Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/26/2021 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| Covid-19 Federal Funding Update || Covid-19: Federal Funding Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 2021
9:01 a.m.
9:01:43 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Neil Steininger, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Paloma Harbour, Fiscal Management
Practices Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor; Alexei Painter, Director, Legislative
Finance Division; Senator Mia Costello.
SUMMARY
^COVID-19 FEDERAL FUNDING UPDATE
^COVID-19: FEDERAL FUNDING UPDATE
9:03:22 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the funds might cause an
appearance of no budget deficit, but stressed that it was
not the case.
9:04:10 AM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced himself.
PALOMA HARBOUR, FISCAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ANALYST, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
introduced herself.
Mr. Steininger discussed the presentation, "State of Alaska
Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Senate Finance
COVID-19 Relief Funding Overview"(copy on file). He looked
at slide 2, "Federal Fiscal Response." He remarked that
there were six bills passed at the federal level, which
included COVID-19 relief which came to Alaska. He noted
that the largest financial relief package from the federal
government was the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act funding, which included the $1.2
billion Coronavirus Relief Fund. He noted that the items
had all been accommodated through various appropriations in
the state budget and were currently actively executed upon.
He further detailed the slide.
Co-Chair Stedman shared that the discussion referenced
Attachment 1 (copy on file).
Mr. Steininger continued to explain the details of the
slide.
Ms. Harbour highlighted slide 3, "Spring 2020 Federal
Relied: Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF)":
The CARES Act required that the payments from the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) only be used to cover
expenses that --
1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the
public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19);
2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently
approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment
of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and
3. were incurred during the period that begins on
March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020
The CRRSA Act extended to period for incurring costs
to December 31, 2021
Spring 2020 Federal Relief: Coronavirus Relief Funds
(CRF)
9:10:47 AM
Senator von Imhof looked at Attachment 1, and remarked that
the yellow portion had a key which said, "requires
appropriation." She wondered whether the list of programs
required appropriation from the legislature.
Ms. Harbour replied in the affirmative.
Senator von Imhof noted that the Childcare Development Fund
had $28 million, and wondered whether that money would go
to the general fund or whether it would go into the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS).
Ms. Harbour replied that the appropriations were usually
made in the department in the program.
Senator von Imhof surmised that the federal funds would go
straight to DHSS, which bypassed the general fund or
legislative appropriation. She wondered whether she could
dictate where $28 million went in specific grants.
Ms. Harbour explained the legislature could determine
whether DHSS could accept that funding. She stressed that
if the legislature did not give the appropriation, then
DHSS could not send out the grants. She stressed that once
the department accepts the money, it must be spent the way
that the federal government had outlined its intention.
Senator von Imhof stressed that the job of the legislature
was whether or not to accept the funds.
Ms. Harbour agreed.
Senator von Imhof noted that there were a few "buckets"
that allowed for some leeway, but for the most part the
legislature could only decide whether or not to accept the
federal funds.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
9:14:20 AM
Ms. Harbour pointed to slide 4, "Spring 2020 Federal
Relief: Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF)." She explained that
the slide showed the list of programs that could receive
the funds. She stressed that most of the funding had been
allocated to specific purposes, and was actively spent. She
noted that there was approximately $45 million that had not
yet been allocated, because the money was held in reserve
for potential surge in cases or other COVID-19 needs. She
explained that the money could also be used to offset state
expenses for COVID-19 related items.
9:15:09 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked where the $45 million was located
within the allocation requirement outlined by the federal
government.
Ms. Harbour explained that the money was from the $1.25
billion, which was assigned, "Other COVID-19 Costs through
DHSS, to be determined."
Senator Hoffman surmised that the funds were given to the
state for distribution. He queried the categories of the
COVID-19 Relief Funds in the state.
Ms. Harbour assumed that the question was about the money
that went directly to individuals and businesses.
Senator Hoffman agreed, and asked which categories the
money was located in.
Ms. Harbour looked at Attachment 1, and explained that
there was money that went to tribal agencies. She looked at
page 3, which showed money that went to individuals through
unemployment compensation, small business programs, some
employment enhancement programs, and FEMA. She stressed
that the numbers had not been updated with the funds that
were not a part of the CARES funding.
Senator Wielechowski queried the status of the audit that
was being conducted on the expenditure of the fund thus
far.
Ms. Harbour clarified that it was a desk review, so the
treasury was reviewing the documentation in support of the
reports. She shared that there had already been an entrance
conference with the treasury, and they had sent their first
document request. The state had already responded to the
request on the most recent Monday.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for explanation of the review
process, and whether there was flexibility in the
specification of appropriation.
Mr. Steininger explained that, because the state had been
selected early for desk review, there could be a
possibility for a correction by reallocated the dollars to
another eligible cost. He remarked that the slide did not
show that there was well over $100 million that was
eligible that agencies had incurred to respond to
coronavirus. He stressed that, if there were small pots of
ineligible cost, which allowed for adjustments to ensure
that the money would not need to be returned to the federal
government.
9:20:24 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the administration
received authorization from OMB, and ratified from the
legislature for the unallocated funds.
Mr. Steininger replied in the affirmative, and explained
that all of the $1.25 billion had been authorized either
through the RPL process or through appropriation to DHSS.
Senator Olson wondered whether there was a penalty
associated with the possibility of the money being spent in
an unapproved manner.
Mr. Steininger replied that there was language attached to
the funds that ensured that, should they spend the funds
inappropriately, the recipient was responsible for any
payback to the federal government.
Ms. Harbour looked at Attachment 2 (copy on file). She
stated that it was more details of how the funding worked
through DHSS for specific processes.
Co-Chair Stedman felt that there had been a
misrepresentation recently, which could have been perceived
as the information not being public. He hoped that
Attachment 2 would ease come of the concern about
transparency.
Ms. Harbour addressed slide 5, "State Agency COVID-19
Expenditures by Type":
Funding Sources:
?$1.35 billion Federal
?$24.8 million UGF
?$1.5 million DGF
?$87.6 million Other
?$14.7 million TBD
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the flexibility of the grants.
Ms. Harbour explained that most of the grants were the
federal funding which had already been distributed. She
pointed to the Community Relief Fund and other federal
grant program funding. She explained that $1.35 billion in
federal funding had been received to cover the costs, and
approximately $1.2 had been distributed as grants.
Senator von Imhof stressed that the difficult task was
determining whether the funds helped or not, and how the
agencies were fairing. She wondered whether anyone was
tracking that impact.
Ms. Harbour replied that there were monthly reports from
the agencies on their expenditures, lost revenue impacts
from COVID-19, and attempting to track the areas of
specific concern.
9:24:46 AM
Mr. Steininger looked at slide 6, "Spring 2021 Federal
Relief: COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Relief Funds":
The American Rescue Plan specified that these funds
can be used to cover expenses
A. to respond to the public health emergency with
respect to the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID 19) or its negative economic impacts;
B. to respond to workers performing essential work
during the COVID 19 public health emergency by
providing premium pay to eligible workers performing
such essential work;
C. for the provision of government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID 19
public health emergency relative to revenues collected
in the most recent full fiscal year; and
D. to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or
broadband infrastructure.
Restrictions include
A. direct or indirect offsets to a reduction in net
tax revenue resulting from changing law, regulation,
or administrative interpretation during the covered
period that reduces or delays the imposition of any
tax or tax increase;
B. deposits into any pension fund.
Mr. Steininger looked at an attachment which showed a 25-
page letter which the state contributed from the National
Governor's Association to the treasury outlining questions
bout the guidance. He noted that there were many questions
ranging from specific details or broad questions because
there was uncertainty about how the treasury would define
some of the items.
Mr. Steininger continued to address slide 6, and looked at
Attachment 3, (copy on file), which detailed the dollar
values associated within. He stated that the first page
showed a high-level breakdown of the money coming in
through the American Rescue Plan. He explained that the
state of Alaska had a little over $1 billion.
Co-Chair Stedman noted the issues on the bottom of the
slide.
Mr. Steininger remarked that one of the areas of
restriction was related to things that would offset a
reduction in tax revenue. He stressed that it was specific
to utilizing the dollars to affect a direct reduction in a
tax.
9:29:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted the large sheet in the packet,
"American Rescue Plan for Alaska" (copy on file). He
remarked that there had been conversations with OMB to
hopefully work together to split the money over years, and
ensure that the money would be most useful.
Senator von Imhof remarked that there were different
moments of financial distribution with very specific areas
that the money should be directed. She wanted to know the
end user of distribution, specifically the individual and
non-profit that the money would eventually fall.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there had been conversations
outside of the committee process, and shared that there
would be some more meetings to address the economic impact
and benefit to help with the allocation questions.
9:35:04 AM
Senator von Imhof felt that there should be more detail
considered, such as the amount of received sales tax or
balance sheets from entities. She remarked that it was a
tough question because it was beyond big picture
conversations.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the committee needed to
understand the impacts in order to avoid inadvertent side
effects.
Senator Hoffman stressed that, looking at the larger issue
of COVID and safety, the administration needed
acknowledgment. He remarked that Alaska led the nation in
many categories in COVID response and safety.
Ms. Harbour looked at slide 7, "Housing Relief Details
?CARES Act addressed with an RPL
?Coronavirus Relief Funds for Housing Assistance
$10 million
?CRRSA Act Emergency Rental Assistance
?Alaska Housing Finance Corporation $165 million
addressed with an RPL
?Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) $35 million AHFC
to administer requires additional appropriation
?Tribal funding $45 million AHFC to administer
requires additional appropriation
?ARP Act requires additional appropriation
?Emergency Rental Assistance $146 million
($125m AHFC/ $21m
?Mortgage Assistance --$50 million
?HOME Investment Partnership Act Homeless Funds -
-$5 million
?Emergency Housing Choice Vouchers to be
determined
9:39:48 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried the legislative actions needed to
meet the deadline.
Ms. Harbour replied that the amendment would be submitted
shortly, and stressed that it was helpful to know whether
there would be acceptance of the funds. She understood that
there was not enough time for the legislature to pass an
appropriation, but there was authority that could be used
to apply for the funds.
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that there was a desire for a
verbal agreement to receive the funds.
Ms. Harbour replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Steininger also replied in the affirmative.
Senator Hoffman looked at the three highlighted items, and
wondered whether any of those requests would receive
additional appropriations. He also asked whether the money
would come from the CARES funds.
Mr. Steininger replied that the $35 million in receipts
received by the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) from the
federal government would transfer to the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC). He remarked that the
appropriation would be for statutory designated program
receipt authority for AHFC to collect money from MOA to
then expend on their behalf. He stressed that it was not an
appropriation for general funds. He remarked that the
tribal funding of $45 million would also be statutory
designated program receipts. He explained that the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) funding would be a mix of federal
receipts for AHFC.
Ms. Harbour addressed slide 8, "Higher Education Relief
Details":
?CARES Act
?Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds and
Minority Serving Institution Funds
?University of Alaska (UA) $10.5 million
Students $3.9 million
?Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC)
$71.4 thousand Students $35.7 thousand
?CRRSA Act requires additional appropriation
?Higher Education Emergency Relief II Funds and
Minority Serving Institution Funds
?UA $22.2 million Students $3.9 million
?AVTEC $252 thousand Students $35.7 thousand
?ARP Act requires additional appropriation
?Higher Education Emergency Relief III Funds
?Alaska Allocation Estimate $33.5 million 50
percent to Students
?University and AVTEC Allocations TBD
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the timeline.
Mr. Steininger replied that there were different timelines
of the money delivery from ARP based on when the federal
government would provide additional guidance. He remarked
that most of the money fell into a sixty-day "clock" for
additional information. There will also be additional
guidance for how the money could be spent which would not
arrive until later in the legislative process.
Senator Hoffman wondered how the allocations would be
distributed between FY 22 and FY 23.
Mr. Steininger replied that most of the ARP funds had a
longer timeframe than the CARES money. He furthered that
most of the money received was within the state's
discretion for how the money is spent within the time
period.
9:45:40 AM
Ms. Harbour discussed slide 9, "Education Relief Details":
?CARES Act $45 million; CRRSA Act $168 million
addressed with RPLs
?ARP Act $364.5 million requires additional
appropriation
?Total $577 million $504.9 million to school
districts
?State Funding Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
?Requirements changed between CARES Act and CRRSA
?ARP is the same as CRRSA and includes FY23
?Maintenance of Equity Requirements new to ARP
FY22 and FY23
?State level Requirement cannot reduce high
need/poverty school district allocations more than
others and cannot reduce highest need school district
allocations below their FY2019 level.
?Local level Requirement cannot reduce per pupil
allocations or FTE staff for high poverty schools more
than the total reduction divided by the total number
of students
Co-Chair Stedman asked about "maintenance of effort."
Ms. Harbour replied that "maintenance of effort" was a
requirement to maintain a certain level of funding for a
program based on prior year spending. There would be a
requirement to maintain the same level of spending. She
explained that the state's maintenance of effort in CARES
funding was actual dollars spent.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for more details, because the state
had unique anomalies that differed from other states such
as the Permanent Fund and University of Alaska system
spending.
Mr. Steininger replied that they had a meeting with the
U.S. Department of Education to discuss the Alaska-specific
items that affect the maintenance of effort requirement. He
stated that there were no direct answers, but there was a
consideration with the drafting of their guidance. He
stated the baseline in education spending calculation may
or may not include the anomalies.
9:51:39 AM
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that there may be impact on the
discussion regarding the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
expenditure depending on the rules. He wondered when Mr.
Steininger would be able to advise the committee about the
policy call in order to "put a finer point" on the
budgetary process.
Mr. Steininger replied that the question was offered, but
they were not able to give an estimate on when guidance
would be given.
Senator Hoffman recalled that there was a ninety-day clock,
but wondered what that timeline referred to. He also
wondered whether that timeline required both appropriation
and expenditure of the funds.
Mr. Steininger replied that ninety-day clock was for making
the funds available to the districts. He explained that
once the money was allocated, there was ninety days to make
the money available to the school districts.
Ms. Harbour explained that the districts did not need to
spend that money in the ninety days, rather the money
needed to be allocated to the districts before the ninety
days was complete.
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the districts needed to
actually have the funds, or if the "allocation" within the
budgetary process would be sufficient.
Mr. Steininger replied that it would be when it was
determined how much each district would receive from the
$364 million. He stated that the allocation determination
would be made either through legislative process or through
the department.
Senator Hoffman wondered when the ninety days would begin.
Ms. Harbour replied that she was not certain.
Senator Hoffman asked for a guess.
Ms. Harbour replied that it would be before ninety days.
9:55:04 AM
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that the budget process would
continue into May. He wondered whether the allocations made
by the legislature to the districts could have timing
parameters.
Mr. Steininger replied that he would provide further
information.
Co-Chair Bishop stressed that it was three-year funding.
Ms. Harbour addressed slide 10, "ARP Education Relief
Details continued":
?ARP education relief funding includes specific
purpose allocations
Mr. Steininger highlighted slide 11, "Transportation Debt
Relief." He noted the different transportation
administration money.
Ms. Harbour looked at slide 12, "ARP Health and Social
Service Relief Details."
10:00:19 AM
Senator Olson looked at slide 11, and wondered whether
there was an attempt to repair some of the airports, such
as the Nome Airport.
Mr. Steininger replied that there was some allowability of
the different definitions of "maintenance." He agreed to
provide more information about the Nome Airport.
Senator Olson wondered whether the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) would determine
whether the funds could be expended at the Nome Airport.
Mr. Steininger replied that they would not determine the
allowability, but rather would like to discuss their
interpretation of the guidance.
10:02:08 AM
AT EASE
10:02:33 AM
RECONVENED
10:02:44 AM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
discussed the presentation, "American Rescue Plan (ARP)
Provisions for Alaska" (copy on file). He pointed to slide
2, "Outline":
?Items not requiring legislative appropriation
?Funds with significant flexibility
Considerations on timing and legislative
direction
unds with limited or no flexibility
Note: Amounts in this presentation are initial
estimates and may change. Forthcoming federal guidance
will give further clarity on potential uses and
restrictions. This is not a comprehensive list of
available funds in the American Rescue Plan.
Mr. Painter looked at slide 3, "Funds Not Requiring State
Appropriation":
? $1,400 Direct Payment to Alaskans estimated total
of $847.3 million (600,000 Alaskans)
Phases out starting at $75,000/$150,000 income
for individual/household
?Estimated $600 million direct payments to tribal
governments in Alaska
?Estimated $100 million from Child Care Development
Fund to tribal governments
?Tax code changes to Child Tax Credit (expanded to
$3,000 per child ages 6-17, $3,600 per child under 6,
credit made fully refundable), Earned Income Tax
Credit
?Additional funds for Paycheck Protection Program
?Direct funding to rural health providers
10:05:29 AM
Senator Hoffman remarked that there were many people in
Alaska that did not fill out federal income tax forms, and
wondered whether those people "fell through the cracks." He
felt that those people were probably in the most need of
those direct payments. He queried efforts to ensure that
those individuals received the benefits.
Mr. Painter replied that there was a process for those
individuals to apply for the funds, but did not know the
outreach to ensure that happens.
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the state could use CARES
funds to give assistance to those individuals to apply for
the payments.
Ms. Painter agreed to provide that information.
Senator Olson requested that all responses be given in
writing.
Co-Chair Stedman replied that all committee members would
receive the responses.
Co-Chair Bishop detailed the specific payments.
Co-Chair Stedman queried the payments that would be given
to a family of five.
Mr. Painter replied that a couple would receive $2800, and
a larger family would receive the additional $1400 for the
child plus the child tax credit. He explained that each
child, under the age of six, would receive $5000.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the details of what different
size families would receive.
Mr. Painter addressed slide 4, "Over $2 Billion Allocated
to State of Alaska and Local Governments."
Co-Chair Bishop surmised that the slide was speaking to the
ARP funds.
Mr. Painter agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the numbers could be
reflected back to the spreadsheet.
10:10:14 AM
Mr. Painter discussed slide 5, "State Fiscal Recovery
Fund":
?Estimated $1,019,259.4 allocation for Alaska
Will be allocated to Alaska 60 days from when
State submits a certification to Treasury
Secretary of the Treasury may withhold half of
state allocation for 12 months based on the
unemployment rate of each state
?May be used on expenses incurred through December 31,
2024
?Eligible uses of funds include:
''(A) to respond to the public health emergency
with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID19) or its negative economic impacts,
including assistance to households, small
businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted
industries such as tourism, travel, and
hospitality;
to respond to workers performing essential
work during the COVID19 public health emergency
by providing premium pay to eligible workers of
the State, territory, or Tribal government that
are performing such essential work, or by
providing grants to eligible employers that have
eligible workers who perform essential work;
''(C) for the provision of government services
to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such
State, territory, or Tribal government due to the
COVID19 public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal
year of the State, territory, or Tribal
government prior to the emergency; or
''(D) to make necessary investments in water,
sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
?Ineligible uses of funds include:
May not use funds to offset revenue losses
caused by changes in State law or regulations
May not deposit funds in any pension fund
Mr. Painter looked at slide 6, "Capital Projects Fund":
? Estimated total of $112,259.3 for Alaska
Treasury will establish a process for applying
for grants within 60 days of enactment
?Available until expended no cutoff date established
in bill (but may be added in Treasury guidance)
?Can be used "to carry out critical capital projects
directly enabling work, education, and health
monitoring, including remote options, in response to
the public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus Disease (COVID19)."
Senator Wielechowski looked at slide 5, and queried the
state's plan to submit the certification.
Mr. Painter did not know, but agreed to provide that
information.
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the legislature could
appropriate the funds without the state submitting a
certification or without the funds being allocated to
Alaska.
Co-Chair Stedman further asked what could be done to direct
the usage of the grants.
Mr. Painter replied that the funds could be appropriated at
any point, but the funds may not be received right away.
Mr. Painter discussed slide 7, "Considerations on Timing
and Legislative Direction":
? Generally, guidance is expected to be issued 60 days
after ARP's enactment approximately May 10
That is Day 112 of the legislative session
CARES Act guidance changed repeatedly after it
was initially released
The bill itself provides limited direction for what
expenditures may be eligible
?There is a tradeoff in offering the administration
flexibility
The more narrowly the legislature appropriates
the funds, the more difficult it will be to make
those appropriations quickly and the more likely
it is that a special session is necessary if
guidance changes
Providing flexibility to the executive branch
delegates decision-making to the Governor,
reducing legislative involvement
?The legislature could take many directions with these
funds. Goals could include:
Helping the economy (individuals, businesses,
non-profits) in the short term
Investing in long-term items (water and sewer
projects, economic development, etc.)
Maintaining State budget reserve levels
10:17:00 AM
Co-Chair Stedman felt that it was important to address the
appropriating power issue.
Mr. Painter highlighted slide 8, "Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds":
?Estimated total of $230,740.6 for Alaska
?$45,344.9 of these funds that are allocated to
Anchorage will flow directly without State pass-
through
?It appears Alaska will have to appropriate remaining
$185,395.7 for other local governments
This includes an additional $55,855.8 for
Anchorage
?Similar limitations and uses as State Fiscal Relief
Fund
?Allocation is a federal formula based primarily on
population this will result in a different allocation
than the State's formula that was used for CARES funds
Mr. Painter addressed slide 9, "Items with Limited
Flexibility Department of Health and Social Services":
?CDC Funding for COVID-19 Testing ($22.0 million) and
Vaccination Activities ($7.5b total, Alaska share
unknown)
?Health Workforce Funding ($7.7b total, Alaska share
unknown)
?Community Health Centers Funding ($7.6b total, Alaska
share unknown)
?Mental Health Block Grant ($3.0 million) and
Substance Abuse Block Grant ($4.7 million)
?Family Violence and Child Abuse State Grants ($291
thousand)
?Low-Income Water Utility Bill Assistance Funding
($500m total, Alaska share unknown)
?Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Funding ($23.7 million)
?Child Care Development Fund ($28.4 million) and Child
Care Stabilization Grants ($45.5 million) must
supplement and not supplant existing funds
?Pandemic Emergency Assistance to provide short-term
TANF benefits ($3.3 million) must supplement and not
supplant existing funds
?85 percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
(FMAP) for first three years that a state covers
mobile crisis intervention services for mental health
or substance abuse disorders
Mr. Painter pointed to slide 10, "Items with Limited
Flexibility Education":
?$358.7 million for K-12 schools through Elementary
and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER)
90 percent ($322.8 million) must go to school
districts
At least 5 percent ($17.9 million) must go to
address learning loss, 1 percent ($3.6 million)
for summer enrichment, 1 percent ($3.6 million)
for afterschool programs, 2.5 percent ($9.0
million) for other state activities, and a
maximum of 0.5 percent ($1.8 million) for State
administration
?$5.8 million in emergency assistance to non-public
schools
?$33.8 million in Higher Education Emergency Relief
Funds (90 percent of this is for the University of
Alaska) equally split between student aid and
institutions
?Institute of Museum and Library Services Funds ($2.2
million)
?National Endowment for the Arts Funds ($1.6 million)
to Alaska Council on the Arts
?Head Start (may go directly to providers) ($1.6
million)
Senator Olson wondered whether the non-public schools
included private schools.
Mr. Painter replied in the affirmative.
10:21:28 AM
Mr. Painter pointed to slide 11, "Items with Limited
Flexibility Education Continued":
?ESSER funding is subject to a maintenance of effort
(MOE) provision
Different test than applied to CARES ESSER funds
(which Alaska passed), same as CRSSA funds (not
yet submitted)
K-12 aid is tied to both K-12 MOE and University
of Alaska MOE
Tied to proportion of State's overall budget
spent on K-12 and University of Alaska in FY22
and FY23 compared to the average of FY17-19
Unclear at this point what must be counted, but
Alaska may have trouble meeting the UA test based
on the compact reduction in funding
?There is a waiver process for states that have
experienced financial distress, but the process and
timing of that waiver has not yet been established
?Unclear what the consequence of failing the MOE test
would be
Senator Wilson wondered how it would relate to the carry-
over of the fund balance.
Mr. Painter replied that the provision would most likely
apply to the amount the state appropriates to the fund.
Senator Hoffman recalled that the legislature had funded
approximately $20 million more than the compact, but the
governor vetoed that amount. He wondered whether there were
additional dollars that potentially breached the compact,
whether there would be an allowance to determine that the
compact was no longer necessary.
Mr. Painter looked at slide 12, "Items with Limited
Flexibility Other Agencies":
?FTA Transit Infrastructure Grants
$11.5 million for Anchorage (may not require
appropriation)
$3.8 million for Fairbanks
$2.7 million for rural areas
?COVID-19 Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program
(AHFC) ($102 million)
?Mortgage Assistance funding (AHFC) ($50 million)
?Emergency Management Performance Grants to Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs ($0.9 million)
?Federally-funded unemployment compensation
Adds $300 weekly supplemental payment through
September 6, 2021
First $10,200 of unemployment benefits will be
nontaxable income for households with an adjusted
gross income of up to $150,000
Self-employed and contractors are eligible for
the expanded payment
10:26:27 AM
Senator Wilson wondered whether the Matsu received any
funding.
Mr. Painter replied that the Matsu did not receive
specified funding.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the last bullet referred to
the gig economy employers.
Mr. Painter replied in the affirmative.
Senator Olson wondered whether there was money allowed in
the FTA to go for the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Mr. Painter replied in the affirmative, but agreed to
verify.
Senator Olson wondered how flexible the formula based on
population was for the smaller communities to capitalize on
the appropriation.
Mr. Painter replied that the $230 million was not flexible,
however the $1 billion allowed for the ability to transfer
to other governments.
Senator Olson surmised that it would be outside the federal
formula.
Mr. Painter agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the following day's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 032621 LFD SFIN ARP Provisions.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 1. OMB Color-Coded Federal Relief Funding 3.25.2021.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 2. AK CRF Allocations 3.23.2021.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 3. US Senate Final State and Local Allocation Estimates 03.08.21.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 4. CCSSO Webinar on MOE Slides 3.17.21.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 5. NGA ARP State and Local Funding Questions to Treasury 3.18.21.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 SFIN OMB COVID Funding Overview 3.26.21.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
COVID-19 Federal Funding Update |
| 032621 American Rescue Plan for Alaska.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
ARP for AK |