Legislature(2025 - 2026)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/09/2025 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 | |
| Office of Management and Budget: | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 9, 2025
9:03 a.m.
9:03:33 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Mike Cronk
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Lacey Sanders, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Liz Harpold, Staff, Senator Donny
Olson; Senator Bill Wielechowski, Sponsor; David Dunsmore,
Staff, Senator Wielechowski.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Cori Mills, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
SB 64 ELECTIONS
CSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
three "do pass" recommendations and with four "no
recommendation" recommendations, and with a new
fiscal impact note from the Office of the
Governor, and one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN 2(ADM).
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and BUDGET:
GOVERNOR'S FY 26 OPERATING AMENDMENTS
GOVERNOR'S FY 26 MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENTS
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS:
GGU GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CEA COLLECTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
MEBA MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the agenda.
^OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and BUDGET:
GOVERNOR'S FY 26 OPERATING AMENDMENTS
GOVERNOR'S FY 26 MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENTS
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS:
GGU GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CEA COLLECTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
MEBA MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION
9:04:32 AM
LACEY SANDERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, relayed that she was in committee
to present the FY 26 operating and mental health budget
amendments that had been transmitted to the legislature the
previous week. The amendments represented the contractual
bargaining agreements between the state and the Alaska
State Employees Association for General Government (GGU),
the Confidential Employees Association (CEA), and the
Marine Engineer Beneficial Association (MEBA). She relayed
that each of the contracts covered the terms from FY 26 to
FY 28, however the amendments being presented were specific
to the terms for FY 26. The result was an overall increase
of $84.5 million. The Unrestricted General Fund (UGF)
portion was $35 million. On May 2, the GGU terms were
submitted totaling $80.5 million, $33.4 of which was UGF.
Ms. Sanders continued that the CEA and MEBA items were
transmitted on May 7, totaled $4 million, $1.6 million of
which was UGF. She drew attention to transmittal letters
outlining the terms of each agreement for FY 26 as well as
backup spreadsheets identifying individual transactions
throughout agency budgets (copy on file).
Co-Chair Hoffman observed that the GGU contract was roughly
$80 million in all funds and $33 million UGF for the first
year. He asked what happened if there were not enough non-
UGF fund sources to pay or if some of the other fund
sources were hollow receipts.
Ms. Sanders relayed that each year when the budget was
adopted, the administration worked with agencies to develop
a personal services module that balanced each position with
the expected funding source. Throughout the year, if
agencies identified hollow receipts, the administration
would work to determine the reason and make a decision as
to the function of the position would continue. The other
course of action would be to make a supplemental request to
the legislature identifying shortfalls.
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that he had a concern that in the
state's fiscal situation, the legislature may be asked to
fund positions at a later date in a supplemental request.
He wanted to inform members that it was a possibility.
Senator Kiehl looked at the GGU contract and understood
that the lump sum was non-recurring and did not go into the
base nor compound. He identified that the base salaries
went up by 1.25 percent and the base wages went up by 1.75
percent. He asked about the practical difference between
the two.
Ms. Sanders relayed that overall pay was increasing by 3
percent. She noted that there was staff available from the
Department of Law to speak to Senator Kiehl's question.
9:09:21 AM
CORI MILLS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), thought
Ms. Sanders answered the question overall. There was an
ongoing payment, so the increase got baked in. She
mentioned recruitment. The practical effect was a 3 percent
increase.
Co-Chair Stedman thought it would be nice to hear from the
Department of Law during the negotiations. He asked if the
department took the salary studies into account to address
problematic areas.
Ms. Mills relayed that the department did not take the
salary study into account and thought more work needed to
be done on the study. She thought the department looked at
general trends and the complexities of the system to try
and evaluate choices at the end of the negotiation. The
study was not considered as a baseline. She mentioned the
classification as a whole and cost of living increases
(COLAs). The study was not a core portion of the
bargaining.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned that the salary study the
committee had been presented two weeks previously had shown
that there were several groups of employees that were below
50 percent and 65 percent. He thought there was high
turnover in some of the lower-level positions, which he
thought appeared excessive. He asked if the committee
should be anticipating an additional request for reference
to the wage study, or whether the wage study would be put
aside.
Ms. Sanders relayed that the salary study and labor
negotiations were two distinct processes, and the study was
not bargained into contractual negotiations. She noted that
there was significant work needed to go through the study
and consider the recommendations of the study. She relayed
that the administration would have to evaluate the study
over the interim and bring back recommendations to the
legislature in the following session.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that there would be a more
constrained budget the following year and that there could
be another significant increment request for employees if
the state was going to deal with the study.
9:13:45 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the testifiers could address a
justification of bonuses and the duration of the three-year
contract.
Ms. Sanders offered at a high level that there were
continued conversations about ensuring the state had the
staff in positions to meet the needs and services provided
to Alaskans. One of the tools utilized in negotiations and
in the agreement was the use of a recruitment/retention
bonus. She noted that the GGU had many entry-level
positions that were hard to fill and hard to retain.
Ms. Mills thought Ms. Sanders had covered the topic. She
relayed that the bonuses were an attempt to come to
agreement, and bonuses were one of the ways to try and
increase recruitment and retention.
9:15:29 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if [the bonuses] were a normal
practice, and if it existed in the past, and if it was
expected to be used in the normal course of business.
Ms. Sanders could not speak to past practice but offered
that she had spoken to the committee in the past about
letters of agreement and those things occurring outside the
negotiation process. She mentioned an effort to get items
outside the letters of agreement process and into the
contract. She thought whether the bonuses continued in the
future was dependent upon the economic outlook, how the
state was doing with recruitment and retention, and the
state's future fiscal situation.
Co-Chair Hoffman stated that the legislature was still
working on the FY 26 budget, which was very tight and had
yet to go through the conference committee process. He
expressed significant concern as to how the state would
address the FY 27 budget. The committee would be faced with
major financial decisions the following year and wanted to
work more closely with the administration as to how to
achieve a balanced budget the following year. He opined
that the state would have to address additional revenue
measures to balance the budget, more so than the one that
passed the Senate. He referenced SB 113 [related to
corporate tax for online business in Alaska], sponsored by
Senator Wielechowski. He reiterated that the state was
facing a big challenge.
Senator Kiehl mentioned the following year's budget and
asked if there were still bargaining units with outstanding
agreements with the executive branch.
Ms. Sanders answered in the affirmative and specified that
no agreement had been reached with the Inland Boatman's
Union (IBU).
Senator Kiehl asked for an order of magnitude estimate. He
asked about the potential General Fund cost if the
agreement was for roughly 3 percent.
Ms. Sanders did not have the figure at hand.
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voters;
relating to voting; relating to voter preregistration
for minors at least 16 years of age; relating to voter
registration; relating to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission; relating to synthetic media in
electioneering communications; relating to campaign
signs; relating to public official financial
disclosures; relating to the crime of unlawful
interference with voting in the first degree; and
providing for an effective date."
9:19:16 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that the committee had first heard
SB 64 on April 9, at which time it had taken public
testimony and reviewed fiscal notes. The only amendments
received were from the bill sponsor, which had been rolled
into a Committee Substitute (CS) for the committee's
consideration.
Senator Kiehl MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute
for SB 64, Work Draft 34-LS0153\L (Dunmore, 5/8/25).
Co-Chair Hoffman OBJECTED for discussion.
9:20:36 AM
LIZ HARPOLD, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, relayed that there
was an Explanation of Changes document (copy on file) that
provided technical details regarding the changes between
the previous version of the bill and the version that was
being considered. She suggested that the sponsor's staff
address the amendments that had been incorporated into the
CS, which she thought would be more beneficial to the
committee.
9:21:17 AM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, introduced himself and
referred to his staff.
9:21:24 AM
DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, relayed that
his office had prepared several amendments to address
concerns raised in conversation with various Senators.
Mr. Dunsmore summarized the changes to the bill:
The following provisions are removed from the bill:
• Sections 2 and 5 relating to electronic signatures.
• Section 25 and Section 1 subsection (9) relating to
moving from a house district just before an
election.
• Section 49 related to public official financial
disclosures by municipal officials.
The following provisions are added to the bill:
• Section 4, 51, and 52 require data sharing between
the Department of Revenue and the Division of
Elections (DOE) for the purpose of voter
registration, confirming the residency of voters,
identifying duplicate registrations, and detecting
voters who are ineligible to vote.
• Section 11 requiring DOE to notify the public and
the Legislature if there is a data breach of
confidential election data within 14 days of the
election or before the election is certified.
• Sections 49 and 50 codifying the ability to opt-out
of voter registration through a Permanent Fund
Dividend application.
The following changes are made to existing provisions in
the bill:
• In Section 5, the time frame for voter inactivity
that triggers a notice is changed from two general
elections to 28 months and technical changes are
made to the language related to notices sent to
voters with out-of-state addresses.
• In Section 9, the review of the master voter
register is changed from every two years to
annually.
• In Section 12, the list of entities the rural
community liaison is required to collaborate with is
narrowed to municipalities and tribes.
• In Section 18, it is clarified that language
assistance must be provided to the extent
practicable in compliance with federal law.
• In all sections concerning the use of utility bills,
banks statements, paychecks, government checks, or
other government documents as identification, the
requirement for how recent the document must be is
changed from 90 days to 60 days. These provisions
are found in Sections 19, 29, and 34.
• In Section 24, DOE will be required to adopt
regulations for additional risk limiting audits
rather than being giving the authority to do so.
• In Section 37, language is adding requiring that DOE
only purchase a ballot-tracking system from a
domestic company and requiring that the ballot-
tracking system must use multi-factor authentication
to verify a voter's identity.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Senator Wielechowski believed
that any provisions in the legislature were partisan.
Senator Wielechowski relayed that the bill had been several
years in the making and was the result of meetings between
Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Non-partisan
legislators as well as the Division of Elections and the
Office of the Governor. He opined that SB 64 was truly a
bipartisan bill that would clean up the state's voter rolls
that currently had 106 percent more registered voters than
Alaskans. He continued that the bill would make elections
more secure and speed ballot counting. The bill would make
small changes to help rural and military voters from having
their ballots disenfranchised.
9:25:53 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman reflected that during the previous
election, there was a high proportion of votes in his and
Co-Chair Olson's districts that had not counted. He asked
how the bill would address the problems.
Senator Wielechowski relayed that there were several
reasons why the event had occurred, which had happened
predominantly in rural villages but also in military
districts. The biggest problem had been related to a
witness signature, and through a compromise package of
reforms the section had been fixed. He relayed that the
witness signature had never been verified by the Division
of Elections. He described ballot tracking procedures and
other measures to ensure there was no fraud possibilities
in absentee ballots.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if members had further questions.
Senator Merrick asked the sponsor if there was anything in
the bill that would create statewide mail-in elections.
Senator Wielechowski replied, "absolutely not," and relayed
that there was nothing in the bill that created anything
for statewide elections.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the sponsor had received any
feedback from the lieutenant governor's office. He asked
about meetings with the office.
Senator Wielechowski relayed that he had worked extensively
with the lieutenant governor's office and the Division of
Elections and relayed that it had been a collaborative
process. He did not think the division had taken a position
on the bill. He emphasized that he had taken the division's
input on every aspect of the bill.
9:28:15 AM
Senator Kiehl asked about a provision related to those who
had not voted in two cycles, and changing the time frame
from 24 months to 28 months.
Mr. Dunsmore relayed that the current statute provided a
time frame of two general elections. There was a concern
for a more specific time frame. He noted that the timeframe
of 28 months was chosen because of the review process
timing with elections.
Senator Kiehl mentioned discussion about changing how
municipal officials shared information regarding financial
disclosures.
Mr. Dunsmore thought there was a provision in the Committee
Substitute from Senate State Affairs looking to address the
issue. A member had raised concern about unintended
consequences. The sponsor agreed that the topic was not a
core provision of the bill and would leave the language at
status quo.
Senator Kaufman knew the sponsor's office had been working
with the minority leader, and that there had been input
from the minority leader and his office. He asked about the
status of concurrence between the two.
Senator Wielechowski affirmed that he had worked
extensively with the minority leader, and it had been very
productive. He estimated that at least 50 percent of the
provisions in the bill were at the request of the minority
leader. He relayed that the current version of the bill was
only received yesterday, and he had hastened to bring it to
the minority leader's attention. He mentioned two
relatively minor sections which he was working to adjust
but did not want to state whether the minority leaders
supported the sections. He emphasized that the work had
been collaborative and hoped that the minority leader would
support the bill.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about fiscal notes.
Mr. Dunsmore had not seen an updated fiscal note. He
thought most of the changes would have a minimal cost. He
had been told that the change related to the review of the
master register from bi-annually to annually would probably
double the operating cost of the action to about $60,000
per year on a bi-annual basis.
9:32:37 AM
AT EASE
9:33:36 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Senator Kiehl to review the new
fiscal note.
Senator Kiehl addressed a new fiscal note, OMB Component 21
from the Office of the Governor Division of Elections.
There was no change in the operating expenditures section,
which showed costs beginning in FY 27 at $338.8 thousand
UGF and one new permanent position and five temporary
positions. The fiscal note showed the cost leveling from FY
28 onward to $290.1 thousand. As was typical for the
division, the amount was levelized and every other year
there were five temporary positions. The fiscal note zeroed
the estimated capital cost.
Co-Chair Hoffman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Kiehl MOVED to report CSSB 64(FIN) out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
Senator Kaufman OBJECTED for discussion. He was fine with
moving the bill from committee, and commented on the pace
of the CS. He wanted to know more from the Senate Minority
Leader, who he understood was still reviewing changes to
the bill. He thought there may be floor amendments. He
hoped that the same bipartisan cooperative effort that had
been a part of the bill thus far would continue on the
floor.
Senator Kaufman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with three "do
pass" recommendations and with four "no recommendation"
recommendations, and with a new fiscal impact note from the
Office of the Governor, and one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN 2(ADM).
9:36:36 AM
AT EASE
9:38:18 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that the afternoon meeting was
canceled.
ADJOURNMENT
9:38:42 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 050925 FY2026 Op Governor Amend Bill Spreadsheet 05.07.2025.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 050925 FY2026 Operating Transmittal Letter 5.7.25.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 050625 FY2026 Operating Transmittal Letter 5.2.25.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 050625 FY2026 Op Governor Amend Bill Spreadsheet 05.02.2025.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 64 OOG DOE 050925.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 work draft version L.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Sectional Version L.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Explanation of Changes ver W to ver L 05.09.25.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |