anchorage School District who testified that the lack of
grant funding would equate to a direct reduction in
pre-school services for 153 students. It would impact
kindergarten readiness skills including literacy, math, and
social skills. It would also mean less inclusive settings
such as blending classrooms that included classrooms with
special education needs. He spoke to his experience as a
teacher that if a student was not able to read by the third
grade the school would experience significant increases in
costs for extra tutoring, extra services, and special needs
services. He reiterated that in adopting the amendment,
even though it was an increment of $4.3 million, it would
ultimately result in a cost savings in educating Alaskas
youth. The committee had spent a significant amount of time
discussing funding within DOC and Alaskas prison system.
He reemphasized that statistics positively reflected that
people who could read by the third grade had a much greater
chance of avoiding a prison sentence in their lifetime. He
strongly supported the amendment.
Co-Chair Johnston noted the necessity of doing fiscal notes
for bills. She asked about the fiscal impact of SB 6
[Legislation introduced in 2020 Short Title: Pre-K/Elem
Ed Programs/Funding; Reading]. Vice-Chair Ortiz did not
know the fiscal impact of SB 6. He clarified that he was
moving the amendment with no guarantee of the passage of SB
6. He suggested that if he did not move the amendment and
SB 6 did not pass, the state would lose the existing
programs and the benefits they provided.
Co-Chair Johnston asked that prior to the grants, there had
been a $2 million grant. Vice-Chair Ortiz replied in the
negative. He elaborated that there had been a total of $6
million appropriated which included the $2 million Co-Chair
Johnston referenced. He thought the $2 million was a
portion of the existing budget. The amendment would
increase the amount to $6.3 million.
3:21:39 PM
Co-Chair Johnston clarified that the $4.3 million was part
of more recent grants compared to the $2 million grant.
Representative Ortiz thought Co-Chair Johnston was probably
right.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative George Rauscher
in the audience. He also wanted to get some clarification
from Mr. Partlow from LFD.
MICHAEL PARTLOW, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE
DIVISION detailed that the base budget for pre-K grants was
$2 million. He explained that the $6 million was a one-time
funding increment for a 2-year period in addition to the
$2 million. He summarized that there was $2 million in each
of the 2 years plus $6 million spread over 2 years. In the
current budget the base budget was $2 million.
Co-Chair Johnston pulled up the fiscal note for SB 6 that
included $4.3 million for FY 22 for pre-K.
Representative Knopp shared that he would be voting against
several things he truly supported. Individually, the
amounts were not significant but added together, they were
substantial. He supported the items, but he thought there
was nothing worse than continuing to support a budget that
could not be supported in future years.
Representative Carpenter recalled 810 students. He ran some
math in his head and thought the amount translated to about
$5,000 per student. He stated that a child that was not in
pre-K would have some portion of their PFD used for the
limited service. He did not believe it made sense to add
another $4.3 million to the budget deficit to benefit only
810 students. He also believed parents had a personal
responsibility in raising their kids. Although he
appreciated the sentiment in trying to solve the problem,
he did not support the amendment.
Representative Wool supported pre-K as a concept and
believed more, not less, was needed. He wondered if the
programs were open to any student. He asked what would
happen to existing programs if the funding decreased to $2
million.
3:26:41 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz replied to comments by Representative
Carpenter first. He stated it was the responsibility of the
committee to take action promoting fiscal responsibility.
He pointed to statistics and stressed that the action was
fiscally responsible for the future. He cited that when
children could read by the third-grade they had a much
better chance of avoiding higher costs to society in the
future. He opined that the legislatures number-one
priority should be to promote a well-educated society and a
well-educated youth. He suggested that if the committee did
not adopt the amendment, there would be 821 students that
did not have access to a pre-K program. He stated it was
not a means tested program like Head Start. He emphasized
that pre-K was part of the public-school system offering.
He thought everyone in the district should have access to
the program if it were offered.
Representative Wool asked what would happen if the funding
was not provided. He asked if the programs would be
discontinued in the communities that currently offered
them. Vice-Chair Ortiz answered in the affirmative. He
detailed that if SB 6 was adopted some of the students
might have access to pre-K. He felt strongly about the
amendment.
3:30:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster shared that he had visited the pre-K and
Head Start programs in his district. He noted that the
programs leveraged a substantial amount of federal money.
He thought about what government should offer - public
safety and education. He did not view the amendment as an
"add." He noted it might not be means tested but, he had
observed that many of the families in his district's
program were low-income. He agreed with Representative Wool
that the state needed more, rather than less, funding. He
viewed it as a base foundation for the 821 students. He
argued that the state would be going in the wrong direction
if the funding was removed.
Representative Josephson clarified that Representative
Ortizs proposal was offered in the event the other
legislation did not pass before the legislature adjourned.
The amendment was a modicum of what the administration, the
Minority Leader in the other body, and the Alaska Policy
Forum supported. He asked if he was correct. Vice-Chair
Ortiz responded, Thants correct.
Representative Tilton asked for verification that the
grants were awarded to school districts on a competitive
bid basis. Mr. Partlow agreed.
Representative Tilton asked for verification there was no
guarantee a school that had received the funding in the
past would receive it again. Mr. Partlow replied that there
was no guarantee.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if previous grants were over a
period of 2 years. Mr. Partlow was not certain of the
grant-issuing period but could get back to the committee
with the information.
Co-Chair Johnston noted she would like an answer from
someone. Mr. Steininger replied that the $6 million grant
program had been over a period of 2 years to the same set
of schools that received approximately $1.5 million in the
first year and about $4.5 million in the second year.
Co-Chair Johnston noted the grants were competitive. If the
item was funded to the following years level, it would go
out as a competitive grant in FY 21. She asked if she was
correct. Mr. Steininger answered that the department did
not currently have any regulations in place in how they
would handle the circumstance. It would be considered a
change or addition to the $2 million base level of funding.
Likely, it would be done through a competitive process of
some sort.
3:35:50 PM
Co-Chair Johnston noted that the originally $2 million
grants were the result of a settlement. She wondered if she
was accurate. Mr. Steininger believed she was thinking of
the Moore Settlement grants which were part of a separate
allocation within the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development (DEED). He furthered that the $2
million figure was not associated with the Moore
Settlement.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the Moore Settlement grants were
still in existence. Mr. Steininger replied that he did not
believe so. Mr. Partlow added that there was currently $1.2
million in the budget referred to as the Moore Settlement
grants because it was how it was originated. It was no
longer a part of the settlement. The settlement agreement
had already been reached. The money was continued funding
to achieve some of the goals that were outlined in the
settlement, but they were not required under the
settlement.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if $1.2 million was at the
discretion of the department to meet the needs of the
litigation. Alternatively, she asked if the money had been
used for the pre-K program in the past. Mr. Partlow
answered the funding was used to continue assisting low-
performing schools. He was not aware of any set parameters
of how the money was being spent.
Co-Chair Johnston mentioned that the Head Start program in
Nome was separate and more needs-based. She saw the
benefits of pre-K programs, but she also saw the benefit of
reading readiness. She had concerns about passing the
increment in the event a separate bill with the same
increment passed. She did not know how she would vote on
the amendment.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that in Nome the Head Start and
pre-K programs were co-mingled in the same building. He
realized that Head Start was means tested. His point was
that several of the pre-K students in the building were
also low-income, whether or not it was a means-tested
program.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that Nome had received funding from
the grant program. Co-Chair Foster agreed. He added that
the money was used to leverage federal dollars.
Representative Merrick asked why the amendment had not
passed or had not been offered in subcommittee.
3:39:58 PM
AT EASE
3:46:06 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz replied to Representative Merricks
question. The subcommittee had discussed pre-K and
supported ideas such as universal pre-K. They had not
adopted the amendment for an additional $4.3 million
because the committee felt that the topic merited
discussion at the full finance committee level. Had the
subcommittee taken up an amendment, there would have been
full support.
Representative Merrick wondered if any attention had been
given to finding a decrement to counter the increment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz answered that he was certainly aware of
trying to avoid adding to the budget.
Representative Carpenter commented that from one end of the
state to the other there were several different entities
looking for state funding solutions. He thought pre-K
(daycare) was no different in terms of seeking state
funding to solve problems. He suggested that as long as the
state continued to offer money, local or other solutions
would not materialize. He asserted that for too long people
had looked to the state for funding - it was the easy
answer. He thought the state no longer had easy money for
easy answers.
Representative Carpenter believed that holistically there
was a moral imperative to ensure that children were
learning. As a parent and grandparent, he understood the
importance of education. He thought it was important for
communities to encourage growth in families and parental
involvement. By suggesting that the only way a child could
learn to read was by attending preschool, parents could
wash their hands of their responsibilities. He thought it
sent the message that parents were not capable of teaching
their children to read outside of a preschool. He reflected
that none of the committee members had attended a state-
funded pre-K program. He argued that there was no financial
imperative for the state to pay for pre-k. It was his
experience that a child could learn to read without a
preschool program. He did not believe the service rose to
the level of essential. However, he recognized that it was
constitutionally mandated and essential for the state to
provide K-12 education.
Representative LeBon recalled his days on the school board
receiving many grant proposals. The board would measure
grant proposals in two ways. First, it would consider the
length of a grant. Typically, grants were about 3 years.
The board would look to see if the success of a grant could
be measured within 3 years. Second, the board would look at
whether it would be willing to fund the grant with
operating dollars if the proposal was successful in the
first 3 years. Often times, the board would pass on free
money because it was not confident that the results were
measurable or that the board would be willing to fund it in
3 years. He indicated he was considering grant performance,
continued funding from districts, and whether it was short-
term grant funding.
3:52:29 PM
Representative Wool thought it would be acceptable for a
community to accept a grant for the start-up of a pre-K
program even if it were to end within 1-3 years. He argued
that the pre-K program was not a lengthy program of 5 or 10
years in which a short-term grant would end abruptly in the
middle of a program. He thought pre-K was a 1-year program
prior to kindergarten which provided an extra boost for
young children. He understood Representative Carpenters
comment about preschool being a daycare. He noted his
children having attended preschool or daycare. Much of the
activities involved unstructured play. However, children
learned letters, how to write their names, and other
academic skills. He stated that the costs of preschool were
about $1,000 per child and was not affordable for all
parents. He argued that it was worth the cost for children
to be able to attend preschool or daycare even if it was
only for 1 year.
Vice-Chair Ortiz provided wrap up on the amendment. He
agreed with Representative Carpenter that educating young
people began with families and parents. He had access to
support unlike some people. He underscored that Alaska had
the least opportunity for pre-K education compared to all
other states. He questioned the state's priorities. He
stressed that the committee had just approved $7.4 million
for prison population and $4.3 million for prison
healthcare. He supported the funds, but asked what it said
about the state. His amendment would significantly decrease
the chances that 821 students would end up in the prison
system. He emphasized the importance of investing in the
youth of Alaska - failing to invest would catch up with the
state. He noted that it was unclear what would happen if
SB 6 was adopted and the amendment passed. He suggested the
other body could remove what the House Finance Committee
adopted. He stressed that the funds would create more
opportunity for access to pre-K. He strongly believed in
investing in Alaskas children.
Co-Chair Johnston MAINTAINED her objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Tilton, Carpenter, Knopp, LeBon, Merrick,
Sullivan-Leonard, Johnston
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 1 FAILED (4/7).
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
4:00:20 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 205 HB 206 Op Budget Amendments 1. Lang Amendments Report022520 (1).pdf |
HFIN 2/25/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 HB 206 |
| HB 205 HB 206 Op Budget Amendments 2. Numbers Amendments Report022520 (2).pdf |
HFIN 2/25/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 HB 206 |
| HB 205 HB 206 Op Budget Amendments All Backup 022520 (3).pdf |
HFIN 2/25/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 HB 206 |
| HB 234 Amendment 1 022520.pdf |
HFIN 2/25/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 234 Amendment 1 Action 022520.pdf |
HFIN 2/25/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 205 Amendment Action on 022520.pdf |
HFIN 2/25/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |