Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/14/2024 08:30 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 | |
| HB81 | |
| HB148 | |
| HB193 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 14, 2024
8:35 a.m.
8:35:11 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:35 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
Ryan McKee, Staff, Representative George Rauscher;
Representative George Rauscher, Sponsor; Sana Efird,
Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education and Early Development;
Deb Riddle, Operations Manager, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development; Laural Shoop, Legislative Liaison, Department
of Education and Early Development; Karen Morrison,
Director, Division of Finance and Facilities, Department of
Education and Early Development; Representative Louise
Stutes; Representative Justin Ruffridge; Representative
Andi Story; Representative Rebecca Himschoot.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeffrey Schmitz, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration; Faye Tanner, Program
Coordinator, Department of Education and Early Development.
SUMMARY
HB 81 VEHICLES/BOATS: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
HB 81 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Administration.
HB 148 AK PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIP; ELIGIBILITY
CSHB 148(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
ten "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with four new
fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
HB 155 ESTABLISH AK MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMISSION
HB 193 was REPORTED out of committee with eight
"do pass" recommendations, two "amend"
recommendations, and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
HB 193 INTERNET FOR SCHOOLS
CSHB 155(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
ten "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Office of the
Governor.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act relating to the transfer of a title on the
death of the owner; and providing for an effective
date."
8:37:29 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted that no amendments had been received
for the bill. The committee would review the one fiscal
note from the Department of Administration.
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(DMV), DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
stated that he had just been informed that the fiscal note
submitted by the DMV had been changed by the committee. He
believed the note was now indeterminate or zero. He could
not speak to the reasons why the committee had changed the
note.
Co-Chair Foster replied that he did not believe the fiscal
note had been changed by the committee. He looked at fiscal
note with the OMB component number 2348 showing total
operating expenditures of $75,000 designated general funds
(DGF). He thought it was likely the original fiscal note.
8:39:16 AM
AT EASE
8:39:50 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted that Mr. Schmitz may be looking at an
earlier version of the fiscal note generated in the House
Transportation Committee, which was no longer relevant. He
clarified that the committee was addressing OMB component
number 2348.
Mr. Schmitz apologized for the confusion. He detailed that
the DMV fiscal note included $75,000 for programming needed
to change DMV's information system in accordance with the
bill. He elaborated that the cost had been provided by the
Office of Information Technology (OIT) [under the
Department of Administration]. He explained that there were
no other DMV costs.
Co-Chair Foster asked the bill sponsor to come to the table
to ensure the fiscal note was accurate.
RYAN MCKEE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER,
confirmed the fiscal note was correct. He explained that
the House Transportation Committee had changed the fiscal
note to indeterminate, but it had reverted back to the
prior fiscal note with cost of $75,000 when it reached the
House Finance Committee.
Co-Chair Johnson thought that the title transfer would
already take place when someone passed away. She wondered
why the funds were needed if the step was not additional.
Mr. Schmitz responded that it was not something that
happened automatically when an individual died. He
explained that the DMV or individuals involved did not
automatically know who [a vehicle title] should be
transferred to. He expounded that sometimes a vehicle could
be subject to probate. He explained there were a variety of
other features that could direct a path of ultimate
ownership in different directions. He was certain it was
the reason for the bill, in order to clarify what would
happen when an owner died. The programming involved would
be to change all of the fields needed to display the intent
of the owners upon death clearly on the title.
8:44:33 AM
Co-Chair Johnson observed that it would take 600
programming hours [based on the information in the fiscal
note]. She estimated that was about 15 weeks.
Mr. Schmitz responded affirmatively. He stated it was the
information provided by OIT. He explained it was a
complicated item, particularly pertaining to ownership
fields. He elaborated that it had to be tested and
regression tested. He stated that it could take an OIT team
awhile to work on it and he did not know the exact process
or the number of programmers involved.
Co-Chair Johnson thought it seemed to be a lot of
programming to do a title transfer.
Co-Chair Foster noted Leslie Isaacs, Administrative Service
Director, Department of Administration, was in the room for
questions as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, SPONSOR, stated it was hard
for him to understand why it would take the specified
length of time to make the change. He had seen other bills
with similar changes that had a zero fiscal note.
8:46:55 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the committee was disputing the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster clarified they were asking questions.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if they were information gathering on
the fiscal note. He was uncertain what the committee was
doing.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that it sounded like there were
some questions on the note. He stated that the department
felt it needed the money for the work. He reasoned that if
the funding was not provided the department may have to
request a supplemental appropriation later on. He was
comfortable going forward with the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Edgmon wanted to see the bill move and thought
they should move it forward. He surmised that the fiscal
note was likely not what the bill sponsor wanted to see,
but in the scheme of things the cost was fairly nominal. He
believed they should go for the greater good and move the
bill.
