Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/27/2017 01:00 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 | |
| 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 | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 27, 2017
1:02 p.m.
1:02:48 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Amanda Ryder, Analyst, Division of Legislative Finance;
Carol Petraborg, Administrative Services Director,
Department of Fish and Game; Karen Forrest, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services;
Shawnda O'Brien, Assistant Commissioner, Department of
Health and Social Services; Brandon Cullum, Administrative
Services Director, Department of Law; Jim Cantor, Deputy
Attorney General, Department of Law; Amanda Holland, Admin
Services Director, Department of Transportation; Miles
Baker, University of Alaska; Representative Louise Stutes.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jessica Bogard, Administrative Operations Manager, Division
of Public Assistance
SUMMARY
HB 57 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 57 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the day. The
committee would be hearing subcommittee reports for the
following departments:
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Department of Law (DOL)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT)
University of Alaska (UA)
Judiciary (JUD)
Legislature (LEG)
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the committee would bring up
other departments if time allowed. The subcommittee reports
were distributed to members the previous Friday and
Saturday and were posted online. He asked Representative
Kawasaki to begin with the report for DOC.
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. 59
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
1:03:59 PM
Representative Kawasaki provided the subcommittee report
for the Department of Corrections. He relayed that the
subcommittee met over a series of five meetings for a total
of about 9 hours. On the last day, prior to closing out,
the subcommittee took up budget amendments. He forwarded 6
amendment recommendations to the co-chairs.
Co-Chair Seaton guided members to the amendment section of
the packet.
Representative Kawasaki reviewed the FY18 budget with
recommended Governor and subcommittee amendment totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $257,758.2
Designated General Funds (DGF): $8,501.6
Other Funds: $34,652.0
Federal Funds: $7,686.0
Total: $308,597.8
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 [GA 3]
(copy on file):
Administration and Support
Office of the Commissioner
GA 3 2/15 Community Resource for Justice
Grants from Community Resource for Justice
Incorporated will be used to support implementation of
justice reform efforts. This is a new request for
FY2018 and was not included in the FY2018 governor's
request as these grant funds were not available at the
time. The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission approved
this item in January 2017.
Community Resource for Justice Incorporated (CRJ) is a
Massachusetts nonprofit corporation that is assisting
the State of Alaska with implementation of Justice
Reform. The Crime and Justice Institute applied for
and was awarded a federal grant from the Bureau of
Justice (BOJ), Office of Justice Programs for Criminal
Justice Improvement and Recidivism Reduction through
the State-Level Justice Reinvestment Initiative. This
grant award allows CRJ to issue sub awards in efforts
to assist agencies with funding to meet training and
statewide coordination needs as approved by CRJ and
the BOJ. This grant will fund a Coordinator either
through a contract or non-perm position to assist with
identifying and addressing ongoing implementation
issues, particularly those that span several divisions
within the department as well as coordinate between
each state and local stakeholders as well as reporting
needs for the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that Amendment 1 was actually
Amendment GA 3. Representative Kawasaki agreed.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment was
passed in the House DOC budget subcommittee. It was
originally offered by the governor on February 15, 2017. It
included grants to communities from a national organization
called Community Resource for Justice Incorporated. The
organization obtained much of its funding from the US
Department of Justice. The funding was a one-time increment
of statutory designated program receipts. The subcommittee
discussion surrounded where the money would come from and
whether it would supplant general funds. The amendment
proposal was forwarded for recommendation.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION Amendment GA 3 was ADOPTED.
1:07:14 PM
AT EASE
1:07:52 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton explained where members could find the
amendment numbers and directed them to refer to their
amendments using the same nomenclature.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 1
(copy on file):
Administration and Support
Office of the Commissioner
H DOC 1 - Transfer New Professional Conduct Unit from
Correctional Academy to Commissioner's Office (TrOut
337896)
Linked to H DOC 4 - Transfer New Professional Conduct
Unit from Correctional Academy to Commissioner's
Office
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
Transfer the newly created Professional Conduct Unit
from the Correctional Academy to the Commissioner's
Office where it is more appropriately housed. The new
Investigative Unit will work in coordination with the
Department of Public Safety, Department of Law and the
Office of the Governor to investigate external and
internal complaints into alleged misconduct or
criminal activities, on the part of all DOC employees,
inmates, visitors, and contractors.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki reviewed that the amendment was
technical in nature and transferred the Professional
Conduct Unit currently housed within the Correctional
Academy to the Commissioner's Office. He reported a
$714,500 undesignated general fund (UGF) transfer and 3
permanent full-time positions. The committee believed it
was inappropriate to house the unit within the Correctional
Academy.
Representative Wilson agreed with the change offered in the
amendment. She hoped a larger discussion would ensue
regarding the positions, as they were new positions being
proposed. She referred to a report about whether there
should be an internal or external investigative unit. The
report recommended that the unit be external. She was
concerned about adding new positions. She remarked that an
external investigative unit for any department would be
more objective than an internal one. She reiterated her
support of the move.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 1 was adopted.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 2
(copy on file):
Administration and Support
Information Technology MIS
H DOC 2 - Delete Positions and Funding of Four
Transferred PCNs from Closed Palmer Correctional
Center
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
This amendment deletes four positions and associated
operating costs transferred to this allocation.
Savings and positions from the closure of the Palmer
Correctional Institution were transferred to this
allocation to fund operations of the MIS unit of the
Department. This results in four new positions to
support MIS operations. These positions are currently
vacant and have been since the closure of the
institution. Additionally, the Department should not
be increasing positions while the Department of
Administration is in the process of consolidating
information technology in the new Division of
Information Technology. This amendment will eliminate
this increase of staff to the MIS unit. It will also
assist the Department in arriving at the cost savings
identified in the fiscal note for SB 91 associated
with inmate population reductions.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment
resulted from a recommendation made by a member of the
budget subcommittee to delete $546,200 UGF and 4 permanent
full-time positions, which were previously at the Palmer
Correctional Center within the Information Technology
Department. They suggested transferring the positions to
the administrative and support appropriations. The
committee discussed that the positions were vacant and had
been held open without being advertised. He deferred to
Representative Wilson, as it was her amendment.
Representative Wilson further explained the amendment. She
indicated that although the positions would be transferred,
they were new positions. They had not been advertised and
remained vacant. There was a question about being able to
address the issue without hiring additional people. She
argued that if the positions were really needed the
department would have been actively trying to fill them.
She mentioned that the amendment would also help the state
realize the savings resulting from the closure of the
Palmer facility based on SB 91 [An omnibus crime bill
passed in 2016].
Co-Chair Seaton recognized the arrival of Representative
Pruitt to the meeting.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 2 was ADOPTED.
1:12:27 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 3
(copy on file):
Population Management
Pre-Trial Services
H DOC 3 - Efficiencies in Pre-Trial Services
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department prioritize the use of existing community
facilities and resources for the Pre-trial Services
Division when appropriate.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki detailed the amendment. During the
subcommittee testimony from the Pre-Trial Services
Division, it was mentioned that they would be looking into
lease space, new facility space, or enhancing existing
facility space. Members had questions concerning the
locations within each of the judicial districts. Members
felt that it was important that pre-trial services
considered looking at being housed within current and
existing locations including office space the state already
had in order to reduce its footprint overall.
Representative Wilson agreed with the amendment. However,
she wanted to comment about the previous year's budget
process. She reported that there had been discussion about
the start-up costs associated with Pre-Trial Services. She
reported that the cost was not placed into the fiscal notes
on purpose. The state had $3 million sitting in the budget
for the current year and $10 million for the following
budget year. Presently, only one of the positions was
filled. During the subcommittee process, a member mentioned
that they wanted to use the $3 million for start-up costs.
She was concerned that the services would not begin until
September or October. The implementation of the Pre-Trial
Services was supposed to result in a large savings as
outlined in SB 91. She noted that the stated had invested
$5 million in the division, yet it was not staffed.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION Amendment H DOC 3 was ADOPTED.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 4
(copy on file):
Population Management
Correctional Academy
H DOC 4 - Transfer New Professional Conduct Unit from
Correctional Academy to Commissioner's Office
Linked to H DOC 1 - Transfer New Professional Conduct
Unit from Correctional Academy to Commissioner's
Office (TrIn 337897)
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
Transfer the newly created Professional Conduct Unit
from the Correctional Academy to the Commissioner's
Office where it is more appropriately housed. The new
Investigative Unit will work in coordination with the
Department of Public Safety, Department of Law and the
Office of the Governor to investigate external and
internal complaints into alleged misconduct or
criminal activities, on the part of all DOC employees,
inmates, visitors, and contractors.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that the amendment was the
corresponding amendment to Amendment H DOC 1. It
transferred money from the Correctional Academy to the
Commissioner's office.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 4 was ADOPTED.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 5
(copy on file):
Population Management
Institution Director's Office
H DOC 5 - Prioritize Solutions for Disparate High
Incarceration Rates of Alaska Natives
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Commissioner of the Department of Corrections will
prioritize funding and implement solutions to the
disparity in Alaska Native incarceration rates
throughout the state.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment
contained intent language and that there had been a
considerable amount of debate on it at the subcommittee
level. The member from the Bethel Region that introduced
the amendment mentioned that the incarceration rate of
Alaska Natives was much higher than the rest of the prison
population. The maker of the amendment wanted to see the
commissioner address the issue and to find out whether
there were underlying causes including systemic racism or
economic disparities.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 5 was ADOPTED.
1:17:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOC 6
(copy on file):
Population Management
Electronic Monitoring
H DOC 6 - Electronic Monitoring in Bethel
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Commissioner of the Department of Corrections will
prioritize expanding the Electronic Monitoring program
to Bethel.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the amendment
inserted intent language that would expand the Electronic
Monitoring Program to Bethel. There were several places in
which electronic monitoring was already in place.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC 6 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed out that there were no other
amendments for the DOC budget for the current day.
Representative Wilson wanted to add to the subcommittee
report on Page 5 that the amendment looked at out-of-state
locations to place prisoners who were already in maximum-
security facilities in Alaska. It was not her intent to
release maximum-security prisoners on electronic monitoring
systems when they required additional supervision. The
department had regulations and processes in place to
determine who could be on the monitoring system. She
emphasized that the committee did not want to change the
policies and procedures currently in place by the
department.
Representative Kawasaki concurred with Representative
Wilson's characterization. The committee used some of the
language that was within the explanation of the amendment,
much of which was corrected in the budget subcommittee
process. High-level offenders and offenders that should not
be on the street on electronic monitoring or within a
community residential center would not be eligible to
participate. The committee discussed the commissioner
continuing to look at other options for housing inmates
out-of-state and for potential savings in other areas.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked the subcommittee for its work. He
indicated the Department of Fish and Game was up next. He
relayed that that there were 15 amendments for DFG none of
which were language amendments.
1:21:21 PM
Representative Ortiz reported that the House Finance Budget
Subcommittee for the Department of Fish and Game held eight
meetings with the department during the review of the FY 18
budget request, which totaled about 10 hours of meeting
time. The committee looked into the department's overall
budget. He reported that there were 3 governor's budget
amendments and 9 amendments proposed by the budget
subcommittee. He reviewed the budget with the amendments
totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $50,516.4
Designated General Funds (DGF): $14,897.5
Other State Funds: $68,903.1
Federal Funds: $67,019.5
Total: $201,336.5
Representative Ortiz noted that the department had seen a
total reduction of $28,871 (UGF) reductions from FY 15 to
FY 18. The total UGF reduction percentage was 36. He read
from the report:
Representative Tarr voiced the importance of sport
fishing to Alaska's culture and economy.
I have not put forward for consideration by the House
Finance Committee a proposal which would have utilized
$50.0 from the Fish and Game Commercial Fishing
subfund for Amount Necessary for Subsistence household
surveys in non-subsistence areas. The committee votes
ended in a tie after substantial discussion.
Several subcommittee members voiced support for
reformation of the sport guide logbook process.
Representative Stutes also noted that there is no
freshwater sportfish guide vessel registration fee,
and no freshwater sport fish guide fee.
Co-Chair Seaton reemphasized that the amendment transaction
detail could be found on the landscape-formatted pages of
each subcommittee report. He asked members to move their
amendments by the same title as noted on the amendment
detail.
1:25:07 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 7 (copy on
file):
Commercial Fisheries
Southeast Region Fisheries Management
GA 7 2/15 Coho Salmon and Dive Fisheries Research
Projects
This will allow support from private industry to
support various escapement, stock assessment, and
survey projects. This is a new request for FY2018. It
was not included in the FY2018 Governor's budget
because the scope of the projects were still being
identified.
Northern Fund Pacific Salmon Commission is providing
$87.1 for the Boundary Area Coho Escapement project.
This project proposes to sample chum releases from the
Canadian area 3 commercial seine and gillnet
fisheries.
Northern Fund Pacific Salmon Commission is providing
$54.0 for the Hugh Smith Coho project. The primary
purpose of this project is to maintain an indicator
stock assessment program for Coho salmon in the
northern boundary area. The operation of the smolt
weir is to enumerate and coded-wire tag Coho salmon
smolts emigrating from Hugh Smith Lake to generate
total population estimates, including total smolt
production, marine survival, exploitation rate, and
catch by area, time, and gear type.
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association
is providing $50.0 for the cucumber and geoduck dive
fisheries surveys. These surveys must be done in order
to have a fishery.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Ortiz supplied some brief comments as to the
overall intention of the proposed amendments. He relayed
that the UGF reduction of 36 percent resulted in the
department having to abandon some important projects that
involved gathering data such as escapement levels. In some
cases, the department was forced to implement test
fisheries in order to generate revenue to pay for
particular surveys and data collection. Certain data
collection was imperative to the industry in terms of being
able to manage fisheries properly. The amendments were not
increasing the department's overall budget. Instead, monies
were being moved from the Administrative Services Division,
the Commissioner's Office, and the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission to fund some of the data collection
projects. He had received feedback from fishing industry
participants expressing concern about opportunities for
fisherman to catch fish, provide for their families, and
put added monies into the economy. They were also concerned
about the potential reduction in fish tax revenue for the
State of Alaska. The idea behind the amendments were to
ensure that DFG was able to conduct the studies necessary
to allow the maximum sustainable yield for Alaska's fishing
industry.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the subcommittee did not
change the department's budget; its role was to work with
the department to rearrange its funding. Representative
Ortiz agreed. He explained Amendment GA 7. The amendment
would allow for receipt authority in the event that a third
party would be successful in fund raising for a project.
The amendment did not guarantee funding for projects. It
supported a boundary area Coho escapement project and a
stock assessment program for Coho. It also allowed for
receipt authority from the Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association to contribute to dive stock
assessments.
1:29:06 PM
Representative Wilson asked Representative Ortiz for the
definition of a test fishery for clarity. She asked about
funding for the test fisheries. Representative Ortiz
replied that DFG was credited for employing some of the
best fisheries management practices around the world. The
department typically conducted test fisheries to access
stock and escapement. There were other test fisheries
designed to generate revenue. The department contracted
with a particular commercial fisherman to catch a certain
number of fish. For example, one contract generated $50,000
in revenues for the department, which was used to fund
assessment projects that included flying. He was trying to
reduce the use of certain test fisheries because other
fishermen could not fish at the same time test fishing was
going on. Those fishermen would see the test fishery as
competition.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 7 was ADOPTED.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 1 (copy
on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Southeast Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 1 - Replace $50.0 SDPR funding from SARDFA with
Fish and Game Funds to maintain Dive Fisheries
Assessments
Offered by Representative Ortiz
This fund change will allow Commercial Fisheries to
continue to administer Dive Fishery Stock Assessments
without having to increase the Southeast Alaska
Regional Divers Association's fees by 48% (from
$103,900 to $153,900). The Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Funding used comes from the Commercial
Fisheries portion of the Fish and Game Fund.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Ortiz detailed the amendment. The fund
change would allow the Commercial Fisheries Division to
continue to administer dive stock assessments through DFG's
commercial fishing sub fund. The Southeast Regional Diver's
Association (SARDFA) would not be asked to contribute more
than it already had, approximately $103,000 per year, to
the cost of the stock assessment. The amendment would
eliminate the need for the department to ask for an
additional $50,000 from SARDFA to fund assessment
activities.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DFG 1 was ADOPTED.
1:33:03 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 8 2/15
(copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Central Region Fisheries Management
GA 8 2/15 Bristol Bay Science Research Institute
Watershed Projects (FY18-FY19)
This will allow support from Bristol Bay Science and
Research Institute (BBSRI) to support various
escapement and test projects. This is a new request
for FY2018. It was not included in the FY2018
Governor's budget because discussions on the agreement
were still ongoing.
Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute (BBSRI) has
entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to provide a
framework upon which (ADF&G) and BBSRI may jointly
plan, fund and accomplish mutually beneficial projects
and activities within the Bristol Bay watershed. Such
activities and projects will complement the missions
of ADF&G and BBSRI and be in the best interest of the
fishery resources and communities within the Bristol
Bay watershed.
The following are the anticipated projects to be
funded with the FY2018 $800.0 revenue contract. The
project listing will be updated in FY2019 and are
anticipated to cost $800.0.
Nushagak Sonar- $50.0
Togiak Tower- $60.0
Igushik Tower- $50.0
Kvichak inside test- $40.0
Egegik River inside test- $43.0
Ugashik inside test - $47.0
District Catch Sampling- $100.0
Port Moller test- $120.0
Management Biologist trainee west side- $60.0
Catch allocation genetics- $80.0
Togiak Aerial Herring (forecast model)- $50.0
Alagnak River Escapement- $40.0
Nushagak Sonar for Coho and Pink- $60.0
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW Amendment GA 8.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT H DFG 2 (copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Southeast Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 2 - Add SE Partial Salmon Aerial Surveys project
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Utilize savings from Administrative Services, the
Commissioner's Office and CFEC to fund the SE Partial
Salmon Aerial Surveys: 119.2
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Ortiz spoke to his amendment. He indicated
that the amendment would utilize savings from the
Commissioner's Office and Administration Services for
partial salmon aerial surveys. He argued that the surveys
were vital to Alaska's economy. He suggested that without
the surveys fishing areas could not be opened and fishing
businesses would struggle to operate. The surveys were
currently funded by revenue test fishing which harmed
Alaska's economy and fishing businesses.
Representative Wilson asked if FY 17 monies were being
used. Representative Ortiz explained that monies would be
used from the FY 18 budget for activities in the summer of
the current year.
Representative Wilson asked if another amendment would be
offered that would take money from another area.
Representative Ortiz responded in the affirmative. He
informed the committee that there would be amendments that
moved money from the Commissioner's Office, the
Administrative Services Division, and from CFEC to pay for
the costs.
Representative Wilson suggested that corresponding
amendments be offered one after another or together because
of her concerns about increasing the budget. Representative
Ortiz agreed with Representative Wilson's point.
Co-Chair Seaton reemphasized that there was a series of
amendments with fund source transfers within the
department. There was not an increase to the budget. The
amendments were being offered for the purpose of operation
efficiency. Some programs were being deleted and replaced
with those considered more vital.
Representative Wilson appreciated the chairman's remarks.
She wanted it clear to the public that the budget was not
being increased.
Representative Ortiz would refer to the areas where there
were deletions in order to make up for the additions.
1:36:45 PM
Representative Pruitt agreed with Representative Wilson
that there needed to be more clarity and more detail about
additions and their corresponding reductions. He
appreciated more detail about what the committee would be
removing and about any potential impacts.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to page 7, line 12. There was
$162,000 and $355,000 being subtracted. The total amounts
reflected an accumulation of reductions and the additions
being equal. He indicated he would direct Representative
Ortiz to reference the information.
Representative Pruitt understood the committee was
discussing one amendment at a time. However, he believed
there was a need to discuss the corresponding amendments
together to understand them. He provided an example.
Representative Ortiz added that the Administrative Services
Director, Carol Petraborg, was available for questions.
Representative Wilson commented that she did not need to
hear from the director. Her concern was about being asked
to vote on an increase. If the increase passed and the
decreases failed, the result would be an increase to the
budget. She wondered if it was possible to buddle the
amendments together, making a transfer change.
Representative Ortiz spoke to the difficulty of lumping the
amendments together.
1:41:08 PM
AT EASE
1:50:39 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW his MOTION to ADOPT Amendment
H DFG 2.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DGF 2, H
DFG 3, H DFG 4, H DFG 5, H DFG 6, H DFG 7, H DFG 8, H DFG
9, H DFG 10, H DFG 11, and H DFG 12 (copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Southeast Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 2 - Add SE Partial Salmon Aerial Surveys project
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Utilize savings from Administrative Services, the
Commissioner's Office and CFEC to fund the SE Partial
Salmon Aerial Surveys: 119.2
Commercial Fisheries
Central Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 3 - Add Projects: PWS Pink Salmon Recovery,
Upper Cook Inlet Offshore Test Fish GF
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Increment of funding from CFEC receipts for the
following CEN programs: PWS Pink Salmon CWT Recovery:
106.6
Upper Cook Inlet Offshore Test Fish GF: 44.1
Commercial Fisheries
Central Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 4 - Add Coghill River Weir Project
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Utilize UGF reductions from the Commissioner's Office
and Administrative Services for Central Region
fisheries management projects. CEN Coghill River Weir:
41.6
Commercial Fisheries
Central Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 5 - Add Togiak Tower project
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Utilize UGF from Commissioner's Office and
Administrative Services for CEN Fisheries Management
Project:
CEN Togiak Tower (FM-20416): 60.0
Commercial Fisheries
Central Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 6 - Add Project: Igushik Tower
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Use UGF savings from reductions in the Commissioner's
Office and Administrative Services to fund:
Igushik Tower: 50.0
Commercial Fisheries
AYK Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 7 - Add Kuskokwim River Projects
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Add funding for the following projects:
Fishery Monitoring Kuskokwim River: 26.0
Kuskokwim River Run Assessment: 10.0
Kuskokwim River Subsistence Monitoring: 10.0
Fishery Monitoring Kuskokwim Bay (AYK: FM-30521): 5.9
Commercial Fisheries
Westward Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 8 - Add projects: Yukon River Fall Season TF,
Kodiak Salmon Weir Support, Chignik Salmon Management
Support
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Use UGF savings from reductions in the Commissioner's
Office and Administrative Services to fund:
Yukon River Fall Season TF: 5.5
Kodiak Salmon Weir Support: 34.8
Chignik Salmon Management Support: 16.9
Commercial Fisheries
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
H DFG 9 - Decrement funding to reflect reductions in
CFEC's workload
Offered by Representative Ortiz
Two reviews of the Commercial Fisheries Limited Entry
Commission (CFEC) were completed and noted that CFEC's
workload had diminished over time and that the
organization structure and funding level should
reflect the workload changes.
Because DFG believed it could streamline
administrative and research functions while still
providing appropriate support to the commercial
fishing industry in the State, in FY17, the Governor
submitted an amendment that reduced CFEC's funding by
$1,330.4--the legislature reduced the decrement to
$650.4. This transaction removes another $317.2 with
the understanding that DFG will be able to implement
streamlining administrative functions.
Commercial Fisheries
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
H DFG 10 - Add back CFEC receipts as IncOTI to allow
time to implement efficiencies
Offered by Representative Ortiz
One time only increment to CFEC allows time to
implement additional efficiencies. The funding will be
removed in FY19.
Statewide Support Services
Commissioner's Office
H DFG 11 - Delete UGF from the Commissioner's Office
to increase Fisheries Management projects
Offered by Representative Ortiz
UGF in Fisheries Management has decreased by 26.1%
since FY15. The decreased funding has had a
significant impact on the department's ability to
manage its commercial fisheries, which also decreases
opportunities for sport fishing, personal use, and
subsistence. This proposal removes UGF from the
Commissioner's Office and divisions will be charged to
support the services provided by the Commissioner's
Office. The decremented funding will be used to fund
projects in Commercial Fisheries.
Statewide Support Services
Administrative Services
H DFG 12 - Decrement UGF in Admin
Services to fund Fisheries Management Projects Offered
by Representative Ortiz
UGF in Fisheries Management has decreased by 26.1%
since FY15. The decreased funding has had a
significant impact on the department's ability to
manage its commercial fisheries, which also decreases
opportunity for sport fishing, personal use, and
subsistence. This proposal removes UGF from Admin
Services and divisions will be charged to support the
services provided by Admin Services. The decremented
funding will be used to fund projects in Fisheries
Management.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Pruitt wanted to understand better what was
being removed. He did not need to know the details of the
projects but wanted more information about the implications
in the years to follow. He wondered about their longevity.
Representative Ortiz requested that Amanda Ryder and Carol
Petraborg make themselves available for questions at the
table.
1:52:49 PM
AMANDA RYDER, ANALYST, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE FINANCE,
introduced herself.
CAROL PETRABORG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, introduced herself.
Ms. Ryder explained that the increments included in the
budget were ongoing and were placed in the base budget each
year, as were the decrements. The decrements from the
Commissioner's Office and from the Administrative Services
Division were permanent.
Representative Pruitt asked why the Commissioner's Office
felt the money could be removed from its budget. He also
wondered about the importance of the projects or programs
the state would pay for in perpetuity. Ms. Petraborg
explained that when the department started the budget
reductions in FY 15 it put forth a plan for cost cutting
measures and efficiencies. The department knew a few years
prior that it would not have any UGF in the Commissioner's
Office and the Division of Administrative Services. The
department had been implementing efficiency measures to
reduce UGF incrementally. She reported that the projects
being implemented in the Commercial Fisheries Division
supplanted GF reductions that had already occurred in FY 16
and FY 17. The projects were longstanding - some had been
in place for years and others for decades. The money would
fund the continuation of the projects.
Representative Wilson asked about the adjustments made to
licensing fees. Ms. Petraborg responded that the increase
in the licensing fees were fish and game funds, which were
"Other" funds.
Representative Wilson asked about 36 percent of the
department's funds being reduced. She wondered about
additional monies coming in from an increase in fees. She
was curious about the offset. Ms. Ryder thought there was a
fund change in the Division of Sport Fish and the Division
of Wildlife Conservation in the amount of approximately
$5.4 million between FY 17 and FY 18 budget. A portion of
the 36 percent increase counted a fund change. There was
not a total fund decrease of 36 percent.
1:56:46 PM
Representative Wilson asked for clarify about which
amendments were not a part of the amendment grouping. Co-
Chair Seaton clarified that GA 8 and GA 9 would be dealt
with following the amendments currently under
consideration.
Representative Tilton asked the testifiers to speak to the
selection process of projects that were included. Ms.
Petraborg relayed that the Division of Commercial Fisheries
met with industry and reviewed the list of projects that
were previously cut. The list was then prioritized.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendments H DFG 2, H DFG 3, H
DFG 4, H DFG 5, H DFG 6, H DFG 7, H DFG 8, H DFG 9, H DFG
10, H DFG 11, and H DFG 12 were ADOPTED.
1:58:26 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 8 and GA 9
(copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Central Region Fisheries Management
GA 8 2/15 Bristol Bay Science Research Institute
Watershed Projects (FY18-FY19)
This will allow support from Bristol Bay Science and
Research Institute (BBSRI) to support various
escapement and test projects. This is a new request
for FY2018. It was not included in the FY2018
Governor's budget because discussions on the agreement
were still ongoing.
Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute (BBSRI) has
entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to provide a
framework upon which (ADF&G) and BBSRI may jointly
plan, fund and accomplish mutually beneficial projects
and activities within the Bristol Bay watershed. Such
activities and projects will complement the missions
of ADF&G and BBSRI and be in the best interest of the
fishery resources and communities within the Bristol
Bay watershed.
The following are the anticipated projects to be
funded with the FY2018 $800.0 revenue contract. The
project listing will be updated in FY2019 and are
anticipated to cost $800.0.
Nushagak Sonar- $50.0
Togiak Tower- $60.0
Igushik Tower- $50.0
Kvichak inside test- $40.0
Egegik River inside test- $43.0
Ugashik inside test - $47.0
District Catch Sampling- $100.0
Port Moller test- $120.0
Management Biologist trainee west side- $60.0
Catch allocation genetics- $80.0
Togiak Aerial Herring (forecast model)- $50.0
Alagnak River Escapement- $40.0
Nushagak Sonar for Coho and Pink- $60.0
Commercial Fisheries
Statewide Fisheries Management
GA 9 2/15 Stock Assessment Projects
This will allow support from private industry to
support stock assessments. This is a new request for
FY2018. It was not included in the FY2018 Governor's
budget because the scope of the projects were still
being identified.
Mat-Su Borough is providing $116.0 for the Coho Salmon
Genetic Stock Identification project. This project
will estimate the total abundance of selected Coho
salmon stocks by leveraging expiring projects
estimation Coho salmon escapements. The Mat-Su salmon
information inventory and gap analysis determined that
the state of knowledge for stock abundance stock
identification was only moderate for Coho salmon
(available information was incomplete) so additional
work was needed.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Council is providing
$52.0 for the Northern Cook Inlet Chinook Marine
Harvest Stock Composition project. This project is
needed to gather information about stock-specific
harvests of Chinook salmon in the Tyonek subsistence
and northern district commercial mixed stock marine
fisheries.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Council is providing
$15.0 for the Eastside Set Net Chinook Genetic Stock
Identification project. This project is needed to help
better understand the trends and causes of declines in
Chinook salmon abundance in the Kenai River.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton directed members' attention to pages 3
and 5.
Representative Ortiz reviewed the amendments. He relayed
that GA 8 allowed for increased receipt authority for the
event of a third party that would be successful in
fundraising for a project. The projects were not guaranteed
funding through the amendment, although a third party had
signed a memorandum of understanding with the department.
Representative Ortiz explained GA 9. The amendment allowed
receipt authority in the event of a third party that would
be successful in the Mat-Su and Norther Cook Inlet Region.
Representative Pruitt referred to Amendment GA 8 and asked
who would be paying and about the program longevity. He
asked what would happen to a program if the third party did
not raise enough funds. Ms. Petraborg reported that the
projects were previously funded with GF dollars and had
been cut. She reported that industry participants had come
together to raise funds to continue certain projects. If
industry did not fund the projects, they would cease.
Ms. Ryder explained that Amendment GA 8 was a temporary
increment for FY 18 and FY 19. The other project in
Amendment GA 9 was a one-time increment. Both amendments
were entered as temporary increments.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendments GA 8 and GA 9 were
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the subcommittee report for
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) was next.
2:02:49 PM
Vice-Chair Gara read his report for Department of Health
and Social Services:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Health and Social Services held seven
meetings with the department during the review of the
FY18 budget request. These meetings included overviews
from the Divisions of Medicaid Services, Office of
Children's Services, Behavioral Health, Senior and
Disabilities Services, Pioneer Homes, Health Care
Services, and Public Health. The Subcommittee also had
discussions regarding the results of Medicaid
Expansion and Reform and the findings of privatization
feasibility studies of the Division of Juvenile
Justice, Alaska Psychiatric Institute, and Pioneer
Home Pharmacy Services.
Vice-Chair Gara commented that the DHSS budget had been
difficult to review because the department had seen
substantial reductions - about $190 million - over the
previous few years. The subcommittee distributed all of the
proposed amendments, whether or not they passed. He
continued to read from his report:
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Subcommittee for
the Department of Health and Social Services
recommends that the House Finance Committee accept the
Governor's FY 18 budget with the following amendments:
The budget without amendment totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $1,063,072.8
Designated General Funds (DGF): $70,375.2
Other Funds: $118,746.3
Federal Funds: $1,436,744.8
Total: $2,724,939.1
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY 15
Management Plan to the FY 18 Governor Amended budget
is a reduction of $190,577.4, a decrease of 15.2%.
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY17
Management Plan to the FY18 Governor Amended budget is
a reduction of $21,271.4, a decrease of 2.0%.
Vice-Chair Gara reported that there were no statutory
change proposals, although he noted that the department
wanted to see some fees increased. The subcommittee was
going to introduce an amendment. However, the department
was still reviewing its fee increases. His subcommittee
hoped it would be able to view something in the current
session. He noted that Representative Johnston had made a
comment about wanting the department to look at possibly
reducing Medicaid reimbursement costs. The department had
responded that it was already looking at doing so.
Vice-Chair Gara continued to review his report. He
indicated that four amendments did not pass. He noted he
had supplied copies of the amendments to members. The four
amendments that passed were discussed in the narrative of
the subcommittee report. The amendments he would be
offering were listed in the transaction detail report. He
relayed that Amendment H HSS 1 and Amendment H HSS 3 were
originally one amendment during the subcommittee process
and he would be offering them together. He reviewed that
the amendment would reallocate UGF from the Adult Public
Assistance Program to the Office Of Children's Services
(OCS). He would be addressing the amendment first, then
proceed to the second amendment regarding the Nome Youth
Facility. He would move onto the fourth amendment relating
to the wordage traditionally in the budget. There was a
language amendment recommended by the committee that would
be heard the following day and offered by Co-Chair Seaton.
It was a cost-neutral amendment to address the backlog for
food stamps and other benefits. Currently, it took about a
month to apply for food stamps before receiving them.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H HSS 1 and
Amendment H HSS 3.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that currently there was a
massive shortage of caseworkers at OCS. As a result, youth
remained in foster care for a longer period, which meant
waiting longer to be reunited with family or to be placed
into a permanent home. He reported that the system burned
out about 50 percent of new caseworkers within their first
year. The state repeatedly spent money on training and
recruitment for the positions. He informed members that the
purpose of the amendment was to reduce the number of cases
for new caseworkers. He reported that the recommended
caseload at OCS was 12 cases per caseworker. The idea was
for caseworkers to be able to move youth as quickly as
possible into permanent homes or back with their original
family. In Wasilla, there were 43 cases per caseworker, 350
percent above what was recommended. In Fairbanks, there
were 24 cases per caseworker; about 100 percent more than
what they should have to deal with. In 6 offices, the
caseworker caseload was between 30 and 36.
Vice-Chair Gara continued that the amendment solely
addressed reducing the caseloads for new caseworkers. The
amount was about equal to the amount already in the budget.
He thought that with additional funding the state would be
able to reduce the number of cases for new caseworkers to
the federally recommended caseload. New caseworkers would
have 6 case per caseworker in their first 3 months of
training; twelve cases within the first 6 months; and the
state would leverage a 75 percent federal match. He
believed that with the savings the subcommittee found in
the budget, the state was about halfway there. Training
increased to a gold standard would allow the state to get
to New Jersey numbers. The amendment would add staff to
reduce new caseworker caseloads, increase training, add
mentors, and add necessary supervisors and support staff
for caseworkers.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed some numbers. He reported that the
$3.29 million came from a savings identified by DHSS and
LFD and found in the Adult Public Assistance appropriation
for FY 2012. They believed Alaska was about $3.5 million
over what the state needed to pay the benefits for FY 18.
He reported using $3.29 million of the over appropriation
for Public Assistance. In the end, the amendment would not
raise the governor's proposed budget. Instead, it would
move what had been confirmed by the department and LFD as
an over appropriation in one area to try to fix a major
problem in another area. The department had testified that
the change would improve lives and children's outcome
without increasing the overall budget. The amendment was
passed from subcommittee on a vote of 6 to 3 in favor. He
urged members to support the amendment.
Representative Pruitt asked that the committee take up
H HSS 3, the corresponding decrement, prior to voting on
H HSS 1. Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the amendments were
moved together.
Representative Pruitt did not realize the amendments had
been moved together. He spoke to his concerns about adding
31 positions. He was also concerned about increasing
funding to OCS because, as he recalled in a presentation,
when there was a reduction in caseloads, there was an
increase in the number of children that were moved into the
system. He thought there would be more time provided to
search for more families and find kids that might not have
some of the same challenges as other children. There were
some cases where families had to fight the system. He
thought it was great to have found a saving within Adult
Public Assistance. He was not sure about transferring money
to OCS he believed that OCS had a management problem at its
core.
Representative Wilson wanted to direct a question to the
Office of Public Assistance. She spoke of a previous
presentation that discussed the state being required to
have a certain amount of GF money to match federal funds.
She reported that upon her review of the Office of Public
Assistance budget she had found the same amount as Vice-
Chair Gara. She remembered a discussion about losing
federal funding relating to Medicaid as the state's UGF
decreased. She wondered if any federal funding would be put
in jeopardy with the adoption of the amendment.
2:14:57 PM
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the discussion that occurred
the previous year had to do with Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) money. The state had to spend a
certain amount of money to avoid getting a TANF penalty.
The amendment was dealing with Adult Public Assistance,
which did not count towards the TANF maintenance of effort
discussed in the prior year.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Representative Wilson if she wanted
to direct her question to the department. Representative
Wilson responded affirmatively. She had read the narrative
that indicated the money was used. There was a concern from
the department about a decrease in the number of cases. She
reported that the narrative outlined that the state was
also required, once a certain amount of money was sent for
Adult Public Assistance, to continue funding the same
amount or a penalty would be assessed.
JESSICA BOGARD, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (via teleconference), responded that
the state had a maintenance of effort for Adult Public
Assistance that required $60.1 million in state spending.
If the state did not meet that amount, it would lose
Medicaid benefits for all of Alaska.
Representative Wilson wondered if other state funding would
be jeopardized if the legislature removed the money from
Adult Public Assistance. Ms. Bogard replied that when the
department looked at the projections and how the state met
the maintenance of effort using Adult Public Assistance for
state FY 16 for the federal FY 16 the state benefited from
using the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) hold harmless fund
and from using a small portion of the senior benefits
payments. Relying on the two funds allowed the state to
meet the maintenance of effort. She added that any
decreases would increase the state's reliance on those
other funding streams.
2:17:23 PM
Representative Wilson asked if there would be an issue for
the state, for example, if it spent $30 million in 2013 and
only $25 million in 2017. Ms. Board responded that the
state met its maintenance of effort for Medicaid through
one method where the state had to maintain the previous
federal fiscal year spend. The state would have an issue if
the amount decreased. The state could choose to switch to a
second method to meet the maintenance of effort. She
explained that it would be to revert certain payments to a
level from 1983.
Representative Wilson also objected to the amendment
because even though in previous years the legislature had
appropriated additional monies, the state had not hired any
additional workers. She mentioned a study from a few years
previously about whether caseworkers needed to be social
workers. Her concern with adding money to a broken system
was that it would not fix the system. She would rather see
the system fixed. Keeping children in their home longer, if
it could be done safely, was the most affordable and best
way of keeping families together. She relayed that in
previous years when additional funding was provided more
children entered the system. She wondered if all of the
children in the system should be there. She believed the
finance committee should be spending more time on one of
the largest growing industries and affected so many other
areas of the state budget. She thought the amendment would
make things worse for the state. She also noted that in the
budget for Adult Public Assistance it was clear that if the
state started removing money from it, other areas would be
affected as well.
2:20:16 PM
Representative Tilton was concerned about appropriating
small amounts of money rather than addressing the
underlying issue. She expressed concerns with the
maintenance of effort and having to find money within the
Division of Public Assistance. She added that the
department, having the ability to move some monies around,
could have looked at doing so as an alternative.
Vice-Chair Gara provided an amendment wrap up. He explained
that the subcommittee was very careful about making sure
the state was not going to deny benefits to a single
eligible person who qualified for Public Assistance. He
furthered that it was made clear to him by LFD and DHSS
that the state would not deny benefits to anyone who
qualified for Adult Public Assistance. He relayed that the
maintenance of effort issue was not a problem, as the state
was putting more into Public Assistance than it was two
years previously. He reported that LFD noted that the state
did not need to add $6 million in funding when not many
qualified for assistance. He reported a $3.5 million
excess. He understood Representative Tilton's point about
fixing the system. However, he argued that OCS could only
absorb so many staff in one year. He did not want to delay
fixing the system. He asked members for their support of
the amendments, which resulted in the same cost savings
over the prior year in the budget over the governor's
proposal.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
Amendment H HSS 1 and Amendment H HSS 3 were ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H HSS 2 (copy on
file):
Juvenile Justice
McLaughlin Youth Center
H HSS 2 - DJJ Intent
Offered by Representative Gara
It is the intent of the legislature that the Nome
Youth Facility not be closed if the cost of moving
youth from the Nome Youth Facility, maintaining the
vacated facility, transporting youth to another
facility, and other related costs erase the savings of
closing the facility.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that Amendment H HSS 2 was an
intent amendment. He relayed that since the state was
dealing with a budget crisis the department attempted to
save money by closing youth facilities. He suggested it was
possible the state would save money by closing the Nome
Youth Facility. He conveyed that the legislature had
ordered a privatization report, which concluded that the
Nome Youth Facility "was a unique valuable facility that
performs exceptionally well in meeting the needs of at-risk
youth in a difficult-to-serve area." He reviewed the intent
language that passed the subcommittee [See above language].
He relayed some of the potential costs to closing the
facility: travel expenses for transporting youth for
hearings, facility maintenance costs, and costs associated
with a variety of other services. He mentioned the
possibility of moving the Nome Youth occupants to a closed
facility within the McLaughlin Youth Facility in Anchorage.
If youth were transferred there, the facility would have to
be reopened costing additional monies. He was unsure if it
would be cost neutral to keep the Nome Youth Facility open.
The amendment would leave the issue of closing the facility
open for discussion.
2:26:07 PM
Representative Wilson asked to hear from the department on
the issue. She wanted to understand why the department
recommended closing the particular facility and some of the
specifics about a closure. She hoped a study had been
conducted.
KAREN FORREST, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, answered that a portion of the Nome
operating budget was removed through the legislative
process in the previous year in the amount of $1.6 million
and reinstated as one-time funding. Through the governor's
budget process the department did not reinstate the
funding, nor did the legislature. One of the issues that
was discussed had to do with the utilization of some of the
facilities. She reported that what changed from the prior
year was that the department had seen an increase in the
utilization of some the facilities. Currently, the
McLaughlin Youth Center was running at 102 percent
utilization. The Nome Youth Facility was currently running
an average daily population of about 8. In prior years, the
facility was running at about 5 to 6 youth. There was a
change in the nature of juvenile crime trends, which
influenced the overall picture.
Representative Wilson asked what type of offenders were in
the Nome Youth Facility. She asked if the high-level
offenders were kept in Anchorage. Ms. Forrest answered in
the negative. The detention units were secure. Youth could
be held in detention units for only a couple of reasons: If
they were a risk to the community or themselves, or they
were a flight risk in terms of being available for court.
Generally, someone had to be a risk to the community or to
themselves. The department preferred to hold youth in the
detention facility closest to their home. The youth in the
Nome Youth Facility were from the Nome Region.
Representative Wilson asked about a cost comparison for 8
youth moving to an Anchorage facility versus remaining at
the Nome Youth Facility. Ms. Forrest noted the cost to
serve the youth was higher in Nome than in Anchorage,
although she did not have specific figures with her.
Representative Wilson remarked that she would have thought
the department would have brought their numbers with them
to the House Finance Committee.
2:30:21 PM
Representative Ortiz mentioned that Ms. Forrest had
testified that the McLaughlin Youth Center utilization rate
was at 102 percent. He wondered if the Nome youth would
have a place to go if the facility closed. Ms. Forest
replied that the department would have to look at where the
best place would be for the youth to go depending on safety
and security issues. For example, McLaughlin was a 25-bed
unit. In the previous week, the facility had 32 youth in
the unit, a number that was not sustainable in the long
run. If the trends in Anchorage were that more youth had to
be detained because of their risk to reoffend, the state
might have to send youth to Bethel or Fairbanks where there
was capacity in their detention units.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson argued that the legislature kept
telling the department to find ways of doing things
differently to facilitate reductions. She did not think the
difference between 5 and 8 youth was substantial enough to
justify the amendment. She understood wanting to keep
children closer to home. However, she thought there might
be other ways to try to make it happen without the related
costs.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
Amendment H HSS 3 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H HSS 4 (copy on
file):
Department Support Services
Commissioner's Office
H HSS 4 - Replace Governor's Department level $25
million Transfer Wordage
Offered by Representative Gara
At the discretion of the Commissioner of the
Department of Health and Social Services, up to
$25,000,000 may be transferred between all
appropriations in the Department of Health and Social
Services, except Medicaid Services.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the amendment reflected
traditional language that had been used in previous
budgets. The amendment would place a limitation on the
administration. It would allow the administration to
transfer up to $25 million between divisions. He argued
that it was important not to send a message to the
divisions, which would encourage them to spend every penny.
Another division might have a greater funding need. ON
occasion funds lapsed, which happened in the Commissioner's
Office. The amendment would allow transfers within
divisions but would not allow transfers between Medicaid
and other divisions. He provided an example. The amendment
drew a wall between Medicaid and other divisions. The
amendment would only allow $25 million to be transferred
between the other divisions. In 5 of the previous 6 years,
the legislature had included similar language. He pointed
out that if there was an under appropriation for Medicaid,
the division would have to request a supplemental in the
following year.
2:35:02 PM
Representative Wilson asked how much money, outside of
Medicaid, was not used by the department in the prior year.
Vice-Chair Gara deferred to the department.
SHAWNDA O'BRIEN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, explained that for the previous
year's budget the department was using a new accounting
system. She relayed that the numbers used at year-end
closing were used for lapsed balances under $10 million
UGF. She conveyed that the department tended to lapse more
funds such as other fund sources or federal funding.
Representative Wilson asked if Adult Public Assistance was
counted as Medicaid funding. Ms. O'Brien answered that the
Adult Public Assistance Program was funding the department
used to meet the maintenance of effort for Medicaid. The
money was not Medicaid funding.
Representative Wilson asked if the same $3 million that was
previously mentioned could have made up a portion of the
$25 million transfer if the department had chosen to do so.
Ms. O'Brien responded in the affirmative. The department
could have used those funds elsewhere if the department had
needed to.
Representative Wilson thought it was interesting that the
committee was entertaining an amendment allowing a $25
million transfer within any division other than Medicaid.
Yet, the committee had heard earlier about the importance
of having additional caseworkers within OCS. In other
words, the department had the authority to transfer money
to OCS. In her opinion, the $25 million could have been
used if the issue had been important enough to do so. She
asked if any of the $25 million in previous years had been
used to transfer between divisions. She wondered where
transfers had typically originated. Ms. O'Brien responded
to Representative Wilson's first question concerning
whether the department could have used the funding for
additional OCS caseworkers. The department could have
transferred the funding but it would not have had the
additional needed positions. The funding could not have
been used in the same way the amendment intended. The
department had not had a need to move the funding. She was
unaware of any funding being transferred between
appropriations using the authority. She relayed that in
prior years there had been some transfers made within the
Medicaid appropriation. The amendment limited the
department from having the ability to do so.
Representative Tilton clarified that the amendment
addressed the governor's language removing the Medicaid
services portion. Ms. O'Brien concurred.
Representative Tilton relayed that if the amendment was not
approved, the department would be able to transfer funds
between all DHSS divisions including Medicaid. Ms. O'Brien
responded in the positive.
Representative Tilton indicated that it was stated in
committee that the language had become standard language.
She believed the language was first included in the FY 14
budget. The reason the $25 million was approved for moving
between divisions was due to the implementation of the
Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There were
challenges with the system and a fear that providers would
not be paid because there was not enough funds available to
pay providers. She asked if she was correct. Ms. O'Brien
believed that the department testified on the issue and
agreed with Representative Tilton.
Representative Tilton asked if the language had become
standard even though it had not been used. Ms. O'Brian did
not believe the department utilized it in the previous year
largely because of the difficulties with the new accounting
system. She reported that the department tended to only
lapse a small amount of general fund dollars. It lapsed
more funding under federal authority and other lines within
the budget.
2:40:16 PM
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that originally the department was
allowed to transfer $50 million between divisions.
Presently, $25 million was the allowable amount. He agreed
with Representative Tilton that without the amendment money
could be transferred between Medicaid and non-Medicaid
divisions. In response to Representative Wilson's point,
the administration could bolster OCS by transferring money
around. However, he argued that without the legislature's
approval the department would be subject to significant
criticism.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H HSS 4 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that the only other amendment that
he had was a language amendment to reduce the food stamp
waiting list, which would be addressed later in the
amendment process.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that there were no further
amendments for DHSS.
2:42:02 PM
At EASE
2:53:17 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the Judiciary subcommittee
report would be heard next. He invited Vice-Chair Gara to
review the report.
Vice-Chair Gara read from his report:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Judiciary held five meetings, with the Alaska Court
System in attendance, during the review of the FY18
budget request.
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Subcommittee for
the Judiciary recommends that, with the
recommendations outlined in this report, the House
Finance Committee accept the FY18 Governor's Amended
budget.
The Governor's FY18 Amended budget totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $104,838.6
Designated General Funds (DGF): $518.0
Other Funds: $2,206.1
Federal Funds: $1,225.6
Total: $108,788.3
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY15
Management Plan to the FY18 Governor's Amended budget
is a reduction of $6,888.6, a decrease of 6.0 percent.
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY17
Management Plan to the FY18 Governor's Amended budget
is a reduction of $2,074.7, a decrease of 1.9 percent.
The following statutory recommendation is also
submitted to the House Finance Committee.
1. Amend AS 22.25.020 to replace the current Judicial
Retirement System for retirement pension payments with
a more modest pension. This recommendation is to
create a new tier for the Judicial Retirement System.
The current Judicial Retirement System allows for a
judge or justice to receive 5% of his/her pay per year
served, up to 15 years (or 75% of pay). At ten years
of service, that represents, roughly, an $80,000 (for
a District Court judge) to $100,000 (for a Supreme
Court justice) pension. Geographic differential is not
considered. Constitutionally, this statutory change
would affect only judges and justices hired after the
passage of such legislation. We cannot
constitutionally alter retirement benefits or
contribution rates for those already in the system.
Vice-Chair Gara commented that he thought the amount was
excessive in the state's tight fiscal times. The committee
disagreed with an exact proposal but agreed to make a
statutory provision to reduce the retirement earned
payment, a savings measure. He reported that 5 new judges
would likely be appointed.
Vice-Chair Gara highlighted that the subcommittee
considered 4 amendments from the governor and 11 amendments
from the subcommittee. The amendments that passed and
failed were distributed to all members of the committee. He
recommended 2 of his amendments and 4 of the governor's
amendments for consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton directed members to turn to the transaction
pages in the landscape format.
2:57:14 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H JUD 1 (copy on
file):
Alaska Court System
Trial Courts
H JUD 1 - Increase Filing Fee in Superior Court
Offered by Representative Gara
It is the intent of the legislature that the court
system raise the filing fee from $200 to $500 for
Superior Court monetary damage claims of $100,000 or
more.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the amendment included
intent language to be placed in the budget. The court
system indicated they would take the recommendation
seriously, although the legislature could not dictate what
it did with intent language. The intent language was an
attempt to increase revenue from the court system to help
pay for its costs. The money would go into the general
fund, and the legislature would decide how to appropriate
it. The court system recently raised filing fees. The
subcommittee targeted one particular filing fee for
Superior Court cases of claims for monetary damages of
$100,000 or more. A person filed monetary damage claims for
$100 thousand or more in Superior Court. Small claims cases
and smaller claims cases were heard in district court. The
subcommittee limited the fee to the Superior Court monetary
damage claims. The intent language encouraged the court
system to raise its fee from $200 to $500. The increase
would generate about $240,000 in revenue for the general
fund minus any fees waived by the court system. The court
system had a fee waiver for the indignant.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H JUD 1 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H JUD 2 (copy on
file):
Alaska Court System
Trial Courts
H JUD 2 - Delete Conditional Language
Offered by Representative Gara
Delete conditional language that states: "Budget
requests from agencies of the Judicial Branch are
transmitted as requested."
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the amendment traditionally
came in the original budget. It stated that the court
system budget would be exactly as submitted to the
legislature. He thought the statutory language was not
needed. The legislature traditionally removed the language,
as it was likely to be inaccurate by the time the budget
was passed.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H JUD 2 was ADOPTED.
3:00:13 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 39 (copy on
file):
Therapeutic Courts
GA 39 2/15 Mat-Su Foundation Grants and Awards from
Other Sponsors
Additional receipt authority will enable acceptance of
anticipated grants from the Mat-Su Foundation and
other sponsors. This amendment provides FY2018 funding
based on a FY2017 supplemental request of $51.2.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the amendment would allow
the state's therapeutic court to accept up to $400,000 in
grant monies from the Mat-Su Foundation and other sponsors.
The Mat-Su Foundation's grant proposal was note quite
$400,000. The amendment would allow the court system to
seek the remainder of $400,000 in grant monies from other
sponsors.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 39 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 40 (copy on
file):
Commission on Judicial Conduct
GA 40 2/15 Correct FY2018 Alaska Care Increase
Correct Alaska Care salary adjustment.
The salary adjustment included in the FY2018
Governor's budget should have been $5.0 for the
Commission on Judicial Conduct and $17.6 for the
Judicial Council. This adjustment will correct that
error. A corresponding $12.6 increase is reflected in
the Judicial Council component.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that the governor's budget proposal
had 2 appropriations backwards. He detailed that there
should have been a $5,000 appropriation for salaries and
benefits at the Commission on Judicial Conduct. However, it
was accidentally appropriated to the Judicial Council. In
addition, there should have been a $17,600 appropriation
for the Judicial Council but was accidentally appropriated
to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Amendment GA 40 and
Amendment GA 42 would reverse the appropriations and place
them in the correct council.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 40 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 41 (copy on
file):
Commission on Judicial Conduct
GA 41 2/15 Personal Service Expenses
Adjustment to fully fund personal services. This is a
new request for FY2018. It was not included in the
FY2018 Governor request due to oversight.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct is comprised of two
staff members - an executive director and an
administrative assistant. Personal services comprise
the majority of the Commission's budget. This request
is necessary to fully fund projected FY2018 personal
services expenses. With a two person staff, the
Commission has no capacity to absorb these costs while
continuing to provide constitutionally mandated
services.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that the amendment corrected a
mistake in communications between the Commission on
Judicial Conduct and the Office of the Governor. The
Commission on Judicial Conduct requested $23,800 for salary
and benefits. The governor did not transmit the
commission's request. In the prior year, there was a
similar number, which the commission tried to absorb but
could not in the following budget cycle. Funding did not
move forward because of the error. The amendment proposal
came from the Governor's Office.
Representative Wilson asked how it had been absorbed in the
past and the reason for the funding not being available
currently. Vice-Chair Gara responded that if there was a
complaint against a judge, the Commission on Judicial
Conduct had to hire outside council to prosecute the case -
an ethics prosecution. Fortunately, the commission did not
have a prosecution of this type in the prior year. The
commission also constrained spending where possible and
backlogged spending for future years. The salary and
benefits were required by statute. The commission could not
continue to absorb the cost and bank on there being no
complaints against judges.
3:05:41 PM
Representative Wilson was unclear why funding was needed
when the complaints were filed with an outside agency
rather than an internal one. She did not understand the
reason for the increase. She would not be supporting the
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Thompson, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).
Amendment GA 41 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 42 (copy on
file):
Judicial Council
GA 42 2/15 Correct FY2018 Alaska Care Increase
Correct Alaska Care salary adjustment.
The salary adjustment included in the FY2018
Governor's budget should have been $17.6 for the
Judicial Council and $5.0 for the Commission on
Judicial Conduct. This adjustment will correct that
error. A corresponding $12.6 reduction is reflected in
the Commission on Judicial Conduct component.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that the amendment corresponded
with the mistake he outlined in GA 40. The Judicial Council
and the Commission on Judicial Conduct were given the wrong
amounts of money. The funds for the Judicial Council should
have been $17,600 and the funds for the Commission on
Judicial Conduct should have been $5,000. The amendment
corrected the second of the errors for the Judicial
Council.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She asked if the changes
had anything to do with step increases. Vice-Chair Gara
responded that the mistakes had nothing to do with step
increases. The Judicial Council and the Commission on
Judicial Conduct were granted the wrong amounts of funding.
He repeated the amounts and remarked that the numbers were
transposed.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 42 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked the subcommittee.
3:08:58 PM
Representative Grenn reviewed the recommendations from the
finance subcommittee of the Department of Law:
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Subcommittee for
the Department of Law submits a recommended operating
budget for FY2018 to the House Finance Committee as
follows:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $49, 140.4
Designated General Funds (DGF): $2,867.0
Other Funds: $31,607.0
Federal Funds: $1,489.4
Total: $85,103.8
The Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) difference from
the FY2015 Management Plan to the FY2018 House
Subcommittee budget recommendation is a reduction of
$10, 134.9, a 17.1% decrease.
From the FY 201 7 Management Plan, the Subcommittee
recommendation reflects a total increase in
Unrestricted General Funds of $264.1, a 0.5% percent
increase.
Representative Grenn reported that he had recommended two
subcommittee budget amendments and one statutory change
proposal, which he would be forwarding to the chair of the
House Judiciary Policy Committee. Before he reviewed the
amendment proposals, he wanted to make a note about a
couple of topics not formally submitted to House Finance.
Representative Grenn continued that the subcommittee was
supportive of finding a way to pay for more prosecutors
elsewhere in the budget to ensure that the department had
resources to prosecute crimes. The department testified
that it was declining more and more viable cases due to
budget cuts. The Office of Victim's Rights was largely
affected. However, since the focus was on the Department of
Law, the subcommittee did not feel the amendment was
appropriate at present. Additionally, two amendments were
ruled out of order during the subcommittee process. They
were addressed in the closeout narrative should members of
the full finance committee want to look at them in more
detail.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if there was a statutory amendment.
Representative Grenn responded in the affirmative:
Statutory Change Proposals:
The following statutory change recommendation is also
submitted to the House Finance Committee for
consideration:
For Consideration by House Judiciary Committee:
Work over interim to do a comprehensive reform of
Child Protection statutes. Particular areas of focus
include, but are not limited to the following:
· Looking to streamline existing statute
· Looking into combining the adjudication and
disposition hearings in Child In Need of Aid
(CINA) proceedings
· Allowing a no-contest plea for parents, and
· Creating settlement judges who focus solely on
CINA cases
Co-Chair Seaton asked Representative Grenn to address his
budget amendments.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 1 (copy
on file):
Civil Division
Environmental Law
H LAW 1 - Add one PFT Attorney II and related personal
services to Environmental Law
Offered by Representative Grenn
There are numerous cases outstanding that could
provide significant revenue to the state that the
Environmental Law section does not have the resources
to pursue. Adding an additional attorney could help
the Department achieve significant recoveries for the
state.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that the amendment added one
Attorney II and related personal services to the
Environmental Law budget within the Civil Division. The
amendment would increase the personal services line in the
Civil Division Environmental Law allocation by $225,000.
The position would be added to help the department pursue
existing cases that could result in significant monetary
recoveries for the state. The subcommittee provided a list
of the recoveries the department stated would not be
pursued with current resources. The list would serve as a
reference point in the following year to determine whether
the position paid for itself. He noted that the members'
packets contained a list member's packets of the first cost
recovery cases.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that Representative Grenn was
referring to the "Supporting Documents H LAW 1 Page 1 of
1."
Representative Grenn responded affirmatively.
Representative Wilson asked about the number of
environmental attorneys within the Department of Law and
the amount of monies recuperated thus far. Representative
Grenn deferred to the Department of Law.
BRANDON CULLUM, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that the department currently
had 3.5 attorneys the way the division was staffed in the
environmental law section. He deferred to the deputy
attorney general to speak to the missed opportunities with
the current staffing level.
3:14:03 PM
JIM CANTOR, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
indicated that in response to Representative Wilson's
question he did not have a figure of revenues brought in by
the environmental law group.
Representative Wilson remarked that it was difficult to
make a determination about the financial benefit of adding
an attorney without having a baseline. She asked Mr. Cantor
to explain the difference between joining a lawsuit and
initiating one. She wondered if the state was out more
money or time with either option. Mr. Cantor believed
Representative Wilson was looking at the portion of the
sheet that laid out multi-state anti-trust recovery
potential. He suggested that Alaska had to establish its
damages. For instance, in the drug world, the damages might
be related to the Medicare Program overspending on drugs.
He added that in the multi-state world, a lead state tended
to recuperate more than a follower state.
Representative Wilson asked about the 11 items listed at
the bottom of the supporting document. She wondered how
many of the items were a result of the past federal
administration's philosophy compared to the new one. She
suggested that there might not be as many issues to contend
with under the new administration. Mr. Cantor responded
that the list referred to cost recovery suits in which the
state laid out money to clean up some sort of pollution.
They were state issues rather than national issues.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the list of lawsuits. He
clarified that the state could recuperate money from the 11
cases listed. Mr. Cantor responded that the amounts listed
were monies the state had already expended and would be
cost recoveries from the polluters.
Vice-Chair Gara informed the committee that he had
previously worked at the Department of Law. He reported
that cost recovery was historically a function of the
department that brought in more money than it spent. He
offered that by understaffing the department, the state
ended up settling cases for much less than the original
amount. Adequate staff allowed for more of a full recovery
for the state. He did not believe one year was enough time
to test whether the additional staff was effective due to
the variation in the number of cases per year and the
amount of time they took to settle. He concluded that the
section was a cost positive portion within the department.
Representative Wilson could not make a statement similar to
the one Vice-Chair Gara made because the division did not
have the figures she requested. She would be voting against
the amendment. She agreed that the state would likely need
to increase the funding if the federal administration
remained the same. However, with the new federal
administration it looked as if it would be more pro-
development.
Representative Pruitt referred to the supporting document
page that not all of the expenditures were barred by a
statute of limitation. He wondered if any of the 11 listed
were barred by the statute of limitations. He also wondered
about the urgency of litigating presently as opposed to
later. Mr. Cantor answered that some of the list might
include some sums expended more than 6 years ago.
Generally, the contamination sites were an ongoing expense.
Some sums would drop off of what was collectible. The items
within 6 years would be obtainable. He responded to
Representative Wilson's question. In FY 16, the section
recovered $6,539,000 in state costs and penalties.
Co-Chair Seaton stated that it was an estimate of
$2,000,000 per attorney, per year.
Mr. Cantor responded, "Yep."
3:20:46 PM
Vice-Chair Gara clarified that the cost recovery had
nothing to do with the US President. The department was
enforcing state laws for contaminated sites, oil spills,
and gas leaks. The federal government had no impact,
determination, or input as to whether the state laws were
enforced.
Representative Grenn concluded that the Department of Law
made some great points. He emphasized that the list of
recovery cases was not exhaustive. He indicated it was an
existing list. He thanked the department for its efforts.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson remarked that the state had a spill
response fund for litigating issues similar to the list of
11 cases in the supporting document. She understood that
there was $5 million to $7 million sitting in the fund. She
wondered why the spill response fund was not being used to
address the issue in the amendment. Representative Wilson
MOVED to AMEND Amendment H LAW 1. She explained that the
money for the environmental lawyer would come out of the
spill response fund rather than from UGF.
Co-Chair Seaton invited the Department of Law to comment.
Mr. Cantor confirmed that it was part of the process of
replenishing the fund. The recovered dollars would go into
the fund.
Representative Wilson suggested, based on Mr. Cantor's
reply, that it would make more sense to pay from the Spill
Prevention Response Fund because the recovery dollars would
be placed there.
Co-Chair Seaton believed that the Spill Prevention Response
Fund was not a legal fund for going after recovery dollars.
Rather, it was a fund available for doing the initial
cleanup for an incident until the state could pursue
recovery dollars. He asked if the department could use the
Spill Prevention Response Fund to pay for the department's
environmental lawyers.
Mr. Cantor was aware that some of the department's
environmental lawyers were funded with general fund
dollars. Others were paid through the Department of
Environmental Conservation's budget.
Representative Wilson was certain that the money that went
into the fund could be used for any general fund purpose.
She believed the funding source was a good fit. She
wondered if it was too late to offer to amend the
amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton responded that he would allow for it prior
to the wrap up of each amendment but would allow it in the
present situation.
Representative Wilson indicated that she had moved to amend
the amendment a while before and that it was on the floor.
She reiterated that the funds for the position would come
out of the Spill Prevention Response Fund rather than from
UGF.
Representative Grenn wondered if all of the recoveries
would go into the recovery fund or if they would go into
the general fund. Mr. Cantor explained that, in general,
the environmental recoveries go into the 470 fund and
reappropriated by the legislature. He was sure there were
exceptions.
3:27:14 PM
AT EASE
3:30:38 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Grenn WITHDREW AMENDMENT H LAW 1.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that when adding something from
one department there had to be a fund source from another.
There had to be the ability to transfer the funds back and
forth. He suggested that the amendment would have to be
taken up in the second round of amendments so that both
funds could be addressed at the same time. The amendment
would be addressed when both agency funds were before the
committee together.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 2 (copy
on file):
Civil Division
Natural Resources
H LAW 2 - Correction to a technical error in the
original Governor's operating budget bill.
Offered by Representative Grenn
The Office of Management and Budget submitted a $1.5 m
carryforward transaction in section 1 in error--it
should have been a language transaction. Legislative
Finance Division must match the Governor's bill, so
also included the erroneous section 1 transaction with
a recommendation to reject the transaction. This
amendment removes the erroneous transaction. The
committee needs to take no action on the language
transactions.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Grenn read directly from the amendment [see
above].
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LAW 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the committee would be
taking up amendments for the legislative budget.
3:32:39 PM
AT EASE
3:34:04 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that Co-Chair Seaton would be
presenting the report from the Legislature budget
subcommittee.
Co-Chair Seaton noted that the legislature budget
subcommittee held 4 meetings to review the legislative
budget and 12 amendments were brought forward along with 2
statutory change recommendations that would be forwarded to
the Rules Committee for further review. The first statutory
change recommendation was to repeal Chapter 19, SLA 2013,
(HB 30: Performance Reviews). The second statutory change
was to repeal the statutes establishing the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee.
Co-Chair Seaton continued that an amendment was proposed
that would have eliminated funding for the legislative
lounge. The amendment did not survive the committee's
advisory vote. The Rules Chair indicated she was still
reviewing the prices charged and that there could be
additional price increases to cover more lounge costs. He
planned to offer an amendment in the second round of the
amendment process to add more general fund receipts and to
reduce UGF by the same amount. He relayed that the
reductions proposed by the subcommittee would not be the
only reduction made to the legislature's budget. He agreed
with his counterpart in the Senate to avoid cutting items
in the other body's control. The other body would make
those reductions.
Co-Chair Foster called on Co-Chair Seaton to begin with his
amendments.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 1 (copy on
file):
Budget and Audit Committee
Legislative Audit
H LEG 1 - Zero out performance review funding and
delete associated position
Offered by Representative Seaton
Performance reviews conducted under HB 130 were funded
at a "wind down" level in FY17.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the amendment deleted
$56,000 and one permanent part-time position from
Legislative Audit. The FY 17 budget deleted all but this
small amount of wind-down funding for the agency
performance reviews under HB 30. One of the subcommittee's
statutory recommendations was the repeal of HB 30. It was
not funded in the prior year and the performance review had
not been effective in controlling the budget.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 2 and
H LEG 9 (copies on file):
Budget and Audit Committee
Legislative Finance
H LEG 2 - Technical Correction Transferring Reduction
for 5-day Furlough from Legislative Operating Budget
Linked to H LEG 9 - Technical Correction Transferring
Reduction for 5-day Furlough from Legislative
Operating Budget TrIn 337675
Offered by Representative Seaton
Reductions associated with furloughs were
inadvertently allocated to the legislative operating
budget rather than to House and Senate Finance
committees. This amendment corrects that error.
Offsetting amendments--and supplemental transactions--
are included in the HFC and SFC budgets.
Senate Finance's portion is -$26.0 and House Finance's
portion is -$46.8.
Legislative Operating Budget
Legislative Operating Budget
H LEG 9 - Technical Correction Transferring Reduction
for 5-day Furlough from Legislative Operating Budget
Linked to H LEG 2 - Technical Correction Transferring
Reduction for 5-day Furlough from Legislative
Operating Budget TrOut 337674
Offered by Representative Seaton
Reductions associated with furloughs were
inadvertently allocated to the legislative operating
budget rather than to House and Senate Finance
committees. This amendment corrects that error.
Offsetting amendments--and supplemental transactions--
are included in the HFC and SFC budgets.
Senate Finance's portion is -$26.0 and House Finance's
portion is -$46.8.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton highlighted that the amendments were linked
to make a technical correction transferring the reduction
of $72,800 UGF for a 5-day furlough from the legislative
operating budget to the Legislative Finance Division. The
furlough reductions were inadvertently allocated to the
legislative operating budget rather than to the House and
Senate Finance Committees. Amendment H LEG 2 made the
reduction to the Legislative Finance Division. The House
Finance portion was $46,800 and the Senate Finance portion
was $26,000. Amendment H LEG 9 added the $72,000 UGF back
to the legislative operating budget.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 2 and H LEG 9
were ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 3 (copy on
file):
Budget and Audit Committee
Legislative Finance
H LEG 3 - Reduce House Finance Committee budget
Offered by Representative Seaton
Budget reduction to be managed by the Co-Chairs of the
House Finance Committee.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the amendment reduced the
budget for the House Finance Committee by $240,000 UGF
split equally between the personnel services and the
services line items. It was an overall reduction of the
committee's budget.
Representative Wilson asked if a position was being
deleted. Co-Chair Seaton responded that the amendment
reduced the personnel line item but was not reducing a
position [Co-Chair Seaton reviewed his paperwork and asked
for a brief at ease].
3:39:34 PM
AT EASE
3:39:58 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton responded that the amendment did not reduce
positions.
Representative Wilson asked why a position would not be
reduced along with the fund reduction. She asked for
clarification. Co-Chair Seaton responded that the House
reduced staffing ranges and therefore, the line item was
being reduced. He remarked that there used to be several
more range 24 personnel. Most of the savings was due to the
range cap of 22.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the changes reflected in
the amendment. He wanted to confirm that the savings of
$240,000 was because salary ranges were capped at 21 [22],
which resulted in lowering salaries in many cases. Co-Chair
Seaton responded that it was a portion of the reduction
along with some services.
Representative Pruitt indicated there was a discussion that
all staff were at a range 22. He wondered if any of the
House Finance employees were being paid above a range 22.
Co-Chair Seaton responded that there was one staff being
paid at a range 24 in the House operating budget and one in
the House Finance capital budget.
Vice-Chair Gara recollected there had been some substantial
salaries in the previous year that no longer existed. He
continued that the former chair of the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee had highly compensated staff. Those
positions had been deleted. He reported that there were
salaries in the former majority leader's office that no
longer existed. The House had made the effort to reduce the
number of high paid staff. The decisions that had been made
up to the present reduced staffing in areas of excessive
staff and excessive pay. Representative Wilson responded
that only House Finance staff was being addressed rather
than the entire legislature in terms of the $240,000
savings in the amendment. She asked if she was correct.
Co-Chair Seaton responded in the affirmative. He added that
there were front desk positions in House Finance that were
not filled, a reduction in the number of range 24
employees, and general salary range reductions in all House
Finance offices. He clarified that he was only talking
about House Finance.
Representative Wilson asked if the committee would be
seeing other amendments that addressed the reductions in
other areas of the legislature. Co-Chair Seaton confirmed
that there were a number of other reductions in the
amendment packets.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 3 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment H LEG 4 (copy on file):
Legislative Council
Salaries and Allowances
H LEG 4 - Eliminate regular session per diem for
Juneau legislators and for all other legislators by
75%
Offered by Representative Seaton
This amendment would eliminate regular session per
diem expenses for the 3 Juneau legislators who receive
75% of the federal per diem rate for living in Juneau
during the session, -$43.1.
In addition, the federal per diem rate for all other
legislators is reduced by 75% (from $213/day to
$53.25/day), -$819.5.
Regular session per diem is budgeted in this
allocation for a 90-day session.
Co-Chair Seaton reasoned that the Legislative Council had
statutory authority per AS 24.10.130c to set policy
regarding legislative per diem. He confirmed that a vote
was not taken by the council directing his action.
Amendment H LEG 4 was WITHDRAWN.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 5 (copy on
file):
Administrative Services
H LEG 5 - Reduce personal services expenditures
Offered by Representative Seaton
Delete $24.7 from Print Shop Section for 1 PPT 4th
Floor copy operator position.
Delete $55.6 for 1 PFT Administrative Assistant
position in the Executive Director's office and change
to PPT (8 months).
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that the amendment reduced
administrative services by $80,300 UGF in the personal
services line and deleted one permanent full-time position.
He continued that $24,700 was deleted from the print shop
section for one permanent part-time 4th floor copy operator
position and $55,600 was deleted for converting one
permanent full-time administrative assistant position to a
permanent part-time position for 8 months in the executive
director's office.
Representative Pruitt asked if the copier position on the
4th floor was presently filled. He had not seen anyone at
the desk. He wondered if the position had already been
eliminated and the amendment was removing its funding. Co-
Chair Seaton responded that he was correct.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 5 was ADOPTED.
3:47:00 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 6 (copy on
file):
Legislative Council
Council and Subcommittees
H LEG 6 - Delete legislative secretary and reduce
funding for services and commodities
Offered by Representative Seaton
In a memo dated Feb 2, 2017, Legislative Council Chair
Representative Kito requested that, under the
Legislative Council Chair Account, a legislative
secretary position and a temporary position be
deleted; services be reduced by
$10.0 (phones): and commodities be reduced by $15.5
(no specific item targeted).
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton detailed that the amendment deleted
$221,200 from the Legislative Council Chair account and the
subcommittee allocation. The decrement deleted a permanent
full-time legislative secretary along with reductions due
to a reclassification of a position from a range 24 to a
range 22. The amount also encompassed a reduction for
casual labor and a reduction for services and commodities
in the council and subcommittee allocation. The total
reduction of $221,200 was comprised of a reduction of
$197,500 for personal services, $10,000 for services, and
$15,500 for commodities.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 6 was ADOPTED.
3:48:15 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT H LEG 7 (copy on file):
Legislative Council
Council and Subcommittees
H LEG 7 - Reduce funding for the House Special
Committee on Arctic Policy, Economic Development and
Tourism
Offered by Representative Seaton
In recent years, funding to standing, special and
joint committees has been greatly reduced and in many
instances eliminated. This amendment reduces the
committee's budget from $27,850 to $10,000.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the amendment reduced the
budget for the House Special Committee on Arctic Policy,
Economic Development, and Tourism from $27,850 to $10,000.
He reported that in recent years funding to standing,
special, and joint committees had been greatly reduced and
in many instances eliminated. The reduction of $17,850 UGF
was taken from the services line item.
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND Amendment H LEG 7. She
proposed removing the entire $27,850 allocation.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED. He relayed that it was deemed by
the subcommittee that the reduction of $17,850 to the
budget was acceptable. The subcommittee left a balance of
$10,000 in the account to be used at the discretion of the
committee. A meeting in Fairbanks was on the horizon and
other potential activities. The speaker and the committee
chairman had to approve all travel requests. He suggested
that leaving a balance in the account sent the message that
it was important for Alaska to be involved in arctic
policy.
Representative Wilson remarked about having removed funding
for many special committees. She believed legislators had
other money that could be used for travel. She did not
believe the reduction would indicate that Alaska's value of
arctic policy was any less. However, she believed the
legislature was sending a message to Alaskans that whenever
reductions were possible the legislature would make them.
She reiterated there were other funds available for travel.
Representative Guttenberg sat on the state Arctic Policy
Commission. He thought zeroing the account out sent the
message that Alaska did not care. He believed Alaska was
what made the United States an arctic nation. The state
could reap large economic gains being at the right place at
the right time. He emphasized the importance of
representing the Alaska at arctic policy meetings. He
thought the $10,000 was a small amount of money to invest
in keeping a presence at policy meetings.
Representative Wilson did not think the amount of money
that the state gave to something showed intent. She thought
the state's actions showed intent. She believed that by
having a special committee that encompassed arctic policy
was action enough. She thought things such as passing
legislation, avoiding over-regulation of an area, and
remaining business friendly would send a bigger message.
She opined that by removing the remainder of the allocation
it sent the message that legislators understood the need to
reduce the budget.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to AMEND Amendment
H LEG 7.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to AMEND Amendment H LEG 7 FAILED (4/7).
Vice-Chair Gara conveyed that in the prior year the
legislature approved $27,850 for the commission for travel.
The chair of the committee proposed reducing the amount by
about 70 percent. He felt that given the change in
chairmanship a 100 percent reduction would be unreasonable.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 7 was ADOPTED.
3:55:16 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 8:
Legislative Council
Legislature State Facilities Rent
H LEG 8 - Reduce space in Wrangell and Ketchikan and
reduce lease costs in Barrow
Offered by Representative Seaton
The Governor's request transfers $1,499.6 from the
"other than Anchorage LIO" facilities rent allocation.
After that transfer, an increment of $153.5 was
included in the Governor's request.
This amendment eliminates office space in Wrangell
($8.9) and Ketchikan ($6.7) for a legislator and a
legislative staff, respectively. The rest of the
reduction is a change in anticipated lease costs in
Barrow ($27.7) and elimination of a small contingency
balance ($15.6).
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton elaborated that the amendment deleted
$58,900 UGF from the services line of the legislature state
facilities rent allocation. The governor's budget included
the transfer of $1,499,600 from "other than Anchorage LIO"
facilities rent allocation. After that transfer, an
increment of $153,500 was included in the governor's
budget. Other cost savings were identified. The amendment
eliminated office space in Wrangell ($8,900) and Ketchikan
($6,700) for a legislator and a legislative staff,
respectively. The rest of the reduction was a change in
anticipated lease costs in Barrow of $27,700 and the
elimination of a small contingency balance of $15,600.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 8 was ADOPTED.
3:56:48 PM
AT EASE
3:57:09 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 10 (copy on
file):
Legislative Operating Budget
Legislative Operating Budget
H LEG 10 - Reduce House operating budget Offered by
Representative Seaton
Budget reduction to be managed by the Speaker of the
House.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the amendment reduced the
legislative operating budget account for the House
operating budget by $360,000 UGF. Personal services was
reduced by $110,000; travel was reduced $150,000; services
was reduced by $50,000; and commodities was reduced
$50,000.
Representative Pruitt asked if the reduction impacted money
being available for special sessions. Co-Chair Seaton
confirmed that the decrement did not reduce funding for
special sessions.
Representative Pruitt asked about any employees above a
range 22. Co-Chair Seaton believed there were one or two
employees in leadership receiving higher than a range 22.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 10 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 11 (copy on
file):
Legislative Operating Budget
Session Expenses
H LEG 11 - Reduce expenditures for bill copies and
statutes
Offered by Representative Seaton
Projected revenue for subscriptions (copies of bills,
etc.) was reduced due to the increased availability of
those items electronically ($2.0); and projected
revenue for statutes was reduced, as it will be a
statute supplemental year ($1.5).
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton offered that the amendment reduced session
expenses by $3,500. The projected revenue for
subscriptions, copies, and bills was reduced by $2,000 from
the general fund program receipts due to increased
availability of those items electronically. Projected
interagency receipts for statutes was reduced by $1,500, as
it would be a statute supplemental year.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 11 was ADOPTED.
4:00:30 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 12 (copy on
file):
Legislative Operating Budget
Session Expenses
H LEG 12 - Reduce personal services expenditures
Offered by Representative Seaton
This amendment reduces the FY18 personal services
budget to more closely align with actual expenditures.
It is intended to encourage the legislature to manage
its own budget more prudently.
The amount was determined by taking 60% of an expected
$200.0 total reduction, leaving an anticipated total
lapse of approximately $250.0.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton informed the committee that the amendment
reduced personal services in the session expense allocation
by $120,000 UGF to align more closely with actual
expenditures. It was intended to encourage the legislature
to manage its own budget more prudently. The amount was
determined by taking 60 percent of an expected $200,000
total reduction leaving $80,000 for the other body to cut.
Representative Wilson asked if it was an unallocated
reduction. Co-Chair Seaton responded that the reduction was
comprised of unused funds from the previous year.
Representative Wilson thought it sounded like the reduction
was an unallocated cut. She liked the amendment. However,
it was her understanding that committee members were
supposed to find specific allocations for reductions.
Co-Chair Seaton commented that the amendment reduced the
personal services in the session expense allocation. There
had been three rounds of having agencies reduce expenses.
The legislature had not previously reduced many expenses.
The amendment was representative of the legislature
catching up to other agencies in reducing expenses.
Representative Wilson agreed with the reduction. She wanted
to clarify that it was her understanding that members had
to be very specific about proposed reductions. She wondered
if something would be coming back from the other body that
was more specific.
Co-Chair Seaton stated that it was a reduction in the
amount of $200,000 to personal services of the session
expense allocation. He conveyed that $80,000 would be taken
from the Senate's session allocation and $120,000 would be
taken from the House's session allocation in personal
services. The legislative budget was being considered
rather than an agency budget. The intention was for the
legislature to take reductions in its allocations.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H LEG 12 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton commented that since all of the
subcommittee recommendations were adopted with the
exception of the withdrawn Amendment H LEG 4 the
legislature's budget would total $64,070,800 UGF; $592,900
UGF, $808,300 Other funds for a grand total of $65,472,000.
The unrestricted general fund difference from the FY 15
management plan to the House subcommittee recommendation
was a reduction of $13,600 or a decrease of 17.5 percent.
The unrestricted fund difference from the governor's FY 18
budget was a reduction of $1,150,000 or a decrease of 1.8
percent. He fully expected the legislature's budget to be
further reduced in the other body.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that the committee would be hearing
the Department of Public Safety subcommittee report.
4:06:00 PM
AT EASE
4:06:53 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton recognized Representative Louis Stutes in
the audience.
Representative Kawasaki relayed the subcommittee's report:
The House Finance budget subcommittee for the
Department of Public Safety held 4 meetings to discuss
core services within the Department during the review
of the FY18 Governor's Amended Budget.
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Subcommittee for
the Department of Public Safety recommends that the
House Finance Committee accept the Governor's FY18
budget with one Governor's amendment and two
subcommittee amendments.
The FY18 budget without Governor or subcommittee
amendment totals:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $$154,567.7
Designated general Funds (DGF): $8,851.4
Other Funds: $15,098.0
Federal Funds: $12,138.0
Total: $190,655.1
The FY18 budget with recommended Governor's and
subcommittee amendment totals:
Fund Source (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $156,067.7
Designated general Funds (DGF): $8,351.4
Other Funds: $15,098.0
Federal Funds: $12,138.0
Total: $191,655.1
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 1
(copy on file):
Alaska State Troopers
Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol
H DPS 1 - Reverse Governor's Transportation
Maintenance Fund Change
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
The proposed Transportation Maintenance Fund is
intended for capital, operating, or maintenance of
highways and highway infrastructure. This new fund
source is more appropriately used in the Department of
Transportation for highway maintenance rather than DPS
for highway patrol activities.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DPS 1 to
reflect the actual amount. The amendment would reflect a
decrement of $1,519,100 DGF and a total of $1,519,100 UGF.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the purpose of the
motion was to reflect the actual dollar amounts. During the
subcommittee closeouts, the amount was rounded to
$1,500,000 after the legislative fiscal analyst was already
too late. The new total reflected the amount requested in
the governor's fund source change for $1,519,100.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. She spoke
to her objection. She opposed the notion of placing money
into a bill that had not passed. The intent of the
committee was to make sure the funding was not in DPS. If
the funds were going to be available, they would be in the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT).
She noted there was not a corresponding amendment
specifying where the transportation money would be
allocated.
Representative Kawasaki clarified that the amendment to
amend H DPS 1 was speaking to the underlying amendment,
which was a fund source change of DGF versus UGF.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amend
Amendment H DPS 1.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment to Amendment H DPS 1
was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson commented that the intention of the
subcommittee was to use the funds for DOT rather than DPS.
She was unclear that the funds were being put in the
appropriate place.
4:12:06 PM
AT EASE
4:13:05 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki explained that in the governor's
original FY 18 request the he requested $1,519,100 in order
to stand up troopers. The amount would come from the
transportation maintenance fund - a fund that did not exist
currently. The fund would be supplied with dollars from an
increase in gas taxes. The subcommittee and the Legislative
Finance Division thought it was inappropriate to use funds
from a future fund that did not exist. Instead, the
subcommittee recommended using UGF. He furthered that the
transportation maintenance fund would be used for its
intended purpose, which was to maintain highways.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DPS 1 as amended was
ADOPTED.
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 2
(copy on file):
Village Public Safety Officer Program
Village Public Safety Officer Program
H DPS 2 - Prioritization of the VPSO Program
Offered by Representative Kawasaki
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
prioritize a fully operational Village Public Safety
Officer program and expand the program to benefit
additional rural areas.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the amendment, which
contained intent language and was offered by a member of
the subcommittee. He read the intent language [see above].
Representative Kawasaki reported that there were
significant comments about the fact that a few short years
ago the state had well over 100 VPSO positions that were
filled. Currently, there were 53 filled positions. The
subcommittee believed that in working with the state's
grantee agencies and DOT the state could spread its
resources in a more efficient and effective manner. Hence,
the subcommittee brought the intent language forward in the
amendment.
Representative Wilson was concerned the state was paying
non-profits for 25 positions that were not filled. She was
worried the state was not getting what it paid for and
about recouping costs. She mentioned a chart that showed
that the state was losing VPSOs faster that they could be
hired. She thought public safety would become more of an
issue if the positions remained unfilled. She saw the issue
as a much larger problem. She suggested that perhaps the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) would have to take over filling the positions
because of the VPSO attrition rate.
Representative Ortiz asked if Representative Kawasaki was
saying that in the current FY 18 budget there was funding
available for 100 VPSO positions but only 53 of them were
filled. Representative Kawasaki responded that at one point
there had been enough funding to hire 103 VPSOs. Currently,
the state was staffed at roughly half the amount. He
furthered that there was enough funding in the budget for
78 VPSO positions if they maintained their capacity and the
officers could get trained immediately.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H DPS 2 was ADOPTED.
4:18:01 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 14
(copy on file):
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
GA 14 2/15 Omnibus Crime Law and Procedure;
Corrections Ch36 SLA2016 (SB91)
Implement reforms identified by the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission to address violence prevention,
services, and victims' rights. This is a new request
for FY2018. It was not included in the FY2018
Governor's budget due to oversight.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Kawasaki explained that the governor's
amendment was in order and submitted by February 15, 2017.
It increased the recidivism reduction DGF per the fiscal
note from SB 91 [Legislation passed in 2016 - Omnibus Crime
Bill] supporting the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault by $1,000,000. They were recommendations
that were propagated through SB 91 and recommended by the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission in its Justice
Reinvestment Report. The total amount of DGF would be
coming via the Recidivism Reduction Fund of which there was
a significant amount of Marijuana funds. They believed
there would be sufficient funds to cover the $1,000,000
increment.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 14 was ADOPTED.
Representative Kawasaki also reported there had been a
number of amendment proposals that were considered but not
forwarded by the subcommittee. The first was a reduction of
the Crime Lab FY 18 UGF allocation in personal services and
services by $2,484,600, a 50 percent decrease. Members had
significant debate and discussion about the crime lab in
light of a report that was recently filed by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. He offered that all
members felt concerned with some of the discussions of
whether some of the crime lab activities could be done by
other agencies, or whether agencies could help to fund some
of the crime lab operations it currently performed.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that there was another
amendment dealing with the VPSO grant allocation. There
were significant vacancies, as each of the grantee agencies
had their own difficult internal conflicts in hiring people
for various areas. A significant portion of the money put
into the FY 17 budget was used for commodities that might
have been out of the scope of the VPSO Program. The
committee wanted a higher level of scrutiny on the issue in
the future.
Representative Kawasaki indicated that there were 2 other
reports from the subcommittee that were not forwarded as
amendments. The first included the proposal within DOR's
Criminal Investigation Unit of 9 permanent full-time
investigator positions to be transferred to DPS. The
officers would be armed investigators that would handle
Permanent Fund Division fraud, child support fraud, and tax
fraud cases. The discussion needed to be clarified but the
committee was unable to introduce an amendment in time for
the closeout of the DOR budget subcommittee.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked the subcommittee for its work.
4:22:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster provided the subcommittee report:
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
held 10 meetings with the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities during the review of the FY18
budget request.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Subcommittee for
the Department of Transportation submits a recommended
operating budget for FY2018 to the House Finance
Committee as follows:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $145,712.6
Designated General Funds (DGF): $127,113.6
Other Funds: $311,183.7
Federal Funds: $2,045.3
Total: $586,055.2
The Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) difference from
the FY2015 Management Plan to the FY2018 House
Subcommittee budget recommendation is a reduction of
($132,8992.0), a 47.7% decrease. The Subcommittee
recommendation reflects a total decrease in
Unrestricted General Funds of ($72,623,500.5), a 33.3%
reduction from the FY2017 Management Plan
STATUTORY CHANGE PROPOSALS:
The following statutory change recommendations are
also submitted to the House Finance Committee for
consideration:
For Consideration by House Transportation Committee:
The subcommittee recommends legislation to amend AS
23.40.210 to replace Cost of Living Differential
(COLD) to the widely utilized Geographical
Differential (GeoDif).
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.
Co-Chair Foster directed members to turn to the Legislative
Finance Division Transaction Detail Report. There were 15
amendments. He would be offering some of the amendments in
a bundle.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the following governor's
amendments together GA 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31,
33, and 35 (copies on file):
Administration and Support
Northern Region Support Services
GA 15 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete Federal
Program Position (25-1224)
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Administration and Support
Program Development and Statewide Planning
GA 17 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete Federal
Program Positions (25-0216, 25-1351, 25-IN1004, 25-
IN1102)
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Statewide Public Facilities
GA 19 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete Federal
Program Positions (09-0012, 25-0673, 25-IN0949, 25-
N12069)
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Statewide Design and Engineering Services
GA 21 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete 6 Federal
Program Positions
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Harbor Program Development
GA 23 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete Federal
Program Positions (25-0223, 25-0859)
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Central Design and Engineering Services
GA 25 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete 26 Federal
Program Positions
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Northern Design and Engineering Services
GA 27 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete 11 Federal
Program Positions
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Southcoast Design and Engineering Services
GA 29 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete Federal
Program Positions (25-3412, 25-IN1107, 25-IN1117, 25-
IN1118)
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Central Region Construction and CIP Support
GA 31 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete Federal
Program Positions (25-0868, 25-0940, 25-3500)
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
Northern Region Construction and CIP Support
GA 33 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete 8 Federal
Program Positions
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Design, Engineering and Construction
South coast Region Construction
GA 35 2/15 Reverse Prior Request: Delete 7 Federal
Program Positions
Per General Government Unit Settlement Agreement, the
Department is rescinding the previous request and will
provide a new change record containing more accurate
language as part of the Governor Amended budget.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster communicated that all of the governor's
amendments rescinded the prior governor's requests. It
restored funding authority and design-related positions.
The group of amendments complied with the General
Government Unit Settlement Agreement. The department and
his staff were available for questions. He was aware of
some questions regarding some contracting out of positions
in design and engineering. There was concern about letting
the positions leave the state.
Representative Pruitt asked for clarification of the
amendments. He wondered if the amendments addressed 77
positions.
Representative Guttenberg asked Co-Chair Foster to re-read
the amendment numbers.
Co-Chair Seaton responded that the grouping included all of
the governor's amendments with the exception of one. He
referenced Amendments GA 15-35.
AMANDA HOLLAND, ADMIN SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that the
amendments had to do with the 76 positions that were in the
governor's proposed budget concentrated in design and
construction. The amendments reflected the department's
effort to optimize its capital program. The department had
been looking for ways to increase its effectiveness and
efficiency through the previous several years. The
department's proposal of the amendments was one of the
actions the department wanted to take in order to reduce
the size of its footprint and to realize some of those
effectiveness and efficiency measures.
4:27:36 PM
Representative Pruitt referred to the initial proposal of
the department contracting out its design services. He
wondered if the decision to change course had been based on
not having discussed it with the bargaining units. If that
was the case, he wondered if it meant that the department
would not continue to pursue its original savings idea. He
asked if the department would continue to pursue the idea
even though the department was not currently ready to move
forward with it. Ms. Holland answered that the department
would be doing the activity over the next couple of years.
She relayed that some of the state's collective bargaining
agreements required a feasibility study prior to
contracting out work that would otherwise be completed by
people in filled positions. If the filled positions were
being considered for deletion (not due to lack of funding
or work), the department was obligated to conduct the
feasibility study first. She reported there was currently a
request for proposal for a feasibility study. The
department anticipated the study would be done in September
2017. It would help to direct the department in its future
budget decisions regarding capital programs and a workforce
balance of in-house work and contract work.
Representative Pruitt asked if by removing the funding, it
would remove the challenge of a feasibility study. Ms.
Holland answered that the funding was primarily through the
capital program, the department's capital improvement
program receipts, and federal funding. Therefore, the
funding would not be eliminated.
Representative Thompson spoke to the feasibility study that
would be completed by September. He asked that if the study
included the estimates for how many federal dollars would
be spent outside of Alaska in Washington and Oregon. He
asked if the figures would be in the report. Ms. Holland
answered in the affirmative. She detailed that in the
request for proposal the department asked the consultant to
look at where the federal funding might shift if the work
was not performed in-house.
4:30:54 PM
Representative Ortiz asked about Amendment GA 23 regarding
harbor program development. He asked about the effects of
the amendment if adopted. He also wondered how it would
impact the capital project process Ms. Holland spoke about.
Ms. Holland replied that in the harbor program development
component the department had some in-house engineers who
focused solely on the harbor program. Through the potential
change, the department would look at other ways to get the
work done when it had a need for harbor program
development. It might be that the department would have
other in-house engineers that could perform the work and it
might mean some of the work would need to be contracted
out.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that the
committee was holding off on making the proposed change
because of waiting for the completion of the study. In
other words, the amendment would restore the proposed
$302,000 reduction. Ms. Holland answered in the
affirmative. The department had identified 76 positions it
could eliminate. However, the department needed to conduct
a feasibility study. The two positions within the harbor
program development were currently vacant. She furthered
that most of the 76 positions up for elimination were
vacant.
Representative Guttenberg asked to address the current
issue related to level of performance. Ms. Holland
mentioned that level of performance would be built into the
feasibility study. He continued that regardless of the
contractual obligations outlined in the original proposal,
he had had several people walk him through how the change
would be more expensive than what was already in place. He
wanted to ensure that any study the department conducted
also included information regard the need for additional
employees to manage contracts and overhead. He wanted
assurance that the study would be all-inclusive. He was
concerned that if the current proposal privatized the work,
jobs would move outside of Alaska. He opined that
responding to a change order would require travel to
Alaska. He reemphasized the need for an all-inclusive
feasibility study.
4:35:14 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the potential savings
identified by the department. Ms. Holland answered that the
potential savings would be just over $4 million in capital
improvement program receipt authority in the operating
budget. The money would still be in the capital budget
where the projects were delivered.
Representative Wilson asked if the savings could be
utilized somewhere else. Ms. Holland answered it would be
used in project work. The department might be able to
perform additional projects or would be dispersed to
different capital projects approved through the State
Transportation Improvement Program.
Representative Wilson understood that most of the positions
were currently vacant. She asked if the department was
actively looking to hire the positions. She wondered how
the department would balance the issue. Ms. Holland
answered that the department intended to keep the positions
vacant. The governor's proposed budget reflected the
elimination of 76 positions. In the governor's amended
budget, the department had 2 change records for each of the
actions: to reverse the elimination and to delete the
positions with updated language in the change record for
clarity.
Representative Wilson asked about the cost of the
feasibility study. Ms. Holland answered it would cost
between $400,000 and $600,000
Representative Thompson asked if the anticipated savings of
about $4 million would be general fund dollars. Ms. Holland
answered the vast majority of the amount was the capital
improvement program receipt which was federally funded
capital programs.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendments GA 15, GA 17, GA 19,
GA 21, GA 23, GA 25, GA 27, GA 29, GA31, GA 33, and GA 35
were ADOPTED.
4:38:44 PM
AT EASE
4:38:57 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster invited Co-Chair Seaton to move his
amendments.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H DOT 1, H DOT 2,
and H DOT 3 (copies on file):
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
Central Region Highways and Aviation
H DOT 1 - Spread available Transportation Maintenance
Funds
Offered by Representative Seaton
Amendments in the Department of Public Safety
eliminate use of the Transportation Maintenance Fund
in the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol. The $1,519.1
freed up by the Public Safety amendments is spread
prorata to the three regional highway and aviation
allocations.
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
Northern Region Highways and Aviation
H DOT 2 - Spread available Transportation Maintenance
Funds
Offered by Representative Seaton
Amendments in the Department of Public Safety
eliminate use of the Transportation Maintenance Fund
in the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol. The $1,519.1
freed up by the Public Safety amendments is spread
prorata to the three regional highway and aviation
allocations.
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
South coast Region Highways and Aviation
H DOT 3 - Spread available Transportation Maintenance
Funds
Offered by Representative Seaton
Amendments in the Department of Public Safety
eliminate use of the Transportation Maintenance Fund
in the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol. The $1,519.1
freed up by the Public Safety amendments is spread
prorata to the three regional highway and aviation
allocations.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the amendments removed
$1,519,100 in UGF and replaced them with the same amount of
DGF. An amendment in DPS eliminated the use of the
transportation maintenance fund in the Alaska Bureau of
Highway Patrol. He relayed that the $1,519,100 freed up by
the DPS amendment was spread prorated to the 3 regional
highway and aviation allocations. The fund source change
among the 3 regions was as follows:
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
· Central Region Highways and Aviation: $471,000
(UGF to DGF)
· Northern Region Highways and Aviation: $774,700
(UGF to DGF)
· South coast Region Highways and Aviation:
$273,400 (UGF to DGF)
· Total: $1,519,100 (UGF to DGF)
Representative Wilson wondered about using money that the
state did not have that was contingent on other legislation
passing. She provided a hypothetical situation where a
reduced fuel tax passed. She wondered if the difference
would be prorated from the department's budget.
4:41:55 PM
At EASE
4:42:24 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the issue was addressed with
contingency language in the language section, which would
be taken up by the committee the following day.
Representative Wilson requested that the items be rolled to
the following day. She was uncomfortable voting to place
money that did not exist. She did not believe it was
honest. She noted that in the governor's budget it appeared
that there was a reduction in UGF. However, in reality, the
state would be counting on money that was not earned yet.
She wondered if the language should accompany the current
amendments.
Co-Chair Foster asked for the opinion of the sponsor of the
amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the contingency language was
already formatted. If the contingency language passed,
there would be no problem. He hoped to pass the amendment,
as the money was already built into the budget in several
places. He indicated he would be willing to come back and
adjust the language, if necessary.
Representative Wilson did not feel that the committee was
addressing things in the correct order. She reported that
she would not be supporting the amendment. Presently, the
state did not have the funding and believed it was
disingenuous to remove UGF from DOT until such legislation
was passed. She wanted to see the anticipated legislation
and its detail before voting on the current amendment.
Representative Thompson hoped the contingency language
would include the entire $40 million expected from fuel
tax. He suggested that if DOT did not receive the full $40
million the department budget would be inaccurate and would
affect all areas of the department. He wanted to make sure
the contingency language included the entire gambit of fuel
tax.
Co-Chair Seaton believed the language would include the
entire gambit.
Vice-Chair Gara had a point of order. He did not believe
using the words dishonest or disingenuous was appropriate
when commenting about the governor. He asked members to
refrain from such comments.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Gara, Guttenberg, Seaton, Foster, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
The MOTION PASSED (6/5).
Amendment H DOT 1, Amendment H DOT 2, and Amendment H DOT 3
were ADOPTED.
4:47:52 PM
At EASE
4:48:39 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 37 (copy on
file):
Marine Highway System
Marine Vessel Operations
GA 37 2/15 Alaska Care Rate Increase for Alaska Marine
Highway System Revised Estimate
Alaska Marine Highway System health insurance rate
increase to $1,555 per member per month. This
amendment is an adjustment from the previous estimate
submitted in the FY2018 Governor's scenario.
· International Organization of Masters, Mates, and
Pilots (MMP): $32.4
· Marine Engineer's Beneficial Association (MEBA):
$57.8
· Inlandboatmen's Union representing the Unlicensed
Marine Unit (IBU): $151.2
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed that the amendment was an
adjustment to the Alaska Marine Highway System's health
insurance rate increase. The increase would cover $1,555
per member for collective bargaining units [see above]. He
indicated the department was available for questions.
Representative Grenn asked the department to walk the
committee through the amendment. He wondered if the amount
was corrected from the estimated number. Ms. Holland
responded that the amount was a corrected amount from the
governor's proposed budget.
Representative Grenn asked if it happened every year. Ms.
Holland responded that it did not come up regularly.
Representative Wilson asked how the amount compared to
other state contracts. She also wondered when the contract
came up for renewal. Ms. Holland responded that most of the
department's collective bargaining agreements were for 3
years. The marine unions were currently in negotiations.
Some renewals will be in 2017. She added that the
negotiated contracts were typically by fiscal year.
Representative Wilson asked if there would be further
negotiations or if the state would end up paying the amount
no matter the circumstance. Ms. Holland replied that the
amount had already been negotiated. She indicated that the
state would be paying the amount agreed upon by the state
and the union.
Representative Wilson asked if the money was actually from
FY 17 or FY 18. Ms. Holland responded that the amount was
what had already been negotiated. She clarified that the
department was negotiating in 2017. However, contracts were
through FY 18.
Representative Wilson did not understand the $241,000
discrepancy. It was a significant amount. She asked how
many people were in the 2 unions. Ms. Holland responded
that it was approximately 800 employees.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 37 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if could ask Ms. Holland a question
regarding DOT.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the committee was finished
addressing the budget for DOT. He invited Representative
Guttenberg to review the subcommittee report for the
University Of Alaska (UA).
4:54:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg provided the report form the
subcommittee:
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS:
The House Finance Budget Subcommittee for the
University of Alaska held four meetings with the
University during our review of the FY18 budget
request.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Chair of the House Finance Budget Sub-Committee
for the University of Alaska submits a recommended
operating budget for FY2018 to the House Finance
Committee as follows:
Fund Source: (dollars are in thousands)
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF): $325,033.5
Designated General Funds (DGF): $331,590.4
Other Funds: $86,640.4
Federal Funds: $143,852.7
Total: $887,117.0
The Unrestricted General Fund difference from FY15
Management Plan to the FY18 Governor Amended budget is
a reduction of $45.6 million, a decrease of 12.3
percent.
Representative Guttenberg reported that there were some
budget amendments discussed in committee, which he would be
introducing.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment GA 38
(copy on file):
University of Alaska
Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
GA 38 2/15 Alaska Technical and Vocational Education
Formula Funding
The Alaska Technical and Vocational Education Program
(TVEP), is funded by
0.16 percent of employee contributions to the
unemployment insurance trust fund. The taxable wages
collected have declined more rapidly than originally
anticipated. A reduction in TVEP authority is required
in order not to overspend the fund. This is a new item
for FY2018. It was not included in the FY2018 Governor
request due to timing of updated revenue collection
projections.
TVEP, established under AS 23.15.830, provides non-
competitive grants to institutions that are part of a
statewide vocational training system. Institutions
provide technical and vocational training programs
that align with workforce regional demands.
The Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DOLWD) manages the TVEP administration, including
projecting available revenue for distribution.
DOLWD's proposal for the TVEP distribution in the
FY2018 Governor's Budget assumed flat TVEP revenue
FY2016 through FY2018. There was a carryforward
balance from unspent prior year TVEP distributions at
the end of FY2016 that was anticipated to be
sufficient to cover reduced revenues in FY2017 and
FY2018. Actual revenue collections through the first
two quarters of FY2017 indicate taxable wages are
declining faster than what was anticipated prior to
the start of the fiscal year. An overall adjustment of
$1,319.2 is needed, bringing the total available for
distribution to $11,970.1.
The University of Alaska's distribution is set by AS
23.15.835(d), and will receive $5,386.6, or forty-five
percent, of total receipts available. This decreases
the University of Alaska's authority by $593.5 from
the FY2017 distribution level.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Guttenberg mentioned that the amendment had
to do with the Alaska Technical and Vocational Education
Program (TVEP) money. The amendment reflected a reduction
of $593,500 because TVEP was not going to be collecting as
much as anticipated. The amount encompassed all of the
vocational training programs in Alaska. Director Pitney had
walked through the information before. He thought the
information was self-explanatory. The amount reflected less
money in receipts that would go into the TVEP fund.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment GA 38 was ADOPTED.
4:57:37 PM
AT EASE
4:57:57 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H UOA 1 and H UOA
2 (copies on file):
University of Alaska
Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
H UOA 1 - Move $0.6 estimate for UA special license
plates from language to section 1
Offered by Representative Seaton
See 30-GH1855J.8, Wallace, 1-31-17.
This deletes language sec. 16 in HB 57, version J.
Another amendment will add $1.0 to section 1, the
numbers section for University license plate revenue.
University of Alaska
Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
H UOA 2 - UA license plate revenue moved from language
section to section 1
Offered by Representative Seaton
Another amendment deletes language section 16 that
included an estimate of $0.6, in HB 57, version J.
This amendment increases the amount to $1.0 since
amounts in section 1 cannot be estimates.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendments [see above}.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendments H UOA 1 and H UOA 2
were ADOPTED.
4:59:23 PM
AT EASE
4:59:32 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H UOA 3
(copy on file):
University of Alaska
Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
H UOA 3 - Reduction of Intercollegiate Athletic Teams
to NCAA Minimum
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska reduce the number of
intercollegiate athletic teams at participating
campuses to the minimum required by the NCAA Sports
Sponsorship Requirement.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Guttenberg read the amendment description
[see above].
Representative Guttenberg noted that the president of the
University of Alaska discuss wanting to revert to 8, which
was previously allowed. The National Collegiate Athletic
Association told the University it would not give
permission to do so. However, the NCAA indicated that the
University could lower its number and face sanctions after
the fact. He opined that it was a terrible thing to do.
Currently, the University of Fairbanks (UAF) campus had the
minimum number, 10 teams. The University of Anchorage (UAA)
campus had 11 teams. The intent language requested that the
University lower its number of teams to 8.
Representative Wilson relayed that in the previous year the
subcommittee had asked for an analysis on costs of
individual sports. She asked if a report had been completed
showing the costs to students and to the university.
Representative Guttenberg responded that a spreadsheet had
been provided listing the costs per campus. He did not have
the sheet with him. He relayed that there was a $4 billion
difference between UAA and UAF.
Representative Wilson remarked that students were being
charged a significant amount of money for sports in which
they might or might not participate. She was concerned with
the rise in tuition costs to students. She thought the
amendment did not go far enough. In terms of intent
language, the legislature had included it in the past.
However, she did not see any results from that intent
language.
Representative Ortiz thought the issue had been addressed
previously. He wondered if the legislature was micro
managing the University regarding what it did with its
funding. He agreed that not all students would participate
in sports activities but perhaps having the activities
would increase the marketability of the school, attracting
more enrollment. He wondered if the language in the
amendment allowed for the legislature to micro manage and
direct the University to have certain policies, which might
not be in its best interest.
5:04:35 PM
Representative Guttenberg reiterated that the amendment
reflected intent language only. It was possible that the
University was contractually obligated to be at a certain
level. The intent was for the number to be reduced. The
Board of Regents managed the University rather than the
legislature. However, the legislature provided guidance
through intent language. It was merely a request.
Representative Pruitt remarked that a large non-profit, the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), was
directing the legislature how to spend the state's money.
He opined that the NCAA made money off the backs of
students because of the entity's mandates. He wondered if
the intent of the amendment was to bring the Anchorage
campus of the University of Alaska into compliance.
Representative Guttenberg responded that the minimum number
was 10 teams. He reported that Anchorage currently had 11
teams. At one time, the minimum was 8. The University asked
NCAA if it could return to a minimum of 8 teams without
sanctions. However, the NCAA denied the University's
request.
Representative Pruitt asked about UAF's number.
Representative Guttenberg responded that UAF had 10 teams.
Representative Pruitt asked if the state would be out of
compliance with Title 9 if it were to lower the number to
8. Representative Guttenberg did not know. He encouraged
the University to reply.
5:08:23 PM
MILES BAKER, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, corrected the record
that Anchorage had 13 teams and UAF had 10 teams depending
on whether indoor track and outdoor track were combined.
The University had looked at the issue in phase one of its
Strategic Pathways process. The University was currently in
phase two. The University was balancing the NCAA 10 team
minimum requirement and the Title 9 requirements for equal
opportunity for men and women. He reported that the
University's regional accrediting body, Great Northwest
Athletic Conference (GNAC), required it had men and women's
basketball and cross-country, and women's volleyball. The
NCAA required either 5 male teams and 5 female teams or 6
female teams and 4 male teams to meet their minimum. It was
a difficult balance considering the University had less
than 400 students participating in those sports. The
University tried to resolve the challenge by applying for
an NCAA waiver, which was denied. The National Collegiate
Athletic Association advised the University to make its
decision and the NCAA would make its determination after
that. The Board of Regents had set the issue aside not
wanting to do anything that would penalize or sanction the
University without knowing the outcome.
Representative Pruitt asked if it was appropriate to say
that in light of the restraints of the budget the regents
would continue to analyze the issue. He asked if it was
necessary for the legislature to provide direction. He was
hesitant to micromanage the situation in any way but
thought it was important to send a message that the issue
needed to be addressed. Mr. Baker responded that the
regents were continuing to examine and address the issue.
He relayed that private giving played a larger part in the
support of the University's sports teams. He recognized a
huge up swell of support from the community when the skiing
teams were being considered for elimination.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to confirm that the University was
looking into the situation. Mr. Baker responded, "Yes."
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Ortiz requested an "at ease" prior to
voting.
5:13:30 PM
At EASE
6:14:21 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton reminded everyone that the committee was
addressing Amendment H UOA 3.
Vice-Chair Gara was hoping for additional time to consider
the amendment. He was not certain the message being sent
with the amendment would be taken by the University the way
the committee intended. He had some concerns.
Representative Guttenberg reported having attended several
university and community meetings where people came out of
the woodwork to support various athletic activities. He
believed sports and other activities were a significant
part of education. The purpose of the intent language in
the amendment was to provide the Board of Regents some
guidance to move forward with a better idea of what it
should do. He opined that there was a significant amount of
pressure for the University to focus only on core
functions. Although the University was not going to
eliminate sports or go below the minimum set by NCAA, it
should reach the minimum point.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Thompson, Wilson, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Ortiz, Pruitt, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (6/5).
Amendment H UOA 3 was ADOPTED.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H UOA 4
(copy on file):
University of Alaska
Budget Reductions/Additions - Systemwide
H UOA 4 - Priority of Cuts or Reallocations of
Unrestricted General Funds
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that cuts or
reallocations of unrestricted general funds to the
University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Alaska
Fairbanks and University of Alaska Southeast, on a
percentage basis, not exceed cuts or reallocations of
unrestricted general funds to the University of Alaska
Statewide Administration
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Guttenberg asked members to consider that
there were 4 allocations within the university system:
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and
University of Alaska statewide. None of the three campuses
would be reduced at a greater percentage than statewide. He
noted a significant amount of concern about keeping the
focus of the university on the core functions of the
campuses. The amendment simply stated that the academic
campuses were no less important than statewide
administration.
6:19:47 PM
Representative Pruitt appreciated the intent of the
amendment. However, the challenge was that the majority of
statewide reductions had been decided. The board would have
to start looking for reductions at the individual campus
level. He believed that University would have to consider
program deletions or consolidations. The statewide portion
of the University's budget had already been reduced by
about 40 percent. He thought the amendment would hinder the
Board of Regents' ability to make the best decisions for
the university system. He was hesitant to support the
amendment.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the language of the
amendment. The current language directed cuts to be made at
the 3 campuses. He wondered if the reduction was aggregate
or at each campus. If the statewide administration was to
adopt a shared services model, he wondered if campus
activities would be hindered. He noted that the University
had discussed centralizing human resources within the
statewide administration. He also wanted to know about the
amendment's impact to the current activities of Strategic
Pathways. Representative Guttenberg explained that the
intent was that each campus would be treated and funded
separately. The funding was based on a percentage of
general funds. He provided an example of shared services
allocated by campus. It would allow the Board of Regents to
have more options to manage the University as needed.
6:24:26 PM
Vice-Chair Gara completely supported the amendment. He
interpreted the amendment to say that the only place
potentially left to cut would be in administrative
services. A student could no longer obtain a degree in
chemistry at the Anchorage campus. The University was
losing professors who brought in grant monies. He thought
the amendment directed the University to look at cutting
administration costs first. He continued that reductions to
the main campuses could not be greater than the percentage
of cuts to the University's administrative costs. He did
not believe there was a significant amount of waste in the
University's budget having reduced it by $50 million. He
asserted that the University would need to decide whether
it needed highly paid chancellors at every campus. He
reemphasized his support of the amendment.
Representative Thompson wanted to ask the administration to
speak to the potential effects of the amendment. He queried
whether the University had been cut by 40 percent. Mr.
Baker responded that system wide reductions were two and a
half times what they had been at the campus level. The
campuses had been cut roughly 14 percent over the previous
3 years. He confirmed that statewide reductions were
approaching 40 percent. The statewide general funds were
down to about $20 million. There were administrative costs
at the statewide level and at each campus. Each campus had
administrative costs. President Johnson stated that he
wanted to see anything that touched students and academics
delivered at the campus level. President Johnson was also
pursuing statewide efficiencies that could be implemented
holistically. He listed several system wide areas that the
University was evaluating.
6:28:00 PM
Representative Thompson was not clear about Mr. Baker's
answer.
Co-Chair Seaton wondered if the University supported the
amendment. Mr. Baker replied that the University could work
with the will of the committee. He added that the
University was half way through the Strategic Pathways
process. Over the previous 3 years, the University had been
managing the cuts by incrementally passing them down to the
statewide level and to the campuses. He conveyed that
making additional reductions would be very difficult to do
evenly and systematically across the system. The University
would have to look at reducing programs and services that
it could no longer afford to offer. The reductions could be
disproportionate per campus depending on where programs
were offered. Part of the Strategic Pathways process was to
identify areas in which the University could gain
efficiencies by pulling them into a centralized location.
6:30:02 PM
Vice-Chair Gara wondered about the difference between
administration at the main campuses and statewide
administration. Mr. Baker responded that internally the
University referred to statewide administration as the
statewide group managing the entire system. Each campus had
a chancellor, deans, provosts, and an administration group
managing administrative services. He reported that there
was an administrative function at each of the campuses
managed by the chancellor of each campus.
Vice-Chair Gara thought Representative Guttenberg wanted to
see reductions in administrative costs before cuts to the
core of the campuses. He did not realize there was a
difference between statewide administration and
administration. He asked if it would be helpful to remove
the word "statewide." He asked for feedback. Mr. Baker
supported the focus of preserving the core of the
University.
Representative Wilson asked about the category for the
maintenance of buildings. She wondered if it would fall
under statewide administration. She asked for clarity about
administration. Mr. Baker responded that the University had
a facilities and land office, part of the statewide
administration that owned and managed all of the
University's facilities. In terms of the day-to-day
operations, the management of the facilities at each campus
was administrated by their respective campus.
Representative Wilson reported that the University had over
400 buildings. She did not believe it was possible for UA
to continue with the maintenance and ownership of those
facilities. She completely agreed with the amendment. She
reported her concern about some campuses closing and asked
if a closure would fall under statewide administration or
one of the campuses. Mr. Baker answered that some of the
decision-making would be directed to the Board of Regents.
He reported that presently the rural campuses and the
function of the rural campuses were being studied as part
of the second phase of Strategic Pathways. He indicated
there was a draft of a new facilities land management plan
that would be brought to the regents at the next board
meeting. The level of scrutiny of the rural campuses was
happening at the system wide level. A determination about
how the University was managing its facilities and whether
it had too many facilities was in progress.
Representative Wilson asked if the sponsor of the amendment
was bundling the three campuses together or if he just did
not want any one of the campuses reduced more than the
statewide administration. She asked if she was correct. Mr.
Baker responded in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson was very supportive of the amendment.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED. He agreed with the
direction of the amendment. However, he did not know if the
language really worked well. He thought it would be worth
revisiting the language.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment H UOA 4 was ADOPTED.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H UOA 5
(copy on file):
University of Alaska
Budget Reductions/Additions - System wide
H UOA 5 - Establishing a UGF Spending Level for
Intercollegiate Athletics
Offered by Representative Guttenberg
It is the intent of the legislature that the
University of Alaska fund intercollegiate athletics at
both the University of Alaska Anchorage and the
University of Alaska Fairbanks at the current level of
University of Alaska Fairbanks intercollegiate
athletics unrestricted general fund spending.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Guttenberg read the amendment [see above].
Representative Guttenberg reported discovering a $3 million
difference between the costs of administration for UAA
versus UAF. The monies for administrative costs were not
applied to keep the Alaska Airlines facility open, or any
buildings. Rather, it was just for athletics. He has
discussed the funding issue with the athletic directors of
UAA and UAF and about bringing sports in line by raising
money through sponsorship, boosters, and the sale of
memorabilia or other items.
6:39:48 PM
Representative Kawasaki was unsure how much general fund
dollars UAA spent versus UAF on intercollegiate athletics.
As stated earlier, there were 13 NCAA teams at UAA and only
10 at UAF. He was having trouble understanding whether they
were comparable types of teams or sports. He asked for
clarity and expressed his concern about wanting to define
giving an equal amount between UAA and UAF.
Representative Pruitt highlighted that there were twice as
many students at UAA as UAF. He did not think it was wise
to assign the same amount to each of the campuses. He was
not sure if the intent of the amendment would be met. He
was concerned because of the disparity in the number of
students at each of the campuses.
Representative Wilson remarked that there were not twice as
many teams from one campus to the other and UAS did not
have any. She thought that because of the prior amendment
each campus would have about the same number of
participants. She expressed her frustration because she
thought it was more important to discuss the graduation
rate. Although sports were important, she opined it was
more important to discuss how students would be affected.
She spoke about the high costs associated with tuition and
the fact that students typically got loans. She thought it
was unfair that students that did not participate in sports
ended up paying for them. She thought education was more
important than sports. She was concerned about the
University having to meet the 10-team minimum required by
the NCAA because of costs. It was her understanding that
some teams came together to specifically meet the
requirement. She thought the amendment sent a strong
message that the University had to quit doing things the
way it had been doing them because students ended up
paying. She was in support of the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton was concerned with some of the language in
the amendment. He read a portion of the amendment. He
thought it sent a bad message and a different message than
the legislature had sent in the past. Previously, the
legislature had stated that the University should fund its
core services. The regents had not defined intercollegiate
athletics as a core service. The regents had come in with a
budget request of about $16 million more than the
governor's budget. The regents identified needing $16
million more for its budget. The University spent $13
million on intercollegiate athletics. The state provided
the University $15,000 to each team to fly to Alaska to
compete. He spoke to placing mandatory fees on students not
involved in intercollegiate athletics. He wanted to make
sure the amendment was not interpreted as saying the
University of Alaska funded intercollegiate athletics. He
wanted to offer a friendly amendment to the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to AMEND Amendment H UOA 5. He
recommended following "It is the intent of the legislature
that" inserting, "if the University of Alaska Funds
intercollegiate athletics at University of Alaska Anchorage
and at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the regents fund
at no more than the current levels of the University of
Alaska Fairbanks." He wanted to make sure the legislature
was not telling the University that it expected it to fund
intercollegiate athletics over chemistry, philosophy,
Arctic Studies, or anything else.
Representative Thompson OBJECTED. He thought the word
"current" should be removed because it did not leave any
room to make reductions if necessary. Presently, the
University had a disparity in the amount of general funds
to the two athletic departments. The athletic department at
UAA was allocated $6,459,000 versus $2,810,000 to the
athletic department at UAF. He also noted a difference of
about $3 million in the administrative costs of the
athletic departments. He liked Co-Chair Seaton's amendment
to the amendment but suggested the deletion of the word
"current." It did not leave flexibility in case of
reductions.
Representative Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to amend the
amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment to Amendment H UOA
5 was ADOPTED.
Representative Thompson MOVED to AMEND Amended Amendment H
UOA 5. He explained that his amendment was to remove the
word "current."
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment to Amendment H UOA
5 as amended was ADOPTED.
Representative Ortiz voiced his concern about potentially
micromanaging the University. Although the legislature
appropriated funding, the regents were responsible for
making the decisions for the University. He assumed the
board made its decisions in the best interest of the
University. High schools spent a significant amount of
money on sports activities to fly teams in and other
things. Those decisions were made despite school districts
knowing they were dealing with fiscal constraints. He
thought the decisions around funding intercollegiate
activities should be left to the Board of Regents. He did
not understand the purpose of the direction the legislature
was trying to provide.
Representative Pruitt spoke to the amendment as amended. He
thought the discussion the committee was having sounded
like old people talking about what young adults wanted. He
thought members were out of touch. He expounded that campus
life was a key component for young people in deciding to
attend a certain university. He had heard from young
constituents that had been offered full scholarships that
they would not be accepting them. He queried the reason.
Their response was that the UA campuses did not have campus
life. Even though Alaska might have all of the best
programs in the world, without a college experience young
adults would not be interested the University of Alaska. He
opined that sending the message that Alaska thought sports
or other activities were frivolous was a poor message to
send to young adults. If students chose not to attend
college in Alaska, there was a risk that they would not
come back to the state at all. He thought a balance was
needed. He was not arguing against the state addressing the
cost of sports activities. He would be opposing the
amendment.
6:54:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not believe an intent language
amendment was a good idea. He did not know how to assign
value to the different sports teams. He believed in a
vibrant university and reported having opposed previous
cuts to the University. He could not support the amendment
language.
Representative Guttenberg loved the University. He drove
through the campus to get to town by the statewide
administration building twice daily. It was an important
part of his district, the community, and the state. He had
chosen the lower number of the two campuses clarifying that
he was not choosing one campus over another.
Representative Guttenberg relayed that the University of
Alaska Fairbanks engineering team won a national
engineering competition. They beat 5 other major
universities. The announcement was made in the Fairbanks
New Miner. He pointed out that the amendment was seeking to
establish a baseline. He suggested there were several ways
to make money. The amendment reflect intent language only.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Pruitt, Gara, Grenn, Kawasaki, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt H UOA 5 as amended FAILED (4/7).
Representative Guttenberg reported that the subcommittee
had one amendment that was not put forward from
Representative Wool. It was a proposal to provide $16.3
million to the University of Alaska to accommodate the
Board of Regents' budget request.
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the schedule and agenda for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
7:00:05 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DHSS-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| UOA-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| DOT-Subcommittee Packet HFIN .pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| DFG-Subcommittee PacketHFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| LEG-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| JUD-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| LAW-Subcommittee Packet HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |