Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/09/2017 09:30 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| Amendments: All Remaining | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
9:34:08 AM
^AMENDMENTS: ALL REMAINING
9:34:59 AM
Co-Chair Seaton informed members that the meeting would be
about two hours. The committee would continue addressing
amendments during the scheduled afternoon meeting.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 3
(copy on file):
Commissioner and Administrative Services
Commissioner's Office
H DOL 3 - Delete 1 of 2 Special Assistant to the
Commissioner positions
Offered by Representative Wilson
Delete 1 of 2 Special Assistants to the Commissioner.
The work can be reallocated to the remaining 4
personnel.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read from the amendment description
[see above].
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He indicated the
department had already cut three positions from the
commissioner's office including a deputy commissioner.
There were only five positions remaining in the
commissioner's office. He asserted that further cuts would
negatively impact the commissioner's ability to effectively
manage and provide support to the department. He would not
be supporting the amendment.
Representative Wilson relayed that she thought her cut was
a pertinent place to start and wanted to be consistent
throughout all of the departments.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 3 FAILED (4/6).
Co-Chair Seaton noted that Vice-Chair Gara had joined the
meeting.
9:37:16 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 4
(copy on file):
Workforce Investment Board
H DOL 4 - Delete "Other Services"
Offered by Representative Tilton
Delete "Other Services - Authority for expenses yet to
be determined" as outlined in the Governor's
departmental budget detail.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained that the amendment sought
to remove $58 thousand from the services line under the
workforce investment board. In the detail of the services
it stated, "Other Services - Authority for expenses yet to
be determined." She did not agree with funding things that
were unknown.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. The amendment
deleted inter-agency receipts, which the Alaska Workforce
Investment Board (AWIB) collected for doing work for other
state agencies. Removing the funding would not only
hamstring AWIB, it would also hamstring the requesting
agencies. As the chair of the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DOL) subcommittee, he would not be
supporting the amendment.
Representative Wilson argued that the legislature had the
right to know where money was being spent. The
appropriation allowed the department to utilize funding at
its discretion. She thought it was the legislature's duty
to know how the funds were being used.
Co-Chair Seaton commented that inter-agency receipts and
contingency monies were generally in budgets in order to
function throughout the year. He anticipated that the funds
would be helpful in avoiding the department having to come
back to the legislature for a supplemental budget request.
Representative Tilton agreed with her colleague that the
legislature should be aware of what was happening with the
state budget.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Kawasaki, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 4 FAILED (5/5).
9:40:42 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 5
(copy on file):
Workers' Compensation
Fishermen's Fund
H DOL 5 - Delete "other services" included in the
Governor's departmental budget detail.
Offered by Representative Tilton
Deletes "Other Services Other services for purposes
yet to be determined" as outlined in the Governor's
departmental budget detail.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained that in the FY 16 actual
budget no money was appropriated for purposes "yet to be
determined" in the Worker's Compensation Fishermen's Fund.
Currently, there was $115 thousand reflected in the same
line item. She sought to remove the amount from the budget.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He reported that
the amendment would reduce the funds that were dedicated in
statute specifically for helping disabled fishermen. Any
foreseen expenditure would go towards fulfilling that
purpose. He would not be supporting the amendment.
Representative Thompson remarked that over the past several
years the legislature had attempted to reduce spending. He
suggested that the current amendment and the previous
amendment sought to eliminate slush funds. He argued that
the state could not afford slush funds within departments.
He would be supporting the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton added that the Fishermen's Fund was one of
the few dedicated funds allowed and carried forward from
before the adoption of the state's constitution. He thought
it was not a good idea to limit the monies used to
compensate fishermen injured at sea. He would be opposing
the amendment.
Representative Tilton appreciated Co-Chair Seaton's
comments about the fund being used to take care of injured
fishermen. However, she did not agree with the request of
$115 thousand since the FY 16 actual amount was zero. She
thought the request was a slush fund solicitation and was
requesting it be removed.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Seaton, Foster,
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 5 FAILED (5/6).
9:44:39 AM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 6
(copy on file):
Labor Standards and Safety
Wage and Hour Administration
H DOL 6 - Eliminate the Wage and Hour Administration.
Offered by Representative Pruitt
This amendment eliminates all funding for The Wage and
Hour Administration.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt explained that the state's Wage and
Hour Administration was a duplicative service. He thought
that since the federal government already offered the
service, duplication was unnecessary on the part of the
state. He advocated that the state allow the federal
government to enforce the law and to do its job. He noted
hearing negative feedback from the public about their
experiences with the agency. He urged members to support
the amendment.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He argued that the
Wage and Hour Administration was critical to protecting
Alaskan Workers. The administration ensured legal working
conditions in Alaska. In FY 16, the agency collected $1
million in wages owed to Alaskan workers. Although the
administration cost about $2.4 million, it collected over
$2.5 million in public construction project filing fees in
the previous year, which was deposited into the general
fund (GF). He thought cutting the program would hurt
Alaskan workers. He would not be supporting the amendment.
Representative Wilson agreed with Co-Chair Foster; however,
the question was about a duplication of services. She felt
that if the federal government already performed the
duties, the state did not need to do so as well. She
wondered if the recovered monies were given to the state.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that DOL was a department running on
a shoestring. It had faced budget reductions of 35 percent
since 2015. The commissioner had stated that the department
was strapped to do the work that was needed. He did not
agree with the notion that the service was duplicative. He
argued that the federal government would not enforce the
state wage, which was different from that of the federal
government. Alaska also had different wage and hour rules
from the federal government. In addition, the federal
government did not enforce state wage and hour laws. Unless
there was an inquiry as to whether the federal government
would increase its staff to enforce what the state was
doing, there was no duplication.
Representative Guttenberg mentioned that during his tenure
as a legislator he had never heard of a movement to take
away state primacy. The state had always fought to put
Alaska's mark on programs doing things in a better way than
the federal government. He would be supportive if the
federal government would protect Alaska's interest in a way
that was acceptable to the people of Alaska and the
legislature. He wondered what would be lost if the
amendment passed. He thought the answer was, "No." He
believed the agency protected wages and workers. He thought
that passing the amendment would be more than a budget
comment.
Representative Pruitt noted that the Division of Labor's
website listed the minimum wage and highlighted that in
cases where employees were subject to both federal and
state minimum wages, they were entitled to the higher of
the two. The division helped to enforce state law. He
agreed that there had been periods where the state asked
for primacy. More recently, he had heard that because of
savings the state would have to figure out other ways of
doing things. The crux was that the legislature has decided
it did not want to have difficult conversations about
education and health care. The committee had added money to
the budget in the previous day.
Co-Chair Seaton redirected Representative Pruitt's comments
to the amendment under consideration.
Representative Pruitt continued that the legislature would
have to look at other places for the federal government to
assist the state. He addressed the question asked by the
representative from North Pole. He wanted to know if he
understood the question correctly about the salaries or the
money that went to individuals.
Co-Chair Seaton redirected Representative Pruitt to wrap up
his comments regarding the amendment.
Representative Pruitt thought looking at duplicative
services and the federal government's role had been
highlighted over the previous few days.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 6 FAILED (4/7).
9:54:25 AM
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW Amendment H DOL 7 (copy on
file).
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 8
(copy on file):
Occupational Safety and Health
H DOL 8 - Eliminate the Occupational Safety and Health
section
Offered by Representative Pruitt
This amendment eliminates all funding for the
Occupational Safety and Health Section.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt conveyed that the reason for the
amendment had to do with a duplication of services that the
federal government already provided. He read a statement
from the website of the Division of Labor Standards and
Safety within the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development:
The Occupational Safety and Health Section aims to
protect Alaska workers from industrial accidents and
job-related illness through the enforcement of state
and federal standards, and by training employers and
employees to follow safe and healthful work practices.
The section also administers certification programs
for asbestos abatement, hazardous painting, and
explosives handlers to assure this work is done
safely.
Representative Pruitt then read a statement from the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
website:
Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to assure safe and healthful
working conditions for working men and women by
setting and enforcing standards and by providing
training, outreach, education and assistance.
The OSH Act covers most private sector employers and
their workers, in addition to some public sector
employers and workers in the 50 states and certain
territories and jurisdictions under federal authority.
Representative Pruitt asserted that the state was
duplicating services at a time when it did not have money.
He added that most of the funding was pass through dollars.
He thought there should be federal money available to
assist in enforcing safety measures. The state was
essentially a grant administrator. He believed there were
other departments available to ensure the safety of Alaskan
employees.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He agreed with an
earlier statement by Vice-Chair Gara that Alaska was a
unique place and had its own laws. He understood that
Alaska had to follow federal law but also had its own laws
to follow. He also agreed with Representative Guttenberg
that he did not want Alaska to give up its primacy. He
opined that the Occupational Safety and Health section was
critical to protecting Alaska's workers by ensuring safe
working conditions. He noted that over the previous 10
years the program had been effective. The rate of workplace
lost worktime incidents had decreased by 50 percent. The
program was federally required. If the state did not
administer it, the federal government would. He felt it
would be a disservice to Alaskan workers and businesses. He
opined that Alaskans understood Alaska much more so than
the federal government. He would not be supporting the
amendment.
Representative Wilson relayed a rule of primacy: the state
could only be more stringent than the federal government.
She felt that by continuing the program the state was doing
the federal government's dirty work. The state had the
option of being stricter, but if the amendment was in
place, the state might have fewer restrictions. The state
would potentially be out of compliance with the law. She
mentioned the state would potentially benefit if the
responsibility shifted to the federal government. She would
be supporting the amendment.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the agency ensured that
workers had safety and health in the workplace. He thought
there was a mischaracterization made at the beginning of
the bill hearing was that Alaska was the grant
administrator. He clarified that the state was the grantee
receiving funds from the federal government, the grant
administrator. The state was seeing to it that occupational
safety and health existed within Alaska's workforce. He did
not want to see the division eliminated without further
protections for workers.
Vice-Chair Gara responded to the idea of one member that
the state should not be stricter in protecting workplace
safety. He had represented people that had been injured,
almost killed, and killed doing their jobs properly. He had
no problem with the state strictly enforcing workplace
safety standards. He supposed the legislature had an easy
job. He provided several examples of dangerous workplace
environments. He thought everyone should respect that
people with more dangerous jobs deserved a safe workplace
so they could go home alive.
Representative Guttenberg was a retired construction worker
and spent most of his time outside. If the program were
eliminated, Alaska would have the same standards as Texas.
He spoke to the state's commitment to health and safety
standards in all professions. He did not think it made
sense to walk away from providing the service.
Representative Pruitt provided his final comments. He
agreed with the previous speaker that if the state did not
provide the service, the federal government would. He
reiterated that no one was saying Alaska workers should not
be safe. He explained that OSHA assured safe and healthful
working conditions. There was already an agency available
to handle occupational safety if the state did not. He
emphasized that the legislature would have to look at cuts
like the one he was proposing or at others. He asked
members for their support of the amendment.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 8 FAILED (4/7).
10:03:32 AM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 9
(copy on file):
Alaska Safety Advisory Council
Labor Standards and Safety
H DOL 9 - Eliminate the Alaska Safety Advisory Council
Offered by Representative Pruitt
This amendment eliminates all funding for the Alaska
Safety Advisory Council.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment
eliminated a council funded by the state. One of the key
responsibilities of the council was to provide an annual
governor's safety and health conference. He wondered if the
state was going to continue to fund every board and
commission or consider whether the state had too many. He
believed that a conversation about potentially merging the
council into something else was necessary. He remarked that
many of the commissioners were serving on several boards
and committees taking time away from their regular duties.
He also suggested the 14 members representing industry,
labor, the public, and federal, state, and local
governments play a larger role by contributing. He thought
the duties of the council should be placed in the hands of
the private sector. He asked members to support the
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He reported that
the Alaska Safety Advisory Council was 100 percent self-
supporting through the revenue it generated through
sponsorships and by collecting attendance fees. Eliminating
the council would not save the state any money nor would it
help with the state's fiscal concerns. In addition, he
noted that the department was looking to privatize the
council. He would not be supporting the amendment.
Representative Pruitt summarized that although the council
was collecting monies and paying for the conference, the
state had people doing the work. He thought it was an
appropriate time to let the private sector manage the
council.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 9 FAILED (4/7).
10:07:48 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 10
(copy on file):
Employment and Training Services
Workforce Services
H DOL 10 - Delete "other services" included in the
Governor's departmental budget detail
Offered by Representative Tilton
Delete "Other Services Other services for purposes yet
to be determined" as outlined in the Governor's
departmental budget detail.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained the amendment sought to
remove $704 thousand from workforce services. The amendment
stated, "Other services for purposes yet to be determined."
She reported that FY 16 actuals reflected a zero dollar
amount. The request was $938 thousand, almost $1 million.
The amendment would leave $233 thousand in the line item,
which she believed was too much without specifying its use.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He explained that
the component was comprised of multiple funding sources.
The amendment only deleted the interagency receipts, which
were collected for doing work for other state agencies. He
suggested that restricting that authority inhibited the
workforce services as well as the agencies requesting
services. He added that the funds covered unanticipated
costs not reflected in previous year expenses. For example,
in FY 17 the department received one-time funds to make
upgrades to the online job bank program known as the
ALEXsys System. The funding would help to cover such
unforeseen expenses. He would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Wilson suggested that if the increment was a
one-time amount from FY 17 to FY 18, she thought it should
be removed. In addition, she commented that the inter-
agency receipts came from general funds. The state referred
to the funds as inter-agency receipts because they come
from another department. She noted that she had not seen
the use of the phrase "other services for purposes yet to
be determined" outside of DOT. She brought up a previous
discussion regarding an appropriation of $25 million within
the Department of Health and Social Services and the
possibility of moving the funding. She was happy to know
that at least the legislature would know where the funding
was going. She thought that if the legislature did not want
to hamstring the departments, the terminology would appear
for all of the departments.
Representative Tilton concluded that the amount was close
to $1 million. She thought it was prudent for the
legislature to know where the money would be spent.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 10 FAILED (5/6).
Co-Chair Seaton recognized Representative Lora Reinbold and
Representative Justin Parish in the audience.
10:11:46 AM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 11
(copy on file):
Workforce Development
H DOL 11 - Alaska Construction Academy
Offered by Representative Pruitt
This decrease was the original intent of the
legislature and realigns the scheduled reductions to
this program.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment
paralleled what the governor originally offered in the
budget: $600 thousand less than what was currently in the
budget. The governor was following the intent of the
legislature from previous budgets. The legislature had
added $600 thousand back into the budget. The amendment
decreased the amount to the governor's budget number. He
asked members for their support.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He admitted that it
was true that in a previous legislature intent language was
added that would phase out funding for the construction
academies. He relayed that private industry had not stepped
in to fill the funding need for the Alaska construction
academies, as the legislature had hoped. At present, the
state was faced with deciding whether to continue to fund
them. He indicated that the subcommittee did not want to
see the academies go away and wanted to continue training
Alaskans. He would be opposing the amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara asked the maker of the amendment to clarify
what training would disappear with the amendment. In the
previous amendment, there was an argument that the
reduction was state funding, but in actuality, it was
outside federal grant funding. Applying for federal grant
funding would not cost the state money. He requested that
legislators offering amendments include the impact that the
amendments would have on the corresponding service.
Representative Pruitt responded to Vice-Chair Gara's
comments indicating he had never simply read any of his
amendments. He explained the appropriation was an addition
to the budget. He agreed that previously the legislature
had looked to the private sector to play a larger role.
However, he posed the question as to why the private sector
would play a larger role, when the legislature added the
funds back into the budget. He reiterated that the
appropriation was an increase to the budget. He was trying
to hold the line on the budget. He added that the public
sector was not going to participate if the state did not
push. He thought that if the legislature did not push on
many accounts, certain things would not happen within the
private sector. He suggested that the legislature continue
asking the private sector to participate. He asked members
for their support.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 11 FAILED (5/6).
10:16:45 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 12
(copy on file):
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
H DOL 12 - Delete "other services" included in the
Governor's departmental budget detail
Offered by Representative Tilton
Deletes "Other Services Other services for purposes
yet to be determined".
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained the amendment. There was a
line item for other services with no actual spending. The
amount of the line item was $411 thousand GF. There was no
detail for the appropriation. She believed the line item
created a slush fund and sought to remove the funding.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He explained that
the monies went towards unforeseen expenses not reflected
in previous year expenses. The authority allowed the
department to avoid interrupting services while
compensating for unforeseen expenses. The component was
comprised of multiple funding sources, but the amendment
only deleted UGF. Essentially, it created an unallocated
reduction of UGF for the department. One example was snow
removal when Alaska had a heavy snow year. He could not
support the amendment.
Representative Wilson commented that the amendment had to
do with Alaska' Institute of Technology (AVTEC), which had
been in existence for a long time. She thought AVTEC had
been removing snow for a significant time as well. She
indicated that moving UGF and leaving other funds in place
left a contingency fund available. She had a difficult time
believing AVTEC needed such a large reserve. She asked if
there was a process in place to account for the funds. She
reiterated that AVTEC had been in existence for a long time
and had an idea of needed contingency monies.
Representative Tilton reiterated that AVETEC was very
familiar with things such as snow removal or related items.
She thought $400 thousand in anticipated costs in a budget
that AVTEC had been budgeting for a long time was large.
She affirmed that it was the legislature's job to
appropriate funds and to know where those funds would be
spent.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOL 12 FAILED (5/6).
10:20:43 AM
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 3 and H
Law 5 (copy on file):
H LAW 3:
Criminal Division
Third Judicial District: Anchorage
H LAW 3 - Money for two prosecutors and associated
personal services for Anchorage
Offered by Representative Grenn
The Department of Law has seen a significant decrease
in its ability to prosecute crime since 2013; many
good cases are being turned away. The funds added by
this amendment will be used to fill existing, vacant
positions.
H LAW 5:
Criminal Division
Fourth Judicial District
H LAW 5 - Money for one prosecutor and associated
personal services in Bethel.
Offered by Representative Grenn
The Department of Law has testified that it is
declining to prosecute cases due to lack of resources.
The funds added by this amendment will be used to fill
an existing, vacant position.
Representative Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that Amendment H LAW 3 and
Amendment H LAW 5 sought to do similar things. He would
speak to both amendments at once.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Representative Grenn wanted to
move Amendment H LAW 5 as well.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 5 (See
above).
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that Amendment H LAW 3 and
Amendment H LAW 5 were before the committee because they
were tied to each other.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Grenn indicated that during the subcommittee
process the Department of Law had reported having to cut 22
prosecutors and 19 support staff in the previous three
years. In the same period, the department had had a
decrease in almost 7000 prosecutions even though crime had
not decreased to the same extent. In fact, in both urban
and rural areas statistically crime had increased. Outside
of the budget crisis, crime was the number one issue he
heard about from constituents. His constituency thought
crime needed to be addressed in Anchorage. The misdemeanors
and felonies that the department failed to prosecute were
cases in which evidence was available to prosecute but
where the department did not have the resources to take
legal action. The amendments were acknowledgements that
reductions had cut to the bone and were not working. The
amendments added two prosecutors in Anchorage and one in
Bethel. He reported that Bethel, in particular, faced a
larger squeeze. The community faced some of the highest
domestic violence and sexual assault rates in the nation.
The amendment added one prosecutor in the region to assist
with crime at a trying time. He asked members for their
support.
Representative Thompson spoke to his objection. He agreed
that the state likely needed additional prosecutors because
of growing caseloads, but he could not agree to spend more.
He suggested that if the legislature was going to add to
the budget there should be a reduction elsewhere. There had
been plenty of opportunity over the previous several days
to make cuts that would offset the addition of three
positions. However, reductions had not been made. He opined
that the state could not afford to add to the budget.
Without reductions to compensate for the additional
spending, he would be a "no" vote on the amendments.
Vice-Chair Gara commented on Representative Thompson's
remarks about other ways to cut the budget. He had a
problem with some of the amendments such as the previous
one discussed. The fund that was referred to as a slush
fund was actually money used to fund job training.
Representative Wilson remarked that Vice-Chair Gara was
speaking on an amendment that the committee was not
currently addressing.
Vice-Chair Gara continued that the amendments did not
reflect what was going on. The previous amendment did not
pertain to a slush fund. He was not confident in the
accuracy of the amendments. In terms of the need for
prosecutors, he did not feel there was a choice. He
reported having sat on the Department of Law subcommittee
the previous year and was shocked to find out that
prosecutors were turning away more criminals because of
lack of staff. He proposed that legislators either adopt
the amendments or accept the fact that criminals would be
let go without being prosecuted. He added that the decision
to adopt amendments was not the only choice to make. The
legislature could adopt a fiscal plan that would allow the
state to afford more persecutors and avoid letting
criminals back on the street.
Representative Pruitt agreed that there was a legitimate
need for prosecutors. However, the problem was that the
state did not have money. He had not heard of any offsets
in the budget to ensure that the budget did not increase
overall. He responded to Vice-Chair Gara's comments about a
fiscal plan solving the problem. He suggested that adopting
a fiscal plan did not mean the state should begin spending
more. He asserted that no matter what the state needed to
get its house in order. He thought a long-term conversation
was necessary about controlling the size and growth of
government. He furthered that the state should not add to
the budget currently. He believed the state should be
looking at government expenditures. He agreed that
additional prosecutors were needed. However, he did not see
a corresponding offset. He could not just add to the
budget.
Representative Wilson remarked that legislators had spent a
significant amount of time vetting SB 91 [Crime Bill passed
in 2016] which had not gone into effect completely. She did
not know how things would change in Alaska communities. She
thought it might be possible to move prosecutors from one
area to the next. The state could change the way it did
business. She thought it was jumping the gun to add
prosecutor positions back into the budget before
implementing all of the pieces of the crime bill.
Representative Ortiz argued that the conversation had to be
about cost containment and the basic level of services
government should provide. He thought that public safety
was a basic service. There was an agreement that public
safety was a baseline in terms of government services. The
Department of Law had been reduced 20 percent since 2015.
He thought there had been cost containment. He emphasized
the need for prosecutors to help enforce the law and
promote public safety.
Representative Grenn explained that the numbers he talked
about began in 2013 before the passage of SB 21 [SB 91] or
anything else that had changed in the past 6 months. He
reported that the department had missed out on 7000
prosecutions. He thought it was a scary number when raising
a family, living, working, and playing in the State of
Alaska. There were criminals in the state not being
prosecuted. The amendments were acknowledgements that the
criminal division of the department had been cut too far.
He believed the amendments would help to keep Alaska safe.
He asked for the support of members.
Vice-Chair Gara requested an "at ease."
10:31:17 AM
AT EASE
10:31:59 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
Representative Guttenberg was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 3 and Amendment H Law 5
PASSED (6/4).
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the committee would stand
"at ease" for five minutes.
10:32:52 AM
AT EASE
10:39:05 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 4
(copy on file):
Criminal Division
Third Judicial District: Anchorage
H LAW 4 - Closure of Dillingham Office.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment closes the Dillingham office. Grand
juries are held in Anchorage requiring frequent travel
cost for staff and witnesses. Additionally, the
Dillingham office is supervised by the Anchorage
District Attorney's office.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read from the amendment description
[see above]. She added that the closure of the office was
recommended the previous year by the department. The
explanation provided by the department made sense because
it was based on the numbers. She reported that the
department had suggested there could be a savings resulting
from the efficiencies of technology and being able to
provide the services through technological means.
Representative Grenn spoke to his objection. He confirmed
that Representative Wilson was correct that the
appropriation had been eliminated in House Finance and
restored during conference committee. Since that time, the
Department of Law had focused on making the Dillingham
office very strong and a part of the community. The
District Attorney's Office knew the community and had built
trust over time leading to better results for the
community. Closing the office would undo the great work of
the department to make the Dillingham office strong. He
thought the removal of the presence would be an added
burden to the Anchorage office. He opposed the amendment.
Representative Thompson admitted the former Attorney
General had recommended closing the Dillingham office, but
the appropriation was put back in the budget. He noted that
the position worked more from the Anchorage office than the
Dillingham office. The travel costs associated with
commuting back and forth was very expensive. The office was
supervised out of the Anchorage office. He suggested that
closing the office would result in potential savings to the
state. He noted grand juries were held in Anchorage and
there was no reason to continue spending additional money
for travel. He would be voting in favor of the amendment.
Representative Pruitt agreed with the previous speaker. The
legislature had consistently asked departments to come up
with savings. He thought the amendment would be a savings
to the state rather than a slight to the community of
Dillingham. He added that the service could still be
provided from the Anchorage office. Therefore, he would be
supporting the amendment.
Representative Wilson heard from the subcommittee chair
that the department was making the office in Dillingham
strong. The position was still coming from Anchorage rather
than Dillingham. Treatment would still be available to
residents of the community. She referred to Representative
Grenn's comments about the office in Dillingham doing great
work. However, she had not heard of anything changing from
the previous to the current year. She was aware the state
had continued to fund the position in a higher fashion than
what could be done otherwise. She argued that the
legislature needed to support the cuts suggested by the
department. Otherwise, she wondered why the department
would do the work to provide recommended reductions. She
asked members for their support.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H LAW 4 FAILED (5/6).
10:45:11 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 6
(copy on file):
Civil Division
Legislation/Regulations
H LAW 6 - Delete one attorney position.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes one attorney position funded in
this allocation requiring the agency to redistribute
any remaining obligated duties to remaining staff.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment deleted
one attorney from the Civil Division for legislation and
regulations and returned $175,500 to GF.
Representative Grenn spoke to his objection. There were
only three attorneys in the division responsible for making
sure regulations were consistent with state law and the
constitution. The office was the administration's
equivalent to the legislature's Legislative Legal Division.
He thought the reduction would inhibit the administration's
ability to create correct regulations and could increase
future litigation costs. He would be a "no" vote on the
amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara and Representative Wilson had a common
interest in getting children back with families as quickly
as possible. He maintained that by deleting the position
the workload would be spread to other people who were
already working in sections of the Department of Law that
had been cut. One of the places that had been badly cut
were attorneys that represent parents. If the attorneys did
not show up on time then the parents would not show up on
time to try to get their children back in an Office of
Children Services (OCS) case. He believed that the
amendment distributed the workload to people who were
already affected from cuts in their department. He thought
the amendment would be costly impacting someone else.
Representative Wilson pointed out that the previous speaker
had indicated the legislature was duplicating Legislative
Legal Services. She did not believe a separate legal
service was needed for the administration. She asked
members for their support.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H LAW 6 FAILED (4/7).
10:48:20 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 7 and
Amendment H LAW 8 together (copy on file):
H LAW 7:
Civil Division: Natural Resources
H LAW 7 - Decrease to services for Civil Division -
Natural Resources
Offered by Representative Tilton
The Governor's request includes the restoration of
one-time funding (previously in the Oil, Gas and
Mining allocation) for representation of the
Department of Revenue and Natural Resources disputes
relating to the collection of oil and gas taxes and
royalties. Taxes ($1,184.0) and Royalty Reopeners
($941.0) will be handled in the department's Natural
Resources allocation.
In a time of fiscal crisis, it is not prudent that the
State increase the budget.
H LAW 8:
Civil Division: Regulatory Affairs Public Advocacy
H LAW 8 - Decrease in professional services
Offered by Representatives: Tilton, Wilson
As the department adapts and refines case management
under the organizational structure begun in FY 17,
some work will be brought in house while contracts
with outside counsel and consultant experts having
expertise in specialized oil, gas and mining issues
will continue to be used as necessary.
In a time of fiscal crisis, it is not prudent to
increase expenditures.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton did not believe there was anyone who
would disagree that there were times the legislature needed
to seek outside counsel. The proposed decreases would
eliminate the restorations of one-time funding. She opined
that one-time funding was limited to a single time.
Otherwise, the funding should be included in the budget as
a regular line item.
Representative Guttenberg clarified that there was no
objection to combining the two amendments.
Co-Chair Seaton saw no objection to combining the
amendments.
Representative Grenn spoke to his objection. He reported
that the funding was provided to the department every year
in anticipation of their outside counsel and expert needs.
Since 1982, the funding had resulted in over 8 billion in
collections owed to the state. He relayed that the
department did not always use the funding. The money that
they did not use went back into the GF. During the
subcommittee process, the committee heard about what the
department was doing in the current year and its plans for
the following year. In the prior year, there had been
approximately $72 million in royalty cases handled by the
civil division. He also noted that there was a recovery of
$234 million in a tariff case regarding Regulatory Affairs
and Public Advocacy (RAPA). The funding obviously paid for
itself. He did not think the state could afford the
proposed reduction especially during a fiscal crisis.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that this section of the department
made money for the state. They went after oil and gas
companies that underpaid their taxes and royalties. He
spoke of having worked at the Department of Law noting its
internally strong workforce. However, the department had
been losing staff and experienced attorneys due to budget
cuts and had been doing more contracting. He explained that
budget reductions were not always free. He opined that the
department would have to contract out more cases if there
were additional cuts to the department.
Representative Wilson wondered if the intended use of the
one-time increment had been fulfilled. She wondered if a
case had been delayed. She remarked that a one-time
increment was typically inserted into the budget because
the department was requesting funding for special cases.
She asked if anything had been reported from the department
about incomplete cases. She thought the legislature should
carefully examine one-time increment requests. She also
urged members to be very careful about increasing base
funding slated for very specific reasons.
Representative Guttenberg suggested that in talking with
the Department of Natural Resources they would initiate a
Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) with Department of
Law to provide the service. He noted having advanced
something similar in the DNR subcommittee. However, the
committee had objected. It was argued that the Department
of Law was the division that did the work for DNR; standing
up for the state's rights including collecting back taxes
and royalties.
Representative Thompson clarified that he was addressing H
Law 8. He had been under the impression that the Regulatory
Affairs Public Advocacy section was the public utility
watchdog making sure to save the public monies by ensuring
that utilities were not overcharging ratepayers. He spoke
of its importance in Fairbanks because of the high cost of
energy there. He asked the maker of the amendment to
clarify H LAW 8 in wrap-up.
Representative Kawasaki asked the maker of the amendment
about money being placed into the oil, gas, and mining
allocations and mining, land, and water allocations in
order to sue the federal government. The current governor
had relayed his intent to pursue litigation when the
state's natural resources were being stopped or hindered
from being utilized. He wanted to make sure the legislature
did not negatively impact the state's ability to pursue
utilizing its public lands more soundly. He asked the maker
to respond to his comments in wrap-up.
Representative Tilton appreciated the discussion and the
questions that had been asked. She thought members agreed
that there was a need for expertise. The question had to do
with the funding request being a one-time increment. As the
representative to the right of her had said, the increment
was provided for every year in the budget. However, it was
not provided for, as the legislature was asking to put
something in that had been a one-time increment.
Representative Tilton WITHDREW Amendment H LAW 7 and
Amendment H LAW 8.
10:56:44 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 9
(copy on file):
Administration and Support
Office of the Attorney General
H LAW 9 - Delete a Special Assistant position.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes the Special Assistant to the
Commissioner position requiring the agency to
redistribute any remaining obligated duties to
existing staff.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment deleted the
special assistant position, which she had proposed for all
of the agencies. The amendment would place $175,500 back
into the GF.
Representative Grenn spoke to his objection. He explained
that the special assistant played a unique role inside of
the department. They did not have to be a lawyer but had to
have a high degree of knowledge about legal operations. The
person in the position managed the technology exclusive to
the Department of Law such as case management. If the
special assistant position was deleted the duties would
have to be taken on by a lawyer given the knowledge the
position required of the legal world. The deletion would
place an undue burden on lawyers already overburdened. He
would be a "no vote" on the amendment.
Representative Wilson commented that the special assistant
was not a lawyer in the Office of the Attorney General. She
disagreed with the argument that a lawyer would have to
assume the duties of the position. She thought the
department could find someone else in-house to do the job.
She remarked that sometimes the special assistants take off
vacation time or furlough days and the questions were not
being answered and brought back to the legislature by a
non-lawyer. She asked members for their support.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt H LAW 9 FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Seaton directed members to page 70 of the
amendments to address the amendments to the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs.
10:59:30 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 4
(copy on file):
Military and Veterans' Affairs
Local Emergency Planning Committee
H MVA 4 - Deletes Sub-Recipient
Pass-Through Grants to local emergency planning
committees.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes all funding for Sub-Recipient
Pass-Through Grants to local emergency planning
committees for hazard emergency operations planning,
training, exercise, and outreach preparedness
education. These functions are the responsibility of
local communities and the cost of performing them
should not be borne by the state.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment. She thought
it was worth having the conversation as to whether the
service could be provided by local governments or by the
grant recipients. She read from the amendment description
[see above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He reported
having a robust conversation about the Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPS) during the budget subcommittee
discussions. At the time, the committee saw the $300
thousand decrement as simple and easy. What the
subcommittee found was that there was a real public purpose
to having it. Local governments were able to share
information along with a small administration fee within
state government. The rest of the money was passed through
to local communities - from Anchorage to the Aleutians,
from Copper River to Ketchikan. There were over 20
organized LEPS, each having a role in responding to
emergencies. There were either federal declared natural
disasters or state declared natural disaster. He furthered
that the LEPS were very important in terms of having
coordinating responses so local communities could take the
lead role unless the threat or hazard became so large the
state had to get involved.
Representative Wilson understood that reductions were not
easy to make. However, it came down to discussing what the
state was required to do. She wondered if the
responsibility fell on the state or on the local entities
utilizing the grants.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson,
Seaton, Foster
Vice-Chair Gara was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H MVA 4 FAILED (3/7).
11:04:02 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 5
(copy on file):
Military and Veterans' Affairs
National Guard Military Headquarters
H MVA 5 - Position deletion to decrease state spending
and encourage operational efficiencies.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes one of two Division Director
positions located at the Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson location in order to reduce state
expenditures. The Department is encouraged to seek
efficiencies in delivering programs that the
Department is responsible for administering.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read from the amendment description
[see above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He reported
that the reduction would have an impact on the Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs' (DMVA) ability to do
outreach with members of the armed services and the state's
veterans. The small department had already encountered more
than 31.5 percent in reductions over the previous 3 years.
The department was increasingly important, as Alaska had
over 73 thousand veterans and 115 thousand dependents in
the state. The numbers and percentages continued growing.
Although the reduction seemed simple, without the critical
director-level, day-to-day oversight the organization could
quickly find itself exposed to challenges for non-
compliance with federal rules. He argued that removing one
position did not necessarily create efficiencies but
rather, at best, introduced difficulties in an already
stretched department. The Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs, while having been cut, has done an
excellent job with military outreach. Alaska had recently
won an award from the federal government for its outreach
efforts. He noted that the Alaska program model only cost
the state $100 thousand whereas Utah's model cost them $3.5
million. He thought it was money well spent and that
further cuts to the department would harm and hamper the
ability to reach out to veterans.
Representative Wilson was unsure how cutting the position
would make the state non-compliant with federal law. She
argued that the state already had organizations doing
outreach to veterans and that the position was a
duplication of services.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Thompson, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H MVA 5 FAILED (3/8).
11:07:30 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 2
(copy on file):
Administration & Support Services
Commissioner's Office
H DNR 2 - Deletion of a Special Assistant to the
Commissioner
Offered by Representative Wilson
Deletion of the Special Assistant to the Commissioner.
The work can be reallocated to the remaining 8
personnel.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read from the amendment description
[see above]. She indicated she was trying to be consistent.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He
conveyed there were three special assistants in the
commissioner's office. One spent 3 to 5 months in Juneau
for session. The other two worked on considerable things
that mattered to the state. He explained that there were
over 30 oil and gas royalty orders repealed that were
stacked up in the commissioner's office and equated to
approximately $35 million in royalty payments if the state
prevailed. However, the state could not collect the
royalties until the repeals were concluded. He argued that
eliminating one of the assistants would slow the process
down. He continued that the Division of Mining, Land, and
Water had about 80 outstanding appeals that went through
the commissioner's office. The Department of Natural
Resources' special assistants provided support around some
of the most significant issues facing Alaska. He elaborated
that arctic energy, arctic policy, LNG, and oil and gas
appeals were areas with significant issues in which
millions of dollars were at stake. There used to be an
entire office of staff assigned to governmental
coordination. However, currently only one special assistant
handled those duties. The legislature had asked many things
of the department including disposing of the Mount McKinley
Meat and Sausage plant, handling all oil and gas taxes,
managing material sale leases, dealing with authorizations,
and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the
commissioner's office. The special assistants were the
people the legislature went to with requests. They were
responsible for responding to the needs of the legislature
along with all of the other responsibilities they had
within their department. He would not be supporting the
amendment.
Representative Wilson argued that the amendment would
reduce only one of three special assistants. The Department
of Natural Resources was the only department that had three
special assistants to the commissioner. Two assistants
would still be employed. She argued that a special
assistant was not necessary for the department to have in
Juneau during session. She asked for member support.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DNR 2 FAILED (4/7).
11:11:56 AM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 3 (copy
on file):
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
Forest Management & Development
H DNR 3 - Haines State Forest, Timber & Mining Access
Offered by Representative Ortiz
The part-time Forester II position in Haines supports
timber sales, firefighting, and all other activities
in and near the Haines State Forest (HSF). The HSF is
the longest established state forest in Southeast
Alaska, and Southeast Alaska timber sales make up 75%
of statewide timber sales. It is important to note
that while supporting timber related activities, the
same activities support other valuable industries such
as providing road access to the developing
Constantine-Palmer mine.
Funding the position ensures that recent timber sales
have sufficient on-site oversight, maintains the
area's firefighting posture, and ensures there is a
position to deal with forest road issues as the
Constantine-Palmer mine moves from exploration toward
production.
Representative Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained that the amendment was an
addition to the budget. He hoped members could all support
the addition, which acknowledged that Alaska was a resource
development state. He suggested that it was particularly
important to remember that the addition came in the wake of
DNR being cut by 32 percent from 2015. He read from the
amendment description [see above]. He indicated that
businesses that depended on state timber sales in the
Haines State Forest (HSF) would be severely limited in
their ability to obtain wood supply without the passage of
the amendment under consideration. The Division of Forestry
personnel in the Haines office completed timber sales work
on behalf of the Mental Health and University Trust
programs generating revenues for their respective trust
programs and was an efficient use of staff to meet forestry
management needs for different state agencies. The state
forests are renewable resources and Alaska's future would
depend on the development of both renewable and finite
natural resources. Recreational activities of all types
including motorized and human powered would be more
difficult to undertake on state lands due to the closed
road systems that would occur if the amendment did not
pass. He supposed that while the state needed to contain
its costs, sometimes the state's reductions went too far
and ended up being counter-productive to the overall good
of the economy. He thanked members.
Representative Thompson spoke to his objection. He wondered
about an offset to the proposed addition. He could not
support the amendment because it increased the budget. He
remarked that there had been several additions to the
budget without reducing spending in other areas. Although
the amendment had the potential to make the state money,
without an offset he could not support it.
Representative Wilson asked why the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority was not contributing funding. She asked if
someone was being paid $102 thousand for a part time
position.
Representative Pruitt thought it was very possible that the
position was needed. He had been the chair of the
subcommittee in the previous 2 years and recalled reducing
the position. He explained that at the time there was a
concern about restricting support to an industry that was
not as robust as it had been in the past. He admitted that
it was possible the circumstances had changed. In
committee, a fee for service concept had been considered.
He expressed his excitement about the possibility of
another mine in Haines similar to Greens Creek. He wondered
if the mine should play a role in funding the position. He
pointed out that no offsets had been offered for any of the
amendments. He thought it was a good idea to approach
industry about contributing. Restoring the position could
be the right thing to do if the state had money or if
industry provided some support.
Representative Guttenberg relayed that the position was
full time. The funding for the position was still in place
through the end of the year. The funding request was for
the following year. The position accomplished many things.
In terms of the mine, the state did not receive any benefit
until it reached production. Regarding timber sales, the
position was necessary to complete some of the regulatory
work associated with previous sales. The person in the
position was also doing things to facilitate further timber
sales. He thought a forester was needed in a town that was
largely resource driven. He thought that without one it
would be a decrement to both mining activity and ongoing
and future timber sales. He did not want delays or stalls
by not having the position in place.
Vice-Chair Gara thought the question was fair regarding the
offsets to pay for the position. He relayed that the
legislature had cut DNR funding by 58 percent since 2015.
He thought that that percentage accounted for an offset. He
noted that the other offsets included $600 million in
budget cuts to agency operations since 2015. He furthered
that other offsets included $65 million to $67 million of
agency operation cuts in the current budget compared to the
previous year and about $100 million in budget cuts
compared to the cuts passed by the legislature in the prior
year before the governor's vetoes. He thought "offset" was
code for whether the legislature had cut the budget. The
current and previous years' budgets were reduced. He
reported that there had been $3.3 billion in budget cuts
since 2013. He did not believe that cutting people was the
only way to run state government. He reiterated that
offsets had been made in the form of agency reductions of
more than 50 percent.
Representative Ortiz indicated the previous speaker had
said many of the things he had planned to say. He added
that the amendment promoted economic opportunity at a time
when the state was seeing a decline in economic
opportunity. He commented that when legislators worked in
Juneau were living in the Tongass National Forest. It was a
national forest because over 90 percent of it was
controlled by the federal government. The state controlled
very little land. However, the state was offering the few
available timber sales to provide access to timber and to
provide jobs for those in the industry. He urged member
support. The amendment was in the spirit of promoting
economic opportunity.
Representative Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DNR 3 PASSED (7/4).
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the committee would be
taking up amendments beginning with the Department of
Public Safety at the 1:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|