Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/17/2021 09:00 AM Senate 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: Alaska Municipal League – Municipal Impacts from State Budget Actions | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 17, 2021
9:02 a.m.
9:02:30 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal
League.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE MUNICIPAL IMPACTS
FROM STATE BUDGET ACTIONS
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda.
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE MUNICIPAL IMPACTS
FROM STATE BUDGET ACTIONS
9:03:33 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, informed that he had a comprehensive presentation
for the committee. He wanted to provide a big picture of
local governments and how they interacted with the state,
as well as how state budget decisions affected
municipalities. He discussed the presentation "Condition of
Communities - Fiscal Futures" (copy on file).
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 2, "State Budget and
Municipal Implications":
Those municipalities that contribute the greatest to
the state's economy, experience the brunt of cuts and
cost-shifting
?The Governor's proposed FY20 budget, for
instance, included cuts, clawbacks, and cost-
shifting of nearly $900M - $850M of that fell on
just 20 local governments
Indirect costs to municipalities are the more
significant challenge, and may impact rural Alaska
disproportionally
?Direct cuts like Community Assistance reduce the
capacity of local governments
?Reductions to things like public radio and TV,
or the ferry system, impact communities
Most reductions that impact local governments do not
reduce the size of State government, they eliminate
the State's support for partners that are fundamental
to quality of life and economic health
Unfunded mandates, cost-shifting, or reductions that
result in resident expectations shifting local all
push local governments toward few options
?Increased or new taxes
?Reduction in the provision of services
?Reduced capital investments and maintenance
?Eliminate programs and staff
Mr. Andreassen acknowledged that he did not have the
expertise of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) nor
the Legislative Finance Division, and he would welcome any
adjustments to his figures.
9:06:10 AM
Mr. Andreassen looked at slide 3, "The Basics":
165 cities and boroughs out of 224 communities
?19 boroughs 11 Home Rule; 1 First Class; 7
Second Class
?145 cities 11 Home Rule; 18 First Class
?1 organized under federal law - Metlakatla
Home Rule may do anything not prohibited by law
General Law may only do those things allowed by law
Few musts all boroughs, home rule/first class cities
education, planning/platting, and taxation
Serve 825,000 Alaskans
Employ 7,700 Alaskans, or 20,000 combined with schools
Tax Revenue: FY18 $1.83B to FY19 $1.86B
Revenues: FY19 $2.55B to FY20 $2.57B
Expenses: FY19 $2.54B to FY20 $2.63B
Mr. Andreassen commented that there had been much
discussion about home rule communities during the COVID-19
pandemic. He acknowledged that there were overlapping
jurisdictions between boroughs and cities. He cited that
the overall number of people that Alaska's local
governments were serving were greater than the state's
population in some respects. He commented that local
governments were a significant employer. He explained that
the difference between tax revenue and total revenue was
that total revenue included federal and state transfers
such as community assistance. He would discuss revenues in
more detail at a later part of the presentation.
9:09:34 AM
Mr. Andreassen reviewed slide 4, "Variation," which showed
four state maps depicting the areas of the state
participating in Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS), police powers, school contribution, and the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) Fund. He wanted to show how
different communities in the state were. Local governments
were impacted differently by state budget decisions. He
cited that out of 165 cities and boroughs in the state,
only 64 were PERS employers. Out of 165 cities and boroughs
in the state, only 34 made the school contribution. He
noted that just over 100 local governments and communities
benefitted from the PCE Fund. He pointed out that 70 local
governments out of 165 had police powers. He emphasized
that not every local government experienced state budget
decision-making the same.
Mr. Andreassen discussed slide 5, "What pays for State
government?" He relayed that the slide came from Department
of Revenue, and showed a graphic entitled "Relative
Contributions to Total State Revenue: FY 2020." He had
added information in blue about where local governments fit
into the picture. The information showed $1.8 billion in
local government tax revenue, which put local governments
just above petroleum and above investment earnings in terms
of the total number that funded state programs. He
considered local governments and the provision of state
services as part of the big picture.
9:12:11 AM
Mr. Andreassen presented slide 6, "Local Government:
Revenues":
FY19 revenue was $2.5 billion
Property Tax: 15 of the 19 boroughs, and 21 cities,
with total revenue - $1.46 billion
?Of this, local Governments collect State
Property Tax of $256M
Sales Tax: 95 cities and 9 boroughs have a sales tax,
with total revenue - $260 million
Additional Taxes and Fees: Tobacco, raw fish, car
rental, alcohol, and bed = $146 million
State and Federal transfers approximately 20% of local
government budgets
?Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT -$31M)
and Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
?Community Assistance
?Grants
Revenue is less the State's mandatory exemptions
?Mandatory Senior Citizen and Disabled Veteran
Property Tax Exemption
?Applications increased from 27k in 2010 to 47k
in 2020
?Exempted taxes over that period have gone from
$49M to $95M in that same period
Senator von Imhof asked if there was a change whereby e-
commerce purchases included local sales tax.
Mr. Andreassen answered in the affirmative. He noted that
there had been a decision made by the Alaska Supreme Court.
Most states now that had sales tax had passed online sales
tax laws, and Alaska's local governments had the same
ability. There was a commission to work with local
governments to collect the taxes. The value of the tax was
approximately 5 percent. Physical sales tax collection was
about the same as what was collected in remote sales tax
collection.
Senator von Imhof asked if there was approximately $1.3
million collected for e-commerce taxes from $260 million in
total taxes.
Mr. Andreassen agreed about that of about 106 local
governments, only 34 were participating in the program and
would have to sign on and adopt the uniform code. For the
current fiscal year there would be just short of $10
million collected.
9:16:00 AM
Senator Wilson asked if there was a way to know how much of
the online sales tax might be over collected because of zip
code variation. He used the example of a zip code in
Wasilla.
Mr. Andreassen noted that taxing outside of boundaries
would be against the law. He furthered that for those
jurisdictions that joined the remote sales tax commission,
the sales tax boundaries were GIS coded for sellers to use.
A contractor had mapped out the areas. Applications for tax
refunds could be taken up with sellers.
Mr. Andreassen spoke to slide 7, "Local Government:
Expenditures":
In FY19, the total expenditures by local governments
in Alaska was $2.5 billion
Contributed $130 million into PERS 5% of total
expenditures
?Carry $4.2 billion in bond debt
Contributed $486 million as local education
contribution 20% of total expenses
?Municipalities contribute over 25% of State's
overall obligation to public education
?Required local contribution - $256 million in
2018
?+ $230 million beyond what is required
Public safety - 40 with combined budgets of $75
million more than DPS
Quality of Life pools, libraries, rec and youth
centers, parks
Public Facilities, Works and Transportation
Infrastructure
?Water and sewer
?Landfills
?Roads and transit
?Ports and harbors
Mr. Andreassen noted that all the charts he did were
inflation adjusted. He pointed to the line graph on the
slide that showed municipal expenditures had tracked down
over time since FY 13, and it was possible to see local
governments adjusting to the new fiscal reality.
Mr. Andreassen displayed slide 8, "Vetoes Review FY20 and
FY21":
Vetoes were directed at programs that reflect the
values of the Administration, and its priorities. They
were described as hard choices, and impacting a
variety of stakeholders, but just as hard a choice
would have been to address the State's revenue
shortfall. Instead, these vetoes were directed at
social support systems that Alaskans rely on. The FY22
budget may reflect this same prioritization. If we
look at how vetoes were ascribed, they fall into three
or four buckets.
Health and Social Services
?38 of 240 vetoes affected public health
programs, including behavioral and mental health
Local Governments and Schools
?38 vetoes applied to local governments, schools
and the university system
Courts, Fish/Game Management, Transportation
?24 vetoes were directed at limiting the capacity
of courts or justice system
?29 vetoes applied to management of fish and game
in the state, or environmental monitoring
?17 vetoes fell on DOT programs, specifically to
either AMHS or rural road/airport maintenance
Many FY21 vetoes were made thinking CARES Act funds
could be applied in their place, which we know now is
not the case. Local governments had to make these up
on their own.
Mr. Andreassen thought that vetoes fell into four
categories that affected local governments. He recounted
that the Alaska Municipal League (AML) had analyzed all the
vetoes made within the FY 20 and FY 21 budgets. He
acknowledged that the legislature had done great work to
adjust and respond to many of the vetoes that occurred. He
mentioned impacts to courts, the Department of Fish and
Game, and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
9:20:56 AM
Mr. Andreassen referenced slide 9, "School Bond Debt
Reimbursement":
Background: State had committed to paying 70/60% of
all school bond debt, with 30/40% match by
communities, but with clause that held municipalities
liable for 100%. There's a current moratorium, which
calls into question the State's ability to meet
Constitutional obligations.
Challenge: Total debt $800,000,000.
Options:
1.Absorb through current or added revenues
2.Examine legal options based on past payments by
State creating condition of confidence
3.Not paying affects credit rating
Impact:
?Other priorities removed from budgets
?Taxes increase
?Spend from emergency reserves
Mr. Andreassen thought school bond debt reimbursement was
one of the more significant issues for municipalities. He
recalled that the total debt left for the current fiscal
year was about $800 million, and he knew that the
governor's proposed FY 22 budget contained a 50 percent
reduction to what was owed for the fiscal year. School bond
debt reimbursement had been vetoed out of the previous two
budgets at 100 percent and 50 percent, which signified
roughly $200 million that the state had shifted back to
local governments between FY 20 and FY 22. He relayed that
many local governments had adjusted to the cuts in various
ways including drawing down savings.
Senator von Imhof had recently learned that $180 million
had come to school district via Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding. She asked if
school districts could put some of the funds into savings
if the legislature raised the cap on fund balances.
Mr. Andreassen thought it would be helpful to allow for
school districts to carry forward the funds for future
fiscal years. He did not know if the federal funds could be
applied to school debt reimbursement.
Mr. Andreassen continued to address slide 9. He noted that
the same group of communities experienced lack of
reimbursement for school bond debt as well as the mandatory
senior exemption.
9:24:04 AM
Mr. Andreassen showed slide 10, "School Bond Debt
Reimbursement What's Ahead":
18 cities and boroughs who carried this debt in FY20-
Wrangell, Unalaska and Hoonah dropped off since then
8 of 16 remaining have only eight years left
In FY26, debt reimbursed reduces by about half, to
about $48M
Is the State still required to reimburse for vetoed
amounts, pending appropriation?
Could vetoed amounts get re-amortized, within the debt
repayment schedule?
What is the right level of school debt that the State
is able to carry?
Local bonding allows Legislature to bypass a GO bond
and statewide vote, or corresponding legislation
-What replaces the current moratorium?
-What are the impacts of the current moratorium?
Mr. Andreassen drew attention to the table on slide 10 that
listed the amount of school bond debt per municipality. He
contended that while the law allowed the state to not
reimburse for school bond debt during the fiscal year,
local governments had to pay the debt. He argued that the
vetoed amounts needed to be carried into future years and
taken up by the state's debt manager as part of its debt
schedule.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the funds were subject to
appropriation.
Senator Wilson asked if AML was going to file suit so the
third branch of government could make the decision.
Mr. Andreassen stated that AML was looking into legal
considerations around the state's obligation regarding
school bond debt reimbursements.
Senator Wilson asked if AML would be challenging matters
around the senior exemption.
Mr. Andreassen asserted that it made sense that if the
state's statutory obligation to school bond debt
reimbursement debt needed to be carried forward, that the
same would be true of the senior property tax exemption.
He cited that in the last ten years, the amount owed by the
state to local governments for the senior citizen property
tax exemption totaled about $761 million.
Co-Chair Stedman suggested that AML could file litigation
if it so desired. He stated that the legislature had been
working on policy to get school bond debt reimbursement
paid in full as well taking care of the Regional
Educational Attendance Area (REAA) issue. He thought the
legislature had a policy disagreement with the
administration.
Mr. Andreassen pointed out that the AML was not faulting
how the legislature had approached school bond debt
reimbursement, but rather was interested in the matter of
tracking debt accurately. He thought considering the
moratorium in place on school bond debt reimbursement,
there needed to be new solutions for addressing school
construction and major maintenance. While local bonding
allowed for the legislature to bypass a general obligation
bond and a statewide vote or corresponding vote, he thought
without the mechanism in place there was an increase in
overall need for school construction and major maintenance.
