Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/20/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: American Rescue Plan Act Guidelines by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FIRST SPECIAL SESSION
May 20, 2021
1:33 p.m.
1:33:16 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Neil Steininger, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Paloma Harbour, Fiscal Management
Practices Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT GUIDELINES BY THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and BUDGET
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
^PRESENTATION: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT GUIDELINES BY THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and BUDGET
1:33:52 PM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced the PowerPoint
Presentation: "House Finance US Treasury Fiscal Relief
Guidance Overview" (copy on file). He began by reviewing
the presentation agenda on slide 2:
Agenda
? Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund
(CSLFRF) Allocations to Alaska
? American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act Language on Eligible
Uses & Restrictions
? Treasury Preliminary Guidance (Interim Final Rule)
on Eligible Uses & Restrictions
? Covered period
? Broad use categories with eligible use examples
? Specific stated restrictions
? Reporting requirements
? Follow-up Questions / Next Steps
? Capital Project Funds
? Tribal Government Funds
1:35:25 PM
Mr. Steininger continued to slide 3 to review the
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF)
allocations to Alaska. He reported there was $1.25 billion
in discretionary funding coming to Alaska through the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The slide included an
attachment, Alaska CSLFRF Allocations 5.10.2021 (copy on
file) that provided additional detail. He noted the money
coming to Alaska was slightly lower than initial estimates
released when ARPA had passed at the federal level; the
guidance released on May 10 slightly reduced the amount
going directly to the state and redistributed funds to
other census areas, non-entitlement units, and metropolitan
cities. The slide indicated which items required an
appropriation by the legislature and which items would flow
to the entity without legislative or state action.
1:36:26 PM
Mr. Steininger examined the uses and restrictions language
of the ARPA CSLFRF on slide 4. The slide listed the four
main categories for allowable spending and the two primary
restrictions included in ARPA language. He would review
allowable uses on slide 5 and information included in the
interim final rule released on May 10. He read the
information on slide 4:
ARP CSLFRF Uses and Restrictions Language
The American Rescue Plan specified that these funds
can be used to cover expenses
A. to respond to the public health emergency with
respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) or
its negative economic impacts;
B. to respond to workers performing essential work
during the COVID-19 public health emergency by
providing premium pay to eligible workers performing
such essential work;
C. for the provision of government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19
public health emergency relative to revenues collected
in the most recent full fiscal year; and
D. to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or
broadband infrastructure.
Restrictions include
A. direct or indirect offsets to a reduction in net
tax revenue resulting from changing law, regulation,
or administrative interpretation during the covered
period that reduces or delays the imposition of any
tax or tax increase;
B. deposits into any pension fund.
1:37:50 PM
Mr. Steininger discussed the covered period/period of
performance on slide 5 titled "Treasury Guidance - Interim
Final Rule (IFR)." The initial expenditure period had been
March 3, 2021, through December 31, 2024; however, the
interim final rule included information allowed additional
a project/grant closeout period through December 31, 2026.
The change allowed additional flexibility for spending. The
updated guidance clarified that payments were intended to
be used prospectively for costs into the future and
economic recovery. He noted that essential workers could
receive retrospective premium pay for prior work as well as
prospective premium pay for current or ongoing work.
Additionally, COVID-19 revenue loss estimates were
retrospective and prospective (revenue lost during the
pandemic and revenue that may be lost in the future as a
result of the pandemic).
1:39:19 PM
Co-Chair Foster wondered about the first bullet point
indicating covered costs began on March 3, 2021. He thought
coverage of costs incurred began March of 2020.
Mr. Steininger clarified that the period beginning March
23, 2020, fell under the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), or
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding.
Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding that CARES Act
covered the initial period, and ARPA covered the later
period.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Representative Josephson thought that one of the state's
better and more creative arguments was a slight dip in oil
severance tax in FY 19 and FY 20. He asked if the argument
in terms of the delta with the state's current revenue had
gone away.
Mr. Steininger replied that the revenue loss estimates
could be looked at retrospectively, but the expenditure
justified through that revenue loss would be prospective.
He clarified that the state could count the revenue loss to
use funds for future expenditures.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether the same would hold true for
retrospective revenue losses in municipalities.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Representative Edgmon asked whether more had been learned
about the state's certification process. He asked if it
applied to the state receiving funds, but not any
eligibility aspect.
Mr. Steininger answered that the 60-day certification was
the allowable time period on the Treasury website for the
Division of Finance certify and enable the receipt of
funds.
PALOMA HARBOUR, FISCAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ANALYST, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, added
that Treasury had opened the certification portal on May
10, 2021. The state had submitted its certification and had
received the state funding on May 17, 2021. She relayed
that that money could not be spent until it was
appropriated. She related that the portal had been opened
for boroughs and metropolitan cities to receive their
funding. She said that when the administration had
submitted its certification for the state funding, Treasury
assumed that the certification would also be applied to the
nonentitlement unit funding and for census areas, but the
funding would not been distributed until additional
guidance had been released.
Representative Edgmon remarked that the House Finance
Committee had heard and passed a bill on allowing for
creativity with short-term financing mechanisms. He
imagined the state could not invest the federal money in
short-term instruments.
1:43:22 PM
Ms. Harbour reviewed the IFR eligible uses on slide 6:
Treasury Guidance IFT Eligible Uses
A. to respond to the public health emergency support
the public health response
• Covid -19 Mitigation and Containment
• Medical Expenses
• Behavioral Healthcare
• Public Health & Safety Staff
o More narrowly defined than CARES Act
Ms. Harbour explained that the guidance was preliminary,
but the hope was it would not change substantively and
would be a good framework for developing programs. She
mentioned that the guidance gave non-exclusive examples and
allowed for the recipients to determine similar examples
for which to use the funds. She noted that the uses were
more narrowly defined than the CARES Act, which meant that
supported payroll documentation was needed to ensure that
healthcare workers who claimed their time were primarily
Covid-19 related work.
1:45:28 PM
Ms. Harbour continued his review of IFR eligible uses on
slide 7:
Treasury Guidance IFR Eligible Uses
A. ?. or its negative economic impacts- requires written
support of COVID-19 impact
• Workers & Families
• Small Businesses
• Public Sector
o Deposits to UI Trust Funds is called out as
allowable under this provision
• Impacted Industries
o Industries other than tourism, travel and
hospitality require COVIS impact analysis
Ms. Harbour noted that the state had to collect the
information for necessary supporting documentation. She
shared that the replenishment of the UI Trust Fund, up to
the pre-Covid level, would be allowed and would be up to
approximately $200 million.
Representative Wool spoke to the topic of negative economic
impacts related to COVID and the subsequent ripple effect.
He noted that some businesses were in financial trouble
pre-Covid.
Ms. Harbour related that when the grant programs were
established, it was necessary to have reasons for why the
businesses had been targeted for relief. She said that for
small business relief it was necessary to have
documentation showing the revenue loss due to Covid.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether he was correct that
businesses directly related to tourism would need to submit
evidence of economic loss.
Ms. Harbour agreed. She shared that the guidance specified
the state should not overly support certain impacted areas.
The impact should be measured and then that specific impact
would be addressed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about areas where economic loss was
not documented but investment had been required to address
COVID-19. He referenced the fish processing industry, which
could not document loss but could document investments made
to be "COVID safe."
Ms. Harbour answered that those costs could be offset using
the funds.
1:50:50 PM
Representative Josephson noticed there had been bipartisan
support on the other body for a proposal to give a
financial incentive to individuals returning to work. He
wondered whether the UI Trust Fund could be used for those
payments.
Ms. Harbour answered there were very strict rules on the
use of the UI Trust Fund. She added that if it were a
program for unemployed workers in an effort to get them
reemployed, the funds could possibly be used.
Representative Wool asked whether the restrictions could
keep the state from spending all the available funds for
business support.
Ms. Harbour asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Wool restated his question.
Ms. Harbour answered that a program could be established
for small business, and if the demand was not there in the
fiscal year, the legislature could reappropriate the funds.
She said that the state had 4 years, until December 31,
2024, to spend all the money.
1:53:42 PM
Ms. Harbour turned to slide 8, a continuation of the IFR
eligible uses:
Treasury Guidance IFR Eligible Uses
A. or its negative economic impacts: equity-focused
services to those hardest hit by COVID
• Addressing Health Disparities
• Investing in Housing & Neighborhoods
• Addressing Educational Disparities
• Promoting Healthy Childhood Environments
Ms. Harbour stated that a non-exclusive list had been
provided of additional services that could be provided to
more impacted individuals (low income and minority groups)
that would be presumed to be eligible. She relayed that the
individuals had been defined by using data from the U.S.
Census. She relayed that the qualified census tract had 50
percent of households with incomes below 60 percent of the
area medium gross income or had a poverty rate of 25
percent or more.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the guidelines as they
pertained to rural communities in Alaska.
Ms. Harbour answered that the majority of the state's rural
communities were considered qualified census tracts.
1:56:33 PM
Ms. Harbour discussed the IFR eligible uses related to
responding to workers performing essential work on slide 9:
Treasury Guidance IFR Eligible Uses
B. to respond to workers performing essential work
Example professions eligible for premium pay:
• Staff at nursing homes, hospitals, and home
care settings
• Workers at farms, food production facilities,
grocery stores, and restaurants
• Janitors and sanitation workers
• Truck drivers, transit staff, and warehouse
workers
• Public health and safety staff
• Childcare workers, educators, and school staff,
• Social service and human services staff
o Essential work involves regular in-person
interactions or physical handling of items
that were also handled by others
o Recipients have discretion to designate
additional sectors
Premium pay should prioritize low- and moderate-
income workers, who face the greatest mismatch
between employment-related health risks and
compensation.
Representative Wool contended that those that worked in
restaurants should be considered low-income.
Ms. Harbour agreed. She explained that if the premium pay
did not take the employee above 150 percent of their
average wage for Alaska, it would be allowed. Over the
average wage would require further justification.
Representative Wool asked whether teachers would qualify
for premium pay. He understood that if they qualified, they
would have to meet the same average wage qualifications.
Ms. Harbour replied in in the affirmative. She added that
the pay could go above the average wage but would require
additional justification.
Representative Wool asked whether there would have to be a
premium pay allocation in place that entities would apply
to, or whether there would have to be a budget allocation
for premium pay. He had not seen one in a budget.
Ms. Harbour answered that it would depend on how the state
set up the programs. She said that if a program was set up
specifically targeted to premium pay, it would take a
specific appropriation. She furthered that the program
could look not only at revenue loss, but also at Covid-19
expenses and other loss of revenue, when submitting a
request for reimbursement.
Representative Josephson pointed to the text in blue at the
bottom of slide 9 about premium pay. He wondered whether
people could qualify retroactively.
Ms. Harbour answered in the affirmative.
2:01:19 PM
Representative Josephson stated that employers were arguing
that UI benefits were affecting their ability to retain
staff, while employees argued that working wages were too
low. He wondered whether the retroactivity could satisfy
both parties.
Ms. Harbour responded that the guidance specified that
compensation should be prioritized for low-wage workers
that performed essential work, and that retroactive work
during the covered period of time, as well as prospective
work, should be considered.
2:02:37 PM
Mr. Steininger turned to slide 10:
Treasury Guidance - IFR Eligible Uses
C. for the provision of government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue:
• Provide continuity of vital government services
by filling budget shortfalls
• Revenue loss is calculated relative to the
expected trend, beginning with the last full
fiscal year pre-pandemic and adjusted annually
for growth
• Recipients may re-calculate revenue loss at
multiple points during the program, supporting
those entities that experience revenue loss with
a lag
• Once a reduction in revenue is identified,
recipients have broad latitude to use these funds
to support government services (with some
exceptions, described later)
Source: The above text is from a Treasury presentation
on the IFR.
He pointed to the graph on the bottom right of the slide
and explained that it depicted the concept of
"counterfactual revenue trend." He stated that the base
year revenue was used to calculate the trends prior and
into the future. He stated that the concept would allow the
state to credit the difference between actual revenue and
the counterfactual trendline in the states favor when the
ARP dollars were used for general government services
unrelated to Covid-19 response.
2:04:23 PM
Mr. Steininger relayed the preliminary estimates of
Alaska's lost revenues on slide 11. The gross adjusted
estimate at the top of the slide showed the percentage
trendline between FY 16 and FY 20, with a 3-year average
post Covid-19 growth rate of 12.2 percent. He noted OMB had
removed certain types of revenues, some of the revenues
were called out to exclude including investment revenue. He
stated that for the purpose of the calculation deposits
from the permanent fund into the ERA was removed along with
the POMV draw from the ERA. He stressed it was difficult to
take the numbers on the slide and tie them back to any
resource book from the Alaska Department of Revenue. Actual
revenue, using the spring forecast was significantly lower
than the counterfactual revenue, resulting in a large
revenue loss in FY 20. He said that the numbers indicated
that the large revenue loss estimate would allow the state
to use any amount of the ARPA to offset the general fund.
2:07:53 PM
Representative Wool did not see a unit divisor on the
slide. He noted the 26 percent increase for FY 18. He
wondered what revenue source the numbers came from.
Mr. Steininger answered that the numbers were based on the
Census Bureau definition of revenue. He said that the
revenue was a mix of various revenue sources in the Revenue
Sources Book, but it did not include some revenue federal
and state investment revenues. He stressed that the
takeaway was that the percentage escalation growth rate was
high and allowed the state to claim a large amount of
revenue loss.
2:10:30 PM
Representative Wool asked whether a previous negative year
would create a downward slope, eliminating the state from
eligibility for reimbursement. He wondered what caused the
26 percent gain in FY 18.
Mr. Steininger answered that he would leave revenue trends
to the Department of Revenue. He agreed that in FY 18 there
was an increase in revenue.
Representative Wool was curious to know what had caused the
increase and whether it was POMV revenue.
Mr. Steininger reiterated that POMV had been excluded from
the calculation.
Representative Josephson thought that the slide reflecte4d
that the state could replace UGF dollars with federal
resources.
Mr. Steininger agreed. The capacity for the revenue offset
was enough that the entire amount could be used. He added
that competing with the general fund was using the funds to
get economic relief out into communities.
2:12:45 PM
Mr. Steininger continued to slide 12:
Treasury Guidance - IFR Eligible Uses
C. for the provision of government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue:
? Can Include
? Maintenance or building of infrastructure,
including roads
? Modernization of cybersecurity, including
hardware, software and protection of critical
infrastructure
? Health services
Environmental remediation
? School or educational services
? Provision of police, fire and other public safety
services ? Would not include ? Interest or principal
on any outstanding debt instrument (debt service) ?
Settlements or judgments ? Reserves of rainy day
funds
Mr. Steininger stressed that the use of revenue offset must
be tied to a specific cost in the state budget, and
appropriated accordingly, for proper tracking.
Ms. Harbour clarified that the list on slide 12 was
nonexclusive.
Representative Johnson looked at police, fire, and public
safety on slide 12. She asked whether it also included the
Department of Corrections.
Mr. Steininger replied that the department would fall under
"other public safety services."
Representative Johnson asked whether modernization of
cybersecurity included the planning of modernization
programs.
Mr. Steininger stated that he was not sure that the
planning phase would be covered under eligibility.
Ms. Harbour noted that costs to effect implementation were
covered, so the planning of how to approach cybersecurity
could be covered.
2:16:32 PM
Ms. Harbour turned to slide 13:
Treasury Guidance - IFR Eligible Uses
D. to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or
broadband infrastructure:
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
• Includes improvements to infrastructure, such as
building or upgrading facilities and transmission,
distribution, and storage systems
• Eligible uses aligned to Environmental Protection
Agency project categories across the:
o Clean Water State Revolving Fund
o Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Broadband Infrastructure
• Focus on households and businesses without a
wireline connection capable of reliably delivering
25 Mbps download/ 3 Mbps upload
• Fund projects that deliver reliable service
o Minimum 100 Mbps download/ 100 Mbps upload
speeds unless impracticable
• Complement broadband investments made through the
separate Capital Projects Fund.
Ms. Harbour explained that an eligible project had to
result in an upload, and download, speed of 100 Mbps. She
said in instances where those service speeds could not be
met due to geography, topography, or excessive cost a
download of 100Mbps, with an upload of 10 or 20 Mbps would
be acceptable.
Co-Chair Foster stated that the ARPA funds were non-
flexible and the CSLFRF money was more flexible. He
understood that there was $112 million in ARPA funds that
were required to go to broadband.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Co-Chair Foster asked whether there was a mandated amount
for water and sewer and whether funds for that could come
from the CSLFRF money.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
2:19:47 PM
Representative Josephson understood that the water and
sewer funds were in the ARPA funds.
Mr. Steininger answered that the water and sewer funds were
in the discretionary CSLFRF category. He added that the
broadband discussed on the slide was in the same category.
Ms. Harbour discussed the IFR restrictions listed on slide
14:
Treasury Guidance - IFR Restrictions
A. Direct or indirect offsets to a reduction in net
tax revenue:
? Establishes a framework to determine the cost
of changes in law, regulation, or interpretation
that reduce tax revenue
? Establishes a framework to identify and value
the sources of funds that will offset any
reduction in net tax revenue resulting from such
changes
? The framework prevents efforts to the funds to
indirectly offset reductions in net tax revenue
B. Deposits into any pension fund:
? A "deposit" is defined as an extraordinary
contribution to a pension fund
? Recipients may use funds for routine payroll
contributions to pensions for covered employees
C. Other restrictions on use:
? Non-Federal match for other Federal programs
who bar the use of Federal funds to meet match
? Subject to Uniform Guidance including the cost
principles and restrictions for selected items
Representative Josephson spoke of moving $1 million from
the ERA into the Alaska Retirement Management Board (ARM)
account. He wondered whether the action would have affected
the states ability to show a reduction in net tax revenue.
Ms. Harbour clarified that the restriction was related to
when state chose to reduce its revenue, such as offsetting
fees. She said that funding could not be used to replenish
fund lost from those offsets.
2:24:30 PM
Representative LeBon thought that the state was playing
catch up on Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
and Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). He wondered whether
the catch up amount qualified for the funds.
Mr. Steininger replied that the restriction on deposits
into pension funds would be restricted; however, the
employer contribution, on top of payroll, would be
allowable.
Representative LeBon believed that the investment return of
the states retirement funds during the current fiscal year
had been robust, which had closed the unfunded liability
gap considerably.
Mr. Steininger answered that it had been reported to him as
well and once the ARM Board revised its projections in the
fall the impact should be realized.
2:26:19 PM
Ms. Harbour advanced to the CSLFRF reporting requirements
on slide 15:
Treasury Guidance CSLFRF Reporting
IFR Reporting Requirements:
? State, Metropolitan Cities, Counties, and Tribal
Governments Project and Expenditure reports
? Interim Report due August 31, 2021
? Quarterly through the end of the award period
(December 31, 2026)
? State, Metropolitan Cities and Counties with a
Population over 250,000 Recovery Plan Performance
Report
? Initial Report due August 31, 2021
? Annually through the end of the award period on
December 31, 2026
? Must be posted on the public-facing website of
the recipient
? Nonentitlement Units of Local Government
? Annual Project and Expenditure reports until
the end of the award period
? Initial annual report must be submitted to
Treasury by October 31, 2021
Ms. Harbour noted that Treasury would identify some
mandatory indicators of performance and recipients could
identify other key performance indicators they wanted
included in their performance report. She shared that
additional guidance was expected.
2:28:25 PM
Ms. Harbour continued to slide 16:
Next Steps / Follow-up
? The IFR is scheduled to be published in the Federal
Register on May 17, 2021
? There will be a 60-day comment period to provide
input
? Treasury will develop a Final Rule that will
incorporate feedback
? State assumptions will have to be revisited based on
the Final Rule
? Upon receipt, Alaska has 30 days to distribute pass-
through funding
? Cities will need to have a valid DUNS numbers
? There will need to be signed agreements
outlining requirements
? A 30-day extension can be requested
Representative Edgmon referenced the final rule and
assessment of the state's revenue. He noted that the last
time the committee had discussed the issue the conversation
of the PFD had arisen, he wondered whether interim
guidelines had been determined.
Ms. Harbour believed the conversation had been specific to
the maintenance of effort requirements and that the PFD did
not impact the lost revenue estimates.
Representative Wool requested any updates on the
maintenance of effort guidelines.
Ms. Harbour agreed to provide the updates.
Mr. Steininger provided a brief update. He said that there
had been a deadline of May 17, 2021, to provide information
to the US Department of Education. He said that the
information had been submitted.
Representative Wool recalled that the university compact
was part of the maintenance of effort conversation. He
understood that any decrease in university funding would
not affect the K-12 federal appropriation.
Mr. Steininger answered that it was roughly correct. He
shared that the process would involve and application for a
waiver and the determination of the waiver would be up to
the U.S. DOE. He said that the state did not meet the
maintenance of effort requirement and it remained to be
seen hot U.S. DOE interpreted conditions in the state.
2:32:47 PM
Mr. Steininger talked about CSLFRF capital projects funds
on slide 17:
ARP CSLFRF Capital Projects Funds
Anticipated Alaska Allocation: $112.3 million
? American Rescue Plan allowable use language: to
carry out critical capital projects directly
enabling work, education, and health monitoring,
including remote options, in response to the
public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus Disease (COVID19)
? Current Treasury website allowable use
language: allows for investment in high-quality
broadband as well as other connectivity
infrastructure, devices, and equipment it also
provides flexibility for each state, territory,
and Tribal government to make other investments
in critical community hubs or other capital
assets that provide access jointly to work,
education, and health monitoring must demonstrate
that they meet the critical connectivity needs
highlighted and amplified by the COVID-19
pandemic
? Applicants will be required to provide a plan
describing how they intend to use allocated funds
Treasury will begin to accept applications for
review in the summer of 2021 and will issue
guidance before that date
Mr. Steininger related that, currently, there was not
direct guidance on use of the funds and the state would
need to put together an application that described what the
funds would be used for.
Representative Edgmon asked whether there was any sense of
needing to develop a plan for the fund. He wondered about
applying the tribal money that was potentially coming to
the state.
Mr. Steininger replied in the affirmative. He spoke of
partnership opportunities that may be available between all
entities receiving Covid-19 money. He thought the
collaboration could provide opportunities to make the funds
go further across communities in the state.
Representative Edgmon stated there was a great need for
water, sewer, and broadband in Alaska. He thought it would
be a great opportunity to leverage the funds if possible.
2:36:38 PM
Representative Wool looked at language on slide 17 that
applicants would be required to submit a plan to acquire
funds. He wondered whether the applicants would be applying
to the state, or would the state be applying to the federal
government.
Mr. Steininger responded that the guidelines for
application were not yet public. He understood that the
state would be applying, but that that could change with
new guidelines.
2:37:55 PM
Ms. Harbour discussed slide 18 related to CSLFRF tribal
government funds:
ARP CSLFRF Tribal Government Funds
? $1 billion to be distributed equally at $1.7 million
per Tribe ~$400 million to Alaska Tribes
? $19 billion to be distributed based on pro-rata
enrollment (65%) and employment (35%)
? Two Payments
? First payment will include the $1.7 million and
the enrollment portion of the $19B
? Second payment will include the employment
portion of the $19B
? Treasury expects the second payment to be made
soon after Tribal governments confirm their 2019
employment numbers previously submitted to
Treasury in 2020
? Upcoming Deadlines
? The deadline to complete the first submission
is May 24, 2021, at 11:59 PM PST
? The deadline for confirming or amending a
Tribal government's 2019 employment numbers is
June 7, 2021, at 11:59 PM PST
Representative Josephson referenced the State Small
Business Credit Initiative and wondered whether it was a
Covid-19 related initiative. He wondered which entity would
be overseeing the funds and whether a plan had been
developed for criteria for distribution.
Ms. Harbour was familiar with the plan. She believed that
the Department of Commerce Community and Economic
Development (DCCED) was working with the Alaska Development
Team (ADT)on a plan for the program. She did not know the
status.
Representative Wool asked what employment meant as
related to the 35 percent of $19 billion listed on slide
18.
Ms. Harbour referenced attachment 3 in members packets
"Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
Allocations to Tribal Governments" dated May 10, 2021 (copy
on file). She lamented that employment was not clearly
defined in the document. She noted that the document
stated, Treasury considers employment data from 2019.
Representative Wool understood from the document that the
employment was of the tribal organization itself and not
of a particular village.
Representative Wool thought that the funds going to tribes
was an advantage to the state. He wondered what the rules
were surrounding the distribution of tribal funds according
to village population size.
th
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the May 24 deadline. He
wondered whether the information presented to the
legislature was also being distributed to tribal entities
so they could meet the deadlines.
2:44:14 PM
Ms. Harbour replied that Treasury was putting the word out
and that OMB was working with AML and AFN to get
information distributed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that he did not mean to imply
that the administration was responsible for the
distribution of information. He was trying to determine
whether the issue of information distribution was a
problem.
Ms. Harbour believed it was a very real issue. She
highlighted the tight turnaround times.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the presenters for the clarity on
the use of the ARPA funds. He discussed housekeeping for
the following days.
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood that the committee would not
meet on the weekend. He wondered whether there would be a
meeting the coming Monday.
Co-Chair Foster answered that nothing was planned at
present.
Co-Chair Foster believed the first conference committee may
be the coming Monday, but it was not certain.
ADJOURNMENT
2:47:04 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1. ARPA HFIN Alaska CSLFRF Allocations 5.10.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| 2. ARPA HFIN FRF-Interim-Final-Rule_5.10.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| 3.ARPA HFIN Tribal-Government-Allocation-Methodology.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| 4. ARPA HFIN Rescue-Act-Fed-Guidance-SLFRP-FAQ.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| 5.ARPA HFIN SLFRP-Quick-Reference-Guide-FINAL-508a.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| ARPA HFIN 0. Attachment Table of Contents 051921.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| ARPA HFIN OMB Treasury Guidance Overview 5.20.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/20/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |