Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/23/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB281 || HB282 | |
| Amendments |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making capital
appropriations and supplemental appropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
1:42:29 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Kevin McCabe in
the audience. The committee would consider a language
section amendment and subsequently move back to the numbers
section amendments.
^AMENDMENTS
1:42:52 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L15, 32-
GH2686\R.21 (Marx, 3/19/22)(copy on file):
Page 81, following line 14:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(e) The sum of $100,000,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Department of Education and Early
Development to be distributed as grants to school
districts according to the average daily membership
for each district adjusted under AS
14.17.410(b)(l)(A)-(D) for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2023.
(f) The sum of $150,000,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Department of Education and Early
Development to be distributed as grants to school
districts according to the average daily membership
for each district adjusted under AS
14.17.410(b)(l)(A)-(D) for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2024.
(g) The sum of $200,000,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Department of Education and Early
Development to be distributed as grants to school
districts according to the average daily membership
for each district adjusted under AS
14.17.410(b)(l)(A)-(D) for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2025.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 105, line 23:
Delete "secs. 19 and 23" in both places
Insert "secs. 19.23, and 29(c)-(g)" in both places
Page 105, line 31:
Delete "Section 23 of this Act takes"
Insert "Sections 23 and 29(e)-(g) of this Act take"
Representative Rasmussen OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
The amendment before you would provide Alaska schools
with the same resources as they received in Fiscal
Year (FY) 17 by fully offsetting the inflation rates
since the Base Student Allocation (BSA) was last
adjusted in FY 17 and providing the equivalent level
of funding for the next three fiscal years. This would
allow schools to demonstrate the results they can
achieve with stable funding. Our current BSA of $5,960
went into effect in FY 17. The equivalent amount in FY
23 after actual inflation and anticipated would be
$6,518. This would require an increment of $150
million.
Representative Josephson noted the inflation calculation
was based on the Alaska cost of living for completed
calendar years 2015 to 2021. He explained that subsection
(e) of the amendment provided $100,000,000 because
committee substitute (CS) Section 29(d) provided an
additional $50 million, which had been increased to $57
million [in a previous amendment]. He continued reading
from prepared remarks:
The Federal Reserve estimates the calendar year 2022
U.S. inflation rate would be 4.3 percent. So,
providing schools with the same financial resources as
2017 would require and increment of $222 million in FY
24. Subsection (f) of this amendment provides $150
million for FY 24 based on the assumption that BSA
legislation, similar to House Bill 272, will be
enacted providing an additional $72 million through a
fiscal note.
Callan and Associates forecasts 2.25 percent inflation
in Alaska in calendar year 2023. Subsection (g) of the
amendment provides $200 million for FY 25 based on the
Callan forecast and the enactment of House Bill 272.
We hear a lot of concern about our students not
delivering the student achievement we want. We need to
face the hard reality that we have allowed school
financial resources to decline 8 percent since FY 17.
School resources will drop another 4 percent next year
if we don't take action.
We seem to have the opinion that we have been holding
school funding level or even providing occasional one-
time bumps and we get frustrated that school
performance doesn't improve as a result of our
ostensible generosity. However, inflation is eating
away at school resources, in a way inflation doesn't
hit state government because with state government we
sign off and grace or bless union contracts, merit
increases, and the like, and we should do those
things. Those things come in naturally, sometimes
beyond our gaze through the executive branch's
adjusted base, which incorporates those employee wage
increases, while BSA flat funding doesn't enjoy that
sort of process; it must be more transparent and
obvious. Not that the prior process isn't transparent,
you just have to watch for it.
Representative Josephson explained that Amendment L15 was
intended to show what the legislature had to appropriate if
it wanted to provide stable funding at the FY 17 level. The
committee had heard testimony from the Gateway School
District, the Fairbanks School District, and the Anchorage
School District that the legislature had been pretending
that the districts could live their lives as if it was FY
17, which was not the case. He relayed it was the same
reason the committee had previously spent an hour talking
about bonuses. He stressed they had been chronically
underfunding important state services.
Representative Josephson hoped the committee would hear
Representative Andi Story's bill, HB 271 again. He believed
the committee needed to consider whether the bill's
increase of $57 million in the coming year and $71 million
in two years was adequate. He stated that school officials
had said the numbers were inadequate. He reiterated that
the funding offered by the current amendment would bring
funding to FY 17 levels. He stated that Representative
Story had done a great job, but he believed the amounts
needed supplanting.
1:49:42 PM
Representative Rasmussen had attended public school in
Anchorage her entire life. Her children would attend school
there as well. She wanted her children and their peers to
have an opportunity at the best education Alaska could
provide. She remarked that the state was not currently
meeting that goal and she did not know that increasing
funding was the only step that needed to be taken. She
referenced a current bill aimed at looking at the state's
retirement system. She thought there was a possibility of
revising the retirement system to improve retention rates.
She stated that the highest levels of retention were
paralleled with the highest level of proficient readers by
third grade.
Representative Rasmussen spoke to the need to have much
more conversation about the results legislators were
looking for associated with the funding. She had heard from
many of her constituents that they were not happy with what
was being produced with public funding being appropriated
and expended at present. She highlighted the need to ensure
there were good programs in place to properly develop the
workforce. Additionally, retaining teachers to ensure kids
had consistency was very important. She believed the
legislature needed to give some time for different steps to
be implemented to determine whether something had worked
before throwing everything at a problem they may not see
fixed. She appreciated the intention of the amendment and
looked forward to continued conversation but would not
currently support the increment.
Representative Josephson remarked that he planned to
withdraw the amendment.
1:52:16 PM
Representative Thompson was not in favor of the amendment.
He stated it was hundreds of millions of dollars and he
believed there needed to be some results-based reasoning
behind it. He referenced a report from the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) that included
information provided by all of the school districts. He
elaborated that the report showed there was still
$602,793,319 million in COVID relief funding remaining that
went to school districts. He thought it was premature to
add hundreds of millions of dollars more.
Representative Edgmon did not disagree with the comments
that had been made thus far, nor did he disagree with the
maker of the amendment. He represented small schools and
highlighted the doubling of diesel and electricity costs in
the past year. He remarked that the cost would be very
difficult for many schools to absorb. He had been told that
the COVID relief funding was tightly restricted and there
were not many ways it could be used for ordinary
operational needs. He remarked that the story about school
funding was complicated and layered. He detailed that on
the one side it was about getting adequate resources and on
the other it was about achievement and performance. He
reiterated that fuel costs had doubled, and enrollment had
been down. He referenced unanticipated expenses due to the
pandemic. He hoped to have the conversation through HB 272
or HB 273 or other. He highlighted that rural schools were
going to have a challenging time making ends meet. He
pointed out it was not tied to performance, but to global
markets. He expounded that when the spring ice melted it
was possible to bring barges up into communities to take
advantage of economies of scale. He noted it was not always
the case. For example, it was not possible to get a barge
up the Nushagak River much of the time. He stated that the
prospect of flying in fuel may be a reality later on. He
was concerned and weary about the issue.
1:56:08 PM
Representative Wool did not think the amendment merely
threw money at a problem to wait and see what happened. He
highlighted that the amendment covered for the lack of
adjusting for inflation for many years. He reasoned that in
a way it was flat funding when accounting for inflation. He
remarked that many of the schools on the road system had
previously had good results. He pointed out that testing
had changed, and he did not believe a deep analysis had
been done on why the scores were different. He shared an
analogy used recently by one of his school board members.
The board member had explained that when only one lane of a
damaged bridge could be used for a lengthy period of time,
no one had suggested not fixing the bridge. He thought the
idea of not putting money into something that was not
performing at its maximum was ridiculous. He stated that
the increment covered for inflation and was not additional
unnecessary funding. He added that teachers and programs
were getting cut in his district. The schools needed help
and it was the legislature's responsibility.
Representative Josephson stated that he had supported an
amendment to pay over $530 million in oil tax credits the
previous day. He highlighted that one committee member had
talked about the necessity for proven results. He knew
there would be mixed results from an analysis of what the
state got from the $530 million. He elaborated that some of
it would be great, and some would be indifferent at best.
He emphasized that eight-year-olds were only eight one
time; children could not wait for the legislature to debate
the issue. He believed the COVID relief funding was punting
and delay. He WITHDREW Amendment L15 with reservations. He
looked forward to hearing HB 271 and HB 272.
1:59:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee would hear
Representative Thompson's language section amendment on
bonuses later. He relayed that Legislative Legal was
working on contingency language.
1:59:38 PM
AT EASE
2:02:49 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster explained that he would roll down
Amendments H DEC 1, H DEC 3, and a similar third DEC
amendment.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DEC 2
(copy on file):
H DEC 2
Department of Environmental Conservation
Dairy Program
Replace statutory designated program receipts with
general funds for the dairy program.
1004 General Fund (UGF) $15,000
1108 Statutory Designated Program Receipts (Other)
-$15,000
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson relayed that he was carrying the
amendment for a fellow legislator. The amendment would
replace the dairy inspection receipts funding with
undesignated general funds (UGF). He read from a prepared
statement:
In 2020, the legislature authorized $15,000 in
statutory designated program receipts authority with
intent language directed to the department to charge
the fees to recover some of the costs of the program.
As stated, "It is the intent of the legislature that
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
continue to inspect and test Alaska dairies as well as
implement a fee schedule to help pay for these
functions."
After meeting with industry, the department
implemented a scale fee structure starting in 2020
with annual fee increases over a three to five-year
period until $15,000 is collected annually. Since that
decision, the Havemeister Dairy ceased to operate. The
dairy in Delta just went into business this past year
making the total of dairies in Alaska to now be two.
The department collected $1,500 in 2020 and $4,000 in
2021. The department is still evaluating invoice
amounts for 2022 and 2023 and anticipates receiving
between $5,000 and $10,000 in 2022 per an email sent
to Representative Rauscher last Friday.
This governor is about food safety, the legislature is
working towards Alaska food security. The Food
Security Taskforce, the Farm Bureau, and this year's
agricultural legislation, which is being worked on by
both bodies is working towards security. The profit
margin of new businesses, let alone dairies, is very
small. The farm in Delta area was declared part of the
disaster declaration and the local IGA store roof
collapsed so milk can't be sold there this year. Until
they get on their feet a few years, we need to provide
for their inspections, or we eat their profits for the
year and the other two will possibly fold in the
process.
Representative Thompson requested the use of $15,000 UGF to
try to keep the state's only dairies open.
Co-Chair Foster supported the amendment and believed it was
reasonable.
Representative Rasmussen shared that studies had shown that
one of the most important organic foods to provide kids was
organic milk. She wondered if the milk from the Alaska
dairies was organic. She reasoned that ultimately it did
not matter because the dairies served a need in Alaska. She
thought it would be great to see the programs expand as new
potential renewable industry that could provide food
security in Alaska. She hoped to keep both dairies going
and hoped the dairies had the profits needed to continue to
grow. She highlighted that the state only had a three-day
food supply. She supported the amendment.
Representative Wool supported the amendment. He shared that
his family bought Delta milk in Fairbanks at the natural
foods store. He was fairly confident it was healthy and
organic.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DEC 2 was
ADOPTED.
2:09:44 PM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment DFCS A
(copy on file):
Department: Family and Community Services
Delete Conditional Language: At the discretion of the
Commissioner of the Department of Family and Community
Services, up to $10,000,000 may be transferred between
all appropriations in the Department of Family and
Community Services and the Department shall submit a
report of transfers between appropriations that
occurred during the fiscal year ending June 20, 2023,
to the Legislative Finance Division by September 30,
2023.
Department: Health
Delete all conditional language: At the discretion of
the Commissioner of the Department Health, up to
$10,000,000 may be transferred between all
appropriations in the Department Health, except that
no transfer may be made from the Medicaid Services
appropriation, and the Department shall submit a
report of transfers between appropriations that
occurred during the fiscal year ending June 20, 2023,
to the Legislative Finance Division by September 30,
2023.
Explanation: Remove cross-appropriation transfer
authority for more transparent budgeting.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Thompson explained that the amendment would
delete conditional language that would allow the Department
of Health and the Department of Family and Community
Services to transfer up to $10 million between all
appropriations within both departments. He relayed the
practice had been ongoing since at least 2014 within the
Department of Health and Social Services and was now being
considered for the two new departments. He elaborated that
deleting the appropriations would make for more transparent
budgeting. He wondered when other departments would request
the same courtesy if the practice was continued for the
Department of Health and the Department of Family and
Community Services. He believed it was time to review the
practice and determine whether the authority was still
appropriate.
2:10:52 PM
Representative Josephson agreed with the administration on
the topic. He reviewed a letter explaining the department's
position. In recent years the department has had $20
million of discretionary monies to move as it saw fit up
and down between appropriations.
Representative Josephson believed the committee had behaved
conservatively and used discretion to split the amount into
the anticipated new departments. He stated that the
language permitting $20 million cross appropriation
transfer had been included in the budget. After the
governor's executive order, the governor requested $20
million for each of the two departments. The subcommittee
also added language requiring a report to the legislature
showing how it used any transfers. He stated that $10
million sounded like a lot of money, but it was relatively
small in the context of the DHSS total budget of $3.5
billion including federal funds. He reasoned if there was
ever a year to allow the transfer it would be FY 23 because
the department was being divided and there may be
unanticipated effects on the cost distribution among
divisions, which the department could solve with transfers
instead of delaying services to Alaskans.
Representative Josephson continued to review information
from a letter written by the administration. The Department
of Health and the Department of Community and Family
Services did not know from year-to-year exactly who would
need benefits or what programs may be needed by Alaskans.
For nearly all services, the departments were obligated to
provide services to all those seeking them; it made it
challenging to know what the final budget need would be
until the end of the fiscal year. Demand for the programs
changed from year-to-year and could be very unpredictable.
He provided three examples. First, if the standalone senior
benefits appropriation was short on funds, the language
would help to ensure payments went out to seniors in a
timely manner. Second, if Juvenile Justice had a youth come
into custody with serious medical issues that could cost
tens of thousands of dollars and would not be covered by
Medicaid (because the youth was in custody), the state
could seek help for the juvenile through a transfer of
funds. Third, the Office of Children's Services had needed
federal authority in the past to ensure foster care
payments were able to be sent to foster families at the end
of the fiscal year. He explained the transfer would be
helpful in all three scenarios.
Representative Josephson continued to review a letter
explaining the department's position on the matter. The
department had been prudent and restrained in the use of
the authority, while the full $20 million was used in FY
21, the amount transferred in FY 19 and FY 20 was well
below the limit. The legislature had visibility into the
transfers due to the required report from the Legislative
Finance Division. Additionally, in many cases the transfer
had addressed an ongoing need that extended into subsequent
fiscal years and thus was addressed for the longer term
session. The transfer authority had not been limited to
just moving general funds over the years; the department
had also used it to move statutory designated program
receipts, interagency receipts, and federal authority to
appropriations that were short and needed authority. Given
the added uncertainty in FY 23 as the departments navigate
their first year after their split, the ability to use the
tool to manage their budgets may prove very useful. He
opposed the amendment.
2:14:15 PM
Representative LeBon requested to hear from Legislative
Finance Division on how the transfer authority had played
out over the past couple of years.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that the authority had first been granted to DHSS
in FY 14 beginning at $50 million. The authority had
subsequently been reduced to $25 million and $20 million in
the past several years. The funds had been used for
unanticipated needs during the fiscal year.
Representative LeBon asked how frequently the funding was
used and how much money was used within the allocation. He
asked if the need was big, modest, or little.
Ms. Cunningham answered that it varied. She detailed that
in FY 14, the largest transfer had been $2.5 million
general funds for Medicaid and the other transfers had been
very minor. In FY 15, the largest transfer was $1.5 million
from the Division of Public Assistance to the Division of
Juvenile Justice. She stated there had been a bit more in
FY 18, and in FY 19 the department transferred a minimal
amount of federal funds and no UGF. In FY 20, there had
been some issues at the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API)
and $8.3 million had been transferred to API. She stated
the need varied across fiscal years and the department did
not always use all of the transfer authority.
Representative LeBon asked if any other department or
agency had the same flexibility in its budget.
Ms. Cunningham believed the answer was no.
Representative Edgmon pointed out that there was no other
agency like DHSS. He stated that services were largely
based on demand that could not be predicted from year-to-
year. He elaborated that DHSS had a $2.4 billion budget
with $700 million in Medicaid. He stated that the Division
of Public Assistance was larger than other entire
departments. He recalled the words of DHSS Commissioner
Adam Crum that it was "an entirely different aircraft
carrier." He argued differently than the previous speaker
and thought the flexibility was needed for both of the
agencies. He understood the argument from a fiscal
standpoint, but the two departments were not the same as
the other agencies.
2:18:48 PM
Representative Wool stressed that the agency was going
through a major cataclysmic shift by being broken into two
departments. He underscored that no one knew what it would
look like including the departments and the legislature. He
emphasized that DHSS had the largest budget of all the
departments. He thought it would be like breaking up the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and trying to figure
out where the money would be down to the last nickel. He
did not want to tie the hands of the agencies.
Representative Carpenter agreed DHSS was a large department
that had been broken into two smaller departments, but he
believed it increased the need for fiscal discipline. He
highlighted the scenario where the legislature appropriated
dollars for particular reasons for all other departments
and then gave flexibility to the two largest departments to
move up to $10 million around as the departments saw fit.
He understood the flexibility, but he thought it was giving
away some of the legislature's responsibility to direct how
the money was supposed to be spent. He elaborated that if
the administration did not find the way the legislature had
directed money to be spent to be conducive to operations,
it was necessary to have a conversation about appropriating
in a different manner.
Representative Carpenter did not support giving the
departments carte blanche flexibility because it ceded the
legislature's authority to the executive branch. He added
that the practice was not afforded to any other department,
and he believed there were likely good reasons for why
other departments would like the additional flexibility. He
stated that if there were two departments needing
additional legislative scrutiny, the Department of Health
and the Department of Family and Community Services would
be at the top of his list. He would prefer to err on the
side of caution and retain the legislature's responsibility
to manage how the money was being spent rather than giving
the flexibility to the administration. He stated it was not
that the problem could not be solved, it merely required
communication. He wanted to err on the side of fiscal
discipline, not flexibility.
2:22:30 PM
Representative Rasmussen stated she would likely support
the amendment if it was not a year when a department was
undergoing a major transition into two departments. She
noted that the number of days left in session were
shrinking and she wanted to see the split from one
department into two to go smoothly. She thought the
departments would need the flexibility in the current year.
She would trust Commissioner Crum's leadership in making
the request. She opposed the amendment.
Representative Thompson provided wrap up on Amendment DFCS
A. He explained the concern that other departments may
request the same courtesy in the future. The amendment was
a total of $20 million, broken into $10 million for each of
the new departments. He wanted to ensure the budgeting was
transparent.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Johnson, Thompson, LeBon
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Wool,
Merrick, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment DFCS A FAILED (4/7).
2:24:58 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment DFCS B (copy
on file):
Department: Department of Family and Community
Services
Appropriation: Children's Services
Allocation: Front Line Social Workers
Delete: ($912.0) [$292.0 Fed 1002, $620.0 UGF 1004],
Personal Services, and (4) Temporary Positions
Add: Inc/T (FY23-FY25) $912.0 [$292.0 Fed 1002, $620.0
UGF 1004], Personal Services, and 4 Temporary
Positions
Explanation: This Amendment changes the proposed
Increment for Front Line Social Workers Frontline
Supervision to a Temporary Increment, authorized from
FY23 through FY25. The change maintains the 4
temporary positions for long-term non-permanent
Protective Services Specialist IV positions but
ensures that the funding is time limited.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment that changed
the proposed increment for frontline social workers from
frontline supervision to a temporary increment authorized
from FY 23 through FY 25. He read from the amendment
explanation above.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the increments were to be paid in
the form of financial compensation to workers.
Alternatively, he wondered whether the funding was to
expand the number of workers. He asked if the amendment
intended to eliminate the pay supplements in the future or
to eliminate positions in the future.
Representative LeBon requested to hear from Ms. Cunningham.
2:26:51 PM
Ms. Cunningham asked Vice-Chair Ortiz to repeat the
question.
Vice-Chair Ortiz complied.
Ms. Cunningham replied that the increment was requested by
the governor and adopted by the subcommittee for four new
long-term nonpermanent positions. The amendment would
change the funding from a base increment to a three-year
temporary increment. She explained that the positions would
be in place for three years and the legislature could
evaluate whether to put them in the base permanently after
that time. She clarified that the amendment did not take
away money, it just changed how the current increment
looked.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that if the
amendment were adopted, a future legislature would have to
decide to extend the four positions longer-term or they
would automatically go away.
Ms. Cunningham agreed.
2:28:55 PM
Representative Josephson shared that as chair of the
subcommittee he had come to respect the officials working
in the department and their hard work. He relayed that the
previous year the governor had not been on board with the
subcommittee's proposals related to OCS. However, he
believed the governor now understood there was a crisis. He
highlighted that the department had communicated there was
a 60 percent agency turnover. He stressed that social
workers were leaving the agency after six months of
employment because the work was so difficult. He pointed
out that a psychologist was hired to counsel employees due
to the challenge of the work. He had never heard of the
situation in any other state job. He stated the funding
meant to be paired with the bonuses proposed by the
governor. He elaborated that the funding was designed as a
recognition that the agency was trying to draw experienced
individuals out of retirement who could tolerate more
because people had passion for kids. He supported leaving
the funding as a base budget item.
Representative Wool agreed with the previous speaker. He
had never heard from the department that it had too many
social workers or that social workers did not have enough
cases. He stated that OCS had serious issues related to
finding frontline social workers. He elaborated that
everyone was overworked. He remarked that the state needed
more social workers, Village Public Safety Officers, and on
and on. He did not support the amendment.
Representative Carpenter supported the amendment. He
thought it was important to keep in mind that the request
had been for four temporary positions. He stated it would
be inappropriate to permanently fund temporary positions.
He explained that the amendment made the funding a one-time
increment to temporarily fund temporary positions, which he
believed was prudent.
2:31:51 PM
Representative LeBon provided wrap up on the amendment. He
pointed out that the Alaska Bankers Association was
recently in town and was in desperate need of more bankers.
He remarked that the association was looking for more
bankers, but it was the association's problem to solve. He
stated that if the department wanted full-time permanent
positions the legislature would hear about it the following
year.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Wool, Merrick, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment DFCS B FAILED (5/6).
2:33:36 PM
AT EASE
2:51:38 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment DOH A
(copy on file):
Department: Health
Appropriation: Departmental Support Services
Allocation: Public Affairs
Add: $131.7 I/A (1007) and 1 PFT, Personal Services
Allocation: Administrative Support Services
Add: $202.9 I/A (1007) and 2 PFTs, Personal Services
Allocation: Administrative Support Services
Add: $202.9 I/A (1007) for chargeback model, Personal
Services
Allocation: Information Technology Services
Add: $399.1 I/A (1007), $1.2 CIP Receipts (1061), 2
PFTs and 3 Temp Positions Personal, Services
Department: Family and Community Services
Appropriation: Departmental Support Services
Allocation: Informational Technology Services
Add: $399.1 I/A (1007), 2 PFTs and 3 Temp Positions
Personal, Services
Allocation: Commissioner's Office
Add: $245.3 Fed (1002), $367.9 GF Match (1003) and 3
PFTs, Personal Services
Allocation: Administrative Services
Add: $68.6 Fed (1002), $66.4 GF Match (1003), and $55
I/A (1007), Personal Services
Allocation: Administrative Services
Add: $156.3 Fed (1002) and $234.4 GF Match (1003),
Personal Services
Funding to support new Dept. Tech Officer in DOA and
new Admin Services Director in OMB
Department: Administration
Appropriation: Office of Information Technology
Allocation: Alaska Division of Information Technology
Add: $186.6 Info Services (1081) and 1 PFT, Personal
Services
Department: Governor
Appropriation: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Allocation: OMB Administrative Services Directors
Add: $204.1 Inter-agency Receipts (1007) and 1 PFT
Various Line Items
Explanation: This amendment funds items associated
with the split of the Department of Health and Social
Services (EO 121) into two new departments. These
items were previously denied.
Representative LeBon OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He shared
there had been a hearing on the topic several weeks back
and there were a multitude of documents provided on the
subject of breaking up the department into two. He relayed
there was a memo from Legislative Legal Services indicating
real concern because the legislature wrote laws and the
executive branch, other than some rule making, did not. He
encouraged his colleagues that if there was issue in the
power structure of the new executive order (EO) that the
legislature could do something about it in the spring or in
the coming year. He read from prepared remarks:
I would submit that Alaskans who depend on health and
social services would be harmed if the departments do
not have resources to implement the split smoothly or,
the new department in particular, has to cannibalize
line divisions to generate funds for the new
commissioner for IT support and other resources in the
amendment. The subcommittee removed this money because
it was premature, not because it was excessive.
Representative Josephson thought it was appropriate to
restore the funding now that the executive order had been
implemented.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that the amendment
would restore funding removed at the subcommittee level.
Representative Josephson agreed.
Representative LeBon asked for the verification that the
total funding and positions that were removed had now been
separated equally between the two new departments.
Representative Josephson agreed and explained that the
department had a hand in preparing the amendment to ensure
its needs were met.
2:55:57 PM
Representative Wool stated his understanding that the
detail in the amendment had been included in the original
budget and removed in subcommittee. He believed
Representative Josephson had not supported its removal in
subcommittee.
Representative Josephson replied, "In a sense, no." He
noted the statement by Representative Wool was partly
correct. He explained that he had voted against the removal
of the monies from the potential departments. He
reconsidered his prior statement and agreed that
Representative Wool was correct.
Representative Johnson if Amendments DOH A and DOH B were
identical.
Representative Carpenter confirmed that Amendment DOH A and
DOH B were identical. He shared there had been a discussion
a while back that the governor's executive order split the
department and the legislature had an opportunity to agree
or disagree and it had not found agreement to stop the
executive order from splitting the two departments. He
considered that perhaps the action taken in subcommittee
was a reflection of those who believed the legislature
should have stopped the executive order. He noted he was
not part of the subcommittee and did not know the arguments
for removing the positions. He noted there had been a
comment earlier by Representative Edgmon that he believed
the train had left the station and there was not much the
legislature could do to stop it. He believed that not only
had the train left the station, but the legislature had
kicked the conductor and staff off the train. He stated
that the amendment would put the conductor and staff back
on the train. He hoped it would set the departments up for
success.
2:58:38 PM
Representative LeBon WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment DOH A was
ADOPTED.
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW Amendment DOH B (copy on
file).
2:59:23 PM
AT EASE
3:00:32 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOH 1
(copy on file):
DOH 1
Department of Health
Departmental Support Services
Remove allocations for the study to develop evidence
based recommendations for DHSS Reorganization
This allocation was proposed in the House Health and
Social Services finance sub-committee for the study of
the bifurcation of Health and Social Services. The
Governor's Emergency Order (EO) 121 was not blocked or
st
disapproved and will take effect on July 1, 2022.
Because of the impending implementation of the
bifurcation, these funds are no longer needed.
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) $500,000
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained that the amendment would
remove $500,000 from the committee substitute. The
allocation had been proposed by the subcommittee to conduct
a study on the split of DHSS. He explained that because the
split would take place, there was no need for the study.
Representative Josephson would not oppose the amendment. He
spoke to his concern about the executive order. He
explained that he had seen slippage in the legislature's
authority during the current administration as evidenced in
the RPL [revised program legislative] process and to some
degree in the confirmation process, although he believed
the governor had won the latter issue. He believed that if
legislators did not like the way the department was
severed, the legislature should correct it. He stated that
the study was no longer needed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, H DOH 1 was ADOPTED.
3:02:25 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment DOH C
(copy on file):
Department: Department of Health
Appropriation: Medicaid Services
Allocation: Medicaid Services
Add: $8,181,000 UGF (1004)
Add Intent Language:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department provide supplemental payments equaling 15%
of the standard Medicaid reimbursements or services of
personal care assistants providing services under
Medicaid, Medicaid waivers and the 1915(k) state plan
option between July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023.
Supplemental payments will only be available to
providers that demonstrate to the department that they
are using the supplemental payments to increase
personal care assistant wages.
Explanation: These supplemental payments will improve
workforce recruitment and retention in this essential
sector of our healthcare system. The intent of this
amendment may be achieved through a state plan
amendment to the 1915 waiver program appendix K.
Representative LeBon OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment would be
an $8 million increase to home help providers who keep cost
down by providing home assistance. He elaborated that much
like Representative Zach Fields had spoken about the
failure of the daycare industry, there had been a collapse
in "this industry" as well. The amendment was designed to
supplement the Medicaid reimbursement rate for personal
care assistants. He read from a statement:
The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly exacerbated many
labor crises, especially in healthcare. Personal care
assistants are providers who serve our state's most
vulnerable populations. They work in assisted living
homes and other congregate settings, but as many of us
know, they're most often serving elderly in their
individual homes. The work is time consuming,
necessary, and hard. It can involve lifting and moving
an elderly patient to help them bathe, dress, take
care of their medical needs, chores around their home,
and help them maintain a decent quality of life and
activities of daily living that help these elderly
Alaskans remain independent. Again, when they are
independent, we're driving costs down.
Experts in this field have told me the workforce
population has declined as its wage has declined by 7
percent. Current median wages are $16.66, but that's
not what it once was. Many workers point to the long
hours, commutes, physical labor, and low wages that
lead to consistent attrition. The State of Alaska has
several home and community based waiver programs that
reimburse these providers as businesses and workers.
These programs are effective ways to reduce the cost
to the state by preventing these elderly Alaskans,
often on Medicaid, from entering nursing home or
congregate care settings. That care, as I know with my
own mother's care in New Hampshire, can often approach
$30,000 a month.
Data also supports that those who live independently
are healthier and have a longer lifespan. Moreover,
the State of Alaska has a chronic shortage of nursing
home beds, and that result is that helping our
independent elders stay in their own communities and
homes is a financial and moral imperative for our
state. By supporting this workforce through a 15
percent supplemental payment, the state can help
workforce recruitment and retention in a sector where
providers are struggling to attract and retain
workers.
Alaska has the fastest growing senior population.
Alaskans aged 60 and over increased by 56 percent in
the last 12 years roughly. Alaska will experience one
of the highest increases of people aged 65 and older
with Alzheimer's; it's believed sadly that that will
go up 29 percent over the next five years. There are
about 6,000 providers of personal care service in the
state and there's a prediction from the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development that demand for this
occupation will increase by 21 percent between 2016
and 2026.
Representative Josephson relayed the department was
available to explain how the funding could be utilized and
implemented.
3:06:37 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked if there had been an attempt to add
the money in the subcommittee.
Representative Josephson replied there was a standalone
bill, possibly HB 292. He stated there had been discussion
about the topic, but the mechanics had required more time.
Representative Wool calculated that if there were 6,000
recipients the $8 million would equal about $1,300 per
recipient and about $100 per month. He asked how the money
would be distributed. He asked if the money would go
through providers.
Representative Josephson confirmed the money would go to
providers. It was his understanding the method could work
through a temporary waiver until statute could be passed.
It would require Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) approval and the state could receive a temporary rate
increase.
3:08:31 PM
Representative Carpenter asked which providers would
qualify for the money.
Representative Josephson answered they would have to be
qualified providers currently receiving Medicaid payments.
Representative Carpenter asked for verification the
amendment pertained to providers providing home assistance
for people receiving Medicaid services in lieu of going to
a nursing home or other facility.
Representative Josephson agreed.
Representative Carpenter declared a conflict of interest.
He believed the concept of home healthcare was important;
however, he had family that would be directly related to
the amendment. He mentioned the conflict of interest out of
an abundance of caution.
Co-Chair Foster noted that it was good to disclose the
information in committee, but he believed the rule applied
more on the House floor. He thanked Representative
Carpenter for disclosing the information.
3:10:01 PM
Representative LeBon WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Rasmussen asked if the amendment only
applied to an increase in wages and not operating costs.
She had heard from a constituent with a child with cerebral
palsy and another with autism who was a personal care
assistant working two jobs. She shared that the woman's
wages were not sufficient as a single mother to support her
family. She supported the amendment if it was going out in
the form of wages to personal care workers. She wanted to
ensure there were not other uses allowed in the
appropriation.
Representative Josephson answered it was his understanding
the funding was for home care providers. He had been told
there was a similar successful program in Montana and
Washington was implementing a program.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOC C was
ADOPTED.
3:11:47 PM
Representative Johnson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOL 1
(copy on file):
H DOL 1
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Labor Standards and Safety
Delete full-time wage and hour investigator position.
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -$100,000
Representative Wool OBJECTED.
Representative Johnson explained the amendment. She relayed
that the position had been added by the subcommittee and
had not been requested by the department. She stated it
left a number of questions such as who the boss would be,
where the person would work, and why the position was
needed. She noted that OMB Director Neil Steininger was
available for questions.
Representative LeBon stated his understanding that the
position was currently vacant.
Representative Johnson stated it was her understanding the
new position had been created by the subcommittee.
Representative Wool shared that he chaired the
subcommittee; he and other members had been instrumental in
adding the position. He explained that wage and hour
positions had been cut over the years. The subcommittee
felt that with the influx of federal infrastructure dollars
and construction projects and the increase in the state's
capital budget that there would be more job sites and
construction areas increasing the need for wage and hour
inspectors. The subcommittee felt adding another inspector
was prudent.
3:13:58 PM
Representative LeBon asked how many positions the agency
currently had and if they were all filled. He asked if the
agency had requested additional help. He wondered if the
subcommittee was anticipating that the department would
need more help.
Representative Wool answered the subcommittee had
anticipated the division would need additional help. He
elaborated that one of the subcommittee members had more
intimate knowledge of the wage and hour division. He noted
there had been positions cut. He relayed that the
administration did not request the position. He did not
know how many wage and hour positions there were. He
estimated the current number at four or five for the entire
state. He stated the number was insufficient for all of the
jobs going on.
3:15:38 PM
Representative Thompson remarked that the positions had to
travel to investigate. He asked if there would be a travel
cost.
Representative Wool confirmed that the positions did travel
to conduct inspections and ensure people were getting paid
properly and jobs were being described properly. He did not
know detail about the transportation aspect.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated his understanding that wage and
hour investigators were primarily in place to protect
workers throughout the state and ensure people were being
fairly compensated. He asked if investigators dealt with
safety issues.
Representative Wool answered that wage and hour positions
made sure jobs were classified correctly, that individuals
were being paid for the job they were doing, and laws were
followed around each position.
3:17:26 PM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, replied that he did not have a
complete answer to the question. He reported that the wage
and hour administration section had 19 positions, 13 of
which were in the investigator class. He relayed there were
also four wage and hour technicians.
Representative Wool thought the subcommittee had added one
position to make the number five.
3:18:30 PM
AT EASE
3:20:02 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wool MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter,
Merrick
OPPOSED: Josephson, Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H DOL 1 was ADOPTED.
3:21:13 PM
Representative Johnson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LAW 1
(copy on file):
H LAW 1
Department of Law
Civil Division
Remove Funding to support recruiting efforts.
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -$100,000
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Johnson thought it may be more appropriate
to deal with the amendment later as it pertained to bonuses
within the Department of Law.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee could hold the
amendment to hear it later.
Representative Johnson WITHDREW her motion at the time. She
wanted to hold off on the amendment until the committee
dealt with an issue pertaining to bonuses. She would
perhaps offer the amendment later in the meeting.
3:22:25 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 1 (copy
on file):
H MVA 1
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
Restore Funding for Civil Air Patrol
In FY20, FY21, and FY22, the legislature funded the
Civil Air Patrol at $250.0 UGF, which was a reduction
from $453.5 in FY18. The Governor vetoed all FY20,
FY21, and FY22 funding. This amendment would restore
the Legislature's support for the Civil Air Patrol.
The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a nonprofit, volunteer
organization and the official auxiliary of the United
States Air Force whose primary purpose is search and
rescue operations.
When conducting search and rescue as an asset of the
Air Force or other federal agencies, the costs for the
CAP missions are paid by those agencies.
The state appropriation will pay for utilities and
insurance at facilities where CAP aircraft are stored
and fuel for nonemergency operations such as
proficiency flights for pilots and crew.
The Civil Air Patrol locates emergency beacons and
assists in dozens of search and rescue missions in
Alaska each year, CAP aircrews from the Alaska Wing
provided aerial support and transport platforms to the
U.S. Coast Guard during the Covid pandemic.
The relatively small amount of state funding provided
through this amendment will support a significant
volunteer contribution to the safety of Alaskans.
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) $250,000
Representative Rasmussen OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon thanked the other committee members
who had signed on to the amendment [Representatives
Thompson, Johnson, Rasmussen, and Josephson]. He hoped the
fourth time was the charm to support the Civil Air Patrol.
He explained that the amendment would add $250,000 to the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) in
support of the Civil Air Patrol. He asked for members'
support.
Representative Thompson thought the Civil Air Patrol had
been moved from DMVA to the Department of Public Safety
under the Alaska State Troopers.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from Mr. Painter or Mr.
Steininger.
Mr. Painter asked Representative Thompson to repeat the
question.
Representative Thompson complied.
Mr. Painter believed there had been a proposal to move the
Civil Air Patrol, but it had been vetoed; therefore, it had
never been funded in the other department.
3:25:07 PM
Representative Josephson highlighted that the item had
bipartisan support, but it had been vetoed by the governor
multiple times. He did not understand why. He stated
people's lives could be saved by the Civil Air Patrol. He
stated that the cost was inexpensive, and the service was
needed. He thanked Representative LeBon for offering the
amendment.
Representative Carpenter stated that the Civil Air Patrol
had been a volunteer organization. He relayed that as an
auxiliary of the Air Force, if the Civil Air Patrol was
called into service, the Air Force helped provide funding
during the missions. He relied on the state's aviation, and
he saw the value, but it was a volunteer service pilots
provided. He thought it should remain a volunteer
organization. He believed it may explain the policy call
made by the administration to help maintain the Civil Air
Patrol as a volunteer organization. He opposed the
amendment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz believed the amendment would provide
$250,000 to support the operations of the Civil Air Patrol.
He believed the organization would remain a volunteer
organization and the funding would be used for things like
fuel. He did not think they could necessarily make the
equation that providing the $250,000 would somehow forego
the voluntary nature of the organization.
Representative LeBon answered that the money would be
spread among 11 Civil Air Patrol auxiliary units across the
state. The unit in Fairbanks used the money to keep their
facility lit and heated with an aircraft or two in the
hangar and ready to take off when called.
Co-Chair Foster added his support for the funding. He
believed more volunteer organizations like the Civil Air
Patrol were needed. He believed any support the legislature
could provide to the organization was positive.
3:29:08 PM
Representative Edgmon stated he was on the cusp of asking
for the question to be called. He remarked there were
numerous amendments to get through. He saw broad support
around the table for Amendment H MVA 1.
Representative Johnson stated that it was not a bad idea to
give some gas to people who were going to fly around to
look for someone. She explained that it did not constitute
subsidizing an organization; it provided for costs. She
stated that the legislature could not come close to
subsidizing an organization like the Civil Air Patrol.
Co-Chair Foster agreed with comments made by Representative
Edgmon. He elaborated that in years past finance committees
had done things a little differently. There had been more
latitude given in the current committee by allowing
agencies, OMB, LFD, and others to answer questions about
amendments. He stated that they had gone down many rabbit
holes and many of the questions should have been vetted in
subcommittee or at the finance level. He explained the
current process was typically a situation where committee
members would be called upon to defend their own
amendments.
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H MVA 1 was
ADOPTED.
3:31:20 PM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 1
(copy on file):
H DNR 1
Department of Natural Resources
Fire Suppression, Land and Water Resources
Reverse Collect and Compile Data to Identify Potential
Renewable Energy Projects
Offered by Representatives Thompson and Rasmussen
HCS2 includes an increment from the Governor's amended
FY23 budget to form a renewable energy program within
DGGS, adding $262.0 in UGF and two PFT positions. This
decrement would reverse the increment, removing the
funding and added positions.
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -$262,000
Representative Wool OBJECTED.
Representative Thompson explained the amendment that would
delete $250,000 and two permanent full-time positions. He
read a statement:
The reason I'm offering this amendment is to avoid
duplication of services. The Alaska Energy Authority
already performs most of these functions to form a
renewable energy program and has put together a list
of renewable energy projects within those communities
that are on PCE and also in areas where PCE is not
applicable.
3:32:20 PM
Representative Wool was familiar with the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) and much of the work the agency did with
renewable energy but was not familiar with the topic
addressed by the amendment. He asked if it was a new
program in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that
was duplicative of AEA.
Representative Thompson answered that that the increment
went towards the creation of a new program that was
duplicative of what AEA was already performing. He stated
that the increment went towards funding two permanent full-
time positions to do the same thing AEA was doing.
3:33:41 PM
AT EASE
3:35:14 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from OMB.
Mr. Steininger relayed that the increment had been added in
the governor amendments submitted in February. The
amendment would add two positions to DNR. He explained the
intent was not to be duplicative but to work with AEA and
other entities looking at various emerging energy
opportunities in Alaska to make the data publicly
available. One position was an analyst programmer that
would be working to bring the data sets together and make
them publicly available. The second position was a
geologist or another scientist position that would work
with the programmer to look at information DNR had
available through Geological and Geophysical Surveys that
could be made publicly available to enhance opportunities
for renewable energy and research opportunities the state
could take advantage of. He added the increment was part of
several governor amendments related to renewable energy
opportunities introduced in February.
Representative Wool asked if the increment was tied to
geothermal. He observed the increment was with DGGS
[Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys]. He
remarked that the committee had heard a presentation on
geothermal. He thought AEA did other things besides
geothermal.
Mr. Steininger confirmed that part of the work related to
geothermal. He explained that the increment did not pertain
to one specific renewable energy, but to many different
types of renewable energy. The positions would be working
with AEA but separate from the agency's core mission.
Representative Edgmon communicated that he may support the
amendment because he was uncertain why the increment was
not in AEA to begin with. He was prepared to vote.
Representative Thompson provided wrap up on the amendment.
He stated that AEA already had a priority list of potential
projects and shovel ready projects aimed at helping rural
communities with energy needs. He stated that AEA already
did most of the work and the increment was a duplication.
He stressed that AEA was already constantly looking at new
projects to reduce energy costs. He did not support paying
$262,000 for two new positions that would perform work that
was already done. He added that AEA was looking at a
variety of things including nuclear batteries, hydro, and
other.
3:39:31 PM
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter, Edgmon,
Merrick
OPPOSED: Josephson, Ortiz, Wool, Johnson, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H DNR 1 was ADOPTED.
3:40:52 PM
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 1
(copy on file):
H DPS 1
Department of Public Safety
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Additional costs related to utilities
To allow the emergency programs and child advocacy
centers to pay the additional costs related to
utilities
In Alaska there are 33 domestic violence, sexual
assault, and child advocacy programs offering services
to assist those escaping or healing from crimes that
have been committed against them. These programs
receive a majority of their funding through the
Department of Public Safety (DPS), Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) grants line.
Each of these programs must maintain a building and/or
space in their community for victims of these crimes
that provides safety and security while providing much
needed support by advocates.
In FY22, these programs found they were unable to
attract qualified applicants to fill advocate
positions necessary to have the 24/7 presence required
to meet the needs of victims. In order to attract
qualified staff, they increased their wages to be
competitive in their communities. At the point they
increased wages, they were competing with fast food
and department stores at $15 to $17 per hour. Most
programs increased to a minimum of $20 an hour out of
necessity to get staff.
This had left the programs without any extra in their
budgets. They have cut out supplies, travel, and in
some cases, have had to reduce what services they
could provide in order to have a balanced budget.
Now they are finding that their utility costs will
increase anywhere from 10% to 50% depending on what
type of utilities are available in their communities.
The rising cost of oil is anticipated to increase the
cost of utilities in these 33 organizations $500,000
in FY23. The amount of $500,000 is based upon
calculations received from the programs on their total
cost of utilities and their anticipated increases.
Each community has anticipated a different percentage
of increase in their utilities depending on the type
of utilities they use.
A map of where programs are located is attached.
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) $500,000
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Rasmussen explained the amendment would
assist emergency programs providing shelter or aiding
Alaskans experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault,
and other child advocacy programs, with the rising costs of
utilities. The amendment had been brought forward by one of
the 33 programs working in the areas. She stated help was
needed now more than ever for Alaskans experiencing the
traumas. She asked members for their support.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DPS 1 was
ADOPTED.
3:41:57 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 1 (copy
on file):
H DOT 1
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Marine Highway System
Swap federal funding for UGF portion of CY22 funding
level
The fund source in 23Gov was Fed Rcpts: HCS1 changed
the fund source to UGF. This amendment changes the
fund source back to Fed Rcpts to match 23Gov.
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) $59,382,000
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -$59,382,000
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon explained that the amendment would
replace $59 million UGF with $59 million in federal
receipts related to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS)
fund sources. The amendment also replaced $5 million in
federal receipts with $5 million in marine highway
receipts. He detailed that the amendment restored funding
sources to the governor's original proposed budget. The
details regarding the funding sources and support as
proposed in the budget was the reason for the amendment. He
needed a little more information to understand why the
change was made either at the subcommittee level or in the
committee substitute. He was interested in learning more
background information.
Co-Chair Foster asked Vice-Chair Ortiz if the change was at
the subcommittee level.
Vice-Chair Ortiz answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Foster asked for information on why the change had
been made by the subcommittee.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained that the $59 million in general
funds was slightly less than had been appropriated the
previous year. He stated it was in response to a couple of
things. First, the state's federal delegation, most notably
Senator Lisa Murkowski, was able to garner funding for AMHS
through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA). He detailed that Senator Murkowski had made it
clear to legislators that she had to do quite a bit of
heavy lifting to secure the funding. She did not want there
to be a message that the state was exempt from any
financial obligations towards AMHS and that the federal
government could run AMHS.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained that the funding was in support
of the AMHS and public transportation system. He explained
it was in support of the real need for resources to rebuild
an aging fleet that had become unreliable. He elaborated
that restoring the $59 million in general funds freed up
more of the federal funds to do what was needed to ensure
long-term sustainability of the marine highway system by
rebuilding the fleet and putting funds towards capital
expenditures in the repair of the existing fleet and
building new ships. The idea was to return the ferry system
to a reliable, dependable program, which it had not been
for a number of years primarily due to the declining
ability of the fleet to meet the schedule.
3:47:13 PM
Co-Chair Foster added that in FY 22 the UGF component had
been about $60 million to $61 million. He noted there were
also receipts from the AMHS fund. He believed the FY 22
total for AHMS was $141 million. He would confirm the total
when the OMB director returned to the meeting. He added
that the governor's budget had switched all funding over to
IIJA; there had been no UGF component included. It was his
understanding that Senator Murkowski had indicated that
federal IIJA money was typically capital funding, but she
had been able to get an exemption to also use the funds for
operating expenses. He relayed that Senator Murkowski had
also indicated it would be good if the State of Alaska
contributed some UGF as well. He clarified the increment
was not higher than the previous year.
Representative Edgmon added that the $1.2 trillion in
federal infrastructure funding had happened quickly. He
noted there had been a lot of interpretation that took
place afterwards. He stated his understanding that Senator
Murkowski had been able to get the word "operations"
included in the [IIJA} bill; therefore, the funding for
AMHS was for capital infrastructure in addition to
operations. He believed in the aftermath of the signing of
the federal bill on November 19 [2021], there was a bit of
reexamination that took place. He thought Senator Murkowski
had determined it may be in the best interest of the state
to put state money into operations in order to secure the
revenue stream in perpetuity. He explained it would help
Senator Murkowski's efforts going forward to perhaps make
the money. He noted it was $61.7 million the previous year
according to Co-Chair Foster's staff. He believed there was
an opportunity to receive the federal funding in
perpetuity, but at present the state was being asked to
provide a little more than the legislature actually
thought. He supported the decision made by the
subcommittee.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee was trying to get the
AMHS budget numbers for FY 22 and FY 23.
3:50:46 PM
AT EASE
3:51:09 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Edgmon clarified that he opposed the
amendment and would support the funding stream.
Representative Rasmussen asked about the fuel expense for
AMHS the previous year. She was trying to understand the
total add in the current budget. She believed the
legislature was also anticipating the federal receipts in
the future, perhaps in the capital budget. She thought it
looked like the budget included $120 million plus however
much an added $27 million was going towards fuel expenses.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from LFD.
MICHAEL PARTLOW, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that he did not have the exact number for fuel
expenditures, but could follow up.
Co-Chair Foster asked for verification that the FY 22 UGF
budget for AMHS was $61.7 million.
Mr. Partlow agreed.
Representative Edgmon remarked on the goal of using IIJA
funds to rejuvenate AMHS and build its schedule back up. He
remarked that the schedule had been scaled way back the
previous year. He believed the current proposed schedule
was a bit more robust.
Vice-Chair Ortiz confirmed that the schedule was more
robust. He stressed that the schedule had been greatly
reduced in the past couple of years. He elaborated that the
fuel expenditures the previous year would be significantly
less than what the state hoped they would be even excluding
the cost for increases. The hope was for the ferries to
provide much more service in the coming season.
3:55:03 PM
Representative LeBon asked if there would be federal funds
building up the vessel repair and replacement reserves
account.
Mr. Steininger answered that federal revenues would not be
placed into the vessel replacement fund unless there was an
appropriation. He explained there had to be an
appropriation of the federal revenues in order to use them.
He elaborated that to date, the state did not have guidance
from the FTA [Federal Transit Administration]; therefore,
the state did not know whether a deposit into the vessel
replacement fund would be an allowable use. He noted it
would be an allowable use of UGF.
Representative LeBon stated that federal receipt authority
would be required from the state to receive the federal
funds. He asked when the state could expect to receive the
funds.
Mr. Steininger answered that the program was $200 million
annually at a national level. He believed the last time he
had spoken to the committee about the issue, the state was
still awaiting the federal omnibus appropriation act, which
freed up the federal FTA to begin issuing guidance. The FTA
was now free to issue guidance, but it was taking some
time. The state did not have direct guidance currently on
the amount coming to Alaska. He added that most indications
had pointed towards receiving most if not all of the $200
million, but it was not a sure thing. The $135 million in
the governor's budget was within the realm of reasonability
of what the state expected to receive.
Representative LeBon asked if the funds would be received
at the beginning of the next fiscal year in July.
Mr. Steininger answered that the state did not currently
know when the funds would be received. He relayed that the
effective date of the program on a federal fiscal year
basis had already started. The state was anticipating
receiving the money well in advance of when it would be
required to continue AMHS operations.
Representative LeBon WITHDREW Amendments H DOT 1 and H DOT
2 (copy on file) now that he understood the role that state
funding would play in the operations of AMHS and in
anticipation of the receipt of federal dollars for vessel
maintenance and repair.
3:58:45 PM
AT EASE
3:59:34 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H LEG 1 (copy on
file):
H LEG 1
Alaska Legislature
Legislative Council
Add attorney and reclass two positions
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) $178,000
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster asked his staff to explain the amendment
that came at the request of Legislative Legal Services.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
explained that the amendment would fund one new attorney
position within the Legislative Legal Services.
Additionally, the amendment included funding to reclassify
two positions in order for Legislative Legal to handle the
current workload. The increment was proposed as an
amendment because it had come up after the subcommittee
process had concluded.
Co-Chair Foster added that throughout the years of state
deficits everyone had done their part to keep costs down.
He believed many would agree that Legislative Legal was
overtaxed and worked nights and weekends but was paid for
7.5 hour days.
4:01:31 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked members to be prudent in their
requests to Legislative Legal Services. She noted that
sometimes people put in frivolous work for the attorneys to
do and she hoped people would evaluate the need for that in
the future.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Thompson OBJECTED for discussion. He had
heard there was a need for a Legislative Research position.
He wondered if the topic had been discussed.
MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), answered that she was not specifically
aware of a request from the research department, but she
could follow up.
Co-Chair Foster did not recall a request coming in for the
position.
Representative Thompson thought it may be a future subject.
4:03:35 PM
Representative Thompson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion. He asked if
the workload had increased in the last several years
compared to years prior.
Ms. Wallace responded that over the past ten years the
division had seen the total drafting requests continue to
increase annually. She explained that the requests included
in increases in amendments, bills, committee substitutes,
and new drafts. She noted that one of the changes the
division had seen over the past four years was a
substantial increase in the need for Legislative Legal to
be involved in litigation, whether it was the litigation of
cases on behalf of the legislature or working alongside
outside counsel retained by the legislature. Additionally,
legislative procurements had increased over the years. She
relayed that the division was being pulled in many
different directions, which was reflected in the total
number of work requests being tracked by the division in
addition to the amount of overtime division employees were
working.
Representative Wool echoed the words of Co-Chair Merrick
and hoped that members of the legislature would be more
thoughtful when requesting work from Legislative Legal.
Representative Carpenter asked how many attorneys worked
for Legislative Legal Services.
Ms. Wallace answered they currently had 14 attorneys
including herself and the deputy director. The attorneys
were primarily responsible for the day-to-day drafting
requested by legislators. Additionally, there were four
revisers and a full production team consisting of legal
editors, assistant editors, proofreaders, administrative
assistants who assist in the peer review process used to
produce and review legislation and work product.
4:07:54 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if the division tracked or
kept work requests by individual or office. He was not
looking for particular names. He was wondering where the
work was coming from and how many people were using the
system.
Ms. Wallace answered that the division served all 60
legislators and received requests from legislators and
staff. The division could provide statistics breaking down
how many of the requests came from one body versus the
other. She remarked that because the House had twice as
many members, the division tended to see more requests from
the House. She relayed that workorders varied dramatically
in terms of level of difficulty between one workorder and
the next. She explained that one may be a short amendment,
and another may be a bill that took a couple of weeks to
produce.
Representative Carpenter was inclined to believe an
increase in attorney positions was warranted, but he did
not know for certain. He thought a redacted list from
Legislative Legal showing the number of requests by office
may be useful. He stated the list would show how many
people were placing requests and an average number of
requests. He suggested that perhaps if the legislature
policed itself and was more disciplined, the new positions
would not be needed. He wondered if the list could be
provided.
Ms. Wallace answered that over the last 10 years beginning
th
with the 28 legislature, the office received over 6,852
th
requests. The number went up to 7,186 in the 29
th
legislature and 7,591 in the 30 legislature. She
st
elaborated that in the 31 legislature the House took 30
days to organize, and the following session was the
pandemic; therefore, the work orders dropped to 5,367, but
overtime hours likely tied to the amount of litigation
and other advice provided to the legislature remained
steady. She did not have the numbers for the current
st
session, but the 31 numbers had already been surpassed and
they were looking to be more on trend with pre-pandemic
levels.
Representative Carpenter was curious about the previous
decade as well. He did not know if 7,000 was a substantial
amount compared to the previous decade.
4:12:42 PM
Ms. Wallace did not have the figures on hand. The division
did not bring the request [for the positions] to the
legislature easily. She detailed that the division had
worked hard internally to develop as many efficiencies as
possible. She elaborated that Legislative Legal had tried
to make internal policies to focus on employee burnout and
overtime that had a direct impact on the division's ability
to retain good staff. She highlighted that Legislative
Legal carried substantial institutional knowledge for the
legislature and it was important to her to retain good
staff to better serve the legislature. The division had
consistently seen over the past 10 years that turnover was
a regular part of state employment, particularly with the
change in the retirement benefits system. Over the last
four years, the office had averaged at least 4,800 hours of
overtime. She had determined that by adding another
position and reclassifying a couple of positions to help
distribute the workload, the division could continue to
tackle the workload issues and focus on retaining its
quality staff.
4:14:57 PM
Representative Carpenter appreciated the information from
Ms. Wallace. He was a little concerned that a common
occurrence in organizations was a lack of inefficiency
leading to the need to hire additional staff. He considered
that if the other alternative was to increase efficiency,
the added expense would not be necessary. He thought
instead of spending $178,000, the answer was to become more
disciplined. He considered how it would impact the
legislature's focus if fewer amendments and bills were
offered. He believed it could make the legislature more
effective. He did not know whether he wanted to enable more
amendments and bills by adding another attorney. He thought
there was likely a better solution.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was anything in
statute prohibiting Legislative Legal from disclosing the
number of hours it spent per legislative office. She noted
that legislators had expense accounts, per diem, and
relocation expenses were transparent to the public. She
remarked that work done by Legislative Legal was another
cost incurred by legislators. She asked if it was precedent
or statute preventing the information from being available.
Ms. Wallace responded that the drafting requests were
confidential under AS 24.20.100. She shared that the office
had been very conservative in terms of the information it
disclosed about requests made to the office. She was not
certain Legislative Legal could disclose the total number
of requests by each member of the legislature. The office
could provide general statistics about what offices had
historically requested. There were some ways that
statistics could be broken down more specifically. For
example, the office could provide information on bills that
were publicly introduced with members' names attached.
4:18:19 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was any
confidential information that would be determined by
stating the number of hours the division had worked for any
specific office.
Ms. Wallace replied that the division did not track its
work by hour. They tracked the numbers of requests and type
of requests, but because the office juggled so many things
at one time, it would be almost impossible to give a time
value to work that was done. She explained there were
attorneys who testified in committee and worked on drafting
a bill at the same time. She relayed that it may be
possible to provide information on the number of requests
coming from each office.
Representative Edgmon stated it was an open secret in the
building that a small number of legislators comprised an
inordinate amount of work for Legislative Legal. He
highlighted that one member had introduced 49 bills. He
shared that he personally had introduced 2. He stated that
95 percent of the high number of amendments introduced on
the floor did not pass. He stressed it was a tremendous
amount of work. He did not know if it equated to $178,000
and an additional position in Legislative Legal because
attorneys did more than draft bills, but it was frustrating
because the legislature did not have the ability to set
parameters. He agreed with Representative Carpenter that
there was an inefficiency and discipline aspect. He
wondered where to go from here. He wondered if another
position would need to be added in four to five years as
bill requests kept coming forward.
Representative Edgmon found the issue very frustrating. He
knew there were privacy laws that prevented getting the
numbers Representative Rasmussen had asked about. He would
love to see the information and believed there were a very
lopsided number of amendments coming from a small number of
legislators. He was open to any suggestions to level the
playing field and reduce the amount of work that he thought
was generated for reasons that were outside of genuine in
terms of getting a product through the system to help the
general public.
4:21:52 PM
Representative LeBon asked if Legislative Legal tracked the
number of bills that were drafted and sent to individual
offices but were not actually filed with the Chief Clerk's
Office to be read across the floor.
Ms. Wallace answered that the division was able to track
the information. The division had been looking at the issue
for some time. She recognized that adding a position would
not cure workload issues experienced by Legislative Legal.
She explained that adding a position helped stay ahead of
the turnover curve without lagging behind in training
someone to fill a new position. She detailed that
legislative drafting was highly specialized and it rare to
find an attorney with the specific experience, particularly
in the state. She elaborated that it generally took one to
two years to pull someone up to full speed to be familiar
with their subjects and efficiently producing workorders.
Additionally, there were many policy decisions the
legislature could make through Uniform Rules changes or
other policy decisions such as bill introduction limits or
amendment reform that could help with Legislative Legal
resources.
Ms. Wallace shared that when she had pulled statistics for
the last couple of legislatures, there had been 777 bills
and resolutions introduced in the House and Senate in the
th
30 legislature, while Legislative Legal had received 1,161
st
drafting requests. In the 31 legislature, there had been
659 bills and resolutions introduced, while there had been
1,163 requests received. She relayed that so far in 32nd
legislature there were 1,204 requests for new bills and
resolutions and only 757 introduced thus far.
4:25:16 PM
Representative Carpenter thought the committee should keep
in mind that legislators needed legal opinion when trying
to solve an issue by modifying statute. He stated that
submitting a workorder was the only process available to
legislators. He pointed out that it could take a couple of
years of back and forth between an office and Legislative
Legal before a bill was ready for introduction. He did not
know that the difference between the drafts requested and
the bills that were introduced was indicative of a problem.
He remarked that the House Minority did not have an
attorney to seek advice from on how to solve a problem by
statute. He was interested in a redacted list showing an
average or acceptable workload and the associated costs. He
stated that if legislators kept making "all these requests"
it would cost money.
Representative Johnson believed there were some specific
problems and ways the legislature could work to get a
report to try to identify why the workload had increased
and potentially find a solution. She clarified that those
things were not currently before the committee for
consideration. The committee was currently considering the
addition of another position. She did not like the idea
that people were doing things frivolously or causing work
inordinately and she thought it was shameful. Her desire
was to see the legislature work as well as it could. She
wanted to make sure Legislative Legal had the resources it
needed in order to respond to legislators who were working
their best to do their jobs well. She supported the
amendment.
Representative Wool WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. He thought it would be
prudent to further understand the root of the problem prior
to adding cost.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Edgmon,
Johnson, Josephson, Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Carpenter
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H LEG 1 was ADOPTED.
4:30:02 PM
Co-Chair Foster stated he was hoping to continue the
meeting until 5:30 p.m. or later. He listed the sections of
the bill with remaining amendments.
4:30:55 PM
AT EASE
4:50:43 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster returned to the remaining language section
amendments.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L12
Replacement, 32-GH2686\R.36 (Marx, 3/23/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, lines 3-12, of the amendment:
Delete all material and insert:
""(e) The operating budget appropriations made in sec.
1 of this Act include amounts to:
(1) pay bonuses and other financial incentives to
employees of the executive branch who are subject to
the salary schedule in AS 39.27.011 or whose
compensation is based on the salary schedule in AS
39.27.011 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023;
and
(2) implement the payment of bonuses, financial
incentives, and other monetary terms of the
following agreements for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2023;
(A) "Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska and Public Safety Employees Association
representing the Public Safety Officers
Bargaining Unit, State Trooper Hiring Bonus,
22-AA-008," dated August 4, 2021;
(B) "Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska and Alaska Correctional Officers
Association representing the Correctional
Officer Bargaining Unit, Correctional Officer
Hiring Bonus/Recruitment Incentive, 22-CO-007A
(Amended)," dated September 14, 2021;
(C) "Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska and the Alaska Public Employees
Association / AFT representing the Supervisory
Unit, Department of Health and Social Services,
Alaska Psychiatric Institute Nurse III-IV; Hire
Incentive, 22-SS-041," dated October 4, 2021;
(D) "Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska and the Alaska Public Employees
Association / AFT representing the Supervisory
Unit, DOC Nurses III-IV and Psychiatric Nurses
III; Retention Incentive, 22-SS-050," dated
October 6, 2021;
(E) "Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska and the Alaska Public Employees
Association / AFT representing the Supervisory
Unit, DOC Nurse III-IV, Psychiatric Nurses III,
Physician Assistant/Advanced Practice
Registered Nurse II,22-SS-044A (Amended),"
dated January 21, 2022;
(F) ""Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska and the Alaska Public Employees
Association / AFT representing the Supervisory
Bargaining Unit, Adult Probation Officer Hiring
Bonus, 22-SS-148," dated January 21, 2022;
(G) "Letter of Agreement between the State of
Alaska State Employees Association representing
the General Government Bargaining Unit, Adult
Probation Officer Hiring Bonus, 22-GG-146,"
dated February 14, 2022."
Page 105, line 26, following "CONTINGENCY.""
Insert "(a)"
Page 105, following line 29:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The appropriations made in sec. 44(e)(1) of this
Act are contingent on the passage by the Thirty-Second
Alaska State Legislature in the Second Regular Session
and enactment into law of a bill authorizing the
payment of bonuses or other financial incentives to
employees of the executive branch who are subject to
the salary schedule in AS 39.27.011 or whose
compensation is based on the salary schedule in AS
39.27.011.""
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Thompson asked his staff to address the
amendment. He noted that Marie Marx [with Legislative Legal
Services] was also available to explain the amendment.
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, explained
there were seven current letters of agreement filed with
the Department of Administration. The amendment authorized
the retention bonuses that primarily ended in FY 22 and
added them to Section 44 (e) that ratified other monetary
agreements within the bill. In terms of noncovered
employees/exempt employees, any appropriation for retention
bonuses or other would require substantive legislation.
Representative Josephson asked if Mr. Wright believed the
replacement amendment honored existing letters of
agreement.
Mr. Wright replied affirmatively.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
replacement amendment did not preserve the governor's
wishes in helping the Department of Health and Social
Services.
Mr. Wright responded that he did not know what the
governor's wishes were.
Representative Josephson replied that the governor wanted
to make the Office of Children's Services (OCS) a more
desirable place to work. He asked for verification that the
amendment did not protect the administration in that
respect.
4:54:33 PM
Mr. Wright stated his understanding that the letter of
agreement ended at the end of FY 22. He deferred to Mr.
Steininger or Ms. Marx for more information.
Representative Josephson requested to hear from Mr.
Steininger.
Mr. Steininger believed Representative Josephson's question
was about the increments introduced in the governor's
amended budget related to recruitment bonuses for OCS
employees. The office was not yet covered under a letter of
agreement; it was currently a proposal in the budget. He
interpreted the amendment to cover the existing letters of
agreement for recruitment bonuses; therefore, he did not
believe the OCS bonuses were included in the amendment.
Representative Josephson surmised that letters of agreement
could be crafted and agreed to within one calendar day in
some circumstances.
Mr. Steininger assumed that was the case, but he did not
want to promise something on behalf of the Division of
Personnel and Labor Relations because he did not know the
technical work the process entailed.
Representative Josephson referenced his earlier reference
to a list of 16 different existing incentive and bonus
packages. He remarked there were perhaps others that were
not included on the list. He asked about Mr. Steininger's
confidence level that the amendment captured everything
preexisting the OCS workers and Department of Law
attorneys.
Mr. Steininger answered that of the 16, the amendment
captured the ones with an effective date that rolled into
FY 23. He relayed that many were only effective through FY
22. He noted there were other letters of agreement that
addressed financial incentives for covered employees. For
example, mission critical pay incentive, shift
differentials, or other things of that nature. He relayed
that the Division of Personnel and Labor Relations and the
Department of Law were actively working through the process
of ensuring the letters were catalogued.
4:58:57 PM
Representative Josephson clarified there were corrections
[officers], nurses, and physician's assistant bonuses
extending through June 2024. He asked if all of the
aforementioned bonuses were approved and blessed by the
amendment.
Mr. Steininger responded that it was his understanding. He
deferred to the amendment sponsor.
Mr. Wright stated it was his understanding after speaking
with the [Legislative Legal] drafter.
MARIE MARX, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), replied that the seven agreements
listed in the amendment were for FY 23. It was her
understanding that some of the 16 mentioned did not go into
FY 23 and would end on June 30, 2022. She stated it was a
policy call on whether to include those agreements. She
directed any policy call questions to the amendment
sponsor.
Representative Josephson thought it sounded like there was
a difference of opinion. He noted that the information did
not indicate the date when the letters of agreement ended.
He noted that subsection 2, line 8 referred to June 30,
2023, but the bonuses extended beyond that date. He asked
if the legislature would be back in a year with unresolved
issues about the efficacy of the letters of agreement.
Ms. Marx responded that she believed there was a procedure
used for collective bargaining agreements. She deferred to
the Legislative Finance Division to better explain the
procedure. She explained her understanding that collective
bargaining agreements were listed in the first fiscal year
and in subsequent years the legislature appropriated the
funding annually in the numbers section [of the operating
budget]. She anticipated the legislature would do the same
in the current case; it would approve the letters of
agreement and in subsequent years it would include an
appropriation for the second and third years of the
agreements in the numbers section of the budget.
5:03:16
Mr. Painter answered that with collective bargaining
agreements with a monetary term, the monetary term would be
included in the language section [of the budget] for each
year there was a change. For example, if there was a union
agreement with a 3 percent raise the first year followed by
a 1 percent raise in the second and third years, salary
adjustments would be included in the numbers section for
all of the years with a raise. Additionally, the language
section would include language specifying the legislature
was fulfilling the terms of the union agreement. In the
current case, if there was a letter of agreement that
stretched beyond one year, he expected it could be listed
again in the back of the bill; however, he would not expect
there to be a difference in the amount that would need to
be appropriated; therefore, it may not need to be mentioned
in the budget next year. He stated it would depend on the
nature of the agreement.
Representative Josephson compared the original Amendment
L12 with Amendment L12 Replacement. He observed that the
deletion of all materials on lines 3 through 12 of the
original amendment failed to reinsert the back pages
listing the bonuses in question. He remarked that the idea
had been to delete a bonus for the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development and bonuses to public
health nursing, social workers, and the Department of Law.
He highlighted that the aforementioned bonuses were not
reinserted into the amendment. He asked for verification
that the adoption of the amendment would delete the
bonuses.
Mr. Painter believed the intent of the revised amendment
was to eliminate the number sections. He explained that
Legislative Legal had written the amendment dealing with
the language section; however, the amendment itself
contained both language section amendments and a numbers
section amendment. He believed the amendment sponsor could
clarify the intent was to remove the numbers section parts
from the revised amendment.
Mr. Wright believed it was the intent. He clarified that
substantive language was required to allow any increases or
salary adjustments for non-covered employees.
5:06:19 PM
Representative Josephson asked if it was a "bookend
situation." He remarked that while Mr. Wright was correct,
the other half of the bookend was needed. He stated that
the appropriations were needed to honor what the
administration wanted and what his Department of Law
subcommittee intended. He stated that at some point the
appropriations had to take place in addition to, for
example, Mr. Wright's temporary act.
Mr. Painter agreed that the appropriations would be needed
in the numbers section and the approval would be needed in
the language section. In the case of noncovered employees,
substantive legislation would also be required as specified
in the contingency language.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION to
Amendment L12 Replacement.
Representative Wool referenced earlier testimony by Ms.
Marx that a bonus could not be given without the law
backing it up. He observed that the amendment cited
numerous letters of agreement, which he surmised was the
law needed to back up the bonuses. He referred to
Representative Josephson's statement that the social
workers and others perhaps do not have the letter of
agreement yet; the bonus was in the budget but had not been
formalized. He reasoned if there was no letter of agreement
it could not be done, and he surmised that contingency
language could not be included. He remarked that the
governor and Representative Josephson wanted the bonuses
included. He asked if the problem was the absence of a
letter of agreement and the inability to reference it in
the budget.
Mr. Painter answered that the employees in the General
Government Unit (GGU) were currently negotiating for FY 23,
so their existing letters of agreement modify their current
agreement in effect through the end of FY 22. He explained
that the union would have an agreement for FY 23, but
negotiations had not been finalized. It was his expectation
that eventually a bargaining contract for the employees
would be brought forward to the legislature during the
current session to be included in the budget. He stated it
had not yet happened; therefore, it could not be included
yet.
5:09:23 PM
Mr. Steininger confirmed the statements by Mr. Painter.
There had not yet been a bargaining unit agreement
negotiated with the GGU. Once the agreement had been
negotiated it would be submitted to the legislature
including any other budget adjustments necessary for the
bargaining unit agreement. He explained that the proposed
recruitment bonuses for eligible employees with the Office
of Children's Services (OCS) who were part of the GGU
would be contemplated under an agreement with GGU. The
administration had publicly supported the bonuses for the
particular employees.
Representative Wool asked if the bonuses could be put in a
letter of agreement, which was negotiated and brought to
the legislature and added to the numbers section [of the
budget]. He asked if the union could include the bonuses in
their letter of agreement, so the bonuses would
automatically be inserted in the budget once it was
completed. He asked if it meant the legislature would not
have to include the bonuses separately.
Mr. Steininger answered that there was a difference of
opinion between the Department of Law and Legislative Legal
Services on the situation. He stated that the bonuses for
OCS employees could be included in the contract the state
entered into with the GGU, which would be included in the
monetary terms sent forward. He explained an additional
budget amendment would not be needed because the terms
would have already been put forward; however, it would need
to be included in the appropriation bill with salary
adjustments reflected in the numbers section and in the
salary and other benefits section of the bill's language
section. He noted that if it had not been included in the
contract but came in through a letter of agreement, it
would be handled slightly differently.
Mr. Steininger continued that in order to effectuate a
recruitment and retention bonus for a covered employee, the
state needed to be able to pay for it. He detailed that in
the case of the OCS employees it would come in the form of
an additional increment, while in the case of some of the
other letter of agreements listed in Amendment L12
Replacement, the bonuses could be accommodated within an
agency's existing resources. Additionally, an agreement
with the bargaining unit was needed to agree to the term of
the bonuses. He explained the process was how the state had
been operating: the bonuses had been provided within
existing appropriations under agreements with bargaining
units. The same would happen with the OCS employees.
5:13:06 PM
Representative Wool remarked on the negotiation with GGU
that had not yet been completed. He was not certain whether
it would be another budget amendment because it would have
to be appropriated. He observed that individuals were
nodding affirmatively to the statement. He remarked that
many of the individuals had received bonuses for some
period of time already. He stated his understanding that
the Department of Law believed the process was fine, but
Legislative Legal Services believed it was against the law
and that someone could sue. He did not know how to proceed.
He wanted to effectuate the bonuses supported by the
administration and the finance subcommittee. He believed
the amendment only included some of the bonuses. He
surmised that if the others were to be executed, it would
have to be done at a later date through a budget amendment.
Mr. Steininger answered, "Yes, I believe so."
Representative Wool remarked that the alternative was to go
with the Department of Law's interpretation and just give
the bonuses.
Mr. Steininger replied that the administration believed the
state had been operating legally; however, the Amendment
L12 Replacement appeared to be an attempt to ratify what
the state believed it had been executing legally (to ensure
the actions could be continued).
Representative Wool stated his understanding that if the
amendment were passed, all of the letters of agreement
listed in the amendment would be honored. He asked for
verification that it was the administration's standpoint
that the bonuses could continue to be paid under the
existing scenario because they had been doing it already
and the amendment was not necessarily needed.
Mr. Steininger responded that the Department of Law was
currently working on a response to the memo from Ms. Marx
and he would update his opinion to align with the letter
once he had seen it. Currently, the administration believed
it could effectuate the recruitment bonuses listed in
Amendment L12 Replacement as well as the bonuses for OCS
under existing authority. He was unclear whether the
amendment left in the increment request.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what would be accomplished based on
the adoption of Amendment L12 Replacement.
5:16:55 PM
Mr. Wright answered that the legislature would ratify the
letters of agreement included in the amendment if it was
adopted. The amendment would enable the bonuses to be paid.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it was the intent of the original
Amendment L12.
Mr. Wright answered in the negative. He clarified that the
original amendment would have done away with all bonuses.
The replacement amendment would enable bonuses to take
place because there were letters of agreement that had not
been previously brought before the legislature. The
amendment indicated the legislature approved agreements
ratified by [union] members. Additionally, the amendment
specified that bonuses would not be denied for noncovered
employees; however, there were steps that had to be taken
before a bonus could be funded.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that the amendment
sponsor did not necessarily see the bonuses and efforts to
try to incentivize OCS and other workers as an appropriate
way to deal with recruitment and retention.
Mr. Wright agreed.
5:18:58 PM
Representative Josephson stated that Mr. Wright's answer to
Vice-Chair Ortiz was the essence of the problem. He
referred to Mr. Wright's statement that the amendment
secured and ratified letters of agreement. He questioned
whether the amendment encompassed all of the letters of
agreement. He believed the question deserved scrutiny. He
remarked that the amendment stated the legislature invited
changes to the partially exempt schedules if a law was
passed. He highlighted that passing a law was not
necessarily needed, but the legislature needed to pass a
temporary act. He explained a temporary act was a kind of
law, but it was a unique kind of law. The effect of the
amendment was to say to the administration, that the
legislature was not honoring the OCS social worker
increments that the administration and finance subcommittee
wanted. He stressed that the governor and the subcommittee
agreed completely on the issue, while the effect of the
amendment was to say, "Go fight for them upstream or
downstream as the case may be."
Representative Josephson stood with the governor and his
own subcommittee in defense of the OCS amendments and
separately in defense of the Department of Law amendments.
He noted that he still had not made the case on why the
Department of Law increments were so vital. He explained
that the department had come to his subcommittee year after
year emphasizing it was desperate for help. Finally, the
subcommittee had delivered the help during the current
session. He underscored that the effect of the amendment
was to discount the work and tell the legislature to pass a
law. He noted there was a bill on the topic in the State
Affairs Committee in the second half of the session. He
stressed that it was not required. He stated the only
effect of the amendment was to clean up the letters of
agreement. He remarked that the amendment indicated "Hey if
you can get a law, God bless." He had already known that.
5:21:45 PM
Representative Wool wanted to do the right thing and agreed
with Representative Josephson. He referenced bonuses for
OCS, Department of Law, troopers, and nurses. He noted that
some were listed in the amendment. He would hate to pass
the amendment and think the job was done but then find out
a floor amendment or another bill was needed. He
highlighted that the Department of Law and Legislative
Legal did not agree on the subject. He stated that Mr.
Steininger may receive a letter from the Department of Law
later that evening. He did not want to do the wrong thing.
He considered what would happen if the committee did not
pass the amendment and Legislative Legal said it was
illegal to give any of the bonuses. He wanted to do it once
and do it right. He suggested waiting to receive a little
more information to take care of the issue one time in the
House Finance Committee instead of on the House floor.
Co-Chair Foster asked who would be giving the confirmation.
Mr. Wright shared there was another vehicle that would be
available to the committee if further ratifications of
bonuses or new contract agreements were reached. He stated
that the items could always be added into the capital
budget if necessary. Until he saw a memo from the
Department of Law and had a chance to go over it with
Legislative Legal, he could not react.
Co-Chair Foster noted there was another amendment that
would be offered by Representative Johnson that could be
amended later on if needed.
5:24:06 PM
AT EASE
5:27:21 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster held Amendment L12 Replacement until the
following day. He stated that it did not hurt to make sure
all of the items were in the amendment. He listed the rest
of the amendments. He hoped to finalize amendments the
following day.
Representative Carpenter stated that a good question was
whether the current committee substitute that included
funding to pay bonuses was legal if the Amendment L12
Replacement did not pass. He hoped the question could be
clarified in the next meeting.
Co-Chair Foster agreed.
HB 281 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 282 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
morning.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 281 & HB 282 Amendment L-12 Replacement 032322.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 281 HB 282 |
| HB 281 & HB 282 Amendments Today's Actions 032322.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 281 HB 282 |