Legislature(2019 - 2020)Anch LIO Lg Conf Rm
08/27/2020 09:00 AM House LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
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 | |
| Executive Session | |
| Cares Act Revised Programs - Legislative (rpls) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
August 27, 2020
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Chris Tuck, Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Mark Neuman
Senator Bill Wielechowski (alternate)
Representative Jennifer Johnston (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sharon Jackson
Senator Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
EXECUTIVE SESSION
CARES ACT REVISED PROGRAMS - LEGISLATIVE (RPLS)
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, Acting Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding RPLs and
answered questions.
MEGAN WALLACE, Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the legality of the RPLs before
the committee.
JULIE ANDERSON, Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during consideration of
RPLs.
NEIL STEININGER, Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of
RPLs.
STEVE MASTERMAN, Director
Central Office
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
Department of Natural Resources
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of
RPLs.
MICAELA FOWLER Director
Administrative Services
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of
RPLs.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:04:11 AM
CHAIR CHRIS TUCK called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Representatives Tuck,
Josephson, Spohnholz, Johnston (Alternate) and Senators Bishop,
Stedman, von Imhof, Giessel, and Hoffman were present at the
call to order. Senator Wielechowski (alternate) arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Other legislators present (via
teleconference) were Representatives Edgmon, Drummond, Rauscher,
Merrick, Tarr, and Jackson and Senator Reinbold.
^EXECUTIVE SESSION
EXECUTIVE SESSION
9:05:11 AM
SENATOR BISHOP moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee go into executive session under Uniform Rule 22 (b)
(3), discussion of matters that may, by law, be required to be
confidential. He asked that the following persons remain in the
executive session: Any legislators not on the committee; the
Human Resources Manager and necessary staff; Chair Tuck's staff,
Aurora Hauke; and his staff, Darwin Peterson.
SENATOR BISHOP further moved that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee direct the Chair to make an offer to the
candidate selected by the committee under the guidelines
discussed.
9:05:55 AM
CHAIR TUCK announced that there being no objection, the
committee would go into executive session; [the second motion
was treated as so ordered].
9:06:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:06 a.m. to 1:13 p.m. for
the purpose of executive session.
1:12:50 PM
CHAIR TUCK called the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
meeting back to order at 1:12 p.m. Present at the call back to
order were Representatives Johnston, Spohnholz, Josephson, and
Tuck and Senators Hoffman, Stedman, Giessel, von Imhof, and
Bishop. Also present were Senators Reinbold and Merrick [and
Representative Drummond (via teleconference)].
CHAIR TUCK announced the new director of the Legislative Finance
Division was Alexei Painter.
^CARES ACT REVISED PROGRAMS - LEGISLATIVE (RPLs)
CARES ACT REVISED PROGRAMS - LEGISLATIVE (RPLs)
1:13:39 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the next order of business would be
the CARES Act Revised Programs - Legislative (RPLs).
CHAIR TUCK noted those available to speak to the RPLs.
1:15:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:13 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.
1:15:43 PM
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, Acting Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division, Legislative Agencies and Offices, began with
discussion of RPL 05-2021-0075, Department of Education and
Early Development, National Endowment for the Arts CARES Act,
for $421,500,000 in federal receipts. She said this RPL
includes activities described that fit within the guidelines
provided by the [U.S.] Treasury [Department]. She said it is
essentially a duplicate of the fiscal year 2020 (FY 20) RPL and
requests FY 21 authority for salary support, artists and
contractual fees, and overhead such as rent and utilities. No
match is required. She related, "The council was unable to
execute the grant agreements prior to July first and therefore
is re-requesting the authority for FY 21." She informed the
committee that there are no technical issues with the RPL.
MS. CUNNINGHAM spoke next to RPL 08-2021-0184, Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Administration of
State of Alaska COVID-19 Small Business Relief, for
$249,784,591, which she explained is the amount of unobligated
receipts from the prior RPL. She added, "This is federal
receipts and is operating." Ms. Cunningham said this RPL is
associated with RPL 08-2020-0251, which provides support for
small business relief; however, the department found the program
to be overly restrictive and is expanding the applicant pool by
removing the restrictions for secondary income sources and
businesses that have received funding or have an approved
application through the Small Business Association's Paycheck
Protection Program or Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.
Ms. Cunningham noted that restrictions from the federal CARES
Act still apply.
1:18:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON indicated that attorney [Megan Wallace]
had reported that RPL 08-2021-0184 is "outside the law." He
asked Ms. Cunningham whether she agrees or is coming at the
issue from "a different, fiscal analyst's perspective."
MS. CUNNINGHAM replied that the Legislative Finance Division has
no legal opinion on RPL 08-2021-0184 and finds no technical
issues with it, and she said it is appropriate for the committee
to review it.
1:19:45 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, at the request of Chair Tuck to speak to the
issue of legality, said it appears that RPL 08-2021-0184 "solely
requests a change in the eligibility criteria for the Small
Business Relief Program that was previously subject to the RPL
that Ms. Cunningham indicated, RPL 08-2020-0251." She
continued:
That RPL was previously approved by the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee on May 11, 2020, and, as
everyone is familiar with, after a legal challenge was
ratified by the whole legislature through ... an
enactment into law of Chapter 32, Session Law 2020.
MS. WALLACE said the statute that provides for this RPL process
is AS 37.07.080(h) and is limited "to allowing RPLs to be
submitted by the governor that seek to increase an appropriation
item based on additional federal or other program receipts not
specifically appropriated by the full legislature, subject to
some enumerated procedures." She opined that the request before
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee today falls outside
that process, because the RPL is not seeking an increase of an
appropriation item; it is seeking approval or permission to
expand the eligibility criteria for the Small Business Relief
Program, which has already been approved and ratified by the
legislature; therefore, this is not the appropriate venue by
which "to request legislative approval assuming that it's
necessary."
MS. WALLACE offered a brief review of the tortured history of
the Small Business Relief Program. She said this is not the
first time that a change to the eligibility criteria has been
sought by the governor or the department. She said Judge
Pallenberg had dismissed a prior case on summary judgement in
favor of the State of Alaska, and while the grounds for the
summary judgement are unclear, "it's assuming that the state had
permission to move forward as it had proposed." Ms. Cunningham
continued:
It would ultimately be my opinion that this is not the
appropriate venue for seeking permission to expand
eligibility criteria, but admittedly based on ... at
least [the] lower court, Superior Court rulings, if
there were further legal challenge, ... there is
certainly a possibility that the court could continue
to rule in favor of the state, allowing flexibility
for the eligibility criteria; but the time to seek an
appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court has not yet
expired, and so some caution is warranted, because
this matter could go up to the Alaska Supreme Court.
1:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON prefaced his comment and question by
stating that he did not know how he would vote on this
particular RPL. He said there are two problems. The first is
that Title 37 does not allow the administration to amend an RPL.
The second problem is that the legislature "made a law on May
20" and "we can't rescind action on what we did on May 11." He
asked Ms. Wallace if he was right that "the ratification creates
a secondary problem."
MS. WALLACE replied that she agrees ratification, in this
instance, creates "an exceptionally unique circumstance" and
complicates analysis.
1:27:02 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN recognized that these are unprecedented times
and there was a previous RPL with stringent guidelines and a
proposal for modification. He said he thinks the committee
needed to [approve the RPL] anyway so that the administration
could get the money out to businesses before the money is lost.
Any legal challenges could be dealt with going forward, he said.
He offered his understanding that only a fraction of the funding
had been distributed and that the infrastructure was in place to
distribute the funds.
1:29:22 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN agreed with "the previous speaker." He
questioned why the 50 employee benchmark was not being changed.
He said he knows there are a lot of businesses hurting just as
much as the larger ones with 50-plus employees. He indicated
that if a business with 49 employees is not eligible, then he
would like the committee to change that number.
1:30:47 PM
JULIE ANDERSON, Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community
& Economic Development, told Senator Hoffman that the Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) has looked
at how it manages the expansion of the eligibility requirements.
She said the Small Business Relief Program was started to fill
the void of those not eligible for access to the federal
program. Both the federal and state programs have evolved.
Currently, the RPL is requesting the change of allowing
applicants that have received Small Business Administration
(SBA) funding through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program to have access to
this program, regardless of the amounts of funds they have
received. The department is also requesting the removal of the
secondary income source restriction so that those that do have
secondary businesses to supplement income are eligible. The
third request is the ability to allow the department to have
flexibility to adjust the eligibility requirements. She said
that as businesses subscribe to the funds, after another couple
weeks the department will determine whether applications are
slowing down, at which point it would open up the criteria again
to those entities that were previously excluded. One of the
things the department would look at is the number of full-time
equivalent employees. She said 50 employees or fewer are
eligible under the current program guidelines. In response to a
follow-up question, she clarified that that is 50 or fewer, not
50 or more employees.
1:33:13 PM
CHAIR TUCK offered an update on the RPLs related to the federal
CARES Act. There was question about the legality of setting up
[the Small Business Relief Program] through an RPL, but the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee approved the RPL and the
legislature later ratified it. He said the RPL process is not
intended for setting up programs, and a lawsuit was filed. The
problem with RPL 08-2021-0184 is that it is changing a program
that has already been set in statute. A second purpose of an
RPL is to receive additional funding, but this RPL is not doing
that; it is only changing the eligibility requirements. Chair
Tuck said [Judge Pallenberg] of the Alaska Superior Court
determined that the administration could have done this all
along. Further, he said Bill Milks, an attorney [with the
Department of Law], who served as defense for the State of
Alaska in the lawsuit, said [the administration] does have the
authority to make changes unilaterally at any time. Chair Tuck
said he does not know why the RPL is before the committee other
than for ceremony.
1:36:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that "our attorney" said Judge
Pallenberg's ruling could be read liberally to allow the state
to make adjustments, but that it is fact specific. He reflected
that if the administration had not brought this RPL, there would
have been a lot of complaint about changes. He told
Commissioner Anderson that he understands that the department is
currently working on the applications from the first week of
July. He was told it was a first-come/first-served process. He
remarked that if the new rules take effect, then there will be
more applications than money. He asked Commissioner Anderson,
"Will your department ensure that early applicants don't get
aced out because they were stuck with Credit Union 1 while later
applicants scooped up available cash?"
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON responded that she understands the concern
and the department is keeping track of the funds being spent.
She said, "We will adhere to that goal, that those entities that
submitted complete applications through Credit Union 1 will ...
[be] funded if they're eligible and approved." She noted that
Credit Union 1 had improved the processing time, but DCCED was
continuing to monitor it.
1:39:00 PM
SENATOR BISHOP said there is a Southeast trade union heavily
contingent upon a tourism workforce that may be able "to apply
under these new expanded rules." He remarked that his office,
and probably others, "have been inundated from small businesses
that are hurting." He said, "I'd like these people to get due
consideration."
1:40:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said she agreed with Chair Tuck's
assessment that the RPL process is designed to accept additional
money for programs that already exist; it is not designed to
change eligibility. She said the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee has held three hearing on this program
because of numerous concerns the business community had about
the eligibility criteria omitting many small businesses
throughout the state. She indicated that the administration
made changes based on the testimony heard at those meetings.
She opined that the bigger problem has to do with the
implementation of the program, because it requires too much
paperwork. With an online portal, the administration has been
able to accelerate the number of applications processed. She
stated that so far there have been $214 million in applications
received from 4,453 businesses; approximately $53 million in
applications have already been approved; $290 million were in
the program in the beginning. She said, "It took them about
seven weeks to get $20 million, and it's taken them about two
weeks to get the next ... $33 million." She said she is happy
to support this RPL but does not think it is necessary, because
the administration has what it needs already.
1:42:39 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Ms. Wallace what the risk to the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee would be in passing this
RPL.
MS. WALLACE answered that ultimately the risk is either a
continuation of previously commenced litigation or a new lawsuit
filed, likely on similar grounds that the full legislature needs
to meet and approve any requirements and the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee, as one legislative committee, does not have
the power to act for the full legislature in giving the
permission to change eligibility requirements. She said the
issue has been heard by the Alaska Superior Court in Juneau, and
the judge did not agree with those arguments; however, she said
that "there is still that risk."
SENATOR GIESSEL questioned why Ms. Anderson was bringing this
RPL forward if her department has the latitude to alter the
qualifications for the loans.
MS. ANDERSON deferred to Mr. Steininger.
1:45:17 PM
NEIL STEININGER, Director, Office of Management & Budget, Office
of the Governor, explained that the Office of Management &
Budget (OMB) was putting forth RPL 08-2021-0184 because it felt
that the terms listed in the prior RPL were more limited, and
submitting a new RPL was a more prudent course of action than
making the changes unilaterally.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that Mr. Steininger had heard [Ms.
Wallace] discuss the risk to the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee in going outside its purview by changing statute,
which could result in another lawsuit, and that the previous
judge had opined that latitude existed for DCCED. She asked,
"Did you not considered this previously or was this information
that was unknown to you when you offered the RPL?"
MR. STEININGER responded that his understanding was the judge
had said that "we had the ability to make de minimis changes,"
and "our concern is that some of these restrictions that we are
removing would not necessarily be de minimis changes," thus
would require a new RPL.
1:47:22 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked Mr. Steininger for his take on the RPL process.
MR. STEININGER replied that when revenues come to the state that
were not anticipated during passage of the state budget, RPLs
allow "us to execute on those unanticipated revenues after
making notification to the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee." He said there is a wait period before that
execution to allow the committee or the full legislature "to
take full action should they not agree with the use of these new
revenues." He continued:
In this situation, we received a significant amount of
new revenue from the federal government to address the
COVID-19 outbreak. The RPLs that we introduced last
time included ... restrictions beyond what were
included in that federal grant. In this case, we are
amending still within that federal grant; we've not
... changed anything outside of what the federal
government is allowing, but we are simply notifying
that we are using those new revenues still for the
manner for which they were intended by the grantor,
but also in a way that was unanticipated during the
passage of the operating budget for this year.
CHAIR TUCK indicated Mr. Steininger is right in wanting
unanticipated revenues to be distributed throughout the state
"quicker rather than waiting the 45 days." Nevertheless, he
said if the legislature had not voted for ratification, then he
thought "these would all be ... illegal." He said he thinks it
is clear, from the testimony in the Finance committees and the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, as well as the
statements made by Mr. Milks of the Department of Law (DOL),
that "the authority is already there; it's granted; and it's
been reaffirmed through the courts." He reiterated his
inability to comprehend the necessity of discussing this today
when the administration could have made the changes six weeks
ago.
CHAIR TUCK asked Ms. Anderson to discuss the changes that have
already been made since passage of the RPL on May 12 and
subsequent ratification.
1:50:35 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON listed the following changes: The
inclusion of receipt of SBA PPP and EIDL funds of $5,000 or
less; the ability for nonprofit designation 501(c)(6) to apply
for these funds; the ability for an entity, if it so chose, to
return SBA funds above $5,000 to be eligible for [the Small
Business Relief Program]; and the inclusion of eligibility of
fishermen with limited entry permits. In response to a follow-
up question, she confirmed that she felt she had the authority
to make those changes at the time they were made and that they
were successfully executed.
CHAIR TUCK asked for Ms. Anderson's opinion as to whether there
is any reason why the committee needed to deal with RPL 08-2021-
0184 today and whether she thought she could make those changes
on her own.
MS. ANDERSON replied that through the advice of OMB and DOL, it
was her understanding that "any further changes would not be
considered de minimis, and we didn't want to put the changes to
the program at risk."
1:52:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ indicated that the issue of whether the
change would be de minimis or not is not something that is
addressed by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee; the
committee accepts additional federal funding for existing
programs. If [RPL 08-2021-0184] is not de minimis, then it
would need to be addressed by the full legislature, otherwise
there could be a situation in which the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee is making decisions that are the role of the
entire legislature, especially since the previous RPL had been
ratified subsequently by the full legislature. She questioned
what made the administration decide either that these RPLs were
not de minimis or that it did not want to call a special session
to address these issues.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON deferred to Mr. Steininger.
1:53:55 PM
MR. STEININGER stated, "The changes aren't de minimis, because
they're going to significantly change the applicants who are
available for this program." He said [OMB] believes that [RPL
08-2021-0184] has a solid legal basis for being subject to the
RPL and Legislative Budget and Audit Committee process and is
working within the bounds of the unanticipated federal grant
received.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ requested feedback from a DOL
representative. She cited RPL statute, which describes that
revised program language is for "an increase of an appropriation
item based on additional federal or other program receipts not
specifically appropriated." She queried whether there was an
additional legal analysis that could be cited to identify the
committee "as having a lane here."
1:55:37 PM
CHAIR TUCK said there was no one from DOL to testify. He
mentioned the changes listed by Ms. Anderson and said they are
significant. He said, "I don't see these being any more
significant than what has already been performed by the
administration." He suggested this was a coverup for the
administration having not distributed the money more quickly and
wanting the public to believe that the committee is at fault.
He reiterated his stance that [the administration] has had the
ability to "do this all along." He quoted the aforementioned
testimony of Mr. Milks to support this position.
1:57:27 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF stated that in the midst of a pandemic,
businesses are suffering, and she does not want to stand in the
way of getting the funds distributed quickly to as many
businesses as possible. She said she is happy that the governor
"brought this forward," and she said that "we all had to wait
until around August 7 anyway for the judge's opinion to come
out." She said she does not want to politicize the issue; she
wants to distribute the money quickly, which she said she knows
the administration is doing now "with the portal" and the help
of other financial institutions. She said the judge stated that
Alaska faces an ongoing public health and economic crisis, and
in order to respond effectively to a changing landscape, the
state needs to "maximize" flexibility, especially in regard to
aiding small businesses to prevent their collapse. Senator von
Imhof said she thinks the committee is "going around in circles
and talking about a technicality" and should consider all the
variables that lead to the current situation. She concluded by
urging committee members to help the small businesses by getting
the money to them.
1:59:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that [the administration] should
have called the legislature in to a special session. He said
the administration wrote on op-ed on August 21 stating that it
could not [distribute funds] because of the lawsuit, and he said
that was wrong, because the administration was already
distributing money before that time and there was never anything
prohibiting it from doing so. He asked Ms. Wallace if she
thought the "cleanest way to avoid a lawsuit would be a special
session."
2:01:16 PM
MS. WALLACE answered that she does not think there is any
dispute that the legislature could pass legislation allowing for
these changes and any other it deemed necessary through passage
of a bill and that that passage of legislature would not be
subject to challenge.
2:01:47 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN remarked on the notice requirement for a special
session called by the governor and the length of the special
session and how that would push into the election cycle. He
said, "If you want to burn businesses down, that's a good way of
doing it." He urged the committee put aside politics and "put
money on the street" to save the economy.
2:02:24 PM
CHAIR TUCK highlighted that he does not think anyone is against
[RPL 08-2021-0184]. He emphasized the importance of putting
thoughts on the record. He said this process should not have
taken so long, but said it is no fault of the committee. He
reiterated that the administration has always had the authority.
2:03:54 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM, at the invitation of Chair Tuck, moved on to RPL
10-2021-5047, Department of Natural Resources, Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, for $500,000 in federal receipts. She said
the federal authority for this request comes from various
federal agencies. She said the funding does not require a match
and will be allocated as follows: $215,000 to work on
continuing projects such as coastal hazard mitigation work, the
Alaska Volcano Observatory instrument upgrade, and the North
Slope Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources Project; the
remaining $285,000 is designated to improve digital mapping data
and create a statewide database to archive and distribute age
dates for geologic samples, the statewide Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Groundwater Study, and the Landslide
Hazard Mitigation Plan for Barry Arm. Ms. Cunningham said there
are no technical issues with this RPL.
MS. CUNNINGHAM next addressed RPL 10-2021-5315, Department of
Natural Resources, Federal and Local Government Funded Forest
Resource and Fire Program, for $7 million federal. She said
previously annual federal grant authority was requested ranging
from $1.4 to $1.8 million because of the availability of more
federal funding for projects including competitive grant awards
for hazardous fuel reduction, wildfire and prevention education,
special forest disease surveys, forest restoration projects,
biomass inventories, and grants to volunteer fire departments
and communities for various urban forestry. She related that
this spending requires no match and there are no technical
issues.
MS. CUNNINGHAM brought attention to RPL 10-2021-5316, Department
of Natural Resources, National Historic Preservation Fund, for
$500,000 in federal receipts and for capital. She said this RPL
provides funds for protection, preservation, and rehabilitation
or restoration of historic property. She said $200,000 is for
development grants, and the remainder will support the Office of
History and Archeology. She said the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is using existing funds "for match" and has said
it does not need the match for FY 21. She relayed there are no
technical issues for this RPL.
2:07:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted his office had identified
approximately one dozen [fund sources], including the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, that were in the capital budget as it
existed when the legislature recessed on March 28, 2020, but
were not included in the RPLs. He said some of these were "free
to the state." He asked Mr. Steininger for an explanation.
2:09:21 PM
MR. STEININGER explained that [the administration/OMB] was
looking only for capital projects where the fund sources on the
project were eligible for the RPL Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee process. He offered his understanding that those are
listed under Section 37 of the operating budget. He clarified,
"So, several capital projects that have significant amounts of
federal revenues coming in required match from fund sources that
aren't eligible for this process; so, those projects weren't
able to be included in this RPL package." The ones in the
package either did not require matching funds or had matching
funds that are available either through a fund source available
for this process or for which "the department was able to
identify a way to use an existing appropriation to match to the
federal revenues."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON specified a capital budget item that
would have brought $1 million and required no matching funds,
entitled "develop application to meet EPA e-reporting rule." He
asked Mr. Steininger why that one would have violated the rule.
MR. STEININGER answered that the other criteria that [the
administration/OMB] had put forward to the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee was that "there exists an active
appropriation that the capital project can be applied to." He
pointed out that all the capital projects included in the
package are related to annually reoccurring capital projects -
ones that exist from the year before and which can be increased.
He clarified, "So, we only were able to apply this process to
existing appropriations that are currently active. So, there
are a couple of projects that were introduced in the capital
budget that we put forward during last session that don't have
prior year capital projects for the same purpose or an operating
appropriation for the same purpose that we could apply these
revenues to."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked, "You can see in the RPLs that
this administration gets creative when it wants to."
2:12:50 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM, at the invitation of Chair Tuck introduced RPL
10-2021-5317, Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Mapping
for Energy Development. She said this is also referred to as
[the U.S. Geological Survey] (USGS) "STATEMAP." She said this
RPL requests federal authority from USGS STATEMAP grant. She
stated, "The primary purpose of this project is to acquire a
comprehensive new geologic ... dataset to catalyze private
sector oil and gas exploration beyond the core Prudhoe Bay area.
This has been included in the previous two capital budgets."
Ms. Cunningham said the department has identified existing match
and is requesting only the federal authority. She said there
are no technical issues.
2:13:46 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether Mr. Masterson anticipated
executing these funds this field season.
2:14:07 PM
STEVE MASTERMAN, Director, Central Office, Division of
Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural
Resources, responded that this is a two-part grant. The first
part is for the field mapping, which he said [the division] had
originally intended to do during summer 2020; however, the
coronavirus "scuffled those plans." The plan now is to do the
mapping early in 2021, preferable before the end of the fiscal
year. He said the second part of the grant is for putting
together a geologic map database, which is all office work.
2:15:14 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM directed attention to RPL 10-2021-5318,
Department of Natural Resources, Critical Minerals Mapping
Earth MRI (3DEEP), for $1.8 million, including $1.5 in federal
and $300,000 in statutory designated program receipts (SDPR).
She said the project is continuation of the National Mineral
Security Program Three-Dimensional Mapping Empowerment Program
and has been renamed by USGS "Earth MRI," which stands for
Mapping Resources Initiatives. She said the project's objective
is to geologically map Alaska at a 1:100,000 scale, create new
geophysical survey data, digitally upgrade historical
geophysical surveys, and publish the resulting data and reports.
Ms. Cunningham noted that because the state match is voluntary,
the department can proceed without it and is requesting only
federal and SDPR authority in this RPL. She said, "There are no
issues."
CHAIR TUCK asked whether more matching funds could come to this
RPL if the state were to decide to add more to the capital
budget.
MS. CUNNINGHAM confirmed that is correct.
2:16:52 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked Ms. Wallace for her legal opinion on the RPLs
ending in 5315, 5316, 5317, and 5318.
2:17:23 PM
MS. WALLACE responded that the last four RPLs reviewed by Ms.
Cunningham each seek to increase capital appropriations that
were made in FY 20 to allow for expenditure of receipts that
would be received in FY 20. She said the RPLs identify that a
capital budget request was made for each of those programs
asking that the legislature appropriate funds for FY 20. She
referred to the language of AS 37.07.080(h), which allows an RPL
to be submitted to increase an appropriation based on additional
federal receipts not specifically appropriated by the full
legislature. She said while the full legislature did pass
appropriations in FY 20 for those programs, the governor
requested funding for the programs for FY 21, "presented them to
the legislature, and the ... full legislature has not yet
appropriated those funds." Therefore, she said there is a
question as to whether the governor can circumvent the
appropriation process to increase the appropriations that were
in the previous fiscal year. She stated that AS 37.07.080(h) is
not specific in limiting requests to appropriations made within
the same fiscal year; therefore, this would be a novel issue.
She concluded, "But because the RPLs plainly are intended to
substitute for the normal appropriation process, I would advise
that some caution is warranted."
2:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the caution is related to
the possibility that the legislature could not [emphasis on
"not"] pass a capital budget and, because a capital budget has
up to a five-year lifespan, the governor could issue "all sorts
of RPLs and essentially take over the role of appropriating a
capital budget."
MS. WALLACE replied, "The caution is a general separation of
powers caution." She continued:
I suspect that there's numerous hypotheticals or
scenarios you could create that the same caution would
exist in utilizing prior year appropriation as
authority to increase either where the legislature has
not taken up and approved the appropriations or
specifically acted to not include those appropriations
in their normal budget process.
... Given the current situation, in terms of the
pandemic, that's not a factor ... to be ignored when
you're evaluating risks and likelihood of success if
someone were to challenge, so it is a relevant
consideration in terms of the options that are
available to the governor and the legislature when
evaluating what the risk of the separation of powers
issue might ultimately be.
2:22:16 PM
CHAIR TUCK introduced a hypothetical situation where one
legislature accepted funds from a federal program and a
subsequent legislature did not like the program and decided not
to accept the funds. He asked, "If a precedent is set by
accepting these RPLs today, would that grant authority from a
future governor to agree with the federal government can just
work around the legislative process and get an RPL passed?" He
asked for confirmation that if the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee does not approve an RPL, the governor could "be able
to do that 45 days later on his own."
MS. WALLACE answered that is correct. Absent a legal challenge,
she said that "this RPL" would continue to follow the process
underlined in AS 37.07.080(h). So, even if the committee did
not approve the RPL, the funds would likely be expended by the
administration after the 45-day waiting period expired. She
said she thought the caution she previously advised would apply
to the hypothetical situation outlined by Chair Tuck, and she
reiterated the concern about separation of powers and the issue
of appropriation.
2:24:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether "we should take solace in
the fact that typically there is not a pandemic," thus the
legislature would typically pass a capital budget and there
historically are not that many "capital RPLs." He said that in
other words, "we would consume by appropriation the available
capital opportunities," thus "this circumstance could be
anomalous."
MS. WALLACE answered that that opinion is "a little bit of a
policy choice." She said that based on the RPLs themselves,
there seems to be evidence that these are projects that are done
routinely, on an annual basis, funded by the legislature. None
of the projects currently being discussed are new projects not
previously approved by the legislature; therefore, history
demonstrates that the legislature "might continue to fund them,"
but each legislature makes that decision.
2:25:27 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM, at the request of Chair Tuck, turned to RPL 10-
2021-5319, Department of Natural Resources, Agriculture Grant
Programs Funding Economic Assistance, for $4 million in
federal receipts, operating. She said funding from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Division
provides "small agriculture microgrants to individuals and
organizations to provide growing resources to Alaska food
growers and to increase food security and resiliency in rural
communities and Alaska as a whole." She said there is no state
match required on this RPL and no previous capital appropriation
has been requested; it is being requested as an operating
appropriation; and there are no technical issues.
2:26:21 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked Ms. Wallace whether this RPL falls into the
same category as the previous four.
MS. WALLACE answered that this RPL uses FY 21 operating
authority "to increase, based on these federal funds." She
pointed out that it seeks to increase FY 21 operating funds
because there are no FY 21 capital funds, and "this was
submitted as a capital project." She said, "While there is a
potential argument that the scope of the operating appropriation
does not specifically include this grant program, it's something
that I mainly just note for the committee."
2:27:33 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM next introduced RPL 11-2021-0021, Department of
Fish and Game, Chinook Mitigation, for $6.2 million in federal
receipts, "also an operating item." She said this RPL has two
components: First is an amount of $4.7 million already received
by the department, from which $2.7 million will go toward
tagging trailers, and the remaining $2 million will support
operations for increased marking and tagging. The remainder of
$4.1 million will come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to support various hatchery projects. Ms.
Cunningham stated that there are no technical issues with this
RPL.
2:28:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that Ms. Wallace had identified
this RPL as being somewhat unique, in that it does not "touch
that five-year window" but rather "a nine-year window or an
eight-year window." Further, it is a capital appropriation,
which in his view "connects itself to an operating budget
appropriation." He asked whether his understanding was correct.
MS. WALLACE responded that is correct. She said the RPL states
that the last time the legislature approved a capital project
for this purpose was in 2001 and 2012, so "unlike the earlier
DNR RPLs, wherein the legislature routinely, on an annual basis,
approves those projects," the administration was forced to use
operating appropriations on this RPL "to seek to increase to
accept these federal receipts."
2:30:05 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF cited language on page 3 of the RPL, to the
last two sentences of the first paragraph, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]: "An electronic transfer was
received by the Department of Fish & Game on April 28, 2020.
Additional authority is needed in order for the Department to
spend these funds." She interpreted that the preceding language
notes there was "considerable discussion by the U.S. Section of
Pacific Salmon Commission," and "they divvied up this money to
various states" and Alaska received its portion at the end of
April. She said she assumes the department just needs the
authority to spend the money.
MS. CUNNINGHAM confirmed that is correct.
SENATOR VON IMHOF speculated that this a unique circumstance,
and she said the money is there.
MS. CUNNINGHAM responded that is correct.
2:31:12 PM
MS. CUNNINGHAM at the request of Chair Tuck introduced RPL 11-
2021-0022, Department of Fish and Game, Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund, for $4.6 million in federal receipts, capital.
She stated that this program's objective is to promote
sustainability of Alaska's salmon population and maintain salmon
populations that are used for subsistence. She said this is an
annual capital request, and there is no excess authority from
prior years. She said there are no technical issues with this
RPL.
MS. CUNNINGHAM next spoke to RPL 12-2021-0047, Department of
Public Safety, Marine Fisheries Patrol Improvements, for $1.1
million in federal receipts, capital. She said this RPL
provides funding to support the joint enforcement agreement with
the National Marine Fisheries Service. The federally regulated
marine fisheries occur on a year-round basis. She said this RPL
provides funding for an Alaska wildlife trooper personal
services and equipment. She relayed there are no technical
issues with this RPL.
MS. CUNNINGHAM continued to RPL 18-2021-0447, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
Voluntary Heating Device Change Out Program. She said the EPA
requires the Fairbanks North Star Borough to implement strict
air pollution controls in the area. This project is designed to
enhance the implementation of the wood smoke reduction measures;
wood heating devices will be replaced to convert to oil,
electric, natural gas, or propane heaters. She said no state
match is required, and there are not technical issues with this
RPL.
2:33:46 PM
CHAIR TUCK noted that the last time this was funded was 2018.
2:34:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:34 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.
2:37:44 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the committee had covered all the
RPLs, and the technical and legal issues surrounding them had
been discussed. He reemphasized that the committee was in a
unique situation to get money to the public and to receive as
much money as possible from the federal government on behalf of
the State of Alaska.
2:38:06 PM
SENATOR BISHOP moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve the following RPLs:
RPL 05-2021-0075, Department of Education and Early
Development, National Endowment for the Arts CARES Act
RPL 08-2021-0184, Department of Commerce, Community,
and Economic Development, Administration of State of
Alaska COVID-19 Small Business Relief
RPL 10-2021-5047, Department of Natural Resources,
Geological and Geophysical Surveys
RPL 10-2021-5315, Department of Natural Resources,
Federal and Local Government Funded Forest Resource
and Fire Program
RPL 10-2021-5316, Department of Natural Resources,
National Historic Preservation Fund
RPL 10-2021-5317, Department of Natural Resources,
Geologic Mapping for Energy Development (USGS
STATEMAP)
RLP 10-2021-5318, Department of Natural Resources,
Critical Minerals Mapping Earth MRI (3DEEP)
RPL 10-2021-5319, Department of Natural Resources,
Agriculture Grant Programs Funding Economic
Assistance
RPL 11-2021-0021, Department of Fish and Game, Chinook
Salmon Mitigation
RPL 11-2021-0022, Department of Fish and Game, Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
RPL 12-2021-0047, Department of Public Safety, Marine
Fisheries Patrol Improvements
RPL 18-2021-0447, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
Voluntary Heating Device Change Out Program
SENATOR BISHOP further stated:
Passage of these RPLs represents action taken during
an unprecedented public health disaster. This action
does not represent an ... abrogation of the
legislature's preeminent constitutional appropriation
authority.
2:40:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected for purposes of discussion.
He reminded the committee that on May 11, he had voted to
approve the RPLs, but he had expressed concern with the
legislature "not intervening to capture those funds as
appropriators," as he said is called for in the state's
constitution. He remarked that with the exception of the
capital items, the committee is here today "because the RPLs
were not written well." He noted that the legislature then
ratified the RPLs, which was good to show the full legislature's
support for the spending; however, it also meant that these RPLs
were now trying to change statute. He said although he agreed
with Representative Spohnholz that the proper procedure of the
administration would have been to call a special session, "it's
hard to complain about somebody who believes that they've gone
beyond the envelope, and they are making changes so great that
they need legislative approval." He further acknowledged that
because the legislature did not do a capital budget, the
administration is "sort of rescuing some these federal dollars."
However, he expressed concern that the administration is not
rescuing, with the assistance of the legislature, approximately
$44 million in federal funds that would have cost the state
approximately only $3.5 million. He acknowledged Senator
Stedman's point about the number of days that would be added to
address the issue through special session; however, he said he
is astonished that no one is discussing "the obvious," since
there had been so many committee hearings on this issue. He
said he has no idea why the administration did not address this
on June 15. He expressed concern about the expansion of the RPL
process to the point that he no longer knows what the
limitations are.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reiterated that he thinks the
administration can find "the linkage" to federal programs at
will. He said he wants the public to know that the
legislature's chief attorney warned that the committee's
decision on May 11 could result in a lawsuit, and she was right.
Now she has said the current RPLs, specifically the Small
Business Relief Fund, are outside the law, and he said the
committee is about to approve that RPL "with the hope that no
one cares and that just about everybody supports the
modification." He said he does not know whether it is smart to
expand "a 50-cap limit that somebody, hopefully smart, at OMB
thought was wise in April and May." He said what was named
"small" is now a "big business RPL." He said he finds the RPL
process fascinating but thinks the legislature's process has
been usurped and he does not know "where it ends." He expressed
his wish that there had been more negotiations, such as when the
loan program had been turned into a grants program. He stated
that he thinks the single-most disturbing thing is that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee is saying to the rest of
the legislature, "Never you mind; we got this."
2:48:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ clarified that she had not meant that
the legislature should go into special session but that she did
not think the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee was the
right place to do that which the administration wanted done.
She said the administration could either decide that it has the
authority to make changes to expand eligibility, which it did
previously, or it could request the authority of the full
legislature. She noted the spread of the coronavirus and
emphasized that these are extraordinary times. She opined that
although there are aspects of the RPLs, particularly regarding
the capital budget items, where she would typically express that
she does not want to be taking away the full authority of the
legislature, "out of necessity we should continue forward in as
close a partnership as we can with the administration to make
sure that we're getting these funds out ... to agencies and
communities." She said the legislature "needs to be ratifying
these things later."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said she does not want the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee to be setting precedent this year
that could undermine its authority. She said the state
currently has one of the most powerful executive branches in the
country; therefore, "we don't want to be ceding more authority."
She said it is incumbent of the legislature to ensure it holds
ground as the appropriator. She stated, "The only reason we
would be circumventing our own authority at this moment is
because we are in a pandemic, and it wouldn't be responsible for
us to ask for hundreds of people from across the state to go to
Juneau for a special session right now, or hundreds of people to
gather any place right now. It's not a responsible thing to do.
And the responsible thing to do right now is to approve these
things and to continue to work very closely with the
administration."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ reemphasized that she thinks the
administration could have taken care of these issues, and she
thinks [handing them to the committee] is "a scapegoat for bad
execution of a program that could have been executed better in
the very beginning." She said that DCCED had the necessary
tools. She opined that the poor execution of the administration
is what is responsible "for much of the jeopardy that small
businesses across the state of Alaska are facing right now - not
our inaction."
2:52:01 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF, to a previous comment that there was no
capital budget passed in the spring, stated that the bulk of the
capital budget was tucked in to the operating budget as an
efficiency. She said the bulk of the capital items - highway,
airport, and village safe drinking water funds - were passed.
She indicated that some capital items were "left on the table,"
because the legislature had to make haste in response to the
unknown level of threat from the pandemic. She commended the
governor for making an attempt to find items that do not require
a state match from the general fund.
SENATOR VON IMHOF, regarding why the administration could not do
this on its own, said she thinks that "the administration
probably was," and she thinks the good news is that "by punting
it" to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee to approve
today, "fingers cannot be pointed at the legislature anymore
that we were the bottleneck." By saying "okay," she indicated,
"the onus, the volley, is back in the governor's court and the
administration's court to get this money out." She concluded,
"We're all responsible to get this money out, and I think we're
all taking responsibility today."
2:54:06 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked whether those who already applied but did not
qualify would be in the queue.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON answered they would have to reapply
through the portal. She offered her understanding that there
are at least $65 million in funds that have not been requested.
She encouraged applicants to look at the frequently asked
questions and fill out a complete application as quickly as
possible.
2:55:34 PM
SENATOR BISHOP said this could turn into a big business loan;
therefore, he emphasized the importance of saving those in the
queue.
CHAIR TUCK proffered that some business owners that have spoken
to him have identified that they would like a definition of
"equipment" so that they do not get their applications rejected.
He opined that it is unfair for applicants who have already
applied to be "knocked out of the queue." He said some
applicants have given back the money they received in order to
not be limited in opportunity to receive "up to $100,000 through
our program." He warned that the business owners that applied
from the beginning are going to suffer. He mentioned the
expansion to over 50 employees and reaching beyond Alaska-owned
businesses, and he opined that there is a way to give money to
those who already applied, because they deserve it first,
"before we go into those other options just to get the money
out."
2:58:02 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON clarified that the intent through the RPL
and proposed changes is not to expand the eligibility to larger
businesses; the intent is to keep the number at 50 full-time
employees or fewer. She restated her previous comment that as
the department goes through the program and analyzes its usage,
if it appears there are still unrequested funds available, then
it would consider amending the program to expand it to larger
businesses, for example. She said the department would try to
ensure that those eligible now under the proposed changes are
fully subscribed. In response to a follow-up question, she said
there is no intent to expand to businesses out of state.
CHAIR TUCK said the governor's press release states that if
given the authority, he would look into it. He said, "I think
we're granting that authority in this particular RPL." He said
there are many Alaska-owned small businesses that are hurting,
and which he hoped would be able to take advantage of "the $290
million that we originally had to get out to them." He noted
that businesses with greater than 50 employees have the
financial resources to make sure their applications are correct.
Further, those larger business would be asking for a larger sum,
proportionally, which would "suck up a lot of opportunities from
those other businesses." He asked Ms. Anderson whether, if the
intent were to expand, she would at least inform the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee before making that decision.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON reemphasized that that is not the intent.
She said, "In the RPL it states that we would like to have the
ability to have more flexibility as we review the usage of these
funds. Our intent was always to help the small businesses and
get those funds out to them as quickly as possible." There are
still many eligible for receipt of SBA funds with the expanded
guidelines. She said, "We expect that - I do, anyway - that we
probably will be oversubscribed just on the relaxing of those
requirements." She deferred to Micaela Fowler for further
comment.
3:01:21 PM
MICAELA FOWLER Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, said Ms. Anderson
clearly outlined "what the intent of this RPL is." She
suggested some of the confusion may be the full listing of items
that would make a business ineligible under the ratified RPL
0251, which included secondary sources of income, out of state
businesses, and businesses with over 50 employees. She
continued:
But this RPL does provide some flexibility to the
department to make adjustments and then specifically
removes the restriction for businesses that have
received PPP or EIDL funding and businesses that are a
secondary income source.
The reason that we requested that flexibility is if we
determined in four weeks, after having had this
expanded eligibility with the EIDL restrictions and
the secondary income source restrictions removed, that
we still did not have applications in our queue that
reached the total of the appropriation, we would like
to be able to consider additional adjustments to make
sure all of those funds could be expended. But again,
we would only do that if this initial expansion of
eligibility did not result in the full usage of the
appropriation.
3:03:32 PM
CHAIR TUCK quoted language from RPL 08-2021-0814, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
This may include, but is not limited to, raising the
number of full-time equivalent employees a business
may have and still qualify for the program,
disbursement processes, and allowable expenses.
Accordingly, the DCCED will be able to adjust
eligibility requirements and grant amounts as
necessary to allow for full use of federal funds made
available to the CARES Act to assist Alaska
businesses.
CHAIR TUCK said the sentence prior to that grants the department
maximum flexibility, and he said he had wanted to know under
what criteria, thus was grateful for the explanation. He opined
that "before we go into that option" there should be at least a
couple of public hearings, because he wants to ensure all
resources have been exhausted to get the money to all Alaska-
owned businesses first. Thus far, he said what he is hearing
from frustrated business owners, who have applied is that "it
just simply isn't happening."
3:04:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her interpretation that the
department has said it is not its intention for the money to go
to non-Alaska businesses, and the RPL, which was restating some
previous exclusions, had been misread. She recapped the
statements made by Ms. Anderson regarding the flexibility
desired. She said she does not think there will be a situation
in which funds are leftover, because as of close of business
August 26, almost 4,500 applications had been received totaling
approximately $215 million. With the modest changes discussed
today giving more flexibility to small businesses that have
already received the EIDL or PPP funding, she expects the entire
$290 million will be utilized. She stated her concern is there
will not be sufficient funds to meet the needs of businesses.
She related Anchorage businesses continue to be closed because
of public health measures, and problems with COVID-19 continue,
thus prolonging those health measures.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked Commissioner Anderson whether she
had heard anything from the federal government about additional
funding that may come to Alaska in the future.
3:07:22 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON responded, "We have not heard anything
definitive around this." She said she thinks the money will be
fully subscribed once the qualifications are relaxed, and she
said the department is going "to do a full press effort" to
inform the public of the changes and to ensure applications are
made as quickly as possible.
3:08:02 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN agreed with Representative Spohnholz and others
that with the expanded scope there will be more applicants than
there are funds. He said rather than a first-come/first-served
basis, he would like to see the money distributed to those
businesses with the least amount of employees "and then go up
the list."
3:09:35 PM
CHAIR TUCK talked about the barber or hairdresser that has no
employees but rents a booth from the salon, which rents from the
mall owner, who pays the mortgage, and how the money "trickles
up." He mentioned in-home child care with a limit of six
children and how the pandemic has shut them down, and he
questioned where the relief is for them. He expressed
appreciation for Senator Hoffman's comment, because it gets to
the crux of asking who is being helped and whether the money is
doing what it is expected to do.
3:10:42 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that at the inception of the
program, sole proprietors and independent contractors were
eligible; no employees were necessary in terms of eligibility.
She said child care is probably that person's sole source of
income, and the department is trying to reach those individuals
that are hurting right now. She said, "We do understand the
need, and I appreciate the support for that."
3:12:31 PM
CHAIR TUCK reviewed that the committee had heard from Ms.
Wallace about concerns regarding the changing of eligibility
requirements, as well as concerns about going back to previous
fiscal years and approving money for FY 20 and FY 21. He said
he is glad the statement was made with the motion about
preserving [the legislature's] right to appropriate. He said he
does not want that authority eroded away, but he understands the
uncertain and unique times currently being faced and the need
for quick action. He reiterated that he thinks many of the
provisions in RPL 08-2021-0184, for small businesses assistance,
could already have been enacted. Nevertheless he expressed his
willingness to "ceremoniously bless what the governor is wanting
to do."
3:12:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, the RPLs were approved.
3:14:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 20-08-27 LBA Agenda.pdf |
JBUD 8/27/2020 9:00:00 AM |
|
| RPL Packet (includes backup) for August 27, 2020 Meeting - Revised 8.25.pdf |
JBUD 8/27/2020 9:00:00 AM |