Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/14/2024 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 | |
| SB151 | |
| SB34 | |
| SB183 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 14, 2024
9:06 a.m.
9:06:24 AM
[Note: continuation of 5/13/24 9:00 a.m. meeting. See
separate minutes for detail.]
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:06 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
Almeria Alcantra, Staff, Senator Donny Olson; Lisa
Purinton, Director, Division of Statewide Services and
Acting Legislative Liaison, Department of Public Safety;
Senator James Kaufman, Sponsor; Paul Labolle, Staff,
Representative Neal Foster; Senator Jesse Bjorkman,
Sponsor; Laura Achee, Staff, Senator Jesse Bjorkman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Charles Collins, Director, Division of Workers'
Compensation, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
SUMMARY
CSSB 34(FIN)
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMM ON FEDERAL AREAS
HCS CSSB 34(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with five "do pass" recommendations, four "no
recommendation" recommendations, one "amend"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Natural Resources.
CSSB 151(FIN)
MISSING/MURDERED INDIGENOUS PEOPLE;REPORT
CSSB 151(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
eight "do pass" recommendations and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN2
(DPS).
SB 183 WORKERS' COMP BENEFITS GUARANTY FUND
SB 183 was REPORTED out of committee with eleven
"do pass" recommendations and with one previously
published zero note: FN1 (LFW).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 151(FIN)
"An Act relating to police officer training;
establishing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Persons Review Commission; relating to missing and
murdered indigenous persons; relating to the duties of
the Department of Public Safety; and providing for an
effective date."
9:07:24 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted that Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Edgmon, Co-Chair Johnson, and Representative Ortiz were all
currently attending a conference committee meeting. He
relayed that the bill had previously been heard by the
committee. He asked for a brief review of the legislation.
ALMERIA ALCANTRA, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, provided a
brief introduction of the bill. She clarified that the bill
had not yet been heard by the House Finance Committee, but
the committee had previously heard the companion
legislation (HB 234, sponsored by Representative CJ
McCormick) at the end of April. She offered to provide an
explanation of the differences between the two pieces of
legislation.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a brief overview of the bill
including the differences.
Ms. Alcantra relayed that SB 151 required cultural training
for all law enforcement officers and required the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) to submit missing persons
information to the National Missing and Unidentified
Persons database within 60 days of the first report filed
with local law enforcement. She noted that the same
requirement in HB 234 was set at 30 days [of the first
report filed with local law enforcement]. The Senate bill
put two missing and murdered indigenous persons (MMIP)
investigators into statute whereas HB 234 included four
MMIP investigators. She elaborated that SB 151 established
the MMIP review commission under DPS. She detailed that the
commission would be comprised of nine members and was
tasked with reviewing unresolved cases from different state
regions to make recommendations to enhance coordination and
reduce instances of violence. She noted that SB 151 did not
contain a sunset date for the commission whereas HB 234
contained a sunset date of January 1, 2027, which coincided
with requirement of a legislative report. She noted that SB
151 required a legislative report every three years. The
Senate bill also included a needs assessment submission
date for DPS by January 1, 2027. She believed the date in
HB 234 was January 1, 2026. Language had been added to SB
151 to set term lengths for public members and to stagger
the term dates initially.
9:10:31 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note from
the Department of Public Safety.
LISA PURINTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE SERVICES AND
ACTING LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
reviewed the fiscal note OMB component 2325 dated 4/19/24.
The costs in FY 25 were $563,100. She detailed that costs
were higher in the first year because it included the
position needed to support the nine-person commission
within DPS. She noted that the startup costs for the
position included setting up computers and a workstation.
There were one-time costs for contract work associated with
a requirement for DPS to take on a needs assessment for
investigative and protective resources on a statewide
basis. She explained the needs assessment was pretty
comprehensive and the department was estimating fairly
significant costs for a contractor to do a project plan,
stakeholder engagement, travel and meeting schedules, data
collection analysis, interim reports, community outreach,
needs assessments, invoicing, and presentation with final
recommendations for the commission to consider. She noted
that the governor's FY 25 budget request included funding
for two of four MMIP investigator positions to ensure all
four existing positions were fully funded. She relayed that
outyear costs were associated with the one position added
to support the commission.
9:13:52 AM
Representative Hannan directed a question to DPS. She
looked at the reporting timeline for local notification in
Section 2. She noted that SB 151 included a timeline of 60
days whereas HB 234 had 30 days. She asked if the 30-day
timeframe was manageable and doable.
Ms. Purinton answered that law enforcement entered missing
and murdered persons information into several databases.
The statewide system was for law enforcement (it was not
public) and the information was also fed into the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) national database of
missing person records. She noted that the records were
entered within 24 hours and within two hours for
individuals under the age of 21. The National Missing and
Unidentified Persons (NamUs) database was public.
Additionally, DPS housed the Missing Persons Clearinghouse,
which took copies of all missing person records (not only
trooper cases). She elaborated that the Missing Persons
Clearinghouse and the local agency that input the records
were notified from the FBI system when the records had been
in the system for over 30 days. She explained that at the
30-day mark the Missing Persons Clearinghouse did the
outreach with local agencies and would also put the record
into the NamUs database.
Ms. Purinton estimated that about 98 percent of all missing
person records in the state (about 1,300) were entered into
the NamUs database. She explained that DPS was currently
doing the work, but the 60-day mark ensured the department
would come into compliance with the statutory requirement
to meet the timeline because it allowed the department to
leverage the automatic notice that came in from the FBI's
law enforcement database. The department was getting the
trooper cases into the system quickly, but for other law
enforcement agencies, especially smaller ones without many
missing persons, the timeline provided them the benefit and
support of the Missing Persons Clearinghouse to make sure
that if they were not meeting the requirement to get into
NamUs, the clearinghouse would work with agencies to get a
record into the NamUs database. The department's preference
was the 60-day mark because it allowed DPS to leverage
existing technology and the existing process. The NamUs
database was meant for long-term missing persons.
9:17:08 AM
Representative Hannan highlighted that legislators hear
from constituents about the importance of making sure law
enforcement was treating a case seriously and taking
immediate action. She stated her understanding that the
department was acting quickly, but it was the communication
with the national NamUs system that required the "trickle
up" effect; therefore, 60 days was preferred. However, she
believed that notification within the state was coming out
within 30 days between a local police department or a
Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) and DPS at the state
level.
Ms. Purinton agreed. She explained that the information was
going into law enforcement databases as soon as the reports
came into law enforcement. She clarified that she was not
saying agencies were waiting until the 60 days, they could
put the information into to the public NamUs database right
away. However, some agencies may not have the capacity to
put the information into other system. The 60 days allowed
a safety net for the Missing Persons Clearinghouse to
support them and do the follow up in case it had not been
done already.
Representative Hannan looked at Section 3 where SB 151 had
two [investigator] positions and HB 234 had four. She asked
if all four positions were funded in the budget.
Ms. Purinton answered there were currently four filled MMIP
investigator positions. The positions were filled with
retired troopers who had investigative experience. She
noted that the troopers currently had a staffing shortage.
She explained that the strategy made sure DPS had enough
investigative resources spread out throughout the
department. She relayed that the commissioner [Commissioner
Cockrell] had been vocal in support of the bill, in support
of the four positions, and in support of continuing the
work. She explained that if one of the investigator
positions became vacant it would take DPS time to refill
it. The intention was to continue to have at least four of
the [investigator] positions at all times.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Co-Chair Edgmon had joined the
meeting from conference committee.
Ms. Alcantra thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
9:20:06 AM
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT CSSB 151(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 151(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with eight "do
pass" recommendations and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN2 (DPS).
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 34(FIN)
"An Act reestablishing the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska;
relating to the membership and duties of the Citizens'
Advisory Commission on Federal Management Areas in
Alaska; relating to the authority of the Department of
Natural Resources regarding the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska; and
providing for an effective date."
9:21:56 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the bill. He noted
the committee had heard the bill several times during the
previous and current sessions.
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, SPONSOR, explained that the bill
would reestablish the Citizens Advisory Commission on
Federal Management Areas (CACFA). The commission's role was
to represent the views of Alaskan citizens concerning
federal land management plans within the state.
Co-Chair Foster noted that he had two amendments to offer
based on input from some statewide organizations.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-LS0250\S.1
(Gunther, 5/8/24) (copy on file):
Page 2, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "a federally recognized tribe and at least one
other member must be a shareholder of"
Insert "and represent a federally recognized tribe. At
least one other member must be a shareholder of and
represent"
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster asked his staff to come to the table. He
explained the amendment pertained to two seats on the
commission. The bill specified that one member was to be a
member of a tribal organization and one was to be a
shareholder. He referenced his comment at a prior hearing
on the bill that [under the bill's current language]
someone could be tribal member living in Florida [or
elsewhere out of state]. For example, he had brothers who
lived in the State of Washington who were both tribal
members and shareholders who could technically serve on the
commission. He was looking to ensure the seat would be
filled by someone who was clearly a representative of a
tribe or Native corporation. He asked for further details
from his staff.
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, noted that
the only change made by the amendment was the addition of
the term "and represent." He explained the term was
intended to mean "to act on behalf of."
Co-Chair Foster did not want to be overly prescriptive. The
intent of the amendment was to have the seat filled by
someone for example who was the external affairs director,
governmental affairs director, CEO, or president [of a
federally recognized tribe]. He asked to hear from the bill
sponsor to ensure he was amenable to the amendment.
Senator Kaufman relayed that he was very supportive of the
amendment. He detailed that the amendment was reflective of
the work his office had done to improve the geographic and
cultural representation of the board.
Co-Chair Foster noted that his office had also checked with
the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN).
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
9:26:04 AM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 33-LS0250\S.3
(Gunther, 5/9/24) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, following line 16:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"G) Notwithstanding another provision of this section,
the commission may not consider, research, or hold
hearings relating to public use on private land,
including a highway with an easement onto private land
or onto public land reserved for private use. In this
subsection, "highway" has the meaning given in AS
19.59.001."
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster explained that some statewide organizations
had indicated concern that the bill could allow
grandfathered trails to go over private lands. For example,
Alaska Native Corporations owned large parts of the state.
The entities wanted to make sure that if there was a
grandfathered trail, the bill would not allow someone to go
over private lands. It would also apply to individuals as
well. For example, if someone had a farm somewhere that had
a grandfathered trail, it would not allow just anyone from
the public to trespass over individual landowners' private
land.
Mr. Labolle noted the amendment included the terminology
"or onto public land reserved for private use." He
explained that the language captured tribal land, which was
technically federal land held in trust.
Co-Chair Foster asked the bill sponsor for any comments on
the amendment.
Senator Kaufman believed CACFA's scope was clear in the
bill as currently written, but he understood the concerns
and deferred to the will of the committee.
Representative Stapp looked at the amendment language
"including a highway with an easement onto private land."
He thought it seemed to mean a lot of things. He noted
there were many easements on state highways. He asked if
the language meant any conversation would be disallowed
just because easements ran through public highways.
Mr. Labolle answered that the word "highway" was as defined
in statute. He explained the language was intending to
capture RS 2477s.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster reported that no other amendments had been
received. The committee had previously reviewed the fiscal
note and taken public testimony.
Co-Chair Edgmon stated he certainly would not object to
moving the bill from committee. He relayed there was a
proven element to the commission because he had been at the
table a number of years back when it had been decided the
commission was not needed per the cost at the time and the
duties of the executive director. He hoped that 10 to 12
years later that with a renewed sense of purpose the
commission could reestablish itself and not return to the
point where there were questions about its germaneness
given the amount of money to be spent on it annually.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 34(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
9:31:05 AM
AT EASE
9:31:29 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnson restated her motion.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 34(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five
"do pass" recommendations, four "no recommendation"
recommendations, and one "amend" recommendation and with
one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Natural
Resources.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee would give Legislative
Legal Services the ability to make technical and conforming
changes when incorporating the two amendments to the bill.
He thanked the bill sponsor.
Senator Kaufman thanked the committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 183
"An Act relating to the workers' compensation benefits
guaranty fund; and providing for an effective date."
9:32:37 AM
Co-Chair Foster welcomed the sponsor to the table.
9:33:10 AM
AT EASE
9:34:19 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked for an introduction of the bill.
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, explained that the bill
would protect the workers' compensation benefits guarantee
fund from being swept so that it had the funds needed to
pay out workers who got hurt on the job and their employers
were without workers' compensation insurance. In recent
years, injured workers waited up to six months to receive
benefit payments because the fund had been empty. The
fund's reserves came from civil penalties against employers
who did not carry the statutorily required workers'
compensation insurance and reimbursement from employers for
injured employee benefits when the state was able to
recover them. He elaborated that because the revenue stream
and benefit payouts were irregular, there were times when
benefit claims were made and there was insufficient revenue
in the fund to make payments to workers who got hurt. In
the past, the fund had been carefully managed to build up
reserves that decoupled from revenues and claims, would be
paid in a timely manner regardless of when they were
received. However, since FY 21, the Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR) sweep had cleared the unobligated balance
from the fund each year, removing the reserves that had
allowed for timely payments from the fund.
Senator Bjorkman relayed that the bill had been introduced
by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee at the request
of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board (AWCB) and would
help to moderate the fluctuations. The bill would move the
fund outside of the general fund so that it was no longer
subject to the CBR sweep and could gradually rebuild its
reserves in order to pay claims as they were received. He
noted that an individual with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD) Division of Workers'
Compensation was available online to provide further
details.
9:36:45 AM
Co-Chair Johnson stated her understanding that the bill
needed to happen because some funds had been swept that
included some workers' money. She asked how the problem had
been corrected.
Senator Bjorkman answered that when there had been a zero
balance in the fund it was his understanding that workers
had to wait or once the problem had been identified, there
had been some direction given for the benefits to be paid
from somewhere; however, no one had been able to tell him
where the money came from as of yet.
LAURA ACHEE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, replied that
the bill would move the Workers' Compensation Benefits
Guarantee Fund out of the general fund (which was
sweepable), and make it a separate fund in the state
treasury. The intent was to remove the fund from the list
of funds that were eligible to be swept.
Co-Chair Johnson stated her understanding that some of the
funds had been swept and consequently it had required some
clean up and for some of the funds to be reinstated.
Co-Chair Foster noted that conference committee had closed
out. He noted that Co-Chair Johnson, Representative Ortiz,
and Representative Coulombe had joined the meeting. He
asked to hear comments and a fiscal note review from DLWD.
CHARLES COLLINS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), responded to Co-Chair Johnson's
question. He relayed that over $4 million had been swept
from the Benefit Guarantee Fund over the past several
years, which had greatly impacted the state's ability to
pay ongoing indemnity and medical benefits to injured
employees and medical providers. The department was asking
the legislature to protect the funds as they were
completely made up of settlements or fines where employers
had been through the hearing process and settled with the
state for failing to cover employees with workers'
compensation insurance. He noted it reflected a minority of
the employers in Alaska; over 99 percent of employers
continued to provide coverage for their employees. However,
those few employers [without coverage for their employees]
sometimes had some egregious injuries and had cost the
employee the ability to take care of themselves. There were
currently several individuals who would likely never be
able to work again. He elaborated that the injury was to
the extent an individual was paralyzed or had lost a
portion of their body and they were no longer able to do
the job and in some cases any job.
Mr. Collins relayed that the department had recommended the
bill because the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board voted
unanimously to send a resolution requesting the protection
of the fund (copy on file). The fund was established in
2005 and it took over a decade to achieve a decent balance,
knowing that occasionally there would be a claim in the
millions of dollars. Unfortunately, after the first sweep
event, the state had been ordered by the supreme court to
pay a claim of about $1.1 million. The combination of the
two things had greatly emptied the fund. Since that time,
the state had struggled every fiscal year to cover all of
the benefits. In recent years, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) had directed him to pay the benefits and pay
from the fund into the negative and the benefits would be
covered through reappropriation. He highlighted that DLWD
had requested $530,000 in the FY 24 supplemental budget to
cover benefits. He relayed that the fiscal note [OMB
component number 2820] was zero because there were no
changes to the management of the fund. He explained that
the fund was managed by staff within the Division of
Workers' Compensation. The department's goal with the
legislation was merely to keep the fund from sweep action.
9:43:10 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
9:43:50 AM
Representative Josephson noted it was an issue his office
had been involved with the previous term. He thought that
when the CBR had been created by the people in 1990, they
would not have approved it if they had known of the
unintended consequence. He stated that sweeping the fund so
that it was unable to meet its intended purpose was
illogical. He noted that superior court Judge [Josie]
Garton wrote an opinion a couple of years ago (he believed
related to power cost equalization) that said calling
something a separate fund met the requirements of the past
supreme court decision Hickel v Cowper. He stated that the
bill before the committee was one of the cures and he
applauded the senator for bringing the bill forward. He
stated that the legislature used to routinely repopulate
funds; however, around 2020 it stopped and had become a new
weapon that had never been used before to deny the
repopulation of funds. He supported the bill.
Representative Hannan observed that when the fund was
established one of the primary funding mechanisms was civil
penalty assessments against uninsured employers. She
referenced a packet of information from DLWD and looked at
page 2 showing revenue including supplemental funds and
investment profits. She asked Mr. Collins how much money
the fund received annually from civil penalty assessments.
She asked if it was around $750,000.
Mr. Collins answered that in a typical year the funds were
about $750,000, but the current year was about $680,000. He
noted the previous year had been a bit better than the
current year. The amount generally fluctuated between
$700,000 and $750,000. He noted the division had one
position tasked with managing the payment agreements going
forward. He relayed that investigators were constantly on
the job. The department tried to remind employers to keep
their insurance up. He stated it would be a great day if
all employees were covered with workers' compensation and
the guarantee fund had no purpose. Unfortunately, that was
not the situation.
Representative Hannan reasoned there must be a lag time
between the department becoming aware an employer was not
paying the insurance and action being taken to create a
payment plan. She asked if the lag time was one year. She
asked if the department was collecting money from a year's
arrears or longer.
9:47:25 AM
Mr. Collins replied that he could not say exactly how many,
but it was not uncommon for the division to have payment
plans set up with employers who did not have the funds to
pay the agreed upon amount. There could be a fine levied of
around $50,000 or more after going through the formula laid
out in statute. He explained that the employer may not be
able to pay that amount. In that case the division did a
payment agreement at his direction, which over the past
four years had been any amount as long as the employer was
always paying. For example, if an employer was sending $100
per month, the division was allowing them to continue the
payment. In most cases there was a set amount that
employers were to pay as expeditiously as possible.
Representative Hannan underscored the importance of why the
fund needed to not be sweepable. She stated that the sweep
mechanism was set up on an annual fiscal year, yet the
purpose of the fund was to collect things that may be
happening over multiple fiscal years and securing funds to
be available to meet the fund's intended purpose. She
stated that if a payment plan was five years in duration,
yet the fund was swept annually, the money never accrued.
She remarked that it was an important piece of legislation
to get across the finish line in the current session.
Senator Bjorkman thanked the committee for questions and
commentary and Mr. Collins for his diligent work in keeping
the effort up.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT SB 183 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 183 was REPORTED out of committee with eleven "do pass"
recommendations and with one previously published zero
note: FN1 (LFW).
Co-Chair Foster thanked the senator and his staff.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the 10:00 am meeting would be
delayed.
ADJOURNMENT
9:51:18 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 275 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051424.pdf |
HFIN 5/14/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 275 |
| SB151 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051424.pdf |
HFIN 5/14/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 151 |