Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/08/2016 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 | |
| HB256 || HB257 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 8, 2016
1:34 p.m.
1:34:44 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Pete Ecklund, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman; Joan
Brown, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Representative Lora
Reinbold; Representative Cathy Tilton; Representative Neal
Foster; Representative Kurt Olson.
SUMMARY
HB 256 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 256 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 257 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 257 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, making supplemental appropriations,
and making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 257
"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."
1:34:53 PM
Co-Chair Neuman discussed the meeting agenda. The committee
would hear amendments to the operating budget.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file)
[Note: due to the length of the amendment it has not been
fully included in the minutes]:
EXPLANATION:
In January 2015, the FAA contacted the Department of
Revenue regarding tracking the proceeds of the
aviation fuel tax to ensure that the state was meeting
federal requirements (federal register volume 64,
number 30, page 7716--February 16, 1999). The federal
government requires proceeds of aviation fuel taxes-
and other revenue from airports constructed with
federal receipts-to be spent for capital or operating
costs of airports. Previously, the State (and FAA)
considered expenditure tracking unnecessary because
annual state expenditures on airports far exceeded
annual aviation revenue.
Three fund codes were created in response to the
federal concern for more explicit tracking. Code 1239
(Aviation Fuel Tax) will be used to track
appropriations of aviation fuel tax collections, code
1244 (Rural Airport Receipts) will be used to track
appropriations of rural airport lease, other receipts/
and code 1245 (Rural Airport Receipts I/A) will be
used to track appropriations of rural airport lease/
other receipts from other state agencies. The codes
are classified as dedicated (Other) funds (due to the
federally restricted use of airport revenue) and may
be used in the DOT&PF budget for capital or operating
appropriations for airports. The reclassification of
expenditures from general funds to dedicated revenue
will also require the Department of Revenue to
reclassify the revenue stream as restricted revenue.
Aviation Fuel Tax receipts will be appropriated based
on the most recent closed fiscal year's actual tax
collections. So for FY17, the appropriation level
would be the amount of FY15 collections, which were
$4.7 million.
This amendment is a net zero fund source change.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, explained
the amendment. He directed attention to the explanation on
page 3 of the amendment. He explained that there had been a
change to federal law requiring the state to track aviation
fuel tax and leasing revenue and show that revenue was
being spent on rural airports. He detailed that three new
tracking codes had been set up by the Legislative Finance
Division. The amendment was a net zero fund source change.
He furthered that the system would track airport gas tax
and leasing revenues the proper way and to demonstrate that
the funds were spent on rural airports, per federal
government requirements.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file):
DEPARTMENT: Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
ALLOCATION: Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
ADD: $6,231,600 In-State Natural Gas Pipeline Fund
(1229)
$4,154,400 Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project Fund
(1235)
POSITIONS: Add: 26 Permanent Full-time Positions
EXPLANATION:
This amendment funds AGDC in FY17. All funding and
positions in the agency were removed in the committee
substitute. This amendment establishes AGDC's FYI 7
operating budget authority at $10,386.0 and restores
26 positions. The 60/40 split of funding between codes
1229 and 1235 reflects the anticipated workload of the
agency.
AGDC's FY16 budget was $13,249.9 with 38 PCNs.
AGDC's FY17 Governor's Request was $12,949.8 with 38
PCNs
This amendment is a $2.6 million (20%) reduction from
the Governor's Request and a reduction of 12 full-time
positions. Travel expenses and commodities have been
reduced to reflect spending expectations.
The Corporation's two allocations will be consolidated
into one allocation. This structure allows AGDC to
implement the organizational changes necessary to more
accurately reflect the corporation's three
programmatic responsibilities - Alaska LNG, ASAP and
In-State Gas Aggregation.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Ecklund explained that Amendment 2 restored funding for
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) for FY 17. He
detailed that the amendment reflected a $2.6 million (20
percent) reduction from the governor's request. He
elaborated that after holding hearings on AGDC's budget,
the legislature asked AGDC to further examine their
numbers. The amendment represented numbers AGDC had come
back with. The amendment also reduced positions from 38
positions to 26 positions. He explained that there were
existing funds in the AKLNG Fund [Alaska Liquid Natural Gas
Fund] to pay for the state's share of pre-FEED [Front End
Engineering and Design] activities (the completion of
technical work). He noted that there had been funding
requests from the Department of Law (DOL), Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), and Department of Revenue (DOR),
which were not included in the amendment. He believed it
was Co-Chair Neuman's intent to hold additional hearings on
the request from DOL, DOR, and DNR for pre-FEED activity.
Co-Chair Neuman replied in the affirmative. He reiterated
that the amendment would fully fund AGDC up to FEED.
Mr. Ecklund agreed. He detailed that AGDC already had funds
appropriated for cash calls in the AKLNG Fund to get
through the state's share of pre-FEED technical work.
Representative Gara did not know how the governor felt that
AKLNG (the large pipeline project) would be short-funded.
He spoke to the In-state Natural Gas Pipeline Fund and did
not believe the state could afford to fund a large and
small pipeline simultaneously. He remarked that a certain
amount of the AGDC request related to finishing an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the small
pipeline. He noted that the legislature had been told the
EIS could be delayed by another year in order to provide
time to get a fuller picture on whether or not the large
line would go forward. He did not support spending money on
two pipelines when only one would come to fruition. He
wanted to know the reason for not including the governor's
request on the large pipeline.
1:41:12 PM
Co-Chair Neuman replied that the committee had denied the
governor's request for DNR, DOR, and DOL in order to hear
from the departments in later hearings how the additional
money would be spent. He referred to recent news reports
that the plan on how the state would move forward with the
gas pipeline was changing. He wanted to ensure that the
committee was in the know; therefore, they would hold
additional hearings. He stated that AGDC was funded up to
that point [through FY 17].
Mr. Ecklund affirmed that the funding for AGDC and the
state's share of the costs for pre-FEED activity was
already in the AKLNG fund, which would continue. He agreed
that that the co-chair intended to hold further hearings on
the requests from DOL, DNR, and DOR.
Representative Gara asked if the amendment was only $2.6
million less than the governor's request. He asked if there
were additional funds the governor had requested for DOR,
DOL, and DNR that were not included in the amendment.
Mr. Ecklund explained that the $2.6 million reduction had
come from AGDC after the corporation had further considered
its budgetary needs for FY 17.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that AGDC understood the state's
current fiscal situation and was doing its part by reducing
its budget.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the AGDC budget reduction
and wondered whether it really needed all of the funds if
funds would not be allocated to DOL, DNR, and DOR. He
wondered if the department would be able to complete its
mission without the rest of the funds.
Co-Chair Neuman understood, but stated that the legislature
did not know how much money the departments needed because
there had been significant changes.
Mr. Ecklund explained that the state's cost of pre-FEED
technical work was already funded; it had been appropriated
the past fall during special session. The agency had all of
the funds required to get through pre-FEED. The state's
share of the technical work for pre-FEED was funded and
would continue. The requests for DOL, DNR, and DOR were on
top of and beyond the technical work that all four AKLNG
project partners paid for jointly. He clarified that the
committee would explore the departments' requests in
further detail in coming weeks.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the conceptual amendment
would delete the funding dedicated to the EIS for the small
pipeline. He remarked that the legislature could look at
the issue the following year once progress on the larger
pipeline had been determined. He did not believe the state
could afford to pay for two pipelines at the same time. He
detailed that AGDC had stated it could put off work on the
small pipeline EIS for one year without any harm to the
project. He reasoned that it was not the favored pipeline
anyway.
Co-Chair Neuman believed the Alaska Stand Alone Project
(ASAP) had started the environmental work, which was
expected to be completed in the current year. He stated
that the work from the project could be sold back to some
of the other companies; it had been part of the original
agreement.
1:45:56 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. He stated that
the environmental work was needed and the state was
expected to be reimbursed for the cost.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that the [environmental] process
had already been started and significant funds had already
been spent. He reasoned that if the process was halted it
would have to start over from the beginning and would cost
the state much more money.
Representative Gara relayed that he had spoken with AGDC
and had been told that the EIS work would not have to start
over; the work would be delayed for one year and it would
not cause damage to the project. The result would be saving
money while the state determined which pipeline would move
forward.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gattis, Guttenberg, Munoz, Pruitt,
Saddler, Wilson, Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to amend Amendment 2 FAILED (2/9).
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 2.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file)
[Note: for full amendment explanation see copy on file]:
PART A
DEPARTMENT: Transportation and Public Facilities
APPROPRIATION: Highways, Aviation and Facilities
ALLOCATION: Northern Region Highways and Aviation
ADD: $1,414,000 Vehicle Rental Tax Receipts 1200
DELETE: $1,414,000 General Funds 1004
PART B
DEPARTMENT: Law
APPROPRIATION: Criminal Division
ALLOCATION: $340,000 UGF (1004)
POSITIONS: ADD: 2 PFT
PART C
DEPARTMENT: Law
APPROPRIATION: Criminal Division
ALLOCATION: Criminal Appeals/Special Litigation
ADD: $318,700 UGF 1004
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:48:14 PM
Mr. Ecklund explained that the amendment would use $1.414
million of available vehicle rental tax receipts for
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
northern region highways and aviation and would reduce the
Undesignated General Fund (UGF) funding to DOT by the same
amount. He detailed that the amendment would add the $1.414
million on top of $5 million in vehicle rental tax that had
already been used in DOT. Part B of the amendment would
allocate $340,000 to the DOL for a district attorney in
Dillingham. Part C would add $318,700 for the public
integrity unit in DOL.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the impact on Parks
and Management and Access allocation [explanation section
of Part A of Amendment 3].
Mr. Ecklund answered that the information had been included
for explanation purposes. He detailed that the monies had
already been appropriated to the budget. The information
specified where other vehicle rental tax was appropriated
in the budget; the amendment would make no changes to that
area of the budget.
Representative Kawasaki wondered if the fund source was
being utilized because there were additional anticipated
tax receipts through vehicle rental tax.
Mr. Ecklund replied in the negative. He explained that they
had looked back to FY 15 collections; the $1.414 million
was the remaining balance that had not yet been used in the
budget from FY 15 collections of vehicle rental tax.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that it reflected an extra
fund [vehicle rental tax receipts] that could be tapped and
substituted for General Funds (GF). Mr. Ecklund answered
that it was an ongoing vehicle rental tax. The amendment
would use a prior year's collections of the tax instead of
a future projection; its availability had been overlooked
until now.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to Part C of the amendment. He
noted that he chaired the DOL budget subcommittee and had
asked the department about the purpose of building up the
Public Integrity Unit. He had wanted to ensure there was no
lack of public integrity and had been assured that the
funds would aid the unit in providing faster prosecution of
police use of force, injuries or deaths in the Department
of Corrections (DOC), and fraud perpetuated against the
state primarily in procurement. He understood that the unit
aimed to increase public confidence that the crimes would
be promptly investigated.
1:52:03 PM
Representative Wilson was concerned by Amendment 3. She was
fine with using $1.4 million of vehicle rental tax in place
of GF to take care of the northern region highway. She
believed that when people pay tax on their vehicles they
want the funds to go to roads. She was concerned that the
amendment would take GF money to fund actual positions. She
recalled that the committee had asked DOL to determine
areas where work could be done more efficiently and she
surmised that the department believed the Dillingham
district attorney office would be more efficient. Her
larger concern was that more funds would be allocated to
DOL. She asked if there would be a new position and whether
it would only have funding for one year. She was concerned
that costs may be offset in one area that may not be there
the following year. She did not support putting GF into
positions that may go away.
Co-Chair Neuman replied that the item had been brought to
the co-chairs by the attorney general due to significant
concern about corporate fraud that DOL believed should be
adjusted. He asked Vice-Chair Saddler to provide a further
explanation of the Public Integrity Unit.
Vice-Chair Saddler reiterated his earlier statement that
the funds would backfill extra "investigatory muscle" to
the investigation unit. He added that a new unit would not
be established. The money would go to backfill
investigation capacity that had diminished as other
prosecutors had been reduced. The goal was to have some
forensic counting expertise and other investigatory
horsepower along with some attorneys who were experts in
litigation.
1:54:46 PM
Representative Gara requested to add his name as a
cosponsor to the amendment. He spoke to the Public
Integrity Unit and explained that DOL was not able to
adequately prosecute white-collar crime; it would make
money for the state if the department had the ability to
prosecute the crimes and recover money for fraud against
the state. He believed white-collar crime should be
prosecuted. He mentioned the necessity for the Dillingham
office. He restated that the amendment would give DOL the
power to prosecute crimes that were not currently being
prosecuted.
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that the co-chairs had looked hard
at the items to ensure that they would not cost the state
additional funds. The expectation was that the investments
would return the money it cost to run the unit and would
make Alaska a better place legally.
Representative Edgmon asserted that having a district
attorney in Dillingham would better serve the region and
would save money in the Department of Public Safety (DPS),
DOC, DOL, and the Alaska Court System.
1:56:47 PM
Representative Gattis struggled with the first part of the
amendment. She understood that the department may need help
to address white-collar and other crimes. She did not
support changing the fund source in Part A of Amendment 3.
She would support splitting the amendment into three parts.
Co-Chair Neuman explained that the amendment replaced GF
money with other dollars that were available. He opined
that the legislature should use the available funds to
reduce General Fund expenditures.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
1:58:05 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. She
objected to taking GF money from northern regions that may
or may not be available in the future. She likened it to a
one-time increment. She did not support the change in fund
source.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that every department's funding ended
at the end of the fiscal year and started over with the use
of GF.
Representative Wilson responded that she understood that.
Representative Gara remarked that he did not believe the
amendment took any money from the northern region of DOT.
He asked for detail.
Mr. Ecklund explained there was a net zero change in the
amendment; the northern region had the same amount of money
and would utilize the vehicle rental tax of $1.4 million. He
furthered that $1.4 million in UGF would be subtracted from
the department's budget. The budget was funded at the same
level with a change in fund source.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Pruitt,
Saddler, Edgmon, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Gattis, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
2:00:12 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4 (copy on file):
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Public Assistance
ALLOCATION: Public Assistance Field Services
ADD: $500,000 General Funds 1004
EXPLANATION: The Governor's FY2017 proposed budget
requested a transfer of $500.0 UGF from Work Services
component to Field Services component for Division of
Public Assistance to maintain needed staffing levels.
This transaction was requested to "true up the budget"
to match expenditures over the past few years. Public
Assistance has internally made this transfer through a
revised program approved through 0MB in past years.
This request in FY20 17 was to enact this transfer in
the budget. The Legislative Finance Analyst classified
this transfer as an increment request instead of a
transfer. DPA would need to delete at least 10
positions (with the corresponding loss of federal
funds) to meet this reduction. This would severely
hamper eligibility determinations which could lead to
federal non-compliance and a corrective action plan.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Saddler explained the amendment. He relayed that
when the committee had addressed the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) budget the first time, the item
had been presented by the department as an increment.
Subsequently, it had been determined that the item had not
been properly categorized; it was something the department
had used to transfer money within the appropriation from
Work Services to Field Services. The amendment represented
a transfer. He stressed that taking the item as a cut would
cost the state another $500,000 in federal funds and would
put the state at risk of a corrective action order and
significant federal penalties. The amendment would retain
the federal funds and GF and kept the state out of
compliance problems. He stated that it was a technical fix.
Representative Gara appreciated that the committee was
fixing the problem. He requested to add his name as a
cosponsor to the amendment.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the $500,000 federal
funding match. He asked if the amendment should have
federal funds added to it. He asked to be added to the
amendment as a cosponsor.
2:01:56 PM
Representative Gattis wanted to ensure she understood the
amendment. She surmised that the $500,000 in general funds
would have an exact match of $500,000 in federal funds.
Vice-Chair Saddler agreed.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
2:02:47 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5 (copy on file):
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Senior and Disabilities Services
ALLOCATION: Senior Community Based Grants
ADD: $450,000 General Funds 1004
EXPLANATION: Home and Community Based Senior Grants
fund non-profit agencies to provide services to
physically frail individuals 60 years of age and over,
individuals of any age with Alzheimer's Disease or
Related Disorders (ADRD), and caregivers to assist
these Alaskans to maintain as much independence as
possible and improve their quality at home or in a
community-based setting. This restores funding to the
level proposed by the Governor.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Saddler explained that the DHSS subcommittee had
proposed the item as a budget cut; however, during public
testimony the House Finance Committee had heard significant
public interest for maintaining the services. The grants
would save the state money by helping senior citizens
remain in their homes instead of moving to expensive
institutional care. The amendment would reinstate the funds
[$450,000 GF] for senior community based grants.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for verification that the amendment
would save the state money.
Vice-Chair Saddler replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara supported the amendment. He relayed
that if the cut had been maintained there would have been
cuts to the Meals on Wheels, senior nutrition programs, and
other. He referred to testimony that someone had been able
to get a lift installed in their shower that enabled them
to take a shower for the first time in a year. He spoke to
the return of the funds for individuals with Alzheimer's
and other. He asked to add his name to the amendment.
2:04:43 PM
Representative Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She shared that she volunteered for numerous nonprofits.
She noted that some of the nonprofits also helped with
wheelchair grants, the elderly, and others needing a hand.
She believed there were other resources (e.g. Medicaid and
other) that provided the services to seniors. She did not
support adding the services back in. She mentioned revenue
enhancements that would be coming later in the session -
she was not certain the group would be gaining. She did not
have a list of all of the existing nonprofits in Alaska,
but the state had one of the biggest number of nonprofits
per capita.
Representative Guttenberg spoke in support of the
amendment. He spoke to the concept of continuum of care for
seniors. He reasoned that there were many things the state
could do to prevent the expenses from escalating into the
next higher category. He believed the use of funds was
humane, cost-efficient, and cost-effective.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the state provided
numerous benefits for many people who either need or want
them (or both). He stressed that the state faced a
tremendous budget challenge. He remarked that it was not
possible to provide every service that people may benefit
from, but they could not cut every service either. He
pointed to significant public testimony about the need of
the service.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:08:16 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler,
Edgmon, Gara, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Gattis, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
2:08:57 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6 (copy on file)
[Note: for full amendment explanation see copy on file]:
DEPARTMENT: Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Energy Authority
ALLOCATION: Statewide Project Development, Alternative
Energy and Efficiency
ADD: $2,000,000 Renewable Energy Grant Fund (1210)
Page 73, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(u) The sum of $250,000 is appropriated from federal
receipts to the emerging energy technology fund (AS
42.45.375) for capital projects.'
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt stated that his name was on the
amendment because it did not use GF. He explained that the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) had made a mistake on prior information given about
its budget needs for the coming year. He furthered that the
co-chairs had elected to bring the item forward for
consideration by the full committee. The amendment managed
the 133 existing grants from money previously allocated.
The second part of the amendment was related to federal
receipts sent to the Emerging Technology Fund that had been
left out when the governor had offered his amendments.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
2:10:40 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7 (copy on file)
[Note: for full amendment explanation see copy on file]:
DEPARTMENT: Health & Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Behavioral Health
ALLOCATION: Behavioral Health Treatment & Recovery
Grants
Add a new section titled Health and Social Services
following section 7 to read (FY16 effective date):
The sum of $30,000,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Department of Health and Social
Services, Behavioral Health, Behavioral Health
Treatment and Recovery Grants for a pilot program to
develop additional substance use disorder (SUD)
services for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2016,
June 30, 2017, June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2019.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Neuman explained that the amendment addressed an
issue he had been working on for the past three years. He
stated that three years earlier he had placed intent
language to bring together the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA) and different departments (Courts, DOL,
DOC, and DHSS) related to combatting drug and alcohol
abuses in the state. He discussed that recently legislation
had been passed on the House floor - one of the major
things legislators heard from constituents was about drug
and alcohol problems in communities. He noted that people
were breaking into homes in order to support their drug
habits. He stressed the importance of providing treatment
to the state's residents. He explained that the funding in
the amendment would go to filling gaps; a gap analysis had
been done on DHSS to determine where the needs resided. He
emphasized that the funds would not go towards starting new
programs, but would assist existing ones. He discussed the
problems heroin and cocaine had caused throughout the
state. The funds would be $10 million annually for three
years, which would result in substantial savings to the
state. He believed it would help state troopers dealing
with the individuals. He spoke to the difficult job facing
the state's troopers. He noted that 90 percent of the
Palmer court cases were related to substance abuse issues.
He shared that he had spoken to the chief justice about
efforts underway to provide treatment after arrest as
opposed to post-sentencing with the goal to reduce costs in
the state. He noted that 40 percent of incarcerated
individuals were pretrial. He spoke to the significant
amount of public testimony the committee had received on
the topic. He stressed that there was a definite need to
increase safety in the state's communities.
2:14:12 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler supported the initiative for many
reasons. First, it was fast. He detailed that he had heard
from his community that heroin and opioid abuse in the
state's communities was rampant. He remarked that the
program was targeted at filling gaps in the system, not at
creating new systems or facilities. He was happy that the
program would be results-based and was pleased with the
efforts of DHSS. He noted that the program would partner
with AMHTA (that served beneficiaries suffering from
substance abuse disorders) and with local communities. He
referred to conversation in the press about whether he was
compassionate enough with drug addicts. He assured people
that he had insights into the substance abuse treatment
community and he understood that treatment helped. He
stressed that people had to want to get better. He
cautioned people that the funds were not an endless
checkbook. He encouraged people taking advantage of the
opportunities to "do it once, do it right, and get
straight."
Representative Kawasaki thanked Co-Chair Neuman for the
amendment. He asked to be added as a cosponsor to Amendment
7. He wondered where the $30 million had come from.
Mr. Ecklund explained that it was a one-time $30 million
appropriation from FY 16 that would be used to fund the
grants for FY 17 through FY 19. There would be a Request
for Proposal process (RFP) established by DHSS to award
grants to fill the gaps in services.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that the
funds were unexpended from the prior year's budget. Mr.
Ecklund replied that there had been a $5 million additional
cap placed on what was needed to fund HB 2001 [operating
budget bill passed in a second special session in 2015].
Additionally, Legislative Finance Division and the Office
of Management and Budget had thought that the Statutory
Budget Reserve (SBR) was empty; however, in actuality it
contained $288 million.
2:17:41 PM
Representative Kawasaki supported the amendment. He wanted
to ensure the money trail was followed accurately. He noted
that the dialog in the amendment specified that the funds
would go to behavioral health treatment grants for pilot
programs to develop additional substance abuse services. He
asked for detail.
Mr. Ecklund replied that the intent of the amendment/pilot
program was to provide a continuum of care and to fill
gaps. He explained that individuals with a substance abuse
problem needed to detox prior to treatment; often times
there was no detox facility available, which meant
individuals were put on a waiting list and could mean they
may change their mind about treatment by the time a spot
was available. The amendment aimed to identify gaps in
treatment and offer RFPs by DHSS to fill the gaps. The goal
was to create space for individuals to enter detox and to
fill other gaps in order to get people treatment when they
wanted.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the $30 million ($10
million annually for three years). He wanted to ensure DHSS
knew that the legislature intended to monitor the progress.
He observed that there was no intent language related to
how the funds would be spent. He wondered about ensuring
the funds were expended in the correct way.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that he had been adamant with DHSS
that the funds would be used immediately. He spoke to
establishing a library in the University of Alaska
(University) and AMHTA to track what did and did not work,
to be as effective as possible.
2:20:44 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to a criminal justice
reform bill currently in the Senate. He detailed that a
major portion of the bill dealt with DOC and the fact that
it was the largest provider for mental and behavioral
health treatment in the state. He asked if the amendment
addressed the fiscal note associated with the bill [SB 91].
Co-Chair Neuman stated that the funds in Amendment 7 had
nothing to do with the legislation Representative Kawasaki
had referenced.
Co-Chair Thompson supported the amendment. He liked that
the money would be available immediately and he supported
the tracking component that would provide results. He
stated that a need for the services had existed for a long
time.
Representative Guttenberg agreed that the program was
needed. He was concerned about two items in the amendment.
First, he was concerned about forward funding out into the
future in an annual budget process. He remarked that the
next legislature would not be obligated to keep the funds
in place. He wondered if it was part of the allocation set
aside the prior year with the Constitutional Budget Reserve
(CBR) vote that specified funds could be used from the CBR
for FY 16. He observed that the amendment pertained to FY
16 through FY 19.
2:23:08 PM
Mr. Ecklund answered that there was $288 million available
in FY 16 in the SBR that the legislature had not been aware
of. Additionally, there was up to $500 million beyond HB
2001 that was also available in FY 16. The amendment would
use $30 million in FY 16 money and did not specify whether
it would come from the CBR or SBR.
Co-Chair Neuman added that about $157 [million] was used
for Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) out of
the $500 million.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the committee was
typically very specific about where its funds were coming
from. He asked if the CBR or SBR were folded into GF when
there was authorization. He wondered whether in the future
it would be possible to look back to determine which funds
had funded the services under the amendment.
Mr. Ecklund replied that it was a UGF appropriation from FY
16; the funds would either come from the CBR or SBR. He
explained that if there was a funding gap beyond the $288
million in the SBR, it would be covered by the CBR. He
stated that part of it was a $500 million cap. He detailed
that there had been $157 million appropriated in the third
special session in 2015 and there would be supplementals in
the current budget that would use funds from the $500
million as well.
Representative Guttenberg supported the amendment, but he
had concerns about the funding source. He noted they would
address the concerns at a later time.
2:25:35 PM
Representative Munoz thanked Co-Chair Neuman for his work
on the issue. She stated that heroin addiction was
impacting all of the state's communities and was the most
difficult issue she had dealt with as a legislator. She
discussed the "explosion" of pain narcotics in the 1990s
combined with the increase in availability of black tar
heroin. She relayed that the amendment would begin to
address treatment needs in the state's communities. She
strongly supported the amendment.
Representative Gattis was dismayed that she had not been
made aware that $288 million had been located that the
legislature had not known about. She stressed that it was a
large amount of money.
Co-Chair Neuman replied that the administration recently
brought the issue to the legislature's attention.
Mr. Ecklund explained that the co-chairs had first learned
of the potential of $288 million in the SBR when the
supplemental budget amendments had been submitted by the
administration. He furthered that up to that time the
Legislative Finance Division thought the SBR balance was
zero.
Co-Chair Neuman explained that until recently they had been
in the process of trying to iron out how the issue had
occurred. He stated that they were cautiously moving
forward.
Representative Gattis expressed her concern about "cutting
people left and right" and now finding $288 million in the
"couch cushion." She did not know whose fault it was, but
she questioned how constituents could even trust the
legislature any longer. She stated that $288 million was
not like a $20 bill that slipped out of a pocket. She was
horrified to learn the $288 million had just been found.
She stressed that the legislature had been penny pinching
and making cuts ranging from $20,000 to $340,000 and other.
She was in shock over the issue. She was not blaming anyone
the co-chairs and staff, but she did not think constituents
trusted legislators anymore. She did not know how much more
money existed that they were going to find.
Co-Chair Neuman responded that the administration had
brought the information forward. He believed it was prudent
that if there was money that came around, it was used to
cover the costs of the state, which is what the amendment
did. Additionally, it would reduce the draw on the CBR,
which was important.
2:30:16 PM
Representative Edgmon spoke in support of the amendment. He
reasoned that there was more than one way to cut the
budget. He elaborated that one way make cuts was to take
money directly out of the budget; however, another way to
reduce the budget was to provide upfront services that in
turn would reduce drug use, the crime rate, and people
using the criminal justice system. He stated that after
working on the DOC budget for the past six years he
believed the amendment represented a wise investment. He
thanked Co-Chair Neuman for introducing the amendment. He
cited Texas Representative Jerry Madden's stance that in
order to curb future incarceration rates it was necessary
to provide money up front and to provide treatment. He
stressed that there was significant evidence about the
success of treatment.
Representative Gara testified in support of the amendment.
He asked Mr. Ecklund if the funds were coming from the SBR
first and any remaining funds would come from the CBR.
Mr. Ecklund replied that the funding source was UGF. He
detailed that there had been a deficit in FY 16. There had
been language in the budget authorizing $500 million more
in CBR access to pay for supplementals, gasline, and other
things beyond what had been in HB 2001. Additionally, the
co-chairs had learned of the SBR balance. He elucidated
that the fund source was FY 16 UGF (any deficit in FY 16
would be covered by the CBR). Most likely the amendment
fund source would first be covered by the CBR, but there
was also SBR money available. The source of money was UGF
backfilled with CBR.
2:33:10 PM
Representative Gara addressed that the language in the
budget the previous year specified that up to $500 million
could be taken out of the CBR if it was needed to fill a
deficit for the current fiscal year. He observed that the
money in the amendment [$30 million] was proposed for use
in the next three fiscal years; it did not fit within the
language. He did not want to argue about the issue at
present. He stated that several weeks ago the DHSS budget
subcommittee had proposed cutting $3 million from
alcoholism and drug abuse treatment grants, which he did
not support. He recalled that the public had been very
vocal and eloquent about its opposition to the cut. He
believed it was better to treat people trying to get off of
heroin than to send them back to their drug dealer or onto
the street where terrible things happen. He supported the
structure of the amendment and was glad the $3 million cut
had been reversed. He reasoned that the amendment addressed
something the state did not have; it did not have long-term
treatment programs. The amendment would save money because
there were programs that enabled a person to avoid jail if
they went into drug treatment, job training, and
counseling. He remarked that the state was on the verge of
needing to build another jail. He supported the co-chair's
restoration of the funds in order for the state to begin
building capacity to treat people. He stated that the
heroin epidemic had existed for five or six years. He
relayed that a few years earlier the methadone clinic in
Anchorage had a waiting list of one year. He reiterated
that the amendment would save money. He asked to have his
name added to the amendment.
Representative Wilson liked the amendment and supported the
treatment services, but she stated that DHSS had only
provided the number of people being served as opposed to
the number of people succeeding after treatment. She
believed the services should come from the AMHTA. She
reasoned that AMHTA had a better reason for tracking and
ensuring that wherever the funds went, people were
successfully completing the program. She explained that the
goal was to have individuals successfully complete the
treatment programs. She had seen no statistic showing which
of the programs were more successful. She pointed to the
explanation in the amendment and noted that 62,815 people
needed treatment [in the past year], but there was no
reference to the success rate. She would vote for the
amendment if it was coming from the AMHTA. She wondered if
the $288 million could be used in the current budget to
offset what the committees had put forward.
Mr. Ecklund clarified that it was an FY 16 appropriation
with a multi-year structure. He stated that unless the
committee wanted to make FY 16 effective dates on FY 17
subcommittee appropriations - it was not the intent. He
furthered that it was an FY 16 appropriation with a multi-
year component.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that the answer was no.
Representative Wilson asked if the funds could have gone
towards the supplemental budget that had been put forward
by the governor.
2:39:07 PM
Mr. Ecklund replied in the affirmative; there would be FY
16 money to address the supplemental requests.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the
amendment would take $30 million that could have been
utilized to take care of the supplemental budget. She did
not recall the supplemental budget total. She remarked that
there were no statistics on the program in the amendment.
She would prefer to take care of the state's obligations
first before looking for other programs to fund. She
supported the idea, but not the funding concept.
Co-Chair Neuman replied that it was a very specific funding
strategy. He believed it was a very comprehensive plan to
address current gaps. He stressed that the amendment did
not take money from the supplemental budget.
Representative Wilson appreciated filling the gaps, but did
not support giving more money without statistics. She
reiterated that if the funds came from AMHTA she would
support it.
Co-Chair Neuman believed that AMHTA was also investing in
the items covered by the amendment.
Representative Gattis remarked that there were individuals
in Mat-Su who had done a great job. She struggled with the
concept of giving the money to DHSS versus funneling it to
programs on the street immediately. She did not have the
same comfort level with the amendment. She believed it was
a good start and she understood the state had a problem.
She also struggled with going back to FY 16 funds. She
believed the committee could do better and the amendment
was a first start.
Representative Edgmon pointed to the bottom of page 1 of
the amendment and noted that grantees would work with the
Alaska Justice Information Center, DHSS, and DOC to
identify evidence based practices and evaluate treatment
outcomes related to the utilization of the criminal justice
system including recidivism reduction. He believed the
amendment was tied to evidence based outcomes, which was an
important component of the effort.
Co-Chair Neuman agreed.
2:42:58 PM
Representative Pruitt spoke to his challenge with the
amendment related to truth in budgeting. He was concerned
that it was an FY 16 appropriation. He saw no reason the
item should not be included in FY 17 if the committee
determined that the work was important enough. He thought
it looked like the committee was trying to play a bit of a
"shell game" by using funds from the prior year. He stated
that people had been claiming that the legislature cut over
$800 million from the budget in FY 16. He remarked that the
number should be decreased by $30 million [if the amendment
passed]. He furthered that the program may be good, but he
wanted to ensure there was truth in budgeting. He believed
they were talking like the money came out of nowhere. He
was concerned about the $288 million [that the legislature
had not been aware of]. He stressed that the public should
have a clear picture that the legislature was being
straight with them. He believed the legislature would have
to be very clear that the funds came from FY 16. He
reiterated that when talking about the budget from the
prior year it would be necessary to add $30 million to the
total. He believed it was appropriate to assist individuals
in a difficult situation, but the amendment pertained to a
pilot program. He did not think he had ever seen a pilot
program that had not become a permanent program. He stated
that if the committee felt passionate about the need for
the services it should make it an actual program to fund in
perpetuity. He recognized that the state should be
assisting the individuals in a difficult spot, with the
goal of decreasing the budget and helping the individuals
in the future.
2:46:01 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that the amendment proposed to
work with existing programs (e.g. the Alcohol Safety Action
Program and other) in some cases. There were residential
and detox centers in Alaska that had a limited number of
beds. He did not believe the money would be used to build
new facilities; it was more likely to be spent to expand
existing facilities. The funds would build on existing
infrastructure to provide increased adequacy and resources
where necessary.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the amendment language
that appropriated $30 million for FY 16 through FY 19. He
asked if the intent was to fund $30 million annually or in
total. Mr. Ecklund replied that it was one-time FY 16
funding of $30 million ($10 million for three years). Part
of the urgency and the reason the program was a
supplemental [budget item] was to enable DHSS to start
earlier with the RFP process in order to get the program in
place.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 7.
2:47:51 PM
Representative Wilson OBJECTED to Amendment 7. She asked
for verification that Mr. Ecklund had stated the program
would be part of the supplemental [budget] and would go "on
the street" immediately versus being part of the budget the
legislature would pass in April [2016].
Mr. Ecklund answered that the item was a supplemental
appropriation in the operating budget bill; it had an FY 16
effective date.
Representative Wilson surmised that the funds would not be
used immediately and would have to wait for the budget to
pass. Mr. Ecklund explained that for supplemental
appropriations typically the effective date was earlier
than the actual signing of the bill. Departments
traditionally took action as if they had the money
beginning on the effective date of the supplemental.
Representative Gara supported the amendment, which reduced
agony and helped people get treatment. He reasoned that it
made lives better and would save the state money. He hoped
that it would delay the need for a new prison. He stated
that the amendment would give dignity to people who were
willing to work to get back with their families. He
remarked that if a person had to wait to get treatment for
a year they would lose their child for that year. He agreed
with Representative Pruitt about the funding source. He
discussed that the FY 16 budget specified that if needed,
there was $500 million to pay for FY 16 expenses; however,
the program expenses in the amendment were for FY 17
through FY 19. He expounded that the way the amendment was
written it increased the prior year's budget and decreased
the current year budget. He concluded that the issues would
be rectified and he hoped they would do what was proper
under budgeting rules. He understood the intent of the
amendment was good.
2:50:39 PM
Mr. Ecklund did not believe there were any legal issues
with FY 16 appropriation. He detailed that the FY 16 budget
language specified that if UGF revenue in FY 16 was
insufficient to cover the GF appropriations that take
effect in FY 16. He stated that the program would take
effect in FY 16; therefore, it complied with the language.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler,
Edgmon, Gara, Gattis, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 7 was ADOPTED.
2:51:53 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8 (copy on file)
[Note: for full amendment explanation see copy on file]:
DEPARTMENT: Office of the Governor
APPROPRIATION: Office of Management and Budget
ALLOCATION: Office of Management and Budget
ADD: It is the intent of the legislature that the
office of management and budget work with executive
branch agencies to reduce hollow receipt authority
when preparing the Fiscal Year 2018 budget.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
JOAN BROWN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, explained
that the amendment would add legislative intent language
for the Office of Management and Budget to work with
agencies to reduce hollow receipt authority in the FY 18
budget. She detailed that it would have departments scrub
their numbers more thoroughly. For example, if a department
budgeted for $5 million in federal receipts, but thought
they would only get $2 million, they would bring the number
budgeted number down to $2 million. She relayed that it was
a budget cleanup activity.
Co-Chair Neuman added that it was a technical cleanup.
Ms. Brown agreed that it was a technical cleanup and had
been done several times in the past.
Representative Gara was fine with the amendment, but he
hoped that committee members would be sensitive as other
amendments were addressed. He explained there were
Designated General Funds (DGF) and federal funds that
probably did not exist that would be mentioned in future
amendments. He stated that the legislature should be
consistent about it if hollow receipt authority was
eliminated.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.
2:53:32 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10 (copy on
file)[Note: for full amendment explanation see copy on
file]:
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Medicaid Services
ALLOCATION: Health Care Medicaid Services
ADD: 7,000,000 Federal Funds 1002
DELETE: 7,000,000 General Funds 1004
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Department Support Services
ALLOCATION: Commissioner's Office
ADD: $275,900 General Fund Match 1003
$275,900 Federal Funds 1002
ADD: 4 PFT positions
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Saddler explained that the amendment would
replace $7 million of UGF with $7 million in federal funds.
He elaborated that the DHSS finance subcommittee currently
envisioned $20 million in travel savings. The DHSS
commissioner had worked with the Centers for Medicaid and
Medicare (CMS) on changing the national travel
reimbursement for American Indians and Alaska Natives who
receive services through the Indian Health Service (IHS) or
tribal health facility. The policy change the commissioner
had received from CMS would allow the state to capture 100
percent of the cost of travel and accommodations for
beneficiaries receiving services through IHS or tribal
health facilities. The department believed it could obtain
$27 million in savings as long as they could have some
funds for personnel. He advocated for $551,000 to add
tribal liaisons to help work with tribal facilities on the
medical records, the transfer of diagnosis and results, and
the privacy enabled retention of records necessary for CMS
to approve the request. The amendment would invest funds to
help the department realize savings in Medicaid travel to
start. The department anticipated there would be millions
of dollars in savings to the state through other areas of
changed policy, which would capture more federal funding
(instead of state funds) to treat IHS qualified Alaskans.
Vice-Chair Saddler explained that the amendment represented
the first down payment. He hoped it would go well and that
tribal providers would continue to work with DHSS to obtain
the savings in the future.
2:55:54 PM
Representative Gara spoke to his earlier remarks about
hollow receipt authority and consistency. He stated that
DHSS was working to get 100 percent funding to cover travel
for IHS beneficiaries who receive Medicaid eligible
treatment. He furthered that the department had
communicated it could achieve about $6.7 million in the
federal funds; however, the amendment made DHSS receive $27
million in federal funds. He stated that it was fake. The
department had stated that if it received additional staff
(as provided under the amendment), it may be able to
achieve more, but they did not know how much more. He
furthered that to state DHSS would be able to magically
create $27 million in additional federal funds was called
hollow receipt authority. He did not know if the amendment
would get reversed by the amendment that had just been
passed [Amendment 8]. He believed the proper thing to do
would be to say DHSS should try to qualify for as much
federal funding as possible. He reiterated that the
department had estimated that it could obtain $6.7 million
in federal funds. He noted that the department had to
create contracts with tribal and other entities in order to
make it work. He stated that the legislature did not know
how much money the department would recover. He stated that
the funds were for Medicaid services and DHSS would come in
with a supplemental budget in the following year if all of
the funds were not received. He explained that for the
Medicaid budget the department estimated how much money
would come in, how many people would use Medicaid, and it
was fixed in a supplemental if the number was different. He
stressed that there was no evidence on the record that $27
million in federal funds would come in if the amendment was
adopted. He believed that currently the legislature should
anticipate a $10 million to $20 million supplemental next
year. He emphasized that they did not know.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the amendment explanation that
DHSS believed the total potential annual savings resulting
from the reimbursement rate would be $27 million.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that the amendment language was
what the department had told the committee it could obtain
with the addition of new personnel to help the new program.
He stated that it was a new national policy; therefore,
there would not be hard numbers. He had worked with the
department to try to figure out how to best push DHSS to
obtain the maximum amount of savings from the new policy.
The department had communicated that it hoped to get the
$27 million, but he could not guarantee that it would be
exactly that amount. He stated that DHSS Commissioner
Valerie Davidson had worked hard on the issue and was proud
of the savings. He stated that "if there's a true-up at the
end, there's a true-up at the end."
3:00:57 PM
Representative Wilson stated that she felt like she was in
the twilight zone. She stated that the committee was
building a budget on hopes and dreams, which made her very
uncomfortable. She stated that the amendment would allow
for the hire of four personnel, but she believed the state
was already working with tribal organizations. She
reiterated her discomfort with the numbers in the
amendment. She communicated that she came from a small
business world where accounting was more precise. She did
not support taking credit for something that the
legislature hoped would work. She did not want to roll the
dice. She continued that the department would have to bring
a supplemental request to the legislature the following
year that no one would be happy about. She believed the
legislature should wait to find out what the savings would
be and to work with the state's partners to get the
savings. She believed the state already worked with
partners - she pointed to the amendment language that
discussed education and getting people into the right
services. She stated that the DHSS budget was the largest
and she believed there were already personnel that could do
the work. She thought the committee would be better off
buying lottery tickets than funding four new positions that
may or may not bring in savings.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that the figures were not
speculative. He detailed that the state was already paying
for the cost of Medicaid travel through its Medicaid
program; however, the state was only getting reimbursed at
the 50 percent federal participation level. The amendment
reflected hard dollar expenses the state was paying. There
would be a new policy where the state would obtain 100
percent reimbursement if it had the proper administrative
personnel to guide the tribal providers to participate in
the program. The positions would make it possible to
establish the privacy protections and custody of patient
records in order for contract providers to be willing to
take the referred patients. He reiterated that the state
was already incurring the expenses. He believed the
amendment reflected a way to bring savings to the state. He
reasoned that it was a good thing if the state could share
the costs with the federal government. The legislature had
to ensure that the contract providers were comfortable with
the program; the providers would be under no obligation to
accept referrals from tribal and IHS facilities. He
explained that if the legislature could make sure the
process worked well there was the potential for $140
million to $150 million in additional savings by obtaining
100 percent reimbursement for expenses for Medicaid
recipients. He stated that it was important to do it right
the first time. He countered that the savings were a better
deal than most lotteries.
3:04:25 PM
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara OBJECTED. He did not like doing things
in the committee when the department said one thing and a
member of the committee stated the department had said
something else. He stated that the department had told him
they would try to get the funds, but they did not know how
much money would come in. He continued that the department
should be given significant credit because it had started
the effort to achieve the savings; he did not want to take
the credit away from them. He remarked that the
department's testimony to the House Finance Committee had
been that DHSS thought it could achieve $6.7 million in
savings, not $27 million. He reasoned that the four
additional staff members would probably increase the
ability somewhat, but the amount was not known.
Co-Chair Neuman replied that he had read a document from
DHSS that talked about changes in federal regulations that
enabled states to take advantage of the federal government
paying for some of the programs in relation to Medicaid
expansion. One of the opportunities was for travel - he
believed the numbers were upwards of $20 million.
Additionally, here was another opportunity related to
medical costs - an Alaska Native would be covered if they
were referred to a non-tribal hospital. He referred to a
member of the House who had been able to take advantage of
the medical cost coverage. He continued that the department
believed it could achieve further reductions if it had the
manpower to try to supplement state funds with federal
funds. He surmised that it was probably a good program to
take advantage of if the state spent less funds and the
federal funds were available considering the state's
budget. He believed that was Vice-Chair Saddler's intent
with the amendment.
3:07:30 PM
Representative Gattis asked whether the department would
have the ability to submit a supplemental and take
advantage of the same federal funds if the amendment did
not pass.
Vice-Chair Saddler replied that there was always the
opportunity for the department to request supplemental
funding. The department had communicated that it would have
a much better chance of obtaining the savings described and
anticipated with the extra personnel. He stated that the
department could try to come back and obtain some savings,
but the challenge was to ensure the program was launched
properly with full cooperation of the non-tribal partners.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. She
believed DHSS already had the full cooperation of the
different entities. She had not heard justification related
to adding positions. She believed the department was on the
right track, but she was opposed to increasing government.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that the reason for the tribal
liaisons was to ensure DHSS could work with contract
providers. He explained that if there was an IHS eligible
American Indian or Alaskan Native who went to a tribal
facility hospital and was referred to a specialist, the
doctor was under no obligation to cooperate with the
provider in providing health records. However, if the state
made sure (using the extra personnel) the contract
providers worked with the department to set up their
systems (of referral of records and diagnosis of test
results) and provide the proper privacy protections in
order to make the process easy for the IHS hospital to
refer cases out and obtain the benefits of the state, they
would do so. Absent that, there was no obligation for them
to work with the state; therefore, the state would lose the
opportunity to get the higher federal reimbursement.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Munoz, Pruitt, Gara, Guttenberg,
Edgmon, Gattis, Saddler, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 10 was ADOPTED.
3:11:42 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Administration
APPROPRIATION: Public Communications Services
ALLOCATION: Public Broadcasting - Commission
ADD: $44,400 General Fund 1004
ALLOCATION: Public Broadcasting - Radio
ADD: $2,036,600 General Fund 1004
ALLOCATION: Public Broadcasting - LV.
ADD: $600,000 General Fund 1004
TOTAL: $2,681,000 General Fund 1004
EXPLANATION: This restores funding to the Governors
amended budget levels. Without these additional funds
70% of the stations will have lost between 20-40% of
their operating revenue; 33% of the stations will lose
45-80% of operating revenue when federal funding
losses kick in; more than 80 jobs will be lost; fiber
interconnection between KTOO and Alaska Public Media
in Anchorage will be lost cutting off distribution of
360 North/Gavel to Gavel to Alaska Public Media for
broadcast in Anchorage and on Alaska Rural
Communications Service; and Gavel to Gavel will make
significant cutbacks on the number of meetings covered
and will no longer have engineering support from
Alaska Public Media.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz explained that the amendment would
restore funding to the governor's amended budget levels for
public broadcasting. She detailed that the cut made in the
House Finance Committee budget subcommittee would result in
a serious crippling of many of the state's rural community
stations. Many of the stations that would be affected were
in Kodiak, Dillingham, Homer, Bethel, Haines, Petersburg,
Wrangell, Kenai, and Valdez. Additionally, the fiber
interconnection between KTOO and the Alaska Public Media in
Anchorage would also be lost, which would affect the
coverage of legislative proceedings by Gavel to Gavel.
Representative Kawasaki asked to be added as a cosponsor to
the amendment. He asked where the numbers in the amendment
had come from. His amendment later in the packet had
slightly different numbers.
Representative Munoz replied that the numbers coincided
with the governor's request.
Representative Gara supported the amendment, but he
believed that the difference in the numbers was a cut of
roughly $700,000 from the prior year. He understood that
the amendment sponsor was including as much funding as
possible to restore public radio funding in order to bring
the service to communities that relied on it. He hoped the
legislature would continue thinking about the issue and
decide whether or not it should keep cutting public radio.
He stated that it had been cut the previous year and with
the amendment there would still be another $700,000 cut. He
stressed the importance of the service to people statewide.
3:14:21 PM
Representative Gattis relayed that public radio had been in
her subcommittee and she took responsibility for cutting
the funds. She looked at the budget item as a want over a
need. She stated that in the past there had been no other
forms of communication, but that was no longer the case.
She elaborated that there were still federal funds
available for public radio. Additionally, public radio did
a great job fundraising. She reasoned that the legislature
had made cuts the previous year and the stations had
stepped up to the plate with their fundraising. She
believed that if people wanted the service they would pay
for it.
Representative Edgmon strongly supported the amendment. He
had been told by the Dillingham station manager that the
station would go away without the funds. He detailed that
if the station lost its center for public broadcasting
certification it would essentially lose all of its staff.
He underscored that the station did a yeoman's job in
fundraising - he personally donated to the station
annually. The station had been able to make up the gap - at
one time public broadcasting had received approximately $4
million GF in the 1990s. He elaborated that public radio
was much leaner and had learned to adapt. He did not view
public radio as a "want," but as an essential public
service. He asked for as much support as possible.
3:17:03 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler expressed some ambivalence about the
amendment and public broadcasting and he respected
Representative Gattis's remarks about want versus need. He
stated that the conversation about public broadcasting had
been going on for years in Alaska. He believed the public
broadcasting system had responded to the conversation
starters the legislature had launched towards them. He
detailed that they had consolidated their administration,
moved towards a volunteer staff versus paid staff wherever
possible, increased their listener and member fundraising
efforts, and they took advertisements. He explained that
because public radio had responded to the conversation he
felt the need to reward them. He spoke to the benefits in
rural and urban Alaska. He continued that the amendment
would cover services provided to the legislature by Gavel
to Gavel. He did not want to be accused of taking a vote to
deprive Alaskans with the opportunity to watch the
legislature work. He stated that if the legislature could
not move the capital at least the legislature could do what
was possible to offer access to legislative proceedings. He
stated that he could support the amendment, but he had some
ambivalence.
Representative Guttenberg guessed that public radio was at
least 50 years old in Alaska. He discussed that it was an
example of the infrastructure in Alaska. He remarked that
people were cutting [money] just to cut because they
thought cutting was necessary. He stated that the
philosophy was okay. He reasoned that legislators were all
going down that road - the increment did not completely
restore the funding; he believed the cut was hurtful and
harmful. He furthered that public broadcasting entities
could not really say what the cut would do unless funding
was eliminated completely. He explained that there was a
public broadcasting board responsible for allocating the
funds and trying to keep the service alive. He continued
that the legislature kept making cut after cut and making
it harder and harder. He elaborated that stations became
repeater stations. Additionally, he believed Gavel to Gavel
was one of the most unique things that was done in the
legislature - it brought people an up close perspective
into the committee rooms and floor sessions. He remarked on
his amazement at the number of people who watched Gavel to
Gavel who disliked politics. He did not believe the
amendment went far enough to restore funds to the prior
year's level. He stressed that public broadcasting was in
communities where no other media service was available. He
expounded that Alaskans had wanted the service and had come
to rely on and need the service for over 50 years. He
thought the legislature was doing a disservice when the
total point of cuts to things like public broadcasting was
merely to cut. He stated there was no vision for Alaska at
all. He emphasized that public broadcasting connected
communities in the state and played a big part in the lives
of Alaskans. He supported the amendment, but did not
believe it provided enough funding. He believed that
regardless of what else was happening in the budget, the
legislature needed to keep public broadcasting vital. He
emphasized that it was a significant part of Alaska that
predated pipeline, budget increases, and the Permanent
Fund. He expressed potential intent to increase the funds
on the House floor.
3:22:11 PM
Representative Wilson stated that the amendment would add
$2,681,000 to the budget. She believed the issue was way
beyond whether a service was good or bad and was about
funding the state actually had. She did not support adding
funds back into the budget. She spoke about individuals in
her district who were struggling and wondered how much more
money she needed to get out of them in order to pay for
additional services provided by the state. She recalled
using change to purchase a gallon of milk and emphasized
that she would remember that for a long time. She
reiterated that the conversation was not about whether a
program was good or bad. She continued that unfortunately
the state's income had been slashed due to low oil prices.
She reasoned that decisions needed to be made just like
they would for a home or business. She questioned who would
pay for the service. She could not ask constituents - some
of whom had lost jobs in the private sector - to pay for
additional items. She believed the stations could raise
more funds - residents paid higher property taxes in
Fairbanks because its borough decided to supplement some of
the funding that had been cut the previous year. She
emphasized that if the state funded the services, it would
have to determine who would pay for them. She stressed that
somebody would have to pay for the services. She believed
the service was beneficial, but she did not support the
amendment due to a lack of state funding.
Representative Pruitt spoke to recent numbers from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) were
from several years earlier; at the time there had been
332,000 working Alaskans. He calculated that the amendment
came down to $8.08 for every working Alaskan. He referred
to significant conversation that the amendment was about
ensuring that rural communities remained in connection. He
asked if any of the funds would go to urban communities
that had other options. He asked if it was worth looking
into.
Representative Munoz replied that the crippling loss was to
the smaller coastal communities. She explained that the
fiber interconnection between KTOO and Anchorage would be
lost, which would cut off the distribution of Gavel to
Gavel. She explained that larger communities were able to
fundraise and bring in much of the share required for
federal matching funds. She stated that if the cut were to
go forward the state would also lose approximately $2
million in federal funds.
Co-Chair Neuman believed the programming started in Juneau
for the smaller communities.
Representative Munoz could not provide the exact answer on
how it would impact the urban communities. She knew that
the fiber optic connection would be impacted and she knew
that the larger communities had the ability to raise much
of their matching grant. She offered to obtain additional
information if requested.
Representative Pruitt wondered if there could be a
discussion about reducing the amendment request if
Anchorage and other larger communities could fundraise. He
believed public comment and the intent of the committee and
the sponsor was to ensure that rural communities remained
connected. He furthered that if there were certain
communities (e.g. Anchorage) that had some of the
opportunities, perhaps the legislature could continue to
facilitate the rural community connection and look at
saving some of the money for individual Alaskan residents.
Every dollar that was added back into the budget had to be
analyzed for its impact on a person.
3:28:03 PM
Representative Munoz replied that the amendment already
represented a $700,000 reduction from the prior year. She
believed it was necessary to assess the impacts of the cuts
before making further reductions.
Co-Chair Neuman voiced support for the amendment. He spoke
to his concern related to associated life and safety
issues. He spoke to natural disasters (e.g. wildfires,
earthquakes, volcanic explosions, and other) and the
importance of safety messaging provided by public
broadcasting. He understood making budget cuts and the need
for reduction. He understood what it meant to say no to
people related to increase - he had said no to anyone who
had come to his office with a budget request over the past
two years. He referred to discussion about the value of a
service compared to the cost and stated that committee had
to do the comparison for every dollar spent. It was his
understanding after speaking with the administration that
the programs were developed and produced in Juneau and sent
to small communities throughout Southeast Alaska in order
to inform them if there was an earthquake and subsequent
tidal wave headed their way. He highlighted events that had
negatively impacted Valdez and Taiwan. He asked if the
lives of Alaskans were worth the cuts. He believed
providing communication to communities on natural disasters
and other was very important. He discussed that he went
through the budget daily; he believed all amendments he had
cosponsored or sponsored would bring savings to the state.
He continued that the service had been reduced and had been
looked at for several years. He understood that if the
money was not restored there would be nothing left but
microwave towers. He stressed the high number of concerns
in his district related to public safety. He believed the
legislature had a responsibility to keep Alaskans safe.
3:32:44 PM
Representative Pruitt wanted to make it clear that his
intent was to maintain public safety. He also believed that
it was worth seeking out if compromise could be found. He
asked that his concerns and questions be given the same
respect.
Co-Chair Neuman replied that Representative Pruitt could
speak with the sponsor of Amendment 11 during a break in
order to obtain the information.
3:34:04 PM
AT EASE
3:42:48 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that the committee was addressing
Amendment 11.
Representative Munoz responded to a prior question asked by
Representative Pruitt. She explained that the governor had
cut approximately $700,000 in the FY 17 budget for Alaskan
Communication Services; the application of the cut would be
determined by the Commission for Public Broadcasting. She
detailed that all stations would take cuts, but the cuts
would be the most crippling to the smaller communities.
Representative Edgmon referred to a short primer committee
members had received from Public Broadcasting Commission
staff over the recent at ease. Staff had explained that the
services between the urban and rural stations were
integrated; therefore, a reduction to the system reduced
all stations at the same time. He explained that the cuts
would do damage to all of the recipients if cuts were made
to urban regions. He furthered that it was the second year
there had been significant reductions to the commission. He
relayed that Mr. Jamie Waste, the executive director of the
Public Broadcasting Commission had just confirmed that the
larger stations in urban centers were adapting to the deep
cuts. The cuts were not easy to adapt to, but the stations
were changing their business model by looking for third-
party funds and increasing efficiencies. He believed that
the amendment, which represented a reduced amount from the
prior year, was fair. He would not be surprised if the
committee debated the issue again the following year. He
believed the amendment would give the stations a chance to
adjust to cuts for another year. He supported the
amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson asked to have his name added as a
cosponsor. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Gattis OBJECTED. She believed there was
merit to looking for places to save and compromise, but she
did not support the amendment as is.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg,
Kawasaki, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Gattis, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 11 was ADOPTED.
3:47:24 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Conservation
APPROPRIATION: Agency-Wide
ADD: It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Environmental Conservation improve
efficiencies in permitting and consider the economic
impacts of increasing permit fees before imposing
increased fees on users.
EXPLANATION: This intent language was approved by the
subcommittee for inclusion in RB 256.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz explained that the amendment had been
brought forward in the finance subcommittee process by
Representative Cathy Tilton. She detailed that the
amendment had been adopted by the committee, but had been
inadvertently left out in the final report to the full
House Finance Committee. The amendment included intent
language encouraging the Department of Environmental
Conservation to seek efficiencies in fees they were
assessing, especially on small businesses and individual
Alaskans.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 12 was ADOPTED.
3:48:28 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13 (copy on
file):
PART A
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Juvenile Justice
ALLOCATION: Nome Youth Facility
ADD: $1,693,900 General Fund UGF (code 1004) as One-
time Item
ADD POSITIONS: 15 PFT positions, and 3 Temp positions
ADD INTENT: It is the intent of the legislature that
the Division of Juvenile Justice collaborate with the
community of Nome and with tribal and public health
organizations to transition the Nome Youth Facility
from state to local ownership; and to deliver to the
Legislature by January 17, 2017, a plan for utilizing
the facility to better meet regional needs for youth
correctional, health and rehabilitative services.
PART B
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Public Assistance
ALLOCATION: Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
DELETE: $1,693,900 GIF Match (UGF) (code 1003)
ADD: $1,693,900 Federal Receipts (code 1002)
EXPLANATION:
Part A of this amendment restores the House
Subcommittee reduction closing the Nome Youth
Facility. The Nome Youth Facility is the only secure
location for housing juvenile offenders in the region.
Its closure would leave Alaska State Troopers and
local law enforcement without the capacity to hold
offenders while awaiting transfer to an outside DJJ
facility.
Part B removes UGF from the Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program and adds an equal amount of Federal
Receipt authority. There is a possibility that a
portion of the funding expended on the PCE Program can
be used toward the state's maintenance of effort
(MOE). If so, this decrement will not impact ATAP
payments.
The department expects that funds currently being used
in PCE could be counted toward the State's match for
federal funds. This number would represent about 4% of
PCE user's being ATAP qualified.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz explained that she was presenting the
amendment on behalf of Representative Neal Foster. The
amendment would restore funding for the Nome Youth Facility
- if the cut was maintained it would result in the closure
of the facility, which served a large area around Nome
including outlying communities. She furthered that the
closure of the facility would require the individuals to be
sent to and housed in Anchorage. Additionally, it would
result in the loss of 15 permanent and 3 part-time jobs in
Nome.
Vice-Chair Saddler supported the amendment. He had
originally brought forward the recommendation to reduce the
Division of Juvenile Justice within DHSS and to close the
Nome Youth Facility. He had observed there were numerous
full-time positions for a facility with a low population.
However, he had been contacted by Representative Neal
Foster who had worked vigorously to determine how to
maintain services to his community. Representative Foster
had come up with some innovative suggestions about how the
local tribal health authority could work with the community
to repurpose the facility to meet community and regional
needs at what he hoped would be a lower cost. He had worked
with Representative Foster on intent language that was
included in the amendment. He looked at the amendment as a
short-term extension of funds. He hoped that the report the
Division of Juvenile Justice would provide to the
legislature by January 17, 2017 included a plan to relieve
the state from the expenses and meet local needs.
3:50:46 PM
Representative Gara believed the Nome Youth Facility should
remain open. He discussed the importance of keeping minor
offenders as close to their families as possible. He stated
that sending youth away from home would reduce the chance
of a child getting back on their feet and would increase
their chances of becoming criminals. He had concern related
to Part B of the amendment. He stated that the department
had been on record that if there were GF reductions to the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program the
state would fall below the amount it was required to put
into the program, which would mean a loss in federal funds.
He remarked that the state was already in danger of losing
the funds due to a $5 million cut to the TANF program in
another area in the budget. The amendment would increase
the cut to $6.693 million. He referred to a day of
testimony on maintenance of effort, which was related to
the amount of money the state had to put into the TANF
program in order to leverage federal funds. He understood
that legislators were trying to find savings, but he
believed it would cost the state money. He could not
guarantee it because he did not know when the federal
government would take away funds. He believed it would
increase the chance that the state would lose funds. There
had been no testimony at all about reducing TANF funding.
3:53:40 PM
Co-Chair Neuman supported the amendment. He spoke about
juvenile justice facilities. He remarked that he had taken
interest in the issue when he had overseen the DHSS budget
subcommittee in the past. He discussed the high rate of
suicides in rural Alaska due to substance abuse. He
highlighted that the recidivism rate for youth going
through the youth facilities was much lower than the
Department of Corrections; he estimated the figure in the
35 percent range. He believed it was a good bargain when
trying to help the youths. He had concerns about the number
of staff and the number of youth going through facility in
Nome. He referred to discussions with tribal health
associations about increasing civil law that went towards
tribal jurisdiction. He reasoned that tribal entities would
have more money available and he believed the service would
be better. He opined that local control was always better.
He hoped the facility could remain open. He believed the
youths going through the program would have better lives
and would be better Alaskans. He hoped the programs could
be improved even more.
Vice-Chair Saddler offered a "gentle objection" to a
comment made by Representative Gara about what he thought
the department would think about the amendment. He did not
believe it was appropriate to state what the department
would do.
3:56:36 PM
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the second part of Part
B of the amendment. He thought it looked like the amendment
would use Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Funds towards the
maintenance of effort in order to make more funds
available. He discussed that there had been an entire
session on the maintenance of effort and the department was
not clear what funds it would be able to use in order to
obtain additional federal funds. He pointed to language in
the explanation of the amendment that did not appear to be
definitive related to funds that could potentially be
counted as matching funds for federal money. He wondered
what would happen to the Nome Youth Facility if the funds
did not come through.
Mr. Ecklund affirmed that the committee had a hearing on
maintenance of effort and significant time had been spent
with the department to understand the concept. The co-chair
had encouraged the department to look at Homeless
Assistance Program under Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) to identify some maintenance of effort that could be
used. He referred to page 2 of the amendment and explained
that if 4 percent of PCE users would also qualify for TANF,
the state could use the funds as maintenance of effort. He
believed 4 percent was a conservative estimate; the number
of eligible recipients may exceed 4 percent. The amendment
encouraged the department to work to identify the figure in
order to realize the savings.
Representative Guttenberg maintained his concern. He
observed that the amendment asked the department to try to
obtain the federal funds, but whether it would happen was
unknown. He was concerned about potentially funding the
item with hollow money.
Representative Edgmon requested adding his name to the
amendment. He observed that the much of the budget process
was investigative. He elaborated that sometimes there were
examples of learning the immediate impacts after cuts were
made. He had worked with Representative Foster and his
staff in order to learn more about the Nome Youth Facility.
He shared that he had previously worked for the late
Representative Richard Foster and had worked on the CDQ
[Community Development Quota] program related to the Bering
Straits region. He shared a personal story about his
brother who had been put in the McLaughlin Youth Center in
Anchorage, who had never been the same after going to the
facility. He empathized with concerns that on a month-to-
month basis the facility was not always full at its
capacity of 14 youths. He countered that it was seasonal.
He believed the facility would learn how to increase
efficiency, be more self-sufficient on outside funds, and
would increase partnerships with non-state entities. He
opined that the amendment provided a good pathway forward.
He questioned what the true costs would be if the facility
was cut. He referred to Co-Chair Neuman's comments about
young men's lives, which would probably never be the same
[if they were sent to a facility far away from home]. He
believed the item was worth keeping in the budget and could
save the state significant money. He looked forward to
working with Representative Foster and others in the
meantime. He added that everything in the state would have
to be "leaner and meaner."
4:02:27 PM
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara OBJECTED. He agreed with Representative
Edgmon's testimony about the need for the Nome Youth
Facility. He tried to clarify Part B of the amendment. He
explained that the amendment specified that the facility
would only get funded if $1.6 million was cut from the TANF
program. He detailed that the state was required to put in
$36 million towards TANF related services; if the money was
not allocated towards the services the state would lose
federal funds. He thought there had to be a better way to
keep the youth facility open. He furthered that there had
already been a $5 million cut towards TANF services by the
finance subcommittee, which he did not support; the
amendment would increase the total to $6.7 million. He
believed the amendment would put the state below the $36
million requirement. The response had been that perhaps the
department could locate expenditures that qualified under
TANF in order to meet the federal requirements in order to
avoid being penalized. He stressed that the department did
not yet know. He believed the department should be given
time to determine whether it would receive the funds. He
emphasized that none of the expenses the committee had
spoken about had been approved yet. He opined that the
legislature should fund the Nome Youth Facility and not
risk losing federal funds. He believed the legislature was
one year premature on making the cut and should wait to
hear from the department. He reiterated that DHSS was
working diligently on trying to get many of its
expenditures counted as proper TANF expenditures.
4:05:53 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that he had frequently heard that
necessity is the mother of invention and it was not known
what kind of economies could be discovered until faced with
significant deficit. He referred to a presentation on TANF
from the department that the maintenance of effort required
to obtain access to the $44 million TANF grant was "a big
juicy plum of federal funds." He furthered that the
department had determined that it was possible to obtain
benefit through the use of third-party food banks. When the
legislature had asked if the department could locate more,
it had communicated there may be some available in PCE and
AHFC homelessness grants. He believed the intent language
in the amendment would urge the department to locate and
obtain the savings. He agreed that it was not a guarantee,
but there was a need to locate new funding. He reiterated
his statement that there was currently $44 million
available and the department had indicated a willingness to
determine how to match the maintenance of effort. He stated
that without the amendment it would be a straight cut of
the funds to the Nome Youth Facility. He believed the
amendment would give the facility the time and funding in
order to transition into a more affordable system for the
state. He supported the amendment.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. He stated that
he intended to try to restore the funding in another
amendment.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She thought the amendment
appeared to be more about the 15 staff who worked at the
youth facility than about the youths in the facility. She
did not believe locking youths up would make a difference
versus utilizing other potentially available services. She
stated that the world was changing. She believed there was
a smarter way to ensure the children did not return to the
facility. She felt that supporting the amendment would mean
she believed it was necessary to lock the youths up to
teach them a lesson and that there was no other
alternative. She disputed that belief. She spoke to ankle
monitoring, therapeutic homes, and other options. She
believed it would still be necessary to give children what
they needed and to keep them on the right track. She
remarked that with 15 staff positions at the facility there
was a staff to youth ratio of one to one. She mentioned
other legislation currently in the legislature that she
hoped would help. She would like to see Nome as a model to
demonstrate other ways to keep the youth in the community
without locking them up.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg,
Kawasaki, Munoz, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Wilson, Gattis
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 13 was ADOPTED.
4:09:53 PM
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Administration
APPROPRIATION: General Services
ALLOCATION: Central Mail
DELETE: $2,800.0 I/A Rcpts 1007
POSITIONS: Delete: 7 PFT positions
EXPLANATION: In 2004, Central Mail was a
centralization effort that was only ever implemented
in Juneau, and the remainder of the state remained
decentralized. It is free for the United States Post
Office (USPS) postal carriers to receive and deliver
State of Alaska mail. However, the state of Alaska
pays USPS to hold state mail and employs state mail
carriers to sort and deliver all State of Alaska mail
in Juneau. The State of Alaska cannot continue to pay
for services that are free under USPS.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gattis explained that in 2004 the Central
Mail was a centralized effort that was only implemented in
Juneau. She detailed that Central Mail provided the daily
pickup and delivery of mail to and from the United States
Postal Service (USPS). The service sorted and distributed
all incoming mail for the Juneau agencies and tracked
outgoing mail. She stated that with the exception of a
volume discount on outgoing mail postage, Central Mail
provided the same services as the USPS. She shared that she
had made the cut in the finance subcommittee because she
believed the state already had the advantage of USPS, which
was paid for with federal dollars and postage stamps. She
reiterated that the service was only provided in Juneau and
cost approximately $2.8 million. She believed the state
could do without Central Mail and could utilize USPS.
Mr. Ecklund relayed that if the amendment was accepted and
mail services were decentralized in Juneau, it would cost
the state an additional $600,000. Additionally, there had
been a presentation on shared services that the Department
of Administration (DOA) wanted to start. He explained that
centralized mail would be one of the first items DOA
intended to look at under the shared services model for
possible modification.
Representative Gattis could not speak to what the
administration may do, but she stressed that there was a
federal post office. She reasoned that there was no other
centralized mail service in the state. She believed the
state needed to live within its means. She discussed
services provided by Central Mail including trips to the
post office, which cost the state in gas and vehicles. She
believed the $2.8 million would go significantly farther
when used on other items.
Co-Chair Thompson did not support the amendment. He stated
that he was scared by the possibility of the amendment
costing an additional $600,000. He wondered if the
amendment could backfire on the state. He believed there
was a certain amount of funding per addressee. He believed
the issue needed to be researched and reconsidered the
following year.
Representative Edgmon referred to earlier discussion that
cutting the budget was a learning process - he had been
learning a lot about the Central Mail subject. He remarked
on the various state buildings in Juneau and noted there
was a system in place for a centralized mail service. He
understood the need for the program. He pointed to
Commissioner Fisher's testimony related to shared services
and the opportunity to take something like Central Mail and
make it more automated and efficient in the future. He
noted that efficiencies in the future could reduce the
number of employees significantly. He shared Co-Chair
Thompson's concern and did not know enough about the issue
at the current point.
4:15:12 PM
Representative Wilson asked if DOA was saying that it could
not deliver the mail to the legislature like it did for
other state agencies. She wondered if there was a breakdown
of the $600,000 increase the department projected [if the
amendment passed].
Mr. Ecklund replied that the previous evening committee
members had received a copy of an email detailing some of
the information. The email specified that there was a per
address cost. Currently, postage was 80 percent of the cost
and the state received a discount. However, if the services
were decentralized, the state would not receive the same
postage discount.
Representative Wilson assumed that the Capitol Building was
part of the Central Mail service. She stated that she had
recently mailed postcards to her constituents and had not
received a discount [on postage]. She asked if the Central
Mail office was receiving a kickback.
Mr. Ecklund did not believe the legislature was part of the
centralized mail system.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that Central
Mail did not include the legislature. Mr. Ecklund replied
that Central Mail provided service to the executive branch
agencies in Juneau.
Representative Wilson thought it was interesting that the
legislature had not taken advantage of the savings if it
existed. She remarked that the legislature had been looking
for all of the savings it could find.
4:17:29 PM
Co-Chair Neuman stated that decisions had to be made on the
best information. He had worked the administration over
thoroughly on the issue. He remarked that Central Mail
would be one of the first programs DOA would look at when
it began its centralization process. He stated that the
legislature had given the department new tools. He trusted
the department on the issue and expected to be given a
report on exactly what happened.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Gattis, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Saddler, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Munoz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 14 FAILED (3/7).
Representative Gara was absent from the vote.
4:19:50 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: University
APPROPRIATION: University of Alaska
ALLOCATION: Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
ADD: $25,000,000 General Funds, fund code 1004
EXPLANATION: This amendment reverses a portion of the
cut to the University of Alaska made as an unallocated
reduction:
· In FY15, approximately $28 million in state dollars
were used to support research; by leveraging this
investment. The UAF faculty used $116 million in
grants and contracts for research. This reflects an
average of $4.10 of external funding for every
dollar of state general fund investment.
· Without unrestricted general fund support, the vast
majority of UA's research as well as public service
outreach activities cannot be sustained. Many grants
require some portion of state funds to match
contributions at a defined ratio-UA will no longer
be eligible to receive such external funds without
state funding directed to this purpose.
· More than 80 percent of all research activity across
the university system is conducted in areas directly
related to Alaska and results in new knowledge
relevant to Alaskans and Alaskans' way of life.
· University research and service bring money to the
State of Alaska, as with any other economic
enterprise similar to the mining industry, the
seafood industry, the oil and gas industry, or any
other basic industries that drive the state's
economy. The economic multiplier generates
employment, payroll, and business sales throughout
the state.
· A $10 million cut to state support of research may
equate to $30-$60 million loss to the local economy.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Thompson believed that the University of Alaska
provided one of the most important functions in the state.
He stressed the role education played in the state's future
and its children's future. He discussed that business
owners in the state were graduates of the University.
Additionally, it educated people who were coming up with
innovative ways to create new industries in Alaska. He
furthered that oil companies, agriculture, timber, and
fishing industries depended on the University. The
amendment would restore $25 million to the University
budget, which would still mean a $25 million reduction from
the governor's proposed budget. He relayed that UA
President Jim Johnson had formulated a new strategic plan
and presented it to the Board of Regents - the proposal was
to combine the campuses into one university in order to
combine duplicated programs and have different campuses
specialize in particular subjects. He believed the items
were extremely important to Alaska. He addressed research
grants and believed approximately $28 million in state
funds had gone towards supporting research the previous
year, which had leveraged over $116 million. He stated that
there was a $4 to every $1 return on the state's funds. He
referred to a McDowell Group study showing that from 2002
to 2011 competitive grants awarded to the University
campuses had totaled over $1 billion. He emphasized that
the funds impacted the economy of the entire state. He
stated that the issue had been dear to his heart and he
felt it was important to have the best university. He
believed there was work to be done to try to improve the
way the University did business.
4:22:29 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to AMEND the increase to
$50 million.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED to the amendment to Amendment 15.
Representative Guttenberg explained the amendment to
Amendment 15. He stated that the University was a unique
economic engine in the State of Alaska. He addressed that
the state was in a distinctive position to take advantage
of opportunities it had never had before. He spoke to the
scientific aspect of the opportunities, specifically
related to Arctic research. He elaborated that the
icebreaker currently stationed in Antarctica was expected
to move to Alaska in two years; research in Antarctica was
moving to the Arctic. He stated that the University of
Alaska was the premiere University in the world on the
Arctic. He had attended a University presentation to the
secretary of the Navy, which had been eye-opening. His
amendment would flat-fund the University from the current
year.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to loss of opportunity to
Alaska. He remarked that it was aggravating to see other
universities do work in the Arctic and then do television
shows about the results. He stated that the original
amendment would equate to welcoming other researchers into
the state to do its work. He elaborated that the work not
only involved graduate students and professors, but support
provided from across the state. He believed it was about
having students in the state's elementary schools
understand and learn from the scientists. He opined that if
the strength of the University continued to be eroded, it
guaranteed that other people would do the state's work. He
relayed that professors were leaving the university because
the entire concept of the University was being eroded. He
elucidated that the founders of the state constitution had
specified who managed the University - the state funded the
University, but did not manage it. He emphasized that it
had been important to the state for many years (it had
originally focused on lands and mining). He highlighted
that the state was trying to create an opportunity where it
would build a pipeline. He questioned where the geologists
and engineers would come from. He believed the legislature
was asking the state to give up on employing its own people
by not being willing to educate them. He paraphrased a
quote from a noble laureate of economics - in an era of
tight budgets the real question was how to use the
available funds; the best evidence supported investing in
the young. He was amazed that the legislature continued to
erode the ability for residents to do the work and research
themselves.
4:28:30 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated proposed amendment to
Amendment 15. He discussed that Amendment 15 would replace
a significant amount of GF to the University (the 15
percent cut would be reduced to nearly 7 percent). He spoke
to the number of years of cuts the University had to
sustain since FY 13. He stressed that the cuts were
significant and mattered to the University. The amendment
sought to support a cornerstone to the state. He shared
that his parents had moved to Alaska in the early 1960s
because they knew the University of Alaska Fairbanks was a
first rate institution. He elaborated that it had been
world renowned in Arctic research in particular. He
elaborated on his parent's studies at the University. His
parents had known they wanted to raise their family in a
university town like Fairbanks. He elaborated on his
family's experience. He spoke to the University's upcoming
100-year anniversary and believed it was necessary to
consider what kind of a vision the legislature envisioned
for the University in the future. He noted that there had
been significant cuts in the finance subcommittee, which he
believed had not been purposeful and had only been cuts to
make cuts that would devastate the University. He believed
adding $25 million back into the budget was an important
step forward, but it merely represented a fabricated number
between zero and $50 million. He advocated for the higher
amount.
Representative Kawasaki discussed that research and the
University went hand-in-hand. He highlighted that $145,000
GF was used by the college of arts and science to leverage
over $3.7 million in non-GF, which represented a 25 to 1
ratio. He noted that the Institute of Northern Engineering
in Fairbanks used about $2.4 million in GF to leverage
$11.7 million in non-GF (a 5 to 1 ratio). The Geophysical
Institute received $5.8 million to leverage $32 million. He
stated that every dollar the state could invest into the
University had a non-GF component that was reinvested. He
hoped the University would continue to be first rate into
the future. He stated that the Board of Regents had the
best metrics system with key indicators. The legislature
had told the University it needed to improve the number of
bachelor's degrees - in FY 10 there had been 14,500 and by
FY 15 there were 15,675 (a 10 percent increase).
Additionally, there had been a 3.2 percent increase in the
number of graduate students graduating. He provided further
history of graduate numbers. He stressed that the
University had performed well under very difficult times.
There had been 2,700 graduates in vocational education
programs in FY 10 and 3,200 in FY 15 (a 22 percent
increase). The University had raised more money on its own
and had received more DGF. He highlighted that alumni
donations had been $671,000 in FY 10 and $788,000 in FY 11;
it anticipated over $3.1 million in alumni giving in the
current year. He stated that the numbers would continue to
increase if the legislature continued to invest in the
University. He reiterated his support for the amendment to
Amendment 15.
4:34:36 PM
Representative Wilson disputed the claim that the budget
subcommittee had picked a random number to cut or that cuts
were draconian. She stated that she had one of the hardest
working subcommittees. She wanted to clear up some facts.
She clarified that in FY 99 to FY 07 actual spending of
state appropriated funds had grown by 73 percent. She
stated that it was the most consistent positive budget
growth for the UA system since statehood and was one of the
longest runs of consistent budget growth in American public
higher education. She stated that much of the intent
language in the subcommittee's report helped direct the
University to be more efficient. She furthered that the
University owned approximately 427 facilities and leased
approximately 56. She emphasized that there were many
opportunities for savings on facility costs via co-location
within the high schools community centers, and other
facilities. She stated that there was opportunity and
service the University could provide. She stressed that a
brick and mortar building was not necessary. She furthered
that the University had 58 employees making over $208,000
per year in compensation (compared to the governor's
$209,000) - she reasoned there were ways to adjust
salaries.
Representative Wilson continued that the University owned
approximately 138,600 acres of investment property versus
12,000 of education property; it had approximately 62,000
acres in timber rights. She stated that in order to
accommodate budget reductions the University had the
ability to aggressively pursue commercial and residential
land sales and leases, including revenue from timber,
mineral, and oil and gas lease royalties. She stressed that
the University had ways to make up for the cuts. She
furthered that not included in the $300 million the
committee there was another $7 million from the Alaska
Performance Scholarship and Alaska Education Grant.
Additionally, there was $6 million that came from the
Technical Vocational Educational program. She stressed it
was another $13 million in state funding that was counted
as DGF instead.
Representative Wilson relayed that the student instruction
portion of the $300 million also included $8.5 million in
athletics. She stated it was another $8.5 million that the
regents could determine to allocate to other areas if
needed. She referred to an analysis by the Pew Charitable
Trust that in 2013 Alaska spent the most per full-time
equivalent student in the category of state revenue of any
state in the country. Additionally, Alaska spent more per
student from all revenue sources than any other state. She
furthered that meanwhile Alaska had ranked last in its
four-year and six-year graduation rates. Alaska's six-year
graduation rate was 27 percent below the national average
and its four-year graduation rate was 22.9 percent below
the average. The subcommittee had also included a number of
suggestions in the form of intent language in order to help
guide the University in a direction that would facilitate
cost savings and possible efficiencies to help minimize the
impact of budget reductions while maintaining services to
students. She stressed how hard the subcommittee had worked
to show that there were ways to create savings and become a
better university in areas like engineering, the health
market, and other. She stated that no university could
offer every type of degree. She stated that despite claims
that the University of Alaska had low tuition rates, based
on the Pew analysis from the U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Alaska was $633
higher in net tuition and fees per full-time student
equivalent than the WICHE average. Lastly, even with the
proposed reductions the University still had almost $875
million in its budget. She reiterated that it was a budget
that experienced a period of unprecedented growth from FY
99 to FY 07. She stated that larger cuts could be
accommodated in a way that was least impactful on students
via smart and effective reallocations by the Board of
Regents. She reasoned that if money solved everything, she
would agree to an increase; however, it did not solve
everything. She stated it was about being a better
university for students. She relayed that the state paid
more per university student than it did for K-12 in
Anchorage or Fairbanks. She believed the University would
use the opportunity to become better at what it did. She
reiterated that the finance subcommittee had not picked a
random number to cut. She shared that reports would come
back to further understand the University budget. She was
opposed to the amendment to Amendment 15 and to the
original Amendment 15.
4:40:47 PM
Representative Edgmon supported the underlying amendment.
He believed in targeted, but not wholesale reductions. He
stated that the amendment to Amendment 15 caught him off
guard. He deferred to the judgement of the maker of the
original amendment and would oppose the motion to amend it.
He stated that the University had its share of supporters
in the legislature and he believed the discussion would
continue far beyond the House Finance Committee table.
Representative Gara believed the sponsors of the amendment
were trying to support the University, which he
appreciated. He was concerned that the numbers under
discussion would be misinterpreted. He explained the
amendment offered by Representative Guttenberg should be a
zero-dollar amendment; it was an amendment to maintain
University funding at the level of the previous year. He
stated that the University had faced substantial cuts in
the prior year. He could not blame the University for
accepting funds the legislature had allocated in the mid-
2000s. He furthered that the University had been strapped
throughout the 1990s and the legislature communicated it
wanted to increase the number of graduates; therefore, it
started funding the University again. The number of
graduates had increased. He discussed that the University
had increased graduation rates as specified by the
legislature. He agreed that the state could not afford to
have a continual increase in the University's budget, but
he did not believe it was necessary to cut the budget for
the second consecutive year. He highlighted that the
University brought in outside research money; the state
received $4 for every $1 invested - over $100 million in
outside research money had been received. He reasoned that
cutting University funding would reduce the amount of money
it would receive in research funding and would result in a
decrease in the number of students who remained in-state.
He stressed that when fewer students remained in-state
there was less talent in the state. He discussed the
economic impacts of fewer jobs in-state. He emphasized that
the state was on the precipice of a recession. He
recognized that at some point it was necessary to cut waste
- the governor had proposed a responsible $100 million in
cuts to the budget. However, it would harm the economy when
the amount of people who would work in Alaska was reduced
and students left the state. He believed it would force
tuition to go up, which was arguably too high. The biggest
indicator of where a student would reside was where they
went to college. He thought it was bad for the economy and
for graduation to keep cutting the University. He
understood that the sponsors of the amendment were trying
to protect the University as much as possible, but he
believed it was time to stop cutting the University.
4:45:54 PM
Representative Guttenberg shared that he did not have a
college degree. He recognized that there were numerous
people who did not finish college because they did not have
to. For example, clinics hired students directly out of the
dental hygiene program as soon as they were qualified; they
did not need a degree. He stated that the University was an
open university that would accept anyone, which was unlike
most other universities. Many other universities did not
count the community colleges as part of the system;
however, the University of Alaska had campuses statewide -
the point was to deliver services to people where they
live, which was expensive. He believed some of the numbers
were capricious and arbitrary. He did not personally care
about defending the University as an institution, he cared
about defending the process and the product the system
provided. He cared about students graduating, working in
their field in Alaska, and teaching the children in the
state's school system. He stated that some of the
facilities were nice and others were not; the University
had acres of buildings, which meant a huge amount of
unfunded deferred maintenance statewide. The University
paid for the maintenance with GF allocated by the
legislature, but the legislature had not been taking care
of the issue. He stressed that the amendment to Amendment
15 would maintain the current level of funding to the
University. He emphasized that the University had been
receiving cuts for years and now the legislature was asking
it to do more work, reorganizing, and studies.
Co-Chair Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to amend Amendment 15 FAILED (3/8).
Representative Munoz addressed the original amendment. She
added supportive comments by Representative Neal Foster and
Representative Paul Seaton who had served on the
subcommittee. She stressed that even the governor's
proposed reduction would result in the loss of hundreds of
jobs. Fairbanks would lose 136 positions and Anchorage
would lose 108. An additional $10 million cut, which would
occur even if the amendment passed, there were additional
positions that would be cut. She was concerned about more
cuts. She understood that there would be opportunities to
continue to work for restored funding. She felt strongly
that a successful economy was tied to an educated
workforce; the University provided a vital service to
Alaskans in preparing young Alaskans for the opportunities
in the current economy. She reiterated that even with the
restoration of $25 million she had concern about the cut
beyond the governor's proposed level.
4:51:15 PM
Co-Chair Thompson summarized the Amendment 15. He believed
that even with the amendment the University would really
struggle. He referred to the number of jobs the cuts would
result in; however, the House Finance Committee was having
a difficult time justifying adding $25 million to the
budget given the current budgetary circumstances. He shared
that the Senate had added $25 million to the University
budget through its subcommittee process, which would make
it a conferenceable item. He was confident there would be
much more conversation about the subject; therefore, he
WITHDREW Amendment 15.
4:52:31 PM
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Education and Early Development Services
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Student and School Achievement
CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE: Page 12, following line 27:
Insert new material to read: "The amount allocated for
program administration and operations shall not
include federal receipts for the ANSWERS program."
EXPLANATION: ANSWERS is Alaska's P-20W Statewide
Longitudinal Data System pre-school through grade 20
and the workforce SLDS. The ANSWERS database will lose
all sources of funding at the end of FY 2016. It is
the purpose of this amendment to encourage ACPE to
focus on its core mission of students entering the
Alaskan workforce and not maintenance of a database.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED.
Representative Gattis explained that in July 2012 the
ANSWERS program had received $4 million (a three-year
federal grant to fund the creation of a statewide
longitudinal data system). The Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) had acted as a fiscal agent for
the grant and the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education (ACPE) had provided project management. She
detailed that the program's goal was to collect information
for every child in Alaska by tracking them throughout their
lives and studying their choices and future outcomes for
the purposes of identifying the individual and societal
impacts associated with the specific outcomes of Alaska's
education systems. She believed that the data collected by
the program was private and should not be collected by the
state. She furthered that in the 2016 budget she had cut
the state funding in what she assumed had been a clear
intent that the program was not sustainable. However, the
ANSWERS program had not been discontinued; it had continued
to conduct system stabilization, draft preliminary reports,
and integrate the workforce data system managed by DLWD.
She relayed that at present ANSWERS had not completed the
final testing, documentation, or integrated the workforce
data system, despite the investment of millions of state
and federal dollars over the last four years. Currently,
DEED had moved ANSWERS to ACPE using existing receipt
authority. She explained that ACPE planned to spend state
money from the Alaska State Loan Incorporation to actively
pursue funding the ANSWERS program. She stated that the
amendment was critical to stop an unfunded program that was
not required by federal regulations and would essentially
lose federal funding by July 2016 anyway. She expounded
that the state did not have the funds to continue the
program and the state was not putting forth the money to
continue the program. The amendment took away ACPE's
authority to utilize students' funding to fund a program
that the state did not have the money for. The amendment
did not save UGF money, but did not use students' money to
continue a program the state was not even willing to invest
in.
4:55:57 PM
RECESSED
6:49:46 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that the committee was addressing
Amendment 16.
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16 [see 4:52
p.m. for amendment details].
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gattis restated her earlier explanation of
the amendment. In July 2012 the ANSWERS program had
received $4 million (a three-year federal grant to fund the
creation of a statewide longitudinal data system). The
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) had
acted as a fiscal agent for the grant and the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) had provided
project management. She detailed that the program's goal
was to collect information for every child in Alaska by
tracking them throughout their lives and studying their
choices and future outcomes for the purposes of identifying
the individual and societal impacts associated with the
specific outcomes of Alaska's education systems. She
believed that the data collected by the program was private
and should not be collected by the state. She furthered
that in the 2016 budget she had cut the state funding in
what she assumed had been a clear intent that the program
was not sustainable. However, the ANSWERS program had not
been discontinued; it had continued to conduct system
stabilization, draft preliminary reports, and integrate the
workforce data system managed by the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development. She relayed that at present
ANSWERS had not completed the final testing, documentation,
or integrated the workforce data system, despite the
investment of millions of state and federal dollars over
the last four years. Currently, DEED had moved ANSWERS to
ACPE using existing receipt authority. She explained that
ACPE planned to spend state money from the Alaska State
Loan Incorporation to actively pursue funding the ANSWERS
program. She stated that the amendment was critical to stop
an unfunded program that was not required by federal
regulations and would essentially lose federal funding by
July 2016 anyway. She expounded that the state did not have
the funds to continue the program and the state was not
putting forth the money to continue the program. The
amendment took away ACPE's authority to utilize students'
funding to fund a program that the state did not have the
money for. The amendment did not save UGF money, but did
not use students' money to continue a program the state was
not even willing to invest in.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for clarification on ACPE.
Representative Gattis stated that it was the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education.
Co-Chair Thompson expressed confusion about the amendment.
He stated that the program funding was scheduled to
terminate by the end of June 2016. He asked what the
amendment would prevent the program from receiving.
Representative Gattis clarified that there was no longer
any federal funding. She detailed that instead of using
federal and state funding the program had begun to receive
funding from student receipts in ACPE. The amendment would
prevent ACPE from funding the program with student
receipts.
Representative Wilson stated that she had served as a
commissioner on ACPE in the past and she had been concerned
about where the program would obtain the funds (the program
had initially been funded by a three-year grant). She
explained that initially the information was supposed to
help the state understand whether or not students attended
university or a training program. The goal had been to
collaborate between DLWD, the University, and DEED. She
furthered that the program had asked more questions about
the state's children and more information was included in a
database. She noted that she did not know how secure the
database was. She stated that there had been three years to
get the program up and running, but it was still not
running. She explained that the program was looking at
using interest students paid on their loans, which she did
not believe had ever been the intent. She believed that if
the state's agencies looked for federal funds they should
be required to show how they would support a program once
the federal funds ran out. She remarked that the question
had been asked every year related to the program, but there
had been no answer. She was concerned that there was
significant personal information about the state's students
going into the database, which she found disconcerting. She
did not believe parents knew how extensive the information
was. She was supportive of ending the program and finding a
better way to determine where students were going after
finishing high school (i.e. college or other).
6:56:08 PM
Co-Chair Neuman believed the program boiled down to the
federal government trying to keep data on Alaska's kids,
which he had a problem with. He did not think it was
appropriate. He understood that they were trying to figure
out what worked in a classroom and what did not, but he
believed the state had plenty of resources to see how the
kids turned out. He continued that generally when the state
used federal funding it came with strings or another
attachment. He was uncomfortable creating databases to
track people. He understood that the department had
specified that there were other monies it could use, but he
was not convinced it would happen. He supported the
amendment.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that there
was currently no money attached to the ANSWERS program.
Representative Gattis replied in the affirmative. She
believed it was all the more reason for the program to end.
Representative Kawasaki thought he was okay with the
amendment; however, he did not want to hinder the
department from doing something in the future. He
questioned whether there could be a part of the program
tied to federal money that was important. He stated that if
it only pertained to the database he could possibly buy off
on the amendment.
Representative Edgmon did not understand the amendment and
noted that it would get rid of federal receipt authority
and a program that had at least some value. He stated that
he had not heard from anyone in his district that the
program was invasive. He was initially okay with getting
rid of the program, but he had heard from another House
majority member that the program had merit and was related
to workforce development. He found it difficult to get rid
of the program without knowing what he was voting to get
rid of. He remarked that there was two sides to every story
and he had not heard from the department. He stated that he
was in a quandary over the amendment.
7:00:08 PM
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Edgmon OBJECTED.
Representative Gara stated that he had not heard evidence
about the issue either. He asked if the longitudinal data
(over a 20-year period) was to track student progress.
Representative Gattis replied that it had been the plan for
the longitudinal data. When the legislature cut state
dollars the previous year no one had said a word. She had
anticipated hearing that the program had run out of money
and had never gotten off the ground and was therefore over.
However, the department had elected to look for other
funding. She did not believe the state could afford to
continue the program and the legislature had made the
decision the prior year. She relayed that the program was
not yet off the ground. She believed that at one time it
sounded like the program would be something. She believed
that with the Common Core initiative people had learned a
significant amount in the past few years about some of the
data they wanted to collect on the state's kids. She
thought it was a bigger picture than merely determining how
the state's kids did as they moved on and whether they
finished college or not. She struggled with the issue.
Representative Gara stated that there was no evidence that
any child's privacy was being compromised, that any child
was being embarrassed, or that the data was being misused.
He stated that the only thing the committee currently knew
was that the program was meant to track student progress.
He believed the state should know the ramifications of its
decisions in education (whether students were being better
prepared or poorly prepared). Absent further information
from DEED he could not support the amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler supported the amendment. He remarked
that his family's private information had been breached
multiple times in the past. He was concerned about the
privacy of individuals. He believed a use was usually found
for data that was gathered. He believed people had a
constitutional right to be secure in their homes and
persons. He did not understand the benefit that justified
the program. He trusted Representative Gattis's instincts
on education issues.
7:04:07 PM
Representative Guttenberg had not heard about the issue
previously. He wondered if the intent was to prevent the
program from getting any funding at all. He stated that if
there were no funds available and the program was ending at
the close of FY 16, the program would be winding down
anyway. He wondered about the difference in letting the
program lapse. He surmised that the concern was that the
program would live on by receive another fund source in the
future. He believed the legislature was letting ACPE know
about its concern. He did not know enough about the issue
[to support the amendment]. He stated that credit ratings
were breached more often in the public sector and he was
concerned about that for children; however, he did not have
sufficient information.
Representative Edgmon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 16 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Labor and Workforce
Development
APPROPRIATION: Commissioner and Administrative
Services
ALLOCATION: Commissioner's Office
DELETE: $190,000 Total Personal Services
$ 50,000 (UGF 1004)
$140,000 (I/A Receipts 1007)
POSITIONS: DELETE I PFT
EXPLANATION:
The mission of the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development is to provide safe and legal working
conditions and to advance opportunities for employment
(per AS 23.05.010). At this time, it is prudent to
eliminate one of the two deputy commissioner
positions. This reduction still leaves one deputy
commissioner and two special assistants to the
commissioner in the Commissioner's Office. Even with
the reduction, the department will still be able to
fulfill its mission.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.
7:07:07 PM
Representative Wilson explained that DLWD had two deputy
commissioners, 804 positions, and a budget of $164,266,600.
She compared the figures to the Department of Public Safety
(DPS), which had 840 positions, one deputy commissioner,
and a budget of $187,909,000. She reasoned that the data
proved that another agency could operate with one deputy
commissioner. She detailed that there would continue to be
two liaisons in DLWD. She spoke to ways to find
efficiencies. She remarked that the issue had been a tied
vote in the finance subcommittee.
Representative Guttenberg stated that the DLWD commissioner
had given a compelling argument [about maintaining the two
deputy commissioner positions]; the department had 800
employees and a completely different command structure than
DPS. The commissioner had done a good job on explaining why
the position was needed. He reiterated the department's
high number of employees and reasoned that someone [one of
the top employees] was always off doing something. He
discussed that DLWD had offices statewide and the
administration traveled frequently. He believed the
amendment was an example of having to cut someplace; he
believed it would handicap the department. He believed
three people at the top of the command structure was
minimal. He stressed that the commissioner and her deputies
did a great job. He believed the amendment was foolish.
7:10:40 PM
Representative Kawasaki discussed that DOA had 841
permanent full-time positions and a structure with two
deputy commissioners, one commissioner, and a handful of
division directors. He furthered that DPS had five division
directors, one deputy commissioner, and was similarly
sized; however, DPS was also involved with the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) and the Police
Standards Council, which were quasi-standalone agencies. He
did not see DLWD as a large agency that was overstaffed. He
referred to the Alaska Aerospace Corporation that employed
a vice president of business development at $178,000, a
chief operating officer at $211,000, a finance manager at
$105,000, a program finance manager at $123,000, and a
president at $225,000, which did not include $60,000 in
travel. He stated the agency numerous expensive positions
with few employees. The amendment pertained to an agency
with one commissioner and two deputy commissioners. He
remarked that the state had to recognize that it would have
troubles as it approached a recessionary economy. He
reasoned that workforce development would be an agency
helping the state through the difficult times. He believed
that cutting one [deputy] commissioner did not make sense
when compared to the rest of the state agencies.
Co-Chair Thompson pointed out that the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation had received zero funding in the past two
years. He believed the comparison was unfair.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara stated that DLWD had taken cuts of
approximately 35 percent over the past two years. He
detailed that the department was tasked with training
people for jobs, protecting workers with work safety
standards, and job training for individuals who got hurt at
work. He stated that it was an agency that was already
strapped. He believed that without evidence that the person
in the deputy commissioner position was not doing their
job, he did not support the amendment. He had heard no
evidence that the employee was not doing their job or
adding value to Alaska's workforce.
Representative Wilson stated that seven division directors
were responsible for taking care of safety and day-to-day
grants. She stated that DLWD was different because it had
the Workforce Development Board, which could look at
necessary training and direct related areas. She stated
that the position was another layer that did not provide
day-to-day oversight. She believed the commissioner had
specified that the two liaisons were more important than
two deputy commissioners.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz, Edgmon
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 17 was ADOPTED.
7:16:13 PM
AT EASE
7:16:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT amendment 18 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Education and Early
Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Pre-Kindergarten Grants
ADD: $2,000,000 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores the FY20 17
funding level proposed by the Governor. Alaska ranks
37 out of 40 states for providing access to pre-
kindergarten education (National Institute for Early
Education Research 2013). Intensive preschool
interventions can be highly cost effective and have
positive impacts into adulthood. Young children who
receive high quality early education do better in
school academically and are more likely to stay in
school, graduate and go on to attend college and enter
the job market in higher numbers. Alaska has a
responsibility to provide the best education possible
for its children.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki addressed that students
participating in a quality pre-K education graduated and
went to college in higher percentages, had higher earning
rates than their parents, needed less remedial education
and public services, and had lower incarceration rates.
Former Governor Sarah Palin had introduced a pilot pre-K
program, recognizing that Alaska was one of the only states
that did not provide pre-K in any form. He continued that
only 40 percent of Alaska's population of three and four
year olds were enrolled in some type of formal pre-K. Only
3 percent of Alaskan four-year olds were in a state-funded
pre-K program, which was far below the national average of
28 percent. The pilot pre-K program had been as much as
$2.8 million for one year; competitive grants had gone out
to several districts - some districts had participated
while others had not. The results had been positive. He
shared that fall and spring scores on the Peabody picture
vocabulary test had been compared. He spoke to significant
improvements on the test as a result of pre-K education. He
spoke to the national evidence-based results of pre-K
education. He understood that Alaska was facing budget
difficulties and many other states had also experienced
difficult budget environments. He believed that in
recessionary environments education was one of the things
that should not be touched. He stated that the coming year
would be the fifth year of the program and would provide
good data on how pre-K was working. He believed the first
three years provided evidence that the program worked. He
relayed that if the grant system continued Alaska would
still be the lowest of the states providing some sort of
support, but it was something.
7:20:02 PM
Representative Gattis spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She stated that her subcommittee had recommended the cut.
The subcommittee had considered that the FY 17 governor's
budget had initially eliminated pre-K grants, but had added
them back. She discussed that pre-K was not a
constitutional mandate. She detailed that the program
supported 316 students statewide (approximately $6,330 per
student). She agreed that pre-K had first been funded in
2010 as a pilot project. She believed the state needed to
be very careful of pilot projects. She did not believe the
state should fund the program when it did not have funding.
Representative Gara stated that the program had been funded
by the past two Republican governors. The intent was to
study the program to determine its success and to extend
the service up to the $10 million level if it was
successful. He stated that the legislature had never
followed through on the additional funding, but that did
not mean the program was unsuccessful. He discussed that
studies showed that kids who went to pre-K stayed out of
jail, ended up on the welfare rolls in smaller numbers,
were more greatly employed, and other. He stressed that
there was evidence that the program provided more
opportunity to children. He stated that a troopers and an
oil pipeline were not constitutionally mandated, but the
legislature supported funding for the items. He believed
the relevant question was whether the program improved
lives, increased academic achievement, and saved money in
the long-term. He stated that the answer was yes. He stated
that it was a small amount of money compared to other
amendments before the committee. He emphasized that it was
not a place to cut.
7:23:56 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked to confirm some numbers mentioned.
He asked for verification that the funding only went to 3
percent of pre-K aged students, yet 40 percent of the age
group were attending some type of pre-K. He was curious
about the effectiveness of the public schools' program. He
referred to statistics provided and wondered if the
increases were statewide. He did not know how effective the
program was if it only applied to 300 students at a cost of
over $6,000 per student. He wondered if it was fair to
other students. He did not support the amendment.
Representative Kawasaki provided a summary of the
amendment. He addressed that some communities did have
formal pre-K, but the program was very expensive. He listed
children served by the program in the past year: 32 in
Anchorage, 33 in Dillingham, 30 in Juneau, 30 in the Lower
Kuskokwim, 79 in Mat-Su, 53 in Nome, 20 on the North Slope,
and 14 in Yukon Koyukuk. He referred to the legislature's
continual discussion about ways to curve the budget line.
He stated that early education was one of the ways that had
been proven repeatedly. The success of Alaska's pre-K pilot
program was proven and showed great results. He stressed
what had not been proven was to continue spending money on
things like remedial sciences in college. He did not
believe it was a good investment and was not sustainable to
keep investing in things like reforms in middle school and
K-12. He spoke to one of President Obama's new initiatives
on early education and quality pre-K programs were
sustainable. He affirmed that the program in Alaska only
reached 3 percent of the state's four year-olds, but it was
a great start.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Thompson,
Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 18 FAILED (3/8).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19 (copy on
file)[Note: see copy on file for further detail]:
DEPARTMENT: Department of Education and Early
Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Early Learning Coordination
ADD: $500,000 General Fund 1004
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores Parents as
Teachers grants to the FY20 17 funding level in the
Governors amended budget. Parents as Teachers was
passed as a bill by the legislature because it is the
most cost-effective way to provide Pre-K to young
children, and is proven to save states money by
graduating more students, reducing social service and
criminal costs, and increasing a student's future
earning potential and educational attainment.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
7:27:28 PM
Representative Gara discussed that as Alaska was struggling
in 40th place (out of the 50 states) of not offering pre-K,
he had begun to look into the objections of some of the
more conservative members of the community to find
something that had worked in more conservative states. The
solution he had found was the Parents as Teachers program.
He stated if anyone had objection to young children sent
into the classroom, Parents as Teachers did the opposite.
The program had been adopted across the country. He
explained that people with a pre-K background met with
parents and taught them what would increase intellectual
achievement by their children. He stressed that the program
worked just as well as pre-K, but through the parents
instead of a classroom. Parents met with Parents as
Teachers educators at the place of the parents' choice,
where they were provided with the necessary tools to ensure
the child achieved what it could. He furthered that the
results were the same: children who went through Parents as
Teachers graduated, went to college, and got jobs in higher
numbers; and ended up on public welfare and in jail smaller
numbers. The program saved money and gave people
opportunities. He elaborated that the program represented a
compromise he had been in search of in the past. He
furthered that he and other members had worked together on
the issue in the past; it had become bipartisan and had
passed the legislature. He stated that the program was
originally intended to be funded at the $2 million level;
it had been reduced to $500,000, but it would still allow
the program to continue. He opined that if the legislature
was going to cut the budget they should cut things that
were superfluous or did not work; however, he did not
support making cuts to successful programs that made lives
better, kept people off welfare, and out of jail.
Representative Gattis stated that Parents as Teachers had
been in her subcommittee budget. She agreed that parents
are teachers, but the Parents as Teachers grant had been
eliminated from the governor's proposed FY 17 budget.
Subsequently the administration had submitted an amendment
to add the funds back into the budget, but the subcommittee
had cut the program. She relayed that the program was not a
constitutional mandate. She explained that the program had
first been funded as a pilot project when the state had the
money. She noted that there were things the state was
mandated to do and should do pertaining to education. She
believed the state did not have the funds; therefore, she
did not support the amendment.
7:31:40 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 19 FAILED (3/8).
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Education and Early
Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Early Learning Coordination
ADD: $320,000 General Fund (UGF) 1004
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores Best Beginnings
Grants to the FY20 17 funding level in the Governor's
amended budget. Best Beginnings fosters strong
partnerships with local and statewide entities that
promote early learning opportunities for children to
start school prepared to succeed. Studies show
children with more books in the home are more likely
to become good readers. Best Beginnings supports
Imagination Libraries and early childhood partnerships
that provide services in 113 Alaskan communities with
an enrollment of over 20,000. These partnerships
promote healthy parent-child interaction, higher
quality early care and learning, and parent education.
The program costs $30 per year per child (0-5), and is
funded through a combination of state and private
sources, nearly half of which are raised locally.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment
would fund the Best Beginnings program. He detailed that
the program was very popular with children. He shared a
story about witnessing a small child receive a book in the
mail. He recalled the child's mother telling him that her
child waited each month to receive the book in the mail. He
elaborated that the book was age and subject appropriate
and encouraged children to read. He pointed out that the
average reading age in prisons was third grade. He remarked
that anything the state could do to get children reading
younger was significant. He referred to discussion about
what was mandated in the constitution. He remarked that the
constitution did not say people should have children, but
they did. He believed children should be taken care of;
there was a social obligation to ensure that children grew
up to be productive citizens. He believed the legislature
was cutting things in the budget that should not be cut -
things that were beneficial and helpful for the state. He
could not believe they were going to take books out of the
hands of children. The amendment would restore the program
for children around the state. He reasoned that if the
funds were not restored, the matching funds would be lost.
The program taught children critical skills such as
reading, which would lead to better citizens. He hoped the
amendment would pass. He spoke about children who enjoyed
reading, a skill that would enable them to understand what
was going on as they grew; he stated that "it starts with
those little kids."
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that he had always supported the
program and provided a personal check annually. He stressed
that the program would not lose other funding if the state
did not provide funds. He countered that the money would
still come in and he guessed that the private funding would
increase. He believed it was a great program; however, it
was difficult for the state to provide funding given its
deficit.
7:35:48 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler believed the issue was related to wants
versus needs. He discussed his personal experience with the
library and books he received from family and other as a
child. He stated that public libraries were accessible to
everyone. He referred to testimony that the state should
not fund things that did not work - he reasoned that the
state should also not fund things that were duplicative. He
believed it would be more economic to fund the public
libraries instead of a program that cost $30 per child. He
acknowledged that the program may be good, but it was not
the only way for a child to get a book. He opposed the
amendment.
Representative Kawasaki testified in support of the
amendment. He pointed to a graph in members' packets
associated with the amendment. He stressed that private
funds would not supplant the loss of state funds. He stated
that Imagination Libraries in Fairbanks had communicated
that a devastating cut would end the program. He elucidated
that Best Beginnings was more than merely giving books to
kids. He stated that it had been the glue that held
together DEED's early development component. He explained
that a one-quarter of a percent was actually dedicated to
early education, which included Best Beginnings, pre-K, and
Parents as Teachers. He discussed that Best Beginnings set
the other programs together and apart in the conversation
about early education. Without Best Beginnings he did not
know why there was a Department of Education and "Early"
Development. He asserted that the state would not have
anyone advocating for early development if all of the early
development programs were eliminated.
7:38:35 PM
Representative Gara discussed that there was every piece of
evidence that the Imagination Library and Best Beginnings
worked. He stated that getting fewer books to children
would work less well. He stated that the amendment would be
the difference between having more or less children with
books in their hands. He remarked that most of the
committee members around the table were pretty privileged.
He stressed that the programs benefitted some of the
poorest children in the state. He emphasized that the
amendment pertained to kids who would no longer get pre-K
services or benefit from Parents as Teachers because the
programs had been defunded. He stated that the elimination
of Best Beginnings would mean fewer books would go to kids,
despite the fact that getting books into the hands of kids
was successful. He thought the legislature came down to
Juneau to cut things that were wasteful and did not work.
He elaborated that the program put books in the hands of
children for a cost of $320,000. He recommended ending the
amendment process if all of the amendments would just
receive party-line votes. He pointed out that Best
Beginnings was the smallest of the pre-K programs. He
continued that he had been comfortable voting for majority
member amendments and bills; he hoped the committee did not
spend the remainder of the evening voting across caucus
lines.
7:41:33 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that it was not proper to
question the motivation of another member. He did not
appreciate his votes being cast as party-line votes.
Co-Chair Neuman asked members to maintain a civil
discussion.
Representative Munoz remarked that all committee members
supported pre-K and it was difficult for her to vote
against the amendment. However, she understood that there
was a finite amount of money available in the current year
and that the state would have to continue to look for new
revenue sources. She hoped to get as much funding toward K-
12 education as possible. She remarked that it was a fine
balance. She understood that the issue currently before the
committee would continue to be a part of the discussion as
the legislature moved towards adjournment. She reiterated
that her focus was trying to obtain as much funding for K-
12 as possible.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the committee had
already cut Parents as Teachers. He stated that without the
amendment the committee was now taking books out of the
hands of children. Additionally, the budget cut funding to
libraries. He stressed "it is what it is" and asked members
not to "say we're not doing it, when that's what we're
doing." He stressed that the children were in pre-school.
The individuals benefitting from the program did not have
the ability to spend time browsing in bookstores; the books
went to all of the children - there was no cutoff. He spoke
to the pride of ownership that children had for their
belongings. The children did not know that it was the
state's motive to get them engaged in reading and
education. He emphasized that the program was not partisan
or superfluous; it was meant to make society stronger. He
communicated that according to Best Beginnings the matching
funds for the program would go away if the state GF funds
were eliminated. He recalled when a legislator had wanted
to put some discretionary money into their district for the
program - as a result it had become something the entire
legislature did because it was the smart thing to do. The
program went to provide books to the most vulnerable
children. He relayed that the amendments had not been drawn
up to instigate arguments; they were designed to create
results. He underscored that the programs created results.
The cost of putting a book in a child's hand was worth it.
He stressed that the program made a difference tomorrow and
in 20 years. He remarked that other amendments included
much higher costs than the amendment before the committee.
He stated that the amendment was meant to brighten the
lives of small children. He emphasized the success of the
program.
7:47:31 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Gara, Guttenberg, Thompson
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 20 FAILED (4/7).
7:48:26 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 21 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Education and Early
Development
APPROPRIATION: Teaching and Learning Support
ALLOCATION: Alaska Learning Network
ADD: $400,000 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: Adds funding to allow for the
continuation of the Alaska Learning Network Program.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained the amendment related to
the Alaska Learning Network (AKLN). He detailed that the
network had originated as a way to provide equal and
equitable access to education online for high school
students. He elaborated that 42 of the state's 54 school
districts were currently served by the program - ranging
from Petersburg, Fairbanks, Juneau, and the North Slope
Borough. He noted that Fairbanks had the highest number of
participants at 110. The concept behind the program was to
provide an outlet and to maximize a student's ability to
learn when classes are not offered within their own
district. Additionally, the program was part of the
governor's performance scholarship. For example, students
who did not have access to advanced placement chemistry,
calculus, or history, may have the ability to take the
course in another venue. Students who participated in the
program had a high completion rate (between 79 and 87
percent). He stated that AKLN was one of the backbone
systems that needed support. He communicated that the
network had been flat funded over the past several years.
He asserted that if AKLN was cut, many schools would not
have the ability to compete for the performance
scholarship, especially in rural Alaska. He added that
without the program Fairbanks students accessing advanced
placement courses would no longer have access.
Representative Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She was frustrated by AKLN, which she believed could have
been self-sustainable by the current time. She explained
that the network had been started by a federal grant by the
Chatham School District and it had subsequently been taken
over by Wrangell, which had done a good job administering
the program. Ultimately it was taken over by the University
of Alaska. She elaborated that Ketchikan and Kenai had been
ahead of the game and had numerous online courses they were
sharing with others. She relayed that she had sent the
commissioner at the time to Ketchikan to look into
utilizing successful programs in similar school districts
instead of starting over in various areas. She furthered
that the intent of the program to provide high school
students with access to courses that may not be offered in
their community. She explained that the program was
supposed to allow communities to exchange courses or for
one district to pay another to keep courses updated. She
believed that because the network kept getting traded
around it had never really found a good home or become
self-sustainable. She pointed to the $400,000 GF allocation
proposed under the amendment and stated that the program
had not found a way to be usable as intended. She still
believed the program had the opportunity. She opined that
without the state funds, the program would be forced to
charge the money, which she believed was probably much less
than it would take most districts to hire a master teacher.
She stated that they needed to get the money out of the
state's districts because they were getting paid for each
of the credit hours that high school students were taking.
She explained that the cut would not be taking anything
away from schools. She furthered that there was another
avenue for smaller schools to have a wide range of courses,
but the state would not provide funding. She reiterated
that the program had access to funding that the districts
needed to utilize. She remarked that Kotzebue had its own
studio and made classes for some of the smaller school
districts to utilize. Even since the program's inception
many school districts had done their own program. She
believed the program could survive if they charged the
necessary amount, which was significantly less than hiring
a teacher for just a few students.
7:54:19 PM
Representative Gattis spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She explained that the AKLN program had morphed into using
Apex Learning classes. She explained that Mat-Su used the
Apex program; it had been able to get the licensing and let
anyone use the courses for a relatively inexpensive price.
She furthered that it was one of the reasons AKLN had found
itself - it was utilizing the same Apex program. She
believed AKLN was utilizing some courses it had originally
put together, but it had really pivoted over to Apex. She
elaborated that AKLN was now operating as a middleman and
was therefore charging school districts more. She shared
that Mat-Su had communicated that it would charge the going
rate. She detailed that the intent had been to incentivize
school districts to share with each other, which had never
really occurred under AKLN. She had spoken against the
program in the past. She highlighted that there were school
districts that did online learning out-of-state (i.e.
Florida Virtual School and other).
Representative Gara asked how much money would be left in
AKLN without the amendment.
Representative Gattis replied that she thought that the
program had been defunded. She had been surprised to learn
there was still money remaining, but she did not know the
amount.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that it was also his understanding.
Representative Gara spoke in support of the amendment. He
stated that it was not possible to make a program more
efficient by reducing its budget to zero. He was happy to
hear if someone had a plan to make AKLN more efficient. He
discussed that the program had begun when former Governor
Sean Parnell had created the merit scholarship. He detailed
that the scholarship required students to take specific
courses in order to qualify; however, many of the courses
are not available in rural Alaska. He furthered that the
merit scholarship would only be available to students
living in urban areas if something had not been done. The
former governor had stated that the program needed to be
funded in order for everyone to have an equal chance at the
scholarship. He discussed that there were some very good
schools in rural Alaska that produced Ivy League graduates.
He believed the students in rural Alaska should have the
same opportunity at a scholarship as an urban student;
however, that was not the case currently. He elaborated
that currently many small schools in rural districts did
not have advanced placement courses needed to qualify for
the scholarship. He stressed that there could not be two
classes of citizens in the state.
Representative Gara questioned what kind of system it would
be to tell a child that no matter how hard they worked they
would not qualify for a scholarship. He believed it would
be an awful system. He furthered that AKLN leveled the
playing field for students in rural districts. He could not
imagine telling a parent that the merit scholarship was
reserved for other people who had access to the necessary
courses. He stressed that without AKLN it would be the
case. He had never heard that the program had run
inefficiently; eliminating it was not the way to make it
more efficient. He stated that eliminating the program was
a way to create two systems of schools: one for those in
urban areas and a worse one for students in rural areas. It
was not the Alaska he believed in. He reiterated his
remarks about the disparity between rural and urban school
districts. He stressed that the state was supposed to
maximize the chances for every young person in the state.
He referred to another committee member's statement about a
litmus test to determine whether something belonged in the
budget. The question had been whether a cut would impact
people's lives. He believed it was a relevant question to
ask when considering whether to continue a program. He
underscored that the cut would impact people's lives and
would create two unequal systems of education in Alaska:
one for individuals living in wealthier urban areas and
another for poorer rural individuals. He did not want to
create two systems.
8:01:12 PM
Representative Munoz believed that AKLN provided a valuable
service to the state. She recalled former Governor Parnell
visiting a mining training course at the University of
Alaska Southeast. She spoke to the impact the former
governor's participation had on the class and how
witnessing the online learning had impacted him as well.
She viewed the program as an opportunity to save the state
money. She did not want to see the program go away. She
thought the program could look for increased self-
sufficiency and ways to increase funding through the
districts. She also heard that Mat-Su may want to take a
larger role. She did not believe the program should be
eliminated.
Representative Gattis reminded the committee that AKLN was
not a free program; Apex also charged. She elaborated that
AKLN had become the "middleman" and charged more than Apex;
AKLN had chosen Apex to utilize the Apex program. She
explained that AKLN had the opportunity to buy direct from
Apex. She believed that the program had morphed into being
the middleman for the Apex program and had shifted away
from the original intent. She did not have a problem with
AKLN or Apex, but she stated that Apex was provided at a
cheaper price. She did not support funding a middleman.
Co-Chair Thompson had not seen statistics about how many
rural students were using the program. He referred to the
sponsor's testimony that the largest utilizer was
Fairbanks. He asked for detail on other areas using the
program.
Representative Kawasaki summarized the amendment. He shared
that AKLN had started in 2011 with only 169 enrollees; at
the close of the 2014/2015 school year there were 920
enrollees. The projection for the current year was 878. He
stated that Alaska Native student success was an important
goal for AKLN, which was included in the programs by-laws.
He furthered that 36 percent of the enrollees were Alaska
Native students. He referred to the distribution of
enrollees and explained that Fairbanks accounted for a
large number; however, Kuspuk had 17 or 18, Nenana had 16
or 17, and Hoonah had 2 or 3 students participating in
AKLN. He believed it was important to recognize, especially
under the terms of the governor's performance scholarship.
According to AKLN the upcoming summer courses were already
in jeopardy until further funds were secured. Past
appropriations varied between $800,000 and $400,000 (the
current amount was $400,000). The AKLN director had
communicated that without the $400,000 the program would
end. He encouraged the committee to think hard about what
ending the program would do.
8:06:12 PM
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Gara, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 21 FAILED (5/6).
8:07:10 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Education and Early
Development
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Library and Museums
ALLOCATION: Online With Libraries (OWL)
ADD: $761,800 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: Restores Online with Libraries to the
FY17 Governor's Amended budget level.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained the amendment pertaining
to funds for the Online with Libraries (OWL) program. He
explained that as the state required more and more online
study, broadband became an important aspect. He detailed
that OWL was parallel to the AKLN program. He elaborated
that OWL provided 1.5 megabit speeds to most area
libraries. He continued that the average monthly internet
cost for a rural library could be as low as $2,700;
however, the rate was $7,600 for the Dillingham library.
The program provided all of the libraries with a small
subsidy in order to operate video and teleconferencing
equipment and online resources. In 2012 there had been
scheduled video/teleconferences of about 247; with
increased technology and the demand set on rural
communities in particular, the number had increased to 794
in 2013 and 840 in 2014. He stated that OWL provided
another method to help with students in rural Alaska.
Representative Gattis testified in opposition to the
amendment. She relayed that OWL had begun to receive state
funding in 2015; the state had received federal and private
grants from 2010 to 2014. Only 42.6 percent of the state's
101 libraries utilized the OWL program; the remainder of
the public libraries paid the local share of the internet
bills in-house. Some of the libraries that used OWL would
downgrade their internet with the proposed cut, while other
libraries may not have difficulty paying for the internet.
She believed the state could live without the program.
Representative Edgmon supported the amendment. His district
included two first-class smaller regional hubs - the cities
of Dillingham, Unalaska, and Naknek had libraries that
depended on the funding. He noted that the program
leveraged federal e-rate matching dollars ($8 to $9 for
every state dollar). The program provided community access
to the internet at the local library and also had valuable
instructional value to students. He discussed that the
program stretched the state's educational dollars. He could
see broadband replacing some component of the K-12 formula
in the future.
8:11:50 PM
Representative Guttenberg spoke in favor of the amendment.
He believed it was unfortunate that the committee did not
understand the structure of broadband and e-rate dollars.
He explained that everyone paid into the Universal Service
Fund, which subsidized $360 million annually in the form of
e-rate funding. He elaborated that it drove down the cost
of funding in libraries. He discussed that he paid $89 for
poor reception (under 1 megabit) at his home in Fairbanks
what he paid at home for internet. He relayed that the
average library paid $2,600 for their share; Dillingham
paid $7,600. The minimum the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) considered for broadband was 25 megahertz.
He was not aware of anyone in Alaska who received that
speed. He relayed that he could not even stream a movie
with his internet service in Fairbanks. He continued that
44 libraries would return to dialup internet service if the
OWL funds were not continued; he noted that dialup speed
was less than 1.5 megabits. Without the funds many
libraries would not have the ability to file for Permanent
Fund Dividends online, purchase a hunting license, provide
distance education, and other. He surmised that the
decreased internet service would render computer equipment
useless in some libraries.
Representative Guttenberg referred to a 2013 State of
Alaska broadband taskforce report that sat languishing on a
shelf. He stressed that the report addressed many of the
issues under discussion, but the legislature was not
working on them. He emphasized that they were not working
on driving down the cost of things the state could do to
increase efficiencies and decrease costs in Alaska. He
stated that the OWL grants did those things. He expounded
that 44 of the state's libraries would have no
teleconferencing, distance education, and nothing online.
He discussed that when Airforce One had visited Dillingham
the secret service had been "flipping out" because they had
no internet access. He believed the expense paid for
broadband in Alaska was astronomical and criminal; however,
the legislature was not doing anything to drive the costs
down. He continued that all the legislature was doing was
telling communities it would not subsidize the communities
because it did not have the character or strength to do
what was right for Alaska. He stated the $761,000 grant was
a small part of doing anything. He emphasized that the
legislature appeared to be willing to just cut the
libraries off at the knees. He underscored that the
libraries could not afford the service and would not all
find another funding source. He furthered that the cost of
utilities would increase due to increased electronic
reporting (e.g. trooper reporting and other).
8:17:06 PM
Representative Kawasaki summarized the amendment. He
explained that prior to OWL, 70 out of the state's 100
libraries did not have sufficient bandwidth for any
internet connection or videoconferencing. He detailed that
currently almost every library had some sort of access to
the OWL program and the 4 to 1 federal matching rate, which
could leverage up to $2 million. If the program funds were
cut, the libraries using OWL would most likely have to
return to dialup speeds. He communicated that libraries and
schools were often the center of a small community. He
believed cutting off their ability to communicate with the
rest of the world (or severely limiting the ability) was
going in the wrong direction. He acknowledged that the cut
would not necessarily impact Fairbanks, Mat-Su, or
Anchorage, but it would it would severely hamper
legislators' ability to communicate with their constituents
across the rest of the state. He added that it would
severely impact constituents' ability to file forms online.
He noted that the current legislature had communicated to
the administration that it wanted to see more online forms
for things like driver's license renewal, fishing
licensing, and filing reports, because it cost less. He
stated that the $761,000 GF request was a small part of the
state's overall budget; it did not break the budget. He
believed that cutting the funds may have the opposite
result of the legislature's desired goal of balancing the
budget.
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 22 FAILED (5/6).
8:20:49 PM
AT EASE
8:42:47 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 23 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Medicaid Services
ALLOCATION: Adult Preventative Dental Medicaid
Services
ADD: $2,882,700 Fed Rcpts (1002)
$2,882,700 G/F Match (1003)
$279,000 General Fund (1004)
EXPLANATION:
Medicare does not provide dental coverage for seniors,
with very minor exceptions. The state therefore
adopted a limited dental plan for seniors. Without
this amendment the state's senior dental plan will be
significantly reduced. Alaska will also lose $2.88
million, which will impact the economy.
· Preventive dental services help control higher
medical costs by preventing more serious dental
issues such as infections, extractions, etc.
· Preventive dental services help individuals retain
their natural teeth or provide for dentures which
help with nutrition as well as cosmetic appearance
which helps individuals maintain employment and stay
in the work force
· Prevents emergency room visits for dental issues
which could have been taken care of with preventive
services
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that a number of years ago
the state decided that not providing people the option for
dental services was not the way to go. Medicaid had only
covered services in the emergency room for dental work; it
had not covered preventative care. He detailed that under
the state's Medicaid program people had to wait until their
tooth decay problems became bad enough for them to go to
the emergency room (ER); the state had not paid for
preventative work. He elaborated that the state's senior
population had faced the same fate because Medicare did not
cover dental work outside of extreme hospitalization
services. He reiterated that the state had adopted its
dental program for individuals on Medicaid and low income
individuals on Medicare. He continued that at first the
state had bought an individual with no teeth one set of
dentures at a time (an upper or lower denture); that had
been changed in order for a person to use two years' worth
of benefits in one year in order to get a full set of
teeth. He expounded that if the dental program was
eliminated for people who could not afford to go to the
dentist a person would not receive dentures at all. He
explained that the current budget eliminated the dental
program for seniors and non-seniors on Medicaid.
Representative Gara highlighted that half of the current
program was funded by $2.8 million in federal funds (the
other half was paid for with state funds). He shared that
the previous year 27,000 Alaskans had received preventative
dental services. He explained that without the amendment
individuals would have to wait until their tooth problem
became painful enough to warrant going to the ER; it would
be the only coverage a person would receive. He remarked
that committee members all had health insurance and could
go to the dentist for work; they did not have to wait for
disease to occur. He wished Medicare covered preventative
dental, but it did not. He believed that while battling the
budget deficit, the legislature should look for things to
cut that did not matter and were not important. He thought
the cut went too far backwards; it was too hard a hit on
people who did not have money and on seniors. He reasoned
that it was less expensive to let someone go to the dentist
before they had a major problem. He communicated that the
dental program had been proposed by a Republican legislator
in the past and had passed unanimously. The amendment
maintained the current dental program; without the program
seniors and Medicaid recipients would have to wait for
their dental problems to become severe enough to justify
going to the ER.
8:48:44 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler discussed that the state had a very
generous Medicaid program. The program offered 26 optional
adult services to the Medicaid population, which was
approximately 145,000 at a cost of $239 million per year.
Additionally, the program offered 19 mandatory adult
services, which cost the state $486 million [annually].
There were 45 services mandatory services provided to
children (including dental services) for a cost of $539
million. He believed the program was generous. He added
that it was a maximum of $1,250 per year. He continued that
the state provided Permanent Fund Dividends and there was
nothing to prevent people from using their dividend on
dental work. He explained that people on Medicaid were held
harmless; there was no penalty for using the dividend to
take care of one's teeth. He explained that the program was
separate from the entire medical services Medicaid statute.
He reasoned that it was not inappropriate to look at some
of the optional services provided when facing a large
deficit. He remarked that other states that had gone
through recession had figured out ways to reduce Medicaid
expenses; suspending or ending the adult preventative
dental service was one of the tactics other states had
utilized. He pointed out that it was a $6 million
reduction. He reiterated that the state paid $239 million
for optional services, $486 million for mandatory services,
and $539 million for children's services. He did not
believe it was unreasonable to expect that there would be a
slight reduction in the optional programs provided in a
time of significant deficit.
Representative Gattis shared that her father-in-law had
passed away the past year. She shared that he had been a
WWII veteran who had not received dental insurance through
the VA. She recalled that as he had aged it had been a huge
challenge for her family to deal with his dental work. She
struggled with the fact that dental care would be offered
for free, while many people in the private industry had to
pay for coverage themselves. She added that veterans were
only covered if they had a war injury. She did not support
the amendment.
8:52:17 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated "I'm delighted that people
think that somebody that's eligible for Medicaid services
will go in at the drop of a toothache and get a dental
appointment, have a phone number to be reached at, and have
a place to go and a way to get there at a specific time."
He believed that it was unfortunate that veterans did not
receive dental coverage. He discussed what happened when
people could not afford medical services. He emphasized
that he was not asking members to care about the
individuals. He was asking members to think about what
happened to their insurance bill. He referred to a person
with decaying teeth who could not afford insurance; it was
not only the pathway to needing heavy dental work, but many
other diseases as well. He stressed that when a person went
to the ER because they could not afford to go anywhere
else, the state paid for the bill; some hospitals absorbed
the cost, but most passed the costs on to the state. The
point of the dental program was to provide preventative
coverage in order to avoid the need for ER treatment.
Additionally, with preventative treatment, people did not
get disease as a result of tooth problems. He reiterated
that the state was paying for services when individuals
went to the ER. He communicated that hospitals would tell
members how much money they had to absorb and how much
money they had to build into billing and other. He stressed
that it was significantly higher than $6 million. He
restated that the state paid the bill anyway when
individuals had to go to the hospital. He spoke to the
cost-effective nature of providing preventative dental
care. He emphasized that failing to provide treatment for
individuals would cause the budget to balloon in the
future. Additionally, the costs would be reflected in state
and private insurance and when paying for services out of
pocket. He underscored that the costs would be on the
state's bill.
8:56:13 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara asked if it was accurate that veterans
did not receive preventative dental through the VA.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that he was not positive;
however, he was not aware of any veterans receiving free
dental care.
Representative Wilson stated that her husband is a veteran
and did not receive preventative dental care through the
VA.
Representative Gara thought it made the need for the
amendment even more pressing. He stated "shame on us as a
society" if individuals were asked to go to war for the
country but did not receive dental care benefits. He opined
that if veterans were not receiving dental, it was all the
more reason to pass the amendment. The amendment did not
discriminate between individuals who had served the U.S. in
war and those who had not; it would provide dental coverage
for veterans and non-veterans. A veteran would have the
right to dental coverage, especially if they came back
injured and unable to work and were Medicaid eligible.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 23 FAILED (3/8).
8:59:07 PM
Representative Gara relayed that the restoration of funds
to help seniors with conditions like Alzheimer's had
already passed in a prior amendment; therefore, he WITHDREW
the Amendment 24 (copy on file).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 25 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Senior and Disabilities Services
ALLOCATION: Community Developmental Disabilities
Grants
ADD: $640,000 GF/MH (1037)
EXPLANATION: The subcommittee's cuts reduce help to
Alaskans with developmental disabilities. This
assistance is used to help vulnerable people live with
dignity, learn, and care for themselves. These funds
provide assistance for organizations like Hope
Community Resources, which promotes a better quality
of life.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the current budget
included a $640,000 cut to people with developmental
disabilities. The amendment sought to restore help for
people facing difficulties in their daily lives just
because of the way they were born. The amendment would
restore funds to Hope Community Resources and other
programs. He spoke to public testimony from a man who had a
lift installed in his shower so he could take a shower. He
believed the services helped people live with dignity. He
did not believe a shower lift was a luxury. He stated that
the legislature should be cutting waste and things that did
not work, but not programs such as disability services. The
funds were essential to people who had many hurdles to live
with. The cut would hit people with some of the biggest
challenges in the state. The funds also helped an
individual to a build ramp to their house in order to
remain in their own home; the grants helped individuals
live independently. He remarked that someone had once said
that the budget was not only a bunch of numbers; it was a
moral document. He shared that he had grown up with a
foster brother with developmental disabilities. He provided
further information about his brother who had been offered
a hand and training provided by grants. He had also worked
for a living until being hit by a car, which prevented him
from working again. He stated that some people need a hand;
people with disabilities should be given a hand. He did not
support cutting over $500,000 to individuals who deserved
the services, the right to live with dignity, and the right
to receive training to help them go to work if possible.
Representative Gara stated that the funds were not wasteful
and went to individuals who should have the right to live
with dignity and independently. He recalled members of the
Key Coalition of Alaska telling him they would just like to
live with dignity and independently. He added that some of
the funds were used for fun. For example, sometimes a group
like Hope Community Resources was able to take individuals
to a movie so they did not have to be cooped up at home
their entire lives. He wanted to hear if people believed
the program was wasteful or if the funds were being
misused. He had never heard either of those things. He
reasoned that the cut in the budget did meet the standard
of impacting lives; it was an essential service. He was
supportive of locating waste in the budget, but the service
the amendment would restore was not waste.
9:05:53 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler countered that the state did provide
resources to individuals with disabilities. He wondered if
providing $5 million to $12 million would be sufficient to
show that the legislature had respect for the dignity of
those impacted by the services. He stated that the
legislature provided $12 million for disability grants
(after the reduction the amendment sought to restore). He
expounded that the subcommittee had taken a modest 5
percent reduction from the governor's request, which he
believed was not excessive or cold-hearted. He reasoned
that it was not possible to spin gold from straw. He
stressed that the state was constrained by the current
fiscal situation. He furthered that the state provided
other services to individuals with disabilities including
Medicaid healthcare services and waivers, vocational
rehabilitation services, and proposed legislation that
would enable people to save money to pay for the cost of
living with a disability. Additionally, the federal
government provided supplemental security income. He
rejected the proposition that not funding the $640,000
demonstrated lack of care, respect, or compassion. He
believed the reduction reflected the fiscal reality and was
modest and responsible.
Representative Guttenberg spoke in support of the
amendment. He did not hear any place where the funds were
superfluous, wasted, or unneeded. He stressed that the
making budget cuts was the coldest part of the legislative
process. He furthered that cuts were being made on the
backs of children, seniors, and disabled individuals. He
reasoned at that point the budget became a moral document.
He believed cuts were being made to places that should not
be cut. He knew the cut to disability services was wrong
and he believed "it says something morally about who we
are."
9:09:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 25 FAILED (3/8).
9:10:25 PM
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 26 (copy on file):
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Senior and Disabilities Services
ALLOCATION: General Relief/Temporary Assisted Living
ADD: $365,000 General Fund (1004)
EXPLANATION: This cut will reduce emergency housing
and help for seniors and those with other significant
challenges. It provides housing for people who would
otherwise be homeless, until stable housing can be
secured.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment would
restore funding for short-term emergency housing for
seniors and individuals with significant life challenges.
The current budget would cut $365,000 from the program. He
had no problem providing emergency housing for seniors or
disabled individuals who could otherwise end up on the
street due to life difficulties. He stated that seniors and
people with disabilities were already taking a significant
hit in the current budget. He believed they were the wrong
people to take money away from. He offered to receive a
salary cut. He wondered who thought cutting the service
would save the state money. He surmised that without the
funds the individuals could end up in a shelter; they would
eventually receive services, but would live with less
dignity. He stated that it was a savings on paper but not
in reality. He did not see the necessity for cutting so
deep.
9:13:42 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke in opposition to the amendment.
believed a 5 percent reduction could be considered large or
small. He pointed to a survey by the Rasmuson Foundation
asking what a person would consider to qualify as a small
or medium cut. He believed the population of Alaska thought
a small cut would be 10 percent and that a medium cut would
be 25 percent. He did not recall what people thought a
large cut would be. He stated that temporary assisted
living received an allocation of just under $7 million in
state funds. The cut would reduce the governor's request by
5 percent, which he believed was half of what a small cut
would be. He had heard earlier in the day that some
individuals in the oil industry who were taking 100 percent
cuts in pay, losing their jobs, and having to leave the
state because of the economics of the oil industry. He
reasoned that the economics filtered through the state in
the form of reduced taxes and royalties. In the face of
tremendous income reductions, he did not consider a 5
percent cut to be deep. He stressed that it was a small
cut, but he wished it was not necessary. He referred a
review for DHSS, which specified that the 1915-I waiver the
department was pursuing, could make an extra $4.5 million
available for the assisted living allocation. He hoped that
the money became available. He stated that he is not
uncompassionate; his job on the committee was to balance
the state's unlimited needs, wants, and desires with
limited revenue.
Representative Kawasaki referred to previous testimony
related to polling. He did not listen to polls or lobbyists
because ultimately the people he listened to were his
constituents. He detailed that many of his constituents
would be deeply impacted by the cut. He supported the
restoration of funding because his constituents would be
heavily impacted by a 5 percent cut.
Representative Gara stated that he would not make the
decision based on a poll; however, he had read the poll,
which did not say that people supported a 5 percent cut to
seniors or people with disabilities in need of emergency
housing. He emphasized that the specific questions had not
been in the poll. He believed that if Alaskans were polled
on the specific issue they would oppose the cut.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gattis, Wilson, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Thompson,
Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 26 FAILED (3/8).
9:18:53 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 27 (copy
on file) [Note: see copy on file for further detail]:
DEPARTMENT: Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Public Assistance
ALLOCATION: Senior Benefits Payment Program
ADD: $5,137,900 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores the FY20 17
funding level proposed by the Governor. Alaska faces
exponential growth in the senior population with a
doubling of the senior population in the next 10 years
(roughly 70,000 to 140,000). The Senior Benefits
Payment Program provides vital supplemental funding to
low-income seniors that allow them to stay in their
homes. Keeping seniors at home saves the state
thousands of dollars and slows their move up the
continuum of care. With the pending Silver Tsunami, it
is prudent to invest in cost saving measures that will
reduce spending later. Eligibility is income based and
is divided into three categories; 75%, 100% and 175%
of the Federal Poverty Level. Eliminating benefits to
5,438 people and households will cost the state in the
long run.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki discussed the high population of
seniors in his district. He detailed that the state's
senior population was expected to double over the next 10
years. He believed the number should cause alarm when they
spoke about senior and disability services and home and
community based waivers. He explained that the Senior
Benefits Payment Program helped seniors remain in their
homes longer, which ultimately ended up costing the system
significantly less. Currently there were 5,348 seniors that
would be impacted by the amendment; failure to act on the
amendment would mean that seniors making somewhere around
$14,000 per year would no longer receive a senior benefit
payment. The payment originally was supposed to be around
$125, which was anticipated to drop to $47. The seniors
that he knew were seniors who had built the state. He
remarked that the street names in his district were all
named after seniors from the community. He believed that
ensuring that senior benefits continued into the future
would ensure that the individuals could remain in Alaska.
9:21:42 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke against the amendment. He stated
that the issue had been discussed previously. He believed
the state was generous and recognized the contribution of
its seniors. The amendment sought to restore a reduction
made in his finance subcommittee that would end the cash
payment to the highest level of three tiers of senior
benefit recipients; individuals that earned approximately
$25,760 at 100 to 125 percent of the federal poverty level.
The subcommittee had proposed no change to the lowest tier
of seniors who received $250 per month at 75 percent of the
federal poverty level. Additionally, there had been no
change to the second tier who would continue to receive
$175 per month at 76 to 100 percent of the federal poverty
level. He opined that the funds demonstrated consideration
and compassion to the state's neediest seniors. He reasoned
that it was a cash benefit and by maintaining the funds for
the neediest seniors it protected two-thirds of the seniors
who received the benefit. He noted that there were other
benefits offered to the seniors including the PFD, senior
citizen property tax exemption, senior sales tax exemption,
veteran property tax exemption, survivor of veteran
property tax exemption, social security, Medicaid,
Medicare, and other. He stated that failing to provide the
cash payments to one tier of the senior benefits recipients
was not in any way disrespecting or showing a lack of
appreciation for Alaska's seniors. He expounded that the
cut was simply reflecting the state's difficult budget
times. He referred to other discussions about balancing the
needs of sick and disabled people versus college students
versus pre-K programs. He reasoned that it was not possible
to fund or cut everything. He did not believe the cut was
inappropriate.
Representative Gara did not believe the state was balancing
the needs of children who would benefit from state pre-K
with the needs of seniors because it appeared that both
would be cut. He stated that taking away funds on both ends
did not represent a balance. He discussed that the
administration should have been paying $100 per month to
seniors who earned as little as $14,700; however, the
individuals had been paid $125 per month for the first
portion of the fiscal year and $47 for the remainder of the
year. He elaborated that if the amendment failed those
seniors would receive no senior benefit payment at all; if
it passed they would receive at least $100 per month. He
did not believe the chair of the DHSS subcommittee was
disrespecting anyone, but he believed taking the funds away
was wrong. He was proud that seniors were offered a
property tax exemption; however, it was necessary to own a
home in order to receive the benefit. The senior benefit
payments went to many seniors who did not own a home.
9:26:43 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked which tier a person earning $14,000
per year fell under.
Vice-Chair Saddler replied that individuals earning $14,720
per year were in the second tier and would still receive
$175 per month.
Representative Kawasaki provided a summary of the
amendment. He stated that the largest benefit went to the
people who could least afford it. He detailed that a senior
earning between zero and $11,000 would receive the $250
monthly payment. Individuals earning between $11,000 and
$14,000 would receive $175 per month. The category impacted
by the amendment included 5,400 seniors earning between
$14,000 and $25,000. He stated that the funds were
supplemental benefits that went to seniors - individuals
who helped to build the state and decided to retire in
Alaska. He remarked that many seniors moved to the Lower 48
and places that with a lower cost of living. He told a
personal anecdote about his mom who was a senior. He
emphasized that seniors wanted to remain in Alaska and had
provided a significant amount to the state. He stated that
the program provided seniors with funds for food, heating,
and prescriptions. He believed that without senior benefits
fewer grandparents would have the ability to remain in
Alaska. He stated that the amendment would enable seniors
to stay in Alaska.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 27 FAILED (3/8).
9:30:55 PM
Representative Guttenberg believed Amendment 28 had been
taken care of in an earlier amendment.
9:31:12 PM
AT EASE
9:31:36 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW Amendment 28 (copy on
file).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 29 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Administration
APPROPRIATION: Legal and Advocacy Services
ALLOCATION: Office of Public Advocacy
ADD: $542,400 General Fund (1004)
POSITIONS: Add: 5 PFT Positions
EXPLANATION: Guardian ad Litems in Alaska (who
represent children in OCS cases) have "among the
highest" caseloads "in the United States," according
to Office of Public Advocacy Director Rick Allen.
Current averages are between 110-120 children per GAL.
"GAL caseloads have risen 58% in the past 12-18
months," according to Mr. Allen.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment addressed
guardians ad litem who represented children in cases where
they were taken away from their families. The guardians
were responsible for determining a child's best interest
and presenting it to the court. He detailed that if the
best interest was to reunite the child with their family
the guardian would recommend that a child be taken out of
foster care and reunited with their family. The
recommendation would be to keep a child away from an
abusive parent if that was the case. He emphasized that the
amendment was about protecting children from child abuse
and neglect; it was also about maintaining families when
possible. He emphasized that the children had not done
anything wrong and deserved a voice in court. He referred
to a statement by Rick Allen who headed the Office of
Public Advocacy that Alaska had among the highest caseloads
in the nation. The state's caseloads were between 110 and
120 children per child advocate. He expounded that the
large caseload prevented advocates from spending time on
the case prior to going to court. He discussed that
caseloads had risen 58 percent in the past 12 to 18 months
according to Mr. Allen. He had heard numerous statements in
the committee that sometimes mistakes were made when it
came to the children, sometimes they were taken away from
families they should not be taken away from, and sometimes
children are put back with families that have no business
taking care of a child. He stressed that mistakes were made
in both directions if caseworkers were overburdened. He
wanted children's advocates who would know the child when
they went to court and who would have the ability to tell
whether a child would be put in danger if they were
reunified with an abusive parent or other.
Representative Gara stated that in one way the amendment
would save the state money; a knowledgeable advocate would
know the family well enough to recommend taking the child
out of the foster care system. He furthered that the state
did not need to pay $30 to $100 per day to keep the child
in the foster care system. The $100 cost per day was for
children with more severe behavioral problems. He stated
that any child taken away from their family had significant
problems. He shared that once a child was put in foster
care they automatically received high enough Adverse
Childhood Experiences score to be categorized as a person
needing help. He stated that the amendment would save
money. He furthered that there would be cases where the
advocate would determine a child could be placed back with
their family; it would also save the state money when an
advocate determined that keeping the child from their
family would prevent abuse. He underscored that if a family
abused their child it would ruin the child's life and cost
the state more money.
Representative Gara expressed sympathy for individuals
facing hardships due to job loss in the oil industry;
however, they had not faced the same hardship the children
impacted by the amendment faced. He stressed that the
children had the right to have the correct decision made
about them and the right to an advocate who would represent
them wisely. He emphasized that it was the state's job not
to send children back to abusive homes. Additionally, it
was the state's job to reunify families when appropriate.
He reiterated that the amendment would save money. He
underscored that the amendment was right and protected
children. He emphasized that the state had among the
highest caseloads in the country for too long. The state
had the highest level of child abuse and sexual abuse in
the country. He was tired of the state ranking at the top
of the categories. He concluded that the amendment would
save the state money, dignity, and it would save the
state's children from pain.
9:38:44 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 29 FAILED (3/8).
9:39:30 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 30 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Office of Children's Services
ALLOCATION: Front Line Social Workers
ADD: $1,034,300 General Fund (1004)
$258,600 Federal Receipts (1002)
POSITIONS: ADD: 10 PFT Positions
EXPLANATION: Since the addition of needed staff in
2015, the number of foster youth has grown from 2,450
to 2,879 today. The staff added in 2016 helped
neglected and abused youth, but since then more than
400 youth have come into OCS. Caseworkers' caseloads
remain with well above recommended caseloads. The
system is over-stressed, and we need to have a system
that is responsive to abused and neglected children,
foster and natural parents, and that gets children out
of the foster care system into permanent, loving
homes.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara discussed that the previous session the
legislature had done something very good. He explained that
the state had a massively overburdened foster care system.
He noted that the previous year the committee had been told
that while the average caseload should be 12 to 15,
caseworkers in Alaska had up to 70 cases. He furthered that
the committee had heard that with the addition of 27
caseworkers in the Office of Children Services (OCS), the
caseloads were still very high and far above national
standards. He offered his appreciation for the funds
allocated the previous year. The high rate was partially
due to a significant increase in the number of foster youth
(the number had risen from approximately 2,450 the previous
year to almost 2,900 at present). He had believed the
number of children in foster care would be similar in the
current year to the number the prior year. He stressed that
the children had done nothing wrong and deserved to have a
caseworker to check in on them and who knows them.
Additionally, foster parents deserved to get a return phone
call. He emphasized that not only were caseloads too high,
they had increased by 450 in the past year. He spoke to
wanting to bend the curve to make things better. He stated
that the caseworkers would save the state money when they
had the time to realize when a family was ready to take a
child back safely or when a child should be kept away from
an abusive parent. The larger the caseloads, the more
mistakes would be made. He provided a sports analogy about
dropping balls. He emphasized that mistakes were made when
there were not enough people working. He underscored that
the state did not have enough people working for the
children who had done nothing wrong, but were abused and
neglected and sometimes bounced between 15 foster homes.
Representative Gara stressed that with reasonable
caseloads, the caseworker would have the ability to work
the case to put a child into a permanent home. The goal of
the foster care system was not to keep kids in foster care,
but to get them out of the system. He stated that getting a
child back into a permanent and loving home was termed
permanency in the profession. It was something he believed
everyone wanted. He stated that the amendment would make a
number of lives better. He elaborated that the amendment
was not expensive. He thought the committee would hear from
the DHSS budget subcommittee chair that he believed he had
located a $2 million savings in the OCS system to qualify
for some federal funds. He stated that the amendment would
cost $1 million. He stated that it would cost the state
more if the amendment did not pass. He did not know how to
measure accidentally putting a child back with an abusive
parent or leaving a child in foster care when they had a
loving family to go home to. He recalled testimony from
foster children who had been placed in 15 homes over the
course of 10 to 15 years. He questioned the damage that the
situation could cause. He had met the head of OCS recently
who had expressed her alarm at the number of youth coming
into the foster care system; she had no power to stop that,
but she needed to work to get children out of the foster
care system. She wanted to have control about how fast the
state got kids out of foster care and into a healthy,
loving home. He reiterated that the national caseload
standard was 12 to 15 kids per social worker. He
communicated that if 10 caseworkers were added for an
increase of 450 kids, it would not meet the national
standard, but it would make things better. He remarked that
if it made 10 to 20 lives better it would be successful. He
asked members to support the amendment.
9:46:22 PM
Representative Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She hoped that whoever had the allocation the following
year should change the allocation from frontline social
workers. She corrected that the individuals were
caseworkers. She believed that the state was overreaching
and would take more children [from their homes] that they
should not take if the agency was given more money. She
shared that she had received a call the prior day about a
child that had been playing at a church playground adjacent
to their home. She had been told that someone thought the
child was unattended and OCS ended up at the home. She
agreed that there were some parents who were abusing
children and the children should be taken away. She
remarked that more children had been taken out of their
homes in the past year because more money had been
appropriated to OCS. She stated that OCS had a 1,000-page
manual; she did not believe OCS followed its policies. She
believed that there would be fewer children removed from
their homes if OCS followed its policies. She spoke to the
need for offering a safety plan to keep a child in their
home. She remarked that very infrequently "is there not an
emergency taking of a child." She recalled a situation
where the safety plan was with the child's grandmother. She
elaborated on the story and relayed that the child had been
taken by OCS.
Representative Wilson believed that if the state gave more
money to the department it would take more children. She
believed the system was broken. She stressed the need to
look into the agency if the committee really wanted to see
a change. She believed OCS broke federal and state law
because they did not follow the policies and procedures.
She stated that the federal government had become involved
and decided to provide more funding for adoption and foster
care. She did not believe it sounded like a bad idea, but
as a result, reunification with families had dropped
annually down to 16 percent at present. She wanted to
protect children but she also wanted to protect families;
families doing the best they could. She acknowledged that
they were not perfect. She stated that over 95 percent of
the parents had a public defender (based on income). She
asked if low-income parents were the only parents visited
by OCS. She had told the committee the past year that OCS
would take more children from homes if the legislature gave
the agency more funding. She did not know why the
legislature kept doing the same thing expecting a different
outcome. She stressed that families would be broken up if
the legislature did not fix the system and continued to
allocate more funding. She emphasized that taking children
from families had lasting effects; it was not possible to
get a family back together in the same way once it had been
broken up. She did not believe adding the funds would fix
the problem. She pointed to the 18 percent increase in the
number of children taken from their homes; she stressed
that the numbers were "way out of whack."
9:51:38 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stated that the committee had heard testimony on the reason
the number of children in foster care was increasing. He
elaborated that the number had been increasing for six
years. The legislature had specifically asked DHSS whether
the caseworkers had been assigned to taking children out of
families - the answer had been no. The caseworkers had been
assigned to families where the child had already been
taken. He stressed that the caseworkers assigned to
families in the foster care were not adding to the number
of children taken from homes. The committee had been told
that OCS received 26,000 reports of harm annually. The
majority of reports came from troopers, medical
professionals, teachers, counselors, and police. There was
no doubt there was a mistake here and there, which was
awful, but the kids the amendment pertained to were in
terrible situations. He was alarmed that the number of kids
being put in the foster care system was increasing, but the
evidence showed that the caseworkers assigned to families
already in the foster care system had nothing to do with
the increase. He discussed that approximately five years
back OCS had decided to start investigating more cases more
thoroughly; it was the only evidence available. He had
dealt with as many cases as any other committee member and
he had no doubt that an overburdened system was one that
sometimes made mistakes, which was awful when it came to a
human being's life. However, the amendment would help the
situation because it would reduce caseloads and mistakes.
More mistakes would occur if caseloads were larger.
9:54:50 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Thompson,
Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 30 FAILED (4/7).
9:55:31 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 31 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Medicaid Services
ALLOCATION: Health Care Medicaid Services
ADD: $13,300,000 GF/Match (1003)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores the FYI 7 funding
level proposed by the Governor. The Commissioner of
Health and Social Services has stated that the
department may achieve $6.7 million in savings by
increasing the allowable federal reimbursement for
Indian Health Services beneficiaries travel, and the
Governor's budget proposes a corresponding $6.7
million cut to this category of travel expenses. The
current subcommittee budget proposal contains a
misunderstanding that $13.3 million will be available
for Indian Health Services beneficiaries on top of the
$6.7 million the Governor's budget reflects as
anticipated state savings. Without this amendment,
there will be a $13.3 million unallocated cut to
Medicaid's recipients.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara spoke to the amendment that would
restore funding to the governor's proposed level for
Medicaid services. He explained that the $13.3 million cut
had been increased to $20 million due to the passage of an
earlier amendment. He believed that the cut would not save
the state any money in the end because the department would
likely have to submit a supplemental funding request the
following year. The amendment related to purported savings
the state would achieve if it found a way to qualify for
more federal funding for travel for IHS beneficiaries. The
department's testimony was that it believed it could
qualify for about $6.7 million in federal funding; however,
currently the committee had cut about $27 million of the
funds. He believed the proper thing to do would be to let
the department work through the paperwork, get the
contracts, and obtain federal approval to leverage the
federal funds for travel.
Representative Gara explained that if savings were
overestimated, the department would come back to the
legislature for a supplemental request. He stated there had
been no testimony that the department could achieve $27
million of IHS travel reimbursement. When the cut had been
proposed it had been specified that it was possible because
the department would receive federal funding to pay for
travel for IHS beneficiaries. He believed once the
department obtained the federal funding it should be
required to save the GF and return them to the treasury at
the end of the year. He thought that assuming DHSS would
take in federal funds was not the way to budget. He
remarked that the amendment really had no fiscal impact
because if the estimate on federal funding was overstated,
the state would still be required to pay for the Medicaid
services and the department would request supplemental
funds. He opined that passing the amendment seemed to be
the better way to go. He clarified that no one was saying
the department was not doing a good job at trying to
leverage the federal funds; it just had not been able to as
of yet.
9:58:36 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler believed Amendment 31 was unnecessary.
He discussed that the committee had passed an amendment
earlier (Amendment 10), which invested almost $600,000 to
help DHSS realize the savings in Medicaid travel and
accommodations, which would be brought about by the change
in CMS policy pursued and obtained by Commissioner
Davidson. The current DHSS budget subcommittee envisioned
$20 million in travel savings and DHSS believed it may be
able to obtain $27 million in savings with the investment
of the $552,000 in tribal liaison funds. There was the
potential for savings of tens of millions of dollars in
future Medicaid expenses. He had asked the department
during the break earlier about the issue. He had been told
that there was no guarantee DHSS would receive the full $27
million, but they would try.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 31 FAILED (3/8).
10:00:40 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 32(copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Pioneer Homes
DELETE INTENT: "It is the intent of the legislature
that the Division of Pioneer Homes work to achieve
savings through the privatization of food and
janitorial services in all the Pioneer Homes as has
been accomplished in the Juneau Pioneer Home."
APPROPRIATION: Alaska Pioneer Homes
ALLOCATION: Pioneer Homes
DELETE: ($532,500) 1005 General Fund/Program Receipts
(DGF)
ADD: $532,500 1004 General Fund (UGF)
ADD INTENT LANGUAGE:
"It is the intent of the legislature that receipts
collected from an annual waitlist fee shall be
deposited into the General Fund."
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores the FY2017
funding level proposed by the Governor, while
maintaining the intention of the Subcommittee to
implement an annual waitlist fee to offset
expenditures from the General Fund to the Alaska
Pioneer Homes.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the DHSS budget
subcommittee chair had decided to cut $532,000 from the
Pioneer Homes budget with the anticipation that the Pioneer
Homes could charge for being placed on a waiting list,
which could cover the cost. He remarked that there had been
no analysis verifying that the plan would work or whether
the waiting list expense would sufficiently cover the
amount. He had heard the subcommittee chairman mention a
fee of $100 and the department mention a fee of $25. He
elaborated that there was no way of determining how many
people would drop off the list. The amendment would restore
the $532,000; it would also add intent language that if
DHSS started charging to be on the list, the funds would be
deposited into GF. He continued that the following year the
legislature would know how successful the list had been.
Currently there was no way to know whether the concept of
charging to be on the waiting list would be sufficient or
successful.
Co-Chair Neuman asked members to be careful about making
remarks about what other members may have said.
Representative Guttenberg clarified that his comments had
not been meant in a negative way. He believed the proposal
was worth understanding, but whether it would succeed was
not yet known.
10:03:56 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
remarked that Pioneer Homes were attractive facilities. He
believed Alaskans would be willing to pay a modest fee to
be on the waiting list. He remarked that the committee had
heard from the Pioneer Homes director that people got on
the list as soon as they could at age 65 in order to wait.
He continued that it may be 5 to 15 years before a person
may make it to the top of the list. He believed that in the
private market it was possible to obtain a little bit of
revenue if something was attractive, in order to help
offset the cost. He furthered that the long-term care
performance reviews of the Pioneer Homes indicated it may
want to restructure its rates to try to capture some of the
costs of the service. He believed charging to be on the
waiting list was a way to bring in funds. He stated that
the cost was roughly $0.30 per day to be on the waiting
list. He was unsure about the intent of the first part of
the amendment, which would delete intent language that
would encourage the division to determine whether savings
could be obtained by privatizing certain functions at
Pioneer Homes (as had already occurred in the Juneau
Pioneer Home). He thought the amendment seemed to obviate
the opportunity to determine whether savings could exist.
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 32. He
explained that the amendment would delete the following
language:
DELETE INTENT: "It is the intent of the legislature
that the Division of Pioneer Homes work to achieve
savings through the privatization of food and
janitorial services in all the Pioneer Homes as has
been accomplished in the Juneau Pioneer Home."
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment to Amendment 32 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Gara discussed that the DHSS finance
subcommittee chair's proposal to cut $532,000 from the
Pioneer Homes with the expectation of charging to be on the
waiting list.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that the chair may have
proposed a cut, but if it had been approved by the
committee, it had been approved by the committee.
Representative Gara stated that without the amendment,
$532,000 would be cut from the Pioneer Home budget.
Subsequently, the hope would be that enough people on the
waiting list paid a $100 fee to make up for the loss in GF.
He stated that the amendment acknowledged that the money
may not come in. He furthered that making up the difference
would require 5,300 Alaskans to pay the $100 fee. He
stressed that there were not 5,300 beds at the Pioneer
Home. He believed there was a strong likelihood that 5,300
people would not pay a $100 fee because there was an
inactive and active waiting list. He detailed that people
on the inactive waiting list did not have to be ready to
move into the Pioneer Home; therefore, many people signed
up at age 65 and were not ready or willing to move to the
Pioneer Home at that time. Whereas people on the active
waiting list were ready to move in when a space becomes
available. He surmised that the people on the inactive
waiting list would not pay the $100 fee; therefore, he did
not believe the $532,000 would be generated, which would
mean a cut to the Pioneer Home budget. He stressed that the
amendment would charge the fees and any fees would be
returned to the GF. He emphasized that the amendment would
eliminate the risk of cuts to the Pioneer Home. He pointed
to bill language that it was the intent of the legislature
that receipts collected from an annual waitlist fee shall
be deposited into the GF. He explained that every dollar
coming in from the waiting fee lists would go into the GF.
He did not believe it was prudent to assume the fees would
generate $500,000, which he believed was unlikely. He
stated that the amendment would achieve all of the savings
specified by the subcommittee chair. The amendment would
protect the Pioneer Homes, their rooms, and the staff.
10:11:08 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 32 FAILED (3/8).
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 33 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Health and Social services
APPROPRIATION: Public Assistance
ALLOCATION: Energy Assistance Program
ADD: $9,174,300 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: Restores funding for the Alaska Heating
Assistance Program to FY16 Management Plan level.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained the amendment related to
the state's version (Alaska Heating Assistance Program) of
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). He
detailed that around 2008 the state had witnessed a
significant spike in the price of oil on the North Slope,
which had resulted in the large cost increase in heating
oil. He recalled that individuals in Fairbanks had expected
oil prices of $2.00 per gallon, but the cost had been
double that amount. He elaborated that individuals had used
wood boilers and other less expensive options to try to
heat their homes; it had been a very difficult time. He
furthered that the Alaska Heating Assistance Program ended
up being one of the ways to help individuals heat their
homes. The amendment would restore the governor's proposed
cut. The logic behind the cut was that with heating prices
dropping to a more reasonable level (similar to before
2008), perhaps it would be a good time to shelve the plan.
He countered that the program applied to individuals making
151 and 225 percent of the federal poverty level. He
explained that it was targeted to the most vulnerable
Alaskan families that were not covered by LIHEAP,
prioritized families with elderly family members, disabled
individuals, and children under six. He communicated that
if the amendment did not pass and the program ended, a
household of four earning around $45,000 per year (before
taxes) would no longer be eligible for a benefit.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the benefits were
fairly simple. There were 9,500 applications for heating
assistance in the current year; 5,400 had been covered by
the federal LIHEAP program at an average benefit of $1,222
and 860 households had benefited from the Alaska Heating
Assistance Program. He detailed that only 6,400
applications had been supported. The Division of Public
Assistance partnered with tribal organizations across the
state to ensure that the funds went to the right people at
the lowest cost. He listed partnering tribal organizations
including the Association of Village Council Presidents,
Bristol Bay Native Association, and Tlingit Haida Regional
Housing Authority. He noted that there were ten other
tribal entities the state worked with to ensure that
individuals received the needed support. He continued that
the benefit had worked well. He discussed that prices had
dropped and heating oil prices that had once been well over
$2.00 in Fairbanks had dropped to just below $2.00.
However, rural Alaska continued to face high prices. He
expounded that the current retail price at the pump was
$5.47 in Bethel, $5.39 in Dillingham, $4.31 in Haines, and
$5.73 in Nome. He stressed that the prices had not
decreased in the rural communities he had listed. Under the
amendment the Alaska Energy Assistance Program would
continue; the Division of Public Assistance would decide
how much each community would receive. He believed the
division would ensure that the program could last into the
future.
10:16:28 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler did not support the amendment. He
relayed that the governor had proposed the reduction in his
FY 17 budget due to declining caseloads, warmer weather,
and lower oil revenue. He discussed that the benefit
applied to individuals between 151 and 250 percent of the
poverty level (annual earnings of $30,000 and $50,000 for a
couple). The amendment would add back $9.2 million. He
noted that LIHEAP would continue to cover people at about
$2,900 for a couple. He believed the reduction was
responsible.
Co-Chair Thompson referred to the high prices that were
being paid currently were based on fuel delivered the past
fall when prices had still been high. He furthered that by
the time the budget took effect in July, new deliveries
would have been made and prices would be much lower. He
stressed that prices had dropped and beginning in the
coming summer he expected fuel and gas prices to decline.
Representative Gara reasoned that the price of the program
would decrease because hopefully the price of fuel
delivered would decline (especially to rural Alaska). He
stated that the program would be eliminated without the
amendment. He believed the state should achieve the savings
that would result due to lower fuel prices. He explained
that the program helped the very low income pay for their
heating when they did not receive enough from LIHEAP. He
continued that the average federal program recipient
obtained around $1,200 per year. He reasoned that the
amount was equal to the cost of heating for one or two
months in some of the state's communities (even in the
past). He agreed that the cost of the program would
decrease due to decreasing fuel prices, but it did not mean
the program should be eliminated. He guessed that the
program would not cost $9 million in the coming year if
lower fuel prices were achieved. The state energy
assistance plan helped very low income individuals who
qualified for federal LIHEAP and individuals who met the
state income qualifications. He believed the amendment
should pass. He reiterated that money would likely be saved
on the state heating program if fuel delivery prices
dropped. He added that somehow fuel prices were always high
in rural Alaska.
10:20:59 PM
Representative Edgmon shared that he had a spreadsheet in
his office showing that the majority of the program
recipients resided in urban areas. He furthered that he had
looked taken a look at his district and it was a small
number per community that enjoyed the benefit of the
program. He supported the program when the price of oil was
high and the state could afford the program; however, when
oil revenue was low he would support other rural needs over
the heating assistance program.
Representative Kawasaki recapped the amendment. He stated
that the total number of awardees had not really changed
over the past 7 years; the number had been 2,386 in 2009
and 2,132 in 2015. The total number of requests and payouts
was relatively the same over the six-year period. The cost
of heating oil had dropped, which was recognized. He
explained that the program had a point system that rated
whether a home contained kids under the age of 6, disabled
individuals, and the number of elderly individuals. He
explained that the point system multiplied the amount by a
certain factor of $130. He furthered that the dollar amount
changed from year-to-year because it was based on the
average price per barrel from the previous September and
February. He stated that the benefit would eventually go
away given the consistent drop in the price of oil;
however, ending the program for the upcoming year would
mean households of four earning around a total of $45,000
[per year] would no longer be eligible for any heating
assistance.
10:23:30 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 33 FAILED (3/8).
10:24:09 PM
AT EASE
10:44:14 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 34 (copy on
file).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 35 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Health and Social Services
APPROPRIATION: Public Assistance
ALLOCATION: Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
ADD: $5,000,000 G/F Match (UGF) (code 1003)
EXPLANATION: Restores a $5 million cut to the Adult
Temporary Assistance Program. The Subcommittee
reduction risks taking Alaska below Alaska's required
TANF maintenance of effort. If this occurs, Alaska
would lose federal TANF funding and have to pay a
penalty. DHSS is trying to qualify other programs to
meet the maintenance of effort requirements with
AFIFC, but they have not received that approval. ATAP
is a benefit payment to low income families with
dependent children, who are required to seek job
training and work, and there is a five year limit on
this benefit. This used to be called Aid to Families
with Dependent Children. Families cannot have more
than $1,412/mo. for a family with one child, or $1,590
for a family of two.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara hoped that committee members would
speak to DHSS about the topic. He referred to an earlier
amendment that was similar to Amendment 35. He explained
that earlier in the meeting $1.6 million had been cut from
the Adult Temporary Assistance program, which was related
to TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families]. He
stated that the budget subcommittee had also cut $500
million [note: the cut was $5 million]; therefore, $6.6
million had been cut from the program. He believed the
reduction risked taking the state below its required TANF
payment amount of $36 million. He reasoned that the state
would most likely lose federal TANF funds as a result and
would probably be penalized by the federal government. He
stressed that the amendment would save the state money. He
questioned the why the state should take the risk of losing
federal funds. He suggested giving DHSS the extra year
needed to determine whether other existing programs would
qualify under the TANF program as the state's proper
contributions. He suggested that other members should speak
to the department.
10:46:27 PM
AT EASE
10:53:28 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Saddler shared that he had consulted with a
representative from DHSS and had been assured that the
department was very hopeful that the Homeless Assistance
Program TANF money could be eligible for the maintenance of
effort. He continued that the department was currently
working with AHFC to determine whether the data they have
currently would be sufficient (they believed it would be).
He stated that the department had found $4.1 million in FY
15 by counting Food Bank expenditures to maintain the
state's maintenance of effort for the TANF funds. The
department also had a contractor working to locate other
places that would be eligible for the maintenance of
effort. He concluded that the department had expressed a
high degree of hopefulness and relative confidence they
could find it.
Representative Guttenberg stated that in other words "you
don't know." He remarked that the maintenance of effort
meeting had been a couple of weeks earlier and the answer
was yet to be determined. He knew the department had been
hard to figure it out, but the answer was not yet known. He
reiterated that no one knew [whether the Homeless
Assistance Program TANF money could be eligible for the
maintenance of effort].
10:55:35 PM
Representative Gara remarked the committee members were
supposed to be the experts on the budget. He reasoned that
a pilot did not say they hoped they put enough gas in their
plane prior to a flight. He guessed the committee could do
a budget based on hope. He stressed that the state may lose
federal funding and may be subject to a federal penalty. He
supported waiting for the department to come back to the
committee to tell them that the state would not face a
federal penalty and the loss of federal funds. He remarked
that the state had a $36 million obligation to put GF into
TANF programs; if it did not meet the obligation it would
result in a loss of funds and a penalty. He did not believe
it was wise to base the budget on hopes.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 35 FAILED (3/8).
10:58:33 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 36 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Administration
APPROPRIATION: Public Communications
ALLOCATION: Alaska Public Broadcast Commission
ADD: $46,700 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
DEPARTMENT: Department of Administration
APPROPRIATION: Public Communications
ALLOCATION: Alaska Public Broadcast - Radio
ADD: $2,786,600 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
DEPARTMENT: Department of Administration
APPROPRIATION: Public Communications
ALLOCATION: Alaska Public Broadcast TV
ADD: $633,300 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: This amendment returns to the FY16
Management Plan numbers and maintains the Public
Broadcasting budgets, thus providing vital
informational services to our communities while also
cutting the budget. Thousands of Alaskans rely on
these services for balanced local, state, federal and
international news. Providing this funding will allow
these stations to find additional funding to prevent a
large loss of service. Additionally, public radio and
television can be an essential service in times of
emergency such as floods, forest fires, earthquakes,
extreme weather events and many more public dangers.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki discussed that the committee had
considered an amendment earlier that dealt specifically
with the Public Broadcasting Commission, public radio, and
public television. He shared that he supported Amendment 36
for the same reason he had supported the earlier amendment.
He communicated that 10 years earlier the state support for
public broadcasting had been $7.85 million. In the current
budget the governor had proposed $2.68 million and the
committee had elected to support the services at the
proposed level. He remarked that the funding looked great
given that the legislature had considered eliminating
funding for the services; however, the allocation would
result in a 27 percent decrease from the prior year. He
elaborated that the services had received a similar cut in
FY 16. He explained that the legislature was supporting
public broadcasting at a small fraction of the amount it
had provided in the past. The amendment sought to increase
state support for public broadcasting at the FY 16
management plan level.
11:01:01 PM
Representative Edgmon appreciated the spirit behind the
amendment. He shared that he would support the amendment if
oil was at $110 per barrel. He noted that an amendment that
sought the middle ground had passed earlier. He could not
support the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gattis, Edgmon, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 36 FAILED (3/8).
11:02:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 37 (copy
on file) [Note: due to the length of the amendment it is
not included in the minutes. See copy on file for full
detail].
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment was
organized by the date appropriations had been made. The
amendment took the money in the Kodiak Launch Complex, the
Juneau Access Road, the Knik Arm Crossing, the Ambler Road,
and the Susitna Watana Hydroelectric Project and deposited
it back into the General Fund. He discussed that during the
current meeting the committee had either cut or failed to
adopt amendments dealing with children, kids in school,
seniors, and other. He addressed comments that everything
was on the table, nothing was sacrosanct, that there was
truth in budgeting, and nothing could be untouched. He
elaborated that the funds included in the amendment went
back to 1997 and had been reapportioned over the years; the
funds added up to $39 million. He had supported some of the
projects over the years, but he believed it was time to put
the money back into the General Fund for use. He stated
that whether the projects were worthwhile, the legislature
would not be funding them in the next few years. He
reasoned that piles of money "out there in various places"
needed to be brought in and deposited into the General Fund
in order to help balance the state's budget.
11:05:05 PM
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the Knik Arm Crossing project. He
relayed that the first section had been passed in 2003 with
100 percent federal receipt authorization, not UGF. The
purpose of the funding had been to complete the EIS. He
communicated that the federal authorization had been spent.
The second section addressed an FY 15 capital budget
appropriation; the $55 million was made up of $50 million
in federal receipt authority and $5 million in state
matching funds. He detailed that the $5 million was part of
a larger state match for the full federal program receipts
even though it was appropriated to Knik Arm Crossing. The
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
spent the full federal program annually regardless of which
projects actually made it to construction. The Knik Arm
Crossing was not currently in the construction phase;
therefore, pulling $5 million in state funds could
jeopardize other projects from taking advantage and could
risk DOT's ability to fully utilize the full federal
program receipts. He had letters from former DOT officials
(former DOT Commissioner Pat Kemp and former Chief Planner
Jeff Ottesen) that the funds had no effect on other
projects around the state and that it was a very useful
tool in order for DOT to accept federal funds.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that there were hundreds of
millions of dollars mentioned in the amendment and the
committee did not know how many of the federal funds had
not been expended. He had heard a statement that there was
around $39 million unexpended, but he could not support the
amendment without knowing the breakdown.
Representative Gara discussed that Representative
Guttenberg had explained the remaining balances. The
amendment had to reference each of the full appropriations.
There was $2.3 million remaining in a $30 million capital
appropriation for the Alaska Aerospace Corporation for the
state run rocket launch facility. He believed the point on
the rocket launch facility was to tell its seven staff
members earning over $120,000 per year that it was time to
move ahead quickly in privatizing the facility. He remarked
that no launches had been launched in most years since
2009. He continued that the corporation had always promised
impending success, but it had not yet occurred. He
expounded that the last time the committee had heard from
the corporation it had secured a rocket launch, but the
launch had caught fire and there had not been a launch
since. He furthered that the corporation's CEO was earning
approximately $250,000 annually and the second highest
earner was making $215,000 per year. Additionally, there
were seven members earning over $120,000. He believed the
message being sent was for the corporation to privatize the
facility; however, the legislature had not seen progress on
the issue.
11:10:16 PM
Co-Chair Thompson remarked on Representative Gara's
statements about how much money it cost the corporation to
pay wages and operate; however, there was no state funding
involved. He communicated that the corporation had other
enterprises underway such as capturing imagery for places
all over the world, tracking, and other. He emphasized that
the corporation had many different revenue streams that it
was using to diversify its activities. He reiterated that
the state was not paying any of the money and the
corporation knew they would not be receiving any funds from
the state. He continued that the corporation had begun when
there had been federal funds to do launches and legislators
thought they were establishing a new and lucrative
industry. He explained that the federal government did not
provide the funding any longer; the majority of the funds
that had gone into the launch complex had been federal
because the federal government had wanted the state to do
federal projects. He detailed that the federal government
had since changed its mission and no longer had the
funding. He stressed that the corporation was currently
self-sustaining and was making money by diversifying its
business. He did not want to "slam" the corporation and
clarified that it had nothing to do with the state's
current spending.
Representative Wilson believed the projects in the
amendment were all capital. She believed the co-chair
responsible for the capital budget looked at the projects
annually and swept back finished or unneeded projects. She
surmised that the co-chair's review would be the
appropriate time to deposit the funds back into the General
Fund.
Co-Chair Thompson replied in the affirmative. He confirmed
that his office had been tracking everything that had not
been spent. He furthered that there were many requests to
reappropriate funds. He explained that his office was
looking at the requests to determine whether funds should
be reappropriated to another project in the same district.
The goal was to keep the money the district when possible.
He communicated that a significant amount of capital money
had been pulled back, which had been set aside in the
"parking garage." He continued that the legislature was not
increasing capital project spending; the projects were
required to complete work in a specified time or the money
was automatically returned to state savings. Some of the
rural areas had problems spending some of their capital
project funding due to a lack of local government
infrastructure; the legislature had tried to work with
communities to extend the funds for another year in those
circumstances. He relayed that project administrators had
been warned by the departments that the money needed to be
spent or it would come back to the state. He relayed that
they had been tracking a multitude of other capital
projects and had been pretty frugal.
11:13:38 PM
Representative Wilson observed that there were six projects
included in the amendment and she thought it was unusual to
have capital projects in the operating budget. She stated
that there was a process for capital funding; the funds
were not allocated indefinitely and were swept back into
the General Fund if they were not used within a specified
timeframe.
Representative Munoz spoke in opposition to the amendment.
She stated that the Juneau Access Road was still active.
She detailed that the supplemental EIS was due to be
completed later in the spring; therefore, it did not make
sense to sweep money or delete funds from the project.
Representative Kawasaki testified in support of the
amendment. He discussed that the estimates for the projects
listed in the amendment were as follows: $8.3 million for
the Juneau Access Project, $149.8 million for Knik Arm
Crossing, $2.3 million for the Kodiak Launch Facility, and
$2.3 million for Susitna-Watana. He shared that the
preceding year the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) had
specified that getting to the next stage of development
related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
licensing for the Susitna-Watana project would cost another
$100 million. He continued that he had tried to amend the
budget the prior year to remove the remaining unobligated
UGF funds to put back in the capital. He furthered that $4
million had gone out and the amendment sought to recoup the
remaining portion. He did not see an appetite for
increasing the budget $100 million just to get to the FERC
licensure. He relayed that if the amendment did not pass,
$2.3 would be expended and the state would not be much
closer to the next project stage.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that he had heard all
through the meeting that the state could not afford books
for kids, internet for libraries, and other. He explained
that the numbers had been hard to get and they had changed.
He explained that a capital appropriation status report had
been run earlier in the day. He detailed that the Juneau
Access Project contained $15 million UGF, the Knik Arm
Crossing had $5 million UGF, Susitna-Watana had $8,350,000
UGF, and the Ambler Mine had $8,155,000 UGF. Additionally,
the amendment would pull in $2,300,000 from the Alaska
Aerospace capital and deferred maintenance funds; the
corporation would still have $519,000 that the amendment
would not touch. He stated that everyone had their favorite
project, but he did not believe everyone wanted to chip in.
He believed certain projects had to end - it was not
possible to build all of the projects simultaneously or in
the near future. He stressed that the legislature was
charging people to be on the waiting list for the Pioneer
Home and taking books away from kids. He continued that the
cuts were hurting people. He reiterated that the amendment
would deposit $39 million back into the General Fund to
help close the funding gap. He stated that the projects
could be done in the future if they came back up at a later
time and were viable. He stressed that everything he had
heard around the room was that the state did not have the
money; the amendment would provide some of the money. He
was not asking to allocate UGF to the amendment; he was
asking to return the money to the General Fund.
11:19:23 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 37 FAILED (3/8).
11:20:09 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 38 (copy on
file) [Note: for additional information pertaining to the
amendment see copy on file]:
DEPARTMENT: Department of Law
APPROPRIATION: Criminal Division
ALLOCATION: Criminal Justice Litigation
ADD: $500,000 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
ADD: 3 PFT
EXPLANATION: Adds funds for 3 District Attorney
Positions. To be located within existing offices and
not to cause a need for additional office space costs.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara addressed the amendment. He relayed
that he had sat on the DOL budget subcommittee; the
subcommittee had been told that the District Attorney's
office had been referred approximately 6,800 felony cases
for prosecution in each of the past three years. He spoke
to a decreasing number of cases that the department was
able to accept due to a limited number of prosecutors. He
detailed that in 2013 the office had been able to accept
82.7 percent of referred cases; the number had decreased to
82 percent in 2014 and 78.4 percent in 2015. He stated that
the office had to decide which criminals to prosecute. He
addressed misdemeanors and relayed that in 2013 the office
had accepted 92.6 percent of the referred cases; the number
had decreased to 91.2 percent in 2014 and 86.2 percent in
2015. The amendment would add three district attorney
positions. He wanted to avoid a situation where crimes were
committed but there were not sufficient prosecutors to
prosecute the criminals. He stressed that the state was
deciding not to prosecute criminals due to a lack in funds.
He supported that the department was prioritizing sexual
assault and felony cases; however, other felons were being
left on the street who were making the state's
neighborhoods more dangerous. He believed they needed to
bend the curve.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
communicated that the core service of the criminal justice
litigation was to provide legal services to DOC and DPS. He
explained that the subcommittee had added money and
resources back to the allocation when it had approved an
amendment to add $340,000 to strengthen the office of
special prosecutions, specifically to deal with high
profile cases involving DOC and the death of prisoners and
to have capability to prosecute cases involving shootings.
Additionally, they had added money for a prosecutor in the
Dillingham prosecutor's office at a cost of $318,700. He
stated that according to DOL the percentage of sexual
assault prosecutions accepted had increased from 58.8
percent to 69.8 percent from 2013 to 2015. He stressed that
sexual assault is a terrible violent crime and he was
pleased to see that DOL was increasing its prosecution of
the cases. He stated that for the same category of crimes
the percentage of cases denied had declined. He furthered
that in 2013 the department had declined to prosecute 41.2
percent of sexual assault cases compared to 30.2 percent at
present. Additionally prosecution for sexual abuse of
minors had increased from 64.1 percent in 2013 to 69.7
percent at present. He relayed that the percentage of
denied cases for child sexual abuse had declined from 35.9
percent in 2013 to 30.3 percent in 2015. He questioned who
was doing all of the prosecution he had mentioned if the
shortage of prosecutors was so dramatic. He underscored
that if there was a shortage in prosecutors, the
legislature had added more than $600,000 for prosecutors
during the current meeting.
11:25:14 PM
Representative Gara stated that the number of felony and
misdemeanor prosecutions by the state had decreased. The
District Attorney's office attributed the decrease to a
decline in prosecutors. He agreed that the committee had
restored funding to the Dillingham office, which was a good
thing for the community. Additionally, the committee
accepted the department's request to create a supplemented
white collar crime unit that would also investigate state
misconduct or alleged state misconduct on prisoners.
Overall the number of district attorneys had decreased,
which had been the testimony by the department to the
budget subcommittee. He stated that the department was
focusing on sexual abuse crimes and very serious crimes,
which he believed they should be doing; however, overall
the number of felonies the department was able to prosecute
had decreased.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 38 FAILED (3/8).
11:27:27 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 39 (copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Safety
APPROPRIATION: Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault
ALLOCATION: Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault
ADD: $340.0 UGF (1004)
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores funding for
batterer intervention programs and victim services.
Without this funding, community-based batterer
intervention programs would be terminated and funding
for victim service agencies would be reduced to FYI 3
levels.
DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Safety
APPROPRIATION: Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault
ALLOCATION: Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault
ADD: $75.0 UGF (1004)
POSITIONS: ADD: 1 PFT Position
EXPLANATION: Restores funding to Girls on the Run and
Coaching Boys Into Men. Both of these programs teach
youth boundaries to prevent sexual assault. Girls on
the Run - $35.0 will help maintain status quo for
coordination, evaluation, and statewide outreach in
the communities of: Haines, Yakutat, Cordova,
Fairbanks, Sitka, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake, Juneau,
Homer, and Kachemak Selo. GOTR also aligns with a new
bill that was introduced by Sen. Costello that
encourages students up to 8th grade to engage in
physical activity during the school week (SB 200:
Mandatory Physical Activity in Schools). Coaching Boys
Into Men - $40.0 will help maintain two statewide
trainings and technical assistance throughout the year
for high school coaches. CBIM was utilized in the
Southeast and rural communities of: North Slope,
Seward Peninsula, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, the
Aleutians, the Matanuska-Susitna district. Kenai
Peninsula, and Prince William Sound. In 2015, CBIM
trained 176 coaches, administrators, and advocates.
This had a positive impact on young Alaskans in 36
communities.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment sought to
restore funding for domestic violence and sexual assault
programs to levels from the previous year. He noted that
the state had the worst sexual assault numbers in the
country at present. The amendment would restore what he
believed was the proposed elimination of intervention for
batterers. He detailed that the state had a batterer
intervention program. Without the amendment the program
provided in jail would continue; however, the program
provided at women's shelters would be eliminated. The
amendment would retain the batterer programs, which
intervened and prevented more domestic assaults. The
amendment also retained two programs that taught young
people to respect members of the opposite sex; both were
athletic programs called Girls on the Run and Coaching Boys
into Men. He elaborated that the programs used sports as a
way to get youth interested so they could also teach the
youth how to respect people of the opposite sex in order to
prevent sexual violence and spousal abuse. The programs
were effective and used small amounts of funding of
approximately $75,000. The amendment worked to prevent
sexual abuse and domestic violence. He believed the
programs were important.
11:30:08 PM
Representative Edgmon respectfully opposed the amendment.
He communicated that the DPS budget subcommittee had
basically accepted the governor's proposal, which removed
funding for all three of the programs. He explained that
the subcommittee's focus had been on troopers, VPSOs, and
trying to retain the core of the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), which was getting
money out to shelters (pass through grants). He elaborated
that he had spoken with the CDVSA director and members and
begrudgingly everyone had accepted that it was probably the
right choice to make in the current budget environment. He
agreed that the programs worked, but there were
alternatives.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 39 and relayed that
the sponsors may offer it on the House floor.
11:31:40 PM
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 40 (copy on
file).
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 41(copy on
file):
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska
APPROPRIATION: University of Alaska
ALLOCATION: Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
ADD: $50,787,000 General Fund 1004 (UGF)
EXPLANATION: Restores funding to FY16 Management Plan
levels.
DEPARTMENT: University of Alaska
DELETE ALL INTENT: Delete ALL of the following Intent
(A) It is the intent of the legislature that the Board
of Regents of the University of Alaska return to the
legislature with a specific plan for consolidation
that includes specified timelines for anticipated
results by the end of the 2016 calendar year; the plan
would include, but would not be limited to, the
university restructuring to one administrative unit
with one accreditation.
(B) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska prioritize and streamline its
Personal Services within the Statewide Services
Allocation.
(C) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska conduct a comprehensive and
transparent cost-to-revenue analysis, which does not
include student fees or appropriations from the State
of Alaska's General Funds as revenue, for all of its
intercollegiate athletics programs; furthermore, the
university is to report back to the legislature with
its findings by the fifteenth day of the 2017
Legislative Session.
(D) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska better utilize community
buildings, school district buildings, and other
facilities in close proximity to its existing "brick
and mortar" campuses and satellite facilities that
have low utilization rates of face-to-face classes
only if the restructuring results in a decreased total
cost; furthermore, the university is to report back to
the legislature with its general plan to increase its
use of "co-location" by the fifteenth day of the 2017
Legislative Session.
(E) It is the intent of the legislature that the
President of the University of Alaska make it one of
his very highest priorities to improve student
retention and graduation rates.
(F) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska increase contributions from
alumni and private industry by a combined twenty
percent, as well as seek out productive public-private
partnerships in an effort to increase self-supporting
revenue and achieve a balanced, sustainable budget.
(G) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska increase its incoming enrollment
for the Alaska Performance Scholarship and UA Scholars
Program recipients by five percent.
(H) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska further develop and improve upon
its utilization of its land grants in order to
generate additional revenue; furthermore, the
university will create a comprehensive plan to expand
its land grants as they relate to generating revenue
and present it to the legislature no later than the
fifteenth day of the 2017 Legislative Session.
(I) It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska focus FY17 UGF budget reductions
on (1) non-core mission programs and services; and (2)
reduced personal services for all employees across the
board or through furloughs.
EXPLANATION: Removes all legislative intent wordage
regarding the University of Alaska
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the amendment related to
the University of Alaska. He discussed that the
subcommittee budget reduced state support for the
University by 14.5 percent. He stressed that the cut was
particularly devastating as the committee had heard from
numerous University administrators; it could impact between
500 and 1,000 faculty and staff positions statewide. He
spoke to intent language for various sections. He noted
that he had supported an earlier amendment that would have
restored some funds. Amendment 41 sought to restore the
entire GF request to the governor's proposed level and
would delete some intent language. He addressed the intent
language that would be deleted by the amendment. Section A
from the subcommittee requested that the Board of Regents
return specific plans for consolidation and University
restructuring into one administrative unit. He knew that
the Board of Regents was discussing the issue, but he
believed the subcommittee language reflected a legislative
"grab" on the University, which he did not agree with.
Section B asked the University to prioritize and streamline
its personal services within its statewide allocation. He
explained that under the state's constitution, the
University was very clearly its own entity. He furthered
that state funding was provided to the University in the
form of a single appropriation. He remarked that the
legislature could tinker with individual University
programs, but ultimately the Board of Regents had the
control. He stated that he was okay with Section D. Section
C dealt with how to work with intercollegiate athletic
programs and other things not directly related to student
learning. He believed it was an overreach for the
legislature to get involved in the business of the Board of
Regents.
Representative Kawasaki continued to address intent
language that the amendment would delete. He noted that
Section E was okay. He addressed intent language in Section
F. He shared that in prior years the legislature had told
the University that it wanted to see more alumni and
private industry investment. He had mentioned earlier that
the University had seen an increase of over 100 percent
since FY 10 in the number of alumni contributions. He
observed that it did not seem like a difficult thing for
the University to do and he believed it the legislature was
micromanaging in the area. Section G asked the University
to increase its incoming enrollment through performance
scholarships and UA scholarship programs. He stated that
much of what the University did dealt with what the
legislature did. He detailed that the committee had not
supported the Alaska Learning Network, which would have
helped students with the performance scholarship
particularly in rural Alaska. Additionally, the legislature
had cut broadband services and OWL and accompanying e-rate
funding. He stated that the University would have a hard
enough time with the cuts made by the legislature and
trying to determine how it would increase the number of
performance scholarship and UA scholars program recipients
by 5 percent. He supported some of the intent language, but
he believed it went too far in micromanaging the Board of
Regents, which had been very responsive to the
legislature's requests. The amendment would restore funding
to FY 16 management plan levels by adding $50.8 million to
the University budget. He believed the cut made in the
budget subcommittee appeared hastily done. He did not know
how or why the number had been chosen. He added that there
had been an amendment to improve the cut from a bad number
to a less than bad number. He stated that the amendment
sought to increase the number to a reasonable one.
11:37:46 PM
Representative Wilson stated that the subcommittee had
begun with $288 million because it had been the figure that
came from the University for student learning. She detailed
that within the student learning was $8.5 million of
athletics that could be used for that or something else.
She believed that most of the professors at University of
Alaska Fairbanks (and most likely at other campuses) were
required to do research to keep their tenure; professors
were paid through educational and research portions. The
subcommittee had added $12 million for the 2,000 grants,
although only $4 million was shown as matching funds. There
were mandates that had been put in statute that needed to
be examined because the legislature may not have funding to
pay for some of the mandated items. She believed the
legislature probably was micromanaging the University, but
she believed it was justified. She believed the legislature
had said the same thing numerous times to the University
over the years. She believed putting the intent language in
writing made it much clearer. She believed the three new
chancellors would do well and there was a president with
great ideas. She spoke to Section B and explained that 58
people in the Personal Services section earned more than
the governor, which she believed was excessive. She
discussed Section C and relayed that her concern was
related to the $4.5 million in mandatory student fees. She
remarked that students may or may not be able to attend
athletic programs.
Representative Wilson addressed Section F and stated that
compared to other universities the University of Alaska
received one of the lowest amounts of alumni support. She
moved to Section G and relayed that the Board of Regents
had goals for the new University president to achieve in
order to receive a bonus. She explained that most of the
intent items had been taken out of a letter to the
president. She believed that the intent language would help
the University to become a better university. She did not
believe the cuts represented a devastating blow. She
believed they would have to make changes and would not be
able to leave 427 buildings open. She stressed that it did
not mean that service could not be provided. She emphasized
that more regents had attended subcommittee meetings than
ever before in order to have discussions about what the
legislature and regents expected. She continued that the
state was supposed to be helping its students with tuition
- she believed it was the legislature's priority to ensure
that students were getting the help they needed in order to
go into their desired career. She referred to an additional
$12 million and an $8 million increment.
Representative Wilson stressed that the University would
have to make changes. She mentioned McTaggart and Fisher
reports and encouraged members to read them. She elaborated
that the intent language had been derived from the reports.
The subcommittee had reviewed the various recommendations
and had selected the best ones to include intent language.
She remarked that the research would help the future chair
of the University budget subcommittee to move forward. She
looked forward to working with the University to see the
various things it would offer. She believed the University
would only improve because it would be more focused on
things that were bringing the students in, including Arctic
research, engineering, and other. She opined that
enrollment and graduation rates would improve due to an
increased focus. She countered the comments that the cut
would devastate the University - alternatively, she
believed it would create opportunity.
11:43:50 PM
Representative Guttenberg addressed that the legislative
intent language in Section A asked the University to
restructure into one administrative unit. He asked who was
paying for the cost. He stressed that the committee had cut
$50 million from the University's budget. He wondered where
the money would come from to pay for the restructuring. He
pointed to Section F related to increasing contributions
from alumni and private industry and to seek out
partnerships. He stressed that the new buildings on the
Fairbanks campus were paid for by student fees in
conjunction with a private partnership. He remarked that it
was not present in the budget because the state did not
appropriate the money for it. He had heard numerous
accounts that people were being driven away from the
University. He stressed that the University would not be
able to increase enrollment for performance scholarships
and scholars because the University was not a stagnant
place. He encouraged members to read what people were
saying online. He stated that people were leaving. He
stressed that they were losing the ability to attract and
retain professors. He remarked that the committee wanted
the University to do some of the things listed in the
intent language; however, he opined that the budget cuts
were completely counterproductive for the goals. He
reiterated his question about who would pay for the items.
He stressed that the legislature was taking money away and
asking the University to do more. He reasoned that
conducting studies to restructure the University system
into one unit was expensive. He agreed that the result may
be less expensive, but it would be costly to get to that
point.
Representative Kawasaki spoke in support of the amendment.
He stated that the 15 percent cut from the previous year
was significant. He found some of the cuts that were most
disturbing were related to cuts to student teaching,
research (which he believed was a primary mission to the
University), the Cooperative Extension and athletics. He
stressed that the University was more than merely a
classroom, a book, and a teacher. He believed there were
many things that could be learned by the University and
that it was one of the bedrocks to the state. He believed
that many of the cuts were leveled to the University
without any thought. He understood that the committee
wanted to do the right thing by offering some support for
the University.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Representative Kawasaki to avoid
making comments about what the subcommittee thought.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the subcommittee cut 15
percent from the University, which would lead to
significant job loss. He reasoned that the cut was
devastating, particularly because three other years had
seen significant cuts.
11:49:16 PM
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 41 FAILED (3/8).
11:49:58 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 42 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Labor and Workforce Development
APPROPRIATION: Employment and Training Services
ALLOCATION: Workforce Development
ADD: $414,300 General Fund (UGF) 1004
DELETE INTENT LANGUAGE:
"It is the intent of the legislature that the
Construction Academy implement a plan to annually
supplant $600,000 of general funds with private or
federal fund sources until, after a four-year period,
the Construction Academy Training program uses no
general funds."
EXPLANATION: This amendment restores the Governor's
FY17 proposed funding levels, and removes intent
language requiring the department to no longer require
any general funds for Workforce Development by FY21.
The department has already made much progress in
soliciting federal and other non-state funds, and is
continuing to do so. Workforce Development programs
help to build the state's economy; this is not an
appropriate place to reduce funding.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment
would restore funding to keep the construction academy
going. He detailed that the academy did not turn out
journeymen; it went into high schools and introduced young
adults to the field to determine whether they had an
interest in construction. He continued that it created a
higher percentage of people going successfully into
construction. He discussed that significant time and money
could be wasted going into construction if a person did not
know whether it was the right career choice. He believed
that the academy was important in the current environment
where the state was trying to build a pipeline and to
advance the state's blue collar workforce.
Representative Wilson countered that the subcommittee did
not cut the construction academy, the cut came in the form
of intent language from the previous year - the
subcommittee had brought the cut forward from the prior
year. She continued that including the $414,300 reduction
from DLWD, the workforce development allocation still had
$31,912,900 available with 29 permanent full-time
positions. She stated that the cut represented a 1.3
percent decrease in funds. She continued that there had
been an increase in the FY 17 budget for the Northwestern
Alaska Career and Technical Center, Partners for Progress,
the University, and other. She detailed that in FY 16 the
distribution had been $12,510,900; the funding to the
schools had increased to $13,289,300 in the current budget,
which represented a $778,400 increase. She communicated
that the $600,000 to the construction academy had been
removed because it had been the intent of the committee the
prior year. She had spoken to the commissioner and had
learned that the construction academy could submit an
application for the State Training and Employment Program
and could receive up to $400,000. She remarked that the
program was competitive and she hoped they had applied (an
application had not been submitted the previous year). She
stressed that the allocation had more money for training
programs in the current year than the previous year.
11:53:25 PM
Representative Gara remarked that the construction academy
had been cut for two consecutive years. He stated that the
cut was still a cut.
Representative Guttenberg provided closing remarks. He
communicated that there were numerous places where
construction training occurred; however, they did not
overlap the construction academy that provided training
throughout the state. He continued that Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds were very
competitive. He stressed that it was not realistic to think
that the program could get its costs covered by a grant. He
did not support filling gaps in the budget with hope
instead of reality. He relayed that the department had
communicated that the cut would eliminate after school
construction academy opportunities for high school
students. He elaborated that there was no time for the
training during the day due to full school schedules. He
reiterated the competitive nature of [federal] STIP
funding. He believed that when the legislature took action
it should understand the consequences and should stand up
for services instead of hoping something else would happen.
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 42 FAILED (3/8).
11:57:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 43 (copy
on file):
DEPARTMENT: Labor and Workforce Development
APPROPRIATION: Commissioner and Administrative
Services
ALLOCATION: Labor Market Information
ADD: $300,000 General Fund (UGF) 1004
EXPLANATION: This amendment would reverse the proposed
decrement to the Labor Market Information
appropriation and accept the Governor's request to
continue to fund an Economist III, Research Analyst
III, and Research Analyst II positions. Cutting these
positions would result in eliminating important data
sources and reports that are used by legislators,
policy makers, and the private sector. Funding these
positions will result in a greater benefit to the
state than would be saved by the proposed to be cut.
According to the department, the proposed cuts would
have the following effects on services:
· Eliminate work on the Alaska Career Information
System, a valuable resource that provides data on
career options to students, career counselors,
education and training programs, and other users.
· End publication of the Population Overview and
Population Projections which policy makers across
the state rely on.
· End work on the Alaska Training Clearinghouse, the
only place where all training programs in Alaska are
listed and sorted by training type, geographic area,
and funding options.
· Significantly reduce support for occupational data
collection which will degrade the value of
information available to policy makers and the
private sector.
· Reduce the capacity for the department to be
available to provide detailed data and presentations
for public and private sector entities. So far in
2016 audiences for these presentations included a
statewide housing summit, the Anchorage Building
Owners and Managers Association, the Kenai Peninsula
Economic Development District, the Juneau Bar
Association, and other public and private sector
organizations.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that the amendment
would add $300,000 to continue funding for an economist
III, research analyst III, and research analyst II position
in DLWD. He detailed that the positions were responsible
for gathering information about the economy and other to
enable the state government and private sector to make
informed decisions. He continued that homeowners had a
significant stake in some of the positions. He remarked
that the loss of the positions would cause reports to be a
month late. He emphasized that a delayed report could be
devastating for someone planning. He remarked that a
timeline and projection could be missed, which could result
in lost investment of time and effort. He continued that
the department did significant things for the state related
to the ability to make decisions. He believed the cut was
too arbitrary.
Representative Wilson discussed that the governor's amended
budget included $4.7 million. She relayed that after the
$300,000 reduction the allocation would still include
$4,457,400. She expounded that there were currently 34
permanent full-time positions under the allocation. She
highlighted that the reduction represented a 6 percent
decrease. She communicated that the budget subcommittee had
run the decrease by the commissioner and had received her
input. She disagreed with the amendment and did not believe
the reduction would eliminate work on the Alaska Career
Information System, the publication of the Population
Overview and Population Projections, or work on the Alaska
Training Clearing House. Additionally, she did not believe
the reduction would significantly reduce support for
occupational collection data and it would still allow
capacity for the department to be available to provide
detailed data and presentations for public and private
sector entities. She clarified that DWLD had told the
legislature that it may be a little slower getting the
information to the legislature and that the legislature may
have to do its own homework for some of the information.
She suggested that the legislature may need to be more
careful about how often it used the departments and perhaps
do some of its own research.
[Note: Meeting continued in minutes dated 4/18/14 12:01
a.m.]
11:59:59 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 256 Amendment Pkt 3-8-16.pdf |
HFIN 3/8/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Amendments with Actions Pkt 1.PDF |
HFIN 3/8/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Amendments with Actions Pkt 2.PDF |
HFIN 3/8/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Amendment 9 3-8-16.pdf |
HFIN 3/8/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 256 |