Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/15/2018 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 |
|---|---|
| Amendments | |
| Start | |
| HB285 || HB286 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 286 | 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."
2:14:27 PM
^AMENDMENTS
2:14:34 PM
Co-Chair Seaton relayed the order of the amendments. The
committee would resume with the University of Alaska
amendment, SAP 28, the Department of Revenue amendment,
amendments for the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources amendments,
and amendments for the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H UOA 3 (copy on
file):
University of Alaska
Anchorage Campus
L H UOA 3 - Alaska mother and baby vitamin D research
Offered by Representative Seaton
See 30-GH2564O.2
This adds $499.5 over FY19 and FY20 for research to be
conducted by the Institute for Circumpolar Health
Studies to establish a baseline for prenatal and
newborn vitamin D levels for Alaska women and
children, to determine the prevalence of vitamin D
deficiency among pregnant women and newborns, and to
consider whether prenatal vitamin D screenings and
supplementation guidelines should be modified for
Alaska women and children.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated the amendment had been discussed
in the previous hearing. He provided a brief summary of the
bill. He relayed there could be a tremendous amount of cost
savings based on the use of Vitamin D. He hoped to ensure
the nutritional needs of Alaskans.
Representative Wilson asked for Co-Chair Seaton to review
the amounts associated with the amendment. Co-Chair Seaton
responded that the amendment added $499,500 over FY 19 and
FY 20 on research. The fund source was designated general
funds (DGF) from Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance
Association (ACHIA).
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Grenn, Thompson, Tilton
[Representative Pruitt was absent from the vote].
The MOTION to ADOPT L H UOA 3 PASSED (6/4).
2:18:37 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT H SAP 28 (copy on file):
Language Amendments
H SAP 28 - Contingency provision for the Permanent
Fund ERA draw to the general fund and to the PFD Fund
Offered by Representative Seaton
See 30-GH2564O.33
This amendment changes the "title" of sec. 28 from
Contingency to Contingencies and adds a new subsection
(b). New subsection (b) makes the Permanent Fund
earnings reserve account draw to the general fund and
to the permanent fund dividend fund contingent upon
the failure of another bill to be passed by the 30th
Legislature and enacted into law that would make a
similar draw calculation and distribution and that
provides for the distribution of a PFD.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above). He
elaborated that the amendment included contingency language
that if the House and Senate passed a bill that did similar
things, the PFD would not be double funded.
Representative Wilson asked if there was a reason why the
contingency would not be based on the failure of a bill
rather than the passage of a bill. She referred to bills
concerning funding for schools and seniors. Contingency
language for both bills were based on passage of
legislation. Co-Chair Seaton responded that if another bill
passed, it would have a fiscal note. Basically, the
amendment indicated that if another bill did not pass, the
funding would be enforced.
Representative Wilson was trying to be consistent with the
language of the other 2 bills. She suggested that if SB 26
passed, it would come with a fiscal note. She asked if she
was correct. Co-Chair Seaton clarified that it would come
with a fiscal note. He repeated his explanation.
Representative Pruitt asked that if the other bill passed,
because it would not be an appropriation, it would
automatically take place rather than the legislature having
to shore it up at the end of the legislative process. The
amendment indicated that the money would go into the
general fund no matter what. It ensured that the
legislature did not do a double draw from the earnings
reserve account (ERA) if another piece of legislation was
passed. The money would automatically be dropped into the
general fund and the legislature would be pulling money
from the ERA. He though the amendment was sufficient.
Co-Chair Seaton responded that he had requested the
amendment from the Legislative Finance Division to ensure
that the state did not incur a double draw.
Representative Tilton asked for someone from the
Legislative Finance Division to come to the table to verify
the information. Co-Chair Seaton commented that Legislative
Legal Services drafted the amendment. He would have someone
from Legislative Legal Services call into the committee
meeting.
2:24:27 PM
AT EASE
2:27:22 PM
RECONVENED
MEGAN WALLACE, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), introduced herself.
Co-Chair Seaton restated his question. He asked Ms. Wallace
to explain how the amendment worked. Ms. Wallace replied
that the amendment before the committee was a contingency
clause stating that the appropriations in 8(c) and 8(d) of
the bill, which were the Permanent Fund (PF)
appropriations, were contingent on the failure of
substantive PF legislation being passed. It meant that
appropriations in 8(c) and 8(d) would only take effect if
there was no other legislation that passed the legislature
during the 30th Alaska State Legislature. If a substantive
PF bill passed, the PF draws would need to be addressed in
either a fiscal note or another appropriation bill.
Representative Wilson wondered if her thinking was correct.
She presented a hypothetical example in which a bill
contained a 50/50 plan. She wondered if the bill parameters
would override what the contingency language included. The
new bill would replace the numbers. Ms. Wallace responded
affirmatively. The contingency clause stated that the
appropriations in 8(c) and 8(d) were contingent on the
failure of any bill. The contingency clause was contingent
on the failure aspect rather than the ultimate percentages
or amounts agreed upon in a substantive PF bill. Co-Chair
Seaton thanked Ms. Wallace for her time.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, H SAP 28 was ADOPTED.
2:30:54 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOR 7
(copy on file):
Taxation and Treasury
Treasury Division
H DOR 7
3001: Financial Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals were $345.0 and the FY19 Governor's
request is $640.3. A decrement of $100.0 will result
in a FY 19 budget request of $540.3 for accounting,
auditing, management/consulting services, $195.3 over
FY 17 actual expenditures.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Co-Chair Seaton noted that the custodian fees for
consulting services were posted as expenditures in the
treasury division's financial services account. The
consulting service expenditures varied from year-to-year.
In FY 19, due to internal investing, the treasury division
anticipated spending the amount specified in the budget.
The treasury division reduced the financial services line
by $2 million since FY 15. The division already took a UGF
reduction of $525,900 in the FY 19 proposed budget. Since
FY 15, the Treasury Division had reduced its general fund
from $5.5 million to $2.8 million. Reducing the general
fund amount by $100,000 could result in a reduction of
revenue from other fund sources depending on expenses and
their allocations. If the amendment was adopted the
treasury division might have to submit a supplemental
request in the following year to continue with internal
investing.
