Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
04/01/2025 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB53 || HB55 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; making appropriations under
art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of
Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
1:44:35 PM
^AMENDMENTS
Co-Chair Josephson did not offer Amendment N 80 (copy on
file).
Representative Bynum WITHDREW Amendment N 81 (copy on
file).
Representative Bynum MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 82 (copy on
file):
Agency: Public Safety
Appropriation: Alaska State Troopers
Allocation: AST Detachments
Transaction Details
Title: Reduce Additional Overtime Hours Funding for
Alaska State Troopers
from 300 to 150
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -1,174.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
-1,174.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -1,174.0
Explanation
Reduce the cost of the Alaska State Troopers and slow
its ongoing outsized expansion.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:46:11 PM
AT EASE
1:47:34 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum explained that the amendment addressed
funding for overtime. He stated that the goal was to reduce
the Department of Public Safety's (DPS) overtime increment
from 300 hours to 150 hours. He noted that the committee
had emphasized the importance of departments providing
clear and accurate representations of their operational
needs. He thought that the 300-hour overtime request was
excessive given the current fiscal climate. He clarified
that he was supportive of law enforcement officers, but
that 300 hours of overtime amounted to two months of work
at 75 hours per week, which was extreme. He argued that the
overtime exceeded what was necessary and that the
department appeared to be paying overtime to compensate for
unfilled vacancies, while also expecting to function
adequately without the additional funding.
Representative Bynum stated that the amendment was part of
a broader effort to ensure responsible spending across
state agencies. He relayed that he did not yet have a clear
understanding of how departments were managing their
budgets. He acknowledged that there were personnel
shortfalls and real overtime needs, but departments were
shifting costs into overtime line items without fully
explaining the needs to the legislature. He thought
departments needed to communicate more transparently about
the nature of the staffing shortfalls. Instead of broadly
allocating funding to overtime, departments should present
specific justifications. He stated that the amendment was
intended to initiate discussion.
1:50:08 PM
Representative Stapp expressed appreciation for DPS
Commissioner James Cockrell for clearly identifying the
department's budgeted overtime hours. He thought it was
important to recognize the department for providing clear
information, as it allowed the legislature to better
understand the scope of the request. He hoped that other
departments would begin following suit, as it was difficult
for the legislature to evaluate requests such as the one in
Amendment N 82 without comparable information. He noted
that it was challenging to determine whether 300 hours or
150 hours was appropriate without knowing the department's
standard overtime usage. He did not think 300 hours of
overtime spread over a year seemed excessive, especially
considering the demands placed on public safety officers.
He remarked that law enforcement work extended beyond
standard business hours.
Representative Hannan noted that she had not served on the
DPS finance subcommittee but recalled that the department
had provided figures based on average overtime hours. She
expressed concern about penalizing the department for
providing honest estimates. She asked the Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) to clarify whether 300 hours was the
department's actual average overtime per position. She
emphasized that she could not support cutting the
allocation in half if the figure reflected actual need. She
highlighted the phrasing of the amendment and noted that it
used the term "reduce additional overtime." She questioned
whether the 300 hours was in addition to a baseline
overtime allocation or if it represented the full overtime
estimate. She indicated that she could support a reduction
if the amount was supplemental, but not if it comprised the
department's total estimated overtime per position.
Representative Johnson recalled that during a previous
administration, significant cuts had been made to public
safety positions due to declining oil revenue. She stated
that in recent years there had been an effort to rebuild
public safety capacity across the state. She acknowledged
that recruitment remained difficult, which contributed to
the department's continued reliance on overtime.
1:54:22 PM
Representative Jimmie stated that she could not support the
amendment. She relayed that Alaska State Troopers (AST)
operated in dangerous conditions and often placed
themselves at personal risk. She thought that reducing
overtime would impair public safety and overtime pay helped
ensure that troopers were able to respond to emergencies on
short notice.
Representative Bynum responded that departments were
already using substantial funding for overtime. He observed
that no corresponding reductions had been proposed in other
areas where departments were not utilizing existing
resources. He noted that DPS had stressed that public
safety coverage was a top priority and there needed to be
more positions to meet its mission across the state.
However, he expressed concern that DPS had not clearly
explained how it was reallocating resources to create
additional positions. There was no other decrement in DPS's
budget and it was not using other budget items to
supplement new positions. He understood that if troopers
needed to work overtime, DPS would pay for the overtime
house. He wanted to ensure that the department was also
allocating all of its resources statewide to meet the needs
of the entire state. He clarified that he appreciated the
department's work and that it included an increment in the
budget for overtime. He hoped that other departments would
include similar overtime allocations in their budgets. He
wanted to ensure that the department was prioritizing where
it was placing troopers and that troopers were using
overtime hours wisely.
Representative Bynum WITHDREW Amendment N 82 (copy on
file).
1:56:57 PM
AT EASE
1:57:20 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum WITHDREW Amendment N 83 (copy on
file).
Representative Bynum WITHDREW Amendment N 84 (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 85 (copy on
file):
Agency: Revenue
Appropriation: APFC Anchorage Office
Allocation: APFC Anchorage Office
Transaction Details
Title: Decommission Anchorage Office
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.1
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
0.1
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1105 PF Gross 0.1
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that he was offering the
amendment in response to what he perceived as the
collective will of the legislature overall. He noted that
he had consistently been a strong advocate and protector
for the capital city. He acknowledged that some Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) employees had settled in
Anchorage and there had been frustration among legislators
regarding the corporation's refusal to follow legislative
intent to avoid building out an office in Anchorage. He
recalled that the legislature had not authorized the
expansion. He thought that the Anchorage office was a form
of "mission creep." He anticipated that the corporation
would argue that Anchorage offered more amenities and was
thus more attractive to some staff. He emphasized that the
amendment was offered in defense of legislative authority
and reflected concerns voiced by a majority of legislators.
He stated that he was not personally distressed by the
issue but felt it warranted discussion.
Co-Chair Foster stated that he supported the intent of the
amendment. He recalled that a similar effort had been made
the previous year and that there had been a structural
change to the budget to separate the Juneau and Anchorage
office allocations. He asked whether the current amendment
included a structural change sufficient to achieve the goal
of encouraging APFC to maintain its operations in Juneau.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he believed it did. He
noted that the committee might wonder why the appropriation
listed was $100 and explained that he had learned that a $0
appropriation was not permissible. He asked if LFD could
provide more details about the structural change.
2:00:46 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that the subcommittee had denied the governor's
proposed structure change, which would have renamed the
existing appropriation from "Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, Juneau Office" to simply "Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation." He explained that the current budget
retained the "Juneau Office" label and that the proposed
amendment added a separate appropriation for the Anchorage
office. The amendment would accomplish the intended
structural change if it passed.
Representative Stapp understood that the legislature had
taken similar action the previous year, yet APFC had
proceeded with the Anchorage office anyway. He asked what
would prevent the corporation from doing the same thing in
the current year.
Mr. Painter responded that in the prior year, the governor
had vetoed the appropriation for the Anchorage office. As a
result, there was no funding designated for the Anchorage
office. Despite the lack of funding, the corporation had
maintained the Anchorage office by utilizing funds from the
appropriation labeled "Juneau Office." He stated that
unless there was litigation to prevent it, the corporation
could choose to do the same again in the current year.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the governor's actions
indicated support for the amendment. He clarified that the
governor had vetoed the $100 appropriation for the
Anchorage office in the prior year and left the decision to
the discretion of the corporation.
Representative Stapp MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 85. The amendment would delete the word
"decommission" and replace "office" with "offices." He
asserted that the new language would direct the corporation
to open offices in Fairbanks, Nome, Toksook Bay, and
Ketchikan.
Representative Johnson added Palmer to the list.
Representative Allard added Eagle River to the list.
2:04:03 PM
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he hoped that debate on the
conceptual amendment would be brief. He thought the
original amendment was clear and straightforward.
Representative Johnson thought that the amendment
underscored concerns about the legislature's role in
determining where APFC could operate. The legislature had
not authorized the Anchorage office in the first place she
was concerned that if one unauthorized office could be
opened, others might follow, even outside Alaska. She
thought the core issue was whether the administration could
disregard the legislature's intent. She indicated that the
legislature's primary power was the power of appropriation,
and if that was ignored, the legislature would lose its
ability to provide oversight. She relayed that she would
support the conceptual amendment and noted that Palmer
might offer attractive amenities to draw talent to the
corporation. She expressed confidence that each committee
member could speak similarly about the value of their own
communities.
Representative Stapp stated that he thought the point he
intended to make had been understood.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 85.
2:06:09 PM
AT EASE
2:07:11 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson stated that Amendment 85 was paired with
Amendment L 2, which involved structural changes and intent
language. He noted that the committee was considering
Amendment N 85 as originally written.
Representative Hannan stated that the issue at hand
extended beyond a one-year dispute. She reiterated that
APFC had opened an Anchorage office without prior
legislative approval. The corporation had the funds and
opened the office unilaterally, then returned the following
year requesting legislative funding for the office. She
noted that a commissioner on the APFC board had made it
appear as though there would be no cost to the state.
However, the board still requested money, which the
legislature denied on the basis that the office had already
been opened without prior approval.
Representative Hannan stressed that the issue reflected a
disregard for the legislative appropriation process. The
board had requested increments in other areas while
simultaneously opening an office with unallocated funds.
She characterized the action as a "bait and switch" and
stated that similar issues had arisen with other agencies.
She asserted that the legislature must be clear that its
appropriation authority mattered, particularly when
agencies proceeded without prior approval and then sought
reimbursement. She stated that she would support the
amendment.
Representative Allard recalled that she had asked for a job
description for a new position the corporation wanted to
fund at $392,000. She thought that if the position had been
truly important, the corporation would have provided a job
description to justify the funding request. She thought a
conceptual amendment would be appropriate since the
corporation had failed to provide a job description but
continued to return to the legislature with various funding
requests while disregarding legislative authority.
Co-Chair Josephson asked Representative Allard to state the
conceptual amendment.
Representative Allard MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment N 85. She explained that the amendment would
cut $392,000 related to a position for which APFC had
requested funding but failed to provide a job description.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED.
2:10:26 PM
Representative Johnson recalled that the board had
initially stated the position could be located in either
Juneau or Anchorage, but that when pressed further, it had
clarified that it would most likely be located in
Anchorage. She did not think it was a far stretch to say
that if the state did not intend to maintain an Anchorage
office, perhaps it should not authorize an Anchorage-based
employee. However, she was uncertain whether she would
ultimately support the conceptual amendment.
Representative Galvin stated that she would not support the
conceptual amendment. She acknowledged the concerns related
to the Anchorage office and the lack of prior legislative
authorization, but she emphasized that APFC staff were
responsible for managing the state's investments. She
stated that investment work was highly specialized and
required significant expertise, and that such employees
commanded high compensation, including salaries, benefits,
and bonuses. She noted that while the compensation appeared
high, so were the returns the staff generated. She relayed
she was not prepared to remove a position at this time.
Representative Stapp commented that if the position in
question was intended to be based in Anchorage and the
committee intended to shut down the Anchorage office, it
would logically follow that the position should not be
funded. He understood that much of the corporation's
funding came from fees charged directly against the
Permanent Fund. He did not necessarily believe APFC had
done an excellent job in managing the fund in recent years
considering the fund had underperformed compared to other
investment benchmarks. He stated that he was unfamiliar
with the specific duties of the position in question and
requested clarification on whether it was intended to be
based in Juneau or Anchorage.
Representative Bynum stated that while he did not disagree
that the position might not be necessary if the Anchorage
office was closed, he believed the conversation had begun
to delve too deeply into the operational decisions of APFC.
He thought that if the committee wanted to evaluate how the
corporation functioned, it should dedicate meaningful time
to an evaluation. He stated that the legislature had an
obligation to ensure that all agencies clearly explained
how and why they spent funds and what performance outcomes
resulted from the expenditures. He expressed concern that
the legislature might be overreaching by attempting to
micromanage decisions such as the office location or
staffing of the corporation.
Representative Bynum acknowledged that the state wanted a
world-class investment organization and noted that
attracting top-tier talent likely required offering
competitive positions in locations more appealing to
professionals. He stated that he appreciated the conceptual
amendment, but he was unsure whether he would support it
because he believed the issue reflected a much broader set
of concerns about the corporation's performance and
legislative expectations. He did not think the $300,000
position would fix the problems. He relayed that resolving
the broader concerns would require a deeper and more
strategic review of how the corporation functioned and
whether the state was satisfied with the services it
provided.
2:15:24 PM
AT EASE
2:15:57 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he wanted to share some
information he had received. He confirmed that his staff
had reviewed email correspondence sent to members of the
committee by Mr. Deven Mitchell from APFC on February 27,
2025, and March 10, 2025 (copy on file). He noted that Mr.
Mitchell had been asked to provide a line-item breakdown of
the percentage increase in the corporation's budget year
over year. In the February 27 response, Mr. Mitchell had
written that the $392,000 in question reflected the salary
and benefits requested for a new private income portfolio
manager. According to the response, the amount was within a
competitive range for investment management professional
talent. The duties of the position would include
identifying, analyzing, selecting, monitoring, and managing
infrastructure, private credit, income opportunities, fund
investments, co-investments, and direct investments into
operating companies.
Co-Chair Josephson added that the second communication that
was sent on March 10 had been forwarded to members of the
committee. He relayed that Mr. Mitchell had answered the
questions regarding the purpose and cost of the position.
He did not want to second-guess Mr. Mitchell's assessment
of the appropriate salary range. He reiterated that the
response indicated the compensation was in line with what
was typical in the field. He hoped the information was
helpful to members.
Representative Allard responded that she may have missed
the communication referenced by Co-Chair Josephson, but the
issue was not about whether the individual in question was
worth the $392,000. She stated that the real concern was
the lack of clarity around the location of the office and
that the position had been proposed without any confirmed
physical office space. She reiterated that the committee
should not approve funding for a position when it remained
unknown where the individual would be based. She maintained
that it was the responsibility of the committee to
scrutinize spending, particularly when taxpayer dollars
were involved. She added that if the location of the office
were later resolved, the corporation could return to the
legislature with a revised request aligned with the
legislature's guidance.
Co-Chair Schrage MAINTED the OBJECTION.
2:19:30 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT
conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment N 85.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski, Bynum
OPPOSED: Galvin, Hannan, Jimmie, Schrage, Foster, Josephson
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).
2:21:16 PM
Representative Johnson remarked that while the legislature
appropriated funding for APFC, the funds came from the
Permanent Fund's Earnings Reserve Account (ERA). She
understood that there had been some interest in decoupling
the legislature's appropriation authority from APFC's
operations, but she thought the amendment was an important
early step in maintaining oversight. She reiterated that
she felt strongly that legislature needed to maintain
oversight.
Representative Tomaszewski asked for clarification on what
the amendment would accomplish.
Representative Stapp stated that he believed the broader
issue at hand was the legislature's approach to staffing
within APFC. He asserted that the legislature must decide
whether to prioritize investment performance and allow
employees to live where they needed to in order to achieve
the best returns, or to continue requiring employees to
live in Alaska. He indicated that he personally did not
object to Anchorage-based staff but he thought the
corporation needed to receive approval before making such
decisions. He suggested that if the best investment
managers lived in other states, Alaska should consider
allowing positions to be located in other states instead of
insisting the positions be based in Alaska.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that the governor had been within
his rights to strike the appropriation for the Anchorage
office in the prior year. He relayed that there was a legal
precedent and some uncertainty as to whether the governor
could veto a structural provision. However, the governor
was within his rights to veto an amount and an item. He
noted that in the past, the governor had exercised
discretion in vetoing some items while allowing others to
remain. He thought that the amendment reflected the will of
the legislature because it had not authorized the
commissioning of an Anchorage office.
2:23:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Jimmie, Johnson, Galvin, Bynum, Hannan, Foster,
Schrage, Josephson
OPPOSED: Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski
The MOTION PASSED (8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 85 was ADOPTED.
2:23:56 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 42 (copy on
file):
Agency: Corrections
Appropriation: Administration and Support
Allocation: Office of the Commissioner
Transaction Details
Title: Zero-Based Budgeting for Agency
Wordage Type: Intent
Linkage: Agency - Corrections
Wordage
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Commissioner submit a report by December 20, 2025 to
the Co-chairs of the Finance committees and to the
Legislative Finance Division that encompasses a Zero-
Based Budget. The report must include an analysis and
justification for every position and expense.
Explanation
During difficult fiscal times, it is necessary for the
Legislature to look at the entire budget, down to the
minute details, in search of government efficiencies.
Zero-Based budgeting, where a department must justify
all expenses from zero, improves accountability and
optimizes cost management. Recognizing that such a
dramatic shift in how we prepare our budget within one
year would cause significant issues, this language
provides for the Department of Corrections to serve as
a pilot for this style of budgeting.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson confirmed that there was no objection to
the committee taking up Amendment N 42, only to the content
of the amendment itself.
2:24:43 PM
AT EASE
2:25:06 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson announced that the committee had decided
not to take any items out of order. He confirmed that
Amendment N 86 was next.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendment N 42 with the
anticipation that he could bring it back up at a later
date.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 86 (copy on
file):
Agency: Revenue
Appropriation: AK Housing Finance Corporation
Allocation: AK Sustainable Energy Corp
Transaction Details
Title: Add Funds for the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation for Oil to Gas Changeout Initiatives
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 6,000.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
6,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1002 Fed Rcpts 5,000.0
1140 AIDEA Div 1,000.0
Explanation
In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) designated the more populated portions of the
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) as a nonattainment
area for PM2.5 air pollution. Since that time, the
FNSB, the State of Alaska, and Interior Gas Utility
(IGU) have worked to expand natural gas availability
and usage as part of the Interior Energy Project. The
continued success of this project is critical, as
sustained residential conversions to natural gas are
directly tied to long-term air quality improvements
and public health benefits.
One of the most effective strategies for reducing
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions is incentivizing the
conversion of heating oil systems to natural gas
appliances, as recommended by the Air Quality
Stakeholders Group. The FNSB still has funds available
through the federal Targeted Airshed Grants, which
provide up to $7,500 per conversion. However, this
amount is far below the typical residential conversion
cost of approximately $25,000, leaving a substantial
financial gap that many low- to medium-income
households simply cannot afford. Without additional
funding, the high upfront cost remains a significant
barrier, preventing widespread adoption of natural gas
and limiting the program's effectiveness in improving
air quality.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that recent changes at the
federal level had affected the Sustainable Energy
Transmission and Supply (SETS) grants. He explained that
SETS grants were used for various purposes, including
weatherization and housing improvements. The amendment
proposed using a portion of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) dividend to set
aside funds specifically for air quality improvements,
including particulate matter [PM2.5] mitigation and
weatherization efforts. The dividend was currently paid to
the state and administered by AIDEA for the purpose of SETS
grants. He stated that the goal was to leverage state
dollars with federal SETS funds to provide financial
incentives that would help Alaskans more easily afford
weatherization conversions.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the anticipated federal
funds would still be available, given that the new
presidential administration did not support climate
science.
Representative Stapp responded that he would not
necessarily characterize the new administration as denying
climate science. He acknowledged that he could not say with
certainty whether all federal funds would continue to be
available. He added the state would be negatively impacted
if federal dollars were significantly reduced, as a large
portion of Alaska's budget came from federal sources.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he agreed that Alaska would
be negatively impacted. He asked whether the AIDEA funds
would be unavailable to be used for SETS purposes. He
relayed that the AIDEA dividend could currently be spent
for any purpose and was similar to UGF.
Representative Stapp confirmed that the AIDEA dividend was
paid into the general fund and that the amount was
determined annually by the corporation. He stated that
technically, the legislature could request a higher
dividend from AIDEA. He asserted that using the AIDEA
dividend as the funding source was appropriate and logical
because AIDEA already worked with SETS grants and was
familiar with how the grant programs operated.
2:28:39 PM
Representative Galvin thought that the committee needed
more information before approving the increment due to its
size. She asked for an explanation of the breakdown between
the $1 million and $5 million amounts listed in the
amendment, noting that the total appeared to be $6 million.
She also asked how the amount was determined, how many
homes were expected to be converted through the program,
and whether the mandate requiring conversions had already
been passed into law. She asked for the average cost to
convert one home. She noted that some residents used
various energy sources and she wanted to know how many
households would be eligible. She emphasized the importance
of understanding the timing of the expenditure, and whether
the funds were actually needed in FY 26. She would prefer
to delay the appropriation until the next fiscal year if
the funds were not immediately necessary.
Representative Bynum stated that he did not have any
objections to the amendment. He noted that the amendment
did not utilize UGF and instead relied on federal receipts
and AIDEA dividend dollars. He asked if the funding was
limited to natural gas conversions or if other available
technologies would also qualify under the program. He
clarified that his support for the amendment did not hinge
on the answer, as he believed it was good for the
environment, the community, and the ratepayers. He also
asked whether a multi-year appropriation authority would be
available for the funding.
Representative Jimmie asked whether the program would also
be available to rural homeowners if gas became available in
rural communities.
2:32:05 PM
Representative Stapp responded that the amendment was not
region-specific and that the answer to Representative
Jimmie's question was yes. He explained that the funding
would be administered by the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) and would be available to any eligible
applicant. He added that there was a distinction between
actual dollars and the authority to receive federal
receipts, and that SETS grants fell into the latter
category. He explained that SETS grants were used for a
wide range of purposes and AIDEA already had experience
administering the grants, which was why the AIDEA dividend
was selected as the fund source. He stated that the
amendment was designed to build on AHFC's existing programs
and grant mechanisms.
Representative Stapp responded to Representative Galvin by
stating that there was no law requiring homeowners to
convert from oil to natural gas boilers. He explained that
in Fairbanks, no homeowner was presently compelled to
replace their oil boiler, but such conversions could be
necessary over time. He added that in many communities,
residents understood that natural gas was typically cheaper
and cleaner than oil. He emphasized that the funding was
intended to assist low-income and middle-income families
who would otherwise be unable to afford upgrades. He
indicated that while he could not specify how AHFC would
structure the grant program, the amendment's intent was to
support families in improving their home weatherization and
energy efficiency.
2:34:16 PM
AT EASE
2:35:18 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson noted that there had been discussion
during the at ease regarding the geographic application of
Amendment N 86.
Representative Hannan stated that she did not feel she had
the information she needed to decide on the amendment. She
understood that the amendment specifically proposed
assistance for residents converting from oil to gas. She
expressed concern about encouraging increased gas use in
Anchorage which already had a gas shortage. She did not
think the legislature would want to encourage more people
to convert to gas and she questioned whether the message
aligned with the state's gasline initiative. She noted that
while Fairbanks had gas delivered by truck, other regions
of the state were adopting alternatives, including heat
pumps, which offered a viable transition away from diesel.
She asserted that while the amendment was described as non-
exclusive to Fairbanks, its focus on gas conversions made
it functionally narrow in scope. She expressed concern that
the amendment did not address the highest-cost energy users
or the broadest opportunities for meaningful energy
savings.
Representative Stapp responded that a conceptual amendment
could address Representative Hannan's concerns. He proposed
that the title of the amendment could be modified to
include language such as "or any other type of system that
looks to lower energy costs." He was unsure whether SETS
grant funding would be available for all technologies, but
thought it was a broad program and it might allow for such
uses. He indicated that he would support a conceptual
amendment if one was offered.
Representative Bynum noted that the state Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) had reported that 80
percent of households in the Fairbanks area used heating
oil, and 40 percent relied on it exclusively. He explained
that the amendment included an estimated $7,500 in
assistance per household and could assist up to 800 homes.
He emphasized that even if none of the funding reached
Southeast Alaska for heat pump installation, he would still
support the amendment because it benefited Alaskans and the
environment by reducing heating costs and emissions.
2:38:55 PM
Representative Galvin asked for clarification on the source
of the funds. She pointed out the amendment listed AIDEA
dividends as the fund source, which flowed into the general
fund and were considered UGF. She understood that the total
dividend to the state in the current year was approximately
$20 million, of which $1 million would be redirected under
the amendment. She emphasized that the amendment
represented an active budget choice and members should
understand the full context.
Co-Chair Josephson asked Mr. Painter to respond to the
question. He asked if Mr. Painter agreed that AIDEA
receipts could be spent elsewhere as UGF dollars.
Mr. Painter responded that the fund source code in question
referred specifically to the AIDEA dividend declared by
AIDEA's board. He confirmed that the dividend counted as
UGF. He added that AIDEA's receipts had a separate fund
code that was eligible in other fund sources.
2:40:25 PM
AT EASE
2:54:48 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson reminded members that Amendment N 86 was
before the committee. He asked if the sponsor had
additional comments.
Representative Stapp replied that he was ready to vote.
2:55:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment
N 86.
IN FAVOR: Tomaszewski, Bynum, Stapp, Johnson, Allard
OPPOSED: Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Schrage, Foster, Josephson
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).
2:56:13 PM
Representative Hannan did not offer Amendment N 87 (copy on
file).
Representative Jimmie did not offer Amendment N 88 (copy on
file).
Representative Jimmie did not offer Amendment N 89 (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Josephson did not offer Amendment N 90 (copy on
file).
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 91 (copy on
file). [Due to the length of the amendment, please see the
copy on file for details.]
Representative Hannan OBJECTED.
Representative Stapp explained that the amendment would
decrement a portion of the University of Alaska's (UA)
budget by reducing funding allocated for recruitment and
retention. He stated that the amendment would redirect
$500,000 of the funding to behavioral health grants. He
relayed that the rationale for the change appeared on pages
2 and 3 of the amendment, with specific breakdowns for the
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast campuses. He stated
that the funds would support the UA Care Team, which
assisted students with behavioral health concerns affecting
their overall well-being.
Representative Stapp noted that the university continued to
face challenges in the post-COVID-19 world as it attempted
to address growing mental health needs among students. He
explained that the amendment would reduce the budget by $1
million and direct $500,000 of the reduction toward
behavioral health appropriations across campuses. He stated
that he remained open to conceptual amendments.
2:58:32 PM
Representative Galvin expressed appreciation for
Representative Stapp's work with the university to increase
behavioral health access for students across all campuses
in Alaska.
Representative Galvin MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 91.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Galvin explained that the conceptual
amendment would reduce the overall decrement by $500,000.
She noted that it would preserve more funding for
recruitment and retention while maintaining the $500,000
allocation for behavioral health.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that the original
amendment reduced university funding by $3 million, with
$500,000 redirected to student mental health.
Representative Galvin responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that the amendment would
change the total to $2.5 million for recruitment and
retention and with $500,000 diverted to mental health. He
asked for confirmation on what the total amount would be if
the conceptual amendment were to pass.
Representative Galvin noted that there was an upcoming
amendment that was related to the same topic. She explained
that under the conceptual amendment, $500,000 would still
be directed to behavioral health services across multiple
campuses. She emphasized that the amendment would help
ensure that behavioral health services were available. She
thanked Representative Stapp for his collaboration with the
university and for ensuring that the amendment targeted
specific goals.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that the
conceptual amendment would leave $2 million in funding for
recruitment and retention instead of $2.5 million.
Representative Galvin responded in the affirmative. She
stated that the intent was to restore the recruitment and
retention amount to its original funding level. She
explained that $2.5 million would support recruitment and
retention, while $500,000 would go toward improving student
access to mental health services.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that
Representative Stapp had proposed to cut $1 million and
then add back $500,000 for behavioral health.
Representative Stapp responded that if the conceptual
amendment were adopted, it would effectively streamline
what the UA finance subcommittee had already proposed in
the subcommittee's budget. He stated that adoption of the
conceptual amendment would not alter the overall funding
amount. He clarified that the underlying amendment would
have reduced the total appropriation by $500,000 if adopted
on its own.
3:02:23 PM
Representative Bynum understood that the UA subcommittee
had increased the total allocation for recruitment,
retention, and behavioral health to $3 million. He thought
that the original amendment proposed to decrement the
amount from $3 million to $2 million, with $500,000
redirected to behavioral health. He clarified that the
conceptual amendment would instead retain $2.5 million for
recruitment and retention and allocate $500,000 to
behavioral health, which reflected the total funding
originally allocated to both purposes. He understood that
the conceptual amendment added more detailed guidance on
how the behavioral health funds would be allocated.
Co-Chair Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment N 91
was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the committee was
considering Amendment N 91 as amended.
3:03:51 PM
Representative Stapp reiterated that the amendment as
amended would direct $500,000 in behavioral health funding
to each campus based on the requests outlined in the
amendment. He stated that he had nothing further to add.
[Although not explicitly stated, the objection to the
underlying amendment was withdrawn.]
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there was any remaining
objection. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 91
as amended was ADOPTED.
3:04:32 PM
AT EASE
3:05:22 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 92 (copy on
file):
Agency: University of Alaska
Appropriation: University of Alaska
Allocation: Systemwide Reduction/Additions
Transaction Details
Title: Reverse Recruitment, Retention, and Graduation
Funding Increment
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: -3,000.0
-3,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -3,000.0
Explanation
Reduce the cost of State support for the University of
Alaska to the Governor's proposed funding level.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Representative Stapp wanted to
speak to the objection.
Representative Stapp responded that he thought his
objection was self-explanatory based on his previous
amendment.
Representative Bynum explained the amendment. He believed
there was a structural issue with Amendment N 92 following
the adoption of Amendment N 91 as amended.
Representative Bynum MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 92. The conceptual amendment would change the
proposed decrement from $3 million to $2.5 million.
Representative Stapp stated that the conceptual amendment
needed to be adopted in order to properly debate the
underlying amendment based on the committee's previous
action. He indicated that he would not object to the
conceptual amendment.
3:06:45 PM
AT EASE
3:08:55 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson asked Representative Bynum to confirm
the amount of the proposed decrement.
Representative Bynum stated that Amendment N 92 was
originally a decrement of $3 million. He noted that the
committee had just passed Amendment N 91 and explained that
the conceptual amendment would conform Amendment N 92 to
reflect the action. He clarified that if the conceptual
amendment were adopted, Amendment N 92 would become a
decrement of $2.5 million rather than $3 million, which
would preserve full funding for the allocation made in
Amendment N 91. He stated that the conceptual amendment was
solely intended to conform Amendment N 92 with the action
taken on Amendment N 91, after which the committee could
discuss the merits of retaining the $2.5 million for
recruitment and retention.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there was any discussion on the
conceptual amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment N 92 was ADOPTED.
Representative Bynum explained that he brought forward
Amendment N 92 because the committee was using $2.5 million
in UGF for recruitment and retention purposes. He relayed
that he had significant concerns with using UGF to hire
university recruiters whose efforts would generate
approximately the same amount of tuition revenue as the
state was investing, at least in the first year. He
questioned whether it would be more beneficial to provide
scholarship opportunities directly to Alaskans or to
individuals interested in attending UA, rather than
spending general fund dollars on recruitment efforts that
were projected to produce a comparable return in tuition.
He thought that if the university wanted to use funds for
recruitment with the intention of recouping the same
dollars in tuition revenue, it should do so using its own
internal funds.
Representative Bynum clarified that he did not object to
the university engaging in recruitment activities, but to
the university using UGF for recruitment activities. He
asserted that subsidizing the university's recruitment
efforts was not a good use of UGF. He reiterated that if
the university wanted to prioritize recruitment, it should
do so using university funds.
Co-Chair Josephson added that the university had already
retained a consultant who had identified a pathway to
generate more tuition revenue and increase the number of
degreed Alaskans.
3:12:31 PM
AT EASE
3:18:32 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum asserted he would prefer to see UGF
allocated toward scholarships, which he believed would more
directly result in increased enrollment in the UA system.
He expressed hope that he had clearly communicated his
position, which was that funds appropriated to the
university should be spent wisely. He clarified that he did
not believe recruitment was necessarily an unwise
expenditure, but that university receipts should be used
rather than UGF. He reiterated that he would prefer to see
UGF used for scholarship programs. He acknowledged that the
amendment was not about creating a scholarship program and
he was not attempting to establish a scholarship program.
Representative Bynum WITHDREW Amendment N 92.
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:19:44 PM
Co-Chair Josephson explained the agenda for the following
day. The committee would resume its consideration of the
remaining amendments at its morning meeting and would take
up HB 78 in the afternoon. He noted that the committee
would resume work on amendments following the HB 78
presentation if necessary.
Representative Stapp asked for confirmation that the
committee would be taking up HB 78 because testifiers had
flown into town to present on the bill.
Co-Chair Josephson responded in the affirmative.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 53 ACTIONS ON AMENDMENTS 040125.pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |
| HB 53 LAW Statehood defense Response 041125.pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |