Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
04/02/2025 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 | |
| Presentation: Tiers & Unfunded Liability | |
| HB53 || HB55 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | 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."
3:57:37 PM
^AMENDMENTS
3:57:40 PM
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that the committee rolled
amendments 94 through 96 to the bottom of the amendment
process. He encouraged members to offer any remaining
amendments they may have. He discussed his intent for the
remainder of the meeting.
4:00:11 PM
AT EASE
4:01:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there were members who wanted
to offer amendments.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 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 Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. The amendment
included intent language that would direct the commissioner
of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to submit a report
by December 20, 2025, to the finance committees and the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) that encompassed a zero-
based budget. The objective was to get a handle on general
fund expenses. He stated it was getting very challenging to
see discrepancies in how budgeting was done via baseline.
He elaborated that requiring a department or RDU component
to come before the finance committee or subcommittee to
justify its expenses from zero would be helpful for
legislature to understand where the money went and what it
did. He asserted that zero-based budgeting improved
accountability and optimized cost management. He recognized
it was probably unrealistic to transition the entirety of
the state's budget over to a zero-based process. He thought
DOC was too large to attempt to make the change in a single
year, but he thought the committee may be able to have a
discussion about finding an RDU component or another
department for zero based budgeting.
Representative Hannan opposed the amendment. She believed
that out of all the departments, DOC was least likely to be
able to predict its costs. She stated that DOC was a
downstream agency. She elaborated that if the department
went to zero based budgeting at the beginning of the
current year and started with no inmates and no
programming, it would have to specify who it expected to
get, in what condition, for how long, and what services the
individuals needed. Hypothetically, the department could
say it expected zero sex offenders, zero inmates in for
lifetime sentences, and no inmates in need of kidney
dialysis; however, instead they received medically
complicated long-term inmates. Yet the department had only
budgeted for short-term offenders with minimum security.
She believed that due to the nature of DOC, it was the
least probable to succeed at zero based budgeting. She
thought the budgets would be very inaccurate.
4:05:14 PM
Representative Johnson thought it could be done. She
acknowledged it would never be specific and 100 percent
accurate. She stated that was not the point of the process,
the point was to break out where the actual costs resided.
She highlighted that the DOC budget was continually
increasing and had large supplementals. She stressed that
the legislature needed to get a handle on the reason costs
were continuing to increase. She did not believe the
increases were aligned with the number of inmates. She
thought there was something else that appeared to be going
on, which likely had to do with management. She believed an
honest try to begin the process and provide the legislature
with a report would be a good way to start to get a handle
on the situation. She stated that the legislature had to do
some management and oversight of the budget at some point.
She supported the amendment.
Representative Bynum supported the amendment. He stated
that after talking with the legislative finance team, he
understood there were things that could be done in addition
to zero-based budgeting to help the legislature get a
better handle on what was occurring throughout departments
and divisions. He highlighted his experience as a previous
utility director and relayed that it was possible to use
zero-based budgeting with uncertainty. For example, there
were times in a utility where it was not possible to
predict the cost of diesel fuel, disasters, copper,
shortfalls in labor, and more. He stated there were many
challenges running a utility, just like there were
challenges running DOC. He explained that it required
quantifying the anticipated unknowns and budgeting around
them. He furthered that it would mean a department would
identify items to the legislature and accompanying
assumptions used to come up with a budgetary number. He
thought DOC had the ability to do the work. He added that
the department should know what its costs were. He thought
the exercise would be very helpful for all of the
departments to undertake.
4:08:27 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked Mr. Painter with the Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) to join the committee. He thought
DOC would start with the fact it had a given number of
prisoners and there were laws about how many correctional
officers were needed and collective bargaining agreements
to honor. Additionally, DOC had to heat the prisons, feed
inmates, and provide them with dental and medical care. He
referred to the Cleary decision [from the Alaska Supreme
Court] related to prisoners' rights. He thought that if a
department went to the bottom of its budget, the budget
would come right back up with many mandatory requirements.
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that in a zero based exercise, a department would
have to label its constraints. Some constraints included
collective bargaining contracts and other statutory
requirements. He remarked that they may end up in a similar
place. He believed the intent of zero-based budgeting was
that a department evaluate each expenditure and justify it
to the legislature even if they already had reasons for
things. He noted that it was a different way to look at
budgets. He stated that Alaska generally had incremental
budgeting for the operating budget, and the capital budget
was essentially a zero-based budget. He was not certain the
result would come to a different place, but it would be a
different lens.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Mr. Painter had seen similar
intent language in the budget previously.
Mr. Painter replied that he could not think of an example
of zero-based budgeting language in the budget in the past.
Representative Tomaszewski supported the amendment. He
thought it was the legislature's fiduciary responsibility
to understand what the departments were doing. He thought
it was a great first step in the process. He believed it
could and should be done. He thought the legislature should
be looking into zero-based budgeting tactics for other
agencies in the future.
4:11:36 PM
Representative Allard supported the amendment. She likened
the intent language to a forced audit and thought it would
provide true transparency. She thought all departments
should use zero-based budgeting.
4:11:52 PM
Representative Galvin asked if the exercise would retire
time or funds on the department's behalf. She wondered if
departments would have to hire someone to help guide them
through the process of compiling a report to provide to the
legislature.
Mr. Painter answered that it would be up to the department
to determine. He elaborated that departments had budget
staff and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had
staff. He did not know if that would be sufficient or if
departments would need to contract out or shift resources.
Representative Johnson asked if Mr. Painter knew of other
states doing zero based budgeting.
Mr. Painter responded that he was not familiar with what
other states did. He relayed that the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA) used zero-based budgeting. He
elaborated that AMHTA's increments were all temporary and
the agency did not have anything in the base budget.
Representative Johnson hoped zero-based budgeting was a
good way for the legislature to figure out where the costs
resided and to look at the budget in a different way. She
asked Mr. Painter if he had other suggestions on a way to
get to the numbers if zero-based budgeting was not the
answer.
4:14:28 PM
Mr. Painter replied that there were a few other approaches,
specifically related to DOC, which he was aware of due to a
bill introduced the previous session in Florida. He
explained that Florida's version of OMB and LFD conducted
joint forecasts for some items including prison
populations. He noted that there was not a lot of joint
forecasting done in Alaska. Other states had varying
degrees of the practice used in Florida. He noted there had
been intent language in the DOC budget the previous year
for DOC to work on projections cooperatively between the
branches, but that did not really occur. He noted it could
work, but due to turnover within DOC, it had been unable to
do so in the past year.
Representative Johnson stated her understanding that
Florida, Texas, and possibly one other state did zero-based
budgeting. She remarked that the Texas budget had to be
large. She highlighted that Alaska had a lot of vacancies
and different things where the legislature did not know
where the money was being spent. She pointed out that the
DOC budget was high and continuing to grow. She supported
the amendment in order for legislators to get their eyes on
the budgets and to get a sense they were adhering to their
constitutional responsibility.
Representative Bynum stated another valid reason to support
the amendment was to ask the department to undertake the
exercise and talk about what it was doing in its
expenditures. The alternative was to offer amendments in
committee to take large cuts to the department's budget and
to hear from the department later about why it really
needed the funds. For example, the budget for some of DOC's
facilities had grown by nearly 30 percent since FY 21,
despite the addition of no new personnel. He thought it
begged the question about what was actually taking place
within the department. He wanted to have a great
relationship with the departments and did not want his
support for the amendment to indicate otherwise. As
appropriators, he believed legislators needed to have all
of the information available. He did not have a good
understanding of what the departments were actually doing
with their budgets because of how the budgets were being
passed from one year to the next. He compared it to a game
of telephone. He clarified that he was not in favor of
doing zero-based budgeting annually because it was a heavy
lift. He thought it should be done regularly or through
performance audits, which had to be requested by the
legislature.
4:18:45 PM
Representative Stapp provided wrap up on the amendment. He
appreciated the comments by committee members. He relayed
that several states including Georgia, Florida, and Texas
used zero-based budgeting. He underscored that the Texas
budget was $321.3 billion. He was proposing a much smaller
version. He remarked that legislators were frequently told
by educators that the legislature had not made the same
increases in the education budget, but the DOC budget
continued to grow exponentially. He noted that one of the
committee members mentioned the DOC budget had grown 30
percent in the past handful of years. He stated that if the
expenses were justified, the legislature had to pay them.
He did not know exactly why DOC's numbers continued to rise
when the prison population went down. He noted that
Representative Hannan had highlighted there were
constitutional obligations and fixed costs associated with
prisoners and he did not believe the legislature could
spend any time on those items. He agreed the legislature
needed to pay collective bargaining agreements to
employees. He recognized there may be a valid reason for
the expenses, but he wanted to know where the rest of the
money was going because it did not all go to constitutional
obligations.
Co-Chair Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
42.
IN FAVOR: Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski, Bynum, Johnson
OPPOSED: Jimmie, Hannan, Galvin, Schrage, Foster, Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 42 FAILED (5/6).
4:21:17 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18 (copy on
file):
Agency: Administration
Appropriation: Office of Information Tech
Allocation: Chief Information Officer
Transaction Details
Title: Utilization of AI for Zero-Based Budgeting
Wordage Type: Intent
Linkage: Agency - Administration
Wordage
It is the intent of the legislature that the agency
utilize Artificial Intelligence technology to assist
with Zero-Based Budgeting principles.
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.
Agency: Administration
Appropriation: Office of Information Tech
Allocation: Licensing/Infrastructure/Servers
Transaction Details
Title: Funding for Microsoft 365 Copilot AI Tools
for State Employees Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 732.7
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 732.7
Explanation
Microsoft 365 Copilot provides AI assistance which
greatly enhance the productivity and utilization of
current Microsoft products. This amendment restores
the funding that was disapproved in subcommittee.
Agency: Administration
Appropriation: Office of Information Tech
Allocation: Licensing/Infrastructure/Servers
Transaction Details
Title: Artificial Intelligence Projects
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 360.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 360.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 360.0
Explanation
The Department of Administration is seeking to build
initial AI tools in an effort to reduce administrative
waste by increasing productivity. This amendment aims
to restore the funding that was disapproved in
subcommittee.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that the amendment looked to
utilize an artificial intelligence (AI) appropriation
reduced by the subcommittee. The purpose was to start to
achieve the ability to do a zero-based budget. He stated
that in the previous amendment, the committee member from
Juneau had asserted to the ability of the department to
form the task. He stated it was a valid argument. He
suggested that if the state was going to start utilizing AI
for efficiencies in departments, allowing the AI tool to be
utilized for the purpose of zero-based budgeting was a
worthy goal. He agreed that zero-based budgeting could be
complicated and resource intensive. He thought it was a
good use of AI Copilot.
Representative Bynum supported the amendment. He thought it
was a valuable opportunity for the state to use AI as a
tool. He knew many individuals in the technical world were
deploying the technologies and creating tremendous
improvements in productivity. He stated the tools were not
meant to replace people, but they would allow state
employees to maximize their time and bring information
forward that may not have been readily available. He stated
it was a tremendous opportunity to increase productivity
and he strongly supported the amendment. He thought it
would be money well spent. He believed the departments
would be able to come back to the legislature to outline
how it was beneficial.
4:23:55 PM
Representative Hannan stated that when she met with the
Office of Information Technology (OIT) on the two AI
components, the division's description did not include
zero-based budgeting. She could wrap her head around the
amendment if it was for OIT to attempt zero-based
budgeting. She noted OIT had fairly predictable costs and
employees. However, the department had requested the funds
for a new product to pilot for a specific purpose related
to payroll. She underscored that the amendment would fund
the increment but directed the department to use it for
zero-based budgeting. She had seen no analysis or argument
from the department indicating it would use the AI product
for zero-based budgeting.
Co-Chair Josephson shared that he met with Department of
Administration (DOA) officials and there was no discussion
of zero-based budgeting.
Co-Chair Schrage opposed the amendment. He recalled the
requested increment was for about 2,000 licenses to deploy
out to various employees throughout the state, but he did
not hear much of a plan about what training would be
provided and how the Copilot services would be utilized. He
thought there had not been a lot of thought given to
choosing the number 2,000. He had not heard substantial
reasoning that justified the expense. He was not saying
there was no value in using AI in the future, he thought it
could make employees more efficient and information more
readily available. He had not heard of any connection to
zero based budgeting from the department. He recalled there
was a small pilot program planned for later in the spring
and he wanted to wait for the results prior to investing
more money.
Representative Stapp noted there was someone available from
DOA who could answer the questions. He had shared Co-Chair
Schrage's concerns when the item had moved out of
subcommittee. He had subsequently talked to the department
and had communicated he was looking at transitioning some
of the budgetary process from a baseline budget to zero-
based budgeting. He had asked the department if it could
utilize the [AI] resources to not only improve employee
efficiency, but to give a targeted purpose to do so. He
asked if the department could address the members'
questions.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that the individual was not
currently in the room and he was inclined to go to a vote.
4:27:31 PM
Representative Hannan MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, Allard, Bynum, Tomaszewski, Stapp
OPPOSED: Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Foster, Schrage, Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 18 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Bynum MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17 (copy on
file):
Agency: Administration
Appropriation: Office of Information Tech
Allocation: Licensing/Infrastructure/Servers
Transaction Details
Title: Add Funding for GA: Microsoft 365 Copilot AI
Tools for State Employees
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 365.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 365.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 365.0
Explanation
Funding for approx 1000 AI CoPilot Licenses.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Bynum explained that the amendment pertained
to the same technology [as in the previous amendment]
applied in a different way. The amendment would enable DOA
to use AI tools to fully integrate into the Microsoft
Office suites. He stated it would be advantageous to the
departments and would provide the ability to navigate
Microsoft tools with ease and increased productivity. The
amendment would add funding of $365,000 and would provide
productivity for 1,000 personnel. He emphasized that the
tool would increase government efficiency. He knew people
who were using the [AI Copilot] tool at work in the
healthcare field. He shared that they were immediately able
to use the tool to make meetings more productive and it had
increased the capability for staff to communicate with
colleagues. He considered discussions about how to deploy
the program within state government. He highlighted the
Department of Health where there were tremendous
constraints on employees being able to provide services. He
noted that the tool did not require years of training. He
detailed that the individual he had spoken with had been
using the product for two weeks and they were already
putting it to tremendous use. He stated that much about
learning the tool would be self-exploratory and he thought
it would take some time to explore the use. He pointed out
that AI had not replaced him as an engineer or legislator,
but it had made him more productive. He strongly supported
deploying AI technology to increase efficiency in deploying
resources more efficiently for citizens.
4:31:31 PM
Co-Chair Schrage generally agreed with many of the remarks
made by Representative Bynum. He believed the tools could
be very powerful, but he was concerned that new tools could
come with new challenges, and he had personally used [AI]
tools in the past and had seen errors and other mistakes
made. He thought there needed to be a plan for how the tool
would be rolled out and how employees would be trained in
order to be aware of some of the problems that could occur.
He pointed out that there had been issues in state
government where AI tools were used and official documents
had false references and other errors that never would have
occurred if a human produced the document without the use
of AI tools. He was not indicating the tools were not
powerful, useful, and helpful, but he believed they needed
to be applied with the proper training to avoid unintended
consequences, especially when implemented in a department
that he believed was already strained. He opposed the
amendment.
Representative Bynum provided wrap up on the amendment. He
understood that concerns voiced by Co-Chair Schrage could
happen. He shared that in his experience using the
technology, it was able to capture ideas, go through emails
and documents, and bring the ideas into one space that he
could read. He relayed that he checked any references
included in the information for accuracy. He stressed that
the tools had brought information to his attention that he
would not have thought to look at, which had been a
tremendous resource. He stated the tools saved substantial
time. He agreed that if someone used the tool to do all of
the work, it was a bad tool. He did not believe the change
in technology took away the need for due diligence.
4:34:12 PM
AT EASE
4:36:17 PM
RECONVENED
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Bynum, Stapp, Johnson, Tomaszewski
OPPOSED: Hannan, Jimmie, Allard, Galvin, Schrage, Foster,
Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 17 FAILED (4/7).
4:37:08 PM
Representative Bynum remarked that he had [in a previous
meeting] made a motion to rescind action on Amendment 14
(copy on file). However, after discussion with members, he
did not believe it would have a positive result. He had
many concerns about the unallocated cut and had previously
made his concerns known. He had provided a solution to the
co-chairs and he thought it was a way to get around the
potential unconstitutional unallocated cut; however, he
would not offer it because he did not believe he had the
votes to pass it.
4:38:10 PM
Representative Bynum stated there had [previously] been
substantial discussion about Amendment 49 (copy on file)
that had been tabled [Amendment 49 would provide funding
for the unfunded HB 230 (33rd Legislature), AS 14.20.225,
providing $5,000 to certified teachers and reimbursement
for teachers pursuing initial certification or renewing
certification]. He wondered whether Co-Chair Josephson or
Representative Galvin planned to bring the amendment back
before the committee.
Representative Galvin stated her intent to remove Amendment
49 from being tabled.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Galvin thought a conceptual amendment had
previously been adopted to Amendment 49. She believed
Representative Bynum had something he wanted to say.
4:39:32 PM
Representative Bynum shared that he had worked with LFD and
Legislative Legal Services to come up with a conceptual
amendment to address some of the previously expressed
concerns from committee members. He MOVED to ADOPT
conceptual Amendment 2, 34-LS8001\A.8 (Marx, 4/2/25) (copy
on file) to Amendment 49:
Page _, following line _:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec.A. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT. The sum of $554,000 is appropriated from
the general fund to the Department of Education and
Early Development, education support and
administrative services, student and school
achievement, for teacher incentive payments and
reimbursements for national board certification, as
authorized by AS 14.20.225, as follows:
(1) the amount necessary to make all reimbursement
payments authorized by AS 14.20.225(b);
(2) the remaining balance to make national board
certification incentive payments authorized by AS
14.20.225(a), to be distributed on a first-come,
first-served basis."
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Josephson recognized Representative Julie Coulombe
in the committee room.
Representative Bynum requested an at ease.
4:40:40 PM
AT EASE
4:43:00 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed that Amendment 49 pertained to
teacher incentive payments and reimbursements for national
board certification. The legislature had passed a law the
previous session as a way of commending and honoring the
skill required to get the award. The committee had
previously adopted an amendment [conceptual Amendment 1
(copy on file)] to reduce the amount of the grants from
$750,554 to $554,000. The committee was currently hearing
conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 49.
4:43:54 PM
Representative Bynum explained the conceptual amendment
would move the money out of the numbers section into the
language section of the bill and clearly outlined how the
money was to be spent. The money was first to reimburse
actual expenses, with the remaining balance to be made
available for national board certification incentive
payments authorized by AS 14.20.225(a), to be distributed
on a first-come, first-served basis.
Representative Galvin appreciated the maker of the
amendment working hard to align with the statute. She
highlighted that there may be changes necessary in the
future if the number of teachers utilizing the grants was
large. She described the individuals as the "black belt of
teachers." She wanted to ensure they were encouraging
individuals to become the highest and best teachers
possible. She believed the amendment was good in making
sure the legislature was being fiscally prudent. She
especially appreciated the word "reimburse" because it
helped to ensure it was not doing anything extra but
meeting the needs of nationally board certified teachers.
She supported the conceptual amendment.
Representative Hannan asked if moving the item from the
numbers section would result in a one-time increment as
opposed to a base increment. She noted the funding had
previously been in the base under the original Amendment
49. She noted that the dollar amount in the amendment had
been reduced because the number of teachers who would take
advantage of the funding was unknown and it changed
annually. She looked at the verbiage "to be distributed on
a first-come, first-served basis" on line 11 of the
conceptual amendment. She was concerned about a scenario
where first 100 teachers received the funding, but there
was not enough money to pay the 101st and 102nd applicants.
She wondered if the individuals would be excluded.
Alternatively, she wondered if the language meant that all
applicants would be paid, but in the order they applied.
4:47:32 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked to hear from Mr. Painter.
Mr. Painter responded that how the language was written was
a policy call. He stated it could be written as an open-
ended estimate for however many people came forward with
reimbursements, which would enable anyone who applied to
receive the funds. Alternatively, if the number was fixed
at a certain amount, the department would need instruction
about what to do if the appropriated amount was not enough.
He elaborated that with the language "first-come, first-
served" the first people who applied would receive the full
reimbursement and others would not. Alternatively, the
funds could be prorated so everyone would have to come
forward for reimbursement and the department would decide
the number of people who received reimbursement and prorate
the funding. He suggested that if the committee did not
want to limit the funding, the appropriation would need to
be open-ended to encompass however much it may cost. He
remarked that it would be a very different policy call than
limiting the appropriation at a certain sum.
Representative Galvin relayed that her office had done more
research in the past couple of days to get an updated list
of qualifying individuals. The updated information showed
the number of individuals was currently 85 instead of 101.
She believed the $554,000 could accommodate the number of
individuals for the year; however, the number may need to
be adjusted if there were many more applicants in the
future.
Co-Chair Josephson believed language amendments were
revisited annually.
Representative Allard OBJECTED.
Representative Bynum provided wrap up on the amendment.
There had been a concern that with the increment in the
numbers section, the committee had been unable to specify
how the funding would be deployed. The intention of the
conceptual amendment was to ensure individuals who had
spent money on the certification would be reimbursed. He
explained if there was any money left over it went to the
incentive payment. He elaborated that the number had been
adjusted down by conceptual Amendment 1 and would assume to
cover all eligible individuals. He underscored that he
wanted to make sure the funding went to people who had
actually spent money first. He noted that the amendment
language was written in a way in order to have a defined
specific amount.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Jimmie, Johnson, Galvin, Stapp, Allard,
Tomaszewski, Bynum, Hannan, Foster, Schrage, Josephson
OPPOSED: None
The MOTION PASSED (11/0). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 49 was ADOPTED.
4:52:11 PM
Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to ADOPT conceptual
Amendment 3. He highlighted Amendment 47 by Co-Chair
Schrage to remove $400,000 in general funds for the
Imagination Library. He suggested the funding could be used
for paying for Amendment 49. The conceptual amendment would
remove $400,000 from the Imagination Library.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Tomaszewski provided wrap up on the
amendment. He recognized the importance of reading, but the
state was in a budget crunch. He stated the funding could
be used for many things in education funding.
4:53:30 PM
AT EASE
4:56:34 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Galvin addressed conceptual Amendment 3. She
was concerned about displacing early learning funds in any
way. The subcommittee had chosen to make an investment in
early learning. She relayed that Alaska had the lowest
investment in early learning in the nation. She stated the
readiness of kindergarten children was about 30.7 percent.
She detailed that when children arrived with 11 out of 13
of the skills they should have (e.g., vocabulary and
understanding of how to work as a group), they were one or
two years behind. She highlighted that 81 percent of
parents were reading more to children because of the
Imagination Library. The program was a tool for parents,
especially for low income families.
Representative Galvin discussed the benefits of the
Imagination Library. The program helped children to grow
their vocabulary. One of the major ways for children to
increase brain development was for parents to sit with them
with a book. Over 140 communities in Alaska were serving
families with books. She listed communities throughout the
state that were benefiting from the program. The funding
sources included funding from communities, foundation
funding, state, corporate, and other. She stressed that
investing in the program meant K-12 money would go further.
She emphasized that 70 percent of kindergarteners needed
extra help to get up to speed. She discussed the overly
large class sizes. There were not enough reading
specialists in Alaska. She stated that things were
happening that she did not support like pulling kids from
recess and lunch to gain the skills. She stressed it was
not fair to the children. The good work happening in
communities was not enough. She highlighted things like
expressive and receptive communication skills and cognitive
awareness gained through reading. The kindergarten
developmental profile looked at things like whether kids
could sustain attention to tasks and persist facing
challenges. She stressed that the time a child spent on a
parent's lap was essential.
Representative Galvin discussed that members around the
committee table likely bought books for their children, but
there were many families in the state where a book sent to
them by mail made all of the difference. She stressed that
social workers successful with families showed up with
extra gifts for the families. She stated it was how to
develop a relationship with the families in order to tell
them how to work with their kids. She noted that the
average literacy rate in Alaska was 5th grade. She stressed
the importance of loving time spent with children. Families
were reminded there were other ways to interface with
children when they received a book. She emphasized the cost
spent on education. The books were about lifting children's
spirits. She stated that Best Beginnings would like to
expand to more families. There were other things that
needed to be done in early learning. She provided examples.
She emphasized the Imagination Library was a proven
program.
5:07:35 PM
Representative Galvin continued her remarks. She stated
that 14,981 kids were enrolled in the program. There were
about 50,000 kids in the age range in Alaska. She
emphasized that children who participated in the program
had higher rates of kindergarten readiness. She provided a
definition of readiness. The finding was consistent across
student groups including English language learners, Native
students, and economically disadvantaged students. She
relayed that in 2016, 30 percent of Imagination Library
participants were Kindergarten ready compared to 25 percent
of similar students who did not participate. She believed
it mattered. She shared that teachers reported having to
deal with multiple grade levels at a time and had overly
large class sizes. She asked what was being done to the K-
12 system. She stressed that kids were being started off on
the wrong foot and the Imagination Library helped.
5:10:52 PM
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that several minutes earlier
Representative Galvin had stated she wanted to make sure
the committee's time was not wasted. He replied that she
had not wasted one moment of his time.
Representative Jimmie acknowledged the remarks by
Representative Galvin. She believed it was great what
Representative Galvin was doing. She knew they were both
mothers and grandmothers. She stated that reading was
important and it was not fair to kids when they were not
able to read at a good level. She referenced fighting for
funding for the Base Student Allocation (BSA) and stated it
was also not fair for students in her district who had
schools that were not functional, had no running water, and
broken windows. She shared that she had recently watched a
video from the Yupik School District, and it was facing
numerous challenges. She did not see it as the time to
expand the [Imagination Library] program, but to find funds
to improve school infrastructure. She stated that
Representative Galvin's heart was in the right place, and
she understood where she was coming from.
Representative Galvin replied that she would continue to
support Representative Jimmie's schools.
Representative Jimmie stated that she could not support
[the additional increment for Imagination Library] at the
current time.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there was any dispute the
amendment reflected an increase of funding from the base.
Representative Allard believed Representative Tomaszewski's
conceptual amendment would cut $400,000 from the
Imagination Library to use for Amendment 49.
Representative Tomaszewski agreed. He believed the funding
for the Imagination Library increment had been added to the
base in subcommittee. He explained that the conceptual
amendment would not eliminate funding for the program, it
would remove the increase adopted in subcommittee.
Representative Allard stated that Representative Galvin's
remarks were a marathon speech. She had been leaning one
way, but the remarks resulted in her going in a different
direction. She stated the Dolly Parton Imagination Library
was a nonprofit used in 70 Alaskan communities. She stated
that because the state had magnificent libraries, she would
vote against increasing the funds for the program. She
remarked that everything she had read indicated that the
program was available to every child. She did not want to
"keep throwing bad money after bad." She stated that Alaska
spent more money on education for its children than any
other state. She supported conceptual Amendment 3.
5:15:03 PM
Co-Chair Schrage stated that it was a hard situation. He
stated the conceptual amendment was essentially an
amendment he had drafted but had not yet introduced. He had
not offered the amendment yet because he felt the committee
had made progress holding down its budget. He had shared
privately with committee members that Amendment 49 gave him
some concern, not because he did not believe in rewarding
teachers who went after the certifications.
Co-Chair Schrage underscored there was limited money, and
it was not possible to do all things. He stated that the
conceptual amendment helped to make Amendment 49 more cost
neutral. He stated it was not possible to do everything
despite the value of so many of the things. He could not
disagree with anything Representative Galvin said. He
agreed on the importance of reading, but if he wanted to be
able to adequately fund the K-12 education system and do
things like provide bonuses for teachers to get
certifications in order to be able to handle students in
their classes, it was necessary to allocate the scarce
resources the best he could and it involved making tough
choices. He relayed there was $320,000 in the base [for the
Imagination Library] and the subcommittee had more than
doubled the figure with an increment of $400,000. He did
not know it was the fiscal environment where the state
could afford to double the funding, especially if the
committee was going to fund reimbursements for
certifications. He stated it was a tough issue for him and
his family was signed up for the Imagination Library. He
did not want anyone to think he was dismissive of
Representative Galvin's position and that he did not see
the value in the program. The state had limited resources
to allocate to all of the important things.
Co-Chair Schrage would support the amendment in order for
the teachers to be able to get advanced training and be as
prepared as possible to handle difficult class sizes. He
remarked that teachers had students with many different
levels of reading comprehension and readiness for school.
He wanted to make sure teachers were prepared. He was
confident many students would still receive Dolly Parton
books in their early years. He supported the conceptual
amendment in order to be able to support the underlying
Amendment 49.
5:18:33 PM
Representative Johnson appreciated the Dolly Parton
foundation and what Dolly Parton had done. She highlighted
that the state put in $325,000 for the program and the
program provided matching funds. She stated that the
amendment would not take away books from any child. She
would support the conceptual amendment. She expressed her
appreciation for the program and was glad it had been
funded at the level currently in the base. She thought they
were doing good work. She appreciated Representative
Galvin's impassioned speech, but she clarified that the
committee was not cutting out existing funds for the
program, it was removing the addition that doubled the
funding.
5:20:02 PM
Representative Bynum had not been sure how removing the
funding would impact the [Imagination Library] program, but
currently there were 20,000 participants in the program
according to Dolly Parton's website. He wondered about the
number of kids impacted and whether the program was being
removed altogether. He understood they were not removing
the program and the amendment would remove an increase. He
did not know the accurate number of participants, but the
Dolly Parton website listed Alaska's number at 20,000. He
thought it sounded like a robust program in Alaska, and he
agreed with many of the other committee members' remarks.
He would support the conceptual amendment.
Representative Tomaszewski provided wrap up on the
amendment. He supported the Imagination Library, but he did
not support doubling the increment in a year where the
legislature was searching for money for important things
like education, public safety, and all of the other
departments. He thanked Representative Galvin for her
impassioned speech on the positive aspects of the program.
He believed the committee needed to use its fiduciary
responsibility and use it wisely. He supported the
amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 49.
IN FAVOR: Allard, Tomaszewski, Bynum, Johnson, Jimmie,
Stapp, Schrage
OPPOSED: Hannan, Galvin, Foster, Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 49 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the conceptual amendment
effectively adopted Amendment 47 but would be treated as
part of Amendment 49.
5:23:13 PM
Representative Galvin heard members' concerns about the
budget and understood. She also understood that with the
$400,000 [added to the Imagination Library increment in
subcommittee] she had been trying to reach an additional
10,000 kids out of the 50,000 total. She shared that there
had been no inflationary increase for the program. She
MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 4 that would remove
$200,000 from the Imagination Library instead of $400,000
to go towards Amendment 49.
Representative Allard and Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson clarified there had been three previous
conceptual amendments to Amendment 49. He stated that the
conceptual amendment would add $200,000 to the Imagination
Library.
Representative Galvin highlighted that over the past couple
of days the committee had been doing things like paying
$1.1 million for energy ratings that did not yet need to be
paid in one area of the state. She stressed that the
increment in the conceptual amendment was not for her
district; it was for Alaska's children. The amendment would
reduce the increment to $200,000 to be sensitive to
concerns around being fiscally responsible. She asked the
committee to consider adding the increment with recognition
there had been no inflationary additions. She noted
inflationary additions had been added for most other
departments and programs.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Jimmie, Bynum, Schrage, Foster,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Johnson, Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 4 to Amendment 49 was ADOPTED.
5:27:14 PM
Co-Chair Josephson noted there had been a series of
amendments adopted to Amendment 49.
Representative Johnson asked for an explanation of the
amendment as amended.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that Amendment 49 was about a
bill passed the previous session carried by Representative
Rebecca Himschoot. He stated it was an unfunded law and the
committee was trying to provide the funding. There was an
amendment adopted to reduce the $750,000 to $554,000.
Additionally, conceptual amendments had been adopted to
decrease funding added for the Imagination Library by
$200,000. There was also an amendment by Representative
Bynum that identified how the monies for the Representative
Himschoot bill would be paid.
Representative Allard OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Jimmie, Hannan, Stapp, Galvin, Bynum, Johnson,
Tomaszewski, Foster, Schrage, Josephson
OPPOSED: Allard
The MOTION PASSED (10/1).
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 49 was ADOPTED
as amended.
5:29:51 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there were other amendments
from committee members.
Representative Stapp stated that he did not have any
additional amendments. He noted that some items were
tabled, but he did not feel the need to make a motion to
remove items from table. He assumed the majority could un-
table any items it may want to take up.
Representative Bynum MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 51 (copy on
file):
Agency: Environmental Conservation
Appropriation: Water
Allocation: Water Quality Infrastructure
Transaction Details
Title: Add Funding for Clean Water Act Section 404
Assumption
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 750.3
Travel: 34.0
Services: 625.8
Commodities: 40.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 1,450.1
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 5
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 1,450.1
Explanation
Add Funding for the Dept of Environmental Conservation
to assume the duties of permitting under section 404
of the clean water act from the Army Core of
Engineers.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Bynum explained the amendment that would add
$1.450 million for the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) to assume the duties of permitting under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. He detailed that the particular section of
the 404 Clean Water Act dealt with the dredging of areas
like ports and harbors often necessary to get large ships
into ports. The section also dealt with the filling of
wetlands for the various reasons. He stated the issue was
important to Alaska. He spoke to the need to ensure there
was enforcement uniformity by the Army Corps of Engineers
within Alaska. He highlighted that Alaska was very
different than places like New Jersey, Texas, and other
places in the U.S. where the Army Corps of Engineers had
jurisdiction. He stated it was important because Alaska was
made up of approximately 43.6 percent of wetlands,
accounting for 63 percent of all the U.S. wetlands. One of
the things that had been a theme was ensuring Alaska had
some level of self-determination.
Representative Bynum remarked that the Army Corps of
Engineers was an outstanding organization that he had been
a member of in the past. He noted that when he had been a
member there had been a joke that the word bureaucracy was
invented by the Army Corps of Engineers. He noted it was
not meant in a negative way. He thought it was an
opportunity for Alaska to have self-determination over its
permitting and fill for wetlands for construction. He
asserted it was a major issue for his district and many
regions around the state to have a bit of autonomy to
better utilize the permitting process and do the work
responsibly. He suggested that if Alaska was to take over
the duties currently assigned to the Army Corps of
Engineers, it would mean the state could adopt better
regulations that were more tailored to Alaska, and it would
be able to achieve better outcomes for things like housing
development. He stressed that affordable housing was a very
important part of the overall economic need in Alaska. He
stated that regulatory oversight from the federal
government stifled the state's ability to do that.
5:33:45 PM
Representative Hannan opposed the amendment. She stated
that every dime of the current cost associated with
Alaska's 404 permitting was borne by the federal
government. She stressed that the $1.45 million would just
be the beginning of a phased in approach that would take
three years to reach a cost of $6 million to $8 million
annually and require about 30 positions. She believed it
was a ridiculous thing to add given the state's dire fiscal
predicament and the fact that the scope of federal change
was present. She noted that the Army Corps of Engineers who
worked on Alaska's 404 permitting were Alaskans working in
Alaska. She highlighted that no other state had
successfully achieved any savings by implementing 404
permitting. She noted that most states had given primacy
back to the federal government. She believed taking on a
new duty with a large ticket price, which currently cost
the state nothing, was fiscally irresponsible. He urged
members to vote against the amendment.
5:35:08 PM
Representative Johnson supported the amendment. She stated
that Alaska currently had an opportunity it had not had for
a number of years. She stressed the state had been fighting
and fighting the federal government. She emphasized that it
gave the state the chance to potentially be in charge of
its own destiny instead of using fiscal responsibility as
an excuse. She had seen a lot of tantrum throwing and
discussion about fiscal responsibility but she had not seen
a whole lot of it based on actions by the committee. She
emphatically supported the amendment for Alaska to have
primacy and its own oversight. She believed it was
tremendously important for the future of Alaska and its
children. She underscored that having a job, home, and
income was a way to make a better future for Alaska's
children. She stressed that she "could not sit here and
listen to this any longer." She supported the amendment and
believed it was the right thing to do.
5:36:37 PM
Co-Chair Josephson did not think Representative Johnson had
impugned anyone and he did not believe there had been any
tantrums either.
Representative Stapp supported the amendment. He stated
that most permits that were denied were related to
wetlands. He believed the state should assume primacy over
wetlands 404 permits, which would help develop all of the
projects desired in Alaska, help deploy all of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) money the
state received, and help employ all the projects for
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants. He
noted that Florida's costs had increased because they
tripled the number of permits issued. He believed the only
way Alaska would survive was if it was able to grow its way
out of the problem with resource development. He
highlighted that everywhere the change had been implemented
had seen increased development. He thought it was a very
good thing. He supported increased development, which would
result in more money in state coffers in order to pay for
things. He pointed out the session was half over, and the
legislature had not done anything substantive to try to
move Alaska forward. He reiterated his support for the
amendment.
Representative Tomaszewski supported the amendment. He
remarked on the program's importance and thought it was
necessary for legislators to think about what they wanted
the state's future to look like. He asked if they wanted a
federal government telling Alaska how to develop its
resources. Alternatively, he wondered if they wanted to
take Alaska's destiny in their own hands. He believed in
the latter option. He believed the state needed to
capitalize on tremendous opportunities coming in the
future.
5:38:49 PM
Co-Chair Schrage would not disagree there may be some merit
in the state taking over 404 primacy in the future. He
recalled when the issue came before him the first time in
the 32nd legislature. He could see some merit in having
Alaskans manage their wetlands. However, his consistent
question was about how the state would pay for it. He
continued to receive 10-year plans from the governor
showing the state continuing to run into the red. He
thought the incentive to receive 404 primacy had decreased
given that the federal government paid everything for the
work at present and there was a federal government in place
that was much more supportive of resource development. He
highlighted that the state's track record was not a good
one when it came to the administration of services or any
of its state duties. He heard complaints from the business
industry and resource development industry when it came to
the time it took for the state to permit things and to
renew business licenses. He pointed out that basic state
functions were currently under strain and he was not
confident it would work out well for Alaska to take on more
responsibility. He thought if the state took 404 primacy it
could potentially result in worse performance when it came
to permitting projects. He remained open to the idea but
would not support it at present.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the majority caucus was
passionately opposed to the idea for fiscal and other
reasons. He agreed with Co-Chair Schrage that the federal
administration would do what it wanted with the Army Corps
of Engineers. He believed the price tag exceeded $10
million. He would vote in opposition to the amendment.
5:41:55 PM
Representative Bynum provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stated that although the employees working with the Army
Corps of Engineers in Alaska may be long-term Alaskans, it
did not mean they were not operating under the rubric of
"what is the Army Corps of Engineers." He had worked with
the organization for 10 years and assured members the
organization did not move swiftly on things like dredging,
river operations, and dealing with wetland issues. He
recognized the organization was thorough and provided a
good product, but it was not swift. He remarked that it was
problematic when trying to get things done.
Representative Bynum stressed that the state would pay for
the expense with additional development in Alaska. He
underscored that every day a project was delayed was a lost
opportunity. He remarked that legislators talked about
school issues, being able to buy groceries, and being able
to heat homes. He stated that one of the major driving
factors for doing those things in his communities was the
cost of having a home. He stated that the ability to build
housing would bring Coast Guard and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) families. He stressed
that in order to ensure utilities had employees and there
were schoolteachers coming to Alaskan communities, it was
necessary to make sure they had housing. He emphasized that
hurrying the process meant communities would become more
prosperous faster. He was not advocating for bypassing
environmental standards or cutting corners, but he thought
Alaskans could do the work better.
Representative Bynum was tired of seeing his communities
suffer from the high cost of housing because they could not
get permitting for wetlands. He pointed out that it was not
possible to step off the road in Ketchikan or Wrangell
without stepping in wetlands. He stressed that for housing
and development in oil, gas, mining, and timber, the state
needed access locally. He shared that when he was a utility
employer, the company operated at about 65 percent of
effective staffing. He shared that he would put out an
advertisement for an engineer and they would come to town
and look at the cost of housing and leave. He stated it was
the same situation for schoolteachers looking to come to
Alaska. The Coast Guard did not want to bring families to
Ketchikan because of the cost of housing. He emphasized
that all of the state's industries were impacted by the
situation. He listed other issues facing the state such as
lack of childcare and declining student enrollment.
Representative Bynum stressed that 404 primacy could mean
flourishing industries, reduced cost in power, more
affordable homes, and increased student enrollment. He
argued that it all came down to the state's ability to
develop on its own terms. He strongly supported the
amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tomaszewski, Bynum, Stapp, Johnson, Allard
OPPOSED: Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Schrage, Foster, Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 51 FAILED (5/6).
5:47:35 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12 (copy on
file):
Agency: Fund Transfers
Appropriation: General Fund (Revenue)
Allocation: General Fund (Revenue)
Transaction Details
Title: 4.85% Draw from Earnings Reserve Account
Section: Language
Type: Lang
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: 0.0
0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
Explanation
This amendment represents a 4.85% draw from the
Percent of Market Value (POMV) from the earnings
reserve account. The reduction is in the amount
appropriated to the general fund.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that the amendment would
reduce the percent of market value (POMV) draw taken from
the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account (ERA). He
detailed that the defined benefits bill [HB 78] had a five-
year smoothing average in which Alaska Retirement
Management Board (ARMB) was required to make a decision in
the event the plan was unfunded. He elaborated that it
would mean ARMB would either have to take away employee
retirements or post-retirement pension adjustment (PRPA)
payments, or increase contributions for existing employees
in order to fund the liability. He explained that if the
smoothing average was applied to the past five years of the
POMV draw, the fund had performed less than 5 percent plus
inflation. He asked whether the legislature would respond
as if it expected ARMB to respond and take action or
whether the legislature would take no action and continue
taking 5 percent from the fund despite lower returns in the
past five years.
Representative Hannan opposed the amendment. She believed
the amendment pertained to the next year's draw. She stated
that if it was a bill addressing the POMV draw in the
statute she would probably be in favor for the reasons
Representative Stapp described. However, the change in the
amendment would only go into the operating budget for one
year and would not change the overall fiscal policy.
Representative Galvin agreed with statements made by
Representative Hannan. She would like to have a
conversation with the Department of Revenue. She thought
the proposal was a very good idea and something the
legislature should consider down the road with a bigger
conversation.
5:51:02 PM
Co-Chair Josephson saw some fiscal wisdom in the amendment.
He stated that experts talked about draws of 4.25 and 4.5
percent. Unfortunately, he could not consider reducing the
draw from 5 percent.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendment 12.
5:51:31 PM
Co-Chair Josephson RECESSED the meeting until 7:30 p.m.
[Note: the meeting never reconvened.]
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
5:52:08 PM
RECESSED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 78 AML - HFIN Employer Considerations of State-Sponsored Pensions.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 78 AML 2025-04-Actuarial-Amortization-Policy.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |
| HB 78 DRB Tiers & Unfunded Liability April 2, 2025.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 78 |