Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/02/2024 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 | |
| HB268 || HB270 | |
| 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."
1:56:14 PM
^AMENDMENTS
1:56:31 PM
Co-Chair Johnson relayed that the committee left off on
Amendment 70 and would return to amendments that had
previously been rolled.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 22 (copy on
file):
Agency: Commerce, Community & Econ Dev
Appropriation: Alaska Seafood Marketing Inst
Allocation: Alaska Seafood Marketing Inst
Transaction Details
Title: Support Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 10,000.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total 10,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 10,000.0
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz relayed that the amendment would
address one of the primary pillars of the state's economy.
Currently, the seafood industry employed 48,000 people,
brought in $1.8 billion in labor income, and employed
17,000 Alaskans from more than 140 communities with a $6
billion total impact to Alaskans annually. He stated that
unlike previous years, there was currently no operating or
capital general fund support for the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute (ASMI). The amendment supported the
overall industry and called for $10 million in undesignated
general funds (UGF) to support marketing of Alaskan seafood
products. He cited a recent study indicating that 54
percent of consumers were eating more seafood compared to
two years ago and that seeing the Alaska seafood label made
82 percent of consumers more likely to purchase Alaskan
seafood. He stated it was a concrete example of seeing a
return on investment in ASMI.
Representative Ortiz elaborated that ASMI had worked hard
over the years to build the Alaskan seafood brand
nationally and internationally. However, with a recent
closure of the loophole that allowed Russian seafood to
come to America via China, there was a stockpile of Russian
seafood on the shelves, but there was a great opportunity
to fill future demand. He highlighted that other countries
with seafood industries such as Norway and Chile saw the
opportunity and had increased their marketing in the U.S.
He supported providing resources to ASMI to enable it to
compete against increasing foreign competition for the U.S.
market. He had been told by the ASMI director that the
agency would be looking to develop its U.S. market more
fully during a time of foreign competition. He stated that
the amendment was in support of the state's economy. He
elaborated that ASMI had a good turn on investment and had
done a good job building the Alaska brand. He believed the
amendment had great merit. He relayed that the fishing
industry was the largest private employer in the state and
actions by Russia had created a tough past year. The
amendment was in support of the industry and fishermen and
would give fishermen more opportunity to market their
catch. He asked for members' support.
2:01:06 PM
AT EASE
2:02:03 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Tomaszewski stated that the amendment was on
a services line for ASMI. He had received a brochure from
ASMI recently and was amazed to learn there was 2.7 billion
pounds of Alaska pollock harvested in 2022. He thought it
was a very large number. He asked for the total export
value in billions for the state.
Representative Ortiz replied that he did not have the
information. He imagined it was in a document
Representative Tomaszewski had before him.
Representative Tomaszewski answered it was $3 billion.
Representative Stapp opposed the amendment. He considered
what $10 million would do for ASMI's efficacy. The agency's
current budget was around $22 million per year and the
amendment would result in a 50 percent increase in the
agency's available money. He stated that according to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website, most of
ASMI's marketing initiative had increased visibility when
the state spent more money on outreach; however, it did not
appear to have increased sales of Alaska seafood products.
He did not believe ASMI had ever given a presentation to
the House Finance Committee during his time on the
committee. He thought it would be great to hear from the
agency to have the conversations in depth. He spoke to his
reason for opposing the amendment. He believed Alaska
seafood sales were decreasing because Russia had flooded
the market with cheap seafood. He hoped action by the
federal government would reverse the market trends. He was
not currently sold on the value of the $10 million.
2:05:09 PM
Representative Coulombe asked to hear from Mr. Painter. She
thought there was funding in the budget. She asked for
details on any FY 24 and FY 25 funding [for ASMI].
2:06:01 PM
AT EASE
2:07:02 PM
RECONVENED
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
replied that in FY 25 there was ~$16 million in statutory
designated program receipt (SDPR) authority from a fee paid
by seafood harvesters. In FY 24, there was an additional
one-time increment of $5 million in UGF support.
Representative Stapp asked about the variability in the
SDPR. He asked if the amount depended on a tax on the price
per pound of seafood caught.
Mr. Painter believed it was an assessment on value. There
was carry forward revenue that could be used to smooth the
volatility somewhat. As of the beginning of FY 24, there
was about $10 million in carry forward that could be used
to smooth the volatility. He explained that [ASMI] could
only spend the SDPR up to its authority (not more than $16
million). He noted if there was a downturn in receipts, the
agency could potentially draw on its carry forward, but
temporarily it was a longer downturn.
Representative Stapp stated his understanding there was $10
million cash on hand, but [ASMI] was blocked from using the
funds because its receipt authority did not allow the use
of the money unless ASMI went below its $16 million in
authority where it could use its cash balance to smooth
volatility.
Mr. Painter responded affirmatively. The agency could use
the funding to fill a gap if its receipts fell short, but
it could not overspend its authority.
2:09:20 PM
Representative Hannan asked how often the legislature had
given ASMI general fund subsidies and support.
Mr. Painter replied that he did not have the number of
times on hand. The agency had received some flexible
federal COVID-19 funds and some UGF. He relayed that ASMI
had a more stable UGF subsidy prior to budget reductions
about eight years back. He believed funding had been
provided at least two or three times in the past few years
when counting the federal flexible funding provided one
year.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that the vast
majority of the funding received by ASMI was from the
industry through its own self-assessment.
Co-Chair Edgmon spoke in support of the amendment. He would
advocate for a similar amendment throughout the process if
the vote came up short. He represented a commercial fishing
district including white fish such as pollock and red fish
such as salmon and a number of other species that were the
backbone of the coastal economy. He pointed out that the
$10 million would keep the Alaska brand alive on an
international stage. He believed the last ASMI tradeshow
was in Barcelona.
Representative Hannan relayed that the tradeshow was in
southern Spain.
Co-Chair Edgmon highlighted that as the sole umbrella
marketer for Alaskan seafood, ASMI's display spot was small
in comparison to other countries who invested a lot of
money [into the event] such as Norway and Chile and farmed
salmon producers. For every dollar going into marketing
Alaska salmon was a dollar that went into marketing the
transportation sector including maritime, aviation, and
trucking. He elaborated that the supply chain beneficiaries
of the seafood industry were beyond the mere multiplier
effect of other industries. He thought it was a reasonable
investment.
2:12:48 PM
Representative Galvin asked about tax revenue from fishing.
She asked what it had been and if it had been consistent.
Mr. Painter did not recall the recent revenue numbers
offhand. The [Department of Revenue] Revenue Sources Book
included an assumption with a three-year recovery in
seafood tax revenue, but it had dipped substantially in the
past couple of years.
Co-Chair Edgmon stated that some of the tax revenue was
shared back with communities. He was not sure the Revenue
Sources Book touched on that, but a significant amount went
to Kodiak, Unalaska, Sand Point, Dillingham, Naknek, the
Bristol Bay Borough, Petersburg, and all throughout the
coast.
Representative Galvin remarked that the state had found
ways to help boost incoming revenue from tourism, oil and
gas, and mining. She referenced the current crisis with
Russia [flooding the market] and the movement of the fish,
which meant there had to be significant adjustments. She
thought of the many corporations such as Peter Pan that had
adjusted what they were doing. She stated that if wild fish
was preferred four to one, getting marketing out there may
help Alaska get more of the tax revenue. She was very
supportive of the amendment. She believed the return on
investment was there and she thought the state needed to
help its fishing communities.
2:15:17 PM
Representative Hannan spoke in support of the amendment.
She stated that virtually all fishermen were paying a tax
that was shared with communities. In addition to being the
largest private sector employer in the state, the industry
had a reach through the state's economy and a ripple
effect. The bulk of ASMI's budget had always been a self-
assessment tax on the price of delivered fish. She
explained that the price would go down because of the price
collapse, some related to international reasons. She
believed Representative Cronk asked in a past hearing why
the money had gone down if there was a high volume. She
stated it was due to the price value at delivery. She
remarked that some could argue that ASMI had been the
biggest marketer of Alaska for the last 40 years. She
elaborated that long before the state was helping its
tourism industry, ASMI was marketing the fish and state as
a whole. She mentioned ASMI's advertising of the Alaska
label during Alaska reality shows. She stated it helped the
economy in a variety of ways. She stated that due to the
price collapses, ASMI would be hard pressed over the next
three years dealing with inventory. She underscored that
the communities that would suffer would be the smallest.
She expounded that the most remote plants would be shut
down and fewer places would get fish delivery. She believed
that to keep marketing going in order for all of the
state's communities to be in the fish business, the state
should be supporting ASMI. She believed it was an important
investment and noted that ASMI did not always request UGF
funding because it was not always needed.
2:18:43 PM
AT EASE
2:22:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up on Amendment N 22. He
believed the investment was effective. He remarked that the
industry was the primary supporter of ASMI. He elaborated
that due to world events, particularly with Russia's
flooding of the markets with pink salmon to fund its war in
Ukraine, fish prices had plummeted. He emphasized that the
fishing industry was the largest private employer in the
state. He thought that when people questioned subsidizing
the industry it seemed the legislature would be supportive
of Alaska's largest private employer in the interest of the
state's economic wellbeing. He stated that ASMI was looking
to develop its local American market in a potentially
competitive market. He concluded that a vote in support of
the amendment was a vote in support of the state's
fishermen, processors, and the industry overall. He urged
members' support.
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Stapp, Coulombe, Cronk, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 22 FAILED (5/6).
2:25:48 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 24 (copy on
file):
Agency: Commerce, Community & Econ Dev
Appropriation: Tourism Marketing
Allocation: Tourism Marketing
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Tourism Marketing Grant to Alaska
Travel Industry Association (ATIA)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 7,500.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total 7,500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 7,500.0
Representative Cronk OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz that the amendment would provide $7.5
million to the Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA).
He relayed that historically the state had been supportive
of funding for the tourism pillar of its economy. Currently
ATIA had a $2.5 million grant in the capital budget. He
stated that the amendment would complement the existing
funding to grant the agency the full $10 million it had
been advocating for. In reality, ATIA needed at least $15
million to stay competitive in the world market with the
top 10 global destinations. In 2022, tourism generated $5.6
billion in economic output, including $3.9 billion in
direct spending, and $157 million in state revenues. He
added that it had been a year the industry was in recovery.
The industry impacted every corner of the state, supported
many small businesses, and provided countless private
industry jobs. He stated that supporting ATIA made economic
sense when considering the return on investment it
provided.
2:27:51 PM
Representative Josephson supported the amendment. He
highlighted that in the past there had been a separate
tourism division within the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development. Additionally, when he
was a legislative staffer "decades ago" there was a special
committee on tourism. He recalled that the high water mark
in state investment was around $19 million. The increment
was not terribly higher than the governor's proposal. He
believed the funding should be higher.
Representative Galvin supported the amendment. She
reiterated that in the past and in the future, the state
made investments where there would be a multiplier effect.
She expounded that all of the smaller communities would
gain when oil and gas, fisheries, tourism, and mining were
doing well. She highlighted that the current number of
tourists coming to Alaska was about 1.3 million annually.
The number could continue to grow if important advertising
continued. She stated that independent travelers who kept
Alaska on their list needed a little reminder. She pointed
out that a broad range of areas would all benefit from more
travelers. She shared that she had seen an ATIA
presentation at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and the
numbers were indisputable. She believed it was a great
investment.
2:31:11 PM
Representative Tomaszewski declared a conflict of interest.
He shared that he manufactured products that may or may not
benefit from state subsidized marketing.
Co-Chair Johnson objected.
Co-Chair Edgmon supported the amendment for the same
reasons he supported the prior amendment. He viewed the
agencies as sister entities from a budget perspective. He
stated that the benefits of the year-round tourism industry
in Alaska were indisputable. He remarked that there were
quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits from the industry.
He communicated he would continue supporting the funding
elsewhere in the budget process if the vote came up short
on the amendment.
Representative Galvin asked to be recused from voting. She
shared that she had an Airbnb and may benefit from the
amendment.
Representative Stapp objected.
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stated that the amendment process was a tradeoff situation
because there was not sufficient money to put everywhere.
He confirmed that adopting the amendment meant there would
be $7.5 million less to spend elsewhere. He believed the
investment was wise and would bring one of the best returns
on investment to the state. He remarked that it was clear
the benefits outweighed the opportunity costs. He asked for
members' support.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Ortiz, Josephson, Galvin, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 24 FAILED (5/6).
2:35:22 PM
Representative Josephson requested to move Amendment N 23.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 23
(copy on file):
Agency: Commerce, Community & Econ Dev
Appropriation: Tourism Marketing
Allocation: Tourism Marketing
Transaction Details
Title: Tourism Marketing Grant to Alaska Travel
Industry Association (ATIA)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 2,500.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
2,500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 2,500.0
Explanation
Last year, the Senate amended into the first Senate
Committee substitute of HB 39 (2023) an appropriation
request titled "Tourism Marketing Grant to the Alaska
Travel Industry
Association (ATIA)." An additional amount was added
during the Senate Finance budget process, and the
total amount equaled $5 million. This appropriation
was passed out of both bodies and sent to the Governor
where he vetoed half the amount. FY 25 does not
include a new IncOTI for this allocation. This
amendment adds the amount vetoed last year.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He noted
that the governor had reduced a $5 million appropriation to
$2.5 million in his vetoes. He stated there was some
evidence the governor would tolerate a $2.5 million state
investment. He asked for members' support. He added it
would be nice to be able to tell John Binkley and others
that the state still had skin in the game.
Representative Tomaszewski declared a conflict of interest.
Representative Galvin declared a conflict of interest.
Co-Chair Johnson stated there was an objection and the
members would be required to vote.
Representative Stapp called the question.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Hannan, Galvin, Edgmon
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Cronk, Coulombe, Foster,
Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 23 FAILED (5/6).
2:38:13 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 26 (copy on
file):
Agency: Commerce, Community & Econ Dev
Appropriation: Community and Regional Affairs
Allocation: Community & Regional Affairs
Transaction Details
Title: Grant to Inter-Island Ferry Authority for
Operations
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: 250.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total 250.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 250.0
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment would provide
$250,000 for the Inter-Island Ferry Authority. He detailed
that it was a privately run ferry system with some state
support. The ferry served Prince of Wales Island and ran
regularly from Ketchikan. He detailed there were at least
six or seven small communities located on Prince of Wales.
He stated that the ferry was a self-pay, pay-as-you-go
service. The amendment was in line with prior state
funding. He stated that the amendment of $250,000 would
enable the ferry to continue providing service in a cost
efficient way.
2:40:09 PM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Galvin, Hannan
OPPOSED: Stapp, Coulombe, Cronk, Tomaszewski, Foster,
Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 26 FAILED (4/7).
2:41:07 PM
AT EASE
2:43:40 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 30 (copy on
file):
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: Education Support and Admin
Allocation: Alyeska Reading Academy
Transaction Details
Title: Remove ARAI Salary Adjustment
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -31.6
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total -31.6
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -31.6
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: Education Support and Admin
Allocation: Alyeska Reading Academy
Transaction Details
Title: Delete Funding for Alyeska Reading Academy and
Institute
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: -1,140.5
Travel: -44.6
Services: -708.0
Commodities: -1,115.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: -1,991.9
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total -5,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: -7
Permanent Part-Time: -2
Temporary: -3
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -5,000.0
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment that would
decrease the budget by $5 million for the Alyeska Reading
Academy. He explained that that the funding had been
removed by the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) finance subcommittee and reinserted in
the current [HB 268] committee substitute (CS). He
considered whether the $5 million was a good return on
investment and stated that evidently the subcommittee did
not think so. He relayed that the Alyeska Reading Academy
used $5 million to lease a space and make $1.4 million in
renovations. The academy hired four positions including a
teacher for $100,800 and had purchased student materials
that could be accomplished by DEED. He remarked the academy
had managed to provide some support in Chevak; however, he
believed the legislature should expect more from the $5
million. The academy was not mentioned in the Alaska Reads
Act. He elaborated that there was no study recommending the
academy and no business plan for what it would produce. He
remarked that there was not a lot of accountability there.
He reasoned that $5 million was a significant amount of
money that could be saved or used for other things. He
considered items that would help Alaska's kids read and was
uncertain an academy in Anchorage would push the envelope
significantly in the goal of helping kids read on a
statewide basis.
2:46:04 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon recalled thinking the request had been for
the Alaska Reads Act the previous year. He remembered
asking the acting commissioner [of DEED] at the time
several questions and had discovered the increment was $5
million to pay for a facility in Anchorage that appeared to
be largely unused. He did not know what the plan was. He
stated that the Alaska Reads Act had prescriptive statutory
rd
language requiring students between kindergarten and 3
grade to do screenings, reading improvement plans,
interactive consultations with accredited and
paraprofessional reading specialists. The act also required
a number of visits with parents and principals in addition
to a substantial amount of work in-house. He guessed the
Alyeska Reading Academy was set up for more than online
activities, which is what it had done the previous year. He
listed zoom calls and online professional development
reaching out to Kalskag and other communities. He thought
there should be an audit of the academy. He did not know
how it took the Reads Act and brought it into small
schools. He stressed the necessity of having teachers and
reading specialists in classrooms. He stated that
overworked K-3 teachers needed additional help because they
were teaching all day and were also tasked with doing
reading improvement plans and the other requirements of the
Reads Act. He did not know where the academy fit in. He
asked if it was a recognition that the state would continue
to have high turnover in its teaching ranks and therefore
it was necessary to have a place in Anchorage for all of
the teachers who came and went to be constantly certified
through the Reads Act program. He felt it had been a fairly
disingenuous presentation to the committee the previous
year. He emphasized the committee had not been led to
believe it was a brick and mortar facility. He still felt
duped.
2:48:58 PM
Representative Galvin concurred with remarks by Co-Chair
Edgmon about the prescriptive guidelines of the Reads Act.
She had been examining what the state was doing to ensure
its schools could follow through with "what is there,
already as it is." She stated it was difficult for families
to reach out three times a year for children with
difficulty reading, especially given the class sizes. She
stated it was asking a lot of teachers to follow through
with requirements. She understood that teachers may benefit
from learning the science of teaching reading. Currently,
it was not possible to meet the goals of the Reads Act
because it was not adequately funded. She noted the $30
additional per student through the formula was
insufficient. She stated that in terms of teaching reading
skills, the system was woefully inadequate. She stressed
that class sizes should be reduced in some cases by half.
There were kindergarten classes with 28 students. She
stated that the amendment triggered her because she was
concerned about the overall issue that enough was not being
done to meet the overall goal of the governor's Alaska
Reads Act. She supported the amendment because she believed
there were many other basic ways the money should be spent
to support public K-12 education.
2:51:22 PM
Representative Stapp did not know how he would vote on the
amendment. He remarked that the amendment pertained to 7
permanent positions, 2 permanent part-time positions, and
three temporary positions. He considered that perhaps the
$100,000 for the teacher salary included benefits, which
would be more in line. He was not certain what the Alyeska
Reading Academy was, but DEED described it as being located
in Anchorage and providing tutoring and support services
for children who were struggling in reading to become
fluent in reading skills, expand vocabulary, and more. He
noted there were many interesting things on the website and
fliers for tutoring and applications for kids to learn to
read in Anchorage.
2:52:36 PM
Representative Hannan supported the amendment. Her concern
resided with where the academy had come from and mission
creep. She stated that DEED had not been a direct deliverer
of services for decades. She elaborated that most of the
people who worked at the department were not certified
teachers there were a few and the commissioner was
required to be a certified teacher and DEED was there to
assist school districts. She stated that in the aftermath
of the passage of the Reads Act, DEED stood up seven new
permanent positions, part time positions, and temporary
positions and decided it would provide tutoring. She asked
whether the 53 school districts across the state should now
send their tutoring needs to the academy in Anchorage. She
stated there had been significant discussion around the
Reads Act about reading specialists providing training to
teachers in order to disperse them across the 53 school
districts and into the right places. She emphasized that
individual tutoring of children did not fall within DEED's
mission. She noted that the Mount Edgecumbe state-operated
boarding school had been DEED's only direct service
delivery of education to students for decades. Otherwise,
the department was there working to support teachers in
order to have a multiplier effect. She stated that if the
academy was a teacher training institute to develop reading
specialists for Alaska, it would be different than tutoring
children in one school district that may or may not be
identified as the most in need. She remarked that many
people hired tutors for their children to help them excel,
not because they had deficits. She did not believe DEED
should expand in mission creep into the school districts'
jurisdiction was a step that should not be taken without a
longer term plan.
2:55:14 PM
Representative Josephson referenced a recent article by
Iris Samuels that was a devastating expose on the school.
He stated that the article was balanced, but the evidence
was not helpful to the cause of the academy. The article
noted that $1.4 million was spent on refurbishing what
looked like a mall located behind the Village Inn (a
restaurant near the university). He believed a lot of the
districts thought people were coming to the districts, but
the article noted it was rare. He elaborated that there
were a number of teaching sessions for hundreds of
teachers, but he did not know that it was the best way to
get the desired results. He highlighted that the point of
the Alaska Reads Act was to have a team of people that
would go to rural districts to offer direct assistance. He
supported the amendment.
Representative Coulombe stated it had been her subcommittee
that took the funding away and gave it to Head Start. She
did not know how she would vote on the amendment. She
elaborated that many of the issues discussed in
subcommittee had been expressed during the current meeting.
She stated there had been an understanding that the reading
specialists would be flying out into the community. She
continued that there had been a surprise that the academy
was actually adapting the building for children to come in
for tutoring, which was a great thing. She stated it was
benefiting the Anchorage School District (ASD). She
remarked that unfortunately the Reads Act did not just
apply to the ASD, which was her concern. She stated there
was substantial need in rural areas and it required
teachers to fly into Anchorage to get the training rather
than flying out. She expounded that during a subcommittee
meeting someone from DEED stated the intention was to fly
reading specialists out, but it was not really happening a
lot currently. She remarked that there had been some
misunderstandings about the goal of the academy. The
academy had a lease, had hired people, and was actively
tutoring. She noted it was a good point that she did not
hear the mention in the Reads Act the previous year;
however, the academy had made commitments. She stated that
a part of her wanted to give the academy another year to
see if it was fulfilling its functions.
2:59:22 PM
Representative Tomaszewski looked at the DEED website and
relayed that the Alyeska Reading Academy within DEED was
designed to support districts and provide services for
successful implementation of the Alaska Reads Act. He
elaborated that professional development was grounded in
the science of reading and helping those implementing the
program across the state. He stated that the academy had
the expertise to collaborate with staff on Reads Act
components and implementation. He remarked that Alaska
ranked 49 in reading in math and he believed it was
failing its students in reading. He noted the institute was
trying to help kids read. He understood it had been
implemented the previous year and he had not seen results,
but he thought it was a real effort to help kids read. He
viewed the funding as another allocation to education. He
stated that a lot of people talked about how there had not
been a Base Student Allocation (BSA) increase in a long
time, but there was a lot of funding that went into
education outside the BSA. He thought the academy was
aiming to help school districts implement the Reads Act. He
believed it was a valiant thing to try to accomplish. He
opposed the amendment.
3:01:44 PM
Representative Cronk stated it was a tough amendment. He
shared that in his first year as a kindergarten/first grade
teacher he did not know how to teach kids how to read
because he had not been taught how to do so in college. He
stated that college students were still not taught how to
teach kids to read unless they were specifically a reading
instructor. He was leaning towards opposing the amendment.
He did not know if the academy had been given enough time
to run to know whether it was successful. He stated that a
lot of kids were not prepared to read when they reached
school and he wanted to give the academy the chance to
work.
3:03:56 PM
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up. He thought the
comments made were reasonable, but he reminded members to
look at the model. He noted a committee member's comments
that if the academy would be there to support the state's
54 school districts it would be a good thing. He asked how
it would be possible for the small number of staff the
organization was not fully staffed after a year to
increase the ability for kids to read on a statewide basis.
He emphasized that it would not happen. He stated it was
the wrong model. He noted it would help some students in
Anchorage. He referenced a report showing the academy was
serving 147 students. He underscored it was a small number
compared to the number of students needing services
statewide. He pointed out that the House Finance Committee
was supposed to look at return on investment. He believed
it was a bad model that would not work. He stressed that
people were needed in communities for the long-term to
build trust and understand the areas. He stated it was
needed for real reform in education. He thought the
proposed reduction to the budget made good sense. He asked
for members' support.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Galvin, Josephson, Ortiz, Edgmon, Foster
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Cronk, Stapp, Coulombe, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 30 was ADOPTED.
3:08:23 PM
Co-Chair Johnson remarked that Amendments N 39 and N 40
were next. She asked Representative Ortiz if the amendments
were hefty.
Representative Ortiz replied that they should not take a
lot of time; however, he would need a brief at ease prior
to presenting them.
Co-Chair Johnson relayed that the committee would take a
break for about an hour.
3:09:25 PM
AT EASE
4:36:52 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 39. [Due to
the length of the amendment, it has not been included here.
See copy on file for details.]
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment that would
provide for an increase for the cost of services due to
inflation (a 10 percent increase of FY 25) for Department
of Fish and Game (DFG) stock assessment. He had previously
served as the chair of the DFG finance subcommittee and in
order to provide maximum opportunity for commercial
fishermen there needed to be thorough and adequate
assessment of stocks. He explained that assessments
included using airplanes to fly over schools of fish or
dealing with weirs in rivers to determine escapement levels
and the number of fish, which enabled DFG to make decisions
for fishermen. He explained that if DFG could not monitor
the weirs, it had to manage more conservatively and not
allow potential opportunities that may exist if the
assessments were done. He elaborated that inflation and
increased fuel costs and other things resulted in
circumstances where DFG did not have the resources for
management. The amendment amounted to $43,500. He explained
that under the CS, the Chelatna weir located in the central
district had been added back at a cost of $130,000 to allow
DFG to do a more accurate count. He asked for members'
support.
Representative Hannan supported the amendment. She pointed
out that the funds appeared in the commercial fisheries
budget. She explained that the commercial fisheries
assessment did all of the assessment and stock analysis for
all fisheries. She detailed that when commercial fisheries
did not have the money to do assessments, no fishing took
place. The in-season management determined the number of
days dip netting was open on the Kenai or Copper River. She
stated it was important to ensure the department had the
resources to keep as many fisheries open and that required
as much surveying and analysis in season as possible.
4:41:41 PM
Representative Cronk stated that the key word pertaining to
the amendment was "additional." He had the budget in his
subcommittee and DFG had requested inflation proofing in
its budget for every division. He stated that the money in
the amendment was not needed, and DFG had plenty of money.
He stated relayed that the money in the amendment exceeded
the department's request and it was not needed for the
department to do what was needed.
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up. He highlighted that
the CS added the Chelatna weir at a cost of $130,000. He
did not recall whether it had been taken out by the
department and did not know whether DFG asked for it to be
added back. He stated that what the department asked for
publicly and what it needed was sometimes different. He
shared that people within commercial fisheries under DFG
had told him that the division had been hit hard by
inflation and costs had increased. Additionally, he had
been told that there were assessments that had not been
done because the money was not available. The amendment was
in support of the overall industry and all of the
districts; it gave DFG the resources needed to manage the
state's fisheries to the maximum sustainable yield as
directed under the state's constitution. The amendment cost
$43,500 for the benefit of fishermen. He asked for members'
support.
Representative Cronk MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Galvin, Josephson, Oritz
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Coulombe, Cronk, Stapp, Foster,
Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 39 FAILED (4/7).
4:45:02 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 40. [Due to
the length of the amendment, it has not been included here.
See copy on file for details.]
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment was the same
as Amendment N 39, but the increment was reduced to 5
percent at a cost of $21,800. He asked for members'
support.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Josephson, Ortiz, Hannan
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Stapp, Coulombe, Cronk, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 40 FAILED (4/7).
4:46:25 PM
Representative Josephson WITHDREW Amendment N 41 (copy on
file).
4:47:09 PM
AT EASE
4:49:58 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 54 (copy on
file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Senior and Disabilities Svcs
Allocation: Senior Community Based Grants
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Funding for Adult Day Services
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 2,000.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total 2,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 2,000.0
Representative Cronk OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment that would add
$2 million for Alaska adult daycare operations. He relayed
that Alaska's ten adult daycare grantees were struggling to
provide services due to inflation, increased needs,
challenging behaviors, and workforce turnover. In addition
to the need for meaningful financial support for existing
grantees, many Alaskans were underserved or had no adult
day or respite services available. The development and
expansion of the services was needed across urban and rural
Alaska as the state's population aged. Support was needed
to provide caregivers with financial stabilization. He
stated that the funding would enable grantees to serve more
Alaskans, especially those not qualified for Medicaid. He
explained that the service provided respite service for
adults with impairments. Qualifying adults received support
in group-based facilities. He characterized the situation
as a question of priorities. He elaborated that the state's
population was aging and there were real needs to provide
services to elders and other adults experiencing
challenges. He asked members to support the amendment.
Representative Galvin supported the amendment. The number
of Alaskans above the age of 75 was growing by 5 percent.
She shared that she had used adult day services for family
members and emphasized that even an hour of bingo gave the
family important breaks. She elaborated that it allowed
families the ability to take care of their elders and kept
individuals out of institutions. She stressed that the cost
of institutional care was extremely high for the state. She
added that the services provided individuals with dignity.
She was very supportive of the amendment. She added that
given the increased age of Alaskans and increased cost, the
amendment was a reasonable investment.
4:54:18 PM
Representative Josephson supported the amendment. He
remarked that there had been a relatively narrow vote of
5/6 on an inflation adjustment of $998,000 for AGEnet and
AARP. He noted that adult day services provided some of the
same needs. He cited his notes from a meeting on March 11
where the Alzheimer's Association and related organizations
spoke in support of the $2 million for day providers. There
were currently facilities in Fairbanks, Nome, and Ketchikan
and the money would be housed with senior and disabilities
grants. The organizations reported that the Fairbanks
Resource Agency was short staffed, facing budgeting
challenges, and needing money for adults experiencing
impairments and family caregivers. The Ketchikan Rendezvous
Senior Center was struggling to attract and retain staff
due to low wages. The Nome XYZ Senior Center sought funding
to provide dementia training, ensure nutritious meal
programs, and provide respite for more families. There were
a total of 10 grantees. In a follow up meeting on March 14,
the group reported that a 13 percent senior and disability
services increment went away. The top five reasons were the
impact of inflation, increased need, changing workforce,
operations being limited to care for families, and the need
for more respite hours.
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up. He referenced
individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The
individuals who qualify for adult services included people
of any age with Alzheimer's or any dementia related
diagnosis, people over the age of 60 who experience
functional impairments, adults over the age of 18 with
similar disabilities and service needs to older Alaskans
who were at risk of institutionalization. He shared that
his parents had been impacted by Alzheimer's and it had not
been an easy situation. He stressed that any support to
help with the particular issue should be a priority. He
asked for members' support.
Representative Stapp MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Ortiz, Josephson, Cronk, Galvin, Foster
OPPOSED: Coulombe, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment N 54 was ADOPTED.
4:59:04 PM
Representative Josephson WITHDREW Amendment N 55 (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Johnson stated that the committee had caught up on
the amendments that had been rolled. She relayed that the
committee would continue to address budget amendments the
following morning.
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 270 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB268 Amendment 22 Backup from Rep Ortiz.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| HB 268 Amendments with Actions 040224.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |