Legislature(2015 - 2016)

05/17/2016 01:24 PM House FIN

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:24:32 PM Start
01:25:25 PM SB138
04:57:13 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 138(FIN)                                                                                               
     "An Act  making and amending  appropriations, including                                                                    
     capital  appropriations,  supplemental  appropriations,                                                                    
     reappropriations,  and   other  appropriations;  making                                                                    
     appropriations to  capitalize funds; and  providing for                                                                    
     an effective date."                                                                                                        
Vice-Chair  Saddler MOVED  to ADOPT  the proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute  for CSSB  138, Work  Draft (29-GS2741\Y).  There                                                                    
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                          
Co-Chair Thompson  invited his staff to  present the changes                                                                    
to the bill.                                                                                                                    
1:25:58 PM                                                                                                                    
JOE MICHEL,  STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE  THOMPSON, reviewed                                                                    
the  committee  substitute,  Version Y.  He  indicated  that                                                                    
there  were  5   changes  to  the  bill.   He  relayed  that                                                                    
previously Section  10 reflecting the Kivalina  language was                                                                    
removed  from the  bill. On  Page 33  the statutory  program                                                                    
receipt funding  for the Tok  employee was removed.  Next he                                                                    
highlighted that on Page 46,  Line 18, Section 27 the Alaska                                                                    
travel  industry  appropriation  was removed.  Lastly  there                                                                    
were three  changes near  the end  of the  bill on  Page 48.                                                                    
First,  Section 32  was added  regarding the  Constitutional                                                                    
Budget Reserve  (CBR). Second, on  Page 48, Line  9, Section                                                                    
33 was added. Lastly, on Page 50, Line 3 was added.                                                                             
Representative Gara  apologized for  misreading the  bill in                                                                    
the previous day.  In a few earlier versions  of the capital                                                                    
budget a  number of projects  that were ongoing  but stalled                                                                    
in his district had been  removed. In the version before the                                                                    
committee  in the  previous day  the projects  had not  been                                                                    
removed.  He was  under a  misimpression and  had made  some                                                                    
comments  on  those items.  He  admitted  he was  wrong  and                                                                    
commended the  Chair's work and  remarked that  the projects                                                                    
would either lapse  or not lapse. He referred  to Section 27                                                                    
and  commented  that the  legislature  had  already made  an                                                                    
appropriation  in  the  operating budget  to  Alaska  Travel                                                                    
Industry Association  (ATIA) for  tourism and  marketing. He                                                                    
asked  if the  $1.3 million  in  the capital  budget was  in                                                                    
addition  to the  money  in the  operating  budget. He  also                                                                    
wondered whether  the money appropriated  in FY 15  had been                                                                    
spent. Mr. Michel was unable to answer his question.                                                                            
Representative Gara  was under the impression  the money was                                                                    
designated  general  funds  (DGF). He  elaborated  that  the                                                                    
money was used by tourism  companies to advertise in a state                                                                    
vacation  planner. He  suggested that  some considered  it a                                                                    
contribution to the  state, he considered it  a service paid                                                                    
by the  companies personally.  He asked  if the  money being                                                                    
discussed was the funding used  to advertise in the vacation                                                                    
planner.  Mr.  Michel  responded   in  the  affirmative.  He                                                                    
suggested that  at least the  majority of the money  was for                                                                    
that purpose.                                                                                                                   
Representative  Kawasaki  asked  if  there was  a  TPS  [Tax                                                                    
Performance   System]  report   for  the   grant  under   AS                                                                    
37.05.316. Mr.  Michel responded  that there  was not  a TPS                                                                    
report for the grant.                                                                                                           
Representative Kawasaki asked about  how ATIA would be using                                                                    
the  funds  for  visitor statistics  program  research.  Mr.                                                                    
Michel   understood  that   they  would   be  assuming   the                                                                    
responsibility  of making  the pamphlet  about tourism  that                                                                    
had previously been generated by  the state for the previous                                                                    
two years.                                                                                                                      
1:30:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  asked  about Page  7  regarding  the                                                                    
federal program match.  She indicated that in  Version F the                                                                    
state's portion was  $53,967,800 and in the  new version the                                                                    
amount  was  $54,700,000.  She thought  the  difference  was                                                                    
somewhere on Page 8. Mr. Michel asked for a brief at ease.                                                                      
1:31:13 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
1:31:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Thompson relayed  that  Representative Edgmon  had                                                                    
joined the meeting.                                                                                                             
Mr. Michel explained that in  Section 26 the DOT match money                                                                    
reappropriation  had to  do with  the appropriation  for the                                                                    
Friends  of the  Jesse Lee  Home. The  city needed  about $1                                                                    
million  to tear  down the  building. The  request from  the                                                                    
member of that  area was reflected in Version F  on Page 45,                                                                    
Line  30, in  the amount  of $4.532  million. In  the newest                                                                    
version  $3.5  million was  being  appropriated  to the  DOT                                                                    
match, thus leaving $1.032 million  in the appropriation for                                                                    
the Friends of the Jesse Lee Home.                                                                                              
Representative  Wilson asked  if there  was a  difference of                                                                    
$732,200.  Mr. Michel  stated that  it was  a difference  of                                                                    
$1.032 million.                                                                                                                 
Representative Wilson  relayed some figures in  an effort to                                                                    
clarify the amount.  Mr. Michel stated that he had  to go to                                                                    
his lifeline from LFD.                                                                                                          
ROB CARPENTER, LEGISLATIVE  FINANCE DIVISION, responded that                                                                    
the appropriation for the Friends  of the Jesse Lee Home was                                                                    
reduced by about  $1 million. However, the  backfill for the                                                                    
match  to  reach  the  governor's   number  of  $50  million                                                                    
required about $732 thousand.                                                                                                   
Representative  Wilson commented  about  having heard  about                                                                    
the alcohol fund  and whether there was enough  money in it.                                                                    
She asked Mr. Carpenter to  inform the committee what was in                                                                    
the fund and whether the state had overspent.                                                                                   
Mr. Carpenter responded that there  was sufficient money for                                                                    
the level at which the  Senate funded the projects. However,                                                                    
there  was  concern  that  the   programs  funded  with  the                                                                    
specific funds  within the Department  of Health  and Social                                                                    
Services would  not be available  in future years. It  was a                                                                    
concern regarding sustainability.                                                                                               
1:35:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler  asked  if  he had  a  balance  for  the                                                                    
alcohol   fund.  Mr.   Carpenter  responded   that  it   was                                                                    
approximately $7 million.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson  asked how much  alcohol money was  in the                                                                    
operating budget.  Mr. Carpenter  responded that he  did not                                                                    
have the exact dollar amount.  However, he was aware that it                                                                    
was a  significant amount and  funded several  programs. The                                                                    
concern was using money from the capital budget.                                                                                
Co-Chair Thompson emphasized that there was a concern.                                                                          
Representative  Gara wondered  about  Page  46, Section  27.                                                                    
There  was a  new amount  of  $1.3 million  for the  tourism                                                                    
industry. He  wondered if the appropriation  had appeared in                                                                    
any prior version of the  budget. Mr. Carpenter relayed that                                                                    
it also appeared in the Senate's version of the bill.                                                                           
Representative  Gara  wondered  if  it  was  in  the  Senate                                                                    
version, came out  of the budget at some point,  and was put                                                                    
back into the  budget. Mr. Michel answered  that the wording                                                                    
and the structure  of the current version of  Section 27 was                                                                    
the way  the Senate had  it in the  bill. It was  changed to                                                                    
reflect a Tok employee. The language  was the same as in the                                                                    
Senate version.                                                                                                                 
Representative Gara  understood that less funding  was being                                                                    
provided  to  the tourism  industry  for  marketing than  in                                                                    
current  years. He  wondered about  the money  allocated for                                                                    
marketing in  the operating budget. Mr.  Carpenter responded                                                                    
in the negative.                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  commented   that  in  the  operating                                                                    
budget the  state employees that  dealt with the  money were                                                                    
removed.  The responsibility  was moved  over to  the Alaska                                                                    
Travel Industry  Association (ATIA).  Somehow the  money had                                                                    
to get  to ATIA  which he  believed was  the reason  for the                                                                    
appropriation. He thought the  change was ultimately getting                                                                    
rid of state employees. He  had a question regarding Page 2.                                                                    
He noted  a $475 thousand  improvement project to  the third                                                                    
floor. He wanted an explanation  of what was being done. Mr.                                                                    
Carpenter indicated  that the funding source  was the Juneau                                                                    
Community Foundation.                                                                                                           
Representative  Pruitt wondered  about  the mechanisms  that                                                                    
allowed the  money to  be taken and  the improvements  to be                                                                    
made. He asked if he would  be allowed to take money donated                                                                    
to him  to improve his  office. Mr. Carpenter  answered that                                                                    
it would  be called  a statutory designated  program receipt                                                                    
similar  to what  was involved  with ATIA.  If a  non-state,                                                                    
non-federal  entity wanted  to give  money to  the state  to                                                                    
perform a  service it  could be  done. It  the case  at hand                                                                    
they   were   contributing   funding   for   state   capital                                                                    
renovations. He  suggested having Pat Pitney  answer further                                                                    
questions on the subject.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson invited Ms. Pitney to the table.                                                                              
1:40:36 PM                                                                                                                    
PAT  PITNEY,  DIRECTOR,  OFFICE OF  MANAGEMENT  AND  BUDGET,                                                                    
OFFICE OF  THE GOVERNOR,  responded that  in regards  to the                                                                    
donation  from the  Juneau Community  Foundation, it  was in                                                                    
the     governor's     original     budget.     When     the                                                                    
Office of  Management and Budget  (OMB) did its  overview of                                                                    
the  capital budget  in the  House and  the Senate  the same                                                                    
legal  question  was  asked  by  the  Senate.  However,  the                                                                    
Department   of  Law   confirmed   that   the  process   was                                                                    
appropriate. She  did not have  the documents but  could ask                                                                    
someone  from  the  Department  of   Law  to  speak  to  the                                                                    
committee or provide the documents  that OMB provided to the                                                                    
Senate. She did not have the documents with her currently.                                                                      
Representative Pruitt wondered if  it was possible for other                                                                    
entities to  provide donations for other  space. He wondered                                                                    
if the  state could  have sought  donations for  the capital                                                                    
renovations.  Ms. Pitney  responded  that  the donation  was                                                                    
initiated by the foundation. The  governor's office had been                                                                    
approached rather  than soliciting a donation.  She believed                                                                    
it  would be  within the  rules  to ask  for donations.  She                                                                    
thought typically  in state government it  was called taxes.                                                                    
She thought  there could be  a structure implemented  to ask                                                                    
for donations for a number of projects.                                                                                         
Representative Pruitt recalled a movie about the topic.                                                                         
Representative Munoz  relayed that  the donation was  a very                                                                    
generous  gift  from  former  Commissioner  Corbus  to  make                                                                    
specific improvements outside of  the normal capital program                                                                    
for the  capital city. It was  to help fill gaps  in funding                                                                    
to  make better  capital city  infrastructure. The  donation                                                                    
was specific to the Juneau area and to the capital campus.                                                                      
1:43:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Saddler  asked for a  description of  the project                                                                    
of  $475 thousand  and how  the funding  would be  used. Ms.                                                                    
Pitney  replied it  was to  make improvements  to the  third                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler   asked  for  the  particulars   of  the                                                                    
project. Ms.  Pitney would  have to  get the  information to                                                                    
Vice-Chair Saddler  noted there was a  policy regarding such                                                                    
renovations.  Ms.   Pitney  read  a  list   of  improvements                                                                    
encompassing the third floor  renovations. The list included                                                                    
modernizing  and   upgrading  the  ventilation   system  and                                                                    
creating a  new, usable office  space by remodeling  the two                                                                    
areas  at  the  building's   stairwells.  It  also  included                                                                    
installing cooling in  the chief of staff's  office, in some                                                                    
of  the administrative  areas, and  in the  small conference                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler  asked  if air  conditioning  was  being                                                                    
provided. Ms.  Pitney assumed it would  be air conditioning.                                                                    
They were modernizing the ventilation system.                                                                                   
Vice-Chair Saddler  thought it raised  interesting questions                                                                    
about  extrinsic  money  coming into  state  government  for                                                                    
whatever purpose.                                                                                                               
Representative  Gara asked  for the  name of  the foundation                                                                    
providing  the funding.  He had  no problem  with foundation                                                                    
dollars helping  to cover the  cost of what  would otherwise                                                                    
be a  state expense.  Ms. Pitney  responded that  the Juneau                                                                    
Community Foundation provided the funding.                                                                                      
Representative  Gara noted  the question  as to  whether the                                                                    
state could receive donations  for the Anchorage legislative                                                                    
office building. He was doubtful.                                                                                               
Representative  Wilson asked  if  the donation  came with  a                                                                    
specific  list of  renovations and  a guideline  of how  the                                                                    
money could be  spent. Ms. Pitney replied  that the donation                                                                    
was specific to  the third floor. There  had been discussion                                                                    
of the need given the  project scope of the existing capital                                                                    
Representative Wilson asked if the  third floor would be the                                                                    
only  floor  with  air conditioning  in  the  building.  Ms.                                                                    
Pitney responded  affirmatively and  added that it  could be                                                                    
ventilation cooling via  a fan. She was  uncertain about the                                                                    
exact system.                                                                                                                   
Representative Wilson suggested trying  it out when she came                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg  pointed   out  that  the  Juneau                                                                    
Community  Foundation   had  donated  considerably   to  the                                                                    
legislative  campus  when  the state  purchased  the  Thomas                                                                    
Stewart Building.                                                                                                               
Representative  Munoz  corrected  Representative  Guttenberg                                                                    
that it was a gift from the City of Juneau.                                                                                     
Representative Guttenberg stated that  it was along the same                                                                    
lines: A gift to the legislature.                                                                                               
Co-Chair Thompson  relayed that the House  Floor Session had                                                                    
been moved  to 3:00  p.m. to  accommodate the  House Finance                                                                    
Committee meeting. He indicated  that the committee would be                                                                    
taking up amendments.                                                                                                           
1:48:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.                                                                               
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Wilson  explained that  the amendment  was an                                                                    
appropriation for  the Cold Climate Housing  Research Center                                                                    
(CCHRC),  a  great  organization.   She  reported  that  the                                                                    
legislature  had funded  the  organization  in the  previous                                                                    
year  at   $500  thousand  with  general   funds  (GF).  The                                                                    
amendment reduced the appropriation  from $1 million to $500                                                                    
thousand. It  was her  understanding that  organizations and                                                                    
agencies   throughout  the   state  utilized   the  services                                                                    
provided by the CCHRC and felt they should pay for them.                                                                        
Co-Chair Thompson  spoke to his  objection. He  relayed that                                                                    
the CCHRC was an organization  that was able to reach remote                                                                    
portions  of  the  state helping  to  provide  efficiencies.                                                                    
Alaska  Housing Finance  Corporation  (AHFC) utilized  their                                                                    
services throughout the state. The  money being used to fund                                                                    
the organization  was from AHFC  dividends rather  than from                                                                    
the  state's GF.  In the  previous year  the CCHRC  ended up                                                                    
with $750  thousand but barely  scrapped by with all  of the                                                                    
work the organization had.                                                                                                      
Representative  Gara opposed  the amendment  because of  the                                                                    
comments  made  by the  chair.  He  added that  the  state's                                                                    
ability  to  improve  energy  efficiency  had  taken  a  big                                                                    
setback. The money at the  Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) had                                                                    
been largely  decimated. He  thought the state  had to  do a                                                                    
much better job of helping  communities save money in energy                                                                    
costs.  He  thought the current funding  represented a small                                                                    
step towards that  goal. He was concerned  about the state's                                                                    
capacity to work on energy efficiency.                                                                                          
Representative Edgmon would be  supporting the amendment. He                                                                    
pointed out that what was  being discussed was AHFC receipts                                                                    
rather than normal GF. He noted  the work the CCHRC had done                                                                    
in  terms  of  building  prototype homes  that  were  energy                                                                    
efficient,  cheaper,  and well  suited  for  a rural  Alaska                                                                    
climate.  The  Cold  Climate  Research  Center  had  greatly                                                                    
contributed   to  providing   modern  technology   for  home                                                                    
building in  rural areas,  which he felt  was vital.  He had                                                                    
been  a  strong supporter  of  the  Alaska Renewable  Energy                                                                    
Grant  Program, and  the weatherization  program. He  agreed                                                                    
with the comments made by  the representative from Anchorage                                                                    
about  the state  decimating other  very important  programs                                                                    
which was  a sign of the  times. He continued that  the fact                                                                    
that the  legislature was able  to find  DGF to give  to the                                                                    
CCHRC was very exciting. He would support the amendment.                                                                        
Co-Chair  Thompson   asked  if  Representative   Edgmon  was                                                                    
supporting the reduction of funding by $500 thousand.                                                                           
Representative Edgmon corrected himself,  "Oh, I am going to                                                                    
oppose the amendment.  Thank you." He supported  what was in                                                                    
the budget and opposed the amendment.                                                                                           
1:53:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg  would be opposing  the amendment.                                                                    
He did  not agree  with the  Representative from  North Pole                                                                    
about turning  it into a  billable product. He  relayed that                                                                    
the standards  and the innovative ways  of handling Alaska's                                                                    
unique  building  circumstances  when  applied  resulted  in                                                                    
savings. The savings came with  the use of innovative energy                                                                    
efficiency measures when building  housing. He reported that                                                                    
when  he represented  a  host of  villages  along the  Yukon                                                                    
River he  was amazed with the  lack of quality in  which the                                                                    
homes were constructed to the  detriment of the communities.                                                                    
There  were no  building standards.  The federal  government                                                                    
had granted money  to build two-by-four stick  homes many of                                                                    
which  were  built  by  the Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs.  He                                                                    
claimed  a lot  of those  homes  had failed.  In the  future                                                                    
homes  would   be  built  more  efficiently   and  with  set                                                                    
standards because  of the contribution  the CCHRC  had made.                                                                    
He claimed  that the money savings  came as a result  of the                                                                    
work  they had  done  in both  rural  and urban  communities                                                                    
inside  and   outside  of  the   state.  He   thought  their                                                                    
activities should  be encouraged.  He would be  opposing the                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki  opposed  the amendment.  He  spoke                                                                    
about how the University of  Alaska system was looking for a                                                                    
way for  the brainy folks  and the geophysical  institute to                                                                    
interact with  the private sector. The  Cold Climate Housing                                                                    
Research Center  worked very  closely with  private industry                                                                    
partners. It  was not just  a publicly  funded organization.                                                                    
He believed  about 30 percent  of CCHRC's funding  came from                                                                    
private  entities. During  the Arctic  Summit in  March they                                                                    
highlighted   what   CCHRC   was   doing.   Amazingly,   the                                                                    
organization  was  doing  leading edge  things  compared  to                                                                    
other arctic nations. He surmised  that for a state that had                                                                    
only been  in existence since  1959 it was doing  an amazing                                                                    
job competing with nations that  had been working on climate                                                                    
research for a  much longer time. He thought  it was amazing                                                                    
that  it had  built  a  model that  could  bring in  private                                                                    
funds. He opposed the amendment.                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered about  the amount of the CCHRC's                                                                    
budget. He was unclear of  the $1 million funding coming out                                                                    
of  GF   versus  funds  from  AHFC   dividends.  Mr.  Michel                                                                    
responded that  it was  AHFC dividends in  all of  the funds                                                                    
source books.                                                                                                                   
Mr. Carpenter  added that  AFHC dividends  were part  of the                                                                    
undesignated  general  funds  (UGF)   group.  They  were  GF                                                                    
1:58:20 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Saddler  wondered what  the total budget  was for                                                                    
the  CCHRC. Mr.  Carpenter did  not have  the answer  to the                                                                    
question off the top of his head.                                                                                               
Co-Chair Thompson asked Ms. Pitney to respond.                                                                                  
Ms. Pitney  explained that  previously she  had been  on the                                                                    
board of  the CCHRC. She  relayed that if her  memory served                                                                    
her right  the state's  contribution was roughly  20 percent                                                                    
of  their  total  budget.   Their  funds  included  federal,                                                                    
project, and other membership fee type of funds.                                                                                
Vice-Chair Saddler asked  her to be clearer.  He wondered if                                                                    
the  $1 million  was only  20 percent  of their  budget. Ms.                                                                    
Pitney  responded that  she was  speaking strictly  from her                                                                    
past  experience.  She  could not  speak  to  their  current                                                                    
budget. They  were a non-profit 501(c)(3)  entity. The state                                                                    
money was one of several funding sources for their budget.                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Saddler asked  about their  other fund  sources.                                                                    
Ms. Pitney explained that  the organization received federal                                                                    
funds  and project  funds. In  other words,  CCHRC would  be                                                                    
asked to  work with  a housing agency  which paid  for their                                                                    
transportation and staff time.  She provided an example from                                                                    
her  previous career  where CCHRC  was  involved in  helping                                                                    
with the energy efficiency  piece. She mentioned the funding                                                                    
also came  through memberships  with contractors  and window                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  asked  for  a point  of  order.  She                                                                    
explained that the  reason for her amendment had  to do with                                                                    
not having  an explanation from  the organization as  to how                                                                    
they used the  funding provided by the  state. She continued                                                                    
that  without  representation  from  the  organization  only                                                                    
guesses  were  being  made.  She  appreciated  Ms.  Pitney's                                                                    
previous experience  but the subject was  the current year's                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson agreed.                                                                                                       
Representative  Gattis   asked  that  CCHRC  speak   to  the                                                                    
amendment. She would rather see  the amendment rolled to the                                                                    
bottom to allow for someone to come before the committee.                                                                       
Representative Edgmon commented that  if the maker could not                                                                    
justify her  amendment then he  asked for a question  on the                                                                    
Representative Wilson  responded that it was  her point that                                                                    
the legislature was  being asked to fund $1  million for the                                                                    
CCHRC. She had not  received any information regarding their                                                                    
budget.  Although it  was a  good organization,  an increase                                                                    
was  being proposed  at a  time when  money was  being taken                                                                    
away  from Alaska's  seniors and  from  other projects.  She                                                                    
surmised that the organization  performed study and research                                                                    
rather than doing  actual work on homes.  She contended that                                                                    
AHFC  was utilizing  CCHRC's services  and should  be paying                                                                    
for them  similar to a  private entity. She  complained that                                                                    
no paperwork  was provided  and the  state was  proposing to                                                                    
double  what they  funded in  the previous  year. She  would                                                                    
rather contribute  the money to the  weatherization program.                                                                    
She thought  it was a bad  time to be adding  more money for                                                                    
research and study.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair   Thompson    clarified   that    the   legislature                                                                    
appropriated $750 thousand in the previous year.                                                                                
Representative  Wilson   asked  if  it  was   GF  that  were                                                                    
Co-Chair  Thompson answered  affirmatively.  He was  unclear                                                                    
whether the funding was from the GF or from AHFC dividends.                                                                     
Representative  Wilson  explained  that $500  thousand  came                                                                    
from  the GF.  She  was  not aware  of  the additional  $250                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis                                                                                       
OPPOSED:  Guttenberg,   Kawasaki,   Munoz,   Edgmon,   Gara,                                                                    
Thompson, Neuman                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).                                                                                                        
Amendment 1 failed to be adopted.                                                                                               
Representative  Munoz asked  that Amendment  2 be  rolled to                                                                    
the bottom of the amendments.                                                                                                   
2:06:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3.                                                                               
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                              
Representative   Wilson  explained   the  amendment   was  a                                                                    
reduction  from  $10  million to  $5  million  for  deferred                                                                    
maintenance  for the  University of  Alaska. She  understood                                                                    
that currently the University  already had approximately $19                                                                    
million in  a fund for  deferred maintenance. She  had heard                                                                    
but  could not  confirm that  the University  tried to  keep                                                                    
around   $21   million   to  $22   million   available   for                                                                    
emergencies. The  $5 million would  satisfy that  level. She                                                                    
reported  that in  the House  Finance  University of  Alaska                                                                    
Subcommittee the  University had been  asked to look  at all                                                                    
of  its  buildings.  She suggested  that  with  the  state's                                                                    
fiscal crisis the  University would not be able  to keep all                                                                    
of the buildings  it was currently responsible  for. She was                                                                    
expecting a report in the  following year regarding building                                                                    
repairs and a plan for deferred maintenance.                                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg  responded that he had  heard from                                                                    
the University of  Alaska that it had roughly  40 percent of                                                                    
all  of the  buildings in  the state.  He suggested  that $5                                                                    
million  to $10  million  did not  satisfy  what was  really                                                                    
needed  to  keep  up with  maintaining  its  facilities.  He                                                                    
iterated that the $20 million  set aside for emergencies was                                                                    
to be  used for things  such as a  roof going out  and other                                                                    
unanticipated items. He thought  the state should provide at                                                                    
least  $10  million.  He thought  the  consequences  of  the                                                                    
University  not maintaining  its buildings  would result  in                                                                    
building replacements  down the  road. He thought  many band                                                                    
aids had  been applied and  that $10 million was  not enough                                                                    
funding.  He  thought  the  legislature  had  neglected  the                                                                    
University's major maintenance budget.  He would be opposing                                                                    
the amendment, as it did not make fiscal sense.                                                                                 
Representative   Kawasaki   rose   in  opposition   to   the                                                                    
amendment.   He  thought   the   University   was  doing   a                                                                    
significant amount to restructure and  change the way it was                                                                    
doing  business.  He  commented  that  the  legislature  was                                                                    
currently sitting in  a building [the Bill  Ray Center] that                                                                    
had previously been  owned by the University  of Alaska. The                                                                    
University was doing prudent things.  He reported that there                                                                    
were  over 400  buildings  the University  owned  or had  to                                                                    
maintain. He suggested  that every dollar the  state did not                                                                    
spend  in maintenance  would cost  $3-5 in  the future.  The                                                                    
amount of money currently in  the budget, $10 million, paled                                                                    
in comparison  to the amount  of money that the  state would                                                                    
have to pay if it delayed repairs into the future.                                                                              
2:11:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler  was in  support  of  the amendment.  He                                                                    
relayed that the state was  experiencing difficult times. He                                                                    
thought that the University already  had money set aside for                                                                    
deferred  maintenance and  believed  it  was appropriate  to                                                                    
reduce the appropriation by $5 million.                                                                                         
Representative Gattis  supported the amendment.  She thought                                                                    
that  due  to the  restructuring  of  the University  making                                                                    
changes  to  owning  or  maintaining  facilities  should  be                                                                    
looked at  and potentially changed.  She thought it  was the                                                                    
beginning of many changes.                                                                                                      
Representative  Wilson  remarked   that  the  University  of                                                                    
Alaska Southeast had made some  good decisions. She reported                                                                    
that  the   University  had  139,329  acres   of  investment                                                                    
property and  only 12,000 acres of  education property. Some                                                                    
of   the  property   could  be   sold  for   commercial  and                                                                    
residential use. She read the  intent language placed in the                                                                    
operating budget by the legislature:                                                                                            
     "It is the intent of  the legislature the University of                                                                    
     Alaska  better  utilize   community  buildings,  school                                                                    
     district  buildings,  and  other  facilities  in  close                                                                    
     proximity  to its  existing brick  and mortar  campuses                                                                    
     and  satellite  facilities  that have  low  utilization                                                                    
     rates of  face-to-face classes. Only  the restructuring                                                                    
     results  in a  decreased total  cost. Furthermore,  the                                                                    
     University is to report back  to the legislature with a                                                                    
     plan to  increase its  use of  co-location by  the 15th                                                                    
     day of the 2017 legislative session."                                                                                      
Representative Wilson  thought $5 million was  enough to tie                                                                    
the   University  over   until  the   following  year.   She                                                                    
appreciated members' support.                                                                                                   
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                             
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Munoz,  Pruitt, Saddler,  Wilson, Gattis,  Neuman,                                                                    
OPPOSED: Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg                                                                                     
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).                                                                                                        
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.                                                                                                        
2:15:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gattis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4.                                                                               
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Gattis  explained that the  amendment removed                                                                    
$2.2  million  from  the Alaska  Land  Mobile  Radio  System                                                                    
(ALMR).   She  thought   the  state   needed  an   emergency                                                                    
communications system.  However, the ALMR system  was an old                                                                    
Department  of Defense  system  given to  the  state by  the                                                                    
federal government years prior.  She thought any money spent                                                                    
on the system  currently would be throwing  good money after                                                                    
bad.   She  argued   that   the   technology  had   improved                                                                    
significantly.  She believed  that  adding  money now  would                                                                    
lead to another $50 million  invested in the old system over                                                                    
time.  She thought  it was  an  appropriate time  to make  a                                                                    
change away from  the ALMR system. She  suggested looking at                                                                    
other options. She had visited  with different agencies that                                                                    
indicated they  could be  part of  an emergency  system. She                                                                    
asked for support of her amendment.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to his  objection. He relayed that, in                                                                    
previous  conversations,  the  Department of  Public  Safety                                                                    
expressed that if the money was  cut for the ALMR system the                                                                    
department  would   be  left   without  the   technology  to                                                                    
communicate  with  each  other.   It  was  a  constitutional                                                                    
requirement   to  have   communication.   He  informed   the                                                                    
committee  that   the  ALMR  system   had  been   under  the                                                                    
microscope for  years and the administration  was very aware                                                                    
that the  legislature would like  the system  gone. However,                                                                    
something else would  have to be in place  before taking the                                                                    
ALMR  system  offline.  If  ALMR was  removed  it  would  be                                                                    
detrimental  to  communication   necessary  for  safety.  He                                                                    
agreed that  the program was not  ideal but it was  the only                                                                    
system  the  state  had  at present.  It  scared  him  about                                                                    
potentially not  being able to  communicate. He  thought the                                                                    
legislature was  sending a strong message  to the Department                                                                    
of Administration  that the system  had to go.  He indicated                                                                    
reluctantly he would be voting against the amendment.                                                                           
2:20:26 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki appreciated  the  comments made  by                                                                    
the previous  speaker. He also  agreed that ALMR was  an old                                                                    
system.  He  remarked  that many  departments  had  spent  a                                                                    
tremendous amount  on the  system but  it was  outdated now.                                                                    
However, absent ALMR  funding, some folks would  be cut from                                                                    
the communications lifeline. He  remarked that Fairbanks had                                                                    
a redundant  system and  Anchorage did  not use  ALMR. There                                                                    
were several places, though, that  used ALMR exclusively. He                                                                    
would be opposing the amendment.                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg   agreed  with  the   previous  2                                                                    
speakers.  He  relayed  having  received  positive  feedback                                                                    
about ALMR  from fire  chiefs in his  district. He  spoke in                                                                    
opposition of  the amendment. Although  he wished  the state                                                                    
could  rid  itself   of  the  system,  it  had   to  have  a                                                                    
replacement vehicle in place first.                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Saddler remembered  ALMR  being a  sink hole  20                                                                    
years prior. He  could believe the system  would be entirely                                                                    
inoperable if $1  million was not allocated.  He concluded a                                                                    
larger  complaint  would  have  come in  otherwise.  He  was                                                                    
unsure how he would vote on the amendment.                                                                                      
Co-Chair Thompson  remarked that,  as the previous  Mayor of                                                                    
Fairbanks, he was familiar with  the system. He believed the                                                                    
system would have  to be addressed in the  future but wanted                                                                    
to  see the  system continue  for another  year. He  hoped a                                                                    
replacement vehicle  would be  considered for  the following                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  would  be  voting in  favor  of  the                                                                    
amendment.  It  was her  understanding  the  state would  be                                                                    
purchasing  additional equipment  and  would  get the  state                                                                    
deeper into an  investment in the system.  She noted hearing                                                                    
previous  comments  about taking  care  of  the issue  "next                                                                    
year". She thought it was  time to stop making an investment                                                                    
in  the  old system.  She  did  not understand  the  state's                                                                    
obligation.  She  wanted  to  deal with  the  issue  in  the                                                                    
current year.                                                                                                                   
Representative Gara remarked that he  used to be against the                                                                    
ALMR system prior to several  locations signing onto it. The                                                                    
different  locations had  purchased  equipment  in order  to                                                                    
communicate with the state's system.  He thought it would be                                                                    
very expensive to purchase a new  system and did not know if                                                                    
it would  be possible to  come up  with a new  system within                                                                    
just a  year. He  commented that  the state's  public safety                                                                    
system was predicated on the  ALMR system. He opined that it                                                                    
was not an option to defund  the program. He would be voting                                                                    
against the amendment.                                                                                                          
2:26:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gattis reminded  members that  the amendment                                                                    
was talking  about $2.2 million  which would sign  the state                                                                    
for almost  an additional $50  million in the next  5 years.                                                                    
She remarked that  that if the state  continued to subsidize                                                                    
the  same program  no one  else would  make a  change.   She                                                                    
thought it  was a  great opportunity to  say that  the state                                                                    
had paid enough. She asked for support from members.                                                                            
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis                                                                                       
OPPOSED:  Munoz,  Edgmon,   Guttenberg,  Kawasaki,  Thomson,                                                                    
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).                                                                                                        
Amendment 4 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                               
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5.                                                                               
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Wilson explained that  when the state started                                                                    
taking federal  funds for different projects  and used state                                                                    
matching funds, the Department  of Transportation and Public                                                                    
Facilities (DOT) decided what  projects it would pursue. Her                                                                    
understanding was that  the only way to  stop the department                                                                    
was  to add  specific language  preventing funds  from being                                                                    
used for a particular project.  In her district what she had                                                                    
found was that even with  a number of signatures obtained it                                                                    
did  not  stop  the  DOT   from  going  ahead  with  certain                                                                    
projects.  However, it  would not  stop the  department from                                                                    
using GF  for anything else in  the Statewide Transportation                                                                    
Improvement Program (STIP).                                                                                                     
Co-Chair Thompson  directed members  to take  a look  at the                                                                    
last page of  the amendment. He would call for  an "at ease"                                                                    
to  allow for  members to  read  the information.  It was  a                                                                    
document  from  Legislative  Legal Services.  Basically  the                                                                    
document  stated that  the  intent  language could  possibly                                                                    
violate the constitution of the State of Alaska.                                                                                
2:29:58 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
2:38:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Thompson   commented   that  the   opinion   from                                                                    
Legislative Legal  Services was that the  amendment might be                                                                    
in  violation  of   Alaska's  constitution  and  potentially                                                                    
unenforceable.  It violated  the confinement  clause of  the                                                                    
Constitution  of the  State of  Alaska. He  was not  a legal                                                                    
Representative Wilson directed  the committee's attention to                                                                    
the middle of  the page. She noted that there  was a list of                                                                    
questions that  had to be  answered. She read  directly from                                                                    
the opinion from Legislative Legal Services:                                                                                    
     [T]he   qualifying  language   must   be  the   minimum                                                                    
     necessary   to   explain   the   Legislature's   intent                                                                    
     regarding how  the money appropriated  is to  be spent.                                                                    
     It must not administer  the program of expenditures. It                                                                    
     must not enact  law or amend existing law.  It must not                                                                    
     extend beyond  the life of the  appropriation. Finally,                                                                    
     the language  must be germane, that  is appropriate, to                                                                    
     an appropriations bill.                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   reviewed  the   requirements   and                                                                    
believed that the amendment passed the test.                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Neuman   remarked  that   there  had   been  other                                                                    
circumstances where  the question  arose whether a  bill was                                                                    
constitutional.  He thought  Representative Gara  had talked                                                                    
about the confinement clause previously.  He believed that a                                                                    
clause could  not be placed  in a  bill that would  make the                                                                    
legislation  illegal. He  was unsure  whether the  operating                                                                    
budget   would   be   considered  unconstitutional   if   an                                                                    
unconstitutional amendment was inserted.                                                                                        
Representative  Gara indicated  that he  had been  incorrect                                                                    
about the  single subject  law for most  of the  session. In                                                                    
almost every  bill the  legislature passed  if there  was an                                                                    
unconstitutional provision,  by law only that  portion would                                                                    
be removed.  The only  difference had  to do  with violating                                                                    
the single subject clause. If  two provisions were placed in                                                                    
a  bill  that  did  not   belong  together  because  of  the                                                                    
constitution the courts would not  know which to remove. The                                                                    
courts considered it  "log rolling" to build  votes with one                                                                    
provision to  get votes for  another provision.  Some courts                                                                    
have   said    they   would   declare   the    entire   bill                                                                    
unconstitutional. It only had to  do with the single subject                                                                    
issue. In all  other bills it was  only the unconstitutional                                                                    
portion that would be removed.                                                                                                  
2:42:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg  explained that the intent  of the                                                                    
amendment  was not  to  stop  the project  but  to stop  the                                                                    
current  design  proposal.  He  asked   to  be  added  as  a                                                                    
cosponsor  of the  amendment. He  thought the  sponsor would                                                                    
agree  with  him  that  there   might  be  problems.  Safety                                                                    
concerns  needed to  be addressed  at the  intersection that                                                                    
was  the  main topic.  He  relayed  that the  community  had                                                                    
reached  out  to the  DOT  with  having hundreds  of  people                                                                    
submitting  their  comments  and  signing  a  petition.  The                                                                    
amendment would not  stop the project but  rather change the                                                                    
current adopted  design proposal.  His concern was  that the                                                                    
community had  risen to ask  that the  project be done  in a                                                                    
different  way  but  the  DOT  had not  made  a  change.  He                                                                    
supposed the current design proposal was the issue.                                                                             
Co-Chair Neuman  thought the issue sounded  very familiar to                                                                    
an  issue in  Big Lake.  The legislature  appropriated money                                                                    
for  improvements to  intersections  on some  of Big  Lake's                                                                    
roads.   The money was  moved over to the  Matsu-Borough who                                                                    
decided to  build some  round-a-bouts even  though community                                                                    
members  expressed opposition  to  them.  He understood  and                                                                    
suggested going back to the people to see what they wanted.                                                                     
Co-Chair  Thompson announced  that the  House Floor  Session                                                                    
had been postponed until 4:00 p.m.                                                                                              
Co-Chair Thompson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                       
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.                                                                              
2:45:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   MOVED   to  ADOPT   Amendment   6.                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Wilson  explained that  the amendment  had to                                                                    
do with  alcohol and other  drug abuse treatment  funds. The                                                                    
funds returned  to the fund  it was in. She  reported having                                                                    
received  information  about  the  FY  17  Governor  amended                                                                    
[budget].  The available  balance was  $33,168,500. She  did                                                                    
not believe  $1.5 million for  the particular  project would                                                                    
decimate  the  fund. The  amendment  utilized  the funds  as                                                                    
outlined in the original version.                                                                                               
Representative Gara  asked where it appeared  in the current                                                                    
version of the bill.                                                                                                            
Representative Wilson responded Page 36, Line 10.                                                                               
Representative  Gara  thought  the Alcohol  and  drug  abuse                                                                    
treatment  and prevention  fund should  be used  for exactly                                                                    
what it was intended. He was  unclear about Page 36, Line 10                                                                    
and  whether  it had  to  do  with  alcohol and  drug  abuse                                                                    
treatment. He supposed  it did not have anything  to do with                                                                    
drug and  alcohol treatment. He  did not know why  the state                                                                    
would use treatment funds for a notification system.                                                                            
Co-Chair   Thompson   remarked   that  it   was   a   victim                                                                    
notification and time management system.                                                                                        
Representative  Kawasaki opposed  the amendment.  He relayed                                                                    
that  the  alcohol  and  drug   abuse  prevention  fund  was                                                                    
established  within the  Department  of Revenue.  It was  50                                                                    
percent of  alcohol taxes collected under  the same section.                                                                    
The legislature appropriated a balance  to the Department of                                                                    
Health and Social Services (DHSS)  for the establishment and                                                                    
maintenance of programs for the  prevention and treatment of                                                                    
alcoholism,  drug abuse,  and misuse  of hazardous  volatile                                                                    
materials and substances by inhalant  abusers. It was pretty                                                                    
clear that the fund was to  be used for that purpose. He did                                                                    
not  think  the  money  was intended  for  the  correctional                                                                    
offender  management   system  or  the   victim  information                                                                    
notification system.  It very  specifically stated  that the                                                                    
legislature was supposed to use  it for the DHSS. He opposed                                                                    
the amendment.                                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Neuman  expressed concerns with how  much money was                                                                    
left  in  the Alcohol  and  Drug  Abuse Treatment  fund.  He                                                                    
stated that  with the passage  of SB 91  [Legislation passed                                                                    
in  2016  -  Short  Title: OMNIBUS  CRIM  LAW  &  PROCEDURE;                                                                    
CORRECTIONS] it might  be the only money to use  as a backup                                                                    
until savings was  realized. He was aware that  the fund was                                                                    
currently  stretched.   He  thought  it  had   already  been                                                                    
overspent by  several million dollars  in the  current year.                                                                    
He was concerned  whether a $1.5 million hole  would be left                                                                    
in the following  year if the same programs  were needed. He                                                                    
favored using any additional monies  in funds. He reiterated                                                                    
that the alcohol and drug fund had been overspent.                                                                              
2:50:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  relayed that  it was $1.5  million of                                                                    
GF. She believed  it was part of SB 91.  It would still have                                                                    
$33,168,500  in the  fund  for all  sorts  of programs.  She                                                                    
wondered  why  funds  would  be  shifted  currently  without                                                                    
knowing  how much  money would  be  in the  fund. She  would                                                                    
rather supplement  with GF  in the  following year  and show                                                                    
the  savings in  the current  year in  order to  pay for  an                                                                    
upgrade due to a bill that was just passed.                                                                                     
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Wilson, Gattis                                                                                                
OPPOSED:  Saddler,   Edgmon,  Gara,   Guttenberg,  Kawasaki,                                                                    
Munoz, Neuman, Thompson                                                                                                         
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).                                                                                                        
Amendment 6 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                               
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 7.                                                                                      
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8.                                                                             
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Kawasaki  explained that the  amendment dealt                                                                    
specifically with the  Kivalina School. In 2011  there was a                                                                    
lawsuit that was  finalized, the Kasayulie case.  One of the                                                                    
results of  the lawsuit was that  a school had to  be built.                                                                    
There  was a  price tag  to that  school. Under  the current                                                                    
bill  the  allocation amount  was  short.  The governor  had                                                                    
originally put in $7.2 million.  The amendment allocated the                                                                    
remaining amount making the  obligation whole. He recognized                                                                    
there were some dueling legal  opinions from lawyers. He was                                                                    
uncertain if his  amendment made sense at  the current time.                                                                    
However, he  wanted to  put on record  that he  had concerns                                                                    
that the state might be violating  one of the decrees of the                                                                    
Kasayulie case.                                                                                                                 
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW Amendment 8.                                                                                   
2:53:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                        
Representative  Gara   explained  that  the   amendment  was                                                                    
written  to Version  F and  he was  trying to  find the  new                                                                    
legislative building  portion of  Version Y. He  referred to                                                                    
Page  24, Line  28. He  was certain  that if  the state  was                                                                    
going to purchase a building  the Wells Fargo building [1500                                                                    
West  Benson Blvd.,  Anchorage, AK  99503] would  be cheaper                                                                    
than  the   old  office  building  [716   West  4th  Street,                                                                    
Anchorage,  AK   99501].  He  explained  that   he  was  not                                                                    
convinced  that enough  of  a  search had  been  done for  a                                                                    
modest  office  space  in Anchorage.  He  advocated  leasing                                                                    
rather than buying at the present time.                                                                                         
Co-Chair  Neuman reported  that as  a member  of Legislative                                                                    
Council there  had been a  significant amount  of discussion                                                                    
regarding the  Anchorage office  space. The  legislature had                                                                    
given the  landlord a  90 day  notice to  allow for  time to                                                                    
relocate  the  office.  He thought  the  building  currently                                                                    
being  considered  to replace  the  building  on 4th  Street                                                                    
would  serve  the  purpose  of   the  legislature  well.  He                                                                    
conveyed  that  the  selection of  available  buildings  was                                                                    
limited.  He supposed  the biggest  challenge over  the past                                                                    
several  years was  choosing  a building.  The  cost of  the                                                                    
Wells Fargo building was estimated  at about $.57 per square                                                                    
foot which  was reasonable.  Wells Fargo wanted  to maintain                                                                    
its  lease occupying  a  portion of  the  first floor  which                                                                    
would provide the  state some revenue. There  were also cell                                                                    
towers  located   on  the  roof  which   generated  revenue.                                                                    
Additional parking could be leased  as well. He claimed that                                                                    
the  property  search had  been  thoroughly  vetted. He  had                                                                    
received several  different proposals from  other developers                                                                    
on  different buildings.  He  favored  the appropriation  to                                                                    
purchase the  Wells Fargo  building for  a maximum  of $12.5                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson thought  that it was best  to purchase the                                                                    
Wells Fargo building in Anchorage.                                                                                              
2:58:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Saddler  suggested that,  like automobiles,  if a                                                                    
building was  only going to  be used  for a short  period of                                                                    
time  then  leasing was  a  better  option than  buying.  He                                                                    
thought  that  as  long  as  the State  of  Alaska  and  the                                                                    
legislature existed there would be  a need for a legislative                                                                    
office  facility.  Therefore,  he  concluded  buying  was  a                                                                    
better choice. He would oppose the amendment.                                                                                   
Representative  Kawasaki  highlighted that  the  legislature                                                                    
had been part of a bad  deal for a while. Although the Wells                                                                    
Fargo building  was affordable to purchase  at $12.5 million                                                                    
the state  could not  afford it  currently. Such  a purchase                                                                    
would have bad  optics. He also stated that the  size of the                                                                    
building  was  greater  than  what  was  needed.  He  quoted                                                                    
approximately  4000 square  feet  per  legislator for  those                                                                    
that would  be housed  there during  the interim  months. He                                                                    
thought it would  be better to lease office  space and would                                                                    
support Amendment 9.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki                                                                                            
OPPOSED:  Saddler,  Wilson, Edgmon,  Gattis, Munoz,  Pruitt,                                                                    
Thompson, Neuman                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).                                                                                                        
Amendment 9 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                               
3:00:47 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10.                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
Representative  Gara explained  that the  amendment restored                                                                    
what the  legislature had been  doing in the  capital budget                                                                    
in prior years until the  previous year. The state currently                                                                    
had 1200 more foster youth in  its foster care system than 6                                                                    
years ago.  The state did  not have enough  adoptive parents                                                                    
and had the second highest  number per capita of children in                                                                    
the foster  care system  waiting for  an adoptive  home. The                                                                    
state was paying for them in  the foster care system ($30 to                                                                    
$100  per day).  The state  needed  to get  the foster  care                                                                    
children into  permanent loving  homes. The  amendment asked                                                                    
for a  modest $75 thousand  to do radio and  television adds                                                                    
to recruit needed  adoptive and foster parents.  He was glad                                                                    
that  the  second part  of  the  bill [amendment]  for  $125                                                                    
thousand to  ATIA had  been removed.  He suggested  that the                                                                    
amendment  was currently  a conceptual  amendment since  the                                                                    
language following  Line 15  had already  been removed  in a                                                                    
separate  amendment. The  way the  amendment was  originally                                                                    
written there was  a net savings of $50  thousand. He opined                                                                    
that the amendment was a small project that needed support.                                                                     
Co-Chair Thompson asked about an amendment to an amendment.                                                                     
Representative Gara indicated he  would present Amendment 10                                                                    
as a  conceptual amendment.  The conceptual  amendment would                                                                    
be to add the funding for the recruitment adds.                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Thompson   clarified  that  the  amount   was  $75                                                                    
Representative Gara  responded affirmatively. He  added that                                                                    
Legislative  Legal   Services  would   have  to   write  the                                                                    
conforming language.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair  Neuman  clarified  that  part  of  the  conceptual                                                                    
amendment should be  to eliminate the language  from Line 15                                                                    
and below.                                                                                                                      
Representative  Gara  was  making the  amendment  conceptual                                                                    
because he was unsure which  of the deletions and insertions                                                                    
were needed on Page 2.                                                                                                          
Representative Wilson objected  to the conceptual amendment.                                                                    
She  did  not  disagree   that  additional  foster  care  or                                                                    
adoptive parents  were needed. However, she  felt the system                                                                    
was broken. She  spoke of people opening up  their homes and                                                                    
their  children to  foster children  and  placing their  own                                                                    
children at risk. She spoke  of a circumstance where someone                                                                    
trying to do the right thing  by opening up their house to a                                                                    
foster  child  ended  up   jeopardizing  their  family.  She                                                                    
thought  that  reevaluating  the Office  of  Child  Services                                                                    
needed  to come  before recruiting  adopting or  foster care                                                                    
parents.  She  provided  an  example  of  a  couple  in  her                                                                    
district that  felt that  it was their  life duty  to become                                                                    
foster parents. They had previously  been foster parents and                                                                    
had  adopted a  few children.  They  had a  child placed  in                                                                    
their  home  temporarily and  an  allegation  was made.  The                                                                    
couple lost  all of their  children. The issue was  still in                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson redirected  Representative Wilson to speak                                                                    
to the amendment.                                                                                                               
Representative Wilson  thought that  if the state  was going                                                                    
to run  television advertisements  it would be  important to                                                                    
be honest  about the risks  involved for  people considering                                                                    
either being  a foster  care or  adoptive parent.  She would                                                                    
oppose the amendment.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Thompson provided a personal  example of a positive                                                                    
foster care  outcome. He did  not want to paint  foster care                                                                    
parenting and adoption in a poor light.                                                                                         
Vice-Chair  Saddler spoke  to  the  amendment. He  suggested                                                                    
that although  the amendment was  accompanied by  an earnest                                                                    
desire  to  help  foster  care children  he  had  not  heard                                                                    
anything from  the Department of Health  and Social Services                                                                    
(DHSS) that it was the  most important or most important use                                                                    
of  $75 thousand.  He thought  there were  many social  ills                                                                    
that  might  also  benefit  from  increased  public  service                                                                    
announcements. He provided  a list of examples.  He also did                                                                    
not believe  that $75 thousand  would provide  a significant                                                                    
amount of exposure. He would be opposing the amendment.                                                                         
3:08:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Gara  spoke   to  the   previous  speaker's                                                                    
statement  that  he had  not  heard  that  it was  the  most                                                                    
important  use of  money  in the  state.  He commented  that                                                                    
there was  nothing in the  capital budget that was  the most                                                                    
important  use  of money  in  the  state.  If that  was  the                                                                    
standard the entire document would get thrown out.                                                                              
Co-Chair Neuman  asked for  a point  of order.  He clarified                                                                    
that  all  legislators  had opinions  about  what  was  most                                                                    
important. He wanted to get back to the amendment.                                                                              
Representative  Gara talked  about a  woman in  the audience                                                                    
who  had  bounced between  47  foster  homes. Children  were                                                                    
taken from  their families and placed  into emergency foster                                                                    
homes rather  than a willing  and ready foster  family. This                                                                    
was  due  to a  lack  of  available  foster care  homes.  He                                                                    
thought that  to not  take action  would leave  things worse                                                                    
off  than to  take at  least a  small action.  He hoped  for                                                                    
support of the amendment.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Munoz                                                                             
OPPOSED: Wilson, Gattis, Pruitt, Saddler, Neuman, Thompson                                                                      
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).                                                                                                        
Representative  Gara asked  that Amendment  11 be  rolled to                                                                    
the bottom  as he  was awaiting an  improved version  of his                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12.                                                                            
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Kawasaki explained Amendment  12 which was on                                                                    
Page  48, Line  12 in  the  new work  draft Version  Y.   It                                                                    
addressed one reappropriation of  money in the legislature's                                                                    
budget  that   was  formerly  a  part   of  the  Legislative                                                                    
Council's   budget,  formerly   in   the   task  force   for                                                                    
sustainable education,  and formerly slated  for Legislative                                                                    
Budget and  Audit. The total  amount of money was  over $5.5                                                                    
million.  The  current  reappropriation indicated  that  the                                                                    
legislature would put $1.5 million  of the $5.5 million into                                                                    
new video  surveillance and upgrades to  enhance security at                                                                    
the new  Capital Building complex.  He wanted to  leave that                                                                    
portion intact.  The remaining  $4 million  would go  to the                                                                    
Alaska  Legislature's Legislative  Council for  renovations,                                                                    
repairs,  technology   improvements,  and   other  necessary                                                                    
projects related  to legislative  buildings and  finance. He                                                                    
suggested  that   at  a  time   when  the   legislature  was                                                                    
attempting to  scratch together some nickels  here and there                                                                    
he thought  it was best to  put $4 million back  into the GF                                                                    
so that  it could  be used for  something very  specific. He                                                                    
thought  it was  nice for  the legislature  to have  a slush                                                                    
fund but felt it did not make  sense to do so in the current                                                                    
fiscal climate.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson  was having difficulty with  12 because it                                                                    
did not have an explanation as  to how much of the money was                                                                    
needed for a special session.                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the  use of the term "slush                                                                    
fund" had a negative connotation and was inappropriate.                                                                         
3:15:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki  apologized for the use  of the term                                                                    
"slush fund." He  thought there were ways  to budget things.                                                                    
The  legislature  could ask  for  a  supplemental budget  in                                                                    
future years. If the legislature  wanted to understand truth                                                                    
in  budgeting legislators  needed  to start  with their  own                                                                    
branch. Potentially  $4 million would be  directly allocated                                                                    
to the  Legislative Council for  an unspecified  purpose. He                                                                    
would  prefer  clearly defining  the  purpose  of any  money                                                                    
being  allocated to  the Legislative  Council. He  supported                                                                    
Amendment 12.                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Wilson                                                                                    
OPPOSED:  Edgmon,  Gattis, Munoz,  Pruitt, Saddler,  Neuman,                                                                    
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).                                                                                                        
Amendment 12 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                              
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13.                                                                            
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative  Kawasaki  referred  to  Page  50,  Line  30.                                                                    
Amendment  13 was  an add-on  to  lapsed appropriations.  He                                                                    
explained that  the legislature had  several pots  of money.                                                                    
The current  capital budget  bill had  taken money  that was                                                                    
unexpended and  swept those  funds back  into an  account to                                                                    
ensure that  there was  money in the  future. He  thought it                                                                    
was necessary  especially when the legislature  was scraping                                                                    
nickels together.  The amendment  dealt with  other projects                                                                    
specifically  recognized as  the "mega  projects." Currently                                                                    
there  was over  $15.1  million UGF  for  the Juneau  Access                                                                    
Project,  $5  million  for  the Knik  Arm  Bridge  and  Toll                                                                    
Authority  Project,  $8.35  million for  the  Susitna-Watana                                                                    
Hydroelectric Project, $8.16 for  the Ambler Mining District                                                                    
Industrial  Access  Road  Project,  $18.8  million  for  the                                                                    
Bragaw Extension/U-Med  North Access Road Project,  and $2.3                                                                    
million  for  upgrades to  the  Kodiak  Launch Complex.  The                                                                    
total  amount  for megaprojects  in  Amendment  13 was  over                                                                    
$57.8  million.   He  argued  that   at  a  time   when  the                                                                    
legislature was  trying to  bare down on  the budget  it was                                                                    
important to  consider whether the state  could afford these                                                                    
major  projects.  Many  of   the  projects  mentioned  would                                                                    
require  $102 million  in additional  funding  to reach  the                                                                    
Federal Energy  Regulatory Commission (FERC)  licensing, the                                                                    
studies necessary for the project.  The question was whether                                                                    
the  legislature would  be able  to  come up  with the  $102                                                                    
million to  pursue the project just  to get to the  point of                                                                    
actually talking  about construction  of a $3  billion damn.                                                                    
He surmised  the state would not  be able to. He  felt that,                                                                    
rather than spending money on  things the state would not be                                                                    
able to afford in the near  future, some of the money should                                                                    
be  swept  back into  the  GF  and  into savings  while  the                                                                    
legislature attempted to stabilize the budget.                                                                                  
3:19:55 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   indicated    that   it   was   her                                                                    
understanding that some  of the funds were  requested by the                                                                    
governor.  She  had  hoped  the  legislature  would  receive                                                                    
information about a plan for  each of the mega projects. She                                                                    
was  unclear   what  funding  was  still   being  used.  She                                                                    
expressed her concerns with ending  the funding without more                                                                    
information. She would be opposing the amendment.                                                                               
Co-Chair  Neuman remarked  that  the mega  projects had  all                                                                    
been looked at several times.  It was his understanding that                                                                    
the Kodiak Launch  Complex would be taken over  by a private                                                                    
enterprise. He  remarked that the  Knik Arm Bridge  and Toll                                                                    
Authority project  was self-funded and would  have no effect                                                                    
on the state's budget. The  project would not cost the state                                                                    
a dime. He  added that it would require about  $3 billion or                                                                    
$4  billion  to  update  the Glenn  Highway  to  accommodate                                                                    
capacity.  He furthered  that he  and Representative  Gattis                                                                    
had about 34 thousand  constituents traveling back and forth                                                                    
to town on  a road that was over capacity.  He remarked that                                                                    
the Ambler  Road was to  encourage mining activity  in areas                                                                    
of the  state that were currently  unincorporated. He opined                                                                    
that the mining industry within  the North Slope Borough was                                                                    
amazing. He  remarked that the money  for the Susitna-Watana                                                                    
Hydroelectric  project   were  federal  dollars   that  were                                                                    
previously  appropriated.  He   deferred  to  Representative                                                                    
Munoz  to discuss  the Juneau  Access Project.  He would  be                                                                    
opposing the amendment.                                                                                                         
Vice-Chair  Saddler noted  the amendments  had been  seen at                                                                    
every phase  of the  operating and  capital budgets  for the                                                                    
past 2  years. They  had already  been raised.  The governor                                                                    
had issued the administrative  order that paused progress on                                                                    
many of  the mega  projects. Following the  pause, decisions                                                                    
were made  by review  that the  projects should  proceed. In                                                                    
the  case of  the Susitna-Watana  Hydroelectric project  the                                                                    
Alaska Energy Authority was directed  to finish the resource                                                                    
studies  that  FERC  required  in  order  to  reach  a  good                                                                    
stopping  point. It  was a  project  considered for  decades                                                                    
that would provide  power for the entire railbelt  at a very                                                                    
low cost. The Knik Arm  Crossing had already been mentioned.                                                                    
He stated that  the Ambler Road Project had  been paused but                                                                    
the  Alaska  Industrial  Development  Export  Authority  was                                                                    
directed to  proceed with  the project  and to  initiate the                                                                    
environmental  impact  studies.  The U-Med  Northern  Access                                                                    
Project  for about  $18 million  had been  debated at  every                                                                    
stage of  the budget. It  was clear from the  information he                                                                    
had seen that the residents  and organizations such as South                                                                    
Central  Foundation,  Providence   Alaska  Hospital,  Alaska                                                                    
Pacific  University, and  the  Alaska  Native Tribal  Health                                                                    
Consortium  all  desired  to  see the  road  go  through  to                                                                    
alleviate congestion  and make access to  the U-Med District                                                                    
more  available to  more people.  The arguments  had already                                                                    
been heard. He would be opposing the amendment.                                                                                 
Representative  Munoz  opposed   the  amendment.  She  spoke                                                                    
specifically to  the Juneau Access  Road Project.  The state                                                                    
had  set aside  enough money  to meet  the 10  percent state                                                                    
match.  If the  amendment were  to pass  the state  would be                                                                    
defunding the  state's portion of  the project.  The project                                                                    
was a $450 million capital project  for the region. It was a                                                                    
top priority to  the community of Juneau.  She reported that                                                                    
the  city  and  borough  assembly  was  in  support  of  the                                                                    
project. Many of  the trade unions favored  the project. She                                                                    
listed a number  of members. She did not  understand why the                                                                    
state would  want to defund  such an important project  at a                                                                    
time when  going forward the  state would be faced  with low                                                                    
capital budgets. She strongly opposed the amendment.                                                                            
Representative Gara made a remark about decorum.                                                                                
3:26:37 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg  stated  that the  maker  of  the                                                                    
amendment had posed most of  his same arguments. He had been                                                                    
in  the  construction   business  and  appreciated  building                                                                    
things.  However, he  believed  that everything  was on  the                                                                    
table  and  that  the projects  being  discussed  were  very                                                                    
expensive. He thought they could  be set aside and picked up                                                                    
at  a  later  time  in  the future.  He  commented  that  he                                                                    
understood the  Bragaw Extension  project was  not supported                                                                    
by  any   of  the   community  councils  or   residents.  He                                                                    
reiterated that everything was on the table.                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki appreciated all  of the comments. He                                                                    
closed by mentioning that when  the governor was elected the                                                                    
price of oil  was at about $80 per  barrel. Many legislators                                                                    
expected oil to  be at that price. By the  time the governor                                                                    
took office  in early December  2014, he realized  the price                                                                    
of  oil   would  not   remain  at   about  $80.   He  issued                                                                    
Administrative  Order  271,  the  purpose of  which  was  to                                                                    
declare  that the  state did  not  have the  cash outlay  to                                                                    
pursue  many  of  the major  mega  projects  including,  the                                                                    
Ambler Mining  District Industrial Access Road  Project, the                                                                    
Juneau  Access  Project,  the  Susitna-Watana  Hydroelectric                                                                    
Project, the Kodiak Launch Complex,  the Knik Arm Bridge and                                                                    
Toll  Authority   Project,  and  the   stand-alone  pipeline                                                                    
project. Since  December 26, 2014, the  legislature had been                                                                    
trying to  decide what  to do with  the remaining  cash that                                                                    
was  unencumbered by  the mega  projects. He  continued that                                                                    
the Ambler  Mining District  Industrial Access  Road Project                                                                    
would cost  an additional  $3.6 million.  The Susitna-Watana                                                                    
Hydroelectric  Project  would  require  an  additional  $102                                                                    
million prior  to getting  to a FERC  licensure. He  did not                                                                    
think it  was realistic for  the state  to come up  with the                                                                    
funding.  He admitted  that the  Juneau  Access Project  was                                                                    
further along than  other projects. It had been  a long time                                                                    
dream for many  people in Juneau. The  project would require                                                                    
an additional  $574 million following a  record of decision.                                                                    
The  state  had  approximately  $120 million  set  aside  at                                                                    
present.  It was  possible that  the state  would receive  a                                                                    
significant amount  of federal aid. However,  he wondered if                                                                    
the  state   would  actually  get  the   amount  needed.  He                                                                    
continued  that  the  Knik Arm  Bridge  and  Toll  Authority                                                                    
Project was a $1.17 billion  project. He reported that about                                                                    
$250  million  had  been  spent thus  far  with  $5  million                                                                    
remaining. The project did not  cost the state any money but                                                                    
would in the  future. He suggested the  remaining $5 million                                                                    
could  be used  to  buffer the  state's  savings. The  money                                                                    
associated  with   the  Kodiak  Launch  Complex,   over  $22                                                                    
million,  was  returned  to  the  state.  He  reported  $2.3                                                                    
million left for a launch  pad that had not been constructed                                                                    
and would  likely not be  constructed in the  current fiscal                                                                    
year.  Finally,  he  reported  that  regarding  the  Bragraw                                                                    
Extension there were some groups  that supported it, but the                                                                    
mayor and all of the community  councils did not want to use                                                                    
the  money  for  that  project  but  for  other  things.  He                                                                    
stressed that  the state did  not have a  significant amount                                                                    
of money available  and the mega projects had  a huge dollar                                                                    
value to  them. He thought  the money should be  returned to                                                                    
the GF into savings. He urged support for Amendment 13.                                                                         
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki                                                                                            
OPPOSED:  Gattis,  Munoz, Pruitt,  Saddler, Wilson,  Edgmon,                                                                    
Thompson, Neuman                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).                                                                                                        
Amendment 13 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                              
3:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Pruitt  Vice-Chair  Saddler MOVED  to  ADOPT                                                                    
Amendment 14.                                                                                                                   
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt explained  that  the amendment  would                                                                    
reappropriate money that was already  "out there" for the U-                                                                    
Med  North  Access  Road  Project  that  was  given  to  the                                                                    
Municipality    of   Anchorage.    The   money    would   be                                                                    
reappropriated to the University  of Alaska Anchorage (UAA).                                                                    
The  University had  donated  its land  to  the project  and                                                                    
wanted  to  see the  project  move  forward. Alaska  Pacific                                                                    
University (APU) had offered its  support for the project as                                                                    
well.  The  U-Med district  master  plan,  encompassed in  a                                                                    
letter to  Senator McKinnon, was  in front of  the assembly.                                                                    
He  reported that  APU was  a key  contributor to  the U-Med                                                                    
village concept. The village would  be on APU land. However,                                                                    
in order to carry out the  master plan the access road would                                                                    
be  necessary. There  was also  a safety  concern at  Elmore                                                                    
Road and  Providence Drive.  Since the  building of  the new                                                                    
arena  it   had  become  less   safe  for   their  students.                                                                    
Providence Health  was supportive of the  project because of                                                                    
the  increased traffic  resulting from  the new  facility at                                                                    
UAA  and  the  new engineering  building.  The  Southcentral                                                                    
Foundation was in favor of  the project, as it would provide                                                                    
access  to  its facility  located  south  of the  road.  The                                                                    
Alaska Native  Medical Center and  the Alaska  Native Tribal                                                                    
Health Consortium  (ANTHC) were in  favor as well.  He spoke                                                                    
of  ANTHC constructing  patient  housing and  perhaps a  new                                                                    
facility for skilled nursing. A  traffic study had been done                                                                    
and 40 percent  of West Anchorage commuters  traveled to the                                                                    
U-Med area and would benefit  from the project. He had heard                                                                    
consistently   that  there   was   concern  with   community                                                                    
councils. He  spoke of the  safety aspect of the  road which                                                                    
would  provide   better  medical  access  in   an  emergency                                                                    
situation. He asked members to support the amendment.                                                                           
3:38:54 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki indicated  that the  road would  be                                                                    
seven-tenths of a mile and  would cost about $20 million. He                                                                    
relayed that  nine community  councils within  the immediate                                                                    
affected  area  opposed  the  project.  He  thought  it  was                                                                    
important to listen to constituents  in the area who did not                                                                    
want the extension. The mayor  of Anchorage did not want the                                                                    
expansion  either.  He  was   troubled  that  the  amendment                                                                    
removed $18.9 million from the  Municipality of Anchorage to                                                                    
build  the road  and gave  it  to the  University of  Alaska                                                                    
System to  be used  with its  discretion. There  had already                                                                    
been a fight  earlier about how much money the  UA needed to                                                                    
maintain its  400 buildings. The  University had  $1 billion                                                                    
in  deferred maintenance.  The  University was  appropriated                                                                    
$10 million  to maintain  buildings already  constructed and                                                                    
currently it  was asking  for $18.8 million  to build  a new                                                                    
road.  He wondered  who  would be  maintaining  the road,  a                                                                    
question he  thought every legislator  should be  asking. He                                                                    
opposed the  amendment because the  residents and  the mayor                                                                    
did not want the project.  He appreciated the University. He                                                                    
wondered  if the  University should  be in  charge of  $18.8                                                                    
million when  there was  so much  deferred maintenance.   He                                                                    
opposed Amendment 14.                                                                                                           
Vice-Chair Saddler  supported the amendment. The  road would                                                                    
be on  the miracle mile  of Anchorage containing  the city's                                                                    
University Medical  District. It was a  medical campus where                                                                    
emergency  rooms were  located and  where most  doctors were                                                                    
concentrated.  He spoke  of trying  to  get a  free-standing                                                                    
emergency department built in Eagle  River to have access to                                                                    
emergency services  closer to home with  quick access. Eagle                                                                    
River was told no and  was encouraged to direct residents to                                                                    
the  U-Med district  where  Providence  Hospital received  7                                                                    
beds that  were up  for grabs  for an  emergency department.                                                                    
Eagle River  had been told by  DHSS to rely on  quick access                                                                    
to the Providence Hospital for  his constituents that needed                                                                    
emergency services. They were  expected to drive through the                                                                    
U-Med District  to get to  the ER. It  was not just  a green                                                                    
space,  but was  a place  where quick  access was  needed to                                                                    
avoid  someone   potentially  dying.   It  was  a   path  to                                                                    
salvation, health, life  or death. It was  very important to                                                                    
have  access to  Anchorage's medical  facilities. There  had                                                                    
been much debate on the  subject and many questions had been                                                                    
answered. He  thought the amendment provided  the University                                                                    
the  wherewithal  to  achieve  building  the  road  for  the                                                                    
benefit  of all  of  his constituents  and  many others.  He                                                                    
thought it  was a  good deal.  He appreciated  other members                                                                    
supporting the amendment.                                                                                                       
3:43:20 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  listened  to the  exaggerations  about                                                                    
death.   He   commented    that   the   previous   speaker's                                                                    
constituents  would likely  go to  Alaska Regional  Hospital                                                                    
which the  project would not affect.  Emergency vehicles and                                                                    
personnel  had  override  devices   to  go  through  traffic                                                                    
lights.  He thought  the death  argument was  very emotional                                                                    
and inaccurate.  He pointed out  that $18 million  would fly                                                                    
out of the capital building  with the swipe of one amendment                                                                    
while the  state had  a deficit of  $4 billion.  He remarked                                                                    
that it was  a significant amount of money. It  was over 200                                                                    
times more money than the  cost of a previous amendment that                                                                    
would  have tried  to get  parents to  children who  did not                                                                    
have them. He thought  legislators needed to prioritize what                                                                    
was of high importance. He  continued that it was more money                                                                    
than  the  13  members  of  his  caucus  had  put  into  the                                                                    
operating budget in one amendment.  He thought the state had                                                                    
reached a point  where it was not supposed to  be doing free                                                                    
spending. He  argued that  spending $18  million on  a short                                                                    
road  that residents  and the  mayor had  opposed was  a bad                                                                    
idea. He thought  the people of the area had  a better pulse                                                                    
on their  neighborhoods than the  members around  the table.                                                                    
He would be opposing the amendment.                                                                                             
Representative Guttenberg relayed  that President Johnson of                                                                    
the University stated in his  letter to the Senate President                                                                    
that the project  would move forward with  the memorandum of                                                                    
understanding  (MOU)  negotiated  with the  Municipality  of                                                                    
Anchorage. He wondered if the  MOU was still in effect since                                                                    
the  mayor had  changed and  currently did  not support  the                                                                    
project.   He  relayed   that  the   letter  indicated   the                                                                    
University  had no  intention of  maintaining  the road  and                                                                    
that it  would fall  on the shoulders  of the  Department of                                                                    
Transportation and  Public Facilities (DOT). He  was glad to                                                                    
hear that the  University would not be  responsible based on                                                                    
its reduced  maintenance budget. He thought  that because of                                                                    
the  University's donation  of  land there  might be  issues                                                                    
down  the road  requiring  another  reappropriation for  the                                                                    
3:48:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Pruitt  did not  know  the  position of  his                                                                    
community  council  regarding   the  project.  He  typically                                                                    
attended  all of  his community  council meetings  unless he                                                                    
was in Juneau. Had he been  there to vote he would have been                                                                    
a "no" vote. He appreciated  the work of community councils.                                                                    
However, there were people that  felt they should be able to                                                                    
access the Alaska Native Medical  Center (ANMC), the highest                                                                    
level trauma  center in  the State of  Alaska (Level  2). He                                                                    
continued  that   ANMC  treated  many  of   the  high  level                                                                    
emergency  care cases  that arose  in  Anchorage. For  those                                                                    
folks that live in Mountain  View, Eagle River, or any place                                                                    
in Northern Anchorage  they would have to take  the long way                                                                    
to  ANMC  or  Providence.  Patients  would  not  necessarily                                                                    
immediately go to Alaska Regional  Hospital, although it was                                                                    
a great hospital. He did  not understand why the project was                                                                    
so contentious since  it was a lifeline.  The previous mayor                                                                    
was  in favor  of  the  road. He  suggested  looking at  the                                                                    
people being served. The people  in Northern Anchorage, some                                                                    
of the  poorest people  in the city,  would be  affected. He                                                                    
thought providing them access  to the medical facilities was                                                                    
the right  thing to do.  He favored moving the  funding over                                                                    
to the University  since the city was not willing  to do it.                                                                    
He asked for support from members.                                                                                              
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                               
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Gattis,  Munoz, Pruitt,  Saddler, Wilson,  Edgmon,                                                                    
Neuman, Thompson                                                                                                                
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara                                                                                             
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).                                                                                                        
Amendment 14 was ADOPTED.                                                                                                       
3:51:48 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:08:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Thompson indicated  that  the  committee would  be                                                                    
hearing Amendment 15.                                                                                                           
Representative Munoz WITHDREW Amendment 15.                                                                                     
4:09:04 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:10:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gattis MOVED  to ADOPT  Conceptual Amendment                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Gattis explained  that the amendment replaced                                                                    
Section  27d with  Section 26d  of Version  G, the  Senate's                                                                    
version  of  the  bill.  Additionally  the  amendment  would                                                                    
reduce the  appropriation on  Page 8,  Line 3  by $5,867,800                                                                    
for a  new total allocation  of $36 million. The  net effect                                                                    
would  be $5,867,800  in savings  to the  state by  spending                                                                    
previously  appropriated  funds  rather  than  appropriating                                                                    
additional money.  The short  version was  that there  was a                                                                    
philosophical policy difference. There  were funds that were                                                                    
going to be  reappropriated for the DOT  highway match funds                                                                    
but  the  appropriation was  reversed.  The  funds were  not                                                                    
being  used  which begged  the  question  whether the  funds                                                                    
should be reappropriated as the matching funds.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson asked about the total GF dollar change.                                                                       
Representative  Gattis responded  $5,867,800. She  was happy                                                                    
to walk through the section if necessary.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson  wanted to confirm  the dollar  amount. He                                                                    
anticipated that the amount would be about $11 million.                                                                         
Representative  Gattis responded  that $11  million was  the                                                                    
original amount before it  was reappropriated. She corrected                                                                    
herself  that  she  had  stated $11  million  in  a  private                                                                    
conversation  and the  number should  have been  $7 million.                                                                    
She apologized for the error.                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair  Saddler   asked  for   clarification  concerning                                                                    
Section  27d. He  wondered which  version she  was referring                                                                    
Representative Gattis  began with Version G  explaining that                                                                    
the conceptual  amendment replaced Section 27d  with Section                                                                    
26d on Page 43 in Version G, Line 7.                                                                                            
4:13:57 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:16:08 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson rolled Amendment 16 to the bottom.                                                                            
Representative Gara could not locate his amendment.                                                                             
4:16:25 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
[4:16:45 PM]                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 17.                                                                                      
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18.                                                                                
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Gara  explained that the language  was in the                                                                    
previous day's version of the  bill. The amendment had to do                                                                    
with a  statewide project that  was very important  in terms                                                                    
of protecting  people from others  that engaged  in domestic                                                                    
violence  and   sexual  assault.  He  thought   someone  was                                                                    
available online to provide a better explanation.                                                                               
Co-Chair  Thompson  indicated that  no  one  outside of  the                                                                    
committee had been allowed to speak to the amendments.                                                                          
Representative  Gara  elaborated  that the  Municipality  of                                                                    
Anchorage ran  a statewide database  of individuals  who had                                                                    
been  engaged in  domestic violence  or sexual  abuse. These                                                                    
individuals might  have probation conditions and  get picked                                                                    
up within the state by  a policeman or village public safety                                                                    
officer.  The  officer accessed  the  database  to find  out                                                                    
whether the  individual was in  violation of  probation. The                                                                    
database   was  maintained   in   Anchorage  and   available                                                                    
statewide. He opined  that it was important  to know whether                                                                    
individuals   were  sexual   predators,   in  violation   of                                                                    
probation,  or  faced  other conditions.  The  database  was                                                                    
crucial in terms  of deciding whether to remand  a person to                                                                    
custody and  to keep  them away  from potential  victims. It                                                                    
was a very  important part of the sexual  abuse and domestic                                                                    
violence prevention system in  Alaska. He believed that some                                                                    
people thought the appropriation  only applied to Anchorage,                                                                    
but the database was a statewide tool.                                                                                          
Co-Chair   Neuman  assumed   that   the   amendment  was   a                                                                    
reappropriation  of  funds  left  over  from  the  Anchorage                                                                    
Police  Department Training  Group Center.  It looked  as if                                                                    
$900 thousand  remained. The money  might have  gone towards                                                                    
some safety  improvements in the  past. He surmised  that it                                                                    
was  a  reappropriation  of  left   over  funds  from  prior                                                                    
projects. He was unaware of  any other reappropriations that                                                                    
had gone into a specific  program. He was sympathetic to the                                                                    
issues of domestic violence and  sexual assault. He believed                                                                    
the program's operating  budget was close to  $13 million or                                                                    
$14 million; $1.3 million for  administrative duties and the                                                                    
remainder for  domestic violence and sexual  assault. He did                                                                    
not want to do something on  the fly. He was unfamiliar with                                                                    
all of  the numbers but he  knew that the policy  at present                                                                    
was  to take  reappropriations  and put  them towards  other                                                                    
match highway funds for statewide projects.                                                                                     
4:21:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  would understand if the  funds could be                                                                    
matched 9  to 1,  but they  could not.  He relayed  that the                                                                    
Anchorage  42nd Avenue  traffic project  was  not a  9 to  1                                                                    
match  nor was  the police  department training  center roof                                                                    
replacement project.  It was a needed  statewide project. He                                                                    
remarked  there  had  been reappropriations  throughout  the                                                                    
bill. The  important question  he posed  was whether  it was                                                                    
something the legislature wanted to  do. There had been some                                                                    
reduction   to   the   domestic  violence   sexual   assault                                                                    
prevention  efforts  in  the  state until  some  of  it  was                                                                    
reversed in SB 91, the  omnibus crime bill. Some monies were                                                                    
placed  in  training  and  education  programs  on  batterer                                                                    
intervention and  prevention. He  thought the  funding would                                                                    
help to keep predators away  from their victims. He believed                                                                    
it was something the legislature  needed to fund. The monies                                                                    
were  left over  and were  not needed  for the  projects. He                                                                    
thought there  had been a  mistake in the previous  day that                                                                    
some people  saw the  word "Anchorage" and  did not  know it                                                                    
was a statewide project.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair Thompson asked  if money was being  taken away from                                                                    
other projects.                                                                                                                 
Representative  Gara  responded  that  the  funds  were  not                                                                    
needed  for  the  projects  listed.  He  conveyed  that  the                                                                    
Municipality and the City of  Anchorage were in favor of the                                                                    
amendment.  The   funds  were  no  longer   needed  for  the                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the funds had been pulled.                                                                           
Representative Gara claimed that  the funds were unobligated                                                                    
and  were  not needed  for  the  completion  of any  of  the                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson  commented that it sounded  like the funds                                                                    
had already  been swept because  they were no  longer needed                                                                    
for the projects.                                                                                                               
Representative  Gara stated  that  the funds  would just  be                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson asked about matching funds.                                                                                   
Representative  Gara  responded  that  the  Police  Training                                                                    
Center money was not being used  and, he did not believe the                                                                    
42nd Avenue money was being used for a highway match.                                                                           
Co-Chair Thompson  stated that  he received  indication from                                                                    
Mr. Michel that the information was true.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara                                                                                    
OPPOSED: Munoz,  Saddler, Wilson, Gattis,  Pruitt, Thompson,                                                                    
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).                                                                                                        
Amendment 18 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                              
4:26:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 19.                                                                       
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                
Co-Chair Thompson explained that  the amendment was born out                                                                    
of  a   consultation  with   the  Department   of  Commerce,                                                                    
Community   and   Economic    Development.   He   instructed                                                                    
Legislative  Legal  services  to   craft  the  amendment  to                                                                    
conform  to  the newest  draft.  The  amendment deleted  the                                                                    
words "estimate balance" and inserted "not to exceed".                                                                          
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                 
There  being  NO  OBJECTION,  Conceptual  Amendment  19  was                                                                    
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2.                                                                                
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Munoz read from Page 7, Lines 19-22:                                                                             
     Alaska Marine Highway System Vessel Overhaul, Annual                                                                       
     Certification and Shoreside Facilities Rehabilitation                                                                      
Representative Munoz  explained that the allocation  was $12                                                                    
million which included  $9 million of UGF and  $3 million of                                                                    
DGF. Her issue was that the  DGF came from the Alaska Marine                                                                    
Highway System Fund which had  a balance of $12.6 million at                                                                    
the  beginning of  the session.  The operations  budget from                                                                    
the House  removed $2 billion  from the fund and  the Senate                                                                    
took an  additional $4  million leaving  $6 million  for the                                                                    
day-to-day  operations of  the marine  highway. The  current                                                                    
amendment would  drop the fund  down to $3 million.  She was                                                                    
concerned  with leaving  the highway  system with  extremely                                                                    
low reserves  to deal  with any  unanticipated costs  of the                                                                    
system.  Amendment  2 placed  $3  million  back as  UGF  and                                                                    
returned the  $3 million  DGF to  the Alaska  Marine Highway                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  wondered  if  the  budget  would  be                                                                    
increased by $3 million.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Thompson  stated  that the  legislature  would  be                                                                    
placing $3 million back into UGF.                                                                                               
Representative  Wilson clarified  that  the  state would  be                                                                    
spending $3 million more than it was currently.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson answered in the affirmative.                                                                                  
Representative Wilson commented that  the state did not have                                                                    
the money. She would be a "no" vote.                                                                                            
Representative  Gara remarked  that the  budget had  already                                                                    
been substantially  reduced. He suggested that  in no normal                                                                    
year did  the state  use $9 million  from the  Alaska Marine                                                                    
Highway System Fund. It equaled  three-quarters of the fund.                                                                    
The maker of the amendment was  trying to keep some money in                                                                    
the fund to keep it  solvent. Originally the reduction of $2                                                                    
million  was taken  by the  House which  seemed appropriate.                                                                    
The  decrease  grew  to  $6  million  and  currently  to  $9                                                                    
million. At some  point there would not be  an Alaska Marine                                                                    
Highway System Fund at all.  He disagreed with cannibalizing                                                                    
every fund. He thought it  was a modest put-back to maintain                                                                    
solvency in the fund.                                                                                                           
4:30:55 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned  that the committee had  held to a                                                                    
stringent commitment of trying  to reduce the Constitutional                                                                    
Budget Reserve  (CBR) draw to  fund the GF. He  thought that                                                                    
$3 million would  remain in the highway fund.  The money was                                                                    
to  be  used  for  inspections and  similar  activities.  He                                                                    
indicated that DOT  might have to return  to the legislature                                                                    
with a supplemental request. He  did not think in made sense                                                                    
to put  GF dollars into the  fund to replace money  that was                                                                    
already in the fund for repairs.                                                                                                
Representative  Munoz concluded  that the  fund helped  with                                                                    
the  day-to-day operations.  She explained  that it  was the                                                                    
fund that received  system receipts into a  fund that helped                                                                    
with operations. She  stated that the $3  million figure was                                                                    
way  too low  for an  11 vessel  fleet. It  was a  2 percent                                                                    
reserve. She was  certain the department would  be back with                                                                    
a  supplemental  request  to address  the  low  number.  She                                                                    
appreciated support for the amendment.                                                                                          
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Munoz,    Pruitt,   Edgmon,    Gara,   Guttenberg,                                                                    
Kawasaki, Thompson                                                                                                              
OPPOSED: Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Neuman                                                                                        
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).                                                                                                        
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.                                                                                                        
4:34:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gattis MOVED  to ADOPT  Conceptual Amendment                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Gattis  reviewed that the  amendment replaced                                                                    
Section 27d  with Section 26d  of Version G and  reduced the                                                                    
allocation on  Page 8, Line  3 to  $36 million. It  took the                                                                    
reappropriations on  Page 43, Line  7 through Page  44, Line                                                                    
3,  Page 44,  Lines 8-11,  Page  44, Lines  30-31, Page  45,                                                                    
Lines 10-11,  Page 45,  Lines 16-23,  Page 46,  Lines 11-12,                                                                    
Page 46,  Lines 15-17, Page  46, Lines 22-28, Page  47 Lines                                                                    
7-8, Page  47, Lines 12-16.  There were 16 items  that might                                                                    
not have been up for  a technical reappropriations sweep but                                                                    
the projects  were completed  and the  money was  left over.                                                                    
She was  asking that they go  back to the Senate  version ad                                                                    
become part of the DOT federal highway match.                                                                                   
Representative   Kawasaki  asked   about  the   second  part                                                                    
regarding the  reduction of the  allocation on Page  8, Line                                                                    
3. He  did not see  where there was an  allocation reduction                                                                    
number on Page 8, Line 3 in Version G of the bill.                                                                              
Representative  Gattis  was waiting  for  Version  G of  the                                                                    
4:38:08 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:39:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson stated that  when the committee looked                                                                    
at  reappropriations on  a previous  day many  of them  were                                                                    
swept and were  to be used as state matching  funds. A House                                                                    
Finance version  of the bill  incorporating the  changes was                                                                    
published.  Later  in  the  same day  a  newer  version  was                                                                    
published that  had taken out some  of the reappropriations.                                                                    
Conceptual Amendment  17 would incorporate the  full list of                                                                    
reappropriations. She had  talked to the Senate  to find out                                                                    
whether  due  diligence had  been  exercised.  She had  also                                                                    
talked  to  DCCED   and  was  informed  that   each  of  the                                                                    
reappropriations  had been  vetted and  reflected left  over                                                                    
funds. She suggested  that if members voted in  favor of the                                                                    
amendment,  the appropriations  would be  swept back  to the                                                                    
projects that had  been completed that had  left over funds,                                                                    
and used  as reappropriated  funds versus GF.  She furthered                                                                    
that  the left  over funds  would  be used  as DOT  matching                                                                    
funds  rather than  set aside.  It would  benefit the  whole                                                                    
state  equally amongst  everyone.  She  maintained that  the                                                                    
state could not keep using  GF monies to backfill when there                                                                    
were  left  over  monies from  projects  that  were  already                                                                    
completed. She  would be  voting in  favor of  the amendment                                                                    
because she thought it made sense.                                                                                              
Co-Chair  Neuman was  confused about  the amendment  and was                                                                    
unclear about  the other body's  stand on the  amendment. He                                                                    
had been told the monies were  not left over funds and would                                                                    
be needed for the corresponding projects.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson  reported that  many of the  projects were                                                                    
from  2014 and  2015. He  noted  reviewing each  of the  TPS                                                                    
numbers  and  expiration  dates. As  appropriations  expired                                                                    
they  would go  back into  the GF.  For those  projects that                                                                    
remained  incomplete the  appropriations would  not go  back                                                                    
into  the  GF  right  away.  He  wanted  to  make  sure  the                                                                    
legislature was doing the right thing.  It was not as if the                                                                    
funds were  going into  the wind, they  would be  swept into                                                                    
the GF once they expired. He was trying to be cautious.                                                                         
4:44:21 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Edgmon thought he  understood the gist of the                                                                    
amendment. He  thought it  also hit on  the question  of the                                                                    
underlying  appropriations and  whether each  one should  be                                                                    
considered.  When he  looked at  the  amendment it  appeared                                                                    
that  the federal  highway  state match  was  reduced by  $6                                                                    
million.  He  was  hoping the  representative  offering  the                                                                    
amendment could comment on the match during her wrap up.                                                                        
Representative  Pruitt appreciated  what  the  maker of  the                                                                    
amendment was trying to do  and he also appreciated the goal                                                                    
of the Co-Chair to make sure  that money was not being taken                                                                    
from  those projects  that  were not  complete.  He noted  a                                                                    
project  with  an appropriation  from  2008  which could  be                                                                    
found  in Version  G,  Page  43, Line  23.  The project  was                                                                    
estimated  to  be  $2.6  million. There  was  a  balance  of                                                                    
$32,329 which  he supposed was  no longer needed.  The maker                                                                    
was attempting to offset GF.  In the end, the difference was                                                                    
comprised of  $13.5 million plus  $36 million  totaling just                                                                    
under  $50  million that  the  governor  sought. He  further                                                                    
explained  that  the  difference  was  because  the  current                                                                    
Version Y  had $6.5 million  on Page  43 under "D".  Some of                                                                    
the money  was removed.  Between the previous  day's version                                                                    
and the  current version there  was an additional  change to                                                                    
the appropriation  for the  Jesse Lee  Home project.  He was                                                                    
unsure whether the adoption of  the amendment would override                                                                    
that  particular appropriation.  He thought  the concept  of                                                                    
the  amendment  was  good  and  he  supported  the  idea  of                                                                    
potentially  offsetting more  of  the GF  with  some of  the                                                                    
appropriations.    However,    he   anticipated    potential                                                                    
challenges. He  reported that the  Friends of the  Jesse Lee                                                                    
home were looking to tear  down the building. He wondered if                                                                    
it  was possible  to merge  amendments to  make sure  it was                                                                    
possible for the Jesse Lee Home  to be torn down and for any                                                                    
asbestos to be  dealt with properly as well as  to make sure                                                                    
left over  monies could be used  to offset the GF.  He liked                                                                    
the concept of using the unspent monies to offset the GF.                                                                       
4:49:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki commented that  there was an example                                                                    
of an appropriation associated with  the state neurology lab                                                                    
that was listed in the Version  G that was swept. It was not                                                                    
being swept  in Version Y and  he was unclear as  to why. He                                                                    
explained  that   the  construction   of  the   building  in                                                                    
Fairbanks was completed. There was  an appropriation of $875                                                                    
thousand  that remained.  He supported  the  concept of  the                                                                    
amendment but wondered if the  total amount allocated to the                                                                    
federal aid highway  match would be larger or the  same.  He                                                                    
noted that  the allocation  amount was  substantially higher                                                                    
in  Version  G  of  the  bill -  almost  double  the  amount                                                                    
allocated from unobligated GF balances.                                                                                         
Representative  Gattis summarized  that  the amendment  took                                                                    
money that the  state currently had that was  not being used                                                                    
and  would not  be  used. She  indicated  that the  Senate's                                                                    
version of the  capital budget had been  published for about                                                                    
a month prior.  She felt that there had been  plenty of time                                                                    
and  opportunity for  people to  raise  their concerns.  She                                                                    
thought putting  the money  towards infrastructure  or roads                                                                    
where the state received a  federal match was a huge benefit                                                                    
to  the  state. His  intent  was  not  to hurt  any  ongoing                                                                    
projects. She had  checked with DCCED to  confirm which jobs                                                                    
were completed.  She offered to work  with Legislative Legal                                                                    
Services  to return  to  Version G.  She  hoped the  members                                                                    
understood her intent.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Kawasaki                                                                             
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson                                                                      
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).                                                                                                        
Amendment 16 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                              
4:53:09 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:53:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that  Amendment 11 had been rolled                                                                    
to  the end  of the  agenda. He  clarified that  Version 29-                                                                    
GS2741\Y.3 was being addressed.                                                                                                 
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11 (Y.3).                                                                          
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                      
Representative Gara explained that  there was likely concern                                                                    
that, regarding  the issue of domestic  violence prevention,                                                                    
only  one  community would  benefit  from  a capital  budget                                                                    
item. The  general idea  on the capital  budget was  that no                                                                    
communities were  supposed to receive monies  for individual                                                                    
projects.  However, statewide  items  were being  addressed.                                                                    
Amendment  11  was different  from  the  last version  in  a                                                                    
number of ways.  The money would be used for  the Council on                                                                    
Domestic Violence  and Sexual  Assault (CDVSA).  The council                                                                    
granted  its  money out  to  grantees  based on  competitive                                                                    
grants. The funds  would be used for the  things deemed most                                                                    
important   by  CDVSA   including   compliance  checks   and                                                                    
addressing  over-crowded shelters.  Alaska  had  one of  the                                                                    
ugly first  or second  place rankings for  domestic violence                                                                    
each year.  However, the  state did  not have  the necessary                                                                    
space for  victims of domestic violence  and sexual assault.                                                                    
The funds  that were used  for shelters had shrunk  over the                                                                    
years.  The amendment  allowed CDVSA  more  latitude than  a                                                                    
previous amendment  as to how  the funds would be  used. The                                                                    
funds  would  be  administered  by  CDVSA  rather  than  the                                                                    
Municipality of Anchorage. He asserted  that for anyone that                                                                    
thought the state  was doing too much for  victims of sexual                                                                    
assault and  domestic violence he  disagreed. He  added that                                                                    
the amendment did not harm  the state's fiscal situation and                                                                    
asked for member support.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Thompson was confused about the pages.                                                                                 
4:57:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Neuman  referenced Line  11,  12,  and 13  on  the                                                                    
amendment. He  relayed that there were  several codes listed                                                                    
on Page  50, Line 12. He  referred to Version Y  of the bill                                                                    
pointing to Page  41, Section 24, Line 25.  He remarked that                                                                    
(a) reflected  the unexpended and unobligated  balance which                                                                    
included money for  the Department of Public  Safety for the                                                                    
P/V Wolstad for engine repower  and dry dock maintenance. He                                                                    
also  referred to  Section  24 (b)  which  he was  uncertain                                                                    
whether the  references to  the Anchorage  Police Department                                                                    
had anything to do with the other funds.                                                                                        
Representative Pruitt  wanted to  make certain  the previous                                                                    
speaker  was   better  informed.   He  clarified   that  the                                                                    
amendment added  a subsection that did  not currently exist.                                                                    
He commented that  it was similar to a  section removed from                                                                    
the bill in the previous day.                                                                                                   
Representative Kawasaki  clarified that in the  previous day                                                                    
the   committee    had   problems    with   some    of   the                                                                    
reappropriations to  specific districts. There  were several                                                                    
dealing  with  Anchor Point  and  the  Kenai area  in  House                                                                    
District  11.  One  of  the items  was  listed  under  House                                                                    
Districts  12-28, the  Anchorage Bowl  area. It  read almost                                                                    
exactly with  the exception  that the  money looked  like it                                                                    
went to  the Municipality  of Anchorage.  He had  a personal                                                                    
issue with it  because he agreed with the  idea that capital                                                                    
projects should  be limited to statewide  projects under the                                                                    
state's current  fiscal situation.  He changed his  mind and                                                                    
agreed  that it  was  a statewide  project. The  information                                                                    
received  from  CDVSA  and  the  Municipality  of  Anchorage                                                                    
confirmed that  people from around the  state would benefit.                                                                    
He  favored the  language in  the current  amendment, as  it                                                                    
clarified that  it was  a statewide  project. He  thought it                                                                    
was  better for  the  CVDSA to  receive  the money  directly                                                                    
rather  than the  Municipality  of  Anchorage receiving  the                                                                    
money  as  a  district-specific  grant.   He  supported  the                                                                    
amendment.  He  reported that  the  grant  was originally  3                                                                    
years in  length from 2017  -2019 as  noted in Version  F of                                                                    
the bill.  He wondered  if the  grant was  meant to  be over                                                                    
just 1 year  or 3 years as originally intended  by the House                                                                    
Finance Committee.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair Thompson  was curious about highway  safety traffic                                                                    
money,  as the  amendment referenced  Anchorage 42nd  Avenue                                                                    
traffic  and  safety improvements.  He  wondered  if it  was                                                                    
federal dollars the state was trying to reappropriate.                                                                          
Representative  Wilson thought  that  the appropriation  was                                                                    
automatically for  a 5-year  period because  of it  being in                                                                    
the capital  budget. She wondered  if the  appropriation had                                                                    
been put to  the test whether it was a  capital project. She                                                                    
did  not believe  it was  a capital  project, but  rather an                                                                    
operating  cost.  In  her   opinion  appropriations  in  the                                                                    
capital  budget should  past both  tests; being  a statewide                                                                    
project and  being a capital  project. She did not  feel the                                                                    
appropriation  belonged in  the current  bill. She  would be                                                                    
opposing the amendment.                                                                                                         
[5:03:46 PM]                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara stated that  the amendment used the same                                                                    
funds  as in  the previous  amendment. They  were not  funds                                                                    
associated with  federal matches but were  unused funds left                                                                    
over   from    completed   projects.   He    remarked   that                                                                    
traditionally one-time items had  been placed in the capital                                                                    
budget.  He asserted  that the  appropriation fell  into the                                                                    
category  of  a one-time  item.  He  relayed that  if  folks                                                                    
wanted to leave the language  that identified the end of the                                                                    
fiscal  year   ending  on  June   30,  2017  to   allow  the                                                                    
appropriation  to  last  5  years,  he  would  entertain  an                                                                    
amendment  to  the amendment.  He  asserted  that a  certain                                                                    
portion of  the funding would  be for a capital  project for                                                                    
sexual assault  victim services expanding shelter  space. He                                                                    
reported that the  Awake Shelter in Anchorage  had been over                                                                    
capacity  for several  years.  He thought  it  was true  for                                                                    
other  shelters across  the state.  He  reasserted that  the                                                                    
amendment  reflected one-time  funding and  would be  a wise                                                                    
use of money.  It would assist victims  of domestic violence                                                                    
and  sexual assault.  The difference  in  the amendment  was                                                                    
that  it was  written  clearly that  groups statewide  could                                                                    
apply for the  grants. He thought the  amendment was written                                                                    
much better given  the way the capital  budget was presently                                                                    
being handled.                                                                                                                  
Co-chair Thompson  expressed concerns about  taking Sections                                                                    
24(a)  and 24(b)  on Page  50  that were  capital items  and                                                                    
replacing  them with  a  new  section reflecting  operations                                                                    
Representative  Gara  requested  an  "at  ease"  to  make  a                                                                    
[5:05:58 PM]                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
[5:06:38 PM]                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  stated that on Page  50 the legislature                                                                    
was  saying that  the appropriation  would  lapse under  the                                                                    
rules of  AS.37.25.020. The project  was referenced  on Page                                                                    
50,  Lines 11-13  as a  project that  would lapse  under the                                                                    
Co-Chair Neuman  stated that  the information  was incorrect                                                                    
and it would not lapse.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki                                                                                            
OPPOSED:  Saddler, Wilson,  Edgmon,  Gattis, Munoz,  Pruitt,                                                                    
Thompson, Neuman                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).                                                                                                        
Amendment 11 FAILED to be adopted.                                                                                              
Co-Chair Thompson  indicated that the committee  was through                                                                    
all of the amendments.                                                                                                          
Representative Gara  wanted to  offer Amendment 15  which he                                                                    
had previously withdrawn.                                                                                                       
[5:08:39 PM]                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
[5:11:42 PM]                                                                                                                    
Co-chair  Thompson asked  for any  further  comments on  the                                                                    
bill as amended.                                                                                                                
Co-chair  Neuman moved  to report  HCSCSSB  138(FIN) out  of                                                                    
committee  with  individual  recommendations.  He  requested                                                                    
that  authorizations be  given  to  the Legislative  Finance                                                                    
Division  and   to  Legislative   Legal  Services   to  make                                                                    
necessary technical changes and conforming amendments.                                                                          
Representative   Wilson   objected   for   discussion.   She                                                                    
expressed her frustration  with the lack of time  to be able                                                                    
to  do due  diligence. She  supposed that  if more  time had                                                                    
been provided  legislators could  have better  explained the                                                                    
proposed  amendments.  She  was concerned  about  GF  monies                                                                    
being  utilized in  the  budget because  of  not having  the                                                                    
appropriate amount of time. She  reported having been in her                                                                    
office  every weekend,  early in  the morning,  and late  at                                                                    
night trying  to make sure  she was keeping up.  However, it                                                                    
was  difficult  to  keep  up  when  changes  were  presented                                                                    
without proper time to vet  them. In her opinion she thought                                                                    
that if  the legislature  did not get  the budget  right the                                                                    
state  would be  looking to  Alaskans to  fill the  gap. She                                                                    
would not  stop the bill  from going  to the floor.  She was                                                                    
unsure how  she would  vote on the  floor because  she would                                                                    
spend more  time reviewing the  bill first. She  opined that                                                                    
when things were done in  a rush legislators were not giving                                                                    
due  diligence to  the process.  She requested  that in  the                                                                    
future  there would  be more  time allotted  for review  and                                                                    
questions. She  continued to provide  examples of  items she                                                                    
did not have time to vet. She removed her objection.                                                                            
[5:16:55 PM]                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara OBJECTED.                                                                                                   
Representative  Gara  felt  that the  committee  could  have                                                                    
moved  much further  towards a  bi-partisan  budget and  did                                                                    
not.  Every single  amendment offered  by  the minority  was                                                                    
voted  down  including  one that  would  have  provided  $75                                                                    
thousand to help kids that  did not have parents. Several of                                                                    
the amendments  failed on the  grounds that  the legislature                                                                    
did not  incorporate operating items in  the capital budget.                                                                    
He  asked that  members be  honest. There  were a  number of                                                                    
one-time operating  budget items  in the capital  budget. It                                                                    
was a practice that had been  done regularly in the past. He                                                                    
did not want to have a  standard that was not applied to all                                                                    
legislators. He  did not feel  it was an  accurate standard.                                                                    
He  surmised that  the  problem with  the  session was  that                                                                    
there were caucus  riffs and they did not  get repaired when                                                                    
everything was voted down along  party lines. He stated that                                                                    
that was  what had happened  on every single budget  item in                                                                    
the current year in both  the capital and operating budgets.                                                                    
He watched  $18 million fly  out of the  room in one  of the                                                                    
amendments which  he had not  agreed with. He  thought there                                                                    
was spending  in the budget  that was unnecessary. It  was a                                                                    
small budget. He  relayed that he did not feel  a huge sense                                                                    
of cooperation on the budget. He  thought it was sad and one                                                                    
of the reasons why the legislature was still in session.                                                                        
Vice-chair Saddler began  to comment on an  issue brought up                                                                    
by another member.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair Thompson redirected Vice-Chair  Saddler to speak to                                                                    
the budget and to his objection.                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Saddler  remarked about  a term  he would  use in                                                                    
the future.                                                                                                                     
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                     
HCSCSSB 138 (FIN)  was REPORTED out of committee  with a "no                                                                    
recommendation" recommendation.                                                                                                 
Co-chair  Thompson reviewed  the  agenda  for the  following                                                                    
Co-chair  Thompson recessed  the meeting  to a  call of  the                                                                    
chair [note: the meeting never reconvened].                                                                                     
[5:19:17 PM]                                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects