Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
06/03/2021 02:00 PM Senate CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB69 AND HB71
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(FIN) am(brf sup maj fld)(efd fld)
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; and making capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, and reappropriations."
SCS CSHB 69(FIN) AM S
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, and reappropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
and
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71(FIN) am
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making
supplemental appropriations; and providing for an
effective date."
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71(FIN)
"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."
2:02:59 PM
Chair Foster invited Alexei Painter, Director of the
Legislative Finance Division to join the committee at the
table.
Chair Foster noted that the committee would be addressing
open items in HB 69 and HB 71 based on the motion sheets
distributed to members and dated June 3rd (copy on file)
on:
FY 21 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
DEBT SERVICE
FUND CAPITALIZATION
FY 22 OPERATING BUDGET:
DEBT SERVICE
FUND CAPITALIZATION
LANGUAGE AND OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
2:03:37 PM
Chair Foster relayed that the committee would first hear
items from the FY 21 supplemental operating budget.
^FY 21 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES
2:03:43 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
following in the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) budget:
Item 12 Senate
Item 13 Senate
Representative LeBon OBJECTED. He asked for additional
information on the selection of the Senate version for
items 12 and 13. Additionally, he asked for the funding
source for both House and Senate versions.
Chair Foster explained that the House and Senate had both
fully funded school bond debt and the Regional Educational
Attendance Area (REAA) Fund. He detailed that the House had
used some Medicaid lapsing funds, whereas the Senate
version used undesignated general funds (UGF) and the
Public School Trust Fund. He asked Mr. Painter if the
statements were accurate.
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
corrected that the fund source was the School Fund, not the
Public School Trust Fund.
Chair Foster explained that the motion would switch the
fund source to all UGF and the School Fund.
Senator Olson asked what happened to the Medicaid funding
that had not been used for DHSS.
Mr. Painter answered that the House version had
reappropriated approximately $87 million of lapsing
Medicaid funds. He reported that more recent projections
indicated the Medicaid lapse may be less than that amount.
He detailed that the entire lapsing amount may not fully
fund the appropriation; some of the funding would be used
for Medicaid. He relayed that in the Senate version of the
budget, lapsing appropriations were transferred to the
Statutory Budget Reserve in a separate item that would not
be addressed during the current meeting.
Representative LeBon WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, items 12 and 13 for the
Department of Health and Social Services were ADOPTED.
^FY 21 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET: DEBT SERVICE
2:06:28 PM
Chair Foster noted that the item was also related to school
bond debt reimbursement.
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
following in the Debt Service budget:
Item 1 Senate
There being NO OBJECTION, item 1 for Debt Service was
ADOPTED.
^FY 21 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET: FUND CAPITILIZATION
2:06:58 PM
Chair Foster relayed that the item was related to switching
from REAA to UGF in alignment with the Senate version of
the budget.
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
following in the Fund Capitalization budget:
Item 1 Senate
There being NO OBJECTION, item 1 for Fund Capitalization
was ADOPTED.
Senator Olson asked for verification that the REAA school
bond debt reimbursement was fully funded.
Chair Foster answered that the item was funded at 100
percent.
Mr. Painter replied that the REAA school bond debt would be
fully funded after the adoption of items in the FY 22
budget. He explained that the Senate had fully funded the
item in FY 22.
Chair Foster explained that there were numerous
transactions with the end result of funding school bond
debt and REAA at 100 percent using UGF and the School Fund.
Chair Foster stated that the actions concluded the FY 21
supplemental operating budget items on the agenda. He moved
to the FY 22 operating budget items.
^FY 22 OPERATING BUDGET: DEBT SERVICE:
2:08:35 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
following within the Debt Service budget:
Item 1 Open
Item 16 Senate
Item 17 Senate
There being NO OBJECTION, items 1, 16, and 17 for Debt
Service were ADOPTED.
Chair Foster noted that the items were also related to
school bond debt. He stated that item 16 was backstop
language related to school bond debt.
^FY 21 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET: FUND CAPITALIZATION:
2:09:22 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
following within the Fund Capitalization budget:
Item 1 Open
Item 6 Senate
Item 7 Senate
Item 8 Senate
Item 9 Open
Item 10 Open
There being NO OBJECTION, items 1 and 6 through 10 for Fund
Capitalization were ADOPTED.
^FY 21 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET: LANGUAGE AND OTHER
APPROPRIATIONS
2:10:00 PM
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED that the committee ADOPT the
following within the Language and Other Appropriations
budget:
Item 1 Senate
Item 2 Senate
Item 3 House
Item 4 Senate
Item 5 Open
Representative LeBon OBJECTED to item 1 for clarification.
Chair Foster asked Mr. Painter if he had any comments on
item 1.
Mr. Painter replied that he had no comments on the item.
Chair Foster read the [House] intent language related to
item 1:
It is the intent of the legislature that no state
funds be used to promote the creation or expansion of
a borough where one does not already exist unless the
residents in the affected jurisdiction have expressed
the desire to reside in a borough through a public
vote on the matter.
Representative LeBon asked for historical perspective
regarding the need for the intent language. He asked if the
state had a past practice of forcing organized boroughs on
unorganized areas.
Vice-Chair Stedman noted that the motion on item 1 would
adopt the Senate version and did not accept the intent
language that had been adopted by the House.
Chair Foster agreed. He clarified that the intent language
had been passed by the House. The motion would reject the
intent language and adopt the Senate version of item 1.
Senator Olson wondered why the intent language had been
included in the House.
Chair Foster answered that had not been in support of the
language when it had passed in the House; therefore, he
could not speak to the reason for the language.
Vice-Chair Stedman believed the language may violate the
confinement clause in the state's constitution. He remarked
that the intent language had nothing to do with the
appropriation bill under consideration. He highlighted that
all items in the bill had a life of one year. He stated
that in the early part of each year the House and Senate
worked with their members to ensure a better understanding
of what should be included or not included in an operating
budget bill. He was concerned that more and more intent
language items were being added.
Chair Foster added that a majority of the House members who
believed the issue [addressed by the House intent language]
existed regarding boroughs. He could not speak to the issue
as he had not supported the intent language.
2:13:50 PM
Representative LeBon believed the process the following
year should be to look at a separate vehicle outside of the
budget to clarify that Alaska did not want to organize
boroughs without allowing local residents to weigh in. He
thought it was likely all members would philosophically
agree on the matter. He stated that he had objected in
order to have a short dialogue on the topic. He noted that
not including the intent language in the operating budget
did not mean the topic did not deserve conversation. He
WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion. He believed
that the last borough created was the Petersburg Borough.
He explained that the Petersburg/Wrangell area had been
targeted as a combined model borough. He highlighted that
the constitution required all of the area of the state to
be within boroughs. He noted it had taken many years to get
there and he estimated it would still take several decades
to meet the requirement. He elaborated that the state had
allowed Petersburg and Wrangell to have their own separate
boroughs to encourage the communities to voluntarily form a
borough. He did not believe there was intent in the
legislature to force borough creation. However, the
legislature could encourage communities by giving them more
flexibility to incentivize citizens to want to be in a
borough. He WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative LeBon appreciated the remarks. He shared
that in the Interior, the Denali Borough had voted to
organize. He believed it had been a very successful
borough. He wanted local residents to have the ability to
lead in the effort and not be forced to organize by a state
mandate.
There being NO further OBJECTION, items 1 through 5 for
Language and Other Appropriations were ADOPTED.
Chair Foster stated that the actions concluded the business
for the hearing. He relayed that when the next meeting date
and time had been determined, the information would be
noticed on BASIS on akleg.gov.
Vice-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADJOURN the meeting.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|