Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/28/2022 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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB81 | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 28, 2022
2:32 p.m.
2:32:01 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen (via teleconference)
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Sorcha Hazelton, Staff, Representative Kelly Merrick;
Senator Donny Olson, Sponsor; James Cockrell, Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety; Tally Teal, Staff,
Representative Kelly Merrick; Neil Steininger, Director,
Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor;
Rob Carpenter, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; Michael Partlow,
Fiscal Analyst, Capital Coordinator, Legislative Finance
Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Joel Hard, Director, Village Public Safety Officer
Operations, Department of Public Safety; David Schade,
Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural
Resources; Theresa Cross, Administrative Service Director,
Department of Natural Resources, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
HB 283 APPROP: CAP; REAPPROP; SUPP
HB 283 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 81(CRA)
VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
HCS CSSB 81(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with nine "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN3 (DPS);
and one previously published fiscal impact note:
FN4 (DPS).
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 81(CRA)
"An Act requiring background investigations of village
public safety officer applicants by the Department of
Public Safety; relating to the village public safety
officer program; and providing for an effective date."
2:32:28 PM
Co-Chair Merrick explained that the bill was companion
legislation to HB 313 sponsored by Representative Zulkosky
that was heard in committee on April 5, 2022, and when
public testimony was taken.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 81(CRA), Work Draft 32-LS0362\W
(Radford, 4/22/22) (copy on file).
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. She asked her
staff to explain the changes in the committee substitute
(CS).
2:33:23 PM
SORCHA HAZELTON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK,
explained the changes in the CS. She explained that in
coordination with the sponsors of both bills the CS before
the committee matched the House Special Committee on Tribal
Affairs CS, version B bill previously heard by the
committee. She added that both bills were substantively the
same and there were no changes to what the committee had
already heard.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, the work draft was ADOPTED.
2:34:09 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that Representative Wool joined
the meeting.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, SPONSOR, reiterated that the House and
Senate bills were almost identical, and he supported the
changes in the CS.
Representative Wool cited language in the bill on Page 7,
lines 20 through lines 22 and read:
of a misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence
unless 10 years have passed since the date of
conviction, the conviction was not for an offense
against and intimate partner, spouse, child
Representative Wool asked for clarification of the passage
regarding domestic violence.
2:37:18 PM
Senator Olson deferred the question to the Department of
Public Safety (DPS).
JOEL HARD, DIRECTOR, VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER
OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), replied that the bill contained
restrictions on who was eligible based on previous
convictions. He elaborated that the bill reflected the high
standards of the program. He agreed that the bill
prohibited anyone previously convicted of a felony, a sex
offense, or a misdemeanor crime related to domestic
violence. He indicated that the language was intended to
restrain the hiring of people with a specific criminal
background.
2:39:29 PM
Representative Wool surmised that the provision would
prohibit a person from passing a background check. He was
not advocating on anyones behalf; however, he recalled in
past years based on public testimony that there had been
difficulty finding people able to pass the background
check. He deduced that other provisions in the bill would
negate the 10 year timeframe and cause an applicant to be
ineligible. He asked if it would be burdensome in some
instances.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that Representative Rasmussen had
joined the meeting via teleconference.
Mr. Hard replied that the bill contained some relaxations
of other misdemeanors with a five year limitation. He
interpreted the bill and the history associated with the
limitations as a recognition that Alaska had a serious
problem with sexual and domestic violence; it was not the
right place to lessen the standard for eligibility.
Representative Carpenter asked why a waiver needed to be
granted in the circumstance. Mr. Hard responded that
waivers were granted to access the criminal justice
information system to obtain criminal records. He noted
that there were restrictions by the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI) and the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) regarding who could access the information.
Applying for a waiver from DPS was necessary to access the
information. Representative Carpenter asked if waivers were
currently regularly granted outside of the Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO) program with other officers or
individuals within the department. Mr. Hard was unsure of
the answer. He stated that similar waivers were necessary
for other agencies, but he did not know the frequency of
issuance.
2:43:17 PM
JAMES COCKRELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
answered that the department had granted waivers for
criminal justice information to other department members,
and it was typically for a Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) conviction and other crimes. He related that he
reviewed each case and circumstance in totality and
followed guidelines. Representative Carpenter asked if it
was typical for domestic violence. Commissioner Cockrell
replied he had never granted a waiver for a domestic
violence crime. He added that the states domestic violence
statutes were much broader than federal statutes and the
state included many victims other than intimate partners in
its domestic violence laws. Representative Carpenter deemed
that the 10 year exception and the waiver spoke to a
necessity. He asked if it was hard to find a candidate
lacking a misdemeanor for domestic violence.
2:46:11 PM
Senator Olson interjected that it was difficult to recruit
candidates. He mentioned the Northwest Artic Borough and
relayed that there were some recent tragedies, one where a
family of four was killed in a fire. He stressed that not
one VPSO was located in the area. He had put the bill
forward aimed at recruitment and retention, which was a
huge problem. Representative Carpenter understood domestic
violence and sexual assault was a sensitive topic. He
thought wavering on law enforcement officers caused a
credibility problem. He thought the decision would have to
be on a case by case basis. He stated that it made him
uncomfortable. Senator Olson replied that it was on a case
by case basis, and the commissioner significantly
scrutinized the request.
Representative Edgmon shared that he had served on the
working group that preceded the legislation and had
extensive knowledge of the program. He provided context to
the provision. He confirmed that it was very difficult to
hire VPSOs and the best officers know the community well
and had ties to the culture and people in the village. He
noted that VPSOs responded to all kinds of issues and not
just law enforcement. He understood that the language was
for the very rare occasion where the situation may occur.
He viewed it as an additional tool in the toolbox where
there were not enough tools because the state did not have
the ability to recruit and retain enough VPSOs. It was his
understanding that the waiver would be used sparingly if at
all. He hypothesized that a candidate could have committed
the crime when he was young, and alcohol might have been
involved. It is possible that in ten years the individual
had turned their life around. He stated that in that
context the provision was acceptable to him, but he
understood others concerns.
2:50:47 PM
Senator Olson believed Representative Edgmon had hit the
nail on the head with his remarks. He commented that people
were all human and he was thankful people had the ability
to redeem themselves and move forward. He felt blessed that
his community of Golovin had the same VPSO for years and
White Mountain had a VPSO for 35 years, but it was the rare
exception.
Commissioner Cockrell relayed that the bill gave the
department significantly more flexibility to manage the
VPSO program than in the past. He stated that if and when
he issued a waiver, he took it personally because he was
accountable for the decision. He agreed that if a person
committed domestic violence or other crimes at the age of
19 and many years later, they were good citizens it did not
make sense to continually regard them as ineligible. He
stated that the ultimate objective of the bill was to grant
the department more flexibility when working together with
the program. He felt that the department was married to the
VPSO program.
2:53:50 PM
Co-Chair Merrick appreciated that Commissioner Cockrell
acknowledged that the responsibility was on his shoulders.
Representative LeBon asked if there had been restrictions
on hiring a person who was had used marijuana for a state
trooper position. Commissioner Cockrell responded in the
affirmative and stated that restrictions on drug use still
existed for state troopers in relation to how long ago the
use occurred. He recalled that the restriction for
marijuana use was 5 years. Representative LeBon referenced
the legalization of marijuana. He asked about the policy
for marijuana use for VPSOs or interested trooper
candidates. Commissioner Cockrell answered that if a person
worked at a marijuana facility, under federal law they
could potentially be banned from serving as a law
enforcement officer. He was uncertain of the answer
pertaining to current practices. Representative LeBon asked
if state trooper and VPSO candidates were subject to a lie
detector test. Commissioner Cockrell replied that only
state troopers were tested.
Representative Wool was in support of the ability for the
department to issue waivers. He believed the flexibility
was beneficial if used with discretion. He asked if the
department had a policy pertaining to domestic violence. He
wondered whether an officer who committed a sexual or
domestic violence crime was terminated. Commissioner
Cockrell answered that it depended on the circumstances. He
relayed that troopers were under a labor agreement. The
troopers were initially suspended until the investigation
was completed. He was aware of troopers losing their job
due to domestic violence.
2:57:25 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 81(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 81(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with nine
"do pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN3 (DPS); and one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN4 (DPS).
2:58:14 PM
AT EASE
3:01:56 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 283
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, reappropriations, and other
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
and providing for an effective date."
3:02:00 PM
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the intent for the meeting.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 283, Work Draft 32-GH2436\I (Dunmire,
4/27/22)(copy on file).
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. She asked her
staff to review the changes in the Committee Substitute
(CS).
3:02:58 PM
TALLY TEAL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK, explained
the changes in the CS. She referenced budget reports A
through E generated by the Legislative Finance Division
(copy on file) and described their contents. She referenced
an additional document titled "Summary of Changes - HB 283,
Version A to Version I" (copy on file). She pointed to the
Fiscal Summary on page 1 and reported that the Unrestricted
General Funds (UGF) total was roughly $707 million, and the
total spend for FY 2022 and FY 2023 was $3.1 billion. She
turned to the Modifications to Governors Budget beginning
in page 1:
Replaced CSLFRF with UGF as a fund source
? Rejected
o Voice of the Arctic Inupiat
o Food Security Agriculture Incentive Grant
Program (split into several appropriations)
o Cook Inlet Petroleum Potential
o Alaska Psychiatric Institute Wireless
Infrastructure Upgrade (moved to mental health
budget)
o Arctic Fisheries
o Information Technology Security Program
Assessment (moved to operating budget)
o Governor's proposal for school construction
funding
.notdef School construction projects funded by REAA
funding, including backpay, in operating budget
? Rejected/modified projects that used Coronavirus
Capital Project Fund (CCPF)
o Health Record Infrastructure Improvements (DOH)
(rejected)
o Eagle River Fire Crew Facility (DNR) (rejected)
o Student Information Technology Systems (UA)
(modified- UGF funded)
? Expanded Surface Transportation Plan and
Airport Improvement Plan appropriations into
allocations
Ms. Teal listed the governor's requested projects that were
rejected in the CS. She delineated that the governor
proposed using approximately $72 million of Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) funding. The
CS replaced the funds with UGF. She
3:07:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked about the statement the bill included
changes "that we made." He asked if the CS reflected the
Senates version of the bill or if it included changes made
in the House. Ms. Teal answered the changes had been made
in the Senate and confirmed that it was the Senates
version of the CS.
Representative Carpenter asked if the original House bill
included all the items requested by the governor in HB 283.
Ms. Teal replied in the affirmative.
Representative Carpenter asked if voting to adopt the CS
meant the committee accepted the Senate version. Co-Chair
Merrick answered in the affirmative. She asked to hear
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) changes.
Ms. Teal discussed the next section found on page 2, HB 414
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) bill changes:
? Moved Infrastructure Office and IT 24/7 Monitoring
to operating budget
? Increased grant to Alaska Municipal League from
$500,000 to $1,500,000 (page 34, line 18)
? Split Wildlife Management and Research appropriation
to separately appropriate $16,000,000 for Statewide
Wildlife Game Surveys (Pittman-Robertson funds and
Fish and Game funds) (page 38, line 23)
? Added $30,000,000 to DOTPF-Alaska Marine Highway for
planning and design of a mainline vessel replacement
(page 9, line 24)
? Reduced UGF funding for the following projects from
$1,000,000 to $250,000 each:
o AGDC- Clean Hydrogen Research, Development, and
Demonstration Opportunities (page 33, line 21)
o AEA- Grid Modernization, Reliability, Resiliency,
and Transmission Projects (page 33, line 24)
o DNR- Carbon Technology Infrastructure Research
Development and Demonstration Opportunities (page 40,
line 24)
o University- Mineral Security Projects: Rare Earth
Mineral Security; Rare Earth Elements Demonstration
Facility (page 45, line 23)
? Removed federal authority for the previous four
projects
? AHFC Energy Programs Weatherization
o Removed $16,000,000 in hollow federal authority
Ms. Teal indicated that the CS incorporated most of the
existing appropriations in HB 414. The summary identified
items that were changed from HB 414.
3:10:48 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced the Summary of Changes document
and asked about the second bullet point under the IIJA
changes:
Increased grant to Alaska Municipal League from
$500,000 to $1,500,000 (page 34, line 18)
Vice-Chair Ortiz wondered whether the money could be used
for personnel. Ms. Teal replied in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson inquired about the impact of the
removal of authority for the previous projects. Ms. Teal
deferred to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Co-Chair Merrick recognized Senator Micciche in the room.
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, asked which specific projects
Representative Josephson was asking about. Representative
Josephson referenced the following projects:
• Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)-Clean
Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration
Opportunities (page 33, line 21)
• Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) - Grid Modernization,
Reliability, Resiliency, and Transmission Projects
(page 33, line 24)
• Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-Carbon
Technology Infrastructure Research Development and
Demonstration Opportunities (page 40, line 24)
• University of Alaska (UA)- Mineral Security Projects:
Rare Earth Mineral Security; Rare Earth Elements
Demonstration Facility (page 45, line 23)
Mr. Steininger replied that the impact would significantly
limit the ability of the agencies to do the preparatory
work to enhance Alaskas success when competing for the
grants. He explained that the amounts were appropriated to
ensure the agencies could make its foremost effort to
compete for the grants. He added that some of the items
offered significant opportunities for the state and only a
small number of grants would be awarded. The administration
concluded that the state had a competitive edge in the
areas. Representative Josephson remarked that he did not
assume the senators intended to jeopardize the states
competitive capacity.
Co-Chair Merrick voiced that the committee would not assume
the Senates motives on any items in the budget.
3:14:13 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if enhancing competitiveness
meant the money would be spent hiring intellectual capital
such as grant writers. He asked how it would be
accomplished. Mr. Steininger replied that the expert was
Miles Baker, Infrastructure Coordinator, Office of the
Governor, but he could briefly provide an answer. He
indicated that subject matter experts and grant writing
expertise would be sought. He added that expertise was
necessary to make the case that Alaska was the proper place
to invest the funds. He summarized that the administration
would be contracting out expertise and bringing in subject
matter experts.
Representative Wool asked for verification the items did
not pertain to matching dollars. He exemplified the grid
modification which could be millions of dollars in costs
it was strictly for grant writing. Mr. Steininger replied,
"Generally speaking, yes." He elucidated that if there was
money available after the grant work it would be applied to
the matching funds.
Co-Chair Merrick asked what removing the federal authority
would do if the state was successful in receiving the
grants. Mr. Steininger responded that the administration
had estimated each item would be granted $5 million, which
would authorize the spending authority up to the amount
granted to the state. He voiced that if there was a match
requirement OMB would need legislative approval. Removing
the authority meant that the administration would request
it through the Revised Program Legislative (RPL) process or
the Supplemental Budget.
3:17:15 PM
Representative Edgmon recalled that the original projection
was $37 million, which was reduced to $18 million, and the
current action hollowed federal authority. Mr. Steininger
answered in the affirmative and added that his statement
only applied to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) Energy Programs Weatherization.
3:17:48 PM
Ms. Teal discussed Additional Changes to Section 1: FY 23
Budget (pages 2-27), beginning on page 2 of the summary of
changes:
Multiple locations Alaska Long Trail
$14,750,000
Page 2, line 19 AEA-Strategic Plan for Railbelt Assets
$1,500,00 (from $2,500,000)
Page 2, line 21 Mariculture Grant program (Gov
proposal)
$5,000,000 (from $25,000,000)
Page 3, line 33 Major Maintenance Grant Fund for
School Major Maintenance
$100,000,000
Page 5, line 31 Sport Fish Recreational Boating and
Angler Access
$1,500,000
$6,750,000 FED (from $2,250,000)
Page 6, line 6 Statewide Deferred Maintenance,
Renovation, and Repair
$50,000,000 (from $23,880,000)
Page 7, line 33 Snowmobile Trail Development Program
and Grants
$250,000 DGF
Pages 8 and 9 AHFC Program Increases:
Senior Citizens Housing Development Program, by
$750,000
Supplemental Housing Development Program, by $250,000
Teacher, Health, and Public Safety Professional
Housing, by $15,000,000
Page 9, line 20 State Equipment Fleet Replacement
$30,000,000 DGF (from $25,000,000)
Page 9, line 22 State Funded Road and Bridge
Completion
$30,000,000
Page 27, line 21 Court Security Projects
$4,130,000 (from $1,130,000)
3:20:44 PM
Ms. Teal turned to the next section in the summary
beginning on page 3, Additional Changes to Section 4: FY 22
Budget (pages 33-45):
Page 33, line 13 Azure Adoption to Assist with Cloud
Migration (fast track supp)
$23,116,000
Page 33, line 31 Kodiak Fire Hall (Gov G.O. Bond
proposal)
$15,000,000
Page 34, line 5 AHTNA, Inc. Eagle Trail Fuel Spill
(Gov Amend)
$382,843
Page 34, line 7 Alaska Community Foundation-Homeless
Housing
$5,000,000
Page 34, line 12 Alaska Farmers Market Association-
SNAP/WIC/Senior Coupon Doubling Programs
$500,000
Page 34, line 21 Alaska Primary Care Association-
Alaska's Healthcare Workforce Pipeline Project
$2,000,000
Page 34, line 32 Bering Sea Fisherman Association-
Improve Stock of Origin Analysis of Western Alaska
Salmon
$513,150
Page 35, line 8 Bering Sea Fishermen's Association-
Review Current Draft Comprehensive Salmon Plan
$100,000
Page 35, line 11 Bering Sea Fishermen's Association-
Yukon River Watershed Monitoring
$1,180,561
Page 35, line 4 Bering Sea Fishermen's Association-
Integrating Genetic and Environmental Data for
Predictive Models of Salmon Bycatch
$310,000
Page 35, line 14 Blood Bank of Alaska-High-Complexity
Reference Laboratory
$2,000,000
Page 35, line 16 Bristol Bay Science Research
Institute-Nushagak Salmon Stock Assessment
$3,750,000
Page 35, line 19 Food Bank of Alaska-Infrastructure
for Alaska's Statewide Food Bank Network
$10,000,000
Page 35, line 22 Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission-Community-Based Harvest Monitoring Network
for Kuskokwim River Chinook Salmon
$140,000
Page 35, line 26 Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission-Salmon Stock Assessment using Environmental
DNA
$88,000
Page 35, line 29 Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission-Tatlawiksuk River Salmon Assessment Project
$170,000
Page 35, line 32 Lower Kuskokwim School District-
Kwethluk School Power Resilience
$614,000
Page 36, line 11 Providence Alaska Medical Center-
Crisis Stabilization Center
$8,000,000
Page 36, line 13 Sealaska Heritage Institute-Alaska
Native Arts Economy and Workforce Training Programming
$340,000
Page 36, line 16 United Way of Alaska-Restaurant and
Hunger Relief Program
$500,000
Page 36, line 18 University of Alaska-Maritime Works
$2,000,000
Page 36, line 20 Volunteers of America-School-based
Mental Health Services
$960,000
Page 36, line 28 Anchorage-Starner Street Bridge
Replacement
$1,500,000
Page 36, line 33 Emmonak Port Phase II- Ramp
$9,400,000
Page 37, line 11 Haines Borough-Lutak Dock Restoration
$3,211,284
Page 37, line 13 Homer-New Large Vessel Harbor:
Matching Funds for Army Corps of Engineers General
Investigation
$750,000
Page 37, line 17 Juneau-North State Office Building
Parking
$5,000,000
Page 38, line 4 Suicide Prevention barriers (fast
track supp)
$750,000
Page 38, line 8 Mt. Edgecumbe Deferred Maintenance
$6,163,000
Page 38, line 10 Start-Up and Expansion of School
Breakfast Program
$600,000
3:24:17 PM
Ms. Teal noted that the following projects were funded by
the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund (CCPF) that was
included in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and totaled
roughly $112 million. The funding would be distributed as
grants by the United States (US) Department of Treasury.
The governor initially chose the earlier identified three
projects that were rejected in the CS because they no
longer qualified for the funding. She listed the CCPF
projects she hoped would qualify beginning on page 5:
Page 39, line 5 Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor-
Construction of Nuniaq Community Center (CCPF)
$4,454,968
Page 39, line 8 Anchorage Library Foundation-Anchorage
Downtown Library (CCPF)
$2,500,000
Page 39, line 10 Association of Village Council
Presidents-Multi-Purpose Community Facility Projects
(CCPF)
$10,445,000
Page 39, line 13 Iliukliuk Family and Health Services
Center (CCPF)
$20,000,000
Page 39, line 15 Kawerak-Multi-Purpose Community
Facility Projects (CCPF)
$12,000,000
Page 39, line 17 Mat-Su First Responder Training
Facility (CCPF)
$8,000,000
Page 39, line 19 Nenana Health and Wellness Complex
(CCPF)
$24,000,000
Page 39, line 21 Petersburg Medical and Public Health
Center (CCPF)
$20,000,000
Page 39, line 23 Rampart Broadband (CCPF)
$9,000,000
Page 39, line 24 Spruce Island Development
Corporation-Ouzinkie Community Internet Caf? (CCPF)
$1,400,000
3:26:01 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced Ms. Teal's statement that the
projects would hopefully qualify for the federal funds. He
asked what the statement meant. He inquired about the
process and if the grants had to be applied for through the
federal government. Ms. Teal understood that OMB would be
coordinating the applications and time was short - the
applications were due September 24, 2022. However, the
federal spending authority was needed if the grants were
approved, and it was necessary to include the projects in
the CS. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the grants were all
approved whether any funds remained in the CCPF. Ms. Teal
replied in the negative.
3:27:06 PM
Ms. Teal continued to review the items on page 5 of the
summary of changes beginning with:
Page 39, line 30 Alaska Workforce Investment Board-
Alaska's Cross Industry Skills Employment and Training
Projects
$2,000,000
Page 40, line 19 Agriculture 3 Phase Electrical
Service Infrastructure, Nenana-Totchaket
$3,000,000
Page 40, line 29 Eagle River Salmon Viewing Deck
Replacement
$200,000 SDPR
Page 40, line 31 Food Security Agriculture Incentive
Grant Program
$3,000,000
Page 41, line 11 Plant Materials Center Seed
Processing and Storage Capacity Improvements
$2,000,000
Page 41, line 27 Nenana-Totchaket Agriculture
Development
$5,000,000
Page 42, line 22 Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Fund
$20,019,180
Page 45, line 28 University of Alaska Deferred
Maintenance
$50,000,000
Co-Chair Merrick asked for more information on the $200,000
in Statutory Designated Program Receipts for the Eagle
River Salmon Viewing Deck Replacement. Ms. Teal answered
that in the previous year there was a similar
reappropriation. She explained that there was an issue with
DNR accepting private donations for the viewing deck and
the Eagle River Nature Center organization could not convey
the private donations to DNR. There had been an RPL on the
last day of interim in January to convey the donation money
through operating budget authority, but the appropriation
was made with capital funding and capital budget authority
was more appropriate, hence, it was added to the Capital
Budget. Co-Chair Merrick surmised the item was a technical
change to allow the state to accept the private donation.
Ms. Teal replied in the affirmative.
3:29:47 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if all the appropriations designated
as CCPF on page 5 were direct GF spending. Ms. Teal replied
in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson pointed to the last item on page 5
pertaining to the University of Alaska deferred maintenance
at $50 million. He asked if the funding was expended at the
discretion of the Board of Regents. Ms. Teal deferred the
answer to the Legislative Finance Division (LFD).
3:30:47 PM
MICHAEL PARTLOW, FISCAL ANALYST, CAPITAL COORDINATOR,
LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, answered that once the money
was appropriated to the university, the university
determined how to spend it. He added that the university
developed a priority list that was available to the public.
Representative LeBon referenced the CCPF line items on page
5. He referenced the September deadline for grant requests.
He asked if the money was limited to the listed projects.
He asked whether the money would lapse to the federal
government if the projects on the list failed to obtain the
grants. Mr. Partlow responded that it was complicated. He
highlighted the language on the last page of the bill that
granted authority to OMB on the condition that if any of
the grants failed, OMB could apply for other projects that
may be eligible using the same authority. Representative
LeBon asked whether a backup list existed if the projects
listed were not approved. Mr. Partlow understood that OMB
had identified a number of projects that were eligible. He
deferred to OMB for further answer.
3:33:36 PM
Mr. Steininger answered that OMB would follow the list as
appropriated first. He relayed that OMB had been working
with the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
and other stakeholders to develop a backup list. There was
not currently a backup list of specific projects. The
projects outlined on page 5 appeared to be the most
eligible but if any listed projects failed, they would
identify what projects they would choose next.
Representative LeBon stated that the clock was ticking on
the grant application process. He asked if the state would
know the outcome of the applications in enough time to
default to the backup projects and not lose the dollars. He
asked if OMB had developed a strategy. Mr. Steininger
answered that turnaround time was a concern. He detailed
the administration was working with the state's
Congressional delegation to put some pressure on the United
States (US) Treasury to offer a better timeline for the
grants status. He learned that there was no guarantee
turnaround time once the application was submitted. He
understood there would be a prioritization of applications
of certain types of grants, but they did not know what
applications would be reviewed first.
Representative LeBon noticed that the appropriations
appeared to be a precise dollar amount. He listed the
following project found on page 39, line 5 of the bill
[page 5 on Summary of Changes document] amount as an
example:
Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor-Construction of Nuniaq
Community Center (CCPF) $4,454,968
Representative LeBon surmised that the state was attempting
to take full advantage of the grant funding and trying to
maximize the benefit.
3:36:17 PM
Ms. Teal cited the Nuniaq project and recalled that the
project was existing and included background information
and deduced that the cost was accurate.
Representative Wool referred to the Nenana-Totchaket
Agriculture Development [page 5] project in the amount of
$5 million and wondered what the project was.
DAVID SCHADE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), responded that
the funding was for the development of about 100,000 acres
of agriculture land located near Nenana. He elaborated that
in the prior year funding for phase one of the project was
appropriated. The total cost of phase one was $21 million
and the current appropriation advanced phase one of the
project. In June 2022, the division would sell
approximately 2 thousand acres and the department believed
it would sell about 100,000 acres in total. Representative
Wool asked if the funding was for developing the land for
the sale of the acreage. Mr. Schade responded in the
affirmative and listed the work being done to prepare it
for agricultural development.
3:38:52 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced page 5, and underlined the
project found on Page 41, line 11 of the bill as follows:
Plant Materials Center Seed Processing and Storage
Capacity Improvements $2,000,000
Vice-Chair Ortiz requested more information regarding the
project.
THERESA CROSS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), deferred to
Mr. Schade.
Mr. Schade answered that the center was a 400 acre farm
located in The Butte [Matanuska-Susitna Borough] that was
operated by the Division of Agriculture. The farm processed
seed for farms distributed throughout the state.
Currently, the farm was at full capacity and a full upgrade
of the facility was needed. He listed the farming areas
served: Delta, North Pole, Fairbanks, and the Kenai.
3:40:51 PM
Ms. Teal discussed page 6 on the summary of changes
pertaining to the numbers section of the bill:
SECTION 11: Legislative Reappropriation
SECTION 12: Department of Family and Community
Services: appropriates prior capital projects from the
existing DHSS to the correct new department.
SECTION 13: Department of Fish and Game: includes
language to allow the proceeds of sales of state-owned
vessels and aircraft to be used for renewal,
replacement, and maintenance of the vessels and
aircraft for FY 22 and FY 23.
SECTION 14(a): Department of Health: appropriates
prior capital projects from the existing DHSS to the
correct new department.
SECTION 14 (b): Appropriates $5,000,000 to the
Department of Health, Child Care Program Office for
initiatives in the Child Care and Development Fund
Plan for Alaska.
SECTION 16: Legislative Reappropriation
SECTION 18 (b): Includes a Governor's amendment to
reappropriate funds from the Fairview Loop Road
reconstruction to the Totchaket Road project
($15,000,000).
SECTION 18 (c): Legislative Reappropriation
SECTIONS 21-29: Legislative Reappropriations
SECTION 24 (l) and (m): Appropriates $25,000,000 to
the Municipality of Anchorage contingent on the
$25,000,000 match by the Municipality (can be in-kind)
for the purpose of preparing a full financial package
for final investment decision for the Port of Alaska.
SECTION 30: Adds "transition costs" as an allowable
use of the reappropriation.
SECTION 31: Legislative Reappropriation
SECTION 32: Capital lapse language
SECTIONS 33-34: Effective dates
Representative Josephson referenced page 6 that listed the
following in Section 18 (b) of the bill:
Includes a Governor's amendment to reappropriate funds
from the Fairview Loop Road reconstruction to the
Totchaket Road project ($15,000,000).
Representative Josephson deduced that the Fairview project
was in the Mat-Su and the funding was reappropriated to the
Totchaket project in the Interior of the state. He asked
whether he was correct.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for comment by Mr. Schade.
Mr. Schade answered in the affirmative. He added that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
found other funding for the Fairview Road and
reappropriated the funding to the Totchaket Road project.
3:45:29 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the Fairview Road was in
West Susitna. Mr. Schade was unsure of the details of the
project.
ROB CARPENTER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that the
Fairview Loop Road was located in the Mat-Su and the
Totchaket Road was located in the Interior and lead to an
area for resource development. He elaborated that the
Fairview Loop Road was initially funded through General
Obligation (GO) Bonds and was converted to GF in a prior
year to alleviate the bond funding. He noted that the
Fairview Loop Road was currently in the right of way and
utility relocation stage and there was a potential to
convert it to federal money, which freed up GF money for
the resource road that was not required to be built to
federal standards and could be constructed quickly.
3:47:11 PM
Co-Chair Foster referenced Section 24 (l) and (m) of the
bill listed on page 6 and noted the $25 million
appropriation for the Port of Alaska. He recalled that the
port needed $600 million from the state. Mr. Carpenter
answered he was not familiar with the Port of Alaska
project. The numbers sounded right to him.
Co-Chair Foster pointed out that the $25 million was
substantially less than the requested amount. He learned
that the Senate wanted to emphasize statewide projects.
He referred to the document titled 2022 Legislature -
Capital Budget House District Summary - House Sup
Structure (copy on file) and noted that it showed
Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) spend broken out by
district. He pointed to the UGF total spend for the current
version I and noted it was $582 million that fell under the
statewide category. He related that statewide items were
items like deferred maintenance for schools, the
university, state buildings, public safety housing, etc. He
believed the goal of the bill was less emphasis on
communities and districts and more emphasis was placed on
statewide projects instead. He thought that part of the
other rationale was not wanting to use all of the surplus
funds left over after the operating budget was funded. He
believed that there was a desire to put money into savings.
He wanted to address the funding for the Port of Alaska and
Port of Nome. He asked how much the capital budget normally
leveraged for federal funds and recalled that it was about
$150 million. He asked if his statement was correct.
3:50:20 PM
Mr. Carpenter answered that the number was fairly
accurate for federal match money. He stated that Co-Chair
Foster was in the ballpark.
Co-Chair Foster discussed what was in the capital budget
versus what was not included. He highlighted that the City
of Nome had requested $175 million for its port. He
mentioned other requests. He commented on the intent of
wanting the budget to focus on statewide needs. He noted
that rural Alaska depended on the Port of Alaska for food
and supplies. He supported the Port of Alaska as a
statewide project. He lauded Senator Murkowski, Senator
Sullivan, and the late Congressmen Young for their work
related to the Port of Nome and their inclusion of $250
million for the port in IIJA. He remarked on the needs for
the Port of Nome and listed a Coast Guard presence and to
support the Navy. He pointed to leveraging federal funds in
relation to highway funding and stated that it was
considered desirable and was sought after. He commented on
the $250 million the state's Congressional delegation
secured for the Port of Nome and indicated that the
matching funds needed to be secured by February 2023. He
wanted to highlight the opportunity to leverage the federal
funds for the port.
3:53:24 PM
Representative Wool appreciated the comments regarding the
ports. He noted the difference between statewide spending
like deferred maintenance versus statewide impact for
things like ports and airports. He believed that goods and
products from ports were distributed around the state and
had statewide impact even though they were located in one
place.
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood that IIJA funds that the state
would disperse were in the budget. He asked whether he was
correct. Ms. Teal answered in the affirmative and noted
that the projects listed in HB 414 were included in the
bill with the exceptions she noted earlier.
Representative Carpenter asked whether the IIJA projects
were spread throughout the budget. Ms. Teal answered in the
affirmative. Representative Carpenter asked if it was
possible to get a summary of IIJA projects. Ms. Teal would
follow up with the information.
Co-Chair Merrick interjected that many of the IIJA projects
were in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP).
3:56:21 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION to the adoption of
the work draft.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 32-GH2436\I
was ADOPTED.
HB 283 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
morning.
ADJOURNMENT
3:57:05 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 81 HCS CS FIN WorkDraft v.W 042222.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| HB 283 A HCS1 ProjectCompareByAgency 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 B HCS1 ProjectDetailByAgency 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 C HCS1 AgencySummary 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 HCS WorkDraft v. I 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 Summary of Changes Ver A to Ver I 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 D HCS 1 House District Summary 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 E HCS1 House District Summary 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 Port of Nome USACE 42822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |