Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/19/2021 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 | |
| SB71 | |
| SB20 | |
| SB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2021
9:07 a.m.
9:07:18 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof (via teleconference)
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Senator Gary
Stevens, Sponsor; Caroline Schultz, Policy Analyst, Office
of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tamara Van Wyhe, Director, Division of Innovation and
Educational Excellence, Department of Education.
SUMMARY
SB 20 OUT OF STATE TEACHER RECIPROCITY
SB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 55 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO PERS
SB 55 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal
impact notes from the Office of the Governor, and
one new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration.
SB 71 COUNCIL ON ARTS: PLATES & MANAGE ART
SB 71 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to special request registration
plates celebrating the arts; relating to artwork in
public buildings and facilities; relating to the
management of artwork under the art in public places
fund; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska
State Council on the Arts; and providing for an
effective date."
9:08:14 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that the committee was hearing SB
71 for the second time. The committee had heard public
testimony on the bill on April 6, 2021. His intention was
to consider amendments. He asked the sponsor's staff to
reintroduce the bill. He noted there was invited testimony
available to speak to the bill and answer questions.
9:09:11 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, relayed that the
bill allowed the Division of Motor Vehicles to collect
funds for the artistic license plate to apply toward the
budget of the Alaska State Council on the Arts. He noted
that the amendments would pertain to some housekeeping
provisions as a result of the FY 19 budget cycle.
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 3, lines 15 - 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson discussed Amendment 1. He discussed the
governor's veto authority and felt the legislature should
not choose "winners and losers." He thought a following
amendment would be a better solution than Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for more detail from the amendment
sponsor. He referenced the Executive Budget Act.
Mr. Lamkin stated that the goal behind Section 5 of the
bill was to hold harmless the funds that the arts council
generated through private donors. The funds had been vetoed
during the budget cycle, and the amendment was drafted.
The sponsor had appreciated Senator Wilson's observation
that the arts council could not be exempted from the
Executive Budget Act. He asked the committee consider
Amendment 2 in lieu of Amendment 1.
Senator Olson asked if the sponsor was in favor of
Amendment 2 and not Amendment 1.
Mr. Lamkin explained that the sponsor supported Amendment 1
and Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
9:12:43 AM
AT EASE
9:13:02 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Lamkin relayed that in consultation with the
Legislative Legal Department, the committee, and the arts
council; the approach in Amendment 2 was drafted. The goal
was to specify arts council receipts so that if funds were
vetoed, the receipt authority would also have to be
separately vetoed. He noted that the approach was used by a
long list of other funds with receipt authority.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Bishop stated that the committee would set the
bill aside and request a Committee Substitute with updated
fiscal notes.
SB 71 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to recognition of certificates of
out-of-state teachers."
9:14:35 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the second hearing of
SB 20 and the committee had heard public testimony as well
as invited testimony on March 29, 2021. He intended to
consider amendments. He asked the sponsor's staff to do a
brief bill reintroduction.
Mr. Lamkin stated that SB 20 aligned fairly well with
regulatory suspensions that occurred by emergency order the
past year. The bill would assist districts in improving
access to qualified teachers. He noted that the bill was
favorable to superintendents and the sponsor wanted to
provide tools to address the teacher shortage.
Co-Chair Bishop noted there were individuals online to
answer questions.
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to Amendment 1. He explained that the
amendment applied to page 2, Section 3 of the bill. He
referenced the out of state teachers' continuing education
requirement. He considered that the required courses were
not like a typical college course, but rather were
available via online training that could be completed
within approximately 8 hours. He proposed that the training
could be required for completion within 90 days rather than
waiting for the courses to be offered in a university.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the amendment would change the
continuing education requirement completion from two years
to 90 days.
Senator Wilson answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the sponsor had considered the
amendment.
Mr. Lamkin stated the amendment was agreeable to the
sponsor.
Senator Olson asked if the amendment sponsor had contacted
any rural school districts for feedback on the amendment.
Senator Wilson stated he had not spoken with rural school
districts but had spoken with the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) which had verified the length
of time required to complete the training. The department
found that the length of time proposed was reasonable.
Senator Olson was less concerned with the input from the
department and asked if there was a superintendent
available to comment.
Co-Chair Bishop stated that the Anchorage School District
superintendent was not available.
Senator Olson referenced concerns about rural school
districts and unfunded mandates. He wanted to know if rural
school districts would be in favor of the amendment.
9:19:34 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked if all of the required continuing
education courses could be completed online.
TAMARA VAN WYHE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JUNEAU
(via teleconference), asked if Co-Chair Bishop was
referencing Section 3.
Co-Chair Bishop answered "yes."
Ms. Van Wyhe stated there were a number of trainings that
were available online, and the shorter mandatory training
series could be completed online. The multicultural
education course and the Alaska studies course required for
teacher certification were much longer courses and were not
available online.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the required training other than
the two mentioned were online trainings.
Ms. van Wyhe answered in the affirmative.
9:21:00 AM
Senator Olson asked Ms. Van Wyhe had heard from any school
district if it was favorable to Amendment 1.
Ms. Van Wyhe had not heard from any school district
regarding the amendment.
Co-Chair Bishop asked about the sponsor's position on the
amendment.
Mr. Lamkin stated that the sponsor had been in been in
conversation with school districts about the amendment. He
asserted that districts were supportive and helped point
out that two years was too long, and 90 days was a
reasonable amount of time to complete the training.
Senator von Imhof asked if the amendment addressed alcohol
and drug-related disabilities, and sexual abuse and assault
prevention training. She understood that Alaskan teachers
could not get a certificate if they had not completed the
training. She asked if the department could confirm.
Ms. Van Wyhe believed Senator von Imhof was correct. She
thought the requirements were fairly new and offered to get
back to the committee momentarily with confirmation.
Mr. Lamkin stated that testimony from prior hearings
indicated that the trainings were required for teacher
certification. He thought it was worth noting that the
paperwork for incoming teachers from out of state was well
vetted by the department before issuance of teaching
certificates. He added that it was generally known that
teachers completed the same type of training in the
teacher's home state.
Senator von Imhof asked if under the amendment, out of
state teachers would be given a 90-day window in which to
complete the training. She thought the 90 days seemed
reasonable. She asked if the amendment did not include
Alaska Studies and multicultural education requirements,
which Alaskan teachers were required to have. She believed
Alaskan teachers could receive a provisional certificate
with two years in which to complete the courses.
Mr. Lamkin affirmed that Senator von Imhof was correct.
Senator von Imhof asked if the only thing the amendment
dealt with was the alcohol and drug-related disabilities
and sexual assault awareness and prevention.
Mr. Lamkin stated that Senator von Imhof was correct, with
the addition of suicide prevention training.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 2, which
was fundamentally the same as Amendment 1. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:26:29 AM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 3. He explained
that the amendment was trying to avoid a potential
consequence of the bill. He stated that he supported the
bill and the concept of the bill. He thought the bill
fundamentally allowed teachers not certified in Alaska to
more readily become certified in Alaska by waiving
something. He shared concerns that the bill potentially
made it easy to set up a virtual school outside the state,
and to outsource teaching jobs. He felt that students were
better served with teachers in the state, and he thought
research supported the idea. The amendment stated that
teachers would have to be in a domicile in the state.
Senator Wielechowski continued to address Amendment 3. He
used the example of many doctors living outside the state,
and he wanted to prevent the same scenario from happening
with teachers.
Senator Hoffman initially agreed with Senator Wielechowski
but acknowledged there was teacher vacancies in rural
Alaska. He considered that a virtual classroom was better
than no teacher at all. He asked the amendment sponsor how
to rectify the situation in rural Alaska. He discussed the
challenges for teachers in rural areas. He considered that
a virtual education was better than none at all.
Senator Wielechowski had considered the issue as brought up
by Senator Hoffman. He stated that the amendment would not
prevent virtual schools, as long as there were some
teachers in Alaska. He reiterated that the amendment was to
keep Alaska jobs and keep the revenue in the state.
9:30:50 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for comments from the sponsor.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, thought it was difficult to
address the amendment because it made the bill pointless.
He acknowledged that it was preferable to have all Alaskan
teachers, but thought it was unrealistic. He pointed out
that the state was struggling to find the teachers it
needed. He did not think there was an issue of losing
Alaskan jobs. He estimated that 75 percent of teachers in
the state were not Alaskan. He thought insisting on a
domicile in the state would eviscerate the bill.
Senator Wilson understood the intent of the amendment but
had concerns about public charter schools and
correspondence schools in his district.
9:32:44 AM
Co-Chair Bishop was about how many courses in Alaska were
taken online from outside of the state.
Ms. Van Wyhe knew that especially in rural and remote
districts there were students taking online courses from
teachers outside the state. She detailed that most
companies providing courses required teachers to have
Alaska certification regardless of residency. She thought
requiring a teacher to live in Alaska during a teacher
shortage would place a burden on rural and remote
districts, particularly in the current climate with a
severe teacher shortage.
Co-Chair Bishop thought he heard Ms. Van Wyhe mention that
instruction provided by out of state teachers required
Alaska teacher certification.
Ms. Van Wyne answered in the affirmative. She thought there
were isolated incidents in which a course was needed and an
Alaska-certified teacher was not available, at which time
the district could decide whether to allow access to the
course.
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 3. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wielechowski stated he would work on the rural
issue as brought up by Senator Hoffman and perhaps
introduce the amendment on the Senate floor.
Senator von Imhof understood the thinking behind Amendment
3 and thought it had merit. She asked if Senator
Wielechowski was considering full time teachers or part
time teachers. She pondered specialty courses such as
advanced physics with calculus or computer coding. She
discussed specialized courses and potential highly skilled
teachers from outside the state that might not be
certified. She thought the courses for the students of the
next generation would be more specialized and potentially
less mainstream, particularly in high school.
Co-Chair Bishop set the bill aside and relayed that a
Committee Substitute would be forthcoming.
SB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to employer contributions to the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska; and
providing for an effective date."
9:37:39 AM
Co-Chair Bishop recounted that it was the third hearing of
SB 55, and the committee had heard public testimony on
March 11, 2021. He intended to cover the fiscal notes and
look to the will of the committee.
9:38:29 AM
CAROLINE SCHULTZ, POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, spoke to SB 55. She
detailed that the bill would change the way the state
contributed to the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) system. The bill would allow the state to make the
contribution from payroll, which would spread the funding
across multiple fund sources, rather than having it be
entirely funded entirely by Unrestricted General Funds
(UGF) as part of the state's on-behalf payment or "state
assistance payment."
Ms. Schultz addressed a new fiscal note from various
departments, OMB Component number 0. She pointed out that
the fiscal note represented the increase to all state
departments' payroll. She pointed out that the total cost
in FY 22 was $103.4 million. The fund source line showed
that the increase was spread across multiple fund sources,
the largest of which was UGF for $70 million. There was
$11.6 million in federal receipts, $17.7 million in other
funds and $3.9 million in Designated General Funds (DGF).
Ms. Schultz addressed a new fiscal note OMB Component 2866.
The fiscal note showed the decrease in the state assistance
payment by $95.8 million UGF. The fiscal note, combined
with the previous note, provided the overall fiscal impact
of about $25.7 million in UGF savings.
Ms. Schultz addressed a new fiscal note from the Department
of Administration Centralized Administrative Services, OMB
Component 64. The fiscal note represented the actuarial
cost to the PERS system fund caused by making the state on-
behalf payment every month through payroll rather than
having that portion of the payment occur at the beginning
of the fiscal year. Because the funding would not be
earning money in the PERS system throughout the year, there
was a small cost to the PERS system in foregone earnings.
She noted that the cost was estimated to be $200,000 in FY
23, increasing to $1.3 million in the out years. The costs
would ultimately be borne by spreading out the state
assistance payments through payroll. She pointed out an
attached letter from the state's actuarial consultant,
which indicated the opportunity cost of making the payment
later rather than earlier in the fiscal year.
9:42:10 AM
Senator Hoffman considered the fiscal note with OMB
Component Number 0, with $103 million under personnel
services, the vast majority of which was general funds of
$70 million. He noted that there was no delineation under
the position count over various departments. He asked if
there were any positions involved with the $103 million.
Ms. Schultz stated that the bill would not add any
positions, and customary the line in the positions count on
the fiscal note was for addition or subtraction of
positions. The legislation would impact every PERS employee
in state government and would impact payroll line for the
vast majority of state employees.
Senator Hoffman asked for the total position count of
employees being affected.
Ms. Schultz stated there were approximately 14,000
employees that would be affected.
Co-Chair Bishop looked at the penultimate paragraph on page
2 of the fiscal note and noted that the calculations went
through 2027. He asked about the cost that started at
$200,000 and grew to $1.3 million in the out years.
Ms. Schultz affirmed the starting cost of $200,000. She
acknowledged that the amount would slowly grow over time
given the lost earning value of the funds that were not
deposited at the beginning of the year. She conveyed that
the administration saw the lost earning value as a small
cost when compared with the savings obtained from the bill.
Senator Wilson MOVED to report SB 55 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 55 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes from
the Office of the Governor, and one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Administration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
9:46:08 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 71 Amendments 4.19.2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 20 Amendments 4.19.2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 20 |