Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/09/2017 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 | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| Amendments: All Remaining | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
1:36:45 PM
^AMENDMENTS: ALL REMAINING
1:36:55 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 3
(copy on file):
Fire and Life Safety
H DPS 3 - Personal Services Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
Two positions were deleted by the Department and a
general fund reduction of $120,000 was taken. The full
FY 17 budgeted cost of the positions is $237,733. This
amendment deletes $117,733 from the FY 18 budget
request in the Personal Services line for the funds
retained by the Department associated with positions
deleted.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND the amendment to
change the General Fund (GF) code to 1005 GF program
receipts instead of GF.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED. He asked for detail on the
program receipts.
Representative Wilson explained that what had not been cut
from the agencies was GF program receipts. During
discussion on Amendment H DPS 3 she wanted to ensure they
were addressing the correct fund source and amount. She
would discuss Vice-Chair Gara's question during discussion
on the full amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the Amendment to
Amendment H DPS 3. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
1:38:12 PM
Representative Wilson stated that two positions had been
deleted by the department, but GF program receipts of
$117,733 had not been removed. The amendment would delete
the funding.
Representative Kawasaki spoke in opposition to the
amendment. He agreed that the funding pertained to 50
percent program receipts and 50 percent undesignated
general funds (UGF). The agency had received millions of
dollars in cuts since 2014. He detailed that the department
had deleted the full UGF portion of the two positions and
the amendment would further remove UGF not associated with
the positions.
Representative Wilson clarified that the department removed
$120,000 GF for the two positions, but GF program receipts
of $117,700 had remained. She reasoned that the department
could have utilized the remaining funds for another
position and had taken it as UGF; however, the department
had not elected to do so. She believed an increase had been
maintained even after the deletion of the two positions.
Representative Kawasaki 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 H DPS 3 as amended FAILED (4/7).
1:40:34 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 6
(copy on file):
Alaska State Troopers
Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol
H DPS 6 - Personal Services Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
PCN 12-1979 was deleted by the Department, however,
the funding for this position was not. This amendment
reduces the FY 18 budget request in this allocation by
the amount budgeted for the position in FY 17.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He
underscored that the department had suffered severe cuts,
albeit not as severe as some other agencies. He specified
that in 2013 the total agency budget GF had been $179
million; the current request was down to $156 million. He
stated that Colonel Jim Cockrell [Director, Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety] had
testified about worrying the department would lose an
officer due to budget cuts. The department did not have
backup officers within rural and urban communities. As
municipalities were shrinking their budgets to accommodate
for less economic activity, it meant local police forces
were also starting to make cuts (Anchorage was the
exception). All the cuts were hurting the performance of
public safety across the state. He reminded committee
members that a few years back there were over 328 officers;
under the proposed budget there were 296, which was a huge
decrease. He added that there were also vacancies within
the agency.
Representative Kawasaki continued that it was difficult to
hire law enforcement nationwide for many reasons. He noted
they were trying to address the issues in the budget and
legislatively. The amendment would remove $57 million UGF
in FY 19 in CIP [capital improvement project] receipts from
the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol. He expounded that in
the FY 17 unallocated reductions there had been over
$605,000 reduced from the state trooper detachment that had
deleted one captain and four support positions. One of the
positions had been the Anchorage criminal justice
technician and another had been a Fairbanks office
assistant who had been responsible for ensuring reports
were completed. He stressed that the funding had been
deleted in the FY 17 management plan and the amendment was
a further deletion of support for the Bureau of Highway
Patrol.
Vice-Chair Gara asked the amendment sponsor if she had
spoken to the department about the issue. He stated a
position had been deleted in highway patrol and the funding
had been deleted. He had spoken to the Legislative Finance
Division (LFD) and believed the PCN [position control
number] may have been incorrect. He stressed that the
amendment would meant the loss of another highway patrol
officer.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She answered she
had spoken to the department. She stated that the funding
had not been taken out. The amendment had been changed to
GF because the $57,000 had been underneath the Alaska
transportation management fund code (1249), which did not
currently exist because legislation had not been passed.
She clarified that her amendment would not remove the PCN,
the PCN that had been removed by the department was
correct. She reiterated that the money had been left in and
had merely been coded differently.
1:45:35 PM
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 DPS 6 FAILED (4/7).
1:46:12 PM
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW Amendment H DPS 9 (copy on
file).
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 11
(copy on file):
Prisoner Transportation
H DPS 11 - Prisoner Transportation Savings
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment reduces the Services line in the FY 18
budget request by $258,000 to align expenditures with
the FY 17 Management Plan level. This amendment
reduces the amount paid to the Alaska Wildlife
Troopers Aircraft Section for the use of the Public
Safety aircraft to transport prisoners. The FY 17
Management Plan has a budget of $345,000 for these
services and the FY 18 budget request is $603,000. The
Department's FY 18 budget request includes a reduction
in travel in anticipation of fewer transports. These
reductions are anticipated to occur as a result of the
implementation of criminal justice reform efforts
under SB 91 and increased use of video conferencing
between correctional facilities and courts for
arraignments and routine hearings. Therefore, if fewer
transports are anticipated, there should be a
reduction in charges to the Wildlife Troopers Aircraft
Section for prisoner transports.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment related to
prisoner transportation savings. She read the amendment
description [see above].
Representative Kawasaki was opposed to the amendment. He
shared that DPS had indicated during testimony it had
already cut $500,000 from the travel line allocation in the
FY 18 budget in anticipation of fewer transports. The
additional $258,000 reduction would hamper the efforts of
the prisoner transport line. He agreed there would be
increased use of videoconferencing between correctional
facilities, but the amendment would not leave sufficient
funds to properly administer justice. He continued that the
amendment would result in individuals in remote areas that
would have to wait in a costly community jail setting
before arraignment. He spoke to the importance of ensuring
that SB 91 [justice reform legislation passed the previous
year] worked properly and that the administration of
justice was done equally throughout the state.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She stated that SB
91 had not existed in FY 17 and the management plan had
only required $345,000 to do the work. She reasoned that
the department had given no indication during the budget
subcommittee process that it would not be able to do the
work with the funding. She noted that many of the budgeted
amounts were much higher for FY 18. She continued that FY
17 was high compared to FY 15. She believed the department
was giving itself significant padding. She remarked on the
removal of $500,000 from a budgeted amount and believed it
was money the department never anticipated using. It was
hard to understand why the numbers were made so high in the
budgeted portion and the actuals were much lower.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DPS 11 FAILED (5/6).
1:50:37 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 16
(copy on file):
Statewide Drug and Alcohol Enforcement Unit
H DPS 16 - Eliminate General Match for Federal
Forfeiture of Seized Assets
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment eliminates state funds used as general
match for federal forfeitures of seized assets.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke in objection to the
amendment. The amendment pertained to a GF match used for
the personal services line, specifically for the Statewide
Drug and Alcohol Enforcement Unit, which was administered
through a federal justice assistance grant awarded by the
Department of Justice several years back. There was no
specific formula required for the match, but the match
represented necessary GF funding to fully fund all
positions that were not currently funded through the grant.
Representative Wilson explained that in the past when the
state could not make its case pertaining to forfeitures,
the federal government took over. She believed that was
wrong. She did not support utilizing the federal government
to go after Alaskans because the state was lacking state
law to back up what they were trying to do or the evidence
they need. She did not support state funding for the
federal government to seize assets of individuals who may
be guilty, but of individuals who may also be innocent.
Representative Kawasaki 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 DPS 16 FAILED (4/7).
1:53:04 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 19
(copy on file):
Alaska State Trooper Detachments
H DPS 19 - Reduce Funding for Relocation Offered by
Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes the FY 18 Budget request of
$725,000 in the Travel line item for Alaska State
Trooper moving costs. These costs include shipping
household goods, per diem, airfare and temporary
lodging costs for transfers of commissioned officers,
new recruits and their families. With declining
revenues, the state should eliminate expenses of this
nature that do not pose a threat to public safety and
the protection of its citizens.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He relayed
the amendment would completely remove relocation expenses
for troopers and wildlife troopers. The department had
stopped paying for employees they hired who lived out of
state, which cost approximately $200,000 in FY 16; the
benefit was no longer offered. The department was obligated
under existing collective bargaining agreements to pay
moving costs, especially when troopers located in one area
of the state were forced to relocate themselves and their
families to other areas. He believed passing the amendment
would be unwise and was outside the scope of the current
collective bargaining agreement between the state and PSEA
[Public Safety Employees Association].
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the amendment.
She spoke to what she had heard in committee. She stressed
that the state trained many individuals to be troopers and
they did not stay. The committee had been told that many of
the troopers left for employment with the Municipality of
Anchorage. She did not support that there was no agreement
a trooper would remain in state employment for a designated
timeframe when the costs were paid. She discussed investing
the money and then losing the employees; she would be more
supportive if the employees were required to stay for one
or two years. She wanted to ensure the state was recouping
something for the cost it was putting in. She stressed that
when money was tight it was necessary to consider why the
money was still being spent in a particular area, why it
had been spent there in the first place, and if there was
another option. She was concerned the state was spending
substantial money on training and was not receiving the
benefit because individuals were leaving the job they had
been trained for.
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 DPS 19 FAILED (4/7).
1:56:41 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 21
(copy on file):
Alaska Bureau of Investigation
H DPS 21 - Personal Services Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
The Department deleted a State Trooper position in the
FY 17 amended budget in the Alaska State Trooper
Detachment allocation and added it back in the FY 18
Governor's budget request in this allocation. This
amendment deletes the position and associated funds
from the FY 18 Budget request.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He
explained that the increment pertained to a straight
transfer from the Alaska State Trooper detachment to the
Alaska Bureau of Investigation. The position and funding
had never been deleted and added back in. He relayed that
the amendment would cut an existing trooper. The department
had been cut from a high of $179 million several years back
to $163 million. He stressed the importance of the
department, especially during the current opioid epidemic,
SB 91, and public safety threats statewide. He did not
support additional cuts to the department.
Representative Wilson thought SB 91 was supposed to make
things better, not worse. She stated that whether the
position was transferred or deleted, it was a new position
that she believed should be deleted.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DPS 21 FAILED (4/7).
1:59:04 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 22
(copy on file):
Alaska Wildlife Troopers
H DPS 22 - Personal Services Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
The Department deleted PCN's 12-3166 and 12-3041 and
general funds totaling $245,800 associated with the
positions. The FY 17 budgeted costs of the two
positions total $335,922, therefore this amendment
deletes an additional $90,122 from the FY 18
Governor's budget request which represents the
remaining funds retained by the Department for the
positions deleted.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. The
department had eliminated over 68 permanent positions and
14 temporary positions. The department had moved the
Stimson base of operations from Dutch Harbor to Kodiak at a
savings of about $500,000. Trooper posts had been closed in
Talkeetna and Yakutat. Additionally, the department had
eliminated helicopter services that were frequently used by
wildlife troopers and that should be doing search and
rescue in Interior Alaska. He continued that overtime,
patrol sea days, and patrol flights had all been reduced by
$200,000. He spoke about making tactical cuts during a time
when crime rates were up. He believed the amendment was
unwise.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the amendment.
She stated she had not cut the positions. She relayed that
the positions had been deleted and had associated costs
that should be trued up. The department had removed
$245,800, but it had not removed other funds. She believed
it should have been a new request. The amendment proposed
to remove $90,122.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
Representative Thompson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt H DPS 22 FAILED (3/7).
2:01:41 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 23:
Alaska State Troopers
Alaska Wildlife Troopers
H DPS 23 - Reduce Relocation Funding
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment eliminates the FY 18 Budget request of
$255,000 for Alaska State Trooper moving costs in this
allocation. These costs include relocation assignments
for State Troopers, shipping household goods, per
diem, airfare and temporary lodging costs for
transfers of commissioned officers, new recruits and
their families. With declining revenues, the state
should eliminate expenses of this nature that do not
pose a threat to public safety and the protection of
its citizens.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He stated
the amendment was similar to a previous amendment regarding
the Alaska State Troopers. He detailed that Alaska Wildlife
Troopers were often required to move to different
locations; it was not like being a police officer in
Fairbanks where they were not required to move locations.
The amendment would cut the entire amount available for
relocation costs that were obligated under state policy and
the collective bargaining agreements between PSEA and the
state.
Representative Wilson reasoned that Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) and Department
of Corrections (DOC) workers moved from one place to
another. She elaborated that in many different state
departments where a person may have to relocate for a job.
She remarked that the state did not pay any of those moving
fees. She believed those individuals probably needed the
funds even more than individuals with a job. She questioned
why one group would have moving expenses paid and another
group would not. She speculated that if the issue was
contractual, perhaps one group had better negotiators than
others. She continued that the state moved individuals from
out-of-state with no guarantee the individuals would stay
despite training and other expenses paid by the state. She
highlighted that for many jobs a time commitment was
required. The state wanted to ensure people stayed in their
jobs for a certain timeframe. She believed the issue needed
to be addressed. She elaborated that the state's training
was so good than individuals were able to leave for other
jobs in and out-of-state that they would not have
previously been eligible for. She did not want to continue
training for individuals who were leaving.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
Representative Thompson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DPS 23 FAILED (3/7).
2:05:21 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 28
(copy on file):
Village Public Safety Officer Program
H DPS 28 - Grant Funding Reduction
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment reduces the amount provided to grantees
of the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program
based on the inability of the grantees to hire an
average of ten VPSO's. The Department stated that the
average cost of an existing VPSO is $183,596. VPSO
turnover substantially exceeds the number of VPSOs
hired and using ten as an average number of VSPOs that
cannot be hired is a conservative number. There are
currently 53 filled positions of the 78 budgeted VPSO
positions that grant awards are based on. A chart is
attached depicting the turnover of VPSO's and the
number of VPSO's hired by fiscal year.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment that would
remove funding for ten Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO)
positions that were vacant. The amendment totaled
$1,836,000.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his objection. He relayed
that several years back the state had been providing over
$14.4 million for the VPSO program. He detailed that VPSOs
were an integral part of the public safety network,
especially in places off the road system. He continued that
VPSOs were located in high-crime areas. He stated that
crime rates per 500 people in Anchorage were approximately
23; the crime rate per 500 people was 125 in Ambler, 95 in
Emmonak, and 190 in Northway. The officers provide an
important public service in lieu of the fact that the state
did not have enough troopers and could not afford them in
every village. The current and subsequent amendment
pertained to the same thing - the VPSO program went through
13 granting agencies across the state that delivered the
services to public safety when troopers were unable to do
so. He stressed that the cut would result in a reduction of
VPSO services. The positions were vacant, but it was the
intent to fill the positions.
2:07:29 PM
Representative Pruitt shared that the information had been
brought to him by a member of the DPS subcommittee. He
noted he had a similar amendment. He detailed that the
vacant positions tended to be a challenge in multiple
years. The state had been consistently giving funding to a
program that was not able to fill its positions. The
concern was that money was not being utilized for what it
was intended. He believed it was an appropriate discussion
to have. He explained the goal was not to destroy the VPSO
program, but to ensure money to continue the existing
program remained. The amendment aimed to ensure the
legislature was not over appropriating funds for something
that was not being utilized.
Co-Chair Seaton voiced opposition to the amendment. He
referenced a memo from the Department of Public Safety
dated March 3, 2017 addressed to Representative Kawasaki
(copy on file) and read from the last paragraph:
"appropriating the funding does not guarantee that the
positions will be filled, but not appropriating the funding
guarantees the positions do not exist to be filled."
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She truly believed
DPS was doing all it could to fill the positions. She
believed in the greatness and necessity of the VPSO
program. However, the state was losing more than it was
able to hire. She stressed there were 26 unfilled
positions. The amendment would delete 10 of the 26 vacant
positions. She underscored that the program would still
have available positions to fill. She agreed there had been
$14.4 million in the program to start; however, she
emphasized that the state had been unable to fill all the
positions since the program's inception. She stated that
the program funding reflected that the state could not fill
the positions and it did not receive any money back. She
underscored that the money went to nonprofits and had been
spent on things other than officers. She believed that if
the positions were not filled the money should go back to
the state. She underscored that funding should not be kept
[by nonprofits] or utilized on something it was not
intended for. The committee had heard there were
administration charges of up to 41 percent. She questioned
who charged administrative fees that high. She remarked
that municipalities were not allowed to do so.
Representative Wilson continued that the amendment would
merely get rid of something that did not exist. She
observed that based on the department's graphs it would be
lucky to keep the currently filled 52 positions and add 15
more, which the amendment would allow. She speculated that
based on testimony, it would not happen. She reiterated
that the amendment was not against the program; it was
based on information provided in committee. She probably
would not have offered the amendment if the appropriated
funds were returned to the state when they were not used.
She recalled the committee had been told that about
$183,596 went towards each VPSO position. She underscored
that the amendment was conservative. She reminded committee
members that the discussion had taken place more than once.
She did not know any other way to force the nonprofits to
give the money back if they were unable to hire the vacant
positions.
Representative Kawasaki 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 H DPS 28 FAILED (4/7).
2:13:08 PM
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW Amendment H DPS 29 (copy on
file).
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 30
(copy on file):
Village Public Safety Officer Program
H DPS 30 - VPSO grants.
Offered by Representative Pruitt
It is the intent of the legislature that the monies
appropriated are for the sole purpose of hiring,
training and supporting Village Public Safety Officers
(VPSO). Unexpended monies should be returned to the
general fund.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the intent was to
ensure the money appropriated by the legislature went to
the sole purpose of hiring, training, and supporting VPSOs.
Any extra money would be returned to the GF. He wanted to
ensure the money was being used as intended.
Representative Kawasaki discussed his objection. He stated
that funding for the program had decreased over the past
four years. The grant portion had remained stable and the
support component, which included the troopers overseeing
the particular positions had dropped from $3.3 million to
about $1.5 million. He agreed that there should be some
structure around the VPSO program language. He believed the
language was probably appropriate. He WITHDREW his
OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He was amenable to
the amendment with the addition of a couple of words. He
stated that sometimes it was necessary to build housing in
a community that would house a VPSO. At present, the
amendment would not allow funds to be used to build the
basic infrastructure needed to get a VPSO in a village. He
MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DPS 30 by inserting the words
"current or future" after the word "supporting" on line 2
of the amendment.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Seaton restated the proposed amendment to
Amendment H DPS 30 for clarity.
Representative Wilson requested further explanation.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that to attract VPSOs there
needed to be a place for them to live. The proposed
language would make it clear that supporting could mean
housing support for a current or future VPSO. He surmised
the state would never get past the problem if housing was
not available.
Representative Wilson stated that in committee [the
committee had been told] the money was not supposed to be
used for housing. She furthered when committee members had
been shocked to learn the money had been used on things
besides salaries, the department had brought up that going
forward the money would be used to pay VPSOs. She stated
that adding the proposed language would make it financially
difficult to hire someone if the money was spent on
building housing first. She surmised that it would mean the
department would be unable to fill the position at least
during that specific year. She thought it was
counterproductive. She understood the goal, but she
believed it took away from the program's purpose. She
believed the budget already contained a separate VPSO
housing allocation. She wanted to ask the department.
2:19:33 PM
AT EASE
2:25:01 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Pruitt discussed that one of the concerns
brought up in the budget subcommittee was facilitating the
actual service and ensuring the funding would be used on
the people [VPSO officers]. The conversation related to the
amendment to the amendment pertained to other components
including the support through housing in some capacity. In
the past Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and some
Native corporations had participated. The department had
highlighted that if there was surplus funding it could
request to use the funds on repair of housing. The question
was whether "current or future" returned to the
conversation about ensuring the funds were utilized for
employing the individuals (including hire and training).
His proposed amendment was not to try to reform or get into
an overall discussion about the program; it was to ensure
the money was used for hiring people and getting VPSOs out
there. If the intent was to add beyond the hiring of people
he would oppose it; however, the language seemed innocuous
if it was merely to show that the legislature supported
VPSOs hired currently or in the future. He believed the
intent was to expand beyond the hire of the VPSO and into
broader services, which had been a concern discussed in
subcommittee, if so he would oppose it.
Representative Guttenberg generally liked the use of intent
language when it was something he agreed with. However, he
believed the legislature was starting to micromanage a
program that was inherently difficult to administer. He
believed the legislature was moving towards breaking
something that was teetering on the edge.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
H DPS 30.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION to amend Amendment H DPS 30 PASSED (7/4).
2:30:13 PM
Representative Wilson did not support the amended
amendment. She thought it was insane to have to put intent
language in to get money back that the entity had not spent
on the intended purpose. She stated it was fairly easy to
know that each of the entities had money to hire a certain
number of VPSOs. She stated that the department had at
least made it possible to potentially move a vacant
position from one community to another if it could be
filled. She stressed that it was about hiring the people.
She continued that it had been opened up to more than that,
which had been a big concern of the subcommittee on how to
distinguish between hiring people and using the money for
things besides hiring them. She stated that intent language
did not even mean anything. She furthered that it was not
about micromanaging. She surmised that perhaps an amendment
to the overall budget was necessary that if a department
did not use the money for its intended purpose, it was
required to give it back. She believed that the legislature
already expected that to happen. However, the amendment
showed otherwise.
Representative Wilson elaborated that in the past it had
been okay for the program to keep excess money, but it had
not been putting it into housing. She found it disturbing
that it was not known how much money had been kept by
organizations that the state had allocated to try to take
care of a public safety issue in remote areas. She
contended that it was not about micromanaging, but about
whether the money allocated went where it had been intended
to go. She noted they had not been able to figure out the
liability issue.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Representative Wilson to stick to the
amendment.
Representative Wilson stated her comments were relevant to
the amendment. She continued that the committee had just
opened up liability by allowing buildings to be remodeled
or refurbished before a VPSO had been hired in a community.
She noted it was not state money and she did not believe
the state would be under any liability because the money
came from grant funds. However, she was unsure. She
continued it was still the state's money and the state
would still have to give permission to grantees to utilize
the funds on [housing] upgrades. She wondered what would
happen if the money was spent on housing and the VPSO
position remained vacant due to any number of reasons. She
wondered if the state would have to continue to use the
funding to put the housing in storage until the position
could be filled. She underscored that the committee should
be concerned about the issue because it had not been
vetted. She did not want to create something they did not
understand, when the goal of the original amendment was to
return the money to the state if VPSOs were not hired.
Vice-Chair Gara stated he tried to work across party lines
when he could, and he supported former Governor Sean
Parnell's effort to get VPSOs into the 100 communities with
no law enforcement. The program had not been working for a
number of reasons - one of the reasons was the need for
adequate housing to attract someone to a village. The
amendment would enable the state to deal with that portion
of the issue. He stated that if the money was not spent it
would lapse back into the GF. He wanted people in the
communities to have protection. He reasoned that if
adequate housing was not provided, VPSOs would not move to
the communities. He questioned whether legislators wanted
public safety in communities with no public safety presence
or if it wanted to leave a current program to continue to
fail. He supported improving the program.
2:35:24 PM
Representative Pruitt asked members to support the
amendment.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Gara, Grenn,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Tilton, Wilson, Guttenberg, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DPS 30 as amended PASSED
(7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DPS as
amended was ADOPTED.
2:36:42 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 33
(copy on file):
Statewide Support
Commissioner's Office
H DPS 33 - Delete Special Assistant
Offered by Representative Wilson
Delete Special Assistant to the Commissioner.
Legislators might have to wait longer for a response
but this position is not needed for the Department to
meet their mission.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment would
delete a special assistant position, consistent with
previous departments addressed.
Representative Kawasaki responded that the department had
already seen a decrease in special assistants since the FY
16 budget. Further reductions would impact the legislative
liaison position, labor relations employees, and all the
answers to questions the committee had asked the
department.
Representative Guttenberg asked members to imagine having
no one to ask a question [in the department].
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She agreed it would
be nice to have committee questions answered. She had not
received answers to her earlier question. She underscored
the $4.2 billion budget and believed at some point it would
be significantly reduced. She did not believe the position
pertained to public safety issues impacting residents.
Representative Kawasaki 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 DPS 33 FAILED (4/7).
2:39:07 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 34
(copy on file):
H DPS 34 - Reverse Criminal Investigation Unit
Transfer to Public Safety
Linked to H DOR 5 - Reverse Criminal Investigation
Unit Transfer to Public Safety ATrln 338324
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
The Legislative Finance Division (LFD) reports the
Department of Revenue (DOR) requested a transfer of
its Criminal Investigation Unit (CIU), which includes
9 Permanent Full Time positions across 4 divisions, to
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Commissioner's
Office. The Office of Management and Budget reports
the DPS Commissioner's Office would oversee the CIU's
enforcement of DOR's criminal laws and regulations and
provide law enforcement support.
LFD and DOR state this request was made with the
intention of commissioning CIU investigators in order
to carry firearms. The CIU handles Permanent Fund
Dividend Fraud, Child Support Fraud and Tax Fraud and
employees carry limited special commissions that
enable them to assist DPS with enforcement of these
types of cases. Upon transfer to DPS, the CIU
employees would continue to carry out these duties as
semi-commissioned peace officers with the authority to
carry firearms.
This request for position transfer, and the associated
inter-agency receipt authority, reflects a major
change in policy implemented through the budget
process.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to AMEND the amendment to
include Amendments HDPS 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and H DOR 5, 8,
9, and 10 (copy on file). He explained the amendments were
all correlated to the same interagency receipt. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Kawasaki explained the amendments pertained
to a discussion in DPS that had occurred on the side. He
detailed there were nine people who would be armed within
the Department of Revenue (DOR); it had been a DOR request
that the individuals be semi-commissioned officers within
DPS. He elaborated that it was appropriate to house those
members. He furthered that while he disagreed with the
policy to arm the individuals within DOR, it had not been
his intent to not have the discussion in some other form or
fashion. He believed the budget was not the appropriate
venue under which to have the discussion about whether DOR
officers should be armed. Therefore, he WITHDREW Amendments
H DPS 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and H DOR 5, 8, 9, and 10.
2:40:56 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 40
(copy on file):
Statewide Information Technology Services
H DPS 40 - Personal Services Reduction Offered by
Representative Wilson
The Department deleted two positions from this
allocation in the FY 18 budget request, however
deleted no funding. This amendment reduces the funding
for this allocation by $207,302, the FY 17 budgeted
cost of the positions.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Kawasaki opposed the amendment. He detailed
that because of many functions changing through SB 21 in
DPS and the Department of Corrections, the money was used
for personal services. The reduction of $207,302 would
reduce the overall ability within the Statewide Information
Technology Services and would most likely result in
deletions of employees.
Representative Wilson stressed that money associated with a
deleted position should also be deleted. She believed it
should be a separate discussion if the department needed to
request additional funding for a different reason.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
Representative Pruitt and Representative Guttenberg were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DPS 40 FAILED (3/6).
2:43:05 PM
Representative Wilson referenced amendments withdrawn by
Representative Kawasaki. She wondered if the intent was to
speak about the transfer of armed employees from DOR into
DPS. She wondered if it was a topic for the House Finance
Committee or another standing committee. She remarked the
issue had been discussed during the budget subcommittee.
She believed it was a substantial policy change that she
believed warranted discussion. She stated it was up to the
co-chairs to determine the best place to have the
discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that one of the primary objectives
of the subcommittee process in the current year was to have
policy committees address the full value of the
discussions. He relayed that the policy committees should
be looking at the aspects from a budgetary and policy
standpoint. Policy committees could be informed the
discussion had taken place in subcommittee. He concluded
that hopefully the policy committee was the proper venue
for deciding the policy instead of deciding the policy
through the budget.
Representative Wilson thought "they probably thought we
were going to take care of it in this aspect" and she did
not believe it was in the report. She wanted to make sure
the issue was taken care of.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that he would ask the subcommittee
chair to address the issue.
2:45:23 PM
Co-Chair Seaton relayed the committee would hear amendments
pertaining to the Department of Revenue (DOR). He noted
that Amendment H DOR 5 had been withdrawn.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOR 6
and H DOR 7.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson explained the amendments with
prepared remarks:
Treasury believes there is room for greater savings by
hiring additional investment officers in-house in the
future. The administration also suggests that
expanding in-house investment officers in their
October 2015 report "A Sound Fiscal Future:
Recommendations for a Sustainable Utilization and
Management of Alaska's Financial Assets." At 12/31/16,
$13.8 billion of asset were managed internally by
Treasury investment staff. Had external firms invested
this money, the external management fees would have
cost $32.7 million. In 2016 the Alaska Retirement
Management Board state investment officers began
investing more equity investments directly, which
reduced fees paid to external investment firms in the
Lower 48 by $4.5 million. Treasury believes that by
adding two more investment staff, in the future there
will be the capacity to save up to $15 million
annually in management fees. This amendment is the
funding source (H DOR 7) for the amendment to treasury
(H DOR 6) creating the two new state investment
officer positions. The total cost is $438,900 from
retirement fund earnings. These positions do not cost
the state more money. Without the positions the state
will spend more money on external management fees. If
the positions are not filled, the money will remain in
the retirement funds.
Representative Thompson furthered that H DOR 7 funded the
two positions from the retirement fund and H DOR 6 showed
that the Treasury Division would receive interagency
receipts in the same amount to pay for the positions.
2:48:53 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion. He explained the
same rationale had been used when two auditors had been
added because it would make DOR more money. He supported
the amendment and WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Thompson provided wrap up. He stated that
should Alaska adopt investment practices that increase
asset earnings due to compound interest, a higher rate of
earnings would result with more rapid growth and more
available funds on an annual basis. Regarding the Alaska
Retirement Management Board (ARMB), savings and management
fees would keep more money in the retirement funds;
therefore, growing the fund at a higher rate and ultimately
reducing the state's unfunded liability. He encouraged
members to vote in support of the amendments.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Pruitt,
Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Kawasaki, Tilton
The MOTION to adopt Amendments H DOR 6 and H DOR 7 PASSED
(8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendments H DOR 6
and H DOR 7 were ADOPTED.
2:51:19 PM
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that Amendments H DOR 8, H DOR 9,
and HDOR 10 had previously been withdrawn. He announced the
committee would move on to amendments pertaining to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT).
Representative Wilson WITHDREW Amendment H DOT 4 (copy on
file).
2:51:51 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 5
(copy on file):
Equal Employment and Civil Rights
H DOT 5 - Deletes two of eight Civil Rights and
Compliance Positions and PS costs.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment deletes two of eight Civil Rights and
Compliance Specialists and the associated personal
service costs. This reduction will require the Civil
Rights office to redistribute the workload to the
remaining positions. Other funding remaining in the
allocation can fund the remaining positions.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He shared that he
had been the chair of the DOT budget subcommittee. He
reported that the total UGF funding for the Civil Rights
Office was $253,000. The amendment sought to remove
$217,000 or 90 percent of the total UGF funds. He detailed
that the $253,000 went towards funding all eight positions;
only 18 percent of each position was funded with UGF funds.
Removing the funds would mean eliminating more than the two
positions listed in the amendment. More importantly,
federal law required DOT to maintain a civil rights office;
failure to comply could result in DOT losing its
eligibility to receive federal funds.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She supported
letting the federal government pay the costs if it was
going to require the state to have the office. She surmised
it may be an unfunded mandate. She hoped DOT did not do the
same thing Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
had done the previous day - she stated if the fund code was
supposed to be 1003 UGF match, it should be specified in
the budget. She remarked that the code read 1004 GF
instead, which meant it was not being utilized for a match.
She stated that the amendment did not remove the office or
matching funds. She did not believe it would impact any of
the other funding for the office.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOT 5 FAILED (4/7).
2:54:53 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 8
(copy on file):
Central Region Support Services
H DOT 8 - Delete three new positions and personal
service costs.
Offered by Representative Wilson
As a result of declining state revenues and as cost
containment measure, this amendment deletes a newly
created Administrative Operations Manager position in
the FY 18 budget request, a Program Coordinator
position created in FY 17 and Information Officer III
position. Other funds can be reallocated to fund the
unrestricted general funds deleted from the Personal
Services line in this allocation.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson detailed that the amendment pertained
to three new positions, but based on further investigation
the positions were not funded with GF, but with the
International Airport Revenue Fund and UA indirect cost
recovery. Although the positions were new, they were funded
by the agency utilizing them. She WITHDREW the amendment.
2:55:29 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 9
(copy on file):
Northern Region Support Services
H DOT 9 - Associated personal services cost and
services line reduction.
Offered by Representative Wilson
The Department deleted a Procurement Specialist
position in the FY 18 budget request without taking a
reduction in funding for the position deleted. This FY
17 budgeted cost of the position was $89,599. This
amendment makes a reduction from the Personal Services
line for this amount. This amendment also makes a
$50,000 reduction from the Services line item for
advertising and promotions where actual expenditures
in FY 16 were zero and the FY 18 budget is $87,900
leaving $37,900 in this allocation.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He spoke to the
procurement officer position that had been funded by
multiple sources, not only UGF. The amendment sought to
remove $89,000 by eliminating a position; however, there
was only $25,000 UGF for the position. He confirmed that
the funding had not been deleted. The department had
specified the funds had been used to reduce the vacancy
factor to a more realistic level after compensating for
premium pay. He addressed the second part of the amendment
and relayed the actuals for FY 16 advertising and
promotions were in the Northern Region planning component.
The information office and publications specialist had been
transferred into the Northern Region support services
component when the components were consolidated into
program developments. They brought with them the authority
for the navigator contract, which was the advertising and
promotions budget amount. The reduction would impact the
region's ability to perform the necessary support functions
that assist the region in delivering its core and direct
services, which would result in delayed service.
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND the amendment for
accuracy. The amendment would change personal services from
$89.6 to $64.6 and would change the funding of code 1004
General Funds to -$114,600.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson clarified the amendment to Amendment
H DOT 9 was to correct the numbers.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to amend the
amendment. He believed using the small amount of UGF to
help bring down the vacancy factor was reasonable. The
region had already taken numerous cuts. He stated that the
Central region was assuming more responsibilities. He did
not want to reduce the budget increment any further than it
had been.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
OPPOSED: Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to amend Amendment H DOT 9 PASSED (9/2).
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the amended
amendment. She explained that the amendment would still
leave $37,900 in advertising and promotions, which would
allow website and email notification and notices in the
paper.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt H DOT 9 as amended FAILED (4/7).
3:01:48 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 20
(copy on file):
Design, Engineering and Construction
Central Region Construction and CIP Support
H DOT 20 - Add Intent Language
Offered by Representative Tilton
It is the intent of the legislature that the paused
project "Knik Goose Bay Road Reconstruction: Vine to
Settler's Bay" be resumed utilizing federal funds as
available.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained that the amendment would
add intent language specifying the legislature's intent
that the paused Knik Goose Bay Road Reconstruction, Vine to
Settler's Bay project be resumed utilizing federal funding
as available. She stressed that the Mat-Su was the fastest
growing community in the state and the area had already
been considered a safety corridor. The project was in the
middle of two other projects that had funding and were
moving forward. She had been told by DOT that the funds
were available and were merely sitting there. She continued
that the committee had been told there had been some bonds
issued and the state was paying money on bonds for projects
that were not moving forward. She stated it was a safety
challenge; there had been 253 accidents with 56 injuries.
She stressed that since the pause of the project there had
been a fatality in July 2016, and three fatalities in
January 2017. She emphasized that people in the Mat-Su had
lost their lives because a project had been paused.
Representative Kawasaki discussed that there were projects
across the state that had been paused in addition to the
project under discussion, including [paused] projects in
his district where people had died. He recognized that DOT
had been cut and there was not sufficient money to cover
all the public safety needs across the state. He asked
whether unpausing the project would negatively impact other
projects currently in the queue.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION. He supported the
amendment. He noted it was intent language asking the
department to look for federal funding and to report back
to the legislature the following year. He stated it was
possible funds could be required in the future if the
project moved forward, but it was a decision that could be
made in the future. He concluded that if federal funds were
located it would need to be taken into consideration in the
future.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt appreciated the amendment and noted
he had heard about the project from his constituents. He
noted it was far from his district, but his constituents
traveled on the road for various reasons. He spoke to his
support. He believed the reason the road had paused had
been wrong. He supported the amendment sponsor's efforts to
fight for her constituents' safety. He stressed his support
for the safety of the people in Mat-Su. He underscored the
project should never have been paused in the first place.
Representative Guttenberg stated that most intent language
was generic and broad, which he found appropriate. He was
concerned the language was related to a specific road. He
did not know enough about the issue and what would happen
to other projects on the list.
3:07:32 PM
Co-Chair Seaton recognized Representative Louise Stutes in
the audience.
Representative Wilson discussed that a few years back the
legislature had been considering major projects including
the Juneau Access Road, a hydro project, and the Knik Goose
Bay Road project. She recalled being asked by constituents
if the legislature supported the project and whether it
could leap over other DOT projects on the list. She stated
that DOT had a matrix that included many factors such as
safety. She supported putting the project back in - it had
involved significant hard work including looking for
federal funds. She did not know whether the federal funds
were still available, but they had been in the past and no
matching funds were required. She knew voting for the
project would not put other projects on the back burner.
The amendment merely specified if there was funding
available, the project should no longer be paused; the
funding should be utilized before it was lost. She surmised
that if DOT had been able to use the funds for another
project, it would have done so. Many [federal] funds were
very specific in terms of what could or could not be done.
She did not know why the state would pass up on the
opportunity for jobs and to increase safety [that would
come from restarting the project]. She did not know why the
project had been paused.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified his understanding based on
committee comments that the language did not intend to
prioritize the project over other road projects; it also
used federal funds and no state funds.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, H DOT 20 was ADOPTED.
3:10:08 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 23
(copy on file):
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
Central Region Facilities
H DOT 23 - Delete one full time position and align the
FY 18 budget request with FY 17 plan.
Offered by Representative Wilson
The FY 17 Management Plan budget in the Personal
Services line item was $2,939,500 and the FY 18 budget
request for this line item is $3,218,400 resulting in
an increase of $310,700 over the FY 17 Management
Plan. Additionally, a permanent full-time position was
added and one part position was reclassified to a
permanent full time position. This amendment deletes
the added position and makes a reduction of $310,700
to this line item to align the FY 18 budget request
with the FY 17 Management Plan.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He detailed that
Central region facilities assumed the responsibility for
Court System facilities and work for the maintenance and
operation for the Southcoast region (Aleutian district
facilities). Reducing the funds would eliminate the
department's ability to provide facility and maintenance
for the Court System; the system did not have the capacity
to absorb the function. The changing of the part-time
position to full-time status in FY 18 increased the
agency's efficient delivery of maintenance services.
Representative Wilson responded that she would have no
problem maintaining the $310,700 if the Court System was
paying the bill; however, the money was not interagency
receipts, which she believed it should be given the
entities benefiting off the increase.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
Vice-Chair Gara was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOT 23 FAILED (4/6).
3:13:27 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 26
(copy on file):
Northern Region Highways and Aviation
H DOT 26 - Align FY 18 budget request for Personal
Services with FY 17 Management Plan
Offered by Representative Wilson
The FY 17 Management Plan budget in the Personal
Services line item was $30,802,100 and the FY 18
budget request for this line item is $31,034,400
resulting in an increase of $232,300 over the FY 17
Management Plan. This amendment makes a reduction of
$232,300 from this line item to align the FY 18 budget
request with the FY 17 Management Plan.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson remarked that she was certain DOT
needed the money as much as other agencies utilizing
services with DOT. She read from the amendment description
[see above].
Co-Chair Foster spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
shared that the increase resulted from salary adjustments
due to collective bargaining agreement positions. The
reduction would result in an unallocated cut to the
component as the increase was for contractually required
costs.
Representative Wilson found it interesting that only the
specific division of the Northern Region Highways and
Aviation had a salary adjustment. She believed most of the
employees were in the same union. She thought the increases
would have been seen in more than just one allocation. She
opined that the contracts needed to be reopened if the
state was paying that much. She wanted to hold costs level
for at least a year.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster, Seaton
Representative Kawasaki was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOT 26 FAILED (4/6).
3:15:40 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 29
(copy on file):
Marine Highway System
Marine Vessel Operations
H DOT 29 Increase Service Level
Offered by Representative Ortiz
The Alaska Marine Highway System provides vital
transportation for Alaskans and their businesses. The
Marine Highway's operation capability must be
preserved for the good of Alaska's economy and the
benefit of Alaskan people and communities. The Alaska
Marine Highway is currently working with stakeholders
and an appointed steering committee to build a
realistic long-term operations plan that will
stabilize the marine highway into the future. For the
good of our economy and communities, the State of
Alaska must provide necessary funding for the marine
highway until implementation of the new structure is
completed in FY 2019.
The Alaska Marine Highway has been reduced by
approximately 13 percent over the last 2 years, while
other highways and aviation facilities have been
reduced by only 5.5 percent. Coastal Alaskans are also
the only Alaskans who directly contribute to the cost
of their highway maintenance and operations.
Coastal Alaskans understand the need for reductions in
state spending, but fundamentally deserve parity with
other Alaskans and their transportation options.
The Alaska Marine Highway provides goods,
transportation for people and vehicles, and jobs to
Alaskan communities. For every dollar spent on the
Alaska Marine Highway, at least two dollars are
generated in the communities it serves. The marine
highway also provides important transportation
infrastructure to Alaskans, whether along the
immediate coast or into the interior, where
communities are linked to coastal communities along
the marine highway service route. The Alaska Marine
Highway System carried 100,547 vehicles in 2015. It is
also relied upon to bring groceries, medications and
other necessary goods to locations where barges do not
often travel or do not travel at any time due to
practicality.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained that the amendment would add
slightly over $2 million to the Alaska Marine Highway
System (AMHS). He read the amendment description [see
above]. He added that former co-chair Representative
Thompson recalled the discussions around reductions to AMHS
in the previous budgeting process and would backup the
amounts he was discussing related to the inequity of cuts.
Representative Wilson asked what type of rate increase it
would take to cover the $1.7 million. She did not have the
number of people, only the number of vehicles, which would
be an addition of $18. She surmised the $18 may be
roundtrip, if so it would be $9 each way. She knew there
had been some increases, but she surmised that many other
areas [of the budget] had been cut more than 13 percent (up
to 30 to 40 percent). She asked where the AMHS DGF funds
came from. She did not believe it was program receipts.
Representative Pruitt did not support the amendment. He
shared that people in his community who had never used AMHS
wondered why they were paying for $100 million to fund the
system. He relayed that he had never offered an amendment
to cut the system. However, he stressed that approving an
increase was a big challenge. He stated there were many
increases he should personally be requesting for his
district, but he could not due to the current deficit. He
believed AMHS would have to figure out how to do things
differently. He elaborated that legislators needed to think
about smart investments in capital in terms of roads that
were built to reduce inefficiencies. He spoke about a
public private partnership or privatization of the system
that would reduce cost and would enable the service to be
provided without being a heavy burden. He referred to
committee discussions about income tax and taking the
Permanent Fund. He reasoned when spread across each
Alaskan, the $100 million cost was substantial. He would
defend the system, but he needed to see there was an effort
to change things. He stressed that merely adding money was
not an effort to make change. He did not support merely
increasing funding. He noted his comments also applied to
another similar amendment. He was certain there were myriad
other places that would ask for more money as well.
3:22:07 PM
Vice-Chair Gara appreciated the previous speaker's remarks
about taking a statewide perspective. He believed
individuals in Southeast Alaska needed to "swallow a pretty
big pill" to put substantial transportation money into the
Knik Arm Bridge over the years; over $50 million for a
bridge that never got built. He was happy he had voted
against the project because he had seen it as a waste of
money. He reasoned that the amendment was not really an
"add" when AMHS had been hit as hard as it had been over
many years. He believed it was a Band-Aide to deal with the
damage.
3:23:17 PM
AT EASE
3:32:15 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster voiced support for the amendment. He noted
that he had chaired the DOT subcommittee. He pointed out
Representative Stutes in the audience and relayed she had
previously led a discussion on forward funding AMHS, which
he believed there had been general bipartisan support for
within the subcommittee. He detailed that in FY 15 and FY
16 port calls had been reduced by 27 percent in Kake, 15
percent in Hoonah, and 11 percent in Sitka and Angoon. He
stated that hits had been taken over the years and he
believed the amendment was aligned with efforts at the
subcommittee level.
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up on the amendment and
answered member questions. He reported that in 2015 there
had been a tariff increase of 4.5 percent across the board;
in November 2015 there had also been a 20 percent increase
in commercial traffic tariffs. On January 1, 2016 there had
been a 5 percent leveling tariff to fill service gaps. In
2016 there had been the first of five-annual variable
leveling tariff increases had occurred - a 10 percent
Bellingham [Washington] traffic premium tariff increase. In
2017 the Lityua tariff policy change had doubled the one-
way fare to Metlakatla. Finally, on May 1, 2017, the second
of five-annual variable leveling tariff increases would
occur. He underscored that AMHS had tried to augment and
increase their revenue through tariff increases.
Representative Ortiz responded to comments by
Representative Pruitt and relayed that Anchorage residents
were the second largest user group of AMHS. He detailed
that 7,638 [Anchorage] individuals had used the ferry in
2014 compared to 2,479 individuals from Ketchikan.
According to the McDowell Group survey on AMHS, 52 percent
of the summer passengers who visit Anchorage traveled by
way of the AMHS. He stated that the travelers contributed
to the Anchorage economy.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson
Representative Thompson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DOT 29 PASSED (7/3).
3:36:18 PM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 30
(copy on file):
Marine Highway System
Marine Vessel Operations
H DOT 30 - Add Intent Language regarding adjustments
to children's fares on the Marine Highway system
Offered by Representative Tilton
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
Alaska Marine Highway System revise the "Children's
Discount Tariffs" from age 6-11 to age 0-11, and
delete the "Underage Discount Tariffs" and "Youth
Group Discount Tariffs" as soon as practical.
Explanation:
Review all 14 Indirect Expenditures listed in the
Legislative Finance Division January 2017 Report to
evaluate whether they meet the purpose and intent of
the Legislature as defined throughout Section
19.65.050. Where not prohibited by Collective
Bargaining agreements, or providing cost benefits to
agencies of the State, restructure or delete the
Indirect Expenditure as listed in the report on Alaska
Marine Highway System.
Change the "Children's Discount Tariffs" from age 6-11
to age 0-11 Delete the "Underage Discount Tariffs"
Delete the "Youth Group Discount Tariffs"
Sec 19.65.050(a)(4) states the Legislature's purpose
and intent for the Alaska Marine Highway System Fund
and Budget is to exercise "efficient and prudent
management of the system" that "will benefit the
state's economy and foster economic development"
Sec 19.65.050(b)(1)-(4) states "the purpose of
19.65.050 thru 19.65.100 is to: enable the Alaska
marine highway system to manage and operate in a
manner that will enhance performance and
accountability by allowing the system to account for
and spend its generated revenue; provide the
management tools necessary to efficiently operate the
Alaska Marine Highway System;
By taking the recommended action to review the
Indirect Expenditures and make the suggested changes
to Tariffs, the Alaska Marine Highway System will
continue to provide quality service under "efficient
and prudent management (sec 19.65.050)" and meet the
Legislatures Intent for the Alaska Highway System Fund
and Budget by being accountable under Sec
19.65.050(b)(1)-(4)
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton read from the amendment description
[see above].
Co-Chair Foster explained that the subcommittee agreed the
legislature needed to look at indirect expenditures as new
sources of revenue. Indirect expenditures were discounts
and fee waivers that had gotten out of control over the
years in some situations, but that was not known until a
review was done. He supported revisiting the information
and having something come back to the legislature that it
could address in the following year. He WITHDREW his
OBJECTION.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED. He stated there were two
purposes to the AMHS - to augment the economy to help
business and encourage tourism traffic and to provide
essential services to outlying communities that would never
have the volume to pay for the actual service. He stressed
that the system provided an essential transportation link
to communities like Juneau from places like Hoonah. For
example, pregnant women needed AMHS to come into larger
communities for checkups. Due to recent reductions the
system had seen significantly reduced service; the ability
to have needed service was going away. He stated that the
specific intent language did not say study, but specified
that "Underage Discount Tariffs" and "Youth Group Discount
Tariffs" should be deleted as soon as practical.
Representative Ortiz spoke about how AMHS worked directly
with school systems. He emphasized that in the current week
over 300 students had ridden on AMHS to visit Juneau to
participate in the Region 5 tournament. He was certain the
schools had taken advantage of the youth group discount
tariff option, which saved school districts money. He
stated that while it may appear to by tailoring towards a
particular group of travelers visiting in the summer, in
reality, the youth group discount tariffs had much more of
an impact on school districts and on AMHS users in
Southeast. He was opposed to the language.
3:41:18 PM
Representative Wilson stressed that the amendment only
included intent language; it was only asking for review of
the 14 indirect expenditures listed by the Legislative
Finance Division. She reasoned the review could come back
stating "there's a better good by keeping them in line" or
they may come back and say there was not. She explained
that the legislature would not know the answer unless a
review was done. She reiterated that the amendment did not
change anything, but asked for review. She supported a
review to gain a better understanding. She continued that
depending on where some of the fees were coming from, if
the discounts were changed and the money came out of the
school district budget from the Base Student Allocation
(BSA) it could have a negative effect. However, if the
money came from fundraising and was a small amount, the
impact may not be significant. She opined as money became
tighter it was necessary to have all options on the table.
She believed everyone agreed that everything was currently
on the table.
Representative Guttenberg believed there was a
contradiction in the intent language and the explanation.
He observed the intent language was "as soon as possible"
and the explanation was [for a] "review." He did not
believe they were completely aligned.
Representative Kawasaki agreed. He spoke to the guiding
statute for AMHS and the tariffs provided for passengers
was AS 19.65.050(c)(2), which specified AMHS should
increase revenue from the operation of the system
consistent with public interest. He stated the language
directed the department to take action as soon as possible,
leaving no real discussion about whether the action was
consistent with the guiding principle of acting consistent
with public interest. He noted that Wrangell students had
recently been in Juneau to play basketball and he believed
they had probably taken the ferry. He explained that many
students took the ferry to travel. He did not know if the
amendment was in order at present. He stated there was
consistent review. The guiding statutes specified that AMHS
would always try to increase revenue based on consistency
with public interest; however, the amendment appeared to
direct AMHS to do something that may not fall under the
statute. He opposed the amendment.
3:44:48 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to a conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment H DOT 30 to include the words "consider revising"
after Alaska Marine Highway System on the second line of
the amendment. He stated it was intent language.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED. He addressed the guiding
statutes related to how AMHS created its fee structure. It
specified the system should increase revenue from the
operation of the system consistent with the public
interest. He stated there were 12 other tariff discounts
currently within the system. He explained the amendment
isolated 3 of the tariffs (Children's Discount Tariffs,
Underage Discount Tariffs, and Youth Group Discount
Tariffs). There were tariffs for alcohol board passes, a
disabilities user pass, employee annual passes,
interpretive passes for employees of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, senior citizen discounts, and other. He stressed
the amendment clearly directed policy that he did not
believe was consistent with AMHS's public interest tariff
policy. He opposed the amendment to the amendment.
Representative Ortiz addressed the proposed amendment to
the amendment. He stated that even with the addition of the
words the amendment still expressed the listed tariffs
should be deleted as soon as practical. He would feel more
comfortable with an amendment that asked for a study of the
overall tariff policies and removed language about
deletion.
Representative Wilson thought adding the word "consider"
added a lot. She reasoned that whether the tariffs should
be deleted would be part of the consideration. She believed
AMHS would come back with a report on whether to keep or
delete the tariffs. She opined that the word "consider"
merely asked the department to consider its policies and
did not constitute direction from the legislature. She was
not worried about the "as soon as practical" language
because it would not be practical to rush; therefore, it
would still enable the department to conduct the review
with sufficient time. She believed all the tariffs should
be reviewed. She surmised that perhaps the ones addressed
in the amendment would take priority and the others would
be reviewed afterwards.
3:48:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his Amendment 1 to Amendment H DOT
30. He MOVED conceptual Amendment 2 to H DOT 30 that he
believed spoke to Representative Ortiz's concern.
Co-Chair Seaton made clarifying remarks about the
amendments.
Co-Chair Foster agreed. He elaborated that conceptual
Amendment 2 amendment would read "the Alaska Marine Highway
System consider revising the Children's Discount Tariffs"
and "consider deleting the Underage Discount Tariffs and
Youth Group Discount Tariffs..." The word "consider" would
be inserted in two locations prior to the words "revise"
and "delete."
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED. He remarked the amendment
would still only focus on three of the discount tariffs
offered. He believed it was fair to say the legislature
wanted the department to review all existing tariffs. He
reiterated his prior testimony regarding other tariffs such
as senior citizen discounts, AMHS employees, and others. He
believed all the tariffs should be looked at on equal
footing rather than focusing on the three pertaining to
children.
Representative Ortiz spoke to the proposed Amendment 2. He
would be more comfortable with "consider revising the
Alaska Marine Highway System's discount programs."
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 2 to H DOT
30.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to adopt conceptual Amendment 3:
It is the intent of the legislature that the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, "consider revising
the Alaska Marine Highway System's discount tariff
program."
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment H DOT 30 was ADOPTED.
3:52:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg noted that some of the Amendment
H DOT 30 explanation was no longer relevant. He remarked
the language could be deleted.
Representative Pruitt believed it was a conceptual
amendment, which would take care of the challenges.
There being NO further OBJECTION, H DOT 30 was ADOPTED as
amended.
3:53:29 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 31
(copy on file):
Marine Vessel Fuel
H DOT 31 - Reduce FY 18 budget request for estimated
fuel usage.
Offered by Representative Wilson
In the FY 18 budget request the Department states
there will be a decreased need for fuel in FY 18 given
the following planned service level reductions:
Reduction in annual vessel operating weeks from 335.1
to 333.9 the Taku and Chenega are not scheduled to
operate in FY 2018
Bellingham and Prince Rupert will receive service on
alternating weeks for 7.5 weeks from January 2nd
through February 21st while the Kennicott is in her
annual overhaul project
Based on the reduced level of services describe above,
this amendment reduces the FY 18 budget request of
$20,223,600 by $3,000,000 in the Commodities line item
for estimated vessel fuel usage.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Co-Chair Foster spoke to his objection. He confirmed the
department had stated there would be a decreased need for
fuel in FY 18, which had been reflected in the budget. He
elaborated it had been built into the department's budget
due to decreased service level reductions. The amendment
reduction would further decrease the marine vessel fuel
component, impacting the agency's ability to operate
vessels on the published schedule. The AMHS operated as a
whole and its various components were interrelated and
dependent on each other to ensure the effective operation
of the AMHS. The reduction would result in an adjustment
across the system and could force canceled sailings and
reduced service levels.
Representative Grenn asked how the $3 million commodities
line figure had been chosen.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She answered she
had done the math by using the calendar and how much fuel
the vessels used. The estimate was based on the current
price of fuel, which could increase or decline. She had not
selected the way "they're decreasing things."
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster, Seaton
Vice-Chair Gara and Representative Thompson were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt H DOT 31 FAILED (3/6).
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW Amendment H DOT 32 (copy on
file).
3:57:41 PM
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW Amendment H UOA 6 (copy
on file).
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H UOA 7
(copy on file):
H UOA 7 - University Reduction of 5 percent
Offered by Representative Wilson
The amendment reduces the FY 18 Budget request for the
University by 5 percent, leaving $308,781,825 of
Unrestricted General Funds in the FY 18 budget request
and a total FY 18 budget request of $870,866,300.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He
explained that the University had taken a hit of about $53
million in the past three years. He believed that when
looking to the future and considering where the investment
should be made, the University was a significant part of
the picture. The Board of Regent's request was $16 million
over the governor's proposed number. In anticipation of the
economic situation facing the state, the University
president had proposed and begun developing a strategic
realignment plan. The plan was still in place, but despite
that, the higher education institutions around the country
had set a standard for what the University was expected to
produce in terms of trained workforce and college
graduates. Even with the governor's numbers the University
would probably not be able to reach the standard and find a
sustaining level. He relayed that the issue had been
discussed constantly regarding stopping the hemorrhaging in
the budget. There was also discussion about jobs. The
University turned out people for jobs - sometimes
individuals needed training that did not require a degree.
Representative Guttenberg continued to speak to his
opposition. He observed that the legislature was constantly
putting the University in a place where it made it
increasingly difficult to do its constitutionally required
job; it became more difficult to track and retain people,
especially considering there were 900 fewer people working
for the University than in FY 15. He continued that places
had shut down and programs had been curtailed - some of the
things were vital for the economy.
Representative Kawasaki agreed with the comments by
Representative Guttenberg (the chair of the University
budget subcommittee). The University had sustained
substantial reductions - state support had gone from $377
million in FY 14 to under $325 million in the current year
(a 14 percent reduction). The University was part of the
state's constitution along with public safety and health.
There were over 900 individuals no longer working in the
University, which he believed had severely impacted the
mission of the University. At the same time, there had been
tuition increases and there was a plan in place to raise
tuition to the WICHE [Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education] standard. The tuition increases had
further harmed the number of students that could
participate at the University, but the University had made
the increase because it understood it needed to be part of
the solution. At the same time the administration and the
Board of Regents supported tuition increases, students had
support for the increases as well, knowing they had to be
part of the solution as well. He stated that the University
was primary for Fairbanks and was a pillar of economic
development. He stressed that a further drastic cut of $16
million would further hamper the institution and public
education in Alaska.
Representative Grenn spoke in opposition to the amendment.
He believed the governor's proposed budget for the
University was fair given the current budget crisis.
Despite the reduction in funds, the University had a great
momentum of operations and things it was doing well. He
believed in the University's plan moving forward to
continue to be a bright spot in Alaska. He elaborated that
further reductions would be too dramatic and hurtful given
the University's importance for Alaska.
4:04:13 PM
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She stressed the
amendment provided opportunity. She believed the
University's President Johnson was amazing and would do
amazing things, but she did not believe he would be able to
do so as long as the University continued to receive as
much state funding as it received at present. She reasoned
it became easy to sit back and to continue doing things the
same way. She had learned that more Alaskan students were
being sent out of state to the WICHE programs than were
coming into Alaska from other states. She stressed that
Alaska was losing students to the program. She communicated
that the University's on-time graduation rate was 15
percent at the Fairbanks campus, 8 percent at the Anchorage
campus, and 4 percent at the Southeast campus. Whereas, the
Alaska Pacific University had an on-time graduation rate of
53 percent. The average was 56 percent. She asked members
to consider the potential. She believed the University had
the potential to get move more money than the amendment's
proposed cut.
Representative Wilson stressed that if student retention
was increased by only 15 percent, the University could
generate a minimum of $11,834,928 per year. She elaborated
that increasing retention by 30 percent would generate
approximately $24 million per year, which was more than the
cut in the proposed amendment. She continued that numerous
reports had been done - one report the previous year showed
$6 million in reconsolidation of University central staff.
She stressed that many people were still paid substantial
salaries (more than the governor was paid). She emphasized
over $7 million went to athletics. She communicated that
statewide personal services for the statewide section of
the University had grown by $2,373,400. She stressed the
increment was not to pay for teachers or professors, but to
pay for "the people watching the people do the work."
Representative Wilson continued that in 2014, 1,958
graduates had been eligible to receive the Alaska
Performance Scholarship (APS) and 941 (48 percent) attended
somewhere in Alaska, 35 percent attended outside Alaska,
and 325 (17 percent) were unknown. There were two places
she had listed where the University could increase its
revenue. She stressed that the state was paying the
[tuition] money. She found it concerning that the eligible
students were choosing to pass the money up and go out-of-
state. The percentage of high school graduates eligible for
the APS in 2015 had been 32 percent and 29 percent in 2016.
There was an entire group of people the University could
target to discuss its programs that cost less than other
locations. She mentioned that free classes to seniors and
free classes to the children of employees may need to be
looked at.
Representative Wilson stressed that the University needed
to learn to compete online. She stated that every time she
turned the television on there was another university
trying to take Alaskan students away with online programs.
She reasoned that most people or programs did not change
until forced. She believed the state was doing a disservice
to the [University] president because he was trying to
change things. As long as the money came from state funds
versus competing in the marketplace, the University would
have a tendency to operate under status quo instead of
harnessing its potential. Although the amendment was a cut
to state funding, it did not need to be a cut to the
University. She had confidence the University could
compete. She recalled putting intent language in the prior
year's budget in hopes the University would go after the
same list "that I did before." She stated that more DGF had
been raised. Although the amendment would cut UGF, she saw
potential for the University if it was given the
opportunity.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Tilton
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson,
Foster, Seaton
Vice-Chair Gara was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H UOA 7 FAILED (3/7).
4:10:10 PM
AT EASE
4:14:51 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton relayed the committee would address
amendments pertaining to the legislature.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 13
(copy on file):
Legislative Council
Salaries and Allowances
H LEG 13 - Eliminate regular session per diem for the
3 Juneau legislators and reduce all other by 75
percent of fed rate.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment would eliminate regular session per
diem expenses for the 3 Juneau legislator who receive
75 percent of the federal per diem rate for living in
Juneau during the session. This results in a reduction
of $43,100 from the Travel line.
In addition, the federal per diem rate for all other
legislators is reduced by 75 percent (from $213/day to
$53.25/day). This results in an additional reduction
of $819,500 from the Travel line.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above].
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to his objection. He noted that under
AS 24.10.130(c), the Legislative Council was tasked with
setting the legislative per diem policy. The Legislative
Council was currently reviewing the issue and had a
subcommittee working on the topic. He believed that prior
to making a budgetary change, the council should be allowed
to do the work it was tasked with by statute.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She did not have
high hopes something would change because [Legislative
Council] had the opportunity to make a change for many
years. She believed that prior to asking for other people's
money, the legislature should put its own house in order.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Thompson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt H LEG 13 FAILED (3/8).
4:17:23 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 14
(copy on file):
H LEG 14 - Eliminate regular session per diem expenses
for three Juneau legislators.
Offered by Representative Wilson
The amendment eliminates regular session per diem
expenses for three Juneau legislators who receive 75
percent of the federal per diem rate for living in
Juneau during the session. Regular session per diem is
budgeted in this allocation for a 90-day session.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above]. She added that she would not take per diem if she
had the ability to sleep in her own bed and drive to work
every day. She did not believe others [with the ability to
live at home during session] should take per diem either.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to his objection. He relayed that
statutory authority was given to the Legislative Council to
work on per diem policy, which it was currently doing.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to conceptual Amendment 1 to
the amendment. He wanted the amendment to apply to regular
session per diem or any session per diem for legislators
living within 50 miles of the location where session was
being held.
Co-Chair Seaton noted it was too complicated to take as a
verbal amendment.
Representative Pruitt addressed his point. There had been
people with legitimate concerns with people taking per diem
in Anchorage during a past session. He shared that he had
not taken per diem and that most legislators living nearby
also chose not to take per diem. However, there were a few
legislators who had. He believed it was the issue the
amendment sponsor was trying to address. He understood the
amendment, but if a session was ever held in another
location he believed it should apply to legislators within
that area. He thought it may be a conversation for
Legislative Council. He believed the Salary Commission and
Legislative Council needed to consider a discussion about a
flat salary that excluded per diem to get away from "this
garbage" that took place annually. He stated that people
tried to use it against each other. He WITHDREW the
amendment to the amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed with Representative Pruitt, he hoped
Legislative Council took the issue on. He had not spoken to
many people who wanted a recent raise that they did not ask
for. He discussed that the problem with the Salary
Commission was that it wanted to raise legislators'
salaries. The legislature had asked the commission not to
raise its salaries. He thought the commission had decided
not to meet one year because it had received the strong
indication from the legislature that it did not want
salaries raised.
4:21:41 PM
Representative Grenn echoed the prior comments. He received
calls from constituents asking about per diem, what it
meant, and how it was spent. He believed the issue was
worth a larger discussion. He had rejected the increased
rate that legislators had received earlier in the month. He
had also rejected other per diems. He welcomed the debate
and discussion currently occurring in Legislative Council.
He hoped there could be further discussion in the
legislature to add transparency and public trust.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. Stated she probably
should have included 50 miles versus limiting it to a
specific location. The federal government included the 50-
mile limit, but Legislative Council had determined sometime
in the past that it did not use the same method. She knew
the per diem for legislators within the 50 miles was
addressed in a different way; however, she stressed that
"we're in different times." The amendment was not against
the legislators in Juneau - it went back to the federal
government's current 50-mile limit.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt,
Seaton, Foster
The MOTION to adopt H LEG 14 FAILED (3/8).
4:24:03 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 15
(copy on file):
Legislative Operating Budget
Session Expenses
H LEG 15 - Eliminate all funding and positions
associated with the Legislative Lounge.
Offered by Representative Wilson
This amendment eliminates all funding and positions
associated with the Legislative Lounge. The positions
being eliminated are the Senate Legislative Chef,
Senate Lounge Attendant, House Lounge Assistant, and
House Lounge Attendant.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment description [see
above]. She elaborated that the amount charged did not
cover the costs. She purchased her food at the grocery
store. Additionally, there were restaurants nearby that she
did not understand why the legislature was choosing to
compete against. The only argument she had heard was "where
will legislators meet to talk?" She reasoned legislators
could meet anywhere to talk. She added that the lounge
would still be a space to utilize with a refrigerator and
tables. She believed a privately maintained lounge was
unnecessary. She concluded that the cut would not hurt any
constituents. She opined that action should have been taken
much sooner.
Vice-Chair Gara stated the issue had never come up in past
years where there had been a different majority in the
House. He stated the new [House] Majority had increased
fees at the lounge. He did not mind if fees went up even
higher.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to his objection. He stated that many
staff remained in their offices during lunch and received
food from the lounge. He spoke to the loss of time that
would occur in legislative offices if individuals left the
building. Additionally, the lounge was a neutral gathering
place for both bodies of the legislature. He stressed the
value of the conversations that took place in the lounge
that aided in moving the legislative process forward.
Vice-Chair Gara wondered why the amendment had never been
brought forward in prior years.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that the question could be
addressed in wrap up.
4:27:40 PM
Representative Tilton believed there were other places that
delivered food from businesses in Juneau. Her staff
received had food delivered from other restaurants. She
agreed the lounge was a nice place, but she had not visited
it in the current year. She spoke to other locations where
legislators could have conversations. She referenced a
group of legislators who bowled together as an example. She
did not believe the lounge was necessary during the current
fiscal crisis.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the lounge was
not open in the evening; it shut down after lunch. He
believed it served an amazing function in the building.
Representative Wilson provided wrap up. She stressed that
the amendment did not proposed to lock the door to the
lounge. She found new freedom in the minority in the
current year. She had more time the current session because
she was not heading a budget subcommittee. She had spent
substantial time with the budget book and had located items
she had not found in previous years. Additionally, she had
been soliciting amendments from other legislators, who she
thanked. She agreed that the lounge was not open during the
evening, but the door was still unlocked, and the room was
available for legislators. Her staff also brought in their
own meals. She shared that she was typically at work from
7:00 am to midnight and did not utilize the lounge; it cost
$137,000 for session. She stressed it was a significant
amount of money. She added that the legislature was taking
away from private business. She had no interest in asking
Alaskans to pay for something like the lounge. She believed
it was a small sacrifice for legislators to make.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Thompson, Foster, Seaton
The MOTION to adopt H LEG 15 FAILED (3/8).
4:32:08 PM
Representative Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H SAP 17
(copy on file):
Language Amendments
H SAP 17 - Remove capital project for Deferred
Maintenance and Accessibility Improvements
Offered by Representative Seaton
This deletes a mental health capital project in the
Department of Health and Social Services. The project
is "MH Deferred Maintenance and Accessibility
Improvements" and it is funded with $250.0 of MHTAAR.
The amendment shows zero (rather than -$250.0) because
the project appears in the capital budget system and
reports track only operating budget amendments.
The House always deletes one mental health capital
project and the other body deletes all other mental
health capital projects, thus making all of the mental
health capital projects subject to conference
committee action.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Seaton explained the amendment that would
delete a capital project from the mental health budget for
the deferred maintenance and accessibility improvements
project within DHSS; the project was funded with $250,000
Mental Health Trust Authority Authorized Receipts (MHTAAR).
He detailed that each year the House deleted one mental
health capital project and the other body deleted all the
other mental health capital projects. The actions made sure
all the mental health capital projects were subject to
conference committee.
Representative Wilson asked if the legislature had ever
changed the mental health budget.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he had. He shared that in the
previous year another legislator had tried to cut
disability benefits in the mental health budget - he and
his caucus had restored the funds.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, H SAP 17 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to give Legislative Legal Services
and the Division of Legislative Finance the ability to make
conforming and technical corrections to HB 57. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to give Legislative Legal Services
and the Division of Legislative Finance the ability to make
conforming and technical corrections to HB 59. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed the meeting would be recessed until
the following morning at 8:30 a.m. [Note: see 3/10/17 8:30
a.m. minutes for detail.]
^RECESSED
4:35:36 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 57 Adopted Amendments as of 3.8.17.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 ALL Adopted Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 |