Representative Wilson explained that services had increased
$300,000 from FY 17 actuals to the governor's FY 19 request
and general fund spending had increased in the same amount.
Co-Chair Seaton 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 H DOR 7 FAILED (4/7).
2:34:53 PM
Co-Chair Seaton directed members to turn to page 40 of the
amendment packet.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 4
(copy on file):
Military and Veterans' Affairs
Office of the Commissioner
H MVA 4
Delete Special Assistant
Offered by Representative Pruitt
Eliminates funding for this increment added in the
Governors FY19 budget
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment removed
a position that had been added recently in Washington D.C.
The department had submitted some of its concerns in
writing, which he appreciated. He reported that there was
an indication from the defense department budget that was
recently passed, that the position might be needed in the
future but not presently. He thought that there would not
be a need until FY 21 for a facility in Alaska. He had
received feedback that Alaska's delegation had been very
effective. He used the 425 as an example. He argued that
the department did not currently need an additional person
in Washington D.C. to advocate on the state's behalf. He
spoke of the legislature investing $300,000 in FY 12 to
hire consultants. Once the money ran out there were a
couple of years where there were no appropriations. He
thought the timing was off. He urged members to support his
amendment.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that the finance
subcommittee for the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs (DMVA) looked at the increment and the supplemental
request. The department felt it was such an important
factor for DMVA that they added the amount as a
supplemental item in December of the previous year. He
reported that between FY 15 and FY 17 the department had
seen a decrease to the general fund outlay for DMVA. At the
same time, the department had been able to increase federal
funding by 43 percent ($1 investment for every $42 received
by the federal government - a $16 million agency spend that
recuperated $744 million statewide). He thought
Representative Thompson could speak to the importance of
the growth in the Fairbanks area. The economy had not been
doing well but most recently had a flood of projects that
had come to Eielson Airforce Base, Wainwright AFB prior to
that, and in Fort Greely with the missile defense command.
The increment was important if the department wanted to
grow the Department of Defense investment in the State of
Alaska. He reported that there were currently 35 other
states that had a military affairs office specifically
dealing with force structure and military base issues.
Alaska was in competition for federal dollars. He stressed
the importance of having someone with their eyes and ears
on the ground in Washington DC to help Senator Murkowski,
Senator Sullivan, and Congressman Young in advocating for a
strong military presence in Alaska. He also emphasized the
importance of bringing funds to the state and having a
point person for veterans. The Republicans in the
subcommittee decided not to touch this increment. He asked
members to oppose the amendment.
2:41:10 PM
Representative Thompson would be voting against the
amendment. He had received letters from the Fairbanks
Chamber of Commerce and other entities that voiced great
concerns about the amendment. The special assistant
position was very important to Fairbanks. The state had
problems with its military in Fairbanks. The coal plant at
Fort Wainwright and the PM 2.5 non-attainment designation
would influence force structure in the future. He thought
the state could have a problem with the F-35s at Eielson
Airforce Base. Although the base itself was outside of the
nonattainment area, the housing to accommodate the new
airmen would be built in the North Pole area. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might not allow
construction because of the nonattainment area. He
mentioned that the Department of Defense had made the
statement about the realignment of bases. He did not want
Alaska to get in the crosshairs. He could not support the
amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that Brian Duffy was available
for questions.
Representative Wilson asked how long the position been in
the budget. Representative Pruitt was hired December 1,
2017.
Representative Wilson asked if Representative Pruitt had a
position description. Representative Pruitt responded that
it was a new position based in Washington D.C. In FY 17,
there was an attempt to add position at $127,000, but it
was vetoed by the governor.
2:44:08 PM
Representative Wilson understood Representative Thompson's
comments about the PM 2.5 EPA designation. She reported
efforts to be in compliance. She discussed matching federal
dollars and wondered whether they would have to be used to
pay for a special assistant or if they could be used to pay
for a position in Alaska. She thought a position would be
more affective at home helping veterans. She expressed
concerns about the governor vetoing the position again. She
wanted to hear from someone in the governor's office.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that Brian Duffy was online and
might be able to comment. Representative Wilson wanted to
hear from the governor's office. She thought something
might have changed since the position was vetoed.
Representative Kawasaki thought 2011 was the peak of what
the governor's office had. He continued that when John Kats
was there three other assistants and contractors associated
were in the Washington D.C. office. They handled a
multitude of things including Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC), veterans' services issues, and military issues. He
thought the office in Washington D.C. was staffed by two
employees or less. The total number of staff in Washington
D.C. advocating on behalf of the military had shrunk
considerably over the years. The position being considered
would be working specifically on military issues because it
was such an important part of the state. He thought the
governor's office could speak to the fewer amount of
support staff in Washington D.C. presently. Representative
Wilson wanted clarity around why the governor vetoed the
position previously. She wondered if something changed.
2:47:30 PM
AT EASE
2:52:37 PM
RECONVENED
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, reported that there was a veto in
June 2016 that affected the FY 17 budget. There were many
vetoes at the time. The governor's office was looking for
all possible reductions in addition to the reductions made
by the legislature. The rational around the veto was that
it was a contract that provided for representation for the
base realignment federal process. At the time the DMVA
leadership did not believe the state was getting the proper
level of service for the value of the contract. Without the
contracted representation, the responsibility was shifted
to a deputy commissioner within the department. The
department realized that the responsibilities associated
with representing the state regarding base realignment was
a full-time job. Instead of hiring a contractor again, the
department thought it was more appropriate to create a
position.
Representative Wilson asked how many people the state had
in Washington DC. Ms. Pitney was unsure of the exact
amount. She noted a small group of 3 people from the
governor's office and 1 person from the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs.
Representative Pruitt noted that there was a group in
Washington D.C. to advocate on the state's behalf. He
commented that the state's delegation was aligned. He
thought the 2.5 particulate was a local issue. He did not
think a person was needed to address the issue in
Washington D.C. It was a far-reaching issue. He did not
believe someone in this position would be able to influence
the Pentagon about the attainment levels. He thought the
local community would need to focus on the issue. There was
a conversation previously about moving the F-16s to
Anchorage. It could not happen because of logistics. He
spoke to the military growth in Fairbanks and whether an
additional person was necessary presently. He spoke to the
fact that the duties had been assigned to other positions
prior to the initiation of the new position. He argued
against creating a new full-time position.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 4 FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 5 and
Amendment H MVA 6(copies on file):
[H MVA 5]
Veterans' Services
H MVA 5
Delete $100.0 UGF (funding to be added back as a
IncOTI)
Offered by Representative Seaton
This amendment deletes $100.0 UGF to be restored in a
separate amendment as a one-time increment.
[H MVA 6]
H MVA 6
Restore $100.0 UGF as a
One-Time Increment for an additional Veterans' Service
Officer
Offered by Representative Seaton
The Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
received an increase to their federal State
Administrative Agency grant award to pay for a program
manager position and its associated costs. The
position was previously paid for with UGF and that
funding was maintained in the Veterans' Services base
budget.
The department has expressed that the intent for the
$100.0 UGF funds that have now become available
through this use of federal grant funds was "to re-
roll those GF monies to bring on an additional Veteran
Service Officer". The department has also expressed
concern that the federal grant now being used for this
position may be uncertain in future years. In concert
with another amendment that deletes the $100.0 UGF
from the base budget and out of consideration to the
concerns and original intent of the department, this
amendment restores the $100.0 UGF as a one-time
increment so funding needs may be reviewed during the
next legislative session.
There being NO OBJECTION, H MVA 5 and H MVA 6 were ADOPTED.
3:01:56 PM
AT EASE
3:02:22 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 5
(copy on file):
Administration & Support Services
Office of Project Management & Permitting
H DNR 5
3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $74.7, FY18 Management Plan $100.0 and
FY19 Governor $400.0. A reduction of $100.0 would
leave $300.0 for Other Services-professional service
contracts required by project proponents.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He opined
that the amendment assumed that the reduction was available
and that all contractual services were funded with general
funds, which they were not. He continued that account 3011
for other services, depending on statutory designated
receipt spending, depended on matching what was funded by
industry. In FY 17, DNR lapsed only $240,000 out of a $62
million budget. The cut would result in a loss of 1
position and a reduction of services. The program was
commonly referred to as "OPMP" [Office of Project
Management and Permitting]. It was a service inside of DNR
that was meant to facilitate the management of permits. He
thought state resource development would be hindered with
this amendment.
Representative Wilson explained that personal services was
at $1.3 million and was increased to $1.8 million. The
first thing she did before she looked at general funds for
this decrement was to make sure that she was not taking any
general funds currently being used for personal services.
She wanted to know whether the department was spending
money where it was allocated. She had not heard anything
from DNR about the decrement and whether it would cause
issues.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 5 FAILED (5/6).
3:06:25 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 6
(copy on file):
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
Mining, Land & Water
H DNR 6
Decrease in services.
Offered by Representative Tilton
Reduction in services is 3.3 percent higher than FY 17
Final.
Amendment: 3700
HCS: 3962.6
19GovAmend: 3855.6
FY17Final: 3579.4
FY17CC: 3563.2
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained the amendment. The
amendment decreased the service line in the Division of
Mining, Land, and Water by $262,000. The FY 17 actual was
$3.5 million, and the FY 19 governor's request was $3.8
million. There was an increase in every item under services
with a 4 time increase in the information technology
software licensing line item.
Representative Guttenberg replied that there was an
assumption that it was possible to cut all the general
funds out of contractual services and that all the
contracted services were funded through the general fund.
They were not. He had received feedback from the department
that there were increases in federal grants. The service
line was a combination of federal grants and federal
projects that were ongoing and increasing. The department
reported that if the cut were to be implemented at least 2
positions would be deleted and services would be reduced in
resource development.
Representative Wilson commented that in this area there was
$4.3 million in general funds. The reduction would not
affect the matching general fund dollars in the amount of
$308,000. She noted that there were designated general
funds for permitting that had increased from $9.7 million
FY 17 actuals to $12.2 million. There had been increases in
funding. She would be supporting the amendment.
Representative Tilton opined that there were plenty of
general funds in the component. Under education services
the amount was 2.5 more in the budget than in the actuals
for FY 17 and 4 times more for software licensing. She
asked members for their support.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 6 FAILED (4/7).
3:10:30 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 7 (copy on
file):
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
Mining, Land & Water
H DNR 7
Line Item Transfer to Correct
Line Items for Amendment H DNR 3
Offered by Representative Seaton
This amendment corrects the line items for amendment H
DNR 3 from round 1.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DNR 7 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 8 and
Amendment H DNR 9 (copies on file):
[H DNR 8]
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
Mining, Land & Water
H DNR 8 3003: Information Technology
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY2017 Actuals $220.5 and FY19 Governor $900.0. A
reduction of $200.0 leaves $700.0 for software
licensing
[H DNR 9]
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
Mining, Land & Water
H DNR 9
4000: Business
FY17 Actuals $348.7 and FY19 Governor $508.2. A
reduction of $100.0 leaves $408.2 for books, office
supplies, office furniture and computers.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendments (see above).
Representative Guttenberg explained that within information
technologies the unified programs were placed back into the
operating budget. They had previously been in the capital
budget. He thought the decrement assumed that all the
contractual services were UGF, which they were not. He
explained when all UGF was cut from a program that really
was not UGF, other things were affected. The funds were for
software licensing fees and 3 positions. The information
technology equipment and contracts for software were
designed to streamline operations and permitting for
resource development. He thought the loss of 3 positions
would be detrimental to the development of the state's
resources.
Representative Wilson was sure that the department did not
place personnel in the information technology line item.
She thought personnel was reflected in personal services.
She argued that the amount was for software licensing
rather than personnel. She thought the state needed to cut
down on spending for books, office supplies, furniture, and
new computers. She relayed that there was a substantial
increase reflected in the budget. She asked members for
their support.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 8 and Amendment H DR 9
FAILED (5/6).
3:15:24 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 10
(copy on file):
Forest Management & Development
H DNR 10
3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $1,603.5 and FY19 Governor $2,061.3. A
reduction of $100.0 leaves $1961.3 for other services:
professional service contracts to support forest
practices and reforestation projects, printing and
graphics services, central travel fees.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Guttenberg wanted to hear from the
department as to why general funds were not available and
what happened when general funds were reduced in a line
item. He noted that two federal projects resulted in a
large increase in contractual services. The department was
doing more with what it had and did not fully spend
contractual services in FY 17 because it collected all the
federal National Income Accounts (NIA) revenue. The
department anticipated that another position would be cut
and there would be a loss of services to Alaskans.
3:16:59 PM
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, introduced herself and
asked Representative Guttenberg to restate his question.
Representative Guttenberg restated his question. Ms.
Peter-Contesse responded that when looking at the
expenditure of a particular line item it was difficult to
determine the source of funding, as it was mixed. She
pointed to the FY 17 actuals for forest management and
development in the amount of $1.6 million. She indicated
that the division might not have spent all the authority in
that line item because the division might not have
collected all of the revenue. A person could not assume
that the difference between $1.6 million and the governor's
amount of $2 million consisted of all general funds. In the
current case, the reason there was a significant difference
between FY 17 actuals and the governor's FY 19 was because
in FY 18 the department had 2 new federal programs come
online within the component: the Tongass young growth
project and the forest inventory assessment program. Both
programs had significant contractual components. In FY 18
and FY 19 the department was contracting to provide
services for both federal grant programs. The component had
been cut by 35 percent in UGF since FY 15. The department
could not take the reduction out of the line item, as there
was nothing left in the other line items. The impact of a
cut of $100,000 equated to a position somewhere in forest
management and it would add to the 35 percent UGF reduction
over the prior 4 fiscal years.
Representative Wilson asked how much of the $1.6 million
that was spent in FY 17 were general funds and how much
were federal dollars. Ms. Peter-Contesse responded that she
could not tell Representative Wilson the breakdown of a
particular line item by funding source, as the state did
not budget in that way. The state budgeted by line item in
total and by funding sources in total. She could go to
personal services to look at a breakdown, because when the
department budgeted its personnel they budgeted by funding
source. She could estimate that a certain amount of money
going out the door in contractual services was from a
certain federal program. However, there might be a mix of
funding in each line item.
3:21:15 PM
Representative Ortiz summarized that if the reduction moved
forward it would potentially hinder the utilization of
resources in the Tongass Forest. He asked if he was
correct. Ms. Peter-Contesse responded, "That's correct."
Representative Wilson imagined if a reduction was going to
affect federal receipts it was due to matching funds.
However, there was no general fund match for this item. She
noted money left over would be utilized for travel,
services, or commodities. She argued that the department
should have designated any matching funds.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Kawasaki, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 10 FAILED (5/6).
3:23:20 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 11
(copy on file):
Geological & Geophysical Surveys
H DNR 11
Decrease in services.
Offered by Representative Tilton
Decrease is equal to FY 15 Actuals and is 9.9% above
FY17Final*.
FY15Actuals: 2048.6
FY16Actuals: 2042.9
FY17Actuals: 1434.2
FY17Final: 1819.1
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton read the amendment (see above).
Vice-Chair Gara understood the numbers but wanted to know
what kind of impact would be felt by the department. The
department had experienced an overall reduction of 33
percent since FY 15 from $88 million to $58 million.
Ms. Peter-Contesse relayed that the Division of Geological
and Geophysical Surveys experienced a 35 percent reduction
in UGF since FY 15 and has replaced some of its funding
with federal increases through federal grants. The
department would see an increase in federal grants in the
coming year. A significant amount of this money would be
spent on contractual services. The department had grants
for the Alaska Volcano Observatory in the amount of
$900,000. The division also had an EPA and a Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant dealing with life,
health, and safety issues in the State of Alaska. She
asserted that to assume that the $280,000 reduction was
only a UGF decrease was inaccurate. She reported that about
one quarter of the division's funding was federal receipts,
the majority of which would come to the state in the form
of federal grants. A high percentage of positions within
the division were funded with UGF. If $280,000 was going to
be deleted from this component, positions would have to be
eliminated. The department had eliminated $1 million in FY
16 in the airborne geophysical surveys which limited the
division's ability to fly surveys or contract out for
surveys. Additional cuts would limit the amount of data
collection that DNR could perform in support of industry
and development in Alaska and would negatively affect
revenues in the long-term.
3:27:40 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if matching funds where designated
general funds or unrestricted general funds. Ms. Peter-
Contesse responded that some federal grants did not require
a funding match, and some did. The department could use
general funds, capital project matching funds, or in-kind.
A match did not have to be designated as a general fund
match to satisfy a grant.
Representative Tilton explained that there was no place
indicating a GF match. The amount would be 9.9 percent
higher than FY 17 finals. She asked for support of the
amendment.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED 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 DNR 11 FAILED (4/7).
Representative Wilson WITHDREW Amendment H DNR 12 (copy on
file):
Geological & Geophysical Surveys
H DNR 12
3009:
Structure/Infrastructure/Land
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $192.1 and FY19 Governor $920.5. A
reduction of $200.0 would leave $720.5 for surveys,
contracts and professional services associated with
field data collection.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 13 and
Amendment H DNR 14(copies on file):
[H DSNR 13]
Fire Suppression Activity
H DNR 13
4004 Safety
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $694.8 and FY19 Governor $1,015.0. A
decrease of $100.0 would leave $915.0 for safety
supplies.
[H DNR 14]
Fire Suppression Activity
H DNR 14
4020: Equipment Fuel
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $1,389.0 and FY19 Governor $3,250.0. A
decrease of $100.0 would leave $3,150.0 for fuel.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendments (see above).
Representative Guttenberg indicated that the state funded
fire suppression by finding a baseline of operations and
funding at that level. The assumption was that when a fire
occurred the state funded at whatever cost. He suggested
that making the reductions would require a supplemental
request sooner.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that there were 2 lines of fire
suppression appropriations in the budget since FY 15. They
were down by about $500,000 combined. He asked where the
$100,000 in safety supplies would come from. Representative
Wilson replied that she could get into the weeds and look
at the department's list. She indicated that the amount was
still an additional $300,000. She was not proposing cuts
down to the FY 17 level. It was one quarter of the
increase.
Vice-Chair Gara asked what safety supplies the maker
thought could be reduced. Representative Wilson argued that
she was not asking to hold the line to FY 17. She had left
an increase in the proposed budget.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Kawasaki, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION Amendment H DNR 13 and Amendment H DNR 14 FAILED
(5/6).
3:34:51 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 15
(copy on file):
Agriculture
Agricultural Development
H DNR 15
3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $70.0 and FY19 Governor $342.0. A
decrease of $100.0 would leave $242.0 for professional
service contracts.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. In the
past, when he had worked on budget amendments, he had
always consulted with the Legislative Finance Division and
the department to better understand the impacts of
amendments. Like many of the amendments, this assumed that
the contracts were funded by general funds and would result
in a loss of services to Alaskans. One position would be
lost as well. He explained about matching funds as they
related to positions. He reemphasized that the reduction
would result in a loss of services. He noted that the
amendment dealt with agriculture, which the state was
trying to expand. He thought better understanding the
impacts of amendments was something that should be brought
to the table.
Vice-Chair Gara conveyed that he had always consulted with
the departments about the potential impacts of a particular
amendment. He did not think it worked to come up with a
number without consulting with the department. He thought
it was best to understand the impacts before filing an
amendment.
3:37:58 PM
Representative Ortiz asked to hear from the department
about the potential effects of the amendment under
consideration.
Ms. Peter-Contesse reported that the component,
agricultural development, had been reduced by about 25
percent since FY 15. The proposed cut was an additional
reduction of about 9 percent UGF. She explained that the
reason for the significant difference between FY 17 actuals
and the governor's proposed FY 19 budget was because in
FY 17 the division lapsed about $200,000 in federal receipt
authority. In other words, it lowered the amount of money
the department spent in the line item. In FY 19, the
department expected to receive federal receipts,
anticipated needing federal authority, and planned on
spending the money. The component was heavily funded with
UGF. Personnel was also heavily funded with UGF. The cut
would result in the elimination of a position. The director
of the division would have to make some tough decisions
about what was left to cut.
Representative Wilson wrapped up her argument in favor of
the amendment.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 15 FAILED (4/7).
3:42:13 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 16 (copy on
file):
Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Parks Management & Access
H DNR 16
Use additional vehicle rental tax receipts to replace
unrestricted general fund
Offered by Representative Seaton
Vehicle rental tax receipts from FY17 are available
for appropriation in FY19. VRT receipts have increased
by $3.1 million, though $2.0 million is due to a one-
time payment timing issue so is unlikely to be
repeated. However, that leaves $1.1 million that is
available to be used in the operating budget on an on-
going basis.
This allocation's budget already includes $3,042.0 of
vehicle rental tax receipts. This amendment reduces
the unrestricted general fund by $1.1 million and adds
$1.1 million of vehicle rental tax receipts, for a new
total of $4,142.0 vehicle rental tax receipts in this
allocation.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).
Representative Pruitt indicated that the original vehicle
rental tax was intended for tourism and marketing. The
legislature decided not to use the money for its intended
purpose early on. The legislature made up for it by
allocating general funds. He had been in charge of the
finance subcommittee when general funds were initially
reduced. There had been a substantial reduction in Alaska's
tourism marketing. He explained that part of the reason the
legislature had additional money available last year in
vehicle rental taxes was because of the investment that had
occurred in prior multiple years in marketing Alaska.
Representative Pruitt had concerns that the legislature was
going to shift and establish the fund source as a long-term
source for the line item. If the state was not investing in
marketing, it was unlikely that it would maintain the
current level of taxation. If the state was not marketing
Alaska, there would not be as many people engaging in
Alaska which would result in less rental tax revenues. He
thought that about 85 percent of the taxes were generated
by non-Alaskans. Instead of shifting the funding over, it
was an opportunity to utilize $1.4 million in continued
marketing. He disagreed with using UGF as a long-term
source of funding. He mentioned that there was a
significant amount of competition that had arisen over the
years regarding marketing. He mentioned traveling to China,
a country that had an incredible growing economy and a
middle class that would exceed the whole of the United
States in less than a decade. He reported people in China
asking him about the Aurora, but noted Alaska was not on
their list of places to see it. He thought there was a
missed opportunity. There was a growing Chinese middle
class that wanted to expand their horizons, but he felt
Alaska would be on the back end. He suggested that instead
of offsetting with general funds, the state should be
reanalyzing whether the state should be taking the money
intended for marketing and putting it back into additional
marketing. He did not agree with the suggested utilization
of funds. He thought that shifting and eliminating some UGF
and adding DGF on a long-term basis was a distraction. He
thought it would be more important to address something
within the department that needed to be reanalyzed in terms
of delivery. He asked for a "no" vote. He would rather see
the money used as it was intended - for marketing Alaska.
3:47:44 PM
Representative Grenn echoed the sentiments of
Representative Pruitt. He asked if the fund change source
would go towards tourism development and marketing. Ms.
Peter-Contesse responded that the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation currently had about $3 million in
vehicle rental tax receipts in its budget which funded
parks management and access in the largest state park in
the country. It was used for all areas and was directly
related to tourism.
Representative Grenn asked if parks were available for
residents. Ms. Peter-Contesse responded affirmatively.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the funding was being taken away
for tourism and marketing. Co-Chair Seaton responded, "It
is not."
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that the state needed to do more for
tourism marketing. Other states funded their tourism
marketing through a tax paid by businesses - an income tax,
sales tax, or business tax. Those companies then received a
credit back from the state. The state received some of the
revenue, and some of it was used to pay for tourism
marketing. In Alaska, outside of the cruise ship industry,
the state paid resulting in a net negative, unlike other
states. He thought this would be the answer for tourism
marketing. The legislature needed to figure out a way to
address the issue without it resulting in a net negative to
the state.
3:50:40 PM
Representative Ortiz understood that Representative Pruitt
was the person that instructed tourism marketing folks to
move away from general funds and rental taxes and to find a
different way to fund their activities. I agreed with the
representative's statement about the importance of tourism
marketing and the economic benefits it brought to the
state. He remembered the representative being a spokesman
for the industry moving away from their practice of
receiving rental tax receipts and GF dollars to do their
activities. He asked if he was mistaken.
Representative Pruitt responded, "Yes, you are mistaken."
He had told the tourism marketing people that depending on
just general funds was not the appropriate mechanism. He
suggested the legislature needed to come up with a
sustainable model. The original intent of the vehicle
rental tax was for marketing. Presently, the legislature
had disseminated the funds to other areas. A decade prior,
a decision was made to use vehicle rental tax receipts for
various other things rather than tourism marketing. He
continued that while he had advocated coming up with a
sustainable model, the idea of funding it with only general
funds would not work. He suggested that since the state
currently had more vehicle rental tax receipts than in the
past, the legislature should honor the initial intent of
the tax which was to support tourism marketing. He asserted
that he was not going to take away $3 million from parks
and recreation, as it was not feasible. Since additional
funds were coming in, he thought it was worth considering
using them for what they were originally intended, tourism
marketing. He admitted he had said that the state did not
just need to use general funds. However, he thought the
intent of the vehicle rental tax should be taken into
consideration.
Representative Wilson asked if the allocation would be
one-time funding or continuous funding. Co-Chair Seaton
responded that it would be one-time funding. He reported
the anticipation of an annual increase of $1.1 million in
vehicle rental tax receipts. The increase was already
designated for park management and access. Alaska's parks
drew viewers and tourists to Alaska. He indicated that the
appropriation would not take away any dollars that were
currently used for tourism marketing. Rather, it was
additional funding for park management and access. The
funding also matched up with Pittman-Robertson money that
could be used for wildlife viewing and on trails relating
to tourism marketing.
3:55:05 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether the funds would be
designated general funds versus vehicle rental tax
receipts. She thought the maker of the amendment wanted a
specific designation. Co-Chair Seaton responded that the
vehicle rental tax was DGF and would be going to park
management and access. The funding would not be placed into
a general bucket.
Representative Wilson asked if currently Pittman-Robertson
funds were in the division's budget. She did not see the
funds listed in the different allocations. Co-Chair Seaton
responded that there were some Pittman-Robertson funds used
in wildlife viewing and access, but more funds were
available. The state had been turning down money from the
federal government. The money was available, but a 25
percent state match was needed.
Representative Wilson thought it had to do with another
section of DNR. She was concerned about a crossover. She
wanted to know if any Pittman-Robertson funds were
currently in the component detail. Co-Chair Seaton replied
that Pittman-Robertson funds were previously used only with
fish and game funds for hunter access, not for viewing and
tourist access. The amendment would allow the use of the
matching funds that were not fish and game funds for park
management and access which would promote tourism.
Representative Wilson asked if the money would be
transferred through interagency receipts. Co-Chair Seaton
indicated that DNR could respond to her question.
Ms. Peter-Contesse responded that currently most of the
Pittman-Robertson money that came to DNR, came through
reimbursable services agreements (RSA)s through interagency
receipts. She continued that much of the money was matched
with funds in the capital budget. She relayed that DNR
could not directly take in Pittman-Robertson funds, only
the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) could do so.
3:58:52 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the funds in the park
management division could be used to match the funds in
DFG. Ms. Peter-Contesse responded affirmatively. She
expounded that there was an assumption that there were
sufficient matching funds. The fund source change was not
increasing the department's budget. In other words, the
department was not getting additional funds to match
additional projects. If there were projects in the works,
and the department had extra funding, the department could
potentially use the money as extra matching funds. However,
since it was not an increase to DNR's budget, it was not
providing extra leigh way to match Pittman-Roberson funds.
Representative Wilson suggested that although the co-chair
wanted the money used in a certain way, the department
would not necessarily be using it in that way. She thought
Ms. Peter-Contesse was saying the money would be used
somewhere else and that there was no excess money to match
Pittman-Robertson funds at DFG. Ms. Peter-Contesse answered
that the money acted like general funds. Since it was not
an increase to the budget, it did not provide increased
capacity.
Representative Wilson was previously going to support the
amendment. However, she was hearing that the money would
not be used for its intended purpose which was to match
funds in specific areas. Rather, the money would be placed
into a big pot of money.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that the intent was not only for
matching Pittman-Robertson funds. He mentioned changing
Pittman-Robertson funds that were available. He noted a
position in DNR that was already in the budget, a 25
percent match for a position that would be able to recruit
matching money for Pittman-Robertson from communities. The
money had not been able to be used before on smaller
projects because it took too much oversight and management
for getting municipalities and fund sources to do the
match. He was not saying that the money would be the match.
However, a position would be available that was already
funded. The vehicle rental match was displacing UGF in the
budget.
Representative Wilson appreciated the information. However,
it sounded like his intent was that the funds would be
additional money. She opined that the larger discussion
should be about using the Pittman-Robertson funds for
viewing versus hunting access and the use of guns.
Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 16 PASSED (6/5).
4:04:22 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 17
(copy on file):
Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Parks Management & Access
H DNR 17
2000: In-State Employee Travel
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $86.2 and Governor FY19 $170.0. A
decrease of $50.0 would leave $120.0 for employee
travel to attend meetings, conferences and training.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He
indicated that there was an assumption that all the funding
consisted of general funds, which was not accurate. He
reported that the reduction was a cut to service. He was
told by the department that the reduction could lead to the
loss of an employee. Travel was necessary for people to do
their jobs. He noted that many park service employees were
peace officers who could not be trained online. As a result
of all the complications associated with the reduction, he
thought the state would lose an employee.
4:05:53 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked to hear the impact from the
perspective of DNR. Ms. Peter-Contesse replied that the
component had been reduced by 51 percent UGF in the prior 4
years. The division had lost 25 positions and the
department had placed parks in passive management. Alaska
had the largest state park in the nation and required
travel. The funding allowed people to travel to Alaska's
state parks to maintain them, to train peace officers, to
bring people into Anchorage, and to bring superintendents
together to prepare for the park season. The department had
reduced travel significantly. If funding was eliminated in
the travel line (assuming it was all UGF even though much
of it was probably DGF) it was likely the money would be
eliminated in the personal services line resulting in the
loss of a permanent part-time position.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the amendment.
She indicated that the travel line was $190,320. She was
unsure where the decrease was because it was at $191,000
for FY 18 and FY 19. The actual in personal services was
$9.539 million. Currently it was $9.924 million - both
increases occurring in the prior 2 years. She opined that
sometimes it was just necessary to use the phone and
teleconferencing rather than traveling. The reduction had
to do with in-state travel.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 17 FAILED (5/6).
4:09:12 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 18
(copy on file):
Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Parks Management & Access
H DNR 18
3007: Advertising and Promotions
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $123.8 and FY19 Governor $300.0. A
decrease of $100.0 leaves $200.0 for advertising and
promotions.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He
emphasized that the amendment assumed that UGF could be cut
without affecting other things. Parks and Outdoor
Recreation did not spend all of its contractual services
because it did not collect enough in federal receipts,
statutory designated program receipts, or interagency
revenue. The proposed reduction translated to the loss of a
position. If undesignated funds were cut, it had a rippling
affect in other areas, particularly personnel.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the amendment.
She argued that advertising and promotions had been done on
a budget of $123,800 and the increment had nearly double.
She had not seen any additional commercials or brochures.
Services had gone up to $300,000 from FY 17 to FY 19. There
was $1.4 million in UGF and another $4.3 million in general
fund programs. She argued that the state could not
advertise and have promotions in the same way it did when
it did not have money. The state might have to look at fees
or taxes. She was unclear why double the money was needed
for advertising and promotions. She asked members for their
support.
Representative Guttenberg 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 DNR 18 FAILED (5/6).
4:12:55 PM
AT EASE
4:23:50 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 3
(copy on file):
Administration and Support
Commissioner's Office
H DOT 3 - Intent language relating to traffic safety
concerns
Offered by Representative Tilton
It is the intent of the Legislature that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
develop criteria to identify critical locations and
the types of lighting needed to decrease traffic
safety concerns. In addition, the Department should
work with local power utilities collaboratively to
mitigate the cost of installation and operation.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton read the amendment (see above). She
elaborated that the reason for the amendment was that it
was a safety issue for Alaskan families and different
individuals who would benefit from the development of
criteria in the inventory of the small intersections. Also,
partnering with the local power utilities would be a way to
minimize costs.
Representative Guttenberg had an experience where DOT had a
study in which it placed a street light in an inappropriate
place. It took a significant amount of community time and
input from the public. No one wanted the light. Although
the study did not fit the criteria, it was used in order to
use federal highway safety funds. The installation of the
light did not address the problem of crashes or meet the
needs of the community.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOT 3 was ADOPTED.
4:26:48 PM
AT EASE
4:28:29 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 4 (copy
on file):
Administration and Support
Program Development and Statewide Planning
H DOT 4 - Legislative Intent for Use of Transportation
Alternatives Program Funding
Offered by Representative Grenn
Wordage: It is the intent of the legislature that
federal Transportation Alternatives Program funding
that is otherwise eligible under federal law for
transfer to other federal-aid apportioned programs not
be transferred from the Transportation Alternatives
Program unless the state is in jeopardy of losing the
funding.
Explanation: The Department of Transportation has
transferred 25% of Transportation Alternative Program
funds to the Surface Transportation Flexible category
that maintains eligibility for Transportation
Alternatives Program type projects. This amendment
directs the Department of Transportation to keep all
money that is eligible for Transportation Alternative
grant applicants within the Transportation
Alternatives Program.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn presented the amendment (see above).
He conveyed the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) had helped draft the amendment. The
department indicated that the amendment would not pose a
burden, as it kept track of the information. The department
approved of the amendment.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the amendment would have
any impacts on the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation System (FMATS), or other projects.
Representative Grenn responded that the funding came from
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. It
would not.
Representative Guttenberg asked Ms. Holland to explain the
funding.
AMANDA HOLLAND, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via teleconference),
replied that the Federal Aid Highway Program provided a
certain fund for what was called the Transportation
Alternatives Program through the transportation
reauthorization bill. It was a part of the FAST Act which
was a part of the 2016 transportation reauthorization bill.
The program had funds set aside. She suggested that if, at
the end of the obligation period the funds were not all
obligated, they could be moved to a different area for a
different program. The funds would not impact STIP or
FMATS.
Representative Wilson asked if the intent was to have a
report. She did not see such wordage in the amendment. She
wondered if the amendment needed to be amended.
Representative Grenn thought the amendment might need
amending.
4:33:01 PM
AT EASE
4:33:52 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton invited Rob Carpenter to the table.
ROB CARPENTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, IN
ROOM, relayed that the question was whether a report needed
to be added to the amendment. He indicated that LFD
provided an annual report to the legislature that provided
a response from each agency on their legislative intent. He
thought there was already a reporting mechanism in place.
He wondered if it would be sufficient. Representative Grenn
responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOT 4 was ADOPTED.
4:35:04 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 5 and
H DOT 6 (copies on file):
[H DOT 5]
Marine Highway System
Marine Vessel Operations
H DOT 5 - 3011 Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY2017 Actuals were $437.0 and the FY19 Governor's
budget request is $600.0. A decrement of $100.0 will
result in a FY 19 budget request of $500.0 which is
$63.0 over FY 17 actual expenditures.
[H DOT 6]
Marine Highway System
Marine Vessel Operations
H DOT 6 - 4002 Household/Institutional
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY2017 Actuals were $2,544.4 and the FY 19 Governor's
request is $3,165.2. A decrement of $250.0 will result
in a FY 19 budget request of $2915.2, which is $370.8
over FY 17 actual expenditures.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendments (see above).
Representative Ortiz wanted to hear from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) about the impact
for both amendments.
AMANDA HOLLAND, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via teleconference),
explained that the Alaska Marine Highway System budget was
developed based on the number of operating weeks that were
anticipated for the budget year. If certain pieces of the
operating budget were cut like the other services line or
the household institutional line, it would upset the
balance for the development of the budget. The impact to
the department would be that a single line item cut could
result in the department being unable to deliver the
operating weeks of service that it had committed to through
the budget process and through its published schedule.
Ultimately, it could result in sailing cancelations.
Co-Chair Foster mentioned that in the other services line
item in FY 17 the actual was $437,00 and the governor
proposed $600,000, an increase of $163,000. The sponsor of
the amendment wanted to decrease the amount by $100,000. He
suggested that while FY 17 was $437,000 the average actual
cost for the previous 5 years was $609,000. The governor
was requesting $600,000 which he thought was consistent
with the average for the past 5 years. He thought the
committee had to look at why the other services line was so
low in FY 17. He reported that the reason the number was so
low was because there were 6 fewer service weeks of sailing
due to weather, overhaul delays, mechanical issues, and
only 9 of 11 ships were operating. The department did not
anticipate the same issue occurring. There would likely be
more service weeks in FY 19. He also noted that while the
other services line was $163,000 more in comparison to FY
17 and when looking at the total services line, it had
decreased from $10.9 million down to $10.8 million.
Overall, the total services line was down by about
$100,000. He also noted that when looking at the household
line item in Amendment H DOT 6, the actual in FY 17 was
$2.54 million. The governor was requesting $3.6 million so
it looked like a large increase. It represented an increase
of $621,000 over FY 17. However, when looking at the
average over the previous 5 years, the household line item
had averaged $3.27 million. The governor's request of $3.17
million which was about $100,000 less than the 5-year
average. Again, it went back to the fact that FY 17 was an
anomaly. He suggested that with normal operations in FY 19,
a request of $3.16 million for the household line item was
reasonable. He would be opposing H DOT 5 and H DOT 6.
Representative Wilson asked how many ships were currently
operating. Ms. Holland responded that there were 9 ships
operating. Representative Wilson closed by saying, "They
had 9 ships then; they have 9 shops now. Thank you."
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 5 and Amendment H DOT 6
FAILED (5/6).
4:41:30 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 7
(copy on file):
Marine Highway System
Marine Vessel Fuel
H DOT 7 - 4020 Equipment Fuel
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY 17 Actuals were $15,298.2 and the FY19 Governor's
request is $20,593.4. A decrement of $1,000.0 will
result in a FY 19 budget request of $19,593.4 which is
$4,295.2 over FY 17 expenditures.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson presented the amendment (see above).
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He noted that the
amendment was similar to Amendments H DOT 5 and H DOT 6.
There had been 6 fewer weeks of sailing operations in FY 17
due to unforeseen circumstances. Normal operations in the
current year would result in more services weeks and more
fuel usage. The 5-year average for fuel was $25.3 million.
The governor's request was for $20.6 million, $4.7 million
less than the 5-year average. He reemphasized that FY 17
was an unusual year. Even with only 9 ships operating in
the current year, there was still the normal number of
service weeks. In FY 17 there were 6 fewer ships operating,
but there would be more operating in the current year.
Therefore, he thought the governor's request of $4.7
million less than the 5-year average was reasonable. He
would be opposing Amendment H DOT 7.
Representative Wilson wrapped up her argument in favor of
the amendment.
4:44:46 PM
Representative Ortiz thought the DOT representative meant
that 9 ships were in the fleet rather than in operation. He
knew for a fact that 9 ships were not currently in
operation. Recently, there were only 3 ships in operation.
Representative Wilson wanted to hear from the department.
Ms. Holland responded that the department had 10 ships in
in the fleet. One ship was in permanent layup, the fast
vessel ferry, M/V Chenega. The department had 9 vessels
that operated. They had certificates of inspection, which
meant the department could operate them. Throughout the
year, no matter what year the department was operating,
those vessels had to go through an annual overhaul. When
the department was scheduling its vessels, it included
scheduling vessel overhauls. The majority of the
department's vessels went into overhaul during the winter
season because it was a lower-ridership demand season. The
department had more vessels running in the summer season
when ridership was high.
Representative Wilson commented that it sounded like the
department's normal protocol.
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 DOT 7 FAILED (4/7).
4:47:22 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 8
(copy on file):
Marine Highway System
Overhaul
H DOT 8 - 2002 Out of State Employee Travel
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals were $85.4 and the FY19 Governor's
request is $224.4. A decrement of $75.0 will result in
a FY 19 budget request of $149.4.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Co-Chair Foster noted that the FY 17 actuals were $85,400
and the governor's request was $224,000 which represented
an increase of $139,000. The amendment sought to cut
$75,000 of the $139,000. He pointed out that every year the
budget included $224,000 for the line item. It had been
consistent. As much of the overhaul work was done in-state
in Ketchikan, there was only so much work that could be
done at any one time. Thus, necessitating the need for
overhaul work out-of-state. The out-of-state travel
proposal was $139,000 higher compared to FY 17. However,
the governor's proposal for in-state travel relating to
overhauls was down by $164,000. In looking at the total
travel for in-state and out-of-state, it was down by
$25,000. He thought the number was reasonable and would be
opposing Amendment H DOT 8.
Representative Wilson questioned the department being able
to control its in-state travel but not their out-of-state
travel. She did not believe the legislature could keep
doing things the same way as before. She asked for member
support.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 8 FAILED (5/6).
4:50:28 PM
AT EASE
4:51:12 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that the committee had gone through
all of the amendments. The Legislative Finance Division and
Legislative Legal Services would develop new committee
substitutes for HB 285 and HB 286 incorporating the
amendments that were adopted.
Co-Chair Foster moved to give the Legislative Finance
Division and Legislative Legal Services the ability to make
technical and conforming changes when developing the new
committee substitute for HB 285 (FIN).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster moved to give the Legislative Finance
Division and Legislative Legal Services the ability to make
technical and conforming changes when developing the new
committee substitute for HB 286 (FIN).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that in the following meeting the
committee would be adopting the new committee substitutes
for the budget bills and moving them from committee. He
noted other items on the following day's agenda.