Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
04/01/2025 09:00 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 | |
| HB56 | |
| HB53 || HB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; making appropriations under
art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of
Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
Co-Chair Josephson noted that the committee had considered
Amendments 45 through 60 the previous day. The committee
would begin with Amendment 61.
9:14:34 AM
Representative Stapp did not currently offer Amendment 61
(copy on file).
Representative Bynum did not currently offer Amendment 62
(copy on file).
9:15:13 AM
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 63 (copy on
file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior Community Based Grants
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Grant Funding for Deaf Navigator
Services
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0 Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 75.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 75.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 75.0
Explanation
This program has been flat-funded since its founding
in 2013. This increment will support the provision of
communication assistance, advocacy, and essential
services to deaf and hard-of-hearing Alaskans.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that the legislature was in a
position where $75,000 was more important than it was the
previous year. He believed the conference committee would
resolve differences between the bodies as it was designed
to do. He referenced public testimony from Michele Girault,
Director of Hope Community Resources in Anchorage. He noted
that Ms. Girault was a champion of the Key Coalition and
had asked the committee to support the expansion of the
Deaf Navigator Program (DNP), which had not seen an
operating budget increase in 12 years. He explained the
amendment with a prepared statement:
The Deaf Navigator program provides a range of
resources and services to deaf and hard of hearing
Alaskans to enhance their lives through long-term
employment, housing options, and community
involvement. The Deaf Navigator program provides
services to any adult deaf, hard of hearing individual
living in Alaska. This includes those living in rural
communities. Available services include navigation and
coordination of community resources throughout Alaska,
Health and Social Services, employment services,
housing services, educational services, and free
public video phone, caption phone, CCTV, and
computers, printer, and fax.
The Deaf Navigator program and Hope Community
Resources is an essential initiative aimed at
enhancing long-term employment and housing
opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing individuals
across Alaska. Established in FY 13 through funding by
the State of Alaska Parnell administration, the DNP
offers a wide array of resources and services designed
to address the unique needs of the DHH (Deaf and Hard
of Hearing) community. This program helps support deaf
and hard of hearing Alaskans in navigating the
complexities of everyday life. It ensures that DHH
individuals can access the support they need to
thrive. More particularly, the program offers guidance
and support in managing health and social services
tailored to the specific needs of DHH individuals.
This includes assistance in accessing medical care,
mental health services, and social support systems.
The program helps support job seekers including job
placement assistance and career counseling. It helps
create inclusive workplaces that can accommodate the
unique needs of DHH employees.
The program supports in locating suitable housing
options that meet the accessibility requirements and
preferences of the DHH community. It also works in
community education, educating employers and service
providers in providing comprehensive training
programs. It reaches rural communities as a critical
component of its overall mission.
The program is housed within Hope Community Resources
and receives an annual grant of $135,000 through the
Department of Health, Division of Senior and
Disabilities Services. It's been awarded that amount
since 2016; however, it's important to note there's
been no increases to offset the inflation rate of 29.3
percent over the years. From its early days to the
present, the program has seen increased demands by 25
to 50 percent. The Alaska Deaf Council is requesting
the Department of Health, Division of Senior and
Disabilities Services to increase the annual
allocation by $100,000. I'm offering $75,000.
Finally, the program is designed to give individuals
help in achieving greater independence, securing
meaningful employment, and finding suitable housing.
9:19:55 AM
Co-Chair Josephson continued explaining the amendment. He
had met with the individuals involved in the work and they
had made a compelling case.
9:20:15 AM
AT EASE
9:20:45 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Allard MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to increase the amount from $75,000 to $100,000.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 63 was ADOPTED.
Representative Stapp observed that the funding in Amendment
63 was a one-time increment. He asked if it was the
intention of the co-chair.
Co-Chair Josephson agreed that it appeared to be one-year
increase.
9:21:46 AM
AT EASE
9:22:09 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson confirmed that the amendment included a
one-year increase. He would view a conceptual amendment to
include the funding in the base as friendly.
Representative Allard MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2
to include the $100,000 increment in the base.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:23:12 AM
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED to the underlying amendment. In
recognition of the fiscal climate, he had a difficult time
with the increments despite their important causes. He
elaborated that adding small increments throughout the
budget process gave him concern and he already felt too
much may have been added through the amendment process. He
could not support the amendment at the current time.
Representative Allard appreciated the committee allowing
the conceptual amendments to pass without an objection, but
she wanted committee members to know that the DHH community
was in need of the funding in order to continue on. She
elaborated that the funding pertained to individuals
without another means of educating students. She thanked
the committee.
9:24:23 AM
Representative Galvin had heard the group talk about how
much it had done to help employers navigate welcoming new
employees and creating a work environment where DHH
individuals were able to work. She emphasized it was an
important and unique service offered, that allowed DHH
individuals to work. She viewed the work as an economic
benefit. She supported the amendment.
Representative Johnson spoke in support of the amendment.
She noted the increment was a comparatively small amount.
She noted that the DHH community did not have a lot of help
coming in from the state. She remarked that it was a great
group of people. She appreciated small amounts and thought
it could make a tremendous difference.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Jimmie, Johnson, Galvin, Allard, Hannan, Foster,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Bynum, Schrage
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 63 was ADOPTED as amended.
9:27:38 AM
Co-Chair Josephson did not currently offer Amendment 64
(copy on file).
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 65 (copy on
file):
Agency: Governor
Appropriation: Office of Management & Budget
Allocation: Office of Management & Budget
Transaction Details
Title: Accurately Accounting for Overtime, Bonus,
Standby, and Other Specialty Pay
Wordage Type: Intent
Linkage: Appropriation - Office of Management &
Budget
Wordage
It is the intent of the legislature that the Office of
Management and Budget require all departments to
account for overtime, bonus, standby, and any other
specialty pay outside their base payroll in a separate
line item to account for the separate cost.
Explanation
Several departments have reported usage of unspent
vacancy funds and for specialty pay. This intent
language aims to ensure that all forms of specialty
pay are accurately reported un a separate line item to
increase transparency in budgeting.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp that the goal of the amendment was to
start solving a chronic problem by instructing the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to require all departments
to account for overtime, bonus, standby, and any other
specialty pay outside their base payroll in a separate line
item to account for the separate cost. He explained that it
was getting very difficult for legislators to determine
what the personal services line items were going to. He
noted that finance members looked at vacancy rates above
the factor and different types of pay. He believed all of
the different types of pay were fine for the department to
do for employees, including letters of agreement for
enhanced bonuses, but without knowing how the money flowed,
it was challenging to determine where the money went and
what it did.
Representative Hannan was supportive of the intent language
and asked to hear from the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD). She shared that she chaired the Department of
Corrections (DOC) budget [subcommittee] and the department
had some specific ways it thought the pay should be
tracked, which was not accurate. She wanted to ensure that
the language reflected what LFD had pointed out in terms of
more accurate tracking. She requested to hear from LFD to
make sure the amendment incorporated what the concerns had
been on how the money was tracked.
9:30:29 AM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
stated there were a number of ways to accomplish the intent
of the amendment sponsor. For example, the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) had increments in the current year to
increase the amount of overtime budgeted per position in
order to see the overtime hours budgeted. He elaborated
that OMB's personal services detail for DPS showed the base
salary and 300 hours of overtime budgeted for a PCN
[position control number]. Another option tried a couple of
years back was to have a separate allocation in the budget
for premium pay beyond what was in the regular budget. He
explained it had been in the enacted budget the previous
year, but the governor had eliminated the allocation in the
management plan and had transferred the funding out. He
summarized that there were a couple of ways to accomplish
the goal and he did not believe the amendment specified it
had to be done one way. He explained that the amendment
directed OMB to show the information outside base payroll
as a separate item in order to see it. He believed OMB
would likely have to work with the departments to figure
out the best method.
Representative Hannan stated that Mr. Painter had given a
couple of examples where the method was done differently.
She asked for verification that the intent language did not
mean all departments had to separate the information out
the same way, but the information needed to be itemized
separately.
Mr. Painter agreed it was his interpretation of the
amendment intent language. He explained that one line item
would technically be personal services. He assumed that
line item meant the information was separated out somewhere
in the budget. For example, it could be in the OMB detail
book where premium pay would be separated out from base
pay. The information would still be within the personal
services line item, but separated out.
9:32:59 AM
Representative Galvin asked if it mattered if the language
did not specify "to be reported when and to whom." She
asked if it was assumed it would mean the standard report
time for OMB. She was used to seeing directive language
specify something like "every six months you will report
to." She wanted to make sure the language was clear so the
information would come to the legislature at least once a
year and preferably before or during the subcommittee
process.
Mr. Painter responded that often intent language asking for
information to be delivered to the legislature included a
date, typically December 20. When no date was specified,
agencies responded to all items in the intent memo
coordinated by OMB; however, if they were not asked to make
a report they would provide a written response, but not a
report. He suggested that under the case of the amendment
language, OMB may be able to just show what was done by
department in the intent memo. He explained that the
legislature did not necessarily need a report because the
information itself may be in each agencies' budget or the
OMB detail book.
Representative Galvin replied that the explanation made
sense, but she had been through three subcommittees where
she had been unable to get answers. She wanted to make sure
the information would be received. She thought the
amendment sponsor intended for the information to be
available during the subcommittee process.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Mr. Painter viewed the request
as manageable.
Mr. Painter replied affirmatively. He believed there would
be choices about how to provide the information and he
believed it was manageable to show the overtime in the
budget in some form.
Co-Chair Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 65 was ADOPTED.
9:36:08 AM
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 66 (copy on
file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Civil Division
Allocation: Dep. Attny General's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Remove Temporary Increment for Statehood
Defense (FY25-26) Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: -500.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: -500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -500.0
Explanation
The Department is holding $3.6m in unspent moneys from
this allocation in previous years and averages an
expenditure of $2-3m/year. Therefore, there is no
demonstrated need to continue the temporary increment
(FY25-26) added last session.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson explained the amendment pertained to
statehood defense funding for the Department of Law (DOL).
He remarked that statehood defense had become a "separate
thing" that was never present in a prolonged way in the
past. He shared that he and his staff had confirmed with
DOL and LFD that there was about $3 million remaining in
unspent statehood defense funds from past years that was
available. He referenced the joint address by Senator Dan
Sullivan to the legislature recently. He noted that U.S.
Senator Sullivan had talked about 67 to 75 items the Biden
administration was blocking on an assortment of issues
including navigable waters, extracted industry proposals,
and permitting. He stated that Senator Sullivan had torn up
former President Biden's orders during the address. He
highlighted it was a physical demonstration that those days
were gone, and the new U.S. Department of the Interior
secretary was Doug Burgum, the former governor of North
Dakota. He highlighted that Secretary Burgum had issued a
statement and document a couple of weeks back showing the
Trump administration's plans for Alaska. He pointed out
that Senator Sullivan had highlighted that only Alaska
received the attention in a profound way when it came to
resource development.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that it indicated that the Trump
administration wanted to develop Alaska and there should
not be as much litigation [as in the past]. He stated that
DOL had told him there were still nonprofits filing cases,
but DOL agreed the federal government was now a partner
with the Dunleavy administration. The amendment would save
the state $500,000 that should not be needed in the way it
had been in the past. He reiterated there was $3 million in
funds designated for the purpose of statehood defense.
9:39:08 AM
Representative Johnson was inclined to agree but was
uncertain. She knew DOL had a tremendous number of cases
and substantial work in the area. She was appreciative that
the federal government was no longer after Alaska as it had
been in the past. She highlighted that just because DOL was
holding $3.6 million in unspent money, it did not
necessarily mean DOL did not have unbilled hours
outstanding. She wondered about cases already in progress.
She tended to agree with Co-Chair Josephson, but she wished
she knew more about the numbers.
9:40:37 AM
Representative Bynum opposed the amendment. He believed it
was the time when the State of Alaska needed to be more
aggressive on the topic. He stated that just because there
was a friendly administration to the state, it did not mean
there was not work to do to protect the rights of Alaskans
and the state's right for self-determination. He believed
there were many obligations that still needed to be met. He
stated that $3 million for lawyers could go quickly. He
thought it was the time for the state to do more and not
less in state defense.
Representative Stapp remarked that he appreciated Senator
Sullivan symbolically tearing up the piece of paper [with
Biden administration orders pertaining to Alaska]. He added
that Senator Sullivan had also handed out a piece of paper
that symbolically showed a spurline to Fairbanks from a
gasline that did not actually exist within the context of
the project. He highlighted that ripping up a piece of
paper did not change the fact that there were still active
legal cases within the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in Fairbanks pertaining to PM 2.5. He provided other
examples including highways and the potential the state
would need to litigate over Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funding for capital projects.
Additionally, there were Kuskokwim River management issues
in an active case. He wondered how much of the remaining
$3.6 million was encumbered or looking to be encumbered for
active cases.
9:42:45 AM
Representative Tomaszewski opposed the amendment. He
suggested that current funding could be insufficient. He
noted there were over 80 statehood defense cases underway.
He pointed out that litigation did not wind down quickly
and there were many cases that needed to be taken care of.
He shared that the remaining funding had been spent down to
about $3.3 million to date. He remarked that four years ago
there had been 35 to 40 cases at the start of the Biden
administration and the number had doubled since that time.
He highlighted there was a lot of casework that needed to
be done and issues that needed to be addressed. He
emphasized that he did not want the federal government
overstepping its bounds. He highlighted examples including,
hunting, fishing, water. He noted that the pace had
increased, not slowed. He thought the state may be able to
wind many of the cases down in the coming years as a result
of the new "friendly" administration. He believed the state
could not take its eyes off keeping the federal government
out of Alaska. He planned to offer an amendment to increase
the amount by $500,000. He suggested that perhaps they
could compromise and leave the current increment in the
budget. He would vote against the decrement in Amendment
66.
9:45:03 AM
Representative Galvin spoke in support of the amendment.
She was concerned about the message the legislature was
sending by growing the fund at a time when she would prefer
funding to go towards helping project development in other
ways like increasing the speed of the permitting process
and paying contractors on time. She relayed that the fund
balance had been a little over $3 million in the last
session and it was now a bit bigger. She thought it felt
like the state was bankrolling something that may or may
not happen. She pointed out that the cost was unknown. She
believed it sent a message to the public that the state was
going to bankroll lawyers just in case. She would prefer to
ensure projects were on time. She added that the governor
could provide a supplemental request to the legislature if
expenditures arose. She pointed out that supplemental funds
had been requested in the past for things ranging from
fires to lawsuits. She believed it was important to be
careful to not spend anything extra at the time.
9:46:58 AM
Co-Chair Josephson provided wrap up on Amendment 66. He
referenced Representative Tomaszewski's remarks that four
years ago, prior to the Biden administration, there were 35
to 40 cases, and currently there were 75 to 80. He stated
it illustrated his point. He believed the cases would be
slashed because by all indication the administration would
be much more supportive of resource development. He
explained that it could dismiss cases, appeals,
administrative actions, and permit denials. He believed the
cut proposed in the amendment was "okay." He referenced
Representative Tomaszewski's statement there was $3.3
million in remaining funds, which was pretty consistent
with his amendment.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Galvin, Jimmie, Foster, Schrage,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Bynum, Johnson, Stapp, Allard
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 66 was ADOPTED.
9:48:56 AM
Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 67
(copy on file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Civil Division
Allocation: Dep. Attny General's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Support for Statehood Defense (FY26-27)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncT
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 500.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total 500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 500.0
Explanation
Current Funding could be insufficient (80+ statehood
cases currently.) Pace is not slowing (cases do not
wind down overnight.)
Representative Hannan OBJECTED
Representative Tomaszewski stated that the amendment would
add $500,000 to the fund that the committee had just voted
to remove $500,000 from. Consequently, he WITHDREW the
amendment.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 68 (copy on
file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Civil Division
Allocation: Dep. Attny General's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Adds Funds for Statehood Defense Efforts
(FY26-FY27)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncT
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 500.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 500.0
Explanation
This amendment restores the temporary increment that
was reduced in the subcommittee.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED.
Representative Stapp highlighted that he had asked [during
the conversation on Amendment 66] how much of the $3.6
million [remaining in previously appropriated statehood
defense funding] was encumbered. He wanted an answer to the
question.
Co-Chair Josephson replied that they could ask Mr. Rob
Carpenter with LFD. Co-Chair Josephson was the DOL
subcommittee chair, and he did not recall Cori Mills
[Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
Department of Law] saying the monies were completely
encumbered.
Representative Stapp stated that he did not necessarily
mind cutting the money, but he wanted to know the answer to
his question. He reasoned that if there were 80 active
cases, there should be a number used for the cases even if
there was hope that some of the cases would be dismissed.
He was interested in the expected spending in FY 26. He
wondered if there was an adverse impact on the cases.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the matter was now with the
committee, and he would not be contacting DOL with the
question. He asked Mr. Carpenter to respond to the
question.
9:51:59 AM
ROB CARPENTER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE
DIVISION, replied that departments could not encumber funds
beyond a year. He believed Ms. Mills had stated that the
department was spending $2 million to $3 million per year
[on statehood defense cases]. He believed there was $3.2
million in remaining funds and a $500,000 temporary
increment in FY 25. In theory, the department would have $2
million to $3 million carried forward into FY 26. He noted
that his answer was a bit of conjecture.
Co-Chair Josephson reasoned it was likely DOL had the
resources, otherwise the department would have asked for
more than $500,000.
Mr. Carpenter recalled from the prior session that DOL had
about $8 million in projected needs through Governor
Dunleavy's term. He relayed that the $500,000 for FY 25 had
been cut down from a $1 million request and would go over
three years. The department had requested an additional
$500,000 temporary increment in FY 26 for two years at a
total of $1 million. He stated that by removing the
$500,000 in the FY 26 budget, the only remaining money was
the multiyear funding. The question was whether it could
get the department through FY 26.
9:54:26 AM
Representative Stapp stated his understanding of Mr.
Carpenter's answer that the burn rate was $2 million to $3
million per year. He thought it was a bit tricky because
the request had been reduced in subcommittee and now the
committee had cut $500,000 from the multiyear
appropriation. He estimated it would mean there was $2.7
million remaining. He speculated that if the burn rate was
$2 million to $3 million per year, the department may not
have the funding within the year to finish current
litigation. He stated it would be nice to know the answer
before the committee stripped away or added back more
funding.
Representative Galvin asked what it looked like if DOL ran
out of money. She wondered whether all the [statehood
defense] cases would shut down. She imagined if a big case
came in, DOL may need $10 million more. She thought it
seemed very hard to predict. She wanted to know what it
would look like if DOL shut down cases.
Co-Chair Josephson noted there was a request of $4 million
in the FY 25 supplemental for the A Better Childhood
lawsuit; therefore, he reasoned that DOL was capable of
intervening.
Representative Johnson asked if there was anyone available
from the department online.
Co-Chair Josephson replied there was not.
Representative Johnson hoped to hear from DOL.
Representative Allard remarked that if the legislature
continued to deplete the fund, it would mean an absence of
legal representation for Alaskans. She found it alarming.
She believed the legal representation was needed.
Co-Chair Schrage did not believe much more could be cut
given the available funds and expected burn rate; however,
he expected the level of work to diminish under the current
federal administration. He stated his understanding that if
funding became an issue during the next year, DOL could
prioritize cases based on how they were going and how
important they were. He added that if there was a need to
continue litigation because there were cases of great
importance to Alaska, there could always be an FY 26
supplemental if the state's financial situation allowed.
9:57:54 AM
Representative Bynum supported the amendment. He pointed
out that the department had requested the funding for a
reason. He thought that if they were merely asking for an
arbitrary number, they would ask to double the fund. He
appreciated Representative Stapp asking the question about
the expected obligation for litigation. He wanted to know
the number before voting on whether to cut the funds. He
did not know why the legislature would want to shove it off
to the FY 26 supplemental if the department needed the
funding. He was supportive of trying to save as much money
as possible, but he believed it was an area where the
legislature should be pushing forward in saying that Alaska
had a right to be free of federal government obligation
whenever possible. He referenced committee member comments
about the need to be more efficient and act more quickly.
He stressed that those things were done when Alaskans had
the ability to determine what the state was doing. He
underscored that the fund was trying to give control to
Alaskans to make better decisions for themselves. He
thought the state already depended too much on the federal
government. He wanted to hear from DOL.
10:00:09 AM
Co-Chair Josephson appreciated Representative Bynum's
point. He observed that Representative Bynum wanted to cut
tens of millions from the Department of Corrections (DOC).
He pointed out that DOC perhaps genuinely came to the
legislature for those requests. He was trying to reconcile
the two things.
Representative Hannan found that DOL could be very
persuasive in advocating for its requests. For example, the
legislature was appropriating $4 million for the A Better
Childhood lawsuit. She recognized it was not part of
statehood defense, but it was an example where DOL had
requested the funds for a specific lawsuit and the
legislature had appropriated the funding. She highlighted
that the previous year the legislature had talked a lot
about departments having slush funds with anonymous
decision making. She believed if DOL requested funding for
specific cases it would be different. She highlighted that
there was ongoing appropriation in multiyear funds and
unresolved litigation. She noted that committee members had
heard from DOL during the subcommittee process and
individually. She had initially been opposed to the A
Better Childhood litigation, but DOL had changed her mind
and she supported the funding. She did not support the
amendment. She felt differently if the legislature was
presented with specific litigation that needed to be
completed and a specific amount.
10:02:05 AM
Co-Chair Josephson noted the committee had approved $4
million that day for the A Better Childhood litigation.
Co-Chair Schrage did not believe the intent was dilatory,
but the effect was. He stated that the committee had
already dealt with an amendment making a decrement [to
statehood defense funding for DOL] and the current
Amendment 68 would add the funds back. He called the
question.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that DOL's top prosecutor had
called in and was available for questions. He noted that
the topic was not the individual's expertise, but he was
available for questions.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), was available for
questions. He pointed out that he was with the Criminal
Division and it sounded like the amendment may impact the
Civil Division.
Co-Chair Josephson confirmed the amendment impacted the
Civil Division, not the Criminal Division.
10:03:50 AM
Representative Johnson relayed that the committee was
discussing statehood defense and how much may be
encumbered.
Co-Chair Josephson directed Representative Johnson to stick
to Amendment 68.
Representative Johnson asked if how much of the existing
funding for statehood defense was encumbered. She explained
that the committee had passed an amendment decrementing the
statehood defense funding and was currently discussing an
amendment to add funding back.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he did not have the information.
He stated that the money was managed by the Civil Division.
He heard the Civil Division testify earlier in the year
about ongoing litigation. The department was anticipating
that costs for statehood defense cases would have a spike
in the short term before going down. He did not know how
much money had been spent to date.
10:06:00 AM
Representative Stapp provided wrap up on Amendment 68. He
thought it was sloppy to shoot for a supplemental
appropriation request in the budget. He noted that Mr.
Skidmore had stated the department expected a spike before
dropping off. He added that Mr. Carpenter had testified
that the current burn rate was $2 million to $3 million. He
asserted that if there was a spike of $2 million to $3
million, he thought it was fair to say it was likely
greater than existing funding of $2.7 million (after the
$500,000 cut). He thought they should try to avoid
intentionally creating supplemental requests whenever
possible.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Allard, Johnson, Tomaszewski, Stapp, Bynum
OPPOSED: Jimmie, Hannan, Galvin, Foster, Schrage, Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 68 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Jimmie did not offer Amendments 69 through
72 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Josephson rolled Amendment 73 (copy on file) to
the bottom.
10:08:27 AM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 74 (copy on
file):
Agency: Military & Veterans' Affairs
Appropriation: Military and Veterans' Affairs
Allocation: Office of the Commissioner
Transaction Details
Title: Restore Funding for the Alaska State Defense
Force
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 400.2
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 400.2
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 359.5
1007 I/A Rcpts 40.7
Explanation
The Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF) is an all-
volunteer organization and is considered part of
Alaska's Organized Militia established under AS
26.05.100. The primary utilization of the ASDF has
been responding to incidents and needs of rural
communities that may not rise to the level of a state
emergency or disaster, providing a quick response in
times of need. This amendment restores the funding
that was reduced in subcommittee.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment would restore
base funding for the Alaska State Defense Force. He shared
that he had never been a big believer in the Defense Force
until he saw the organization in action for certain
disaster relief responses, particularly in rural Alaska. He
cited the responses to Typhoon Murbok and landslides in
Wrangell as examples. He had talked to individuals in many
of the communities and they were very happy that the Alaska
State Defense Force was able to provide immediate emergency
services. He thought the service provided in crises
situations by volunteers and with little state support was
worthy of funding. He highlighted the benefit of the
services to individuals in rural communities during
disaster situations.
Co-Chair Josephson asked how much of the funding in the
increment would go towards restoring a coordinator
position.
Representative Stapp asked for a lifeline. He did not know
the answer to the question and was looking to restore the
funding that had been cut during the subcommittee process.
10:10:03 AM
Co-Chair Foster explained that the subcommittee cut the
$400,000 in the base. The administration had asked for an
additional $175,000 and he estimated that around $100,000
of the additional amount was for the [coordinator]
position. The add of $400,000 proposed in the amendment was
for the base funding and not the position.
Co-Chair Josephson had been told that in the budget's
current form, the position funding was eliminated.
Mr. Painter explained that the position was established
through a position adjustment in the FY 26 budget without
specific funding. He elaborated that the reduction made by
the subcommittee would effectively defund the position;
however, the position had not been deleted. He relayed that
without the amendment, the position would be unfunded.
Representative Allard spoke in support of the amendment.
She shared that in the past there had been an avalanche in
Eagle River and the role the Alaska State Defense Force
played in the response saved the state substantial funding.
She relayed that even though federal funds had been
received for the disaster, the National Guard had been able
to perform its duties, while the Defense Force took care of
other things like directing traffic, putting up pylons,
handing out water, and helping members of the community.
She understood the value the Defense Force had in rural
communities. She shared that in the past she had been
supportive of cutting funding for the organization;
however, over the years she had seen the importance of the
organization. She added that Defense Force "scouts" called
into Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) and Eielson Air
Force Base to report sightings of unrecognized ships,
submarines, and aircrafts.
Representative Bynum spoke in strong support of the
amendment. He stated that prior to the landslide in
Ketchikan, he had no real visibility on what the Alaska
State Defense Force was. He elaborated that when the
landslide occurred, the Defense Force was activated, and
volunteers were a tremendous asset to the community. He
stressed that the organization was comprised of volunteers
who were active in communities and when things happened,
they provided immeasurable help. He emphasized that the
funding increment was small to keep the program available
to Alaskans. He had told the department it was necessary to
do a better job communicating with Alaskans on why the
program existed and why it was important. He thought
cutting the funding would hurt communities in times of
need.
10:14:57 AM
Co-Chair Foster supported the amendment. He relayed that
the $400,000 had been removed from the base budget by the
subcommittee. The administration's request for an
additional $175,000 had been denied. He supported getting
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs increment
back to the base number. He believed the service was very
important during times of disaster in rural Alaska.
Co-Chair Schrage stated that he could not support the
amendment. He did not doubt the value of the program. He
remarked that the House Finance Committee had kicked off
its work on the operating budget with a conversation about
the dire fiscal state in Alaska and the need to be fiscally
conservative and mindful of savings. Additionally, the
governor's proposed budget was billions of dollars in the
red. He stated that the committee was doing its best to
address the considerable deficit and it had to weigh
valuable programs against the limited resources. He
referred to deferred maintenance needs including students
in schools who could not stay warm and black mold under
facilities. Additionally, the education system was in
crisis and Alaska was actively losing educators. He
stressed there were so many things to prioritize and while
he believed the Defense Force did good work, he did not
know that it was more important than all of those other
things. He stated the legislature would have to pick and
chose what it would spend money on in the current year and
the Defense Force was not on his priority list.
Representative Hannan requested an at ease.
10:17:42 AM
AT EASE
10:19:12 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to TABLE Amendment 74.
Representatives Stapp, Johnson, and Allard OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to table Amendment
74.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Jimmie, Hannan, Schrage, Foster,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski, Bynum, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 74 was TABLED.
10:20:38 AM
Co-Chair Josephson stated that Amendment 75 would not be
offered (copy on file).
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to bundle Amendments 76 and 79
(copy on file):
Amendment 76
Agency: Agriculture
Appropriation: Agriculture
Allocation: Agricultural Development
Transaction Details
Title: Restore the Division of Agriculture as an
Appropriation under the Department of Natural
Resources
Section: Section 1
Type: Struct
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
Total: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
Amendment 79
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Fire, Land, and Water Resources
Allocation: Fire Suppression Preparedness
Transaction Details
Title: Reverse Transfer of Reclassified Wildfire
Resource Technician 4 to Department of Agriculture
Section: Section 1
Type: ATrIn
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 103.1
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 103.1
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 1
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1002 Fed Rcpts 9.2
1004 Gen Fund 90.8
1061 CIP Rcpts 3.1
Agency: Agriculture
Appropriation: Agriculture
Allocation: Commissioner's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Reverse Transfer of Reclassified Wildfire
Resource Technician 4 to Department of Agriculture
Section: Section 1
Type: ATrOut
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -103.1
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: -103.1
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1002 Fed Rcpts -9.2
1004 Gen Fund -90.8
1061 CIP Rcpts -3.1
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: -1
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Fire, Land, and Water Resources
Allocation: Fire Suppression Preparedness
Transaction Details
Title: Reverse Transfer of Reclassified Fire
Management Officer to Department of Agriculture
Section: Section 1
Type: ATrIn
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 127.1
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 127.1
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 1
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 114.4
1007 I/A Rcpts 6.4
1061 CIP Rcpts 6.3
Agency: Agriculture
Appropriation: Agriculture
Allocation: Commissioner's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Reverse Transfer of Reclassified Fire
Management Officer to Department of Agriculture
Section: Section 1
Type: ATrOut
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -127.1
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Total: -127.1
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: -1
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -114.4
1007 I/A Rcpts -6.4
1061 CIP Rcpts -6.3
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion. He requested
to read the amendments first.
10:20:53 AM
AT EASE
10:29:03 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that he had moved to bundle
Amendments 76 and 79. There had been a request to take a
pause [to read the amendments], which had occurred. He
assumed there was an objection.
Co-Chair Josephson explained the amendments [pertaining to
the governor's executive order to create a department of
agriculture]. He recalled that when there had been a
proposal to separate Department of Health and Social
Services into two departments, the legislature had moved
forward as if the effect of the departmental change may
occur. He stated there was an absence of key parts
including the office of the Division of Agriculture. He
explained that Amendment 76 restored the Division of
Agriculture as an appropriation within the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). Amendment 79 would move two
positions from the department of agriculture back to their
original location within DNR. He asked Mr. Painter about
the effects of Amendments 76 and 79.
Mr. Painter stated that Amendment 76 would transfer the
Division of Agriculture from the department of agriculture
back to its original location within DNR. Amendment 79
would transfer two positions the governor's amended budget
had moved from DNR into the department of agriculture back
into DNR.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the amendments would return the
items to the way the looked in the governor's original
December budget.
Mr. Painter replied that the department of agriculture had
not been added until the governor's amended budget. The
amendments would bring the items back to the December 15
submission.
Representative Stapp thought DNR Commissioner John Boyle
had testified that the two positions were not needed;
therefore, they could be transferred.
Mr. Painter replied that Commissioner Boyle had stated the
two positions were currently vacant.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to delete the two positions.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED.
10:32:26 AM
AT EASE
10:32:38 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson clarified that he had previously moved
to bundle Amendments 76 and 79. He asked if there were any
further objections to the motion.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendments 76 and 79 were bundled.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to cut the two positions.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED. She shared that she had a
slightly different conceptual amendment, which would move
the positions to the Division of Agriculture within DNR as
two new positions.
10:34:10 AM
AT EASE
10:35:44 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Hannan WITHDREW the OBJECTION to conceptual
Amendment 1 to bundled Amendments 76 and 79.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED. She stated that at first
there were going to be a given number of needed positions
for the department of agriculture and then it had been
determined the positions were not all needed, which
resulted in a zero fiscal note. She elaborated that
subsequently it had been proposed to take the two vacant
positions from DNR. She had some concern about taking
wildfire resource technicians away from the Division of
Forestry. She believed there were five of the positions
within the division. She did not have a problem with
putting things back the way they were in department of
agriculture, but she had some concern about taking wildfire
and other forestry positions.
Co-Chair Schrage shared some of Representative Johnson's
concern; however, he was trying to weigh it with the fact
the positions had been vacant and unfilled. He highlighted
that DNR had told the committee the positions were not
necessary for DNR and could be moved to the department of
agriculture. He had no assurance the positions would be
filled if they were left in the budget and the funding may
funneled elsewhere. He stressed that the state did not have
the money to do all things; it was necessary to find places
to reduce the budget in order to focus on what was most
important for Alaska. He supported the conceptual
amendment.
Co-Chair Josephson took some comfort that although it was
not enough, the legislature funded firefighting in the
operating and supplemental budgets. He stated that when
there were emergencies and there would be some in the
coming summer the legislature found ways to pay for them.
Representative Johnson thought the two different types of
positions were a wildfire resource technician 4 and a fire
management officer. She did not have a problem cutting
vacant positions, but she was opposed to cutting a fire
management officer and resource technician. She would love
to do a reduction in vacancies, but the two specific
positions were not ones she wanted to cut.
Representative Stapp provided wrap up on the amendment. He
shared the concerns by Representative Johnson and believed
the last thing the legislature should do is take away
resources if the positions were filled for firefighting
purposes. He underscored that the DNR commissioner had
stated clearly on the record there was no intent to fill
the positions and the positions would be transferred out to
the department of agriculture. He noted that he had
supported the governor's executive order to create a
department of agriculture, but the proposal had failed. He
saw no need to have continued positions if the department
did not intend to fill them.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
conceptual Amendment 1 to bundled Amendments 76 and 79.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Allard, Bynum, Tomaszewski, Stapp,
Jimmie, Galvin, Foster, Schrage
OPPOSED: Johnson, Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 1 to bundled Amendments 76 and 79 was
ADOPTED.
10:41:50 AM
AT EASE
10:43:09 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the intent of conceptual
Amendment 1 was to remove the positions and associated
funding.
Representative Stapp agreed. His intent was to remove the
positions and the appropriation.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for Representative Johnson
[Representative Johnson was not presently in the room].
10:43:47 AM
AT EASE
10:44:19 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the sponsor of conceptual
Amendment 1 had clarified his intent to delete the
positions and associated funding.
Representative Hannan WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
10:44:50 AM
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendments 76 and 79 were
ADOPTED as amended.
10:45:10 AM
AT EASE
10:45:21 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson clarified that bundled Amendments 76 and
79 as amended were adopted without objection.
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to bundle Amendments 77 and 78
(copy on file):
Amendment 77
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Allocation: Parks Management & Access
Transaction Details
Title: Partial reduction of vehicle rental
tax funds added for revenue-generating facilities and
infrastructure projects
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -375.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: -375.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1200 VehRntlTax -375.0
Explanation
reduction in vehicle rental receipts in order to fund
park rangers
Amendment 78
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Allocation: Parks Management & Access
Transaction Details
Title: Add three park rangers in Haines, Chugach,
and Valdez
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 375.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 375.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1200 VehRntlTax 375.0
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson explained Amendments 77 and 78. He
stated that Co-Chair Schrage had overseen the DNR
subcommittee, which had learned that the vehicle rental tax
was doing well and there were unappropriated monies in the
amount of $2.334 million. He elaborated that the
subcommittee had appropriated the funds to state parks for
the construction of cabins. The amendment would move
$375,000 of the $2.334 million to fund park rangers at
Chugach State Park, Haines State Park, and several parks in
Valdez. He listed several parks in Valdez. He shared that
Valdez had argued that it could not continue to oversee the
operation of state parks and other facilities with
volunteers in the Valdez region, particularly given
increased cruise ship traffic.
Co-Chair Schrage did not oppose to the bundling of the
amendments, but he would have additional remarks on the
substance of the amendments.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED to the bundling. He did not
believe he had an issue with the reduction of the rental
tax funding. He did not think it was a great look to cut
fire service employees and add park rangers. He would make
his remarks during the discussion on the amendments. He
WITHDREW the OBJECTION to the bundling of Amendments 77 and
78.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED for clarification. She read
description language for Amendment 77: Partial reduction of
vehicle rental tax funds added for revenue-generating
facilities and infrastructure projects. She asked if the
funding as originally intended would go to parks statewide.
She wondered if the amendment would keep the funding in the
same areas of the state. She did not want unintended
consequence of shifting money from one area to another. She
wondered what the expected revenue from new cabins would
be. She wanted to ensure the committee was not removing
seed money for something that would produce more funds.
10:52:15 AM
Co-Chair Josephson did not know where the new cabins would
be built in the state.
Representative Bynum asked if it was the intention that the
actions in the two amendments should be together and if one
or the other were to fail it would not have the desired
outcome.
Co-Chair Josephson replied affirmatively.
Co-Chair Schrage recalled that where the cabins would be
built was not specific, it would be left to the department
to determine location based on demand and need. He stated
that the cabins would generate revenue, as would parks. He
stated the funding was an investment to continue to pay for
the services into the future. He explained that if the
committee only adopted Amendment 77 the funds would lapse
into the general fund. The combination of the two
amendments allowed the legislature to appropriate excess
vehicle rental tax funds towards a source that would
continue to generate revenue in future years.
10:54:18 AM
Representative Johnson remarked that they taking a revenue
generating source and adding three positions, which was an
expenditure. She had some concerns from a business
perspective. Additionally, she did not want to take
something needed in the rest of the state and replace it
with park rangers in specific areas. She MAINTAINED the
OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to bundle
Amendments 77 and 78.
IN FAVOR: Bynum, Stapp, Hannan, Galvin, Schrage, Foster,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Johnson, Jimmie, Allard, Tomaszewski
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendments 77 and 78 were bundled.
Representative Hannan in support of bundled Amendments 77
and 78. She highlighted that most of Alaska's state parks
had transitioned to self-pay fee stations. She stated that
people were typically honest and self-paid; however, a
state park located in Haines had a substantial increase in
day visitors to look at bears and most people walked past
the pay station claiming they were merely taking a photo
and did not need to pay for the day use. She elaborated
that there was only one ranger in Haines with five park
areas. Typically, the ranger was out making sure a cabin
was ready for rental or 26 miles north at Mosquito Lake
instead of making sure everyone who should be self-paying
really was. She stated that the rangers had law enforcement
authority and provided protection, but they were also there
to enforce the self-pay. She underscored that the park in
Haines should be generating much more revenue because of
the number of people going over the road counter. She
believed park rangers continued to generate revenue. She
noted that in a place like Haines, the ranger also ensured
the cabin was maintained and ready for rental.
10:57:45 AM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendments 77 and 78 to delete the park ranger positions
and move the $375,000 from the vehicle rental assistance
fund to fire, land, and water within DNR for fire
suppression and preparedness. He did not see the point of
having cabins and park rangers if trees and parks all
burned to the ground.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin asked to hear from Legislative Legal
or LFD about the fund. She recalled that the vehicle rental
tax was intended for a specific purpose related to ensuring
there was seed money to help tourism dollars to grow.
Co-Chair Josephson asked Mr. Painter to tell the committee
about the vehicle rental tax.
Mr. Painter responded that the vehicle rental tax in
statute was designated for tourism marketing. He relayed
that LFD did not consider parks to fall under the marketing
category. He stated that LFD viewed parks as a non-
designated use. He explained that it was a designated fund
so the legislature could do what it wished. There was a
long standing precedent of the legislature using the fund
source for "this" and for Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT) welcome centers along highways. He
noted that neither were tourism marketing, so neither would
fit the designation.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that Mr. Painter
was saying there was nothing revolutionary about spending
some vehicle rental tax on parks.
Mr. Painter agreed. He stated the funds had been used for
that purpose for many years, it did not fit the statute,
but there was long standing precedent.
Representative Johnson asked if the money had ever been
used for Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA).
Mr. Painter replied, "Yes, off and on."
Representative Allard asked if the committee would hear
from Legislative Legal on the topic.
Co-Chair Josephson replied in the negative.
Representative Allard stated that if the committee was
going to hear from Legislative Legal, the committee should
do so anytime a member made the request. She noted that she
had made the request earlier and had been denied.
Co-Chair Josephson replied that was denying the request
[from Representative Galvin] to hear from the agency.
11:01:06 AM
Representative Bynum did not support the amendments for the
reason that Mr. Painter indicated. He would vote against
any conceptual amendments and the primary motion [on
Amendments 77 and 78].
Co-Chair Josephson stated his understanding the vehicle
rental tax had done well and it was unappropriated. He
asked what would happen to the funds if the subcommittee
had not appropriated them.
Mr. Painter replied that if the funds were not appropriated
they would lapse into the general fund. The vehicle rental
tax was an account and did not hold a balance from year-to-
year.
Co-Chair Schrage asked for verification there was no
history of using the funds for fire suppression or wildfire
mitigation.
Mr. Painter answered, "Not to my knowledge."
Co-Chair Josephson reminded the committee that the proposed
conceptual amendment would use $375,000 to fight fires.
Representative Hannan asked if DNR had a request for
expanding wildland fire funding.
Mr. Painter replied there were no increments requested in
the FY 26 budget that the subcommittee did not accept.
Representative Stapp provided wrap up on the conceptual
amendment. He thought that if money was going to lapse into
the general fund, it should likely be directed toward a
purpose that would be a big challenge. He thought it looked
like it would be a bad fire season; there were already
supplemental requests even though the fire season did not
close until June in the current budget. He supported
advance planning and thought the funds should be applied to
an important purpose, i.e., fire suppression.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
conceptual Amendment 1.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski
OPPOSED: Galvin, Hannan, Jimmie, Bynum, Foster, Schrage,
Josephson
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendments 77
and 78 FAILED (4/7).
11:04:30 AM
Representative Bynum stated that the committee had heard
that the funds should be designated to marketing in
tourism. He highlighted there had been an amendment offered
earlier in the amendment process specifically for that
purpose and members had been told there was no funding
available. He reasoned there were obviously funds available
that should be directed towards those purposes. He did not
support bundled Amendments 77 and 78.
Representative Stapp thought the underlying amendment was
superfluous. He stated that no one would use a variable
fund source, i.e., vehicle rental tax, to hire three full-
time park ranger positions. He suggested that even if the
funding was given to the department, the department would
not hire the three park rangers. He stressed that vehicle
rental tax dollars were variable and depended on the number
of cars rented. He asked members to vote against the
amendment. He reasoned that if adding positions was the
goal, general funds should be the fund source since the
money lapsed into the general fund.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that under that theory, cabins
would not be built either.
Representative Tomaszewski did not support the amendments.
He asked if the employees would be full-time and paid for
with vehicle rental tax in perpetuity.
Co-Chair Josephson answered it was the intent to fund three
positions in three parks.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the positions would be
full time.
Co-Chair Josephson answered that the positions looked to be
full time.
Representative Galvin heard that the funds may not be used
to hire anyone. She pointed out that the funding for
education had not been permanent, reliable, or predictable
for over a decade. She thought it was important to keep in
mind when thinking through the legislature's most major
responsibility.
11:07:28 AM
Representative Johnson was concerned about funding payroll
with a variable source. She stated that at some point
something would happen where it would become necessary to
backfill with general fund money. She MOVED to ADOPT
conceptual Amendment 2 to bundled Amendments 77 and 78 to
fund ATIA with the vehicle rental tax funds.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED. He believed $375,000 would have
more of an impact on the construction of additional cabins.
He recognized there would be value in putting the funding
towards ATIA, but he thought the amount was fairly small
compared to the large marketing efforts the organization
was trying to make. He highlighted that funding the
construction of cabins would create additional revenue
opportunities for the state. He pointed out that the cabins
were remarkable and offered unparalleled access to Alaskans
and tourists. He thought getting users out into parks and
cabins was one of the best ways to market the state. He
reiterated that the cabins would generate revenue for the
state through the booking system. He thought it was a solid
investment.
Representative Bynum agreed with the reasoning about why
the cabins were desirable, but out of principle he would
support the conceptual amendment.
Representative Johnson asked if the amendments had been
bundled.
Co-Chair Josephson replied affirmatively.
Representative Johnson remarked that there were two topics
before the committee. She agreed with Co-Chair Schrage
about the cabins. She stated that the committee could not
fund the cabins and three park rangers. She asked for
clarification on what was taking place.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that [under bundled Amendments
77 and 78] a portion of the monies the subcommittee
appropriated to cabin construction would instead go to fund
three park rangers in Chugach State Park, Haines State
Park, and Valdez park facilities.
Representative Johnson did not know why the amendments had
been bundled if one did not apply to the other. She was
trying to understand where the $375,000 was going. She
highlighted the discussion about the funds going to park
rangers or cabin construction.
11:11:33 AM
Co-Chair Josephson explained that Co-Chair Schrage was
referring to the alternative in the event the amendments
failed.
Co-Chair Schrage clarified that Amendment 77 took the
$375,000 currently in the budget for cabin construction and
moved it towards park rangers. He explained that
Representative Johnson's conceptual amendment would put the
funding towards ATIA. He elucidated that in either case,
Amendment 77 would remove $375,000 from the construction of
cabins. His comments had centered on what would be lost if
the funding went towards ATIA or park rangers.
Representative Johnson thought the issue needed to be
clarified. She remarked that her conceptual amendment did
not make any sense if the funding was going towards cabins,
which she supported.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that although he would not vote
for the conceptual amendment, it was germane.
Representative Johnson did not like amending something that
she found unclear.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Representative Johnson wanted
to withdraw the conceptual amendment.
Representative Johnson replied in the negative. She wanted
clarification on the underlying amendment she was trying to
offer a conceptual amendment to. She would not make an
amendment if the money was going towards cabins. She found
the use of the money for cabins to be appropriate. She was
strongly opposed to using the funding for park ranger
positions because the fund source was variable and not set
up for that purpose.
Co-Chair Josephson advised that if Representative Johnson
was in support of $2.3 million for cabin construction, she
should vote against bundled Amendments 77 and 78.
Representative Johnson asked how to delete funding for park
rangers.
Co-Chair Josephson stated she would just vote against the
amendment.
11:14:00 AM
AT EASE
11:18:13 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson recognized Representative Rebecca
Himschoot in the room.
Co-Chair Josephson clarified there was a pending motion to
move $375,000 to ATIA.
Representative Johnson WITHDREW the conceptual amendment.
Representative Allard asked how much revenue the state
would lose if the cabins were not built. She wondered how
much money the cabins would generate. She estimated it
would likely be about $75 to $100 per night [per cabin].
Co-Chair Josephson suspected her estimate was about right,
but he did not know.
Co-Chair Schrage noted that he had contacted a lifeline,
but he did not know whether he would have the answer within
the next several minutes.
Representative Allard thought it was a fair question and
she needed thorough clarification.
Co-Chair Josephson replied that the amendments had been
published for over a week. He stated it was not unheard of
to go to the source, but he did not take issue with
Representative Allard's estimate of $75 to $100 per night
for a cabin rental based on his life experience.
11:20:37 AM
Representative Galvin highlighted that Alaska had about
$1.2 million visitors per year and during the COVID-19
pandemic, the gap had been filled by independent travelers.
She added that there were travelers including cruise ship
travelers coming into the parks. She stated it was not just
about $5 here and there.
Representative Tomaszewski wanted to clarify the intent of
the amendments. He asked if the intent of the amendments
was to hire three permanent full-time, part-time, or
temporary positions.
Co-Chair Josephson answered that the intent was to hire
three permanent part-time positions.
Representative Stapp clarified that the allocation in the
amendment was in the services line. He did not know how it
was possible to hire people in a services line
appropriation. He suggested asking Mr. Painter. He had
never seen personnel hired within a services line as
opposed to a personal services line appropriation.
Mr. Painter replied that Amendment 77 removed funding from
the personal services line. He believed the funding should
be removed from the commodities line because the underlying
addition of the funds was on the commodities line. He
believed Amendment 78 should add money to the personal
services line instead of services. He relayed that LFD
could either stretch its technical and conforming powers to
create clarification [in the budget] or a conceptual
amendment could be offered.
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment to
have the decrement in Amendment 77 moved to the commodities
line and with an addition to personal services rather than
services in Amendment 78.
Representative Johnson asked for clarification on the
conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that the decrement in
Amendment 77 would come from commodities and the addition
would come from personal services in Amendment 78.
There being NO OBJECTION, the conceptual amendment was
ADOPTED.
Representative Tomaszewski remarked that Mr. Painter had
stated that vehicle rental tax dollars were supposed to go
towards tourism. He understood that somewhere along the
line the legislature had stretched its statutorial
authority and used precedent to make the motion to use the
fund for something other than what it was specifically
designated for. He could not support the amendments on
those grounds alone. He thought the legislature should
follow statutory authority.
Representative Allard highlighted that if a cabin generated
$75 [per night], it would bring in $1.9 million annually
for 70 cabins. She calculated that if only 45 of the cabins
were rented out annually, it resulted in about $985,000.
She underscored that the cabins could fund whatever else
DNR decided they needed to. She asked members to vote
against the amendments.
11:26:06 AM
Co-Chair Josephson provided wrap up on bundled Amendments
77 and 78. He aligned himself with Representative Hannan's
comment. He stated there were also fee opportunities from
managing parks rather than having self-pay fee stations.
Additionally, there were issues of cleaning up trash left
by tourists and burdening cities with the management of
state facilities in Valdez. He stressed that the Chugach
State Park was a notoriously undermanned park. He noted it
was a massive park with about two rangers. He stated that
access and management issues arose repeatedly. He relayed
that Representative Julie Coulombe had been a leader in
helping to fund Chugach State Park. He had met with the
City of Valdez, and they made an exceptional case.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Josephson
OPPOSED: Allard, Tomaszewski, Bynum, Johnson, Jimmie,
Stapp, Galvin, Foster, Schrage
The MOTION to adopt bundled Amendments 77 and 78 as amended
FAILED (2/9).
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Josephson noted they were leaving off on Amendment
80. He reviewed the schedule for the afternoon meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|