Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/12/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB69 || HB71 | |
| Presentation: American Rescue Plan (arp) Overview by Council of State Governments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 69
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; 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. 71
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making
supplemental appropriations; and providing for an
effective date."
1:33:43 PM
^PRESENTATION: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (ARP) OVERVIEW BY
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
1:34:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated the meeting was the third on the
topic of ARP funding. He thanked the presenters for being
available. He indicated Representative Wool had joined the
meeting.
SARAH NEEDLER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, THE COUNCIL OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS (via teleconference), introduced herself and
provided a brief background. The Council of State
Governments (CSG) was a non-partisan membership
organization that represented state governments. The
organization primarily worked with legislators, legislative
staff, governor staff, and executive cabinets to promote
excellence in state government through policy research and
by convening its members to share ideas. As the director of
research, she ensured that that the entity's policy
analysis had technical assistance and was evidence
informed. She was before the committee to share the
research CSG conducted on federal funding for the state.
She deferred to Christina to introduce herself.
1:36:59 PM
CHRISTINA GORDLEY, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE COUNCIL OF
STATE GOVERNMENTS (via teleconference), introduced herself.
In addition to the fiscal and budgetary team she was a
member of the workforce development and disability
employment policy team. She noted she had enjoyed working
with the Alaska Work Matters Task Force that was led by
Duane Mayes and Kristin Vandagriff. Prior to joining CSG
she worked as a policy and budget analyst in the Kentucky
Governor's Office for over 15 years.
Ms. Needler introduced the PowerPoint presentation:
"American Rescue Plan (ARP) Overview." She was asked to
present on the American Rescue Pan (ARP) and funds going to
Alaska as part of the plan. She was aware that in the prior
week the committee had heard from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and the Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
who did an excellent job of sharing the details of the
funding breakdown of the ARP. From her experience working
with all 50 states and U.S. territories, she could report
that Alaska was ahead of several states in preparing for
the receipt and utilization of the funds coming to the
state as part of the ARP. Even though many questions
remained about the details of the ARP as the state was
awaiting further guidance, she would focus the presentation
on what she knew so far.
Ms. Needler reviewed the presentation overview on slide 2.
She would share about the impact of Covid-19. She would
provide an overview of the ARP and talk a bit about the
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. She would also talk
about the Elementary and Secondary School emergency Relief
(ESSER) Fund. Kristina would share some of the approaches
to the ARP fund utilization from other states as well as
lessons learned from previous federal funding to states.
Ms. Needler turned to slide 3 to discuss the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on state government. She reported that
CSG had conducted significant analysis of the impact of
COVID-19 on all 50 states along with how state had
responded to the pandemic. In one of the analyses the
council looked at the fiscal risk and the fiscal resiliency
of all 50 states. The council found that Alaska had a
medium level of fiscal risk and a high level of fiscal
resiliency. The counsel wanted to take the opportunity to
commend Alaska for the high level of fiscal resiliency
which had been apparent in Alaska's ability to handle the
fiscal impact of Covid-19.
Ms. Needler continued that furthermore CSG had also
conducted analyses of responses to the pandemic including
vaccination rate. In the council's research on vaccine
dissemination with Covid, it found that Alaska had
responded very quickly and efficiently by administering
Covid-19 vaccinations to its population. As of April 9,
2021, over 25 percent of Alaska's total population had
received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The
council also found that Alaska had both online scheduling
tools as well as a hotline and that Alaska was the best
performing state in terms of percentages of vaccines
received that were administered. All of the information was
published in a report which she was happy to share with
members.
1:40:51 PM
Ms. Needler moved to slide 4: "The American Rescue Plan
(ARP)." She indicated that as members heard from the
presentations in the previous week from OMB and LFD ARP
funds would be disbursed to Alaska through several
allocations. Some of the funds would require a state
appropriation and some would not. Slide 4 showed how the
funds were divided. In the presentation she would focus on
the four largest funds requiring stat appropriation. The
four funds included the state fiscal recovery Fund, the
local fiscal recovery fund, the capital projects fund, and
funds going to Department of Education and Early
Development. She reported that CSG had conducted some
analyses on these elements so far and would continue to
conduct analyses on other parts of the plan which she would
review in the presentation.
Ms. Needler turned to slide 5 to discuss state and local
fiscal recovery funds. It was estimated that Alaska would
see approximately $1.36 billion total for the state and
local fiscal recovery fund plus capital projects. A little
over $1 billion of the funds would go to the State of
Alaska. Approximately $45 million would be directly
allocated to Anchorage and about $43.5 million would go to
all other cities throughout the state. She relayed that
approximately $141.8 million would be allocated directly to
boroughs and census areas and $112.2 million would go to
the State of Alaska for the capital projects fund. She
added that the treasury would establish a process for
applying for capital project fund grants by May 10th. These
funds would be available for critical capital projects that
directly enabled work, education, and health monitoring
including remote options in response to the Covid-19 public
health crisis. She noted that although it was not included
on the slide, there was an additional $400 million that
would also be directly allocated to tribes each would
receive $1.7 million.
Representative Wool asked Ms. Needler to define the term,
"other non-counties." Ms. Needler asked if Representative
Wool was referring to the $141 million.
Representative Wool clarified the figure of $43.5 million.
Ms. Needler replied that the funds would be given to other
cities in the state.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Rasmussen was
online and listening in.
1:44:02 PM
Ms. Needler continued to slide 6 to review the usage of
state and local fiscal recovery funds. She pointed out that
the bill provided limited direction on what the
expenditures would be eligible for as part of the state and
local fiscal recovery funds. It did allow for the use of
the funds for a few specific things outlined on the slide.
The funds could be utilized to respond to public health
emergencies with respect to Covid-19 or its negative
economic impact including assistance to households, small
businesses, or non-profits. It could also be used to aid
impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and
hospitality.
Ms. Needler continued that the funds could also be utilized
to respond to workers performing essential work during the
Covid-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay
to eligible workers who were performing essential work or
by providing grants to eligible employers who had eligible
workers to perform essential work. The funds could also be
used to provide government services to the extent of the
reduction in revenue. It could be online property or income
tax de to the public health emergency relative to the
revenues collected in the most recent fiscal year prior to
the emergency. The funds could also be used for making
necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband
infrastructure.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there was a national definition
of "Essential Workers." He asked for clarification. Ms.
Needler indicated there were some guidance related to his
question. She would have to get back to the committee. She
asked Kristina to find the information while she continued
with the presentation.
Representative LeBon thought slide 6 defined the usage for
state and local governments. He wondered if there were any
sidebars for the use of funds for tribes. Ms. Needler had
not looked at the information yet but could get it for the
committee.
1:47:12 PM
Ms. Needler advanced to slide 7 regarding the restrictions
associated with state and local fiscal recovery funds.
There were restrictions on how the funds could be utilized.
She highlighted states were not allowed to use funds to
either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net
tax revenue that resulted from a change in law, regulation,
or administrative interpretation during the covered period
that reduced any tax. No funds were to be deposited into
any pension fund. There was also a limitation placed on the
premium pay for eligible workers. It was limited to $25,000
for any single eligible worker receiving premium pay.
Co-Chair Foster pointed out that sidebars for spending by
the tribes would be addressed in a presentation by the
Alaska Federation of Natives on tribal ARP funding on
Wednesday, April 14, 2021, at 1:30 pm for the House Finance
Committee.
Representative Edgmon asked if the information the
presenter was providing was what she knew from the
legislation itself. He wondered if he was accurate. Ms.
Needler responded, "That's correct."
Representative Edgmon had been told to expect guidelines
from the U.S. Treasury Department on or about May 10, 2021.
He thought what was being presented in the current meeting
was from a high-level view that he thought engendered more
questions than answers. He asked what Ms. Needler's
confidence level was that the state would receive
guidelines on May 10th that might be able to adequately
answer many of the questions the state had. Ms. Needler
replied that CSG had been in touch with the U.S. Treasury
as well as other member associations that had submitted
several questions to the treasury to get further guidance.
She was hopeful that many of the questions would get
answered once the guidance was released on May 10th.
1:50:18 PM
Ms. Needler indicated that the slide touched on a few
points regarding the administration of the federal funds.
The funds would be distributed with a spending deadline of
December 31, 2024. The treasury was required to pay the
first installment by May 10, 2021. The second would follow
at least 12 months after the first disbursement. She noted
that the ARP had allocated about $77 million for the
Government Accountability Office and $40 million for the
Pandemic Response and Accountability Committee to promote
transparency, accountability, and oversight of the plan.
Representative LeBon had a question about the 2 payment
installments. He wondered if the installments were of equal
value. Ms. Needler would have to get back to the committee.
Representative LeBon commented that it would be important
information to be aware of. Co-Chair Foster shared that his
understanding was that the funds could be released in 2
tranches depending on what a state's unemployment rate.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether the third bullet on slide 8
was a definitive statement regarding two payments. Ms.
Needler confirmed that the bill stated that the monies
would arrive in two payments.
Representative Edgmon asked what was known about states
having to apply for the funds. Ms. Needler did not know any
other details than she was currently presenting.
Ms. Needler returned to the definition of an essential
worker. In the bill essential workers were defined a
workers needed to maintain continuity of operations of
essential critical infrastructure sectors and additional
sectors as each chief executive officer of a metropolitan
city, non-entitlement unit of local government or county
may designate as critical to protect the health and
wellbeing of the residents of their metropolitan city non-
entitlement unit of local government or county. She
commented that the definition of an essential worker
remained unclear. She thought perhaps the U.S. Treasury
would provide further guidance.
Ms. Needler advanced to slide 9: "State Authority to
Utilize Funds." much of the information on the slide had
been presented in the prior week. In terms of the
utilization of the fund, it remained unclear how the funds
could be used. However, there was some guidance in the bill
on how the funding could be distributed to local
governments. Some of that information was on the slide. She
noted that if state payments were not paid within 120 days,
any unpaid amounts would become state debt owed to the
government and would come out of the state recovery fund
distribution.
1:55:06 PM
Ms. Needler discussed reporting requirements and
certification and recoupment on slide 10. There were a few
reporting requirements related to the AFP Act. States were
required to report how funds were used and how tax revenue
was modified during the time that funds were spent during
the covered period. The period began March 3, 2021 and
ended on the last day of the fiscal year. A state or local
government had either spent or returned all funds to the
U.S. Treasury. If a state, county, or municipality did not
comply with any provisions of the ARP, it would be required
to repay the U.S. Treasury and equal to the funds used in
violation. She concluded the section of the presentation of
the state and local recovery fund. She would transition to
the subject of education. She asked if members had any
questions.
Representative Wool stated that there was a significant
amount of discussion about tax revenues being modified. He
thought there was a presumption that if governments were to
lower their taxes resulting in less revenues, revenues
could be made up with federal dollars. However, Alaska did
not have a statewide tax, and would have trouble
implementing the idea. He suggested raising the motor fuel
tax. He thought the idea was counter to what the federal
government intended. He asked her to comment. Ms. Needler
replied that she could not provide a firm answer. There
were several questions regarding the federal funding,
particularly around tax rates. She indicated CGS had
submitted questions to the U.S. Treasury and was awaiting
clarification through the guidance that was expected to be
released soon.
Representative Wool asked if she agreed that much of the
language was being used to prevent taxes being lowered and
subsequently back-filled with federal funding. He asked if
his statement was fair. Ms. Needler responded, "Yes." in
the affirmative.
Ms. Needler would talk about education funding beginning on
slide 11: "The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency
Relief (ESSER) Fund." She explained that the state, local,
and fiscal recovery funding along with the capital projects
funding was the largest source of funding going to the
government for state appropriation. She also noted there
was additional funding that was allocated to state
agencies. The largest portion of that funding would be
going to the Department of Education and Early development
(DEED). She would provide an overview of that funding.
Ms. Needler relayed that there was a total of $358 million
that would be going to DEED in FY 21. The largest chunk of
the funding, 90 percent or $322.8 million, would be
allocated for Alaska local education agencies. The
remaining $35 million would be allocated to DEED. The
amount would need to be split out for specific activities
assigned in the ARP. The distribution was shown on slide
11. She reported that approximately 5 percent or $18
million would need to be allocated to address learning
costs as a result of the pandemic. About 1 percent or
$3.6 million would be directed to summer enrichment
activities. another 1 percent or $3.6 million would be
dedicated toe after school programs. She continued that 2.5
percent or $9 million would be used for other activities
not defined in the bill. An additional .5 percent or
$1.8 million would be dedicated to administration
activities.
2:00:21 PM
Representative Wool asked about the 90 percent going out to
the local education agencies. He had heard that the
distribution was based on the population of Title 1
students in a district. He asked if she could verify the
information. Ms. Needler would have to get back to the
committee.
Ms. Needler reviewed the requirements associated with the
ESSER Fund on slide 12. One of the requirements was that
states maintain support for elementary education in FY 22
and FY 23 at least to the proportional level of support for
elementary and secondary education relative to overall
spending. She clarified that it was based on the average
for FY 17, FY 18, and FY 19. The requirements also
specified that any funds a state did not award within 1
year of receipt would have to be returned to the secretary
for reallocation. She turned the presentation over to
Kristina.
Representative LeBon referred to slide 12. He mentioned the
education component citing elementary and secondary
education and average spending from FY 17 through FY 19. He
wondered how higher education would be treated,
specifically the University of Alaska. Ms. Needler
responded that the ESSER funding was only dedicated for
elementary and secondary education. There was separate
funding for higher education in the bill. However, she had
not included it in the presentation.
Representative Edgmon suggested that the fiscal years on
slide 12 applied to individual states' fiscal years and not
the federal fiscal year. [Ms. Needler nodded.]
Ms. Gordley continued to slide 13: "Approaches to ARP Fund
Utilization." She would talk about different approaches to
ARP fund utilization, some trends CGS had seen that states
were looking at, and approaches seen in the past.
Ms. Gordley relayed that the first approach was investment
in infrastructure. It was not as exciting as pilot projects
or handing out money directly to people. However, the
basics of water, sewer, power, and data systems were vital
to government. Due to budgetary constraints, states often
deferred maintenance. The federal stimulus money would
provide the opportunity to remove those band aids of piece-
meal repairs through the years a fully look at the design
for a wholistic approach. Released today, the White House
provided individual report cards for states and their
infrastructure as part of the background for the proposed
American Jobs Plan. She indicated a report for the need of
road and bridges, public transportation, water
infrastructure, and broadband among other items of
infrastructure.
Ms. Gordley continued that another item that CSG saw
trending with states was workforce development. It was an
opportunity for states to examine the future of their
workforce, the new demands for job seekers, and how the
states could elevate and upscale their constituents.
Currently, there was a great push for apprenticeships and a
focus on green jobs by the U.S. Department of Labor. Alaska
could align itself for those funds and opportunities. She
added that as many state agencies and businesses were
forced into remote work, states could take the opportunity
to examine what worked in telework and what did not to
enhance the appeal of public sector jobs and to increase
efficiency in job satisfaction.
Ms. Gordley moved to the topic of unemployment insurance.
She reported that as states experienced record-high
unemployment, there was a nationwide effect of deferred
maintenance on data systems and years of budget cuts
towards the agencies that administered the unemployment
programs. It was an opportunity to make the necessary
investments and build up the programs. States were also
faced with loans that were taken to pay for unemployment
benefits. An area of consideration that several states were
looking at was how best to utilize its funds. She posed the
question whether states should pay back the loans
immediately or space out the repayment.
Ms. Gordley review some state examples. Every state, thus
far, was approaching the use of the ARP funding
differently. Recently, Kentucky had a short legislative
session because their usual budget session would be held in
the following year. However, they had to pass a 1-year
budget which did not include any appropriation for the
stimulus funds. Instead, they used other bills to
appropriate the funds through a free conference committee.
They were able to take a bipartisan approach to allocate
the ARP funding on priority items such as the repayment of
the unemployment insurance loan, high speed internet
infrastructure, K-12 school construction, vocational school
renovations, rural hospitals, and upgrades to water and
sewer.
Ms. Gordley presented another state example. Utah was a
good place with steady revenue and low unemployment. The
legislature passed the annual budget but did not include
any ARP funding, as there were too many unknowns. A special
session would have to be held after the May 10th federal
guidelines were released. New York was another state that
recently passed their budget. Instead of handling the ARP
separately, they wove the funds directly into their
biannual budget. They were implementing some pilot programs
that were targeted towards the Covid-19 response such as
returning to work, the tourism industry, and one-time
programing.
2:07:48 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about investing in infrastructure.
He had asked a previous presenter about spending the ARP
funding on deferred maintenance. Although that presenter
did not know specifically about deferred maintenance, they
indicated spending had to be tied to COVID. He wondered if
her understanding was that the ARP funding did not need to
be tied to Covid impacts. Ms. Gordley responded that that
was her understanding. She would double check and get back
to the committee.
Representative Edgmon thought slide 13 was a departure from
the earlier slides in that there seemed to be a direct tie
to public health emergencies and requirements for use
similar to the CARES Act funding stipulations. However, the
current slide listed different categories and alternative
ways to use the funding. He asked if he was accurate in his
assessment that the first 12 slides of the presentation and
the emphasis on public health emergencies dealt more with
the state fiscal recovery plan and the local fiscal
recovery plans. Whereas the remaining portion of the
presentation dealt with the capital projects fund which was
$112 million. He asked for clarification.
Ms. Gordley replied that Ms. Needler had been reporting
more on the actual findings for the bill. Ms. Gordley had
was taking a stance on what states had been doing. In the
following slide she would be discussing things that had
been done in the past, things to avoid, and things to
consider.
Representative Edgmon asked if the presenters had reached
the portion of the presentation dealing with the capital
budget. Ms. Gordley indicated that she had not separated
the money. Representative Edgmon asked about the capital
project monies and whether the funding had to somehow tie
into public health emergencies. Ms. Gordley invited Ms.
Needler to comment.
Ms. Needler was hoping to get clarification through the
U.S. Treasury's guidance of how and to what extent the
funds needed to be linked to the pandemic.
Representative Edgmon was raising the issue because until
the state received U.S. Treasury guidelines, it was very
difficult for any state to appropriate the ARP funding
because of a lack of specifics. He wanted the state to be
able to use the money in a way such that it would not have
to pay it back. He asked if he was correct.
Ms. Gordley replied that that there were several unknowns.
She was reluctant to respond because after the passage of
the CARES Act, states had asked for flexibility in the use
of those funds. The CARES Act had several restrictions and
many detailed line items. The U.S. Treasury provided
significant flexibility without many rules. States were
currently in a waiting period [regarding ARP guidelines]
which was nearly as frustrating.
2:14:29 PM
Representative Edgmon heard that some state legislatures
were already putting their budgets together prior to having
the money or the guidelines around ARP funding. He opined
that it was putting the cart ahead of the horse. He
wondered why the State of Alaska was not doing the same. He
asked if other states were doing so.
Ms. Gordley replied that the three states she had mentioned
passed their budgets because of a constitutional deadline.
A couple of legislatures were on opposite years of the
normal budget cycle. They budgeted in even years. She
suggested several states were using the information they
knew to budget. However, there were several proposals in
process at the legislative level using the ARP funding. She
also reported several other states that were hesitating and
waiting for further guidance.
Representative Wool asked how and why other states were
able to produce their budgets without the federal
guidelines. He wondered why some states were producing a
budget and some were not. Ms. Gordley opined that much of
it depended on where the state was going into the pandemic.
If looking at the stability of the budget prior, a state
might have to utilize the funds earlier than other states.
Alaska had the Permanent Fund as a rainy-day fund, and Utah
had a huge budget reserve fund similar to Alaska.
Therefore, there was not as much of an urgency as with
other states. Every state was approaching the issue
differently.
2:18:36 PM
Ms. Gordley moved to slide 14 to discuss the lessons
learned from previous federal stimulus funding. She
suggested that when planning states should remember that
the stimulus money was a one-time infusion of funds. In the
budgeting world there was always a concern of making
recuring expenditures funded with non-recurring revenue.
Unfortunately, some states experienced this in the Great
Recession and the stimulus funding from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As states
implemented programs to revitalize local economies and meet
the needs of the states, they brought on full-time
employees and added ongoing costs. Suddenly, in two years
they experienced "the cliff," states were responsible for
continuing those programs without adequate funding. States
had to decide whether to continue the programs.
Ms. Gordley noted there was preparation for reporting
requirements. She was certain the state budget office and
the legislative finance committees were prepared after the
CARES Act. The state would continue to monitor and report
how it was handling the funding either with a task force or
committees. Using the lessons from 2009, simple accounting
functions set up in advance and careful thought beforehand
would be helpful. She also recommended making sure any
needed information could be pulled easily. She was aware of
different reporting requirements which would require
additional thought about how the state set up the
applicable programs and accounting.
Ms. Gordley moved to the next bullet on slide 14 having to
do with backfilling budgets versus investments in the
future. She suggested that if cuts had been implemented or
if there were savings through attrition, it was easy to
continue those efficiencies. That savings could be used for
new programs or areas. However, there was a delicate
balance in choosing what to backfill. It took until 2019
for states to return to pre-2008 employment levels and
service levels because of the cuts made in 2008. It was
easy to roll with efficiencies already in place, but
something for states to continue considering. Similar to
the public sector supports, she suggested thinking about
ways state governments could provide those supporting
functions to ensure they were available.
Ms. Gordley turned to slide 15: "Additional CSG Resources."
She rereported that CSG had conducted the following
analysis which she provided to members: ARP funding for
employers and K-12 education, and an overview of the
American Jobs Plan Proposal. In-progress analysis included
analysis based on themes like industries, workers,
infrastructure, housing, nutritional assistance, and
information technology. She indicated that currently, based
on policy shops and grant funded areas of research within
CSG, they would explore the implications of ARP funding and
opportunities to address items like disability employment,
apprenticeships, civics, occupational licensure, food and
nutrition, vaccine dissemination, and mental health. Soon
there would be weekly updates on state ARP funds
utilization and oversight. As CSG received information,
they would be sending out summaries of federal guidance and
any new federal funding bills.
Ms. Gordley turned to the contact slide at the end of the
presentation. She indicated that additional information
could be found on CSG's website.
Co-Chair Foster reported that the presentation was the
third regarding the ARP funding attempting to shed light on
the anticipated guidelines to be released in May 2021.
2:24:36 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about learning loss. He wondered if
there would be certain assumptions made or whether
documented learning loss would be required to expend funds.
Ms. Gordley responded that it was not specified in the bill
at present.
Representative Wool asked about maintenance of effort. Ms.
Gordley had touched on the issue as it related to K-12. He
had heard it was the aggregate of K-12 and higher
education, and the maintenance of effort had to be met in a
combined way in order to receive funding. He asked Ms.
Needler to verify the claim.
Ms. Needler replied that she was uncertain, as CSG had only
been looking at K-12. She indicated that from what she had
seen for the K-12 funding, the maintenance of effort
applied directly to the funds for elementary and secondary
education. She thought the maintenance of effort would be
applied separately. However, she was not certain.
Representative Wool commented that it made more sense that
K-12 and higher education would be looked at separately.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the presenters and relayed the
agenda for the following meeting on Tuesday, April 13,
2021, at 9:00 a.m.
HB 69 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 71 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSG Analysis of the American Rescue Plan - Employers041221.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN CSG ARP Presentation |
| CSG Analysis of the American Jobs Plan041221.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN CSG ARP Presentation |
| CSG Analysis of the American Rescue Plan - K-12 Education041221.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN CSG ARP Presentation |
| CSG Analysis of the American Rescue Plan - State and Local Recovery Fund041221.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN CSG ARP Presentation |
| CSG_ARP_Alaska House Finance Comm 041221.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN CSG ARP Presentation |
| CSG ARP HFIN Response to Q 041521.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |