Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
03/28/2023 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB39 || HB41 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2023
9:08 a.m.
9:08:07 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jesse Sumner; Representative Justin
Ruffridge; Representative Zack Fields.
SUMMARY
HB 39 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUND; SUPP
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 41 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the meeting agenda. The committee
would continue the operating budget amendment process.
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"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. 41
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
9:08:38 AM
^AMENDMENTS
9:08:47 AM
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 40 (copy
on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Public Assistance
Allocation: Child Care Benefits
Transaction Details
Title: New Home- and Place-Based Childcare
Incentives Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund 300.0
Explanation
This program will incentivize new home- and place-
based centers (family, friends, and neighbors or FFN)
with bonus funding for new childcare providers upon
completion of business license approval, process and
quality rating and improvement standards (ORIS)
training. This pilot fund will cover up to 74 new
quality childcare centers grantees. Each grantee will
receive $2,000.00 and $52,000.00 will cover
administrative costs. The training, currently offered
through Thread as a contractor, aligns with the Alaska
Reads Act best practices for early teaching and
learning.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
that would reduce the original amendment cost to $250,000.
She noted that services would be $102,000 and there would
be $148,000 in grants.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Galvin believed it was possible to do what
was needed with less money; therefore, the conceptual
amendment would reduce the amount in light of the state's
fiscal situation. The amendment would still benefit 74 new
quality childcare center grantees and there would still be
the administrative strength to administer the grant program
and provide training.
Representative Stapp stated the amendment explanation
talked about bonus funding for new childcare providers on
completion of a business license approval. He asked how it
worked. He observed it was a pilot fund.
Representative Galvin answered that the topic would be
covered somewhat when she discussed the overall amendment.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1
was ADOPTED.
9:12:15 AM
Representative Galvin spoke to Amendment N 40 as amended.
She stated that one theme from committee discussions the
previous day was the consensus that access to affordable
and reliable childcare was a significant engine for growing
economy and something woefully lacking in Alaska. She
highlighted that the previous day the committee had also
included a new increment to provide remedial reading
assistance to grade school students who had fallen behind
their peers. She stated that based on brain science and
research, it was far more effective to get to children
earlier in their development. She remarked that if the
state had facilitated an effective early learning
opportunity for the kids, they perhaps could have reached
the same result at a fraction of the cost to the state. She
referenced a backup graphic ["Attachment H: A Standards-
Based Early Care and Education System" (copy on file)]
showing the James Heckman studies on early learning.
Representative Galvin had spoken with the long-time
previous head of the state's early learning program who had
used the term FFN standing for Friends, Family, and
Neighbors as one piece of the puzzle that had not been
approached. She explained that FFN provided childcare for
those who needed to work outside the home to support their
family. She elaborated that many FFN had the capacity to
take in more kids. She stated that often they did not have
a business license or training. She explained they were the
"aunties" or moms and dads taking care of kids in Bethel,
Dillingham, Anchorage, etcetera. Many of the FFN had the
capacity to take in more kids, but they did not have the
resources to overcome the relatively low barrier to entry
to start a childcare business. Many FFN had little to no
training or background in early childhood development. The
amendment would provide a grant of $2,000 to each
individual who underwent training and obtained their
license as a childcare provider. The funds would cover up
to 74 new childcare providers and the administrative cost
to distribute the grants and the training. She underscored
it was the low hanging fruit to make a dent in the
tremendous need for trained childcare without a dent in the
state's budget. She asked members to support the amendment.
9:15:23 AM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
Representative Tomaszewski noted the amendment was for 74
new centers (mom-and-pop childcare facilities around the
state). He stated his understanding that individuals would
receive $2,000 as a jump starter for a new private
enterprise in their homes. He liked the amendment and
thought it could help with childcare. He asked if it was a
statewide program for 74 new individual facilities.
Representative Galvin confirmed the amendment applied
statewide for mom-and-pop facilities [and individuals]. She
shared that she had provided childcare from her home when
she was 25 years old and could not afford to leave the
home. She explained that individuals would be given the
startup money for things like installing little plugs to
keep the house safe. She relayed that it aligned with the
QRIS [Quality Rating and Improvement System] leading to the
Reads Act for example. The training was also
required/included and involved things like understanding
the early learning guidelines and providing activities for
caregivers to offer. The amendment applied statewide, it
included in-depth training, and startup help for up to 74
individuals.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Galvin,
Hannan, Edgmon, Foster, Johnson
OPPOSED: Stapp, Cronk
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 40 was ADOPTED as amended.
9:19:31 AM
Co-Chair Johnson rolled Amendments N 41 and N 42 to bottom
of list.
9:20:00 AM
Representative Hannan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 43 (copy
on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Public Health
Allocation: Emergency Programs
Transaction Details
Title: MH Trust: Crisis Now Continuum of Care
Grants (FY24-FY25)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncT
Funding
1037 GF/MH
167.0
Explanation
This amendment brings the funding for Crisis Now
Continuum of Care grants through the DOH Division of
Public Health up to the level recommended by the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority.
These grants support Mobile Integrated Health (MIH)
teams in smaller, rural communities. MIH teams include
a paramedic/EMT and a behavioral health specialist who
are tasked with responding to people in a behavioral
health crisis in a community. Less funding for this
program could contribute to delayed implementation of
MIH teams and may dissuade additional communities from
creating MIH teams.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Hannan explained the amendment included
$167,000 to support the Mobile Integrated Health teams
implemented in rural communities so that police and EMTs
did not have fill the role. She noted it was a
recommendation from the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA). She detailed that over the past two
years the law had been changed to focus on a Crisis Now
Continuum of Care that should better address behavioral
health issues and reduce the impacts behavioral health had
on the public safety system (when police were tasked with
responding to people in mental health and behavioral health
crises). She stressed that mobile health teams were one of
the critical steps in the continuum of care and represented
the boots on the ground. She stated, "These are the people
who don't have a necessarily large facility that people
were going to." She urged support for the amendment.
9:21:29 AM
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Galvin, Hannan, Josephson
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Foster,
Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 43 FAILED (4/7).
9:22:27 AM
Representative Stapp requested to cosponsor Amendment N 44.
Co-Chair Johnson stated her understanding Representative
Stapp's Amendment N 45 was a duplicate of Amendment N 44.
Representative Stapp agreed.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 44
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Public Health
Allocation: Chronic Disease Prev/Hlth Prom
Transaction Details
Title: Funding for the Distribution of Dementia
Awareness Program Material
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
50.0
Explanation
The Department of Health's Division of Public Health
runs the Dementia Awareness Program, which distributes
dementia-specific educational materials. The
distribution of materials Alaska s in rural areas and
Alaskans who speak a language other than English
presents additional challenges for the program.
Stakeholders say this funding will help alleviate
barriers for Alaskans seeking educational materials.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained that the Department of
Health (DOH) Division of Public Health ran the Dementia
Awareness Program. The legislature had passed legislation
in 2022 enhancing the program with some enabling capacity.
He detailed that the program distributed educational
material. He relayed that the distribution of material in
rural areas and Alaskans who spoke a language other than
English presented additional challenges. The money would go
towards translation services and rural outreach to people
in Alaska who speak languages other than English (e.g.,
Tagalog, Yupik, Spanish). He elaborated that it would be up
to DOH to identify the languages that should have the
translations. The stakeholders believed it would help
alleviate barriers in seeking educational materials.
Additionally, he had been told there would be a 90 percent
growth rate in Alaskans with Alzheimer's or related
afflictions in the next eight years. He believed part of
the reason was that people were living longer, which was a
good thing. He reported that 63,000 Alaskans had subjective
cognitive decline and 25,000 Alaskans helped provide them
with care. He noted that one in three Alaska Natives could
expect to develop dementia and rural Alaskans had limited
access to state resources, materials, and services. He
asked for members' support.
Representative Stapp spoke in support of the amendment. He
stated that his district included Fort Wainwright. He
shared that he had done two deployments to Iraq and TBI
[traumatic brain injury] was a real issue with many
veterans in his district. He stated the injury was a
byproduct of getting blown up too many times. He remarked
that irrespective of the state's budgetary constraints, he
believed some things were worthy causes and that the state
wanted to ensure it could resource things properly.
Representative Cronk thanked the sponsors for the
amendment. He stated, "Somebody that's new to this and is
experiencing this in my family." He reiterated his thanks.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 44 was
ADOPTED.
9:26:48 AM
Co-Chair Johnson understood Amendment N 45 to be a
duplicate of Amendment N 44.
Representative Stapp agreed. He WITHDREW Amendment N 45.
9:27:17 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 46
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Early Intervention/Infant Learn
Transaction Details
Title: Expand Capacity of the Alaska Infant
Learning Program and Add Two Health Program Manager
Positions
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding:
1037 GF/MH
3,666.6
Explanation
This amendment proposal increases agency capacity for
outreach and expansion of the Alaska Infant Learning
Program (ILP). With this increment, DOH may expand
outreach to families with children at risk for or who
experience developmental delays. Over the past 1O
years ILP has received flat funding, which has not
been adequate to keep up with inflation and the
increased costs of running ILP programs and services.
Additional funding is necessary to allow the program
to maintain its current capacity, add positions
(Health Program Manager 2 and Health Program Manager
3), and to enroll more children.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained that the amendment would
increase agency capacity for outreach and expansion of the
Alaska Infant Learning Program (ILP). The increment would
enable the Department of Health (DOH) to expand outreach to
families with children at risk or who experience
developmental disabilities. The program had received flat
funding over the last 10 years, which had been inadequate
to keep up with inflation and the increased costs of
running the program. The ILP was recognized in state law
and was a statewide system of professionals dedicated to
serving all Alaskan families with children who were at risk
for or who experience developmental delay. The ILP
envisioned a system where all Alaskan families have access
to the services and resources to help their children
thrive. There was a seven-point mission to build on natural
supports and provide resources to assist family members and
caregivers to enhance children's learning and development
through everyday learning opportunities. He stated that
early intervention had proven lifelong benefits to program
recipients. He stated that children from birth to three
years were in the most important developmental phase in
their lives. He relayed that support for early intervention
helped to bring Alaska up to the national average for
outcomes for young children with disabilities.
Representative Galvin observed that the appropriation was
labeled senior and disabilities services. She asked what it
meant. She made a comment on the importance of the funding.
She stated that from the ages of zero to three many parents
did not know where their child should be in terms of
development and learning. She stressed the program was
designed to directly help individuals articulate a
potential problem and connect them to very helpful services
in order for a child to show up ready to learn in
kindergarten. She discussed the flat funding for the
program over the years and the lack of keeping up with
inflation. She underscored that dollars spent early in a
child's life would save up to 13 percent for students with
disabilities.
9:31:36 AM
Representative Josephson replied that senior and disability
services was a major component in DOH; therefore, many
things fell under the category. The appropriation fell
under the disabilities section of the component.
Representative Tomaszewski looked at the two health program
manager positions. He asked how many managers there were
currently and the number of employees working under each
manager.
Representative Josephson replied that he would need a
lifeline to answer the question.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Foster,
Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 46 FAILED (4/7).
9:33:54 AM
AT EASE
9:35:34 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 47
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior/Disabilities Svcs Admin
Transaction Details
Title: IDD Waitlist Elimination Funding
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
7,112.0
Explanation
The Waitlist Elimination Plan, in conjunction with the
development of the allocation tool, identifies that is
the amount required to move people with intellectual
and developmental disabilities (IDDs) off the waitlist
and allow them to receive care within a home-based
setting.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He
detailed that the Key Coalition was a coalition of
organizations working to support disabled people in Alaska.
He explained the coalition were champions of the disabled
and they worked to ensure resources were tailored in the
best way for each individual's needs. Under a federal
Medicaid program, states were required to provide a number
of mandatory services, one of which was institutional care
for individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities; however, the federal government allowed
states to waive the requirement and allowed services to be
provided in costly institutions or home and community-based
services. He elaborated that states had substantial
flexibility to design their home and community-based
services programs and the federal government allowed for a
waiting list to be maintained for the services when demand
exceeded resources.
Representative Josephson explained that as of two years
earlier, the waitlist was carved down. There were currently
400 to 500 people on the waitlist. In 2022, the budget
included $1 million for a comprehensive study on how to
eradicate the waitlist. The report was presented by Tony
Newman with DOH on February 28, 2023 to the DOH
subcommittee. The report indicated that rather than
studying the issue anymore, it was time to work towards
ending the waitlist. The report proposed a state
contribution of $7.112 million in the first year. He
detailed that the funding included the interRAI allocation
tool, which was a $647,800 increment (included in the
$7.112 million) to add staff and resources to begin
implementation of the waitlist eradication plan. He stated
it was the key objective of the Key Coalition. He believed
the only way to eradicate was to move forward. He read a
letter from Leslie Davis from Wasilla included in members'
packets (copy on file):
Hello,
My name is Leslie Davis and I live in Wasilla and am
in Senator David Wilson's district and David Eastman's
district. My son experiences Autism and major
depressive disorder and receives services on the IDD
waiver. Without the services he currently gets, he
would most likely be in an expensive residential
treatment facility or an API like institution. Because
of the Medicaid wavier he now has a supportive place
to live, getting weekly mental health services and is
soon to be getting a job. Please, please in addition
to what the Governor has allotted, support additional
Medicaid dollars added to the current budget so that
we can assure community-based services can continue
like those my son receives. We do not want him or
others to backslide into expensive institutional care.
Thank you for your time!
Representative Josephson stated that while there was
upfront investment, there was an opportunity to reduce
expensive institutional care. He underscored it was the
report commissioned by the legislature and signed off on by
the governor. He reiterated the report suggested the
addition of $7.1 million for the cost allocation
infrastructure of $647,000 and the other funds needed for
services. He asked for members' support.
9:42:09 AM
Representative Stapp stated that most of what
Representative Josephson discussed came from a bill the
previous year. He noted that the department had presented
two options to eliminate the waitlist. He detailed that the
initial $7.1 million appropriation would be the first in
many larger appropriations over many years in order to
achieve the goal. He believed the most effective option
would be to develop the allocation tool separately prior to
embarking on a larger multimillion dollar financial
commitment over multiple years. He personally wanted to do
everything in his power to end the waitlist because he
believed the state had a responsibility to society. Given
the amount of the multiyear appropriation, he thought it
would be unwise to pass the amendment at present.
Representative Ortiz supported the amendment. He stated the
amendment spoke to a real need facing people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. He highlighted
that in the long-term it would save the state money to
enable people to receive care in their homes rather than in
institutional care. He stressed that there were a number of
people in rural Alaska without access to institutional
care. He underscored it was the state's responsibility to
help meet the needs of individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. He recalled public testimony
about the need to eliminate the waitlist. He stated the
increment would impact people's lives struggling with
developmental disabilities every day.
9:46:56 AM
Representative Galvin spoke in favor of the amendment. She
stated that the tool would help the state to know how to
move the waitlist and the funding was needed in order to do
so. She did not think it made any sense to do one of the
things on its own because there would not be any impact on
the target group. She referenced the letter read by
Representative Josephson describing what she presumed many
Alaskans had experienced. She elaborated that when Alaskans
were put into a placement near their community it saved the
state money in the long-term (avoiding sending people out
of their communities and more expensive interventions later
on). She stated the investment considered the entire
equation of the cost to Alaska. She stated that more
importantly, it was humane. She stated it was the job for
the legislature to consider each Alaskan as important
citizens who deserve the treatment legislators would want
for themselves. She believed the funding was a smart
investment.
9:48:58 AM
Representative Hannan supported the amendment. She
highlighted that every two years the collective
institutional knowledge changed to some degree in the
House. She considered the scenario where the legislature
asked for a plan to resolve a problem and the experts in
the field recommended a plan including a new tool and
money, but the legislature did not act on the advice due to
a financial crisis. She highlighted that the cost would not
be cheaper in the future. She advised investing a smaller
sum if the $7 million was too much or standing up the
assessment tool. She believed the plan needed to be acted
upon.
9:50:49 AM
Representative Cronk stated there were many amendments that
were very worthwhile. He thought a complete fiscal plan
could take care of the issues instead of picking out items
piecemeal every year.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION to Amendment N 47.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Foster,
Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 47 FAILED (4/7).
9:52:32 AM
Representative Hannan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 48 (copy
on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior/Disabilities Svcs Admin
Transaction Details
Title: MH Trust: IT Application/Telehealth Service
System Improvements (FY24-FY25)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncT
Funding
1037 GF/MH
63.0
Explanation
This amendment will fund a position recommended by the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority to build capacity
in DOH's Senior and Disabilities Services to implement
technology both internally and externally to
positively impact trust beneficiaries. The funds
support telehealth improvements for treatment and
other support for beneficiaries.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Hannan explained that the amendment included
$63,000 to fund a position recommended by AMHTA to build
capacity for DOH Division of Senior and Disabilities
Services to implement technology for internal and external
trust beneficiaries. She stated that funding the position
would help integrate tools into the system of assessments
for clients of senior and disability programs and services
they may qualify for. She elaborated that the improvements
would help keep the division in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 48 FAILED (4/7).
9:54:30 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 49
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior/Disabilities Svcs Admin
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Staffing to Meet Need of Increasing
100 Medicaid-Based Services
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1003 GF/Match 640.0
Explanation
This amendment proposal increases funding and
personnel for the Senior and Disabilities Services
Admin allocation in order to increase distribution of
statewide intellectual and developmental (100)
disability Medicaid-based services. The purpose of
these additional positions is to process applications,
conduct assessments, review support plans for
community-based waivers, and maximize efficiencies in
the pursuit of eliminating the IDD waitlist.
The position classifications contemplated under this
amendment include Health Program Manager and Health
Program Associate position types, though the
department may determine that there are other
classifications better suited to identifying and
remedying service deficiencies and delays.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson referenced his discussion about a
cost allocation assessment tool in Amendment N 47. He
characterized the proposal in Amendment N 47 as the gold
standard. He noted that the committee had rejected the
first proposal and he referred to the proposal in the
current amendment as the bronze standard. The amendment
would fund the cost allocation infrastructure to develop a
tool and fine tune who needed what in the disability
community. He explained it was part of the effort Tony
Newman with DOH had outlined in a finance subcommittee
meeting on February 28. The money was designed to keep the
ball rolling on eradication of the intellectual and
developmental disabilities (IDD) waitlist. He asked for
members' support.
9:56:29 AM
AT EASE
9:59:59 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson WITHDREW Amendment N 49.
10:00:34 AM
Representative Stapp MOVED to reintroduce Amendments L 1
and 2. [note: the two amendments had been withdrawn on
3/27/23 at the 9:00 a.m. meeting.]
10:01:17 AM
AT EASE
10:07:27 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnson noted Representatives Jesse Sumner and
Justin Ruffridge in the audience.
Representative Stapp Amendments L 1 and L 2 were the
correct drafting of the multiyear appropriation to develop
the IDD waitlist tool that Representative Josephson had
spoken about in the two previous amendments. He explained
that the appropriation required multiyear federal receipt
authority in the budget in order for the department to
develop the tool and present the case to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). He explained that
Amendment L 1 had $420,500 in state gf match with $698,500
in federal receipts. He detailed that it was the required
method to work on the development of the waitlist tool as
discussed with the department throughout the subcommittee
process. The amendment would also require Amendment L 2 due
to the nature of the separate appropriations for separate
departments.
Co-Chair Johnson requested a formal motion.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L 1, 33-
GH1347\B.3 (Marx, 3/23/23) (copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior/Disabilities Svcs Admin
Transaction Details
Title: Development of Cost Allocation Assessment
Tool (FY24-FY26)
Section: Language
Type: MultiYr
Funding
1002 Fed Rcpts 698.5
1003 GF/Match 420.5
Explanation
This amendment proposal increases funding for the
Senior Disabilities Services Admin allocation, to
allow the division to create a Cost Allocation
Assessment Tool.
The Assessment Tool would provide better
predictability of budget needs, more flexibility and
enhanced beneficiary choice and self-direction.
Successful implementation of this tool would allow the
division to work towards the elimination of the IDD
waitlist.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that the previous
legislature had commissioned the department [DOH] to
determine the most equitable way to look at eliminating the
waitlist for developmentally disabled individuals. The
department had recommended a couple of pathways during the
subcommittee process, but the primary recommendation was
for the development of the tool in order to determine how
to best broach the elimination of the IDD waitlist.
10:10:39 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment L 1 was
ADOPTED.
10:11:03 AM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L 2 33-
GH1347\B.4 (Marx, 3/23/23) (copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Medicaid Services
Allocation: Medicaid Services
Transaction Details
Title: Development of Cost Allocation Assessment
Tool (FY24-FY26)
Section: Language
Type: MultiYr
Funding
1002 Fed Rcpts 2,046.0
1003 GF/Match 227.3
Explanation
This amendment proposal increases funding for the
Medicaid Services allocation, to allow the division to
create a Cost Allocation Assessment Tool.
The Assessment Tool would provide better
predictability of budget needs, more flexibility and
enhanced beneficiary choice and self-direction.
Successful implementation of this tool would allow the
division to work towards the elimination of the 100
waitlist.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that the amendment was the
same multiyear appropriation (through FY 26) for the IDD
waitlist assessment tool. The amendment added $227,300 in
general funds and $2,046,000 in federal matching funds. The
multiyear appropriation would enable the department to
garner the appropriate federal receipt authority and
authorize it to develop the IDD waitlist allocation tool.
Co-Chair Johnson believed it was similar to a previous
amendment withdrawn by Representative Josephson.
Representative Josephson supported the amendment and
thanked Representative Stapp.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment L 2 was
ADOPTED.
10:12:26 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 50
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: General Relief/Temp Assistance
Transaction Details
Title: Increase to General Relief/Temporary
Assistance Payments to Meet Inflation Wordage
Type: Intent
Linkage: Allocation - General Relief/Temp Assistance
Wordage
It is the intent of the legislature that the
department increase the daily rate for General
Relief/Temporary Assisted Living from $104.30 to
$169.48 to reflect the real costs of General
Relief/Temporary Assisted Living in assisted living
homes.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained that the general
relief/temporary assistance program paid for services
provided by behavioral health assisted living homes
(sometimes called group homes) for Alaskans with complex
behavioral health needs who need a step-down level of
support after leaving institutionalized care from
facilities such as the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API),
hospitals, and Department of Corrections facilities. He
elaborated that general relief assisted living provided
shelter, services, and medication to help Alaskans
stabilize; however, due to the low payment rate for general
relief beds, there were few assisted living home providers
who accept general relief residents. He stated it was a
public safety issue. He continued that because of the lack
of available general relief beds, individuals were wracking
up costs while they remain in institutional facilities, or
they may be discharged on the streets without needed
medical care. He relayed that the rate had been increased
in 2022 for the first time in 20 years to catch up with
inflation; however, the current daily rate for general
relief remained well below the actual cost for behavioral
health assisted living homes to care for general relief
residents. He stated that increasing the cost to the real
cost of providing the services would increase the capacity
of assisted living homes to take in general relief
patients, save the state money in uncompensated care, and
avoid the cost of institutional care. He remarked that the
2022 funding was a band aid and the amendment was designed
to reflect the true daily rate of $169.48.
10:15:25 AM
Co-Chair Johnson recognized Representative Ashley Carrick
in the audience.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 50 FAILED (4/6).
Co-Chair Edgmon was absent from the vote.
10:16:34 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 51
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior Community Based Grants
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Funding for Senior and Disability
Services Community Based Grants
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
725.0
Explanation
The number of seniors in Alaska increases by more than
10% each year. However, these grants have remained
constant since 2015, while the number of recipients
seeking services and costs continued to grow. In 2022,
Alaskans aged 60+ (147,504) represent more than 20% of
the State's total population (736,556).
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He
relayed that in 2022, the senior and independent living
community sought an increase to reflect the cost of
inflation adjustment for independent living centers and
senior centers. He detailed that the governor had chosen to
veto the sum of about $1.5 million. The governor had
changed course and included the amount in the current
budget; however, he referenced an AGEnet document dated
February 24, 2023 where senior advocates reported that
inflation continued to erode the value of the funding
received from the state. The number of seniors in Alaska
increased by more than 10 percent each year he commented
on Alaska's outmigration problem as a separate issue. He
continued that the grants had remained constant since 2015,
while the number of recipients seeking services and costs
continued to grow. In 2022, there were 147,504 Alaskans
aged 60 and over (accounting for 20 percent of the
population). She stated the amendment was a further
inflation adjustment after the veto. He asked for members'
support.
Representative Ortiz supported the amendment. The amendment
started to address the needs for elderly Alaskans. He
discussed how seniors helped the state, communities, and
families. He stated that failing to address issues facing
seniors sent a message that their presence was not valued.
He elaborated that inflation and other things impacting
society at all levels were impacting seniors perhaps at a
greater level. He saw the amendment as very worthy, and it
communicated the state valued its seniors.
Representative Galvin supported the amendment. She
highlighted the number of elders who participated and
needed the services. She recalled hearing from senior
centers across the state during public testimony about how
inflationary costs had directly affected how the state was
giving fewer opportunities to its elders. She remarked
there were many elders in Alaska who had been able to
participate in place-based centers where they could
exercise and have access to things like a small library,
craft classes, and sharing stories with others. She
believed the amendment was a small token to keep up with
inflationary costs in order for elders to have
opportunities for quality of life at a time when life was
most precious.
10:22:13 AM
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 51 FAILED (4/6).
Co-Chair Edgmon was absent from the vote.
10:23:11 AM
Representative Hannan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 52 (copy
on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior Community Based Grants
Transaction Details
Title: MH Trust: Aging & Disability Resource
Centers (FY24-FY26)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncT
Funding
1037 GF/MH
250.0
Explanation
This would bring funding for Aging & Disability
Resource Centers (ADRCs) through the Department of
Health to the level recommended by the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority.
ADRCs serve as trusted places for people to go for
information and assistance about aging and disability
related topics. They also provide screenings for home
and community based services. This level of funding
would allow an ADRC to open at an additional location
in the state.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Hannan explained that the amendment came out
of a recommendation from the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA). She detailed that AMHTA was putting
$300,000 towards the Aging and Disability Resource Centers
and recommended that the state contribute $250,000. Aging
and disability centers were located throughout the state
and were part of the services to get seniors and others
with disabilities connected to funded services. The centers
provided a caregiver network with long-term services and
support and were part of the federal effort to keep people
easily in contact with long-term services. The available
support varied from region to region and included things
like transportation, assisted technology, and in-home care.
She highlighted various programs in the Anchorage Senior
Center, the Links program in Mat-Su, the Southeast Alaska
Independent Learning Center, the Fairbanks Senior Center
serving the northern region of the Yukon-Koyukuk, Denali,
and North Slope Boroughs, the Kenai Independent Living
Center (serving Kenai, Valdez, Cordova, and Kodiak), and
the Dillingham Senior Center administered by the Bristol
Bay Native Association.
10:25:25 AM
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 52 FAILED (4/6).
Co-Chair Edgmon was absent from the vote.
10:26:23 AM
Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendment N 53 (copy on
file).
10:26:38 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 54 (copy on
file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Departmental Support Services
Allocation: Commissioner's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Delete Contract Funding for Recruitment and
Retention of Health Care Professionals in Alaska
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
-150.0
Explanation
This amendment deletes $150,000 in UGF for a
contracted position in the Commissioner's Office to
work collaboratively across the divisions to review
and address areas of recruitment and retention
challenges in a more holistic fashion. Given the
State's current fiscal situation and lack of available
information on this transaction, adding a new position
is inadvisable.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Johnson explained the amendment deleted a position
in the DOH commissioner's office aimed at working on
recruitment and retention problems. She stated there was no
question there were recruitment and retention problems as
shown in the vacancy rates across departments. She
explained there were vacancy rates that allowed the
department to reclassify positions they could not fill. She
noted that the legislature had tried to delete some vacant
positions, but it was challenging to do so outside of the
department because it was not possible to know what was
going on with each vacant position. The amendment urged the
department to take a close look at its vacancies and
reclassify positions to those that were needed.
Representative Hannan asked if the amendment pertained to a
new position in the commissioner's office that had not yet
been advertised or filled.
Co-Chair Johnson agreed.
Representative Galvin stated that she was not part of the
discussion when the commissioner's office requested the
position. She understood more workers in the field [of
recruitment and retention] were needed. She requested
context for the department's request. She considered that
the real problem may be that the department was looking to
fill vacancies and needed help to do so in order to
continue services to Alaskans.
Co-Chair Johnson did not recall the department speaking
about the issue. She explained that the department had the
ability to reclassify any existing vacant position to fill
the intended purpose.
Representative Galvin asked if the vacant positions were
necessary to deliver services Alaskans needed. She asked if
Co-Chair Johnson knew which positions were vacant.
Co-Chair Johnson replied that she did not. She stated it
was up to the department to determine. She did not support
picking a specific position to remove. She stated the
amendment gave the department the flexibility to work
within its existing vacancy rate and prioritize. She
explained it would avoid adding positions, while
maintaining the level of service needed.
10:30:55 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 54 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Josephson Representative Josephson MOVED to
ADOPT Amendment N 55 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson requested a brief at ease.
Co-Chair Johnson stated the committee would take a 15
minute break.
10:31:55 AM
AT EASE
10:51:09 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 55
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Medicaid Services
Allocation: Medicaid Services
Transaction Details
Title: Required Medicaid Rate Rebasing for
Developmental Disability and Personal Care Services
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
15,000.0
Explanation
This amendment provides funding for a 10% increase for
Direct Service Providers (DSPs) for Developmental
Disability and Personal Care Services rates. The
intended purpose of this rate increase is twofold: to
support DSPs facing increased operational costs due to
inflation, and to increase the wages paid by the DSPs
to their employees. The rates for community-based
Medicaid providers were not re-established in 2014 and
2018, which has resulted in ongoing operational
losses. This amendment would address 2021 and 2022
inflation rate increases.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson shared that the Key Coalition's
associated organizations were eager to work on the IDD
waitlist. He noted that his earlier discussion on the topic
had omitted something. There was a second thing the
coalition talked frequently about. He explained that their
workforce often came in the form of direct service
providers (DSPs) who were paid around $13 to $14 per hour.
He underscored that the organizations working to help
people with intellectual and physical disabilities could
not stand up a workforce without greater contribution from
the state. He referenced a letter by Michael Bailey who
discussed that under Title 7 regulations, the Department of
Health was supposed to reestablish or rebase rates every
four years in the home and community-based waiver services
program, but it had not occurred in 2014, 2018, and 2022.
He stated that regulations had the force and effect of law.
He did not know why the work had not occurred. He stated
the governor had proposed a budget increase of $3.7 million
and a little more in his amended budget. However, the U.S.
Bureau of Statistics reflected an inflation rate of 7
percent in 2021 and 6.45 percent in 2022. At best, the
governor's budget would fund a 3 percent rate increase.
Representative Josephson stressed that the organizations
could not function at the rate being contributed by the
state. The amendment was meant to do the state's job for it
by intervening with bridge funding. He referenced a lengthy
letter (copy on file) from a Juneau resident Kim Chantley,
executive director of the Alaska Association on
Developmental Disabilities. The letter dated March 3
explained that the Medicaid increment of $15 million was
vital to relieve and stabilize home and community-based
services while the state worked to address laws and the
rate rebasing methodology. The organization sought a 10
percent increase. He had the honor of receiving the Key
Coalition's recent award. He shared that the top
conversation at their reception [in Juneau] was about the
need to rebase and increase rates for direct service
providers. He stated it was a key feature of the
coalition's request for FY 24.
10:56:24 AM
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Foster,
Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 55 FAILED (4/7).
10:57:28 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 56
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Medicaid Services
Allocation: Medicaid Services
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Rate Rebasing for Behavioral Health
1115 Medicaid Waiver Services
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1003 GF/Match
7,290.0
Explanation
Rate rebasing helps Medicaid services maintain their
dollar value for services as inflation increases. In
the Governor's budget, 1115 Medicaid waiver services
funding only increased by 4.5%. Stakeholders believe
an adequate increase would require 18%. This amendment
increases the funding by 13.5% to total an 18%
increase. Because these services are eligible for
reimbursement through the 1115 Medicaid waiver,
rebasing the rate requires additional state matching
funds.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson stated that starting with the oil
recession in the fall of 2014, the state had not kept up
with the cost of doing business for the Alaska people. He
shared that in late March he had met with a group from the
Southcentral Foundation. The group had provided him with a
document from the tribal behavioral health director's
committee (a subcommittee of the Alaska Native Health
Board). He had learned that along with the rebasing issues
he had previously discussed, the 1115 waiver was short 18
percent and the governor's proposal only funded 4.5
percent. He read from the document he was provided by the
group:
Payment rates for 1115 waiver services. The 4.5
percent 1115 waiver increase was not adequate to cover
the increase in labor and supply cost and general
inflation over the last several years. If the rates
were increased to keep up with inflation, since the
waiver was approved in November 2018, the actual rate
increase should be around 18 percent.
Representative Josephson had asked the Legislative Finance
Division what 18 percent would be and had learned it was
$17.2 million. He opined that the waiver needed to be
supplemented with grants and the House Finance Committee
had rejected the grant supplement. He emphasized that the
core funding mechanism for the 1115 waiver was 18 percent
behind what it used to be. He asked for members' support.
He concluded that the workers were trying to keep people
out of institutions, costly care, and prison in some
circumstances.
11:00:44 AM
Representative Stapp commented on the 1115 waiver process.
He explained that Medicaid spending on the 1115
demonstrations was required to be budget neutral. He
elaborated that when the state applied for a waiver,
federal spending under the demonstration could not exceed
the projected cost of the CMS application. He explained it
was the reason the department [DOH] was looking at rebasing
rates through the amend process it was embarking upon in
the current year as well as renewing the waiver process. He
clarified that the state could not just try to leverage
more federal receipts even if it wanted to by enhancing the
Medicaid budget. He stated the argument [made by
Representative Josephson] was good. He agreed that 1115
reimbursement rates were not adequate to cover inflationary
pressure, but he did not think the amendment proposal would
be possible given the nature of the CMS process.
Representative Galvin wondered about the state's legal
obligation to take care of Alaskans, which would mean
supporting the amendment, as opposed to a longer ask for
the state's federal delegation to work on changing the 1115
waiver.
Representative Josephson answered it was the first time he
had heard that there was anything prohibiting the
amendment. He shared he had countless meetings about the
need. He clarified he was not seeking a federal match and
he knew nothing that would prohibit the state from
contributing $7.3 million more to costs associated with
nonprofits for the treatment and care through direct
service providers of people with intellectual and physical
disabilities.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin, Hannan
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 56 FAILED (4/7).
11:04:29 AM
Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 57
(copy on file):
Agency: Labor & Workforce Dev
Appropriation: Labor Standards and Safety
Allocation: Mechanical Inspection
Transaction Details
Title: Add One Safety Inspector and Compliance,
Electrical Inspector, and a Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Inspector
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
250.0
Explanation
This would One Safety Inspector and Compliance,
Electrical Inspector, Step A in Fairbanks and a Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Inspector, Step A in Juneau. After
working with the Department of Labor, we understand
these two positions would have the greatest impact on
backlogs. Additionally, there has been outspoken
requests for inspectors from the construction
industry.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tomaszewski explained that the amendment
would add two permanent full-time positions for an
electrical safety and compliance inspector and a boiler and
pressure vessel inspector. He detailed that the positions
had been discussed with the department during the
subcommittee process. Additionally, there had been quite a
few outspoken requests for additional inspectors in the
fields from the construction industry. Considering the
increase in federal project grants that would be making
their way into the state, it was a good time to reduce
backlogs and be ready for projects occurring in the next
several years.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 57 was
ADOPTED.
11:06:09 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 58 (copy on
file):
Agency: Labor & Workforce Dev
Appropriation: AVTEC
Allocation: Alaska Vocational Tech Center
Transaction Details
Title: Reverse Fund Swap Receipt Authority in Order
to Restore General Fund Program
Section: Section 1
Type: FndChg
Explanation
The Governor proposed to replace $320,000 in General
Fund Program Receipts with Unrestricted General Funds
(UGF) to cover unavailable program receipts to support
existing training opportunities. Given Alaska's
current fiscal situation, AVTEC could raise tuition to
increase program receipts rather than utilizing
additional UGF.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Johnson explained the amendment would reverse a
proposed fund source swap that would utilize $320,000
undesignated general funds (UGF) in lieu of Alaska
Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) program receipts. She
detailed that the agency had a significant amount of hollow
receipt authority compared to its collected revenue. She
would rather see a slight increase in tuition to meet
program needs than to add $320,000 UGF into AVTEC's base
budget. She understood AVTEC would require some notice
before it could adjust its tuition rates and she did not
want it to be a loss of service to Alaskan students.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to
maintain the $320,000 UGF as a one-time increment for FY 24
and $320,000 in program receipt authority into the future.
She explained it would ensure AVTEC would be given time to
look at adjusting rates without cutting services to
students and would allow the legislature to take another
look at needed subsidies in the next year.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
There were no questions or discussion on the conceptual
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 58 was ADOPTED.
Representative Galvin appreciated when it was possible to
get receipts from tuition and she also understood how
deeply Alaska needed growth in its workforce. She asked
what the tuition increase would look like for students.
Co-Chair Johnson explained that she did not have the
information on hand because with the conceptual amendment
there was no tuition increase [in FY 24]. She recalled the
tuition increase would be relatively minimal. She was
offering the amendment because she wanted AVTEC to look at
its funding source. She stated that the amendment would
change the UGF funding to a one-time increment, but the
amount was not changed.
11:09:58 AM
Representative Hannan intended to support the amendment
with the adoption of the conceptual amendment. She noted
the money would not be rolled into the program's base. In
the future if AVTEC saw areas of substantial need and
insufficient enrollment, she urged AVTEC to offer grants in
specific AVTEC training programs (e.g., plumbing or
electrician programs) instead of increasing tuition across
the board. She stated it was some of the best dollar value
investment in the state's local workforce because all of
the programs were designed around people receiving
certificates or trades that allowed them to go to work
immediately. She noted that for some people, a small change
in tuition could produce a barrier to attending the
programs. She remarked that Alaska would not have its own
workforce to meet all of the infrastructure needs and AVTEC
was one of the programs that contributed to that workforce.
She appreciated giving AVTEC advance notice to look at the
issue.
11:11:34 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 58 was
ADOPTED as amended.
11:11:55 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 59
(copy on file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Criminal Division
Allocation: Criminal Justice Litigation
Transaction Details
Title: Partial Reduction for Criminal Investigator
on Election Fraud
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
-35.9
Explanation
A 25% reduction in the position. The criminal
investigator would have sufficient funding to
investigate conflict cases and rural homicides/felony
sex offenses/other violent crimes.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson referenced testimony by assistant
attorney general John Skidmore to the finance subcommittee
that there were four to five potential cases of election
fraud. He underscored that Mr. Skidmore did not say the
Department of Law had filed four to five cases. He remarked
that a committee member had stated there were 500 to 600
cases of fraud. He stated if that was the case, the state
needed to hire about four of the positions. He took Mr.
Skidmore's word that there were four or five cases
[compared to 500 to 600]. He considered what election fraud
meant. He stated it may mean that someone lived and voted
in Boise, ID earlier in 2022 and subsequently moved to
Alaksa and voted in Anchorage in the same year. He stated
it was then necessary to ask whether the individual had the
intent to defraud the election. He noted that some culpable
mental state would have to be proven. He reiterated there
were potentially four to five cases. He stated that perhaps
one would plead out and the offender would pay a fine and
possibly spend a night in jail. A couple of the other cases
may go to court.
Representative Josephson stated that fundamentally he
understood that the governor had many supporters who
believed there was substantial election fraud. However, he
believed Mr. Skidmore had indicated the opposite. The
amendment would reduce 25 percent of the funding for the
position. He stated that the balance of the funding was
important and would go towards a criminal investigator to
look at rural homicides, felony sex offences, and other
violent crimes. He distinctly remembered the year 2000
because he had lived in Kotzebue the entire year and had
over 800 criminal cases. He remarked that if someone told
him he had 804 cases, it would not move the needle on his
stress and it would merely be another four cases. He did
not understand why the Department of Law could not absorb
four to five election fraud cases.
Representative Stapp asked how to cut 25 percent of a
position.
Representative Cronk opposed the amendment. He remarked
that he chaired the [Department of Law] finance
subcommittee. He stated that the topic was polarized no
matter what side of the issue a person was on. He felt that
voting and election integrity was of the utmost importance
because it was a sacred process where people got to cast a
vote and know there was honesty involved. He stated that
whether it was one case or 100 cases it was important to
likely half the constituents in Alaska. He noted that Mr.
Skidmore had specified there was an increase in cases. He
believed there was a case that involved a former
[legislative] member. He remarked that the issue was not
fabricated. He considered what the position would be doing
25 percent of the time if there were only a few cases [of
election fraud]. He highly doubted they would be doing
nothing because there were plenty of other things to
continue work on. He thought it was a great question for
Mr. Skidmore. He believed the issue was very important
regardless of what side of the political spectrum a person
was on. He thought it was important for people to know they
had some sort of representation when they had an issue that
needed to be addressed.
11:17:04 AM
Representative Hannan supported the amendment. She stated
that if there was criminal activity going on in the state
and the state was not investigating it, the state was being
negligent. She believed the evidence of a suit being
brought against a former [legislative] member was evidence
that the Department of Law already investigated election
fraud and may be prosecuting a case. She highlighted that
violent crime and sexual assault was at epidemic levels in
Alaska, exceeding levels nationwide. She wanted to ensure
the investigators hired in Alaska were addressing the
largest and most significant criminal issues.
Co-Chair Johnson understood that 25 percent of a person was
hard to hire. She generally agreed with the amendment
sponsor and did not know that there was substantial
election fraud; however, she thought that perhaps
perception became reality and if the position did not find
fraud, the individual would likely do less election
oversight and more violent and sexual crime investigations.
She wanted to fully fund the position. She wanted to make
sure the state could assure any public with concerns about
the integrity of the state's elections that there were no
bad actors. She thought fully funding the position filled
the need for additional rural homicide, felony, sex
offender, and violent crime investigations, in addition to
allowing for any election investigations. She opposed the
amendment.
11:19:55 AM
Co-Chair Foster realized it was a polarizing issue. He
supported the amendment. He respected other people's
position on the issue and emphasized the intent of the
amendment was to allow for sufficient funding for the
investigation of rural crimes.
Co-Chair Edgmon relayed that he was confused by the
position. He stated that when the committee had heard from
the Department of Law earlier in session, four of the six
bullet points on the slide were related to election fraud.
He understood the position would focus on something more
than just election fraud. He agreed that if there was
significant election fraud it should be dealt with
appropriately. He supported the position, but if it was
going to be done, he thought it should be done right. He
thought that including election fraud investigation as part
of the position responsibilities could shortchange the work
the person would do in rural areas on sexual assault and
homicides.
11:22:11 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment N 59.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Foster, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 59 was ADOPTED.
11:23:23 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 60
(copy on file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Criminal Division
Allocation: Criminal Justice Litigation
Transaction Details
Title: Add Five Attorney and Five Support Staff
Positions to Prosecute Sexual Assault Cases
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
1,706.2
Explanation
Add five Assistant Attorney General IV positions, two
Victim Witness Paralegal 11 positions, three Law
Office Assistant II positions, and funding for
associated Travel, Services, and Commodities costs.
This distribution should match the SLA 2022 fiscal
note to HB 5 pertaining to sexual assault and the
definition of consent. The Fiscal Note was provided to
HB005CSSS(JUD)-LAW-CRIM-CJL-05-05-22 but was
ultimately not funded in FY23.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson relayed that the amendment had
previously been heard on the House floor. The amendment
aimed to enforce the state's sexual assault laws. He stated
he would withdraw the amendment if he heard one person from
the administration say that the department did not need the
resources; however, he believed the funds were needed as
the department had stated in May. He explained that the
department had been very specific on the matter. He
elaborated that under the "no means no" law, the department
estimated there would be 90 to 120 more cases. He stated it
was true that [attorneys] had received substantial
increases in salary, which had done wonders for hiring
unfilled positions. He underscored that the amendment
pertained to new positions including four attorneys and
five paralegals or assistants who were needed to enforce
the new law. He reminded the committee that the principal
objection to the amendment had been his offering it to the
fast track supplemental, which had not been the place. He
stated the operating budget was the only alternative
because the regular supplemental had been inserted into the
operating budget. He highlighted that the budget funded OPA
[Office of Public Advocacy] and the PDs [Public Defender
Agency] to defend cases. He supported funding the attorney
positions.
Representative Josephson stated that previous to HB 325 by
former Representative Sarah Rasmussen as amended by former
Representative Geran Tarr with HB 5, there had been a
backwards law indicating there had to be a show of force
and a reaction of force from the victim. He explained it
was not required any longer. There had to be an
identifiable showing of consent to be intimate. He stressed
that the issue was important. He asked for members'
support.
11:26:29 AM
AT EASE
11:29:26 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Coulombe asked if the Department of Law
requested the positions. She did not recall the positions
being requested. She stated that many of the things the
legislature had done for the Public Defender Agency was to
get it out of a backlog. She stated that when prosecutors
were added, there was a ripple effect to public defenders
and the corrections system. She wanted to be certain the
move would not overload too much at once.
Co-Chair Johnson noted that questions would be answered in
wrap up.
Representative Cronk shared that he had the Criminal
Division in his subcommittee and Mr. Skidmore had spoken to
the subcommittee on multiple occasions. He relayed that Mr.
Skidmore had been very clear he would not ask for more than
was needed. Mr. Skidmore had told the subcommittee that if
more funding was needed he would make a request the
following year. He relayed that based on discussions in
subcommittee he did not believe the item was needed
currently. He believed the department would come back to
the legislature if it needed positions.
11:31:33 AM
Representative Josephson believed the department needed the
money. He stated it appeared the department had been unable
to move the request up the chain of command to the Office
of Management and Budget. He replied to a question by
Representative Coulombe. He explained that in HB 79 [the
fast track supplemental] passed by both bodies, there were
four components that PDs wanted and two referred to the "no
means no" law. He shared that OPA had asked for and
received almost $2.3 million. The PD received $833,000.
Under the amendment the attorney generals would get $1.7
million (just over half of what the defense agencies
received). He stated that Representative Cronk may be right
about his comments. He did not recall the testimony but did
not deny it either. He believed the funding was needed.
Co-Chair Foster MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 60 FAILED (4/7).
11:34:40 AM
AT EASE
11:35:38 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 61
(copy on file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Civil Division
Allocation: Legal Support Services
Transaction Details
Title: Delete Attorney 5 Position for Parental
Rights in Education Advocate
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Funding
1004 Gen Fund
-209.0
Explanation
Removes funding for attorney with a focus in parental
rights. The position funds an attorney whose specific
focus is litigating disputes between parents and
school districts.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson highlighted there was a link in
the Alaska Daily News to a recent story about the
constitutionality of the parental rights bill including a
link to a legal report from [legislative counsel] Marie
Marx that questioned the legality of the governor's bill.
He explained that the amendment would delete an attorney
position [within the Department of Law for parental
rights]. He surmised the position would sit at a desk and
answer the phone when people made complaints. He stated it
bothered him in a number of ways. He believed it pit
parents against their schools. He had not personally
listened to the governor's press conference, but the
governor apparently stated that people need to know how to
sue their school districts. He found the comment to be
alarming. Based on his understanding of the department's
testimony on the proposal, the position would run
interference and pacify parents who were needlessly or
incorrectly up in arms that they did not have consent "that
Michael Angelo's David statue from the 1500s was going to
be in a slide deck in the art class." He thought it was a
very odd position to put within the Department of Law. He
objected to the proposal and asked members to support its
deletion.
11:38:01 AM
Representative Tomaszewski opposed the amendment. He stated
the topic of parental rights was frequently in the news and
was a huge discussion within constituencies across the
state. He saw an erosion of parental rights within Alaska
and the education system. He believed the state absolutely
needed an advocate for parental rights because he found
parental rights to be extremely important. He thought
parents needed the ability to understand and know what was
going on in the education system. He strongly objected to
the amendment.
Representative Galvin supported the amendment. She believed
there were some good tenets in place for family engagement
in the school system. She agreed that it could be
strengthened. She was grateful that the parents she had
spoken to felt very welcome in the school. She stated that
parents had indicated things were going great and they
loved the teacher they were working with. She believed it
was important to have mechanisms in place for solving
issues. She elaborated that there were local control school
boards and ombudsman that should be helpful. She explained
there were many things in place to help Alaskans solve
problems. She thought it was a very small segment of
Alaskans who perhaps had been in the headlines. She
clarified that they were important, but she believed when
the department hired a position to solve the issue, it
could encourage opening a lawsuit rather than solving a
problem.
Representative Galvin shared that she had four kids who had
gone through the school system and when there had been
issues she had been engaged. She detailed that she had
spent thousands of hours in her kids' schools and other
schools. She felt there were good systems for concerns
about what was being taught, how things were being taught,
and books that were taught. She encouraged Alaskans to keep
getting involved because more engagement resulted in better
outcomes for kids. She did not believe a parental rights
attorney was necessarily the right way to reach student
improvement and families being engaged. She was grateful
for the opportunity to support the amendment.
11:41:34 AM
Representative Coulombe opposed the amendment. She stated
all she could do was go off of what she had seen in
Anchorage school board meetings. She stated the issue was a
problem and there were many parents who felt they went
through the current system to solve a problem and they were
not listened to. She noted that 18 percent had left the
school district. She thought it was important for parents
to know there was a position that operated kind of like an
ombudsman to try to mitigate the issues and get the
attention of school boards. She had found there would
always be issues that came up where parents felt one way
and the school district voted another way. She stated there
was a consistent adversarial issue the school board needed
to address but it was not being addressed. She remarked
that the school board liked to say the issue involved a
small number of parents and people, but she disagreed. She
supported the position because she thought parents needed a
stronger voice. She thought the position could perhaps
resolve things and calm school board meetings down.
11:43:08 AM
Representative Ortiz remarked that committee members all
came to the amendments from the different perspectives of
the different communities they represented. He stated that
he was fortunate to represent communities that were truly
communities where people knew each other and there was
communication between people with differing opinions. He
elaborated that the schools in his district were watched
over by local school boards. He recognized there were
problems and times when parents were disgruntled about
something that happened in a classroom or school activity,
but there was dialogue that occurred when that took place.
He did not see someone coming in from the state level and
helping to improve parental participation in schools. He
considered some of the money the committee did not
appropriate for some significant things to help local
communities and people with disabilities. He stated that
the amendment would save the state money and he was in full
support.
Representative Hannan spoke in favor of the amendment. She
urged members to remember there were 53 school boards
governing school districts under state law (54 counting the
board governing Mt. Edgecumbe High School). She speculated
that every school district had lawsuits brought against
them. She remarked there were law firms specializing in
that area in all major communities. She detailed that a
large number of the lawsuits brought by parents and
families in Juneau were brought via the Disability Law
Center, some which were brought by multiple parties. She
stated that parental rights and school board policies were
developed locally, and any litigation had very case
specific facts and circumstances. She viewed the governor's
proposal as an attempt to take over the school boards'
responsibilities. She thought the approach was wrong. She
stated if there were school districts that continue to lose
families because they were not complying with their own
policies, there should be some kind of investigation. She
relayed that a group of families suing a school district
happened on a regular basis. She stated that school
districts stood up and paid attention as soon as a family
threatened a lawsuit or hired an attorney. She continued
that the individual circumstances around ensuring a
family's needs were met or addressed may or may not be
known because it was about individual students and
resolutions. She thought the governor's proposal was an
overstep on the state's part when there were local school
boards that should be paying attention. She advised that if
communities were dissatisfied with how their local school
board was performing, they could elect a new school board
and hire a new superintendent that was responsive.
Communities could ensure their school district was
complying with state law that was very clear about parents
having a legal and active right to be engaged in the
education of their students. She supported the amendment.
Co-Chair Foster supported the amendment. He relayed that
his district housed four school districts with over 30
schools. He knew most of his school board members and
parents in his district. He believed everyone got along
pretty well. He did not want to encourage people to sue
each other. He recognized his district may not be the same
as every district in the state, but he hoped it was not a
huge issue statewide. He did not want to encourage a
litigious atmosphere.
11:49:26 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon considered the amendment to be the "flash
point" amendment out of the 85 or so amendments before the
committee. He remarked that however he voted would be the
wrong side. He stated it was the way it worked with certain
issues. He commented that he would like to have an ability
to have a committee hearing to dig into the topic (similar
to the election amendment the committee had voted on
earlier in the meeting) to get a more extensive
understanding about what was happening across the state. He
related to comments by Co-Chair Foster that school board
members generally got along with their administration. He
wondered why not hire an investigator - if the issue was to
be looked at further to support the existing
infrastructure that was clearly working in the Department
of Law and a number of other venues down to the legal
counsel in each school district. He considered a scenario
where a lawsuit was brought on a school that involved the
position. He noted that under the scenario, the school
district would have to use financial resources and
substantial staff time and a pall would be cast across the
school as a whole. He stated it was a difficult amendment
for every member and there were strong feelings about the
issue. He stated it was a national movement sweeping the
country and was like a slow moving tsunami coming to
Alaska. He would make it a goal to talk more to his schools
and school districts over the coming interim. He stated the
issue had not come up as a concern. He reiterated that the
amendment was difficult.
Representative Cronk remarked that the amendment topic was
polarizing. He shared that he had been a teacher for 25
years and he had never acted as parent to his students. He
thought schools were trying to take on the parental role.
He stressed that a parent's child was their own and did not
belong to the state or their school. He had received
numerous calls from parents asking what they could do. He
did not have resources to provide them. He viewed the
position as a resource for parents. He stated enrollment
was dropping because there was frustration by parents about
putting their kids in school. He opposed the amendment.
11:53:43 AM
Co-Chair Johnson opposed the amendment. She agreed it was a
difficult choice. She heard what her colleagues were
saying. She relayed that no one had come to her asking for
the position and she shared the concern about encouraging a
more litigious society; however, the state was embarking on
a new system in relation to the Reads Act. She thought
there may be opportunities where parents wanted to ensure
their rights were followed through and to communicate when
something was not working and that they had the right to
have their children educated a certain way. She thought
that given the large changes [pertaining to the Reads Act]
there would be times when conflict may need to be worked
out between the school district and parents.
Representative Josephson provided wrap up on the amendment.
He disputed another committee member's comment that
parental rights were eroding in Alaska. For example, it was
no longer legal for Planned Parenthood to come into a
health class and describe how to not make children without
a parental consent form. He explained that the change had
been made by a bill sponsored by former Senator Mike
Dunleavy [current Governor Dunleavy]. He believed that
parental rights were expanding. He considered all of the
different consent forms and invited the 53 school districts
to have a team of several people responsible for ensuring
the forms had been sent to parents. He remarked that the
work could go on all day long. He thought districts should
report the work as cost to be included in the Base Student
Allocation (BSA) calculation. He disclosed that his sister
was managing partner Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens and the
amendment would go against her self-interest because she
litigated for school districts including rural districts.
He referenced another comment about declining enrollment.
He stated there were many factors for declining enrollment
including outmigration and economic malaise. He reminded
committee members that the rest of the country was doing
better than Alaska, which was off cycle.
Representative Josephson highlighted his other major
concern in closing. He did not believe the Department of
Law would tell the legislature that it "ran interference"
and that nine out of ten complaints were invalid. He
reasoned it was not something the administration wanted to
celebrate. He believed the administration wanted to talk
about the one case [out of ten]. He did not know they would
really appease parents who were so frustrated by telling
them something complied by the rules of law. He believed
the turmoil had been generated and the position would
merely generate more.
11:57:54 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 61 was ADOPTED.
11:58:46 AM
Representative Coulombe WITHDREW Amendment N 62 (copy on
file).
11:59:23 AM
AT EASE
12:11:02 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Coulombe WITHDREW Amendment N 63 (copy on
file).
12:11:21 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 64
(copy on file):
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Fire, Land & Water Resources
Allocation: Mining, Land & Water
Transaction Details
Title: Ensure Access to Easements on State Lands
within Municipality of Anchorage Wordage
Type: Intent
Linkage: Agency - Natural Resources
Wordage
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Natural Resources establish marked
access and signage along the easements to Campbell
Lake.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment would
require the easement section of the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Division of Mining, Land & Water to make
clear with signage (or other features) that the public was
allowed to access Campbell Lake on the north and south
ends. He detailed that Campbell Creek ran through the heart
of his district and Campbell Lake was located south of his
district. He explained the location of the creek and lake.
He believed it was the largest lake in the municipality. He
relayed it was a long running dispute and property owners
on the lake had strong feelings about their right to not be
interfered with. He detailed that the city and state both
considered the matter to be legally closed (the matter
never went to court), and access was legal through a
section line [note: see backup showing a joint statement
from DNR and the Municipality of Anchorage (copy on file)].
The amendment would direct DNR to notify the public it was
allowed to access the lake.
Representative Josephson explained that packrafters using
the creek wanted to be able to continue into the lake.
Additionally, other individuals wanted access to the lake.
He had respect for homeowners on the lake who wanted status
quo and quiet on the lake; however, the public was allowed
to access the lake.
Representative Cronk asked why the state should pay for the
item and not the municipality.
Co-Chair Johnson noted the question could be addressed
during wrap up.
Representative Cronk MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 64 to reduce the cost from $50,000 to $10,000.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED. He did not know what
$10,000 would buy. He remarked that he would deem some
middle number as friendly.
Representative Cronk recalled the costs for signage on
bridges had been around $10,000 a couple of years earlier.
He would like to see the municipality contribute some of
the funding. He believed in easements and in marking their
location. He did not support spending $50,000 on the issue.
Co-Chair Foster agreed with Representative Cronk. He
thought $50,000 was a substantial amount for signage. He
looked at the amendment language pertaining to easements on
state lands within the municipality. He thought it seemed a
bit strange. He asked Representative Josephson to elaborate
a bit more. He would support the conceptual amendment to
reduce the amount to $10,000.
12:17:22 PM
Representative Coulombe supported the conceptual amendment.
She thought the signage cost would be closer to $10,000.
She stated the issue was very contentious around the lake
and there were numerous confrontations as a result.
Representative Stapp did not really understand the
amendment. He asked what the state was getting in the
middle of. He wondered if it was a municipal government
suit with state government. He wondered why the department
had not made it a state easement if it had always been a
state easement. He referenced a backup document that
included the date 2007 (copy on file) [provided by
Representative Josephson].
Representative Hannan referenced Representative Cronk's
mention of Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) signs for bridges. She had been shocked to
learn when working on a bill on Funter Bay that metal DOT
signs for bridges ran about $10,000, but state park signs
and DNR signs were more expensive and made of another
material. She explained that Funter Bay signage had been
delayed waiting for an appropriation to state parks for DNR
authorized signs. She thought if the work was going to be
done [at Campbell Lake], appropriate signage should be
used. She did not know the appropriate number, but she
thought $10,000 was likely not sufficient.
12:19:31 PM
AT EASE
12:20:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnson noted the committee would break at 12:30
p.m. She asked if Representative Josephson would be
amenable to rolling the amendment to the bottom and taking
up later.
Representative Josephson answered that he had a slight
preference to get the amendment done because he did not
think it would take much more time.
Representative Cronk noted that Representative George
Rauscher had a bill pass in a prior legislative session
that allowed donations to pay for signage. He requested
time to look at the bill and suggested that the conceptual
amendment could potentially allow people to donate to fund
the sign.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION to the
conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Edgmon requested to allow time for Representative
Cronk to do his research on the topic. He stated the issue
had many facets including the municipality and state. He
did not fully understand the issue and wanted to give the
committee the full breadth of options.
Co-Chair Johnson noted the amendment would be heard at the
beginning of the 1:30 p.m. meeting.
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
12:24:38 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 12:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 39 Amendments 40 Backup Galvin 032823.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 HB 41 |
| HB 39 Amendment 44 Backup Josephson Stapp 032823.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 HB 41 |
| HB 39 Amendment 55 Backup Josephson 032823.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |
| HB 39 Amendment 64 Backup Josephson 032823.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |
| HB 39 Amendment 69 Backup Josephson 032823.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 39 |