Co-Chair Johnson also wanted to see the bill move. She did
not want to get bogged down on the $75,000 fiscal note. She
thought she would need to spend some time looking into how
the numbers were determined on fiscal notes coming to the
committee.
Representative Hannan stated that she did not know anything
about computer programming. She deferred to the OIT
expertise. She was very supportive of the bill. She shared
that she had just gone through a complicated probate
process with her sister. She understood that things that
should be simple and straight forward were sometimes not.
She remarked that they were talking about vehicle and boat
titles, which could add a layer of complexity. She reminded
the committee that DMV was one of the few places in the
state budget that generated millions of dollars to the
general fund that lapsed annually. She stated her
understanding that the $75,000 in the fiscal note was the
maximum cost and the cost may not reach that amount. She
supported moving the bill.
Co-Chair Foster added that the funds were a one-time
amount.
8:50:43 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 81 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 81 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do pass"
recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation
and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration.
8:51:29 AM
AT EASE
8:52:37 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to the Alaska performance scholarship
program."
8:52:52 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were no amendments for the
bill. He stated that the committee would review the four
fiscal notes. He asked the director of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) with the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to
review the first three notes.
SANA EFIRD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, began with OMB component number 2990
pertaining to student financial aid programs. The note
pertained to the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS)
awards passed through as grants on the grants and benefits
line and funded through the Higher Education Investment
Fund. The note included $2,264,000 for FY 25, $2,404,200
for FY 26, $2,545,700 for FY 27, $2,688,700 for FY 28,
$2,833,100 for FY 29, and $2,978,900 for FY 30. The bill
amended the qualification criteria for the APS applicant by
adding an option for and expanding career and technical
education to the academic curriculum. The bill inserted the
definition for career cluster, removed the minimum score on
a college entrance or standardized examination requirement
for eligibility and added language to allow for a GPA or
minimum college entrance examination to qualify, instead of
requiring both. The bill added a requirement for school
districts to notify students in their junior year of their
progress towards earning APS eligibility and it required
thth
districts to inform students in 9 and 10 grade about the
performance scholarship. The legislation increased the
annual award amounts and provided an additional two years
for students to use the scholarship after high school
graduation, expanding the time from six to eight years. The
bill allowed eligible award recipients to qualify for an
increased award level while enrolled at a qualified
postsecondary institution, which was a step-up provision.
Ms. Efird continued to review OMB component number 2990.
She highlighted that APS award amounts were being increased
from $4,755 to $7,000 annually for level one, $3,566 to
$5,250 annually for level two, and $2,378 to $3,500
annually for level three. A table on the fiscal note showed
the requirements for the GPA or the minimum scores on the
college entrance exams. In order to come up with an
estimate for the note, ACPE had considered all of the
potential changes in the eligibility requirements resulting
from the legislation and a possible increase in the number
of scholarship eligible students. Additionally, the
increase in award amounts could increase the current
appropriation. Therefore, the calculation estimate for the
APS fiscal note award amount assumptions began with FY 23
(the most recent completed class) as a base. The note
applied the increase scholarship amounts included in the
bill to the FY 23 numbers and projected a 2 percent
increase in student usage for FY 25 due to expanded
eligibility criteria. The subsequent years projected a 1
percent increase in the number of students per year.
8:59:05 AM
Representative Josephson stated that the legislature had
recapitalized the Higher Education Investment Fund with
close to $400 million and had passed a law making it a
separate fund to prevent the funds from being swept. He
remarked that many legislators had shown a real commitment
to the fund. He asked if the draw would be sustainable.
Ms. Efird responded that the fiscal note was an estimate.
She elaborated that ACPE wanted to put forward a good
faith, transparent number that could result from the bill;
however, currently, the appropriation for the APS award was
$11,750,000. She explained that in the past year, APFC had
awarded less than $8 million of the funds. She relayed that
the investment of the fund was managed by the Department of
Revenue (DOR) and she did not want to speak on its behalf
in terms of sustainability. She explained that DOR provided
a 7 percent calculation of the balance to ACPE to
distribute two-thirds to the APS and one third for the
Alaska education grants. In FY 24, the 7 percent equaled
$26.6 million with $17.7 million for the APS; however, only
$11.75 million was appropriated and slightly under $8
million was actually used. The Alaska education grant had
an available $8.8 million to use in FY 24; however, only
$5.8 million was appropriated. She clarified that up to the
current point, ACPE had not used the 7 percent total
calculation available under statute from the Higher
Education Investment Fund; however, any questions about the
investments and gains and losses should be directed to DOR.
Ms. Efird speculated it would be five or so years before
there may be a concern [about the fund balance]. She
underscored that she was not an investment expert. She
believed committee members had the most recent APS report
showing how the use of the APS had been declining. The
current usage was less than half of the peak usage number.
She thought it would take four to five years to see all of
the new changes opening doors for other students. She
stated that there may be a question or funds needed to
recapitalize the fund in the future. She emphasized it was
a tool that would make a difference for the state's
workforce.
Co-Chair Foster recognized that Representative Louise
Stutes was in the audience. He noted that the bill was
sponsored by the House Education Committee and he
recognized members from that committee including
Representative Justin Ruffridge (co-chair) and
Representative Andi Story.
9:04:29 AM
Representative Galvin remarked on the bill's language that
students would be notified of the APS in their junior and
possibly sophomore years. She asked if the notification
went home for parents to see as well.
Ms. Efird responded that she was not certain but believed
it was students. She would have to double check to verify
the information.
Representative Galvin replied that she was very happy to
support the legislation and the answer was not pertinent to
her support.
9:05:23 AM
Ms. Efird moved to the second fiscal note OMB Component
number 3340 for the Alaska Education Grant Program. The
grant program was funded through the Higher Education
Investment Fund in the amount of $1,165,200 in FY 25,
$1,235,300 in FY 26, $1,306,100 in FY 27, $1,377,500 in FY
28, $1,449,700 in FY 29, and $1,522,600 in FY 30. Based on
current statute, the grant would increase as a result of
the projected APS increase in the bill. She explained that
under AS 14.43.915(c) one-third of the combined amount
shall be available solely for payment of grants awarded.
Statute directed ACPE to annually allocate two-thirds of
the combined amount in the accounts to eligible APS
applicants. She elaborated that if an insufficient number
of qualified applicants were awarded grants or scholarships
or both, the commissioner was directed to redeposit the
remaining funds into the Alaska Higher Education Investment
Fund. She noted that if the appropriation increased for the
APS, it would also increase for the Alaska Education Grant
proportionately.
9:08:17 AM
Ms. Efird reviewed OMB component number 2738 for ACPE
program administration and operation. The note pertained to
administrative allocation for staffing charged with
implementing the program. The note included one-time costs
of $31,200 for personal services and $16,000 in the
services category for a total of $47,200. She explained
that all of the eligibility qualification changes in the
two programs would require working with a contractor on the
changes to the Alaska Student Aid Portal managed by ACPE.
She elaborated that the portal was the platform used to
receive information from DEED for eligibility of students
and disbursement to the institutions and certification of
students. Additionally, the note included $6,000 for
regulation changes needed on the postsecondary side and
$10,000 to update the student portal.
9:10:37 AM
Co-Chair Foster recognized House Education Committee member
Representative Rebecca Himschoot in the committee room.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the final fiscal
note.
DEB RIDDLE, OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, reviewed OMB component number 2796. She
relayed that the fiscal note included a one-time cost of
$6,000 for updating regulations on the K-12 side of the
APS, which would include updating the curriculum options
providing information about the notification for students
and removing testing qualifications as outlined in the law.
The regulations would be updated in order for districts to
have the necessary guidance to work on the scholarship with
students.
9:12:19 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 148(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 148(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with four new fiscal impact notes from
the Department of Education and Early Development.
9:13:18 AM
AT EASE
9:15:15 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts; and providing for an effective
date."
9:15:24 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two amendments for the
bill.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-
LS0817\A.31 (Bergerud, 2/13/24) (copy on file):
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.127 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) If the total cost to a school district for
Internet services exceeds the amount awarded to the
district under the federal universal services program
combined with the amount awarded under this section
and the district uses an Internet services provider
that is not approved under the federal universal
services program but that meets the needs of the
district, the district remains eligible to receive
funding under this section, and the school may use
funding received under this section to pay for part of
the cost of using the Internet services provider.
(e) If the total cost to a school district for
Internet services from an Internet services provider
that is not approved under the federal universal
services program is equal to or less than the amount
that would have been awarded to the school under (a)
or (b) of this section, the school district is
eligible to receive an amount equal to the actual cost
for Internet services, up to the amount that the
school district would have been awarded under (a) or
(b) of this section."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. He outlined
some of the structural issues he believed to be within the
program that were likely not the intent of the bill
sponsor. He was offering the amendment because he had
compared the Universal Services Program information and all
of the E-Rate billings per eligible school (in the
committee packets) to the Broadband Assistance Grants (BAG)
that some of the school districts receive and had noticed a
couple of things that did not add up. First, he determined
that after large federal and state subsidies there were
rural schools in small districts that still had to pay
around $50,000 for internet. He highlighted that during
public testimony the committee had heard from school
districts that were buying systems for internet that were
not qualifying for a BAG award. He used the Bristol Bay
School District as an example and stated that the total
monthly billing from its service provider was over
$100,000. A 90 percent E-Rate discount from the federal
government was applied to the school district's bill.
Additionally, the school district received $91,000 for BAG.
Representative Stapp underscored that despite all of the
subsidies, the school district paid over $50,000 for
internet the previous year. He relayed that staff within
the school district had told him they were looking at
buying a different service provider because despite the
subsidies, their internet costs were still extremely high.
He stated that the school district had options that worked
better that cost less money; however, due to the BAG
structure, the school district could not receive any state
money for those other options. He believed that if the
state was going to give the school district $91,000 in BAG
funds and the district wanted to move to a service provider
that better met its needs at a cost of $40,000, the state
should be able to give the school district the $40,000
instead. He reasoned the school district would get the
product it wanted, and the state would save money. He noted
there were some issues with the amendment that should be
discussed.
9:18:46 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon felt like they were relitigating the bill.
He had brought the bill to the committee and explained that
the intent was to build off a well established program that
had been through the legislature in a couple of iterations
and involved a very complex application process at the
school district level. He stressed that the program had to
meet a complex federal regulatory process in the Universal
Services Program. He stated that on top of those things
there was the Board of Education regulatory process. He was
opposed to relitigating the bill and spending several
additional hearings on the topic.
Representative Stapp stated it was not his intent to re-
litigate the bill. His intent was to withdraw the amendment
because he did not believe it met his intended goal. He
believed the intent of the program - when it was enacted in
2014 - was to help rural schools get higher speed internet
and act as an equalizer [with urban schools]. He had
listened to the meetings from 2014 and 2019. He clarified
that he was not out to structurally change the program. His
only concern, particularly when it came to the fiscal
aspect of the BAG award, was that the discussion was about
two separate things that did not depend on each other. He
remarked that there were plenty of schools that had E-Rate
awards that did not get BAG money. He elaborated that the
state grant was not dependent on the E-Rate awards. He
reasoned that it was dependent on the fact that E-Rate
awards were based on the concept of megabits per second
(Mbps).
Representative Stapp emphasized there was no mechanism
within the program that considered an internet service
provider that did not maintain a constant speed (i.e., 25
to 100 Mbps). He highlighted a scenario where an ISP
[internet service provider] offered internet at 100 Mbps
that increased to 105 Mbps occasionally and the school
district could no longer receive a BAG award. He knew there
was a problem, but he did not know how to fix it. He
suggested at some point the legislature should look at how
to better deliver the goal of the best internet possible
for school districts. He stated his intent was to try to
deliver a better outcome that districts wanted and to leave
the decision up to districts. He believed it would cost the
districts and the state less money. He highlighted the goal
of lowering the fixed costs paid by districts via the
program.
9:22:02 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two avenues. Withdraw the
amendment or explore the issue further.
Co-Chair Edgmon wanted to respect Representative Stapp's
ability to investigate the bill; however, he reminded
committee members of the hard deadline. He pointed out that
there was separate legislation [SB 140] that would need to
go through a conference committee if it were to supersede
HB 193. He underscored that time was of the essence. He
remarked that virtually every school district had visited
the building in the past couple of weeks and he had 100
conversations that had touched on the issue. He was not
saying the concerns addressed by Representative Stapp were
not legitimate; however, none of the school districts had
brought up the issue to that extent. He believed the
recognition was that 100 Mbps was the best the state could
do, but in a perfect world it would be much higher. He
stated there was a large fiscal note attached to the bill.
Co-Chair Edgmon recognized the bill was imperfect in nature
as had been the case upon introduction in 2014 and when
amended in 2020. The hope was that the billions of dollars
in federal funds primarily coming through the Broadband
Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program would mean
the state did not have to put undesignated general fund
(UGF) money into supporting the BAG program. He believed
the discussion was worthy, but he stressed that the
committee could spend a lot of time in the minutia of the
bill and still not have a perfect outcome. He stated the
bill helped a lot of schools and may not perfectly fit the
scope of every school; however, the business managers and
superintendents in his district had told him it was good
enough. He highlighted that missing the deadline would mean
losing an entire year.
Co-Chair Foster echoed Co-Chair Edgmon's comments in the
sense that the program had existed for some time, and he
did not want the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
He wanted to give DEED time to elaborate on Representative
Stapp's comments that there did not appear to be an easy
fix. He suspected the department would likely say the same
thing.
9:25:11 AM
Representative Stapp asked to hear from individuals with
DEED.
LAURAL SHOOP, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
KAREN MORRISON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FINANCE AND
FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
introduced herself.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there was an easy fix to the issue
brought up by Representative Stapp.
Ms. Shoop believed the intent of the amendment was for
schools to have alternatives to the federally approved
internet service providers. She explained that the E-Rate
program had been long-established by the federal
government. She detailed that internet service providers
were required to register with the federal E-Rate program
in order to be considered in the application process. There
was a very specific set of forms school districts were
required to use when applying for the E-Rate program. She
believed the amendment was intended for internet service
providers who were not registered under the federal
services program to be eligible for school BAG funding.
Representative Stapp agreed. He clarified that he did not
necessarily mean it should be a requirement for the
internet service provider to be registered. He thought
there were benefits of having the provider registered. He
stated that at the end of the day it did not matter. He
explained that the intent of the amendment was to give a
school district the ability to use a service provider that
best suited its needs. He suggested that if the cost was
less, the state should give the school districts the lesser
amount of money to cover the entirety of their cost as long
as it was less than the state would have given school
districts under the BAG program. He was not sure how to
craft it properly. He asked the department why a hard cap
on the Mbps did not work with different service providers.
Ms. Shoop deferred the question to a colleague.
FAYE TANNER, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), asked to hear
the question again.
Representative Stapp considered the scenario where the
eligible BAG award was increased to 100 Mbps. He asked
whether an internet service provider that had a service
rate that fluctuated between 80 and 200 was eligible to use
BAG money because the rate was not a consistent number.
Ms. Tanner responded that under current statute anything
exceeding 100 Mbps would not qualify. She stated it was one
of the issues several school districts were having with
the use of Starlink or speed that exceeded 100 Mbps. The
current speed was 25 Mbps.
9:29:44 AM
Representative Stapp relayed that he had talked to many
school district business managers about their upcoming
bids. He relayed that some of the school districts were
planning on changing their bids. He WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Representative Coulombe WITHDREW Amendment 2, 33-LS0817\A.7
(Klein/Bergerud, 2/12/24)(copy on file).
Co-Chair Foster highlighted that the fiscal notes had been
reviewed the previous week.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 193 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the forthcoming fiscal
note and the ability for Legislative Legal Services to make
technical and conforming changes.
HB 193 was REPORTED out of committee with eight "do pass"
recommendations, two "amend" recommendations, and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
9:31:46 AM
AT EASE
9:33:28 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act establishing the Alaska Military Affairs
Commission; and relating to the duties and powers of
the Alaska Military Affairs Commission."
9:33:32 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted one amendment had been received. He
would hear public testimony first.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
9:34:41 AM
Representative Hannan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-
LS0701\D.2 (Marx/Gunther, 2/7/24)(copy on file):
Page 3, lines 10-12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) assist and advise communities and the state in
the design and execution of programs that enhance
communities' relationships with installations of the
armed forces of the United States and defense-related
businesses, including in the areas of public school
education, in-state higher education and training,
cultural and recreational community assets, and
housing and energy affordability;"
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Hannan explained the amendment on page 3,
lines 10-12 added a second clause and gave some structure
and guidance with issues that would help assist communities
in preparing and developing relationships with the armed
forces. She listed examples including schools that were
available, education, training, cultural and recreational
assets, and housing and energy affordability. She wanted to
include the items because many local governments
communicated that they were issues that arose.
Representative Stapp supported and appreciated the
amendment's guiding principles.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the fiscal note had been
reviewed the prior week.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 155(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying or forthcoming fiscal note.
9:37:42 AM
AT EASE
9:37:49 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster added that the committee gave Legislative
Legal Services the ability to make technical and conforming
changes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 155(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Office of the Governor.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:38:53 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 193 Amendments 1-2 021324.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |
| HB 155 Amendment 1 Hannan 021324.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 193 Amendment 1 Backup DEED BAG 021424.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |
| HB 193 Amendment 1 Backup E-Rate_Recipient_Details_And_Commitments_20240125_E-Rate_FY2023_School_Internet.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |