Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/30/2024 10:00 AM 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 | |
| HB122 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB234 | |
| HB55 | |
| HB145 | |
| Adjourn | |
| HB55 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to allocations of funding for the
Alaska Workforce Investment Board; and providing for
an effective date."
3:38:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ASHLEY CARRICK, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill that would reauthorize the
Technical Vocational Education Program (TVEP). She detailed
that the TVEP program began in 2000 and was intended to
provide noncompetitive grant assistance to education
entities delivering specific vocational and technical
training in Alaska. In 2014, the legislature increased the
funds diverted from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Fund,
which funded TVEP, from a 0.15 percent distribution up to a
0.16 percent distribution. The distribution amount had
remained the same since the change in 2014. The bill
maintained the ten statutory recipients currently in
statute while maintaining the 0.16 percent distribution and
currently proposed a one-year extension in the House Labor
and Commerce committee substitute.
Representative Carrick discussed the technical training
areas TVEP recipients offered to students. She detailed
that from industries as diverse as healthcare,
transportation, mining, construction, fisheries, aviation,
and other vocational training, TVEP recipients were
providing a large number of different career paths for
students. The funding was distributed through the UI trust
from the employee portion of taxable wages. She noted that
the funds were not unrestricted general funds (UGF). She
relayed that over time the TVEP recipients had changed.
When the program was conceptualized in 2000, there were
three recipients. The University of Alaska had a 52 percent
distribution and the other two recipients were the Kotzebue
Training Center and the Alaska Vocational Technical Center
(AVTEC). A fourth recipient was added in 2001 and two
additional recipients were added in 2004. The program
expanded in 2008 to the 10 current recipients. She noted
that the current recipients distributed funds all across
the state. The University received 45 percent of the TVEP
funding, which was administered statewide, primarily to the
community and regional campuses throughout the system.
Other recipients were located in Bethel, Delta, Kenai,
Nome, Utqiagvik, Dillingham, Galena, Seward, and Kotzebue.
Representative Carrick relayed that in previous years, the
TVEP distribution amount had equated to approximately $10
million to $12 million. In FY 23, the distribution was just
over $13 million across the system. She noted that in the
most recent TVEP reauthorization it had been suggested that
a legislative audit should be included as part of the
reauthorization process in order to better understand the
current return on investment for the programs and the
potential complications or challenges around the statutory
distribution. She clarified that the audit did not say that
the State of Alaska was getting a bad return on investment
from the funds distributed to approximately 8,528 people in
2023 who were trained through TVEP funds. The main audit
concerns cover the statutory designation system, the TVEP
subaccount being subject to the sweep, and some
administration issues with the Alaska Workforce Investment
Board (AWIB). She welcomed the comments and was grateful
the audit took place. The audit results were also
thoroughly discussed in the committee process prior to
reaching the House Finance Committee. She relayed that the
legislation was fairly heavily amended in the House
Education Committee and those changes were walked back in
the House Labor and Commerce Committee. The House Labor and
Commerce Committee version was the bill currently before
the House Finance Committee. The current version of the
bill maintained the ten statutory recipients and proposed a
one-year extension for TVEP.
3:45:33 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the audit.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE
BUDGET AND AUDIT, discussed that TVEP was created in FY 01
and was intended to be a grant program to adequately fund
technical and vocational education and build capacity at
the postsecondary level. She detailed that the bill passed
in FY 01 included a provision in uncodified law to award
the first year funds to the three specific entities. She
relayed that grant regulations were created in 2002 by the
Alaska Workforce Investment Board. Additionally, AWIB
developed guidelines and a priority list on an annual
basis. She explained that although the grant regulations
were created and the grant process was in statute, the
direct award of TVEP funds to specific training providers
continued each year after the first year (first in
accordance with the uncodified law and then codified in
2009). She relayed that the recipients had increased to 10
providers in FY 22.
Ms. Curtis referenced exhibit 1 on page four of the audit
report (copy on file) showing the 10 providers and
statutory allocation percentages. Page 5 included a map
showing the provider locations, which were dispersed
throughout the state. She explained that TVEP was funded by
diverting a percentage of the unemployment taxes from
employees from the UI fund into a subaccount of the general
fund called the TVEP subfund.
Ms. Curtis reported on audit conclusions. She relayed that
one of the objectives was to report on the use of TVEP
funds. She began on page 10 of the audit report and
highlighted there was $12.9 million expended in FY 22. She
detailed that most of the costs came from the 10 training
providers. The Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DLWD) incurred approximately $400,000 to help
administer the program. While looking at the expenditures,
the audit noted that 7 of the 10 providers were underpaid
in FY 22. She elaborated that when calculating the amount
due to 7 of the providers, AWIB staff based the amount on
preliminary numbers. She directed attention to exhibit 3
showing which of the providers were underpaid.
Collectively, 7 providers were underpaid $666,500. Exhibit
4 summarized the TVEP expenditures by category. She
highlighted that administrative costs were 7.1 percent of
the total expenditures and by statute, administrative costs
could not exceed 5 percent. The audit found that the 5
percent cap was not being monitored or enforced by AWIB
under a misunderstanding that the cap was only applicable
if the money was awarded via a grant process. She relayed
that AWIB received guidance from the Department of Law
(DOL) after the audit was requested to clarify that the cap
was applicable. She relayed her understanding that the cap
was now being enforced starting in FY 23.
Ms. Curtis relayed that exhibits 5 and 6 on page 13 of the
audit report summarized the participants' training and cost
by type of training category. She pointed out that health
was often the largest category. She moved to page 14
pertaining to the impact of the sweep and reverse sweep on
the TVEP subfund. She detailed that the TVEP subfund was
subject to the constitutional requirement to transfer
available fund balance at the end of the fiscal year to the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) fund as repayment of
amounts borrowed from the general fund. The repayment was
known as the sweep and historically there was a reverse
sweep provision added to the operating budget in the
following year to restore the amounts swept from the
subfunds. Beginning in FY 22, the reverse sweep was not
included in the operating budget and TVEP had a balance of
$2.4 million that was swept into the CBR. She continued
that because TVEP was funded by diverting employee taxes,
the sweep had the effect of using employee UI taxes to
repay the general fund CBR liability.
3:50:46 PM
Ms. Curtis explained that one of the objectives of the
audit was to evaluate whether TVEP was designed to meet the
training needs of Alaska by region and industry. She
detailed that the program was not operating as intended.
She expounded that TVEP was intended to be a grant program
administered by the state's lead employment training
planning agency AWIB. The grant process was still in
statute, but those statutes were being overridden by other
statutes that directly awarded funds to 10 training
providers.
Ms. Curtis stated her understanding that HB 55 only
reauthorized the direct award to the 10 training providers.
She stated that the program was not being reauthorized. She
furthered that the grant process and diverting of the funds
into TVEP was in statute, which was not being impacted by
HB 55. The audit concluded that the design was not the best
way to go about funding. She elaborated that there had been
no analysis as to whether the 10 training providers were
meeting the needs of the specific regions including
regional access to training, training capacity, and need
for specific types of training.
Ms. Curtis shared that the audit concluded that the funding
process did not afford all Alaskan training providers an
opportunity to participate in the program. Another
objective of the audit was to evaluate TVEP's performance
measures. The audit concluded that TVEP did not have
adequate performance measures. The program had performance
metrics, but those metrics were not evaluated against any
stated objectives or goals. She stated that without the
benchmarking aspect, the metrics fell short of
communicating the program's effectiveness.
Ms. Curtis moved to page 21 of the audit report, which
addressed the impact of TVEP on the balance of the UI fund.
The UI fund was evaluated annually by DLWD staff. The
evaluation included calculating a reserve rate: the ratio
of the fund balance to the total wages of taxable Alaskan
employers. She stated that if the reserve rate was 3
percent or less, employers had a fund solvency adjustment
that was part of the UI tax rate (the tax rate increased);
however, if the rate was 3.3 percent or greater, employers
received a solvency adjustment (the tax rate decreased).
She expounded that TVEP had diverted $204 million from the
UI fund from FY 01 to FY 22. She echoed comments made by
Representative Carrick. She relayed that the audit did not
provide any analysis on whether that was worthwhile or
effective. The audit simply concluded that the design of
how the money was given to providers was not optimal. The
audit concluded that the use of the funds lowered the fund
balance and likely resulted in higher tax rates. She
clarified that the audit did make conclusions about the
program's worthwhileness, justification, or benefit to the
state as a whole.
Ms. Curtis highlighted the two recommendations beginning on
page 23 of the audit report. First, the audit recommended
that the legislature repeal the direct funding of 10
training providers in HB 55. The audit also recommended
that the DLWD commissioner work with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to resolve the underpayments to
the 10 training providers that were collectively underpaid
$666,500.
3:55:27 PM
Representative Ortiz stated his understanding that the bill
called for a one-year extension. He asked if it was a
result of the audit recommendation or if it had been
standard past practice.
Ms. Curtis answered that the audit did not recommend
extension. However, she thought it would be fairly
detrimental for recipients of the funding to no longer have
funding all of a sudden.
Representative Carrick replied that it was part of the
reason the bill only had a one-year extension as opposed to
the original bill's six-year extension.
Representative Ortiz asked if there were concerns about any
of the individual recipients as being legitimate and
constitutional.
Ms. Curtis answered auditors had visited 5 of the 10
training providers and audited about 75 percent of the
total. She detailed that one of the objectives was to make
sure the amounts they were reporting were reliable.
Additionally, auditors had the recipients categorize the
expenditures in different ways in order to present them in
the audit report. She relayed that the information the
recipients provided was accurate as was the methodology
used to break out the information. The audit did not go
into whether one provider training was more valuable than
another. The audit report included profiles of each
recipient in order for legislators to look at the details
of how much each recipient spent, how many people they
trained, and the mode of training. Auditors were impressed
by the University's method of awarding the funds. The
University awarded the funds statewide and had an internal
competitive grant process that aligned with AWIB's
priorities.
3:58:47 PM
Representative Josephson referenced Ms. Curtis's statement
that the statute creating the program was originally
intended to be a grant process. He asked if that meant the
state did not plan to take from a UI fund and would give
cash for training.
Ms. Curtis answered in the negative. She explained that the
program was always intended to be funded with UI taxes.
There were statutes in place specifying that AWIB would
award the funds through a grant process.
Representative Josephson was concerned about the swept
money. He referenced the Hickel v Cowper case, which
specified that if the state had federal dollars those funds
could not be swept because they did not belong to the
state. He highlighted that the state could not sweep other
people's money. He stated it was his understanding that UI
was made up of employer and employee funds. He referenced
Ms. Curtis's testimony that over $2 million was gone [and
had been swept into the CBR]. He asked how it was different
from theft.
Ms. Curtis responded that the money was diverted before it
reached the UI fund. She stated that the legality of that
was something the legislature could look into as far as
dedicated revenues and funds that existed pre-statehood and
whether the state was walking on shaky ground even
diverting anything. She could not speak to the question
about theft. She noted that the program had been in place
since 2001. She added that the State Training and
Employment Program (STEP) existed before TVEP and had the
same funding mechanism.
Representative Josephson stated that it was his
understanding that in Alaska the unemployment funds an
individual received were very modest compared to other
locations such as Washington state. He surmised that TVEP
was a conservative solution to unemployment. He explained
that rather than giving cash, the state was hoping to
retrain workers. He asked if the statements sounded roughly
correct.
Ms. Curtis replied that she saw why Representative
Josephson was saying that. She explained that the people
who received training from STEP actually contributed to the
funding of the program. There was not a direct one-to-one
relationship for people who benefit from TVEP, and they may
not have ever paid into UI fund.
Representative Josephson remarked that in many states the
$2.3 million [that was swept into the CBR in FY 22] would
have gone to unemployed people to survive and instead it
had gone to the general fund, which struck him as improper.
4:02:48 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted he had to step out and would hand the
gavel to Representative Tomaszewski.
Representative Galvin stated that her takeaway from Ms.
Curtis's report was it was not a great review overall. She
surmised that changes needed to be made and there were
perhaps some legal issues. She stated her understanding
that it would be too detrimental to the 10 recipients and
the students to wipe out the program completely at the
current time.
Ms. Curtis clarified that the audit did not have any
conclusions about the worthwhile of the program. She
explained that it primarily considered the two competing
statutes: the statutes for the grant process and the
statutes for the direct award. The auditors were not a fan
of the direct award because its design did not allow the
program to be as effective as it could be. The audit
determined that AWIB was the best entity to identify
priorities, regional needs, and industry needs. She
clarified that the 10 existing recipients may end up being
the entities getting the grants from AWIB, but it was an
unknown. The audit report merely took exception to the
funding mechanism.
Representative Galvin viewed the bill as a placeholder. She
asked if there was a legal problem with continuing the
program as-is for one more year while things were put
together.
4:05:57 PM
Ms. Curtis answered there was no problem prior to the bill
and she believed everyone was onboard that what had been
taking place was legal. She clarified that the audit report
determined it was merely not the best way. She stated it
was a policy decision for the legislature to consider. She
left it up to policymakers to decide whether to extend the
program for one year, five years, or include a transition
to another mechanism.
Representative Galvin directed the same question to the
bill sponsor. She stated the report had not been a good
review overall. She highlighted the poor review of the
administrative process and whether the metrics fit goals.
She asked if HB 55 was the answer. She asked if a decision
had been made that it would be too messy to clean things up
in one year.
Representative Carrick answered there were a lot of
questions about how to move forward in the long term with
TVEP. She highlighted that the value of the training was
not in question. She explained that the legislation would
hold the providers harmless for the coming year. In terms
of what would happen after HB 55, she believed there were
many questions that needed to be answered. She agreed with
comments made by Representative Josephson. She noted his
use of the word theft. She had a lot of concerns about the
fund sweep. She relayed that as soon as she saw the audit,
she had legislation drafted to exempt all UI trust
subaccounts from the sweep. She believed it was something
the legislature needed to pursue as a separate policy call.
She did not recommend including that specific issue in HB
55, in order to hold the current providers and mostly the
current students harmless for the coming year.
Representative Galvin asked if there was a concern that the
UI funds would be contested legally because of the two
conflicting statutes.
Representative Carrick answered that as mentioned by Ms.
Curtis, the program had continued to be reauthorized four
or more times since the program's inception. The two sets
of conflicting statutes had existed since the inception of
the program. She did not believe the state would see an
immediate legal challenge based on something that had
existed for 24 years.
4:09:53 PM
Representative Coulombe thanked Ms. Curtis for the thorough
audit. She asked if Ms. Curtis stated that $200 million had
been used for the program since 2001.
Ms. Curtis confirmed that $204 million had been diverted
out of the UI fund into the TVEP subfund through FY 22.
Representative Coulombe asked for verification that if a
training provider was not currently on the statutory list
as a fund recipient they could not apply for funding.
Ms. Curtis responded affirmatively.
Representative Coulombe stated her understanding of Ms.
Curtis's statements to be that the intention of the program
was to be funded out as grants. She also thought she heard
Ms. Curtis say the intention was to have a noncompetitive
grant fund. She asked for clarification.
Ms. Curtis answered that statute talked about a grant
program established by AWIB. She explained that typically a
grant had competitive type aspects where an entity had to
apply, there was a ranking, and funds were awarded.
Representative Coulombe asked for verification that the
bill was giving money to the training providers and not
reauthorizing TVEP. Alternatively, she asked if the bill
reauthorized TVEP for one year for the specific group of
organizations.
Representative Carrick answered that HB 55 reauthorized
TVEP and would only give the fund percentages listed to the
10 recipients.
Representative Coulombe asked for verification that the
funding went towards the operations of the vocational
centers and not directly to students.
Representative Carrick agreed. She detailed that the funds
went directly to training providers to fund program
operations. The students benefitted from the programs, but
the funding went directly to training providers.
4:12:56 PM
Representative Hannan stated that the audit had been at the
request of the legislature. She asked if Ms. Curtis
anticipated doing another audit in the coming year.
Ms. Curtis answered that another audit would not be
conducted unless it was requested by the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee. She added that by then it would take a
few years to start it.
Representative Hannan stated she had some heartburn over
the swept funding that had not gone to UI intended
purposes. She noted that TVEP was an intended purpose as
set in statute. She detailed that the legislature had
identified the funding amount that could go into the TVEP
fund; however, if it was not expended in a year, it was
swept. She asked if Ms. Curtis would recommend the funding
mechanism be severed from UI or tied more directly. She
observed it appeared that originally there had been a lag
(e.g., UI funds collected in FY 20 were awarded to TVEP in
FY 21). She asked if Ms. Curtis anticipated a multiyear
grant. She used a welding training center as an example and
explained that it would not be set up for one year at a
time.
Ms. Curtis responded that the AWIB board would create the
regulations. She knew there were questions about stability
and providers knowing [what funding they would receive],
which could be addressed by making multiyear grant awards.
She explained that currently the monies that went into the
fund were paid out in the same year. She noted there were
some weird things about how DLWD estimated how much would
be paid out. She elaborated that they kind of provided a
little cushion; however, there was always the reverse
sweep, so DLWD never had to worry about anything happening
to the funds. She explained there had been a cushion of
funds, one of the providers did not spend most of its
funds, and then there had been the $666,000 underpayment
[to some of the providers], which had resulted in a perfect
storm anomaly where there was a large amount of funding in
the fund at the end of the fiscal year. She did not see any
problem with the funds going in and out in the same year.
She believed the Legislative Finance Division (LFD) already
had a fix for that. She stated that the executive branch
typically set up how the monies were to be granted out,
which they already did with numerous other training
grantees. She added they were already in the process of
doing that with federal and other state money.
4:16:55 PM
Representative Hannan directed a question to the bill
sponsor. She surmised that the bill would extend the
current program for one year and people were already
anticipating the need to clean up the statutory conflict
and ensure the funding mechanism was more secure. She asked
for verification that the legislature should not be
attempting to solve those issues through HB 55.
Representative Carrick responded that the instability that
came with limiting the reauthorization to one year was a
strong signal to the training providers. She speculated
that were the legislature to come back the following
session and immediately begin work on solving some of the
challenges and creating a competitive process, the
providers would hear the message. She noted that AWIB did
not believe it currently had the capacity to immediately do
administration of the TVEP program as a competitive
program. She explained that if the legislature made the
changes in the current year, it would destabilize the
current training providers and would potentially set up a
competitive process for failure. She believed the issues
were some of the considerations made by previous committees
as to why the bill was in its current form.
Representative Hannan asked if there was a companion bill
in the Senate or if HB 22 was the only vehicle to ensure
TVEP funding would be awarded for the coming year.
Representative Carrick answered that HB 22 was the vehicle.
Acting Chair Tomaszewski noted that Paloma Harbour with
DLWD was available for any questions on sweepable.
Representative Stapp asked for verification that HB 55
would essentially put a one-year stay on the program in
order for the legislature to have enough time to figure
things out.
Representative Carrick replied it was how she personally
viewed the situation. She had worked on a potential
committee substitute, which would provide for a competitive
structure per the underlying statute in the legislation and
would address some of the other considerations politically
that had taken place over the years; however, she believed
the potential to destabilize the great workforce
development happening with the funds was paramount to the
decision making at present. She suggested the legislature
put a stay on making those changes. She suggested that two
years was a much better timeframe to avoid a time crunch on
making the decisions in a reauthorization year the
following session.
Representative Stapp stated the program had been going a
long time and he did not want to see it destabilized. He
was in support of at least a one year stay of the program,
which would be less disruptive for the users. He directed a
question to Ms. Curtis. He thought it seemed that some of
the institutions on the list were not public institutions
and the legislature was giving them state money for
educational purposes. He noted there was a recent court
case about that type of issue. He did not know whether it
came up in the audit.
4:21:10 PM
Ms. Curtis answered that the audit had not addressed the
issue and only considered what it had been asked to do. She
noted that if anyone wanted more information about the
recipients, details were in the appendix to the audit
report. She explained there was information about how the
providers conducted their training, the number of people
served, and the cost per participant.
Representative Stapp relayed that he had reviewed the
appendix and noticed that many of the institutions
receiving state money were private and some had religious
overtones. He thought it was interesting that the
legislature was making sure to have at least a one-year
stay on the program so it would not be disruptive.
4:22:12 PM
AT EASE
4:57:58 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
DON ETHERIDGE, ALASKA AFL-CIO, shared that he had been with
the legislation since its inception. The AFL-CIO and the
Alaska Works Partnership had been very active in getting
the program started. He clarified that AFL-CIO members did
not receive money from the program. The AFL-CIO liked the
idea of the program because it helped educate more workers
and more workers were needed all of the time. He stated the
entity was fully supportive of the TVEP program. He relayed
that it would be unfair to remove the funding from the
recipients without notice. The organization supported the
program extension for one or more years. The program had
started as a grant program and different legislators had
started adding to it. He explained that over time everyone
"was holding it hostage to get what they wanted into it."
He stated that the desire had been to keep the training
going because many of the programs could not afford to
purchase new equipment or keep up with current operations
without the funding. He concluded that AFL-CIO was in full
support of the bill and believed TVEP was a great program
to keep alive. He thanked the committee.
5:01:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. He provided
details for individuals who may want to provide written
testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal notes.
PALMONA HARBOUR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, began with OMB component number 2761. The
fiscal note was zero and it had been submitted because the
there had been a fiscal impact to workforce services under
the last version of the bill. She moved to the second
fiscal note was OMB component number 2276 pertaining to
unemployment insurance. The note had not changed since the
original version of the bill and reflected the cost to
collect the revenue into the TVEP account. She explained
that the department could not cover the cost with UI
administrative funds, it had to cover the cost with TVEP
funding. She elaborated that the cost would exist as long
as the TVEP account was in statute for collecting the
revenue (with or without the allocation in HB 55).
5:03:58 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked why it cost so much to
collect [the revenue]. He thought it appeared to be a
simple calculation.
Ms. Harbour answered it was based on a federal approved
allocation of the department's overall tax unit costs. She
elaborated that all of the costs associated with the tax
system (including collections and auditing staff and IT
support) that DLWD used to collect the UI program, the
State Training Employment Program (STEP), and TVEP, were
spread across the three programs in an equitable fashion
reviewed and approved by the federal government. The cost
in the fiscal note was based on the federal analysis of the
level of effort related to the accounting for STEP and TVEP
as opposed to the UI program. She expounded that it was 8.5
percent of costs each fiscal year.
Representative Galvin asked if the fiscal note reflected
one-third of the total cost since three entities were
sharing in the cost.
Ms. Harbour answered that the amount in the fiscal note was
much less than one-third. She relayed that it was 8.5
percent of the total collections cost for UI. Of the total
cost for the tax section, tax system, and IT support, 19
percent was split evenly between STEP and TVEP.
Representative Galvin asked what $83,800 in services
represented.
Ms. Harbour answered it covered IT support and core
services (e.g., lease costs and human resources costs).
Representative Galvin asked about the $375,300 for personal
services. She asked if it was a shared number of PCNs
[position control numbers] doing the work.
Ms. Harbour agreed. She detailed that the personal services
line reflected a share of the costs for the tax unit
including collections staff and auditors.
Representative Galvin asked if the work of taking in the
funds had been modernized. She asked if the work was done
by hand or computerized.
Ms. Harbour answered that DLWD had built in as much
automation into the process as possible (e.g., employers
filed online). The department had found since the COVID-19
pandemic it had been necessary to return to more paper and
pencil due to a significant increase in fraud. She noted
that the department was catching the fraud and it had not
been getting through.
5:08:14 PM
DIRK CRAFT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT
BOARD (via teleconference), reviewed OMB component number
2659. He relayed that the fiscal note remained largely
unchanged since the governor authorized the amount
necessary for 7 of the 10 TVEP recipients administered by
AWIB, and the personal services associated with the
administration.
Ms. Harbour reviewed the last fiscal note OMB component
number 2686 pertaining to TVEP. The fiscal note showed the
allocation to TVEP in Seward if it were reauthorized as
proposed in the bill.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the department.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Mr. Hutchison wanted to testify.
CHAD HUTCHINSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, deferred to a colleague to review the
fiscal note.
ALESIA KRUCKENBERG, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY PLANNING AND
BUDGET, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (via teleconference), reviewed
OMB component number 1296. The fiscal note included a
calculation provided to the University by DLWD based on the
funds DLWD would have to distribute. The proposed amount
for the University for FY 25 was $6,746,900, which
reflected a $510,400 increase over FY 24 base funding. The
University had also received a supplemental of $370,300 in
FY 24.
5:11:58 PM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), reviewed OMB component
number 2796. The note reflected the amount allocated for
the Galena Interior Learning Academy.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Thursday, May
2 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.