Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/02/2024 10:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 270 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making capital 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. 270
"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."
^AMENDMENTS
10:32:55 AM
Co-Chair Johnson relayed that the committee left off on
Amendment N 58.
Representative Josephson requested to offer Amendment N 58
after Amendment N 59. He explained that the two amendments
were almost identical except that Amendment N 58 was a one-
time increment. He thought it made sense to consider
Amendment N 59 first.
Co-Chair Johnson did not want to start rearranging the
amendment order. She asked for verification that
Representative Josephson was not withdrawing the one-time
increment amendment.
Representative Josephson agreed.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if Amendment N 59 would add funding
to the base budget.
Representative Josephson agreed.
10:34:57 AM
AT EASE
10:37:30 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson would not offer Amendment N 58
(copy on file) at the present time.
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 59 (copy
on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Public Assistance
Allocation: Child Care Benefits
Transaction Details
Title: Child Care Grant Program Funding for Place-
based and Home-based Child Care Centers
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 15,000.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 15,000.0
Explanation
It is the intent of the Legislature to help provide
direct operating grants through the Child Care Grant
Program, in the Child Care Program Office, to support
place-based and home-based childcare centers.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin explained that the amendment would
provide a $15 million increment for the Child Care Grant
Program being directed through the Child Care Program
Office. The funding could be spent on wages or operations
expenses that were reimbursed; expenditures had to be
preapproved by the state. She noted the structure was
already in place. The legislature had heard from programs
across the state that the boost in funding would be the
difference between remaining open and closing. The funding
would offer a substantial incentive to increase capacity
and hire more teachers and boost wages to retain quality
educators. She reported that childcare centers in
Dillingham and Ketchikan had closed within the past couple
of weeks partly due to lack of support. She detailed that
Ketchikan had lost about half of its programs. She
referenced a letter of support with signatures from
Anchorage, Nome, Dillingham, Ketchikan (copy on file). She
elaborated that more than 50 Alaskans had testified in
support of the funding.
Representative Galvin stated that the increment in the
amendment went to the base budget. She explained that
adding and removing one-time funding year after year made
it more difficult for childcare facilities to pass on the
benefits of the increases to providers. She elaborated that
facilities did not want to increase compensation for
providers and then cut them the following year. She
stressed it made it very difficult to recruit and retain
employees. She reported that the average childcare salary
was less than $15 statewide. She emphasized that it was
something that had to be considered in order to show that
childcare was a priority to hold up the state's economy,
support families, and keep families in Alaska. The
amendment supported whole communities where children
received safe and comfortable childcare. She stated that
childcare providers should be able to access meaningful
increases in compensation for the important services they
provided. She explained that parents would get to feel
trust that their children would be well taken care of and
both parents would be able to work. She stated that
communities would get more solvent; small businesses could
take care of themselves. She emphasized that it was an
important workforce amendment.
Representative Galvin detailed that the funding would be
added in the base budget because Alaska small business
owners need predictability. The legislature had heard from
numerous chamber organizations and the Alaska Chamber that
workforce development equaled childcare. The amendment
provided intent language specifying childcare providers
were the target of the funding. She explained that the
intent language would empower State of Alaska employees to
structure the grants to ensure they supported providers
doing their work. The amendment would amplify the benefit
of HB 89. She stated that without additional direct
support, childcare providers may close their doors or limit
spots available to families. The amendment would add $15
million for the state's 50,000 children from the age of
zero to five. She noted that $2.1 million went to Juneau,
which accounted for 4 percent of the population. She stated
there was no longer a waitlist in Juneau and its providers
were paid $18 per hour. She stated the amendment combined
with HB 89 would put the state on a path to solve the
problem. She urged members' support.
10:44:48 AM
Representative Coulombe MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
1 to change the amount to a one-time increment of $7.5
million.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Coulombe explained the conceptual amendment.
She relayed that she had been on the childcare taskforce;
she was very aware of all of the issues and had put a bill
forward. She noted there were a couple of amendments
related to childcare. She explained that big childcare
block grants had not been effective in keeping childcare
centers open. She stressed that $95 million had been
received in Alaska for childcare during the COVID-19
pandemic and the state still lost half the childcare
centers. She stated it was the reason she had introduced a
bill that would target certain things to uplift the
industry. She detailed that the tax exemptions and the
subsidy rate for families were targeted. She highlighted
that childcare grants were not always going to wages. She
expounded that the funds also went to things like repairing
rooves, buying vans, and paying for equipment. She did not
support subsidized wages. She believed the process for
opening a childcare center needed to be streamlined and
centers needed to be able to stand on their own. She would
support the $7.5 million as a one-time increment in the
current year because she believed that combined with HB 89
and some other initiatives from the department, there would
be improvements in the childcare industry. She struggled
with the department and the nonprofit giving the grants out
because it took the entities a year to get the grants out.
She emphasized that they sat on the money for too long, not
on purpose, but due to red tape. She highlighted that the
$7.5 million approved by the legislature the previous year
was just now going out. She believed the distribution of
the funds needed to be more efficient and targeted. She was
very concerned about putting the funding in the base and
she did not want the industry relying on the funding. She
wanted childcare centers to be able to run without funding
for wages from the government. She supported keeping the
fund consistent for a year as changes were made and
revisiting the topic the following year.
10:48:30 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that he would not support the
conceptual amendment because he would prefer the full $15
million in the base. He elaborated that his constituents
supported the increment. He referenced the number of groups
in the letter received by the committee. He highlighted it
was a statewide issue and he believed $15 million would
make more of an impact versus $7.5 million. He supported
the underlying amendment.
Co-Chair Johnson recognized Representative Jesse Sumner in
the room.
Representative Stapp stated there was a good bill that
created a very generous tax incentive to be able to develop
more childcare facilities. He remarked that employees of
childcare companies should have access to section 125
dependent care benefits that allowed employees to put aside
up to $5,500 out of their paycheck pre-tax to pay for
childcare benefits. He believed that artificial subsidies
did not fix structural deficiencies. He noted
Representative Coulombe's statement that even with $95
million in COVID-19 funding, half of the childcare
facilities had closed. Ultimately, the problem was a high
rate of inflation and wages for most individuals had not
caught up with inflation. He stated that when wages caught
up, people would have more disposable income to be able to
pay for childcare as they did prior to the pandemic. He
thought adding money to the base to mask the symptoms of
the problem was bad policy. He would not support the
conceptual or underlying amendment.
10:50:54 AM
Representative Josephson remarked that the subject of Cook
Inlet royalty reform was on the calendar later in the week.
He considered that topic in light of previous remarks that
subsidies did not fix underlying problems. He noted they
would see whether it stood true later in the week. He was
waiting to hear further debate and was uncertain how he
would vote on the conceptual amendment. He highlighted that
North Dakota was spending $66 million with a population of
under one million people. He added that Oklahoma and Idaho
had two to four times Alaska's population but had 20 times
its investment in childcare. He had been told that
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations
Act (CRRSAA), American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding was expected to be gone by August 2024.
Representative Josephson appreciated the proposal of the
conceptual amendment, but he was concerned it did not
provide sufficient resources. He referenced page 7 of the
governor's taskforce report recommendation to create a
sustainable state funded wage subsidy for licensed care
professionals to support a living wage. He added that a
footnote specified that the inclusion of state funding was
approved by the majority of the taskforce. He considered
the argument that general fund dollars were not
sustainable. He pointed out that the budget used $4 billion
in general funds per year for all sorts of purposes
including snow removal, legislator salaries, teacher
salaries, and on and on. He remarked that general funding
seemed to sustain those items. He considered whether it was
ideal and stated, "perhaps not." He was interested in
hearing more debate on the amendment.
Co-Chair Edgmon would support conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 59. He viewed the funding as in conjunction
with HB 89 offered by Representative Coulombe. He knew from
conversations with childcare providers, and various
community chambers that the need to increase childcare in
Alaska was past the point of urgency. He added that it was
also an economic development issue, and it was in the
process of being restructured. He stated that one-time
funding in the FY 25 budget would help move the direction
of the governor's taskforce. He noted that the taskforce
had not yet completed its report, but it had provided an
initial report earlier in session. He hoped that in the
future, it would be clear that the legislature had done its
part in helping childcare workers to be paid on par with
jobs at retailers such as Walmart. He saw it as a first
step in a larger journey and it would cost the state a
little money. He did not know whether the underlying
amendment would get the committee support; therefore, he
would support the conceptual amendment.
10:55:07 AM
Representative Ortiz remarked that two committee members
had referenced how government support for childcare centers
did not work during COVID as a reason for not supporting
the underlying amendment. He thought that COVID had
something to do with the reason people did not take their
kids to childcare centers. He thought it had a lot more to
do with centers failing than whether there was or was not
government support being provided.
Co-Chair Johnson noted that the maker of the amendment
would have the opportunity to answer the question during
wrap up.
Representative Hannan requested an "at ease."
10:56:26 AM
AT EASE
11:01:25 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Hannan was a reluctant yes on the conceptual
amendment. She did not think a one-time increment of $7.5
million was enough, but she was a pragmatist and believed
it was the amount that could be agreed upon by the
committee.
Representative Galvin relayed that there was a lot of
research as to why daycares and schools lost enrollment
during COVID. She stated it made it a very difficult
dataset to work with to say that federal funds caused
daycare centers to close. She did not believe any
researcher would say that was true. She highlighted that
legislators heard from nonprofits, departments, and
agencies that it was very difficult to recruit and retain
employees with grant funding (particularly one-time
increments). She elaborated that many of those businesses
were forced to not use the funding accordingly. While she
was pleased to see there was some will within the committee
to support childcare, she was saddened that it was a
smaller increment than what she believed was needed. She
would be a reluctant yes to the conceptual amendment
because she thought it would get to the support that was
politically viable. She stated it was important to look at
an increment as a positive move in the right direction for
children.
Representative Josephson requested to ask Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) Director Alexei Painter about the
governor's request related to childcare in his December 15
and February 15 budgets.
11:05:17 AM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that there was a $7.5 million on-time general
fund item in the FY 24 budget. The item had been removed
from the adjusted base and the governor did not put it
back.
Representative Josephson understood that the federal
government was giving Alaska $31 million for childcare
based on a pro rata formula. He asked for verification that
the governor did not offer any childcare funding in any of
the iterations of his budget.
Mr. Painter answered that the governor did not include
anything additional above the funding in the base. He noted
there were some general funds in the budget. He believed
there were two main sources of federal funding including
childcare block grants that required state maintenance of
effort and some Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) funds. The $7.5 million the previous year was an
additional general fund amount that was not replicated in
the FY 25 budget.
Representative Josephson asked about the state's investment
in the TANF and childcare block grant match.
Mr. Painter responded that he did not remember the exact
amounts of undesignated general funds (UGF) in the specific
allocation. He believed the total funding for childcare was
about $40 million and about $31 million of the total was
federal funding. He did not know the split of the remaining
funding.
Co-Chair Johnson referenced Medicaid and state funding for
long-term care. She knew there was an ombudsman to ensure
that the money was being spent well and that the facilities
were run in the proper manner. She asked what kind of
oversight the state provided for childcare centers.
Mr. Painter responded that he did not know the specifics.
He offered to follow up with the information.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if Mr. Painter was aware of any
funding the state put towards oversight.
Mr. Painter answered that he was not aware of it, but it
did not mean it did not exist.
11:08:17 AM
Representative Coulombe provided wrap up on conceptual
Amendment 1. She clarified that she did not intend to
indicate that the federal money caused the closure of
childcare centers. She did not believe that was the case.
She believed the situation during the pandemic was unique
and the funding was an attempt to keep centers open. She
stated that because there were less children, there was
less revenue. The federal funding was an attempt for
childcare centers to be able to pay employees; however, it
was not always what had happened. She elaborated that most
of the childcare centers she had visited had opened fairly
quickly after COVID. She detailed that many times the
centers did not generally pay the wages for people they did
not need. She noted the business decisions were tough in
those environments. She agreed that one-time funding was
not something businesses could depend on. She remarked that
the childcare taskforce had recommended subsidized wages.
She highlighted that she and another member had vocalized
opposition to the recommendation, and she had not voted for
it; however, the majority of the taskforce members had
voted in favor of the recommendation. She thought there
were many issues when businesses started relying on UGF to
pay their employees. She believed there were other ways to
solve the problem.
11:10:34 AM
Representative Cronk WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 59 was ADOPTED.
11:11:06 AM
Co-Chair Johnson recognized Representative Zack Fields in
the room.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment N 59. He remarked it was clearly the will of
the majority of the committee to add $7.5 million. He
wondered how the item would be paid for. The conceptual
amendment would take $7.5 million from the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) and put it into the general fund to pay for
the line item.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Representative Stapp remarked that some of the things the
budget spent money on were certainly valid and had good
utility; however, he believed the committee should probably
tell people where it was going to get the money to spend
$7.5 million. He thought it was important to acknowledge
that if more spending items were added to the budget, it
would be necessary to take the money from somewhere in
order to balance the budget. He stated the money would be
taken out of the PFD. He thought the committee should have
the discussion.
Representative Coulombe had the same approach to the
budget, which was the reason she had offered a $44 million
decrement at the start of the amendment process to reduce
department operations. She highlighted that she had reduced
$6 million in one subcommittee to try to reduce department
operations, but she was not getting support for that. She
did not agree that the funding would come out of the PFD.
She thought the funds should come from a shift from certain
areas to areas the committee wanted to prioritize. She
considered that maybe she needed to revisit that amendment
at the end of the amendment process because she agreed the
committee was adding to the budget. She noted she had more
amendments with more department reductions. She stated that
if the reductions were not being approved, she could not
sit back and do nothing because no one would cut department
operations. She did not support conceptual Amendment 2
because she believed the money should come from the
departments.
11:13:57 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon was not a fan of conceptual Amendment 2. He
stated that the budget process was multiple steps with
negotiation after negotiation. He detailed that it also
involved competing interests including state operations,
capital needs, and other items. He believed making it the
PFD versus childcare centers was the wrong way to go about
budgeting. He remarked that each legislator acted on their
values and priorities and all legislators wanted the
biggest PFD possible, but legislators also wanted a
balanced budget and to meet the public services the state
was constitutionally required to provide. He would vote
against the conceptual amendment.
11:14:53 AM
Representative Ortiz was opposed to conceptual Amendment 2.
He thought saying the funding would be a decrement to the
PFD was much too simplistic. He stated that the decrement
could just as easily not be going to capital expenditures
or many other areas.
Representative Galvin looked forward to discussion about
revenue and ensuring decisions were based on a long fiscal
view. She believed the legislature had a lot to do in that
area. She agreed with Co-Chair Edgmon that it was a
separate discussion that should take place. She was opposed
to the conceptual amendment.
Representative Tomaszewski was opposed to the conceptual
amendment; however, he believed anything added to the
budget was basically coming out of the PFD unless there was
a decrement elsewhere or an appropriation from another
source. He reiterated that any amendments passed by the
committee would come directly from the PFD, which was the
reason he had voted against almost all of the amendments
with an appropriation.
Co-Chair Johnson appreciated the statement by
Representative Stapp because it was transparent and
probably factual.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment N 59. He would like to see a decrement of $7.5
million elsewhere if the committee was going to add $7.5
million to the budget. He was interested to hear where the
money would come from if it would not be taken from the
PFD.
11:18:12 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment N 59 to add intent language to ask the department
to provide the legislature with a report on childcare
centers and how the state was providing oversight. She
shared that as a working mother with five children she had
plenty of experience with childcare and schools. She knew
how difficult it was to find childcare. She had not
expected the state to pay for it, but she did expect that
if something was state funded, there was state oversight.
She did not want anyone to be mistaken in thinking they
were putting their child in facility receiving state
funding and that it meant the facility had another layer of
oversight. She noted there were a number of ombudsmen
paying attention to what was happening in Alaska's long-
term care facilities and she believed it was a mistake to
provide funding without providing the oversight necessary
for children.
Representative Galvin OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Coulombe thought it was a good amendment.
She clarified that the childcare office did two inspections
per year: one scheduled and one unscheduled. She asked if
Co-Chair Johnson was looking for more oversight of the
funds or of the quality of care. She supported both.
Co-Chair Johnson reasoned that care could be considered a
number of things. As a parent she had been able to go in
and assess whether a facility was clean or safe. She stated
it had been fairly easy to see, but it was not possible to
always know. She stated that the quality of care that was
so important to her was who had access to her child and
what kind of people were being hired. She stated that
considered that thinking about a criminal background was
the extreme scenario. She remarked that there were all
ranges of people and there were a lot of people working in
childcare facilities who were probably not paid well and
were not necessarily trained. She wanted to ensure that
when state money was paid out to childcare facilities
someone was paying attention to the quality of people in
terms of physical safety to mental safety. She thought
anyone with a child in childcare knew exactly what she was
talking about.
11:22:15 AM
Representative Ortiz appreciated the intent of the
conceptual amendment. He wondered if the intent language
would result in additional cost or eat into the $7.5
million.
Co-Chair Johnson responded that the conceptual amendment
was intent language asking the department to deliver a
report to the legislature on the oversight it provided for
the money expended. She did not anticipate there being a
reduction from the funding in Amendment N 59. She thought
it was very important to let the public know the
legislature was paying attention.
Co-Chair Edgmon liked the intent language but that in terms
of its efficacy in getting the desired result he thought it
may require an audit to look at the facilities.
Co-Chair Johnson responded that the report could lead to an
audit, but she thought people needed to be paying
attention. She stated that it did not have to be an
exhaustive report on how the money was spent, but she
wanted to hear about the conditions [in facilities] and the
things that might come to someone's attention. She stated
that the legislature may be surprised with what the report
came back with, and it may be something the legislature
needed to deal with in the future. She thought that if the
state was going to provide funding to childcare it should
be done right. She highlighted that the legislature needed
to be thinking about the kids in the state and she did not
want to just hand out money without some accountability [on
the part of childcare facilities].
11:25:33 AM
Representative Hannan did not have an objection to the
intent language, but she wanted to put on the record that
the state only had oversight over licensed centers. She
noted that the legislature sometimes talked and heard
language about streamlining the process to help people get
a business operational. Some of the things included
employee background checks (civil and criminal) and
ensuring individuals had appropriate training. She
highlighted that she had represented the community of
Haines in the past and it had only one licensed childcare
center. She elaborated that the center was in a tight spot
because they received a federal grant to assist them with
providing adequate nutritious food; however, there was no
one to do the inspection and it meant they would not
receive the funding. The care center had indicated the
funding was critical for it to remain in business. She did
not think anyone who worked in the state oversight of
childcare would object. She thought they had a substantial
amount of documentation about what they did, but she stated
there was a big difference when they were talking about
licensed programs required to have health standards,
background checks, cleanliness, working sprinklers,
etcetera. She agreed that it was a good thing to have
oversight. She thought it would make it clear that the
legislature did not want just anyone to operate a childcare
facility. She wanted to make sure kids in licensed
childcare centers were kindly handled, safe, and that early
childhood education was a component.
Representative Galvin viewed the amendment as friendly. She
believed the work was about protecting children and the
amendment contained dollars spent on behalf of children.
She thought ensuring quality control made sense to her. She
shared that she had been a childcare provider in a home
childcare business in another state. Alaska had a childcare
program office with oversight. She remarked that if the
intent language led to more oversight and an audit so be
it. She supported ensuring the programs lifted children and
allowed for more readiness for kindergarten.
Representative Galvin WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment N
59 was ADOPTED.
11:29:35 AM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION to the
underlying Amendment N 59 as amended.
Representative Galvin summarized that as amended, Amendment
N 59 would add $7.5 million in one-time funding with intent
language to hear from the department on the oversight of
state dollars spent on childcare. She stated it was a first
step and the amendment did not add any more funding than
the prior year. She noted the increment was not in the
base, but it indicated the legislature cared about
childcare. She urged members' support.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Oritz, Coulombe, Galvin, Hannan, Josephson,
Edgmon, Foster, Johnson
OPPOSED: Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski
The MOTION PASSED (8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 59 was ADOPTED as amended.
11:32:29 AM
Representative Josephson WITHDREW Amendment N 60 and
Amendment N 61 (copy on file).
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 62
(copy on file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Public Assistance
Allocation: Child Care Benefits
Transaction Details
Title: Funding for Child Care Assistance Program
Recipients in Median Income Range of 85%-105%
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 203.8
Travel: 0.0
Services: 28.0
Commodities: 8.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 5,858.4
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1002 Fed Rcpts 228.1
1003 GF/Match 228.1
1004 Gen Fund 5,642.0
Explanation
HB 89 adjusts the maximum median income to receive
child care benefits from 85% to 105%. The fiscal note
produced by DOH on that portion of the bill equals the
appropriation request in this amendment. There is no
guarantee that any bill passes or does not pass, so
this request is to provide funding for families
needing child care who fall between 85% and 105%
median income.
Whether or not HB 89 passes, this amendment would
provide funding for the families within this income
range to benefit from child care assistance.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment was
somewhat similar to a previous amendment about the funding
of healthcare benefits for inmates. He believed there was
an associated $7.5 million hole in the budget that could be
fixed in conference committee. The committee had learned
that the Legislative Finance Division would remind the
conference committee of the hole. He was supportive of HB
89 [pertaining to childcare] and noted the bill had an
upcoming hearing in the Senate Health and Social Services
Committee. He noted the bill then had to go through the
Senate Finance Committee. He did not know how the bill
would be received; therefore, the amendment was meant to be
a placeholder to cover the same fiscal note represented by
HB 89. He clarified he was not asking for duplication.
11:35:14 AM
Representative Coulombe thanked Representative Josephson
for watching out for HB 89. She opposed the amendment. She
explained there was an additional subsidy in HB 89 because
of a compromise between many different sides. She detailed
that the bill included a tax exemption, pieces in the
department, and a subsidy increase. She elaborated that the
items in the bill came as a package, which was seen in the
votes on the House floor. She stated it was necessary to
work together to solve the issue. She explained that the
amendment only included subsidies to families for
childcare. She supported the item, but she preferred to
have the Senate choose whether HB 89 was a priority of the
state and not separate the increment out from all of the
pieces in the bill. She noted that the bill had an upcoming
hearing in the Senate and would go to the Senate Finance
Committee. She thought it was important that they decide
whether all of the pieces were important or if the state
was going to just continue subsidizing childcare. She
opposed the amendment for the aforementioned reasons.
Representative Stapp stated the amendment would spend
another $5.6 million with no associated decrement. He was
opposed to the amendment.
Representative Tomaszewski asked for the total percentage
of families that used childcare outside of the home. He
wondered how many families used assistance through the
state.
Representative Coulombe replied that 6 percent of the
families who could access subsidies used the subsidies. She
explained that part of the reason was that families had to
pay a copay. She elaborated that the prices had increased
very quickly, but the state copay remained the same;
therefore, families had to pay the copay plus the
additional amount. For example, if the total cost per month
was $900 and the state paid $500, the family was
responsible for the remaining $400. She elaborated that if
a family picked a childcare center that cost $1,200 to
$1,300 they had to pay the difference on top of the copay.
She explained that it had significantly reduced the number
of families accessing the subsidy.
11:39:38 AM
Representative Josephson noted that the fiscal note said 7
percent. He wanted HB 89 to become law and understood
Representative Coulombe's position about the variety of
topics in the bill. However, he believed there were
variables. For example, he had a bill in the Senate the
following day and it could be ill received; he did not
know. He stated that the amendment was a gap filler in the
event the conference committee needed it.
11:40:22 AM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 62 FAILED (5/6).
11:41:14 AM
Representative Cronk MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 63 (copy on
file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior/Disabilities Svcs Admin
Transaction Details
Title: Add Intent
Wordage Type: Intent
Linkage: Agency - Health
Wordage
It is the intent of the legislature that the
department raise the $18,500 per project cap for
environmental modifications to $40,000 per project,
exclusive of shipping costs to remote communities, and
extend the project timeline limit from 90 days to 270
days better reflect the true cost and time challenges
of providing Environmental Modifications Services (E-
Mods Program) in remote, rural areas of Alaska.
Explanation
The legislature is expressing its intent for the
department to seek and secure approval from CMS to
update its Environmental Modification Services
Conditions of Participation and related state
regulations of the Medicaid waiver environmental
modifications program to reflect the actual costs and
time constraints of projects. Any future E-Mod Program
funding will still be subject to appropriation.
Representative Coulombe OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Cronk explained the amendment that included
intent language [for the Department of Health]. He read the
intent language listed in the amendment above. He detailed
that it was an element of the independent living network
legislative priorities related to environmental
modifications for seniors and people with disabilities who
were eligible for Alaska's Medicaid waivers and who may
need a wheelchair ramp or other changes in their home to
maintain their independence. The current regulations of the
program 7 AAC 130.300 limited the amount available for home
modifications at a level that made most projects
impossible. The intent language was aimed at encouraging
the department to accelerate rewriting its regulations to
better reflect the true cost and time challenges providing
environmental modification projects to remote areas of
Alaska.
Representative Ortiz observed that the intent was to raise
the cap. He asked about the potential overall increase if
the cap was raised.
Representative Cronk did not have the overall total cost.
The intent was to make updates to enable the projects to
take place in rural Alaska.
11:43:26 AM
Representative Josephson was pleased to see the intent
language. He had received an inquiry from a member of the
public about the issue. He noted the issue was complicated
and involved many different codes a provider could use to
pay for the cost. He supported the amendment.
Representative Galvin thanked Representative Cronk for the
amendment. She had heard from many, particularly from the
Governor's Council on Disabilities, that it was a smart
investment because it would keep people home who wanted to
live independently at home. She stated it was an important
investment where small supports kept individuals from
having to move to facilities with high costs to the state
(over $80,000 per month). She stated that environmental
modifications and help with care allowed long-term Alaskans
to remain at home.
Representative Coulombe WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment
N 63.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 63 was
ADOPTED.
11:45:47 AM
Representative Cronk relayed that he would not offer
Amendment N 64 at the present time.
Representative Tomaszewski noted that Amendment N 65 had
previously been adopted.
11:46:36 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 66
(copy on file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Criminal Division
Allocation: Criminal Appeals/Special Lit
Transaction Details
Title: Reduce Funding and Positions for Investigative
Grand Jury Proceedings
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -211.4
Travel: -7.3
Services: -49.5
Commodities: -10.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: -2
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -278.2
Explanation
Retain funding for one Attorney 4 position,
eliminating Paralegal and Law Assistant positions
added to assist with Investigative Grand Jury
proceedings.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson was concerned about the increase
in citizen-led grand jury requests. He was aware that
constitutional founders included a provision on the
subject. He highlighted the O'Leary case that included the
best description of how the state's supreme court
interpreted the meaning of the specific constitutional
provision. He stated that citizens were sometimes
legitimately and sometimes conjuring up complaints about
the greater world they identified and were bringing them to
the grand jury that under one model would not be brought to
the district attorney for vetting. He remarked that the
legislature may need to look at the issue in a bill. He was
concerned that the governor had contributed to a culture
that had fomented some of the interest. He referenced a
case in Kenai and explained the concern that a months' long
investigation would ensue with boxes of documents. He
characterized it as a "grand jury run amok." He stated the
case had resulted in the indictment of a retired judge. He
noted the indictment had been tossed. He stated that when
the grand jury had issued a "true bill" it had 11 members,
which was illegal. One of the members had walked away
because they no longer wanted to participate.
Representative Josephson explained that the amendment was a
reduction in funds. He reiterated that the governor and his
administration had contributed to a culture of "this sort
of thing." He stated it was necessary to ask where it
ended. He provided a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate
what he thought the constitutional founders intended. For
example, if a grand juror was driving to grand jury and saw
toxic releases on their way to the court room and they
wondered about paint they kept seeing on the bike trail. He
elaborated that the individual could ask the Department of
Law (DOL) to investigate the status of paint releases and
whether there were statutes to enforce it. The founders did
not mean to have people conjure up "pell-mell" anything in
any area of culture or discipline they were critical of. He
explained that in part it sidetracked regular law
enforcement. The amendment acknowledged that DOL had more
work, and the budget would include funding for an attorney
as a result. He was told that only seven of the [citizen-
led grand jury] complaints had been brought. He shared that
in the past he had handled 800 cases in a year. He thought
an attorney 4 could handle and process seven cases. The
amendment was a decrement from the $502,400. He believed
what was happening was dangerous and would be distracting
for the department. He thought the legislature should not
encourage the distraction.
11:52:02 AM
Representative Stapp was struggling to connect the dots. He
looked at the declaration of rights under Article 1 of the
state's constitution and cited that "the power of grand
juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning
the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended." He
was unfamiliar with the case on the Kenai mentioned by
Representative Josephson. He stated that the state's
constitution gave powers to grand juries. The department
was asking for positions to mitigate whatever it was that
was happening. On the other hand, he liked reductions. He
stated that DOL was asking for the positions for a very
specific reason. He remarked that if it was as bad as
Representative Josephson indicated, perhaps the funds
should be provided. He was torn on the amendment.
Representative Cronk relayed that he chaired the DOL budget
subcommittee, and that the department had requested the
funding because of an increase in grand juries. He viewed
grand juries as the voice of the people. He stated it was
an option for people to have a voice in times where they
think there may be corruption or something else. The
increment had been approved by the subcommittee. He thought
the department was straightforward in its requests and did
not ask for more than it needed. The subcommittee viewed
the increment as valuable.
Co-Chair Edgmon believed DOL had requested funding the
previous year for a position to address election fraud,
criminal investigations, and parental rights. He stated
that the position had not been funded and as far as he
knew, the department had not requested the funding again.
He was very familiar with what had taken place in perhaps
Homer. He remarked that legislators had been deluged by
amendments from the individual. He thought it was
reasonable to grant some of the funding request to the
department, but he thought multiple investigators for seven
cases fell in the same territory as the previous request
that had been denied by the legislature and the department
had not submitted another request. He stated that if the
department came back for a second investigator the
following year because the seven cases had quadrupled, the
request would have merit to him. He would support the
amendment.
Representative Tomaszewski spoke against the amendment. He
thought that it was clear in the Article 1 Section 8 of the
state's constitution that by defunding DOL's ability to
work with grand juries in any capacity went against the
constitution. He believed the funding request was
reasonable. He reminded committee members that a grand jury
consisted of at least 12 citizens; a majority of whom
concurring may return an indictment. He stated that grand
juries were only returning an indictment in which a jury of
their peers would look at. He thought the amendment was a
rewrite of the state's constitution and taking away the
funding for grand juries.
11:56:54 AM
Co-Chair Foster thought it sounded like the positions were
not in the budget in the past several years. He asked for
verification that the governor had added the positions in
his FY 25 budget.
Representative Hannan supported the amendment. She remarked
that Co-Chair Edgmon had articulated many of her concerns.
She clarified that the amendment did not defund anything
from the state's constitution. She detailed that the
state's constitution already allowed for investigative
grand juries. She elaborated that one grand jury met in the
Kenai/Homer case and had produced an indictment that was
later dismissed. She believed the amendment was more about
the workload. She had heard DOL say on the record it had
seven inquiries pertaining "to do this." She noted that
many DOL attorneys had huge caseloads. She remarked that if
the number of caseloads pertaining to the issue increased
substantially in the coming year the legislature could look
at providing the funding. She thought a request to fund a
paralegal, an administrator, and an attorney to solely do
grand juries seemed to be built on a premise that their
workload would be narrow and confined. She stated there
were DOL attorneys with huge caseloads for prosecution of
time for support of state agencies in complex legal matters
(e.g., deed and legal issues with the federal government).
She did not see the proven demand [in association with the
governor's request]. She thought funding the attorney
position and waiting a year to see the demand would give a
pathway to determining whether more money should be
appropriated. She underscored that the requested positions
were not entry level and were very expensive. She wanted to
see the requisite demand before fully funding a new section
within DOL to do exclusively grand jury investigations. She
supported the amendment.
12:00:08 PM
Representative Josephson stated that he needed to finish
reading the O'Leary case. He was sure it included language
on the grand jury's power to investigate and make
recommendations. He was told that grand juries wanted to do
more than that; they wanted to insist that they would bring
the indictments they wanted to bring. He remarked that it
would have to play out in a historical way. He stated, "it
says they shall never be suspended." He agreed with
Representative Tomaszewski that the language was clear cut.
He pointed out it was also the case that there was not
supposed to be any abridgement or infringement on the right
to speak, but that the legislature would not tolerate
people shouting from the gallery during floor sessions. He
stated that there were always limits to constitutional
rights. He highlighted that the amendment was not taking
money away from grand juries, money would still be added to
grand juries. He stated it was a new source of money for
DOL. He agreed with Co-Chair Edgmon and Representative
Hannan about waiting to see if the one attorney 4 position
could handle the workload.
12:01:46 PM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Edgmon, Foster
OPPOSED: Cronk, Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Stapp, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 66 was ADOPTED.
12:02:42 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 67
(copy on file):
Agency: Law
Appropriation: Civil Division
Allocation: Dep. Attny General's Office
Transaction Details
Title: Delete Increase for Statehood Defense (FY25-
FY27) Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: -1,500.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -1,500.0
Explanation
The Governor sought for a temporary increment of
$2,018,000 to increase funding for Statehood Defense
each year between FY25 -FY27. This appropriation would
be used to challenge federal environmental decisions
by the Environmental Protection Agency and other
federal agencies. The department has claimed that
cases taken on under the umbrella of statehood defense
are "not controversial," but this is factually
inaccurate.
The House Finance Department of Law subcommittee
decremented $518,000 from the Governor's request, and
this amendment seeks to eliminate the rest of the
appropriation.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson remarked that he had been vocal
about his concerns pertaining to statehood defense and
whether some of it was waste. He noted that he had seen in
the press the previous day that Alaska was one of the 11
states that wanted to challenge the [federal]
administration's reductions to the student loan burden
facing Alaskan citizens. He stated that the current [state]
administration was very litigious. He was told by the
Legislative Finance Division that effective March 25, the
unobligated part of carryforward statehood defense funds
was $5.198 million. He surmised that the $1.5 million
addressed by the amendment was on top of that amount. He
observed that the expenses were decreasing. He elaborated
that from FY 24 through FY 26, the department currently had
$5 million, but only $127,000 was encumbered with
outstanding expenses of $111,000. There was currently $4.7
million in unobligated funds through FY 26. He stated the
department was requesting an additional $1.5 million on top
of the $4.7 million. He was open to a conceptual amendment
to reduce the figure to something other than a decrement of
$1.5 million.
12:05:00 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon thought the amendment was tricky because he
supported statehood defense. He detailed that Alaska was
comprised of two-thirds federal land. The state was still
litigating and trying to understand and still in a
defensive posture to the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) passed in 1980. He remarked that
the state still had a lot of work ahead. He elaborated that
on the same hand, the state was embroiled in a subsistence
dispute. He relayed that individuals within the Native
community he had spoken with were very leery about what the
funding [addressed by the amendment] meant. He had asked
the attorney general committee several weeks earlier in
committee whether there was merit to defining what
constituted statehood defense in law. He noted that the
attorney general had seemed to agree with the idea. He
suggested that by putting more money into statehood
defense, which on one hand he supported, it was also
possible to argue that the increment was forward funding
statehood defense. He highlighted that the legislature did
not necessarily forward fund other services. He could not
think of any other services the legislature forward funded
presently. He reiterated that the amendment was tricky for
him.
Representative Stapp stated that the amendment was not
tricky for him. He remarked that President Biden had hit
the state with 56 executive orders ranging from banning
resource development to "draconian measures" from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) impacting Fairbanks
and the Interior. He emphasized that the measures crushed
the ability to provide basic needs for families in
Fairbanks and the Interior. He stated that the president
had banned the use of heating oil 2, which meant using
heating oil 1 at a much more expensive price. He elaborated
that the president had then banned the use of heating oil
1, which meant residents had to ultra-low-sulfur diesel. He
stressed that the federal administration was looking at
shutting down coffee roasters in Fairbanks. He pointed out
that the funding [the amendment aimed to reduce] would be
used to challenge federal environmental decisions by the
EPA and other federal agencies. He wanted to challenge the
rulings. He wanted the state to stand up and stop the
executive overreach that he thought looked to depopulate
Interior Alaska. He hoped the funding was maintained and he
opposed the amendment.
12:07:53 PM
Representative Galvin believed all of the committee members
wanted to defend the state's right to be independent. She
did not believe the amendment was a yes or no on defending
Alaska. She thought the amendment looked at putting less
money towards forward spending for lawsuits that would
likely happen to some degree. She remarked that the state
may not end up spending all of the funding. She asked LFD
how much the state spent over the past couple of years. She
wondered whether the state had spent the amount that was
previously allocated. She wondered if there was a slope of
increased need.
12:09:15 PM
AT EASE
12:16:13 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnson asked to hear from Mr. Painter on how much
DOL spent on statehood defense in the past year.
Mr. Painter responded that as of March 25, 2024, the
legislature had appropriated $11.5 million since FY 21.
Currently, about $5.2 million remained unobligated. He
noted that $11.5 million included $5 million authorized in
FY 24, which had only been available for expenditure for a
few months. The department had planned expenditures that
would exceed the amount.
Co-Chair Johnson asked for the amount of planned
expenditures.
Mr. Painter replied that the planned expenditures were
about $10.7 million.
Representative Galvin asked for verification that as of
March 25th, $11.5 million had been appropriated and $5.2
million was unobligated. She asked in which year there was
a plan to spend $10.7 million.
Mr. Painter responded that the amendment would reduce a
temporary increment running the next three years. He
believed the $10.7 million included the $5.2 million plus
the department's plan for the next three years based on
current cases.
12:18:29 PM
Representative Hannan asked Mr. Painter asked if the
planned expenditures reflected the department's estimated
cost for the billable hours for a contract attorney
representing the state on air quality.
Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative. He explained that
the department had not necessarily signed a contract for
the amounts. The department had $622,000 encumbered,
meaning it had already been contracted out. He stated that
the $5.2 million was unincumbered. The department expected
to spend [$10.7 million] on current and future lawsuits.
Representative Ortiz remarked that litigation was often an
ongoing process. He asked if there had been any attempt by
DOL to report the return of investment (ROI) of statehood
defense expenditures. He highlighted that the committee
heard a lot of discussion on ROI in other areas using state
funding. He wondered if there had been any attempt to show
how the investments had paid off for Alaska.
Mr. Painter responded that he had seen the department's
analysis of accomplishments associated with the funding,
but he had not seen ROI information. He stated that the
department may have reported the information, but he had
not seen it.
12:20:44 PM
Representative Cronk was opposed to the amendment. He
shared that he represented part of Fairbanks. He stated
that the federal government was making decisions resulted
in people's inability heat their own homes. He believed it
was ludicrous. He highlighted a lawsuit that he
characterized as frivolous that aimed to shut down king
salmon trolling in Southeast Alaska. He pointed out that
statehood defense had defended the lawsuit. He noted that
while he did not live in Southeast Alaska, he cared about
what happened with trolling because it was a part of
Alaska. He wanted to ensure the legislature was defending
the state's ability to defend its rights. He reported that
the request in subcommittee was $2,018,000. The
subcommittee had removed $518,000 out of the request to try
to appease everyone.
Representative Cronk referenced language in the amendment
explanation "not controversial." He stated that every vote
legislators cast was controversial. He remarked that
everything pertaining to statehood defense and what perhaps
the governor wanted was not agreed upon by everyone, but it
was life. He believed in fighting for the state's rights.
He noted there were numerous access rights with RS 2477
issues. He believed in giving the state the ability to
fight wherever needed, whether people agreed or not. He
pointed out that residents were unable to heat their homes
with a woodstove in Fairbanks. He found it unacceptable to
have the government tell people how to live and to not do
anything about it. The subcommittee had reduced the request
in good faith from just over $2 million to $1.5 million. He
hoped committee members would oppose the amendment.
Co-Chair Johnson opposed the amendment. She stated that the
federal government had deep pockets and seemed to have no
compunction about going after places in Alaska. She
believed it was critical to maintain the funding in order
to have someone keeping a good eye on where Alaska was
feeling pressure. She expounded that once something was
started it was an incredible amount of money to fight back.
She believed the state needed to keep a good barrier up
against the constant attempts to compromise Alaska's self-
determination.
Representative Tomaszewski remarked that it was part of the
state's job to protect and defend the constitution for the
people of the state. He elaborated that when rights were
infringed upon, it was necessary to fight back. He spoke to
the importance of having the ability to fight for the
rights of the people. He hoped committee members would vote
against the amendment.
12:25:27 PM
Representative Josephson provided wrap up on Amendment N
67. He reviewed that the administration had spent $11
million and had a plan to spend millions more, but they had
$5.2 million in unencumbered funds. He remarked that the
EPA had its own set of instructions to enforce the Clean
Air Act and it did not mean to be malicious when it came to
clean air in Fairbanks. He had lived in Fairbanks in the
past and understood it was extremely cold and that people
needed heat. He referenced a document he had from the past
week showing that the big money items the state was
spending litigation dollars on were the Fortymile River
title, Koyukuk River title, Mulchatna family of rivers
title, Mendenhall Lake title, and formerly used defense
sites and other federal site cleanup issues.
Representative Josephson considered a Texas v. EPA case
related to clean air, which he thought sounded like an
amicus case. He stated it would not likely directly help
Fairbanks. The case involved a challenge to new Clean Air
Act rules regarding passenger vehicles and trucks. He
pointed out that the investment had been $94,000 in a two
to four-year anticipated duration. He referenced a list of
cases and noted that the second case pertained to the Clean
Air Act and a multistate challenge to new rules taking away
discretion from states on how to comply with emission rules
and shortened time for compliance. He remarked that most of
the money was not being spent on the issues in Fairbanks.
Representative Josephson stated he had recently received an
email from the Alaska Regional Coalition, a consortium of
six Alaska Native regional nonprofits. The nonprofits
included the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Maniilaq, Kawerak,
Chugachmiut, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, and
Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes
representing 109 communities and approximately 70,000
Alaskans. The coalition asked for support for the reduction
of the statehood defense dollars. He would have gladly
supported a friendly amendment to reduce his proposed
reduction. He asked for members' support.
12:29:01 PM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Edgmon, Foster
OPPOSED: Cronk, Coulombe, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 67 was ADOPTED.
[Note: action on Amendment N 67 was rescinded during the
4/03/24 meeting that started at 1:06 p.m. A conceptual
amendment was adopted, and Amendment N 67 as amended was
adopted on a vote of 6/5. See separate minutes for detail.]
12:29:41 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to RESCIND action on Amendment N
67.
Co-Chair Edgmon OBJECTED for discussion. He asked for an
explanation of the intent behind the motion.
Representative Stapp asked the committee to reconsider the
action. He stated that if Fairbanks lost another round of
its meetings with the EPA it would have to sue the federal
government. He wanted to make sure there were available
funds budgeted for statehood defense.
12:30:49 PM
AT EASE
12:32:54 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Stapp WITHDREW his motion to rescind action
on Amendment N 67. He would do some research and wanted to
revisit the amendment later on.
12:33:14 PM
AT EASE
12:33:30 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnson noted that Amendment N 67 had been
adopted.
12:33:56 PM
AT EASE
12:34:43 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Galvin WITHDREW Amendment N 68 (copy on
file).
Representative Hannan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 69 (copy
on file):
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Fire, Land & Water Resources
Allocation: Mining, Land & Water
Transaction Details
Title: Remove Legal Services Funding For Advancing
State's Rights in Navigability and Revised Statute
2477
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: -365.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1005 GF/Prgm -365.0
Explanation
These funds were designated for legal services for
DNR's Public Access Assertion & Defense Section. The
Department of Law describes its Statehood Defense work
as supporting "continued statehood defense efforts
across multiple agencies," with issues including
"ongoing support for navigability matters within
natural resources."
Since the Dept. of Law stands ready and willing to use
its millions of dollars in Statehood Defense funding
to assist other agencies, DNR's Public Access
Assertion & Defense Section is advised to take
advantage of the Dept. of Law for its legal services
needs.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Hannan explained that the amendment would
reduce the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) funding by
$365,000. She explained that the funds were designated in
DNR's budget for legal services for the Public Access
Assertion and Defense Section (RS 2477 matters). She
elaborated that DOL described that there were continued
statehood defense efforts across multiple agencies with
issues including ongoing support for navigability matters
within DNR. She furthered that DOL stood ready and willing
to use its statehood defense funding to assist DNR;
therefore, the $365,000 did not appear necessary. She
detailed that the amendment would leave $367,000 in the DNR
budget to do its side of the RS 2477 work. The amendment
meant the DOL budget for statehood defense would cover the
remainder of the RS 2477 work. She believed the amendment
would leave the state capable of dealing with RS 2477
issues.
Representative Cronk opposed the amendment. He thought
there was a misunderstanding pertaining to the funding. He
clarified that the funding would not be used to challenge
any EPA decision or policy and it would not be transferred
from DNR to DOL. The funding was meant for professional
services contracts from outside experts including
geologists, geomorphologists, and photogrammetrists needed
to assist in determining navigability and establishing the
validity of an RS 2477 right of way. He stated that
involving third-party witnesses before litigation was
crucial to ensure the success of a program. He stated that
the money would impact many things such as RS 2477 right of
ways acting as vital transportation corridors to provide
access to natural resources. Additionally, there were
numerous issues along the highway where there was no
access. He emphasized that the funding was needed by DNR to
work on RS 2477 issues.
12:38:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster was opposed to the amendment. He supported
RS 2477s. Additionally, he stated that navigability issues
always caused great concern because of the possibility of
how it may deal with subsistence. He had reached out to DNR
with two questions. First, he asked DNR if any of the
funding would be used for opposing subsistence in general.
Second, he asked whether any of the money would be used in
the appeal on the case dealing with subsistence on the
Kuskokwim River. The department replied that the answer to
both questions was no. The intent was to use the funds for
RS 2477s. He highlighted that his district had the Bering
Land Bridge National Park on the Seward Peninsula, and he
would love to see people be able to access the
grandfathered trail to Serpentine Hot Springs. In general,
he supported RS 2477s throughout the state, which he
believed was the purpose of the funding. He added that
DNR's written response to his questions stated that the
Kuskokwim River litigation related to the Katie John line
of cases and subsistence issues was being led by DOL and
the Department of Fish and Game, but not DNR. He reiterated
his support for access to public trails.
12:40:51 PM
AT EASE
12:41:45 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Hannan provided wrap up on Amendment N 69.
Stated that DOL had funds earmarked to cover expert
witnesses for litigation. The legislature received annual
requests from DOL to support statehood defense cases. She
stated that the decrement would still leave $371,000 in DNR
to continue the DNR research related to cases that should
or would go to litigation. She stated there was $5.2
million in unobligated statehood defense money remaining
[in the DOL budget], which frequently included the hiring
of expert witnesses to participate in litigation. She was
concerned that the legislature continued to give multiyear
funding cart blanche for lawsuits. She did not believe the
funding the amendment would cut was necessary for the
ongoing work on RS 2477. She stated that if it turned into
major litigation and DOL requested $2 million more for the
specific case, she thought it was a different circumstance.
She added there was $5.2 million in unobligated funding for
the next three fiscal years. She believed the decrement
would not derail any litigation. She thought it was a
decrement the budget could and should afford.
12:44:10 PM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Josephson
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Galvin,
Ortiz, Edgmon, Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 69 FAILED (2/9).
Representative Stapp requested to recess for lunch.
Co-Chair Johnson replied that the committee would continue
on and would take a break soon.
12:45:45 PM
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 70 (copy
on file):
Agency: Natural Resources
Appropriation: Fire, Land & Water Resources
Allocation: Fire Suppression Activity
Transaction Details
Title: Fully Fund Annual Fire Suppression Activity
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 35,100.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 35,100.0
Explanation
This $35.1 million increment would bring Fire
Suppression Activity spending up to the FY14-23 actual
UGF spending average of $49.3 million.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin explained that the committee had
repeatedly seen high supplemental budget requests seeking
to cover the cost of fire suppression activity after the
expense was incurred. She stated that the governor's office
had consistently under-budgeted for the allocation. The
amendment sought to right-size Alaska's fire suppression
activity by pinning the increment to a 10-year average
expense. The intent of the amendment was to decrease the
size of the supplemental budget requests. She was aiming
for responsible budgeting that was a little closer to the
actual cost. She stated that the increment was unlikely to
be in excess of the amount needed because it was pinned to
the 10-year average from FY 14 to FY 23 actuals. She noted
the data came from an LFD presentation by Mr. Painter. She
added that increased wildfires were anticipated as a result
of climate change. She reasoned that more accurately
budgeting for fire suppression activity needs would provide
a clearer picture of the overall budget. She relayed that
the average expenditure between FY 14 and FY 23 was $49.3
million. The governor's FY 25 budget included $14.2 million
for fire suppression; the amendment included an additional
$35.1 million to reach the average cost. She encouraged
members to support the amendment.
12:49:13 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon recognized the merit of the amendment. He
noted that the amendment sponsor had stated that the
average was around $49.5 million; however, in reality the
legislature did not know what it would be because forest
fires could be on state land (paid for by the state) or
federal land (where the federal government paid). He stated
that costs, whatever they ended up being, shifted into the
next fiscal year in the supplemental budget. He agreed that
a $35 million increment would stick with the annual average
for the past 10 years. He commented that the budget was a
process of negotiation with multiple steps. He thought
there was concern about the issue in the other body given
where the House was with its budget and things that had
been added. He could not support the amendment at present.
Representative Coulombe stated that she had offered and
withdrawn a similar amendment the previous year. She
remarked that she wanted budget transparency, and it had a
lot of merits. One of the issues was that some of the fires
were reimbursed with Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) funding, which lagged a year or two. She elaborated
that putting the money upfront was not necessarily an
advantage to Alaska because some of the FEMA funding could
come in to help pay for the supplemental. She agreed the
amendment had merit, but she would not support it at
present. She thought the legislature needed to examine how
to better budget the item and to see how the FEMA funds
interacted with it as well.
Representative Cronk agreed that the amendment had merit.
He remarked that it highlighted the lack of vision for a
forestry program where the state was watching its forests
burn and spending millions of dollars fighting the fires.
He thought the state needed to be very proactive. He
suggested the money in the amendment would be much better
invested in a forestry program. He stated that a
significant portion of the costs pertained to fires in the
middle of nowhere that had private inholdings or Native
allotments where the state had to use helicopters and its
other resources versus going out to mitigate fire resources
around the allotments to avoid dumping millions of dollars
into protecting isolated inholdings. He stated that Sweden
was making $17 billion per year [in forestry revenue],
while Alaska made $1 million. He remarked that it was like
the state was afraid to cut trees. He emphasized it was a
renewable resource that could replace the state's revenue
from oil at some point in future generations. He would
rather see the funds invested into a forestry program. He
opposed the amendment, but he recognized its merit. He
would much rather have the department come back with a
supplemental showing actual cost. He added that the state
needed to be building its own firefighting crews; bringing
up crews from the Lower 48 was costly and the money left
the state. He underscored that the state was currently
losing out across the board in the forestry fire issue.
12:53:40 PM
Representative Ortiz observed that committee members all
agreed on the merit of the amendment. He considered the
prospects of the next year's supplemental with the goals of
a larger capital budget and trying to put forward a
sustainable and affordable Permanent Fund Dividend. He
suggested there was a likelihood that without taking
actions like the proposal in Amendment N 70, the
legislature would be forced to take funding from the
Constitutional Budget Reserve to cover the supplemental. He
reasoned that the state would cover its costs for fire
suppression activity. He thought the amendment was more
prudent and recognized the reality in the next year's
budgeting cycle.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment N 70 to reduce the general fund appropriation
from $35.1 million to $25.1 million. He thought it was a
step towards more truthful budgeting, yet the increment was
not quite so high as the original amendment.
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin considered the conceptual amendment
to be friendly. She appreciated the idea of trying to
figure out what was workable to result in more responsible
account of what lay ahead. She stated that the $35.1
million reflected a 10-year average. She remarked that if
it ended up helping to bring a new firefighting crew
development, "so be it." She reasoned that fire suppression
was fire suppression and she supported whatever it took to
make that happen.
12:57:22 PM
Representative Cronk opposed the conceptual amendment. He
stated it would be a reduction to the PFD. Additionally,
there were a lot of needs for capital projects that were
important to some of the members' districts. He opposed the
amendment on that basis.
Representative Stapp opposed the conceptual amendment and
the underlying amendment. He appreciated the maker of the
amendment for addressing accurately budgeting for fire
service. He thought there was a lot the legislature could
do to true up the fire suppression activity and that it
required a deeper conversation. He highlighted that the
situation was not a new problem. He stated that truing the
budget up or solving the issue in the House Finance
Committee could have been taken care of for the past six or
seven years. He pointed out that it was not the first year
fire suppression had been under budgeted. He remarked that
the current amount of money in the budget reflected the
lowest year of cost in the past decade; therefore, it was
not likely to be accurate. He was interested in working on
the problem, but he thought it would require a more
holistic solution than adding placeholder money in
anticipation of expense.
12:59:23 PM
Representative Hannan spoke in favor of the conceptual
amendment and the underlying amendment. She recalled
hearing from the Office of Management and Budget with a
supplemental of $91 million for the prior year's fire
season. She noted that year had a cold summer and a low
[fire] season for Alaska. She believed a long-term fiscal
plan needed to involve thinking about the budget year over
year. She thought it was responsible for the legislature to
include an average spend for ongoing items. She thought it
was important for a conversation about a spending cap. She
appreciated the comments from Co-Chair Edgmon that there
may be a strategy with the other body and the need to leave
room for negotiation; however, she emphasized that a long-
term fiscal strategy did not just mean the current budget,
but multiple years and supplementals. She wanted to see the
legislature put more money into something that would always
be an ongoing expense. She remarked that even if the state
invested in developing a bigger forest products industry,
forest fire response would still be necessary. She believed
it was almost a three-year lag to get the federal
government squared up with the state in terms of fire cost
expenses. She supported the amendments and urged members'
support.
Co-Chair Johnson commented that Division of Forestry and
Fire Protection was located in Palmer. She reasoned that
from the perspective of wanting to get money to her
district she could see voting for the amendment; however,
she understood that sometimes there were big fire years and
other times there were not. She thought the legislature was
better off knowing the cost prior to appropriating the
money. She stated that if the legislature appropriated the
money to the department, it would get spent. She added that
whether it would get spent on fire or something else, the
legislature did not know. She opposed the amendments.
1:02:48 PM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment N
70 FAILED (4/7).
1:03:50 PM
Representative Galvin provided wrap up on Amendment N 70.
She highlighted that in seven of the prior ten years, the
actual spend [on fire suppression] was more than $40
million. She was asking to true up the budgeting for the
item. She stressed that the current budgeted amount of
$14.2 million for fire suppression had only occurred one
out of the last ten years. She knew all committee members
tried to be as responsible as possible to make decisions
that would help plan for the state's future. She stood by
the amendment and appreciated the ability to offer it.
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Hannan, Galvin
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Stapp, Cronk, Coulombe, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 70 FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Johnson stated it was her intention to take a
break and come back at 1:30 p.m.
1:06:28 PM
AT EASE
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 270 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Note: the meeting never reconvened. Operating budget
amendments continued in the afternoon meeting beginning at
1:56 p.m. See separate minutes for detail.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|