Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
02/23/2018 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 | |
| HB285 || HB286 | |
| Department of Administration Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Department of Education and Early Development Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Department of Fish and Game Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Office of the Governor Subcommittee | |
| Judiciary Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Department of Labor and Workforce Development Subcommittee | |
| Department of Revenue Subcommittee Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
1:34:25 PM
^DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
1:34:28 PM
Representative Grenn provided a subcommittee report for the
Department of Administration (DOA) with a prepared
statement (copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Administration held four meetings with
the Department during the review of the FY 19 budget
request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Administration recommends the House
Finance Committee accept the amended Department of
Administration FY 19 operating budget as follows:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $70,347.9
Designated General Funds (DGF) $32,069.0
Other Funds $234,128.9
Federal Funds $3,900.0
Total $340,445.8
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from the FY
15 Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
budget recommendation is a reduction of $15,500.1, an
18.1 percent decrease.
From the FY 18 Management Plan, the House Subcommittee
recommendation reflects a total increase in
Unrestricted General Funds of $1,497.9, a 2.2 percent
increase.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 1,189
Permanent Part-time 10
Temporary 25
Total 1,224
The subcommittee for the Department of Administration
accepted one governor's amendment and two subcommittee
amendments, which I will describe in more detail when
the committee takes up these amendments in a few
moments.
The subcommittee made no statutory recommendations.
Members discussed a variety of issues during the
subcommittee process. A few topics of note raised by
the department and further research included:
Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court
It was brought to the Subcommittee's attention that on
January 12, 2018, the Superior Court of Alaska
released a decision holding that "when the Public
Defender Agency or the Office of Public Advocacy is
representing an indigent defendant who is (1) not in
custody and who is (2) unable to afford to travel to
the site of their trial, the agency shall pay the
necessary expense. And when a delinquency case
involves a minor who is not reasonably able to travel
alone, the agency shall pay for a parent or guardian
to accompany the minor." While the Public Defender
Agency is in the process of appealing this decision,
the outcome could have significant financial
consequences for the Department of Administration's
operating budget in future years.
Public Defender Agency Caseloads
During an overview by the Public Defender Agency,
concern was raised by both the agency and members in
relation to Public Defender caseloads. In 1998, the
Alaska Division of Legislative Audit conducted a
workload study of the Alaska Public Defender Agency;
the recommended maximum ethical caseload at 60 hours
per week is a weighted average of 59 cases. The Agency
is currently projecting a weighted average of 92 cases
under the Legislative Audit Standard, which is 56
percent above the recommended maximum caseload for a
60-hour work week. Given the constitutional and
statutory obligations of the Public Defender Agency to
provide a standard of ethical representation,
increasing caseloads create some cause for concern as
refusal or dismissal of cases due to excessive
caseloads by other jurisdictions has led to litigation
based on right to counsel.
1:38:07 PM
Representative Grenn continued with prepared remarks:
Office of Public Advocacy Caseloads
Subcommittee members also heard from the Office of
Public Advocacy regarding caseload concerns. In
particular, court-appointed Guardian Ad Litems have
seen a substantial increase in workload, with OCS-
filed cases rising significantly since FY 15. Guardian
Ad Litems are statutorily-required advocates for the
best interests of children in Child In Need of Aid
(CINA), civil custody, and domestic violence cases.
With an average caseload of 110 children per attorney,
Guardian Ad Litems are currently unable to fulfill all
statutory and ethical obligations, such as
visitations, due to case overload. The Governor's
proposed FY 19 budget adds one Guardian Ad Litem
position. However, additional resources may be
required to bring caseloads to a manageable level.
Representative Grenn relayed that all items raised in the
subcommittee report were being researched by his office. He
thanked the Department of Administration, the Legislative
Finance Division, and subcommittee members.
1:39:15 PM
AT EASE
1:39:35 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 1 (copy
on file):
Shared Services of Alaska
Facilities
H DOA 1 Reduce I/A Receipt Authority to Align with
Actual Expenditures
Since FY 2009, the Department of Administration's
interagency receipt actuals in Facilities have
averaged 466.5. Since FY2014, Facilities interagency
receipt actuals have not exceeded 477.2.
To better align the Department's receipt authority
with actual need, the amendment deletes all
interagency receipt authority in excess of 600.0
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that the facilities
allocation in Shared Services of Alaska held funding to pay
for costs associated with state owned buildings managed by
DOA. This receipt authority supports the rate charge to
each state agency to occupy public building space. Since FY
09, DOA's interagency receipt actuals in facilities
averaged $466,500. Since FY 14 facilities interagency
receipt actuals have not exceeded $477,200. To better align
the department's receipt authority with actual need, this
amendment deletes $567,600 in interagency receipt
authority, bringing the department's authority to $600,000.
the department helped determine $600,000 as a reasonable
level of receipt authority that acknowledged the historical
utilization of receipts while accounting for some of the
variation from year to year.
1:40:53 PM
Representative Wilson and Representative Pruitt WITHDREW
their OBJECTIONS. There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H DOA 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 1 (copy on
file):
Office of Information Technology
Alaska Division of Information Technology
GA 1 2/14 Change to Use Interagency Receipt Fund Code
Specific to Information Technology
Replace interagency receipts with Information Service
Fund. This is a technical adjustment to align the
Office of Information Technology's (OIT) budget with
the most appropriate fund source.
Authorized by AS 44.21.045, the Information Services
Fund is an internal service fund designed to enable
OIT to charge and collect fees for information
technology services provided by OIT to agencies and
political subdivisions of the state. An Information
Services Fund allows for the collection and reporting
of the full cost of goods or services including
capital assets and depreciation. This is important to
rate development and allows for the smoothing out of
rate fluctuations over time.
The interagency receipts were placed in the budget to
provide chargeback flexibility during the transition
to the centralized model. As the transition is nearing
completion, returning to the Information Services Fund
model is required.
FY2019 Governor: $46,066.5
FY2019 Total Amendments: $0.0
FY2019 Total: $46,066.5
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:41:25 PM
Representative Grenn explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment accepts the governor's request for a
fund source change replacing $9,701,000 of interagency
receipts with information service funds. This is a
technical adjustment to align the Office of
Information Technology's budget with the most
appropriate fund source authorized by AS 44.21.045,
the Information Services Fund is an internal service
fund designed to enable the Office of Information
Technology to charge and collect fees for information
technology services provided to agencies and political
subdivisions of the state. An information services
fund allows for the collection and reporting the full
cost of goods or services including capital assets and
depreciation. This is important to rate development
and allows for the smoothing out of rate fluctuations
over time. The interagency receipts were originally
placed in the budget to provide chargeback flexibility
during the transition of a centralized model. As the
transition is now nearing completion, returning to the
information services fund model is required.
Representative Pruitt asked how the fund was funded
(internally or externally).
Representative Grenn deferred to DOA.
CHERYL LOWENSTEIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, answered that the
bulk of receipts were received from internal agencies. She
detailed there was a chargeback rate for IT services
provided; a small portion of funding came from the
Municipality of Anchorage for use of a portion of the
department's mainframe.
Representative Pruitt assumed the funding request had come
from the department. He asked why DOA supported or
requested a change from interagency receipts to information
service funds.
1:44:26 PM
Ms. Lowenstein replied that the Office of Information
Technology functioned on rates. The internal agency funding
source was not as flexible as the internal service fund;
therefore, the department preferred the fund source change
to allow for smoothing of the rates. She detailed the
division had 32 cost centers and when there was over
collection in one, the division could potentially be liable
to pay back the federal government. The change would allow
using the internal service fund to smooth out rates.
Additionally, internal agency receipts were also an
administrative burden. The process had worked well in the
current because it had been a one-for-one agreement (e.g.
ten people were brought in and the division charged for ten
people). She explained that the coming year they would be
developed into the rates - the internal services fund would
be used for that purpose.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment GA 1 was ADOPTED.
1:45:45 PM
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOA 2 (copy
on file):
Information Services Fund
H DOA 2
Delete All Receipt Authority for
Information Services Fund Component
Since FY2009, the Department of Administration has
historically spent 0.0 in statutory designated program
receipts in the Services line item of Information
Services Fund. In addition, the Department has
identified this component as unnecessary to their core
services
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment deletes $55,000 in statutory designated
program receipts in the service line item of the
Information Services Fund. Effectively deleting this
allocation from the budget. The Information Services
Fund component of the department's budget contains
receipt authority to collect fees from non-state
agencies for services provided, which would then be
appropriated into the Information Services Fund.
However, since FY 09 the Department of Administration
has collected zero statutory designated program
receipts in this allocation. The department has
identified this component as unnecessary to their core
services and testified that they do not foresee a
situation where these funds would be needed.
1:46:40 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOA 2 was ADOPTED.
^DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
1:47:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg provided a subcommittee report
for the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED). He read from a prepared statement
(copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development held 8 meetings with the department during
the review of the FY 19 budget request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development recommends that the House Finance
Committee accept the Governor's FY 19 Amended Budget
with further amendments:
The numbers only budget without amendment totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $10,034.3
Designated General Funds (DGF) 46,236.0
Other Funds 57,044.5
Federal Funds 21,111.5
Total $134,426.3
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 15
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Finance
Recommendation budget is a reduction of $20.8 million,
a decrease of 67.4 percent.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 500
Permanent Part-time 0
Temporary 5
Total 505
The Governor did not submit any amendments.
The subcommittee discussed a variety of issues during
the meetings. Those that I have not put forward for
consideration by the House Finance Committee include,
but are not limited to:
l. The subcommittee reviewed the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska's Docket 1-17-004, a legislative report on
Alaska's current and future broadband coverage.
2. The subcommittee received an update on the Ambler
Mining District Access Project.
3. An amendment proposal was considered that would
have provided additional regulato1 positions to the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
Representative Guttenberg elaborated that the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) was in the middle of an open
docket and it was too soon to broach the subject and
receive input. The subcommittee had reviewed the Ambler
Mining District Access Project - an amendment had been
considered that would have provided additional regulatory
positions for the RCA. The amendment was in response to the
industry's need for help to facilitate some of its
requests. However, the subcommittee had not been able to
determine exactly what the industry wanted or where to put
it. He explained the request would be put off to a later
time.
Representative Guttenberg concluded his subcommittee
report. The subcommittee made no statutory recommendations.
He listed attached reports including an allocation summary,
multi-year allocation summary, and a transaction detail.
1:50:22 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 1
(copy on file):
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
H CED 1
Broadband Mapping Requirements
Wordage:
It is the intent of the legislature that every company
providing advanced telecommunications capability in
the State of Alaska file a report with the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska. The report should include
geographic information system "shapefiles" of the
territory in which it offers service, and the
connection speed and type of technology for each
serviceable street address or land parcel to which it
offers service. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska
shall deliver a report summarizing broadband internet
access in Alaska to the Speaker of the House, the
President of the Senate, the Co-Chairs of the House
Finance Committee, the Co-Chairs of the Senate Finance
Committee, and the Legislative Finance Division, by
December 1, 2018.
Explanation:
Current mapping requirements provide information on
broadband access at the census block level. These
requirements do not result in accurate maps
identifying where Alaskans have access and where they
do not. This amendment seeks to obtain more detailed
information that will result in more accurate mapping.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Guttenberg relayed that the two amendments
had been based on recommendations for action in an RCA
report. The legislature had included language in the prior
year's budget requiring RCA to do a report on the state of
broadband and its future in Alaska. There had been
deficiencies in what the RCA could report or understand
about broadband. The amendments contained two
recommendations from the report. He referenced a comment
made in committee asking why the legislature was requesting
a report from RCA. He explained the report included intent
language recommendations to better understand the nature of
broadband in Alaska. He explained there was no fiscal
impact or general funds; the RCA would deal with the
request as it could.
Representative Guttenberg read from the amendment
description [see above for detail].
1:52:43 PM
Representative Wilson thought it seemed to be private
information from private companies. She asked for the
current process and wondered whether companies had to
report anything to the RCA at present.
Representative Guttenberg answered that the RCA had no
authority over any regulatory role for broadband. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claimed exclusive
regulatory authority. He noted that some jurisdictions had
countered the decision was Congressional. The RCA still had
the ability to do the state's work to figure out mapping
the landscape. He explained that when another fiber line
was installed, or wireless was fixed, there was no required
regulatory or submittal to the RCA.
Representative Wilson thought they were regulating in a
weird way. She was concerned about forcing private
companies to provide the information. She wondered if the
information would become public.
Representative Guttenberg answered that as in the report
developed by the RCA the previous year, the companies all
participated voluntarily or specified they did not want to
submit information. The report detailed whether a company
had elected to participate or not. He clarified that
companies were not required to participate. The RCA did
numerous significant things for the companies without
specific authority. The overall interest of the state was
to understand where internet access was or was not and for
other entities to be competitive or not. There was an
inherent interest in the state knowing what it had. There
was nothing in the amendment specifying the state was
regulating the industry. He furthered that the state's
understanding of the issue was lessening. The information
published by the RCA would be public like its December
report posted online.
Representative Wilson spoke against the amendment. She
thought the amendment was a policy change rather than
intent language, which was concerning to her when private
companies were involved. She was concerned about asking
private companies to provide information about who they
provided service to and other. She understood that the
state may want to know the information; however, the state
did not require things of other private companies it did
not regulate. She thought the issue was not the state's
business.
1:56:49 PM
Representative Kawasaki thought it was information that
legislators would want. He asked about the intent language.
He noted that the language directed the intent that a
company do something for the state. He wondered if the RCA
could already request the information from companies. He
considered whether the amendment required separate
legislation and should be attached as a statutory
recommendation.
Representative Guttenberg answered that the second
amendment [Amendment H CED 2] got further into the issue.
He explained that the program was voluntary. The amendment
asked the RCA to get a picture of the current [broadband]
system. He elaborated that a substantial portion of rural
Fairbanks had almost no internet. He shared that he had 4
megabits and two of his closest neighbors had none. He
expounded there was no mapping of the services available.
The FCC used census district mapping - many of the
districts were the size of a legislative district. He
explained that if one person in the census district had a
high [broadband speed] number, the map showed everyone had
that high number. He continued that if a fiberoptic cable
between Fairbanks and Anchorage crossed one person's
boundary (whether they had access to it or not), everyone
in the census district were considered to have the service,
but that was not the case. Mapping was a significant issue
- the previous day there had been a copy of a speech from
an FCC commissioner trying to ask people to do crowd
sourcing for coverage. He shared he had tried the method
the previous year and equated the method to asking a person
to raise their hand if they were not present.
1:59:28 PM
Representative Kawasaki clarified his question. He
identified the RCA as a quasi-judicial organization that
was semi-autonomous from legislative statute. He asked if
the RCA could already require every company providing
advanced telecom capability in Alaska to file a report.
Representative Guttenberg answered in the negative. He
explained that the amendment would not require companies to
file a report either - the reporting would be voluntary.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the first line of the
amendment, which specified it was the legislature's intent
for companies to file a report. He noted that usually
legislative intent pertained to asking state agencies to do
something, but not other companies. He referred to a second
part as a statutory recommendation. He asked if the
amendment was a statutory recommendation or intent
language.
Representative Guttenberg clarified that the amendment was
intent language only. He stated it reflected one of the
RCA's recommendations to determine if the state needed to
do something and what it would be. He explained the map
would not be complete. Part of the state's inherent
interest was understanding what was and was not out there.
Vice-Chair Gara supported the goal. He did not believe it
was realistic to get a statute passed during the current
session. He spoke about the importance of mapping to know
the needs across the state.
2:01:47 PM
Co-Chair Seaton read the second sentence of the amendment:
The report should include geographic information
system "shapefiles" of the territory in which it
offers service, and the connection speed and type of
technology for each serviceable street address or land
parcel to which it offers service.
Co-Chair Seaton provided an example using a satellite
communications company. He asked if the company would be
asked to file a map of every serviceable street address in
a community even though the [internet speed] service one
person was getting may be very different than a service
another person may buy. He thought the amendment request
seemed very detailed in one way (pertaining to street
addresses) and very broad in the service provided.
Representative Guttenberg answered that he could not say
what a company would do, but he imagined companies
providing satellite service would specify the entire region
they covered (e.g. the entire state would be the coverage
region for a company covering Alaska). He underscored that
the intent language was not a requirement. Part of the
problem was that out-of-state entities would tell the RCA
it had no authority. He discussed the possibility of a
company running a satellite program in Alaska letting
everyone know it planned to offer 25 megabits statewide in
several years' time.
2:04:38 PM
Representative Guttenberg continued that the FCC had an
open docket to do the work as well. The amendment did not
ask companies to reinvent something they would be doing.
Co-Chair Seaton shared that he would prefer to see the
amendment with a much more specific definition later on. He
was confused about what was being asked and was having
trouble understanding the details.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW Amendment H CED 1 and
expressed intent to bring further detail to the committee
at a later date.
2:06:06 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H CED 2
(copy on file):
H CED 2
Telecommunications
Modernization Standards
Wordage:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska recommend adoption of
updated telecommunication modernization regulatory
standards in AS42.05, the Alaska Public Utilities
Regulatory Act, and deliver recommendations on how
best to modernize outdated statutes to the House and
Senate Finance Committees and to the Legislative
Finance Division by February 19, 2019.
Explanation:
Alaska's Public Utilities Regulatory Act is outdated
and needs to be updated in order to address how the
regulation of utilities providing telecommunications
services should happen in the modern world. This
amendment directs the RCA to provide the legislature
with input on updating these statutes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Guttenberg explained the amendment. He
shared that the language had been recommended by the RCA
and was supported by the industry. He detailed that the
statutory language for the RCA was antiquated. The RCA had
difficulty fitting in its regulatory processes at present
within the statutory language. The amendment did not
pertain to specific items like broadband or sewers, but to
everything done by the agency. He elaborated that
everything that the entity was doing needed to be
modernized. He had tried looking at other states, but the
information was all different. Without the regulatory staff
to rewrite statute, it was not possible. He summarized that
the language needed to be rewritten because everything was
more than 20 years old.
2:08:16 PM
Representative Wilson wondered who would update the AS
42.05 language. She thought RCA did not have time to do the
work due to its caseload. She wondered if the amendment was
the intent for someone outside the RCA to do the work.
Representative Guttenberg clarified that he did not believe
any office in the [capitol] building had the capability of
doing the work - regulatory expertise was needed. He
expected the RCA would do the work to modernize the
language because it would be able to do the work within its
purview. He expected the change would be a modernization of
the language conforming to the RCA's regulatory authority,
which would then be brought to the legislature. He
anticipated someone would submit a bill with
recommendations and it would go through the legislative
process. The language proposed by the RCA would be a
starting point for the legislature to pass legislation. He
continued that the RCA could propose language with input
from the industry that would fit Alaska. He noted that all
states were very different. It was a continuum of
understanding telecommunications and modernization of
standards. Currently all of the telephone regulations were
phone and internet, but they should be internet and phone.
Changes were being made from an antiquated wire system to
high resolution, but there was no reference for the RCA in
its statutes. Ultimately, the legislature would decide what
to implement.
2:11:17 PM
Representative Wilson stated the statute was approximately
44 pages and the work would be required by February 19,
2019. She thought it was the legislature's responsibility
to do the work because it had implemented the statute. She
was concerned the RCA was overloaded with work. She
understood the RCA wanted the changes made but requiring
the RCA to do the work would put more strain on the agency.
She reasoned that the agency would have done the work on
its own already if it had the time to do so.
Representative Guttenberg replied that the deadline
included in the amendment had been provided by the RCA.
Representative Wilson wondered why legislative intent
language was necessary if the RCA had specified it would do
the work.
Representative Guttenberg answered that without direction
from the legislature there was no reason for the RCA to do
the work. The agency was waiting for direction [from the
legislature] to modernize its standards.
2:13:26 PM
Representative Kawasaki referenced the amendment language
that it was the intent of the legislature for the RCA to
recommend adoption [of updated telecommunication
modernization regulatory standards]. He thought
Representative Guttenberg had said the RCA could already
recommend that the legislature adopt updated standards
through statute. He asked if that was the case.
Representative Guttenberg asked Representative Kawasaki to
repeat the question.
Representative Kawasaki complied. He was trying to
determine who the legislature was telling what to do.
Representative Guttenberg answered that the RCA could not
change anything statutorily by itself. The regulatory
framework existed inside statute; therefore, statutes
needed to be modernized. The amendment asked the RCA to
bring modernized language for the legislature to consider
and act on via legislation or other. He stated it was not
an easy subject - there had been disagreements over the
subject in the past. He continued that the RCA wanted the
statutes modernized because the private sector had
challenges functioning inside statutory framework that was
no longer relevant. The RCA was at the end of the road in
terms of the ability to make more regulatory changes.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the intent was similar to
recommendations the legislature received periodically to
adopt new electrical standards in statute or a building
code update.
Representative Guttenberg replied it was similar. He
mentioned that the state had adopted someone else's fire
code. The amendment asked the RCA to bring model statute
legislation that the legislature could conform as needed.
The RCA was maxed out on regulatory changes. He continued
that industry found the regulatory changes became harder
and harder to fit inside an antiquated framework.
2:16:50 PM
Representative Pruitt was trying to understand why the RCA
was not already working on the issue if it wanted the
updates. Normally agencies came to the legislature if they
had concerns or found someone to sponsor a bill. He did not
understand the need for the amendment.
Representative Guttenberg replied that if it was something
in the executive department they would have the guidance of
the governor's office. He elaborated that the RCA was
independent of the governor. The legislature had created
the RCA. The RCA did not have the ability to do the work
without guidance from the legislature.
Representative Pruitt asked if the process was standard
with other commissions or corporations. He used the
Railroad Corporation as an example and noted the entity
requested the legislature to pass needed changes. He asked
if it was standard for commissions to ask the legislature
to tell them to make changes.
2:19:25 PM
Representative Guttenberg answered they were all different;
their authority was all different. The railroad had come to
the legislature in the current year requesting a statutory
change to have the ability to sell land. He elaborated that
the legislature's permission was not required. He clarified
that the amendment did not address updating one portion of
statute but addressed modernizing the RCA's standards. He
believed it would be unique for an entity to ask the
legislature to rewrite all of its standards. He believed
the entity needed direction.
Co-Chair Foster observed that the amendment did not seem to
do any harm and was moving in the right direction. He was
comfortable supporting the amendment.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. She stated
44 pages was a substantial review for one area.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt
Representatives Tilton and Kawasaki were absent from the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H CED 2 was ADOPTED.
^DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS
2:21:59 PM
Representative Ortiz provided a subcommittee report for the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). He
read from a prepared statement (copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
held eight meetings with the department during the
review of the FY 19 budget request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for DEED
recommends that the House Finance Committee accept the
DEED FY 19 budget with the following amendment
recommendations:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $44,351.5
Designated General Funds (DGF) $26,077.1
Other Funds $46,462.0
Federal Funds $251,090.2
Total $367,980.8
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 15
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $24,821.7, a
decrease of 35.9 percent.
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY18
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $229.1, a
decrease of 0.5 percent.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 267
Permanent Part-time 13
Temporary 4
Total 284
Since the committee will be taking up the
subcommittee's budget amendment recommendations in
just a few minutes I will not discuss them now;
however, the subcommittee discussed a variety of
issues during the meetings including some amendment
proposals that the subcommittee denied.
1. An amendment proposal was discussed that would
have eliminated funding for Live Homework Help.
Following a thoughtful discussion the maker of
the amendment withdrew the amendment.
2. An amendment proposal was discussed that would
have reduced early learning Pre-K grants by
$600.0 UGF. The subcommittee voted down this
proposal three YEAs to five NAYs.
The subcommittee made no statutory recommendations.
The governor's amendments for which the subcommittee
recommended approval will be taken up by the committee
in just a few minutes, so I'll discuss them at that
point.
Representative Ortiz thanked subcommittee members,
department staff, and Legislative Finance Division staff.
2:25:31 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 1 (copy
on file):
K-12 Aid to School Districts
Foundation Program
H DOE 1
Public School Fund revenue adjustment
This is a technical fund source adjustment in the
number section of the Foundation Program budget.
The amendment reduces the Public School Trust Fund
appropriation to match Department of Revenue's
projected revenue available for appropriation under
existing state law (a total of $10 million).
The Governor's proposed FY19 budget assumes passage of
legislation restructuring the Public School Trust Fund
and budgets for an increase in funds that could be
drawn from the fund. However, until a bill passes, the
additional $18 million budgeted by the Governor is not
available to spend. This amount will instead come from
the general fund.
This amendment adjusts revenues to match revenue
projections under existing law.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
Amendment H DOE 1 is a Public School Fund revenue
adjustment. It is a decrement of $18 million in the
Public School Trust Fund in the grant line. This is a
technical fund source adjustment to the foundation
program budget. This amendment reduces the Public
School Trust Fund appropriation to match the
Department of Revenue's projected revenue available
for appropriation under existing state law.
The governor's proposed FY 19 budget assumes passage
of legislation restructuring the Public School Trust
Fund and budgets for an increase in funds that could
be drawn from the fund. However, until a bill passes,
the additional $18 million budgeted by the governor is
not available to spend.
Representative Ortiz characterized the amendment as
technical.
2:26:39 PM
Co-Chair Seaton noted that the amount would be in a fiscal
note accompanying the bill if it passed.
Representative Wilson was trying to follow where the money
was going. She asked if the proposed adjustment assumed
legislation would pass.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the governor had included
the money in the budget assuming legislation would pass.
The amendment removed the funds until the legislation
passed; at that time the money would be attached to the
legislation in a fiscal note. There had been a number of
cases where the legislature had removed money from the
budget that had been incorporated by the administration
requiring passage of certain legislation. For budgetary
reasons, double funding could occur under the
circumstances. The legislature had stuck with the normal
budgeting procedures that when bills passed they contained
a fiscal note instead of incorporating money in the budget
for statutes that had not yet passed.
Representative Wilson asked if there would be an amendment
to reinsert the $18 million if the legislation did not
pass.
Co-Chair Seaton replied there could be an amendment to add
funds but it would not necessarily be the amount indicated
in the amendment.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOE 1 was ADOPTED.
2:28:55 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 2 (copy on
file):
Education Support and Admin Services
Student and School Achievement
GA 2 2/14 Additional Support for Data
Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
Alaska's Education Challenge and Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) are two efforts that together will
ensure an excellent education for every student every
day by improving outcomes for Alaska's schools and
students. Under both initiatives, additional data will
be collected to better inform Alaskans on how
students, schools, districts, and the state are
progressing, as well as to meet ESSA requirements.
The one new Research Analyst I/II/III flex (Range
13/16/18) position will serve as a liaison to school
districts by providing technical assistance and
support for the additional data that will be
collected. In addition, this position will provide
more longitudinal and comparability data analysis
using existing and new datasets. This position will
work across divisions within the department and
increase the reporting capacity of the data management
team. Data is one of the most powerful tools to
inform, engage, and create opportunities for students
along their education journey. Having accessible,
accurate, and consistent data at our fingertips will
help students, parents, educators, and policymakers
make more informed decisions around Alaska's education
system and help drive improvement for student success.
This is a new request for FY2019. It was not included
in the FY2019 Governor request because the final
Alaska's Education Challenge report was not yet
available for review for the department to determine
additional needs for the success of this on-going
project.
This new position is budgeted as a Research Analyst II
(R16), but will ideally be a flex I/II/III position to
allow for a greater pool of qualified candidates.
FY2019 Governor: $157,814.1
FY2019 Total Amendments: $97.8
FY2019 Total: $157,911.9
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment provides additional support for data
collection, analysis, and reporting. It's an increment
of $97,800 UGF for one full-time research analyst
position. This position will support the department's
data collection analysis needs associated with the
Alaska Education Challenge and implementation of the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This amendment was
unanimously adopted by the subcommittee.
Representative Ortiz reported the subcommittee believed the
position was needed to support the governor's initiative on
improving education.
2:30:14 PM
Representative Wilson asked how many positions were
currently housed in the allocation. She stated there were
already similar reports.
Representative Ortiz replied there were four filled full-
time positions. The amendment would add one more.
Representative Wilson asked what in the ESSA requirements
had caused the generation of more paperwork and more data
to be collected in comparison to the current process.
Representative Ortiz deferred to the department.
SANA EFIRD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, answered that the new ESSA had a
number of new possible data collections in the department's
accountability system. The department had submitted its
ESSA plan to the federal Department of Education and was
waiting for approval. She noted DEED was clarifying some
things and would resubmit the plan at the end of February
for approval. There were a number of indicators in the plan
such as on track for grade three reading, looking at ninth
graders to ensure they were on track to graduate, and
other. There were a number of indicators DEED wanted to
have in order to make the decisions. She referenced the
Alaska Education Challenge initiative - there were 13
recommendations and DEED was currently working with the
national organization the Council of Chief State School
Officers to determine how to align DEED's current work with
the recommendations. Much of the information would mean
acquiring additional data - longitudinal studies and
comparative data across districts - to report and analyze
to help make better decisions to help students' outcomes.
2:33:18 PM
Representative Wilson surmised that most of the data would
be reported by school districts. She knew the state had
done longitudinal studies for a long time. She did not
believe DEED was certain what additional information it may
need to work on because it was still working through the
process. She did not understand the need for another
position until DEED completed the process to know what it
would be mandated to do.
Ms. Efird replied that some of the work was not mandated.
She elaborated that ESSA had mandated data DEED was
required to report on. The department currently had to do
much of its federal reporting - staff was responsible for
mandated state and federal reporting. The department's
commissioner felt that having data was the way to make a
difference for students; it would provide families and the
public with more information about where schools were
succeeding for students and where there were areas of
deficiency. The position would not be tied to current state
or federal reporting and would give flexibility to work
with districts, especially small districts that may not
have the ability to provide the data at present, to help
districts define data and for the department to be
consistent across districts. For example, the position
would help determine whether everyone was defining chronic
absenteeism in the same way to ensure the data was
meaningful when collected by the department.
Representative Wilson believed data was important, but she
believed most states had the districts collect the data.
She stated it was currently the process in Alaska; the data
was then forwarded to DEED. She did not believe another
position was needed. She believed districts should decide
how to collect and utilize the data.
Representative Ortiz summarized that the amendment had come
from the governor. Part of the position would be to help
augment the Alaska's Education Challenge. He shared that
several members of the subcommittee that had helped compile
the recommendations were Minority members and one sat on
the House Finance Committee. He explained that the finance
committee member recognized that the position was needed to
fulfill the goal of the educational challenge put forth by
the House Finance Committee. He stressed that if the state
wanted to talk about accountability and how its districts
were doing, the data was needed.
2:37:09 PM
Representative Wilson stated that the data was collected by
the school districts. She elaborated that districts had to
have the data to be able to provide it to DEED. She
believed the question was who should be taking the data and
utilizing it - the school district or the department. She
reasoned that because districts had local control, the
responsibility to utilize the data was at the school
district level. She stated that currently the state did not
mandate anything for education like graduation rates or
requiring students to read by the third grade. She stated
that the department was basically an assistant to the
school districts. She believed the data was great, but she
believed the utilization belonged in the districts.
Co-Chair Seaton supported the amendment. He added that data
could be a report sitting on a shelf, but if it was not
analyzed it was not meaningful.
Vice-Chair Gara understood why the work would be done at a
district level. Unlike most states, the State of Alaska had
a larger role in education as opposed to cities and towns.
He wondered if the amendment applied to the collection of
existing data by DEED or additional performance data.
Ms. Efird answered that the hope was to collect additional
statewide data from districts. The data would be used to
highlight districts that were making the most improvement
for their students and share the data with less successful
districts to help students' outcomes.
Representative Guttenberg supported the amendment. He
shared that he had visited three or four classrooms during
the past fall. He had been amazed with the ability of the
teachers to focus on what a student was excelling at or
where they were lagging behind and matching up the workload
to bring the student up to the level of the rest of the
class. He expounded that teachers had been proficient on
the computers and programs. He believed the ability to
aggregate the data to pinpoint what was working was
necessary. He reasoned that someone had to take the data
and turn it into something.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson
Representative Tilton was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H GA 2 was ADOPTED.
2:42:56 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 3 (copy on
file):
Mt. Edgecumbe Boarding School
Mount Edgecumbe Boarding School Facilities Maintenance
GA 3 2/14
General Fund Program
Receipt Authorization for the Mt. Edgecumbe Aquatic
Center
In order for the state to accept entrance fees, and
other event fees, at the new Mt. Edgecumbe High School
(MEHS) Aquatic Center, general fund program receipt
(GF/PR) authorization must be added to the MEHS
Facility Maintenance budget structure. Current cost
estimates for the operations and maintenance of the
pool are $583.1 annually. GF/PR will offset the total
amount of unrestricted general funds necessary for the
operations and maintenance of the pool. The $250.0
requested in GF/PR is approximately 43 percent of the
total operations and maintenance costs, and is the
department's best estimate at this time of the total
amount that may potentially be collected in fee-
supported revenue. The department will be able to
provide an updated estimate after the pool is open for
business and being used by various stakeholders,
including the community of Sitka. Without GF/PR
authorization, the department will be unable to
collect fees received by the users of the MEHS Aquatic
Center to help offset operating expenses.
FY2019 Governor: $1,192.7
FY2019 Total Amendments: $250.0
FY2019 Total: $1,442.7
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
Amendment GA 3 adds general fund program receipt
authorizations for the Mount Edgecumbe Aquatic Center.
It's an increment of $250,000, which would be
potentially the amount of program receipts that could
be collected. In order for the state to accept user
fees for pool rental and public use at the new Mount
Edgecumbe High School Aquatic Center, general fund
program receipt authorization must be added to the
budget. The $250,000 request is approximately 43
percent of the total operations and maintenance cost
and is the department's best estimate as to the amount
that may be potentially collected.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment GA 3 was ADOPTED.
2:43:56 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOE 2 (copy
on file):
Alaska State Libraries, Archives and Museums
Museum Operations
H DOE 2 Restore Funding for Museum Grant-in-Aid
Program
This amendment restores funding for the Museum Grant-
in-Aid competitive grant program. These are grants
ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 that are vital to the
ability of small museums to build and maintain their
collections.
The goal of the program is to sustain and support
museums across the state that preserve Alaska history,
promote economic activity in the tourism sector, and
supply information to Alaskans.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment restores funding for the Museum Grant-
in-Aid program. It's an increment of $105,000. These
small grants sustain and support museums across the
state that preserve Alaska history from economic
activity in the tourism sector and supply information
to Alaskans. Grant awards are made for the primary
collection care and exhibits from grants typically
ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 with a maximum of
$10,000. These grants are vital to small local museums
to build and maintain their collections.
Representative Ortiz added that when the governor's budget
had come out with the decrement, the subcommittee had heard
from a variety of museums statewide about the importance of
the funds for their ability to maintain exhibits and
collections that had significant historical value to the
state.
2:45:35 PM
Representative Wilson appreciated the amendment but did not
agree the timing was right given the deficit facing the
state and the consideration of a payroll or income tax. The
program had been implemented when the state had money. She
did not believe it was the time to add money to the budget.
Representative Pruitt echoed the statements. He appreciated
museums. However, he referenced the idea of making changes
to the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) structure -
potentially around $1,200 less than the statute. He applied
the concept to anytime the legislature increased funds. He
calculated that the proposed amendment increment added up
to 88 PFDs. He wanted to use the money for things the
public expected the funds to be used for. He reasoned that
88 people could donate money through the Pick.Click.Give
program to museums. The expectation for museum operators
was to seek out donors to keep museums viable. He continued
that some of the best museums in the world were able to
operate due to donations from the public. He supported that
existing model and thought people interested in preserving
history could participate via donations. He thought the
amendment was a tough ask. He thought it was an appropriate
conversation to have when considering any increase to the
budget. He was uncertain the public would agree the
amendment was an appropriate use of funds.
2:49:04 PM
Vice-Chair Gara referenced the need for a fiscal plan, but
reasoned society could not stand still while the public
waited. He supported the amendment.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Wilson
Representative Tilton was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H DOE 2 was ADOPTED.
Representative Guttenberg returned to his earlier testimony
on DCCED. He thanked several people from DCCED and the
Legislative Finance Division for their work on the
subcommittee.
2:50:39 PM
AT EASE
2:54:54 PM
RECONVENED
^DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
2:55:00 PM
Representative Ortiz provided a subcommittee report for the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG). He read from a prepared
statement (copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Fish and Game held six meetings with the
department during the review of the FY 19 budget
request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Fish and Game recommends that the House
Finance Committee accept the Department of Fish and
Game's FY 19 budget with the following amendment
recommendations:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $51,506.1
Designated General Funds (DGF) 13,562.5
Other Funds 65,919.3
Federal Funds 66,922.0
Total $197,909.9
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY15
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $27,881.7, a
decrease of 35.1 percent.
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 18
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is an increase of $989.7, an
increase of 2 percent.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 827
Permanent Part-time 622
Temporary 7
Total 1,456
There is one subcommittee budget amendment
recommendation and since the committee will be taking
up the subcommittee budget amendment recommendations
in just a few minutes I will not describe them now.
The subcommittee made no statutory recommendations.
The governor did not submit any amendments for this
agency. Securing and managing Pittman-Robertson Funds
was discussed as an area worth further exploration.
Representative Ortiz thanked the DFG subcommittee members,
Legislative Finance, and department staff. He relayed that
representatives from the industry including United
Fisherman of Alaska (UFA) and the Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA) participated as well.
2:57:49 PM
Representative Pruitt referenced subcommittee discussion
about [federal] Pittman-Robertson funds. He believed the
state had to return some funds because the money had not
been used as intended - the funds had potentially been used
in the commissioner's office as opposed to management as
intended. He recalled the passage of a bill a couple of
years earlier that increased user fees with the full intent
to match the funds for habitat stabilization. He believed
it was an important question that needed to be answered.
Representative Guttenberg noted an amendment would be
included in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
budget to maximize the ability to utilize Pittman-Robertson
funds to a greater extent than had been done.
Representative Ortiz deferred to the Legislative Finance
Division and DFG.
AMANDA RYDER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
replied there was a capital project with $4 million DFG
funds in the governor's request. She and DFG were looking
at the request because she was concerned about overspending
DFG funds and not having sustainable DFG fund revenue. She
had a number of questions about the DFG fund and whether
spending the $4 million would mean the need to request
general funds to replace DFG funds in the operating budget
in the future. She understood there was significant concern
about turning away Pittman-Robertson funds. She did not
have the answers at present, but she was working with DFG
to get the answers to the committee. The Legislative
Finance Division was concerned about ensuring Pittman-
Robertson funds were not turned back if the legislature
wanted to fund the projects and ensuring the state did not
overspend a finite fund source.
3:01:23 PM
Representative Pruitt replied he looked forward to the
continued conversation. He referenced fees that had been
increased a couple of years earlier and asked if the
legislature or DFG utilized the fees in areas that did not
enable the state to receive [federal] reimbursement.
CAROL PETRABORG, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, answered that DFG
funds on the wildlife side were used for hunter and trapper
purposes when matching Pittman-Robertson funds. She
elaborated that if projects did not support hunter and
trapper license purchasers, the department could not use
DFG funds for matching funds. Projects with a broader
wildlife related scope would be funded by general funds,
third-party match, or in-kind match.
Representative Pruitt asked if any of the additional funds
generated by the [fee] increase had gone towards operations
or items that did not qualify for [federal] reimbursement.
Ms. Petraborg responded that SB 250 had been passed several
years back requiring funds for wildlife related licenses
sold, had to be in the DFG wildlife fund. The only way the
funds could be used outside the Division of Wildlife
Conservation was with an RSA [reimbursable services
agreement], which had to be detailed in the department's
budget request.
3:04:24 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H DFG 1, H
DFG 2, H DFG 3, and H DFG 4 (copy on file) [due to the
length of the amendments they have not been included here.
See copy on file for detail]. He noted the amendments had
been moved out of the subcommittee as a single amendment.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained that the basis for the
amendments was the fact that the department's UGF funding
had been reduced by more than 35 percent. He pointed out
that while reductions had been necessary due to the state's
fiscal situation, at a certain point reductions were
counterproductive. Cuts had resulted the discontinuation of
projects that had been worked on by DFG in the past because
the funding level no longer supported the projects. He
elaborated that data information collection was not being
done at previous levels; therefore, DFG had been forced to
become more conservative in its fish catch allotments and
opportunity for commercial fishermen had gone away in many
instances. Lost opportunities and reduced catch allotments
meant fishermen could no longer provide for their families
and crew. Additionally, the money was not being circulated
in the economy, which meant less landing taxes collected.
He submitted the case was clear the point had been reached
where reductions were counterproductive to the state's
economy.
Representative Ortiz reminded the committee that the
seafood industry was the largest private employer in
Alaska. He continued to explain with a prepared statement:
It amounts to $146 million in total annual municipal
and federal taxes fees and self-assessments paid by
commercial fishermen and seafood processors to operate
in Alaska. It amounts to a total of $5.2 billion in
total annual economic activity created by the seafood
industry and it amounts to $2 billion of annual labor
income generated by the seafood industry in Alaska and
56,800 people are employed directly in the Alaska
seafood industry.
Representative Ortiz elaborated that the amendments were
about recreating lost opportunity in particular areas of
commercial fishing that would allow fishermen to better
provide for their family's needs.
3:08:12 PM
Representative Wilson recalled a bill several years earlier
related to the adjustment of fees for commercial fishermen.
She asked when the fees had last been updated.
Representative Ortiz asked for clarification.
Representative Wilson clarified that Representative Ortiz
had spoken about the missed opportunity for commercial
fishermen. She reasoned that updated fees would bring more
money in and would enable the department to conduct many of
the studies and help provide opportunities to fishermen.
Representative Ortiz deferred to the department.
Ms. Petraborg believed Representative Wilson was
referencing commercial entry fisheries commission fees
utilized at DFG. She explained that fish taxes were
deposited into the General Fund; the department did not
collect fees outside of commercial crew member license
fees.
Representative Wilson asked if DFG had the authority to
look at the studies or whatever was required in order to
have [fishery] openings longer. She asked if DFG could take
fees it spent and determine what the fees would be for
participants in order to be revenue/expenditure neutral.
Ms. Petraborg replied in the negative.
Representative Wilson surmised a statutory change would be
necessary in order to give DFG the authority.
Ms. Petraborg replied in the affirmative.
3:10:49 PM
Representative Pruitt asked how much the state received in
fees and taxes from the industry and how much the state
spent. He asked what the subsidization rate was and how the
additional $1 million-plus in the amendment would impact
the rate. He wondered if Ms. Petraborg had the information.
Ms. Petraborg answered in the negative. She believed the
last time the calculation had been done was in 2009 by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
She noted the number was very difficult to measure.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the committee was
considering the amendment, not base economics of the
fishing industry.
Representative Pruitt believed a conversation about what
the state received was relevant to whether the state should
expand the amount it was paying/investing. He considered
that perhaps the amendment funds were needed, but he
wondered whether the conversation should go hand-in-hand
with discussion about additional assistance from the
industry.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that most of
the studies would give more opportunities to commercial
fishermen.
SCOTT KELLY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied in the affirmative.
The intent of the increments and the requests from the
committee was to provide a list of projects to do that
[give more opportunities to commercial fishermen].
Representative Wilson surmised DFG had not done any
analysis on industry fees and what may need to be increased
prior to putting in the funding request [in the
amendments]. She did not understand when someone came in
and did not have information on how much money was going
out or coming in or how much an industry was being
subsidized by the state.
3:13:44 PM
Co-Chair Seaton stated that either 3 or 5 percent of the
gross value of the fish was collected by the state. The
state had elected to distribute 50 percent of the amount
where fish landed or were processed. There was an increment
that came in the value of foregone harvest lost by the
state (3 to 5 percent). The calculation of what the catch
would be by having over conservative management was
difficult to project.
Representative Wilson understood the point, but as
appropriators deciding whether funds should come out of UGF
(meaning everyone in the state would contribute if any kind
of taxes were put in) or from industry, she did not know
how to make the decision without proper numbers. She was
fine with how the money was given out, but she recalled
when legislation had been considered a couple of years back
that numerous fees had not been adjusted in some time.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson,
Gara, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Wilson
Representative Tilton was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendments H DFG 1, H DFG 2, H DFG 3, and H DFG 4 were
ADOPTED.
^OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR SUBCOMMITTEE
3:16:09 PM
Co-Chair Seaton provided a subcommittee report for the
Office of the Governor. He read from a prepared statement
(copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the Office
of the
Governor held two meetings with the agency during the
review of the FY 19 budget request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the Office
of the
Governor recommends that the House Finance Committee
accept the agency's FY 19 budget without further
amendment.
The numbers-only budget without further amendment
totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $23,135.8
Designated General Funds (DGF) -0-
Other Funds 838.3
Federal Funds 230.0
Total $24,204.1
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 15
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $8,884.5, a
decrease of 27.7 percent.
There is no Unrestricted General Fund difference from
FY 18 Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 137
Permanent Part-time -0-
Temporary 20
Total 157
The Governor did not submit any amendments.
No budget amendments are recommended by the
subcommittee for consideration by the House Finance
Committee. The subcommittee made no statutory
recommendations.
A subcommittee member asked whether the costs of
special sessions called by the Governor should be
budgeted in the Office of the Governor. The
subcommittee received a response from the Office of
the Governor on February 12th stating that
historically all costs of legislative sessions have
been budgeted in the Legislature's budget. The
legislature, however, with its power of appropriation
could add an appropriation for that purpose to the
Office of the Governor's budget. No member of the
subcommittee submitted any budget amendments.
^JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
3:18:32 PM
Vice-Chair Gara provided a subcommittee report for
Judiciary. He thanked the department, the Legislative
Finance Division, and subcommittee members for their work
on the budget. He read from a prepared statement (copy on
file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Judiciary held 4 meetings with the Alaska Court System
in attendance, during the review of the FY 19 budget
request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Judiciary recommends that the House Finance Committee
accept the Judiciary's FY 19 budget with the following
numbers-only amendment recommendations:
Fund Source: {dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $105,444.9
Designated General Funds (DGF) $518.0
Other Funds $2,206.1
Federal Funds $975.6
Total $109,144.6
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 15
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $6,421.4, a
decrease of 5.7 percent. The Unrestricted General Fund
difference from FY 18 Management Plan to the FY 19
House Subcommittee Recommended budget is an increase
of $606.3, an increase of 0.6 percent.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 740
Permanent Part-time 37
Temporary 5
Total 782
Vice-Chair Gara expounded that the department had deleted
45 funded positions since 2015. The committee had made no
statutory recommendations. He added that the Judiciary had
followed through on the committee's recommendation to look
at court fees and had amended the fees to generate over
$500,000 in the coming year. The governor did not submit
any amendments for this agency. He thanked his staff for
her work.
3:21:31 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H JUD 1 (copy on
file):
Alaska Court System
Appellate Courts
H JUD 1
Delete Conditional Wordage
Offered by Representative Gara
Delete conditional wordage that appears immediately
after the Alaska Court System appropriation name in
sec. 1 of both HB 286 and HB 285:
"Budget requests from agencies of the Judicial Branch
are transmitted as requested."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the amendment. The original
budget specified that the legislature adopted the budget as
is, which was not exactly accurate; therefore, the
amendment would remove the language from the budget.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H JUD 1 was ADOPTED.
3:22:26 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H JUD 2 (copy on
file):
Trial Courts
H JUD 2
Delete Excess Federal Receipt Authority
Deletes $175.0 of excess receipt authority from the
Trial Courts' budget.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the amendment would delete excess
federal receipt authority from the trial courts budget of
$175,000 per year. The court system did not receive the
money and did not anticipate receiving it in the future.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H JUD 2 was ADOPTED.
3:22:58 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H JUD 3 (copy on
file):
Administration and Support
H JUD 3 Delete Excess Federal Receipt Authority
Deletes $75.0 of excess receipt authority from the
Administration and Support budget.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the amendment would remove
$75,000 of federal receipt authority from the
administration and support section of the court system. The
court system had not received the money in the past and did
not anticipate receiving it in the future. The excess
federal receipt authority to be deleted by Amendments H JUD
2 and H JUD 3 was $250,000.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H JUD 3 was ADOPTED.
^DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
3:23:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster provided a subcommittee report for the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development. He read from
a prepared statement (copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development held 3
meetings with the Department during the review of the
FY 19 budget request. The budget subcommittee
recommends that the House Finance Committee accept the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development FY 19
budget without any amendments.
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Subcommittee for
the Department of Labor submits a recommended
operating budget for FY 2019 to the House Finance
Committee as follows:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $20,624.2
Designated General Funds (DGF) $35,586.3
Other Funds $17,002.1
Federal Funds $73,897.1
Total $147,109.7
The Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) difference from
the FY 2015 Management Plan to the FY 2019 House
Subcommittee budget recommendation is a reduction of
$12,792.4, a 38.3 percent decrease. The Subcommittee
recommendation reflects a total decrease in
Unrestricted General Funds of $367.8, a 1.8 percent
reduction from the FY 2018 Management Plan.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 691
Permanent Part-time 51
Temporary 12
Total 754
There were no Governor amendments for the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development.
The Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Budget House Finance Subcommittee did not have any
amendments for the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development Budget.
Co-Chair Foster thanked his staff, the department,
Legislative Finance Division staff, and subcommittee
members.
3:26:11 PM
AT EASE
3:26:21 PM
RECONVENED
^DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
3:26:27 PM
Co-Chair Seaton provided a subcommittee report for the
Department of Revenue (DOR). He read from a prepared
statement (copy on file):
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Revenue held 6 meetings with the
Department of Revenue during the review of the FY 19
budget request.
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Revenue recommends that the House
Finance Committee accept the Department of Revenues FY
I9 budget with the following amendment
recommendations:
The numbers-only budget with amendment recommendations
totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) $25,009.2
Designated General Funds (DGF) $2,570.4
Other Funds $287,928.8
Federal Funds $78 438.3
Total $393,946.7
There are no changes to the UGF, DGF, or federal
funds. The only change to the funding level is an
increase of $140,000 in other funds. The Unrestricted
General Fund difference from FY 15 Management Plan to
the FY 19 House Subcommittee Recommended budget is a
reduction of $8,822.2, a decrease of 26.1 percent.
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 18
Management Plan to the FY 19 House Subcommittee
Recommended budget is a reduction of $575.7, a
decrease of 2.3 percent.
Positions:
Permanent Full-time 833
Permanent Part-time 33
Temporary 16
Total 822
The subcommittee made no statutory recommendations.
The governor did not submit any amendments for this
agency.
3:28:51 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOR 1 (copy on
file):
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Mental Health Trust Operations
H DOR 1 Program Manager
This amendment adds $140.0 of Mental Health Trust
Authority Admin funds to work with providers and
administer and target grants aimed at improving the
lives of Trust beneficiaries and reducing the need for
institutionalization. The Trust will add needed
capacity to work on programs and issues with its
local, tribal, non-profit and state partners for
Alaska's trust beneficiaries. The position (Program
Officer) will allow the Trust to expand its capacity
as the need for mental health services increases
across the state.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment. The amendment
would add a program manager to the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA) operations allocation. The cost of
the position was $140,000 and would be paid with AMHTA
administration funds. He explained that even though the
trust was using its own funding, legislative authorization
was needed. The position would allow the trust to expand
its capacity as the need for mental health services
increases across the state. The position would work with
providers and would administer and target trust fund grants
aimed at improving the lives of trust fund beneficiaries
and reducing the need for institutionalization.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOR 1 was ADOPTED.
3:30:03 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H DOR 2, H DOR 3,
H DOR 4, and H DOR 5 (copy on file):
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
APFC Operations
H DOR 2
Relocate a portion of the
corporation's budget increment to sec. 1 from section
8(g).
This amendment, along with three other amendments,
relocates the Permanent Fund Corporation budget from
language section 8(g) to section 1, the numbers
section. This amendment allocates the portion of the
corporation's increment attributable to the Operations
allocation.
H DOR 3
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
APFC Operations
H DOR 3
Relocate the corporation's base budget to sec. 1 from
section 8(g).
This amendment, along with three other amendments
relocates the Permanent Fund Corporation budget from
language section 8(g) to section 1, the numbers
section. This is the portion of the base budget
attributable to the Operations allocation.
H DOR 4
APFC Investment Management Fees
H DOR 4
Relocate the corporation's base budget to sec. 1 from
section 8(g).
This amendment, along with three other amendments
relocates the Permanent Fund Corporation budget from
language section 8(g) to section 1, the numbers
section. This is the portion of the base budget
attributable to the Investment Management Fees
allocation.
H DOR 5
APFC Investment Management Fees
H DOR 5
Relocate a portion of the corporation's budget
increment to sec. 1 from section 8(g).
This amendment, along with three other amendments,
relocates the Permanent Fund Corporation budget from
language section 8(g) to section 1, the numbers
section. This amendment allocates the portion of the
corporation's increment attributable to the Investment
Management Fees allocation.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the related amendments with a
prepared statement:
These Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation amendments are
all related to each other. The corporation's FY 19
budget request is a single allocation in the language
section of the operating budget. These four amendments
add the corporation's budget to Section 1 of the
budget and move the funding into two allocations - the
operations allocation and the investment management
fees allocation.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment would return to the
way the budget had been initially, without the governor's
proposed change. He elaborated that Amendment H DOR 3 was
for the operations allocation and Amendment H DOR 4 was for
the investment management fee allocation. The amendment
would divide the corporation's base budget between the two
allocations as had been done previously. The governor's
budget request included a $17.5 million increment.
Amendments H DOR 2, H DOR 3, and H DOR 5 for the investment
management fees divide the increment between the two
allocations and place the funding in Section 1. The
amendments were necessary for two reasons. He detailed that
if the budget remained in the bill's language section the
subcommittee would have no purview over the budget - it
would only be reviewed by the finance co-chair. The
subcommittee believed APFC should continue to present its
budget before the revenue subcommittee annually.
Additionally, with one allocation it would not be readily
apparent to legislators how much funding was budgeted for
operations versus external management fees. The
subcommittee agreed that tracking external management fees
with a specific allocation improved transparency of the
corporation's budget. The four amendments added the
department's budget to the numbers section. A separate
amendment would be needed to remove the corporation's
budget from the language section, which he would offer
separately.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendments H DOR 2, H DOR 3, H DOR 4,
and H DOR 5 were ADOPTED.
3:32:48 PM
Vice-Chair Gara pointed out an error in position count on
page 2 of the DOR subcommittee report. He believed total
positions should read 882, not 822.
Co-Chair Foster noted the correction.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H DOR 6 (copy on
file):
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
APFC Operations
L H DOR 6
Remove corporation's FY19 budget from the language
sec. 8(g) and move to sec. 1, the numbers section.
See 30-GH2564D13
The Permanent Fund Corporation's budget was submitted
as section 8(g) and the two allocations of Operations
and Investment Management Fees were combined. In
conjunction with Revenue Subcommittee, the budget is
removed from language and added to section 1, the
numbers section where the budget has historically been
requested and split back into the two allocations.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment with a prepared
statement:
The language sections are really not under the purview
of the subcommittees. That's why I as finance co-chair
move this language amendment separately. I am offering
this amendment now because it is directly related to
four previous Permanent Fund Corporation amendments.
This amendment deletes the corporation's full budget
from the language section. This amendment is necessary
since the previous four amendments adding the
corporation's budget back into the numbers section
were adopted.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment L H DOR 6 was ADOPTED.
HB 285 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following week.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 286 - HB 285 Subcommittee Reports and Amendments DOA DCCED DEED.pdf |
HFIN 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 285 HB 286 |
| HB 286 - HB 285 Subcommittee Reports and Amendments DFG GOV JUD DOR.pdf |
HFIN 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 285 HB 286 |
| HB 286 - HB 285 Subcommittee Reports and Amendments DOL.pdf |
HFIN 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 285 HB 286 |