9:28:15 AM
Mr. Andreassen addressed slide 11, "Municipal Bond Bank":
Lawsuit related to oil tax credit corporation, which
State lost, resulted in uncertainty for the Alaska
Municipal Bond Bank to issue any further bonds.
Supreme Court No. S-17377
On consideration of the State's Petition for Rehearing
filed on 9/28/2020, and the Apellant's Response filed
on 11/10/2020.
It Is Ordered:
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
Entered at the direction of the court.
This may have real implications for the many local
governments that utilize this instrumentality of the
State.
Mr. Andreassen expressed that AML was seriously concerned
about the future of the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank. He
directed attention to a list on the slide that showed how
different local governments had unutilized the bond bank.
He noted that small communities particularly depended upon
the bond bank for its ability to carry forward and address
infrastructure needs.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. Andreassen to add another
column to the chart to include the outstanding balance per
capita for the communities listed.
Mr. Andreassen agreed to add the information.
Senator von Imhof did not understand the link between the
oil tax credit bonding attempt and the Alaska Municipal
Bond Bank. She did not understand the effect of the ruling.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the question was best directed to
the Department of Law. He affirmed that there was a link
and a concern to be address. He thought the issue went
beyond just the bond bank to the matter of other bonding
opportunities for the state. He mentioned that the
constitution dictated that bonds had to be for capital
projects. He affirmed that the committee could receive a
briefing on the matter at some point.
Senator Hoffman asked what AML had done to get the issue of
the bond bank clarified.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that AML had filed an amicus brief
in support of the state's position, asking for
clarification. The AML authority needed clarification from
the court that the ruling, as it pertained to the oil tax
corporation, should not extend to existing authorities
(particularly like the bond bank). He thought the bond bank
would be better able to answer specific questions on the
matter.
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 12, "Community Assistance":
Background: In place since 1968, this is a
redistribution of state resource wealth for equitable
use by local governments to provide essential services
and keep local tax rates low.
Challenge: Meet needs where little tax base.
Options:
1. Absorb through current revenues difficult with
addition of other cost-shifting
2. Increase taxes 25% of local governments did this
in the 2000s, when revenue sharing went away
3. Close this represents more than 70% of 14 local
government budgets, and they will no longer be able to
operate
Impact:
?Local government services revert to the State
?Local governments divest of powers
?Local governments increase taxes
Mr. Andreassen referenced one of the original formulas
shown on the slide that showed how the state funded
community revenue sharing, which was a formula that was
attributed specifically to the different powers local
governments took up as well as the services provided. He
commented that there had been ongoing erosion of the
assistance over time.
9:32:01 AM
Mr. Andreassen looked at slide 13, "Community Assistance
Municipal Impact":
Affects every single community, with ranges from:
?Small cities -$75-80,000
?Medium cities -$80-95,000
?Large cities - $115-250,000
?Boroughs - $300-900,000?Largest boroughs -$1.4-6.1 M
Mr. Andreassen highlighted that the graph on the slide
showed the decline of revenue sharing. The graph started in
1985 and showed just over $165 million. There was a period
of time in the early 2000's when community assistance went
away. He thought the Legislative Research Division could
point to communities closing doors, and he referenced sales
tax revenues and rates increasing during the period of time
in response to the state action. Local governments recently
saw reduction to community assistance by 50 percent. He
noted that when the Community Assistance Fund was not
capitalized, there had been an erosion in payments. The
slide showed a table of a list of communities with
community assistance payments for FY 21 through FY 23 as
compared to statute. The formula included a per capita
adjustment, which was lost when the fund was not
capitalized. He thought all communities had seen
significant reductions.
Mr. Andreassen reviewed slide 14, "Why invest in AMHS?":
33 AMHS port communities
?119,170 residents
?2,275 employees
?$332 million in taxes
?$584 million budgets
?Tax as % of budget = 56%
?$73 million to education
?20 have police powers (60%)
?25 are PERS employers (75%)
?15 receive $3.7 million in PCE
?$720 million in Bond debt
?$24 million in fisheries taxes
106 cities served only by air
?62,795 residents
?1,064 employees
?$54 million in taxes
?$137 million budgets
?Tax as % of budget = 39%
?$6.5 million to education
?43 have police powers (40%)
?34 are PERS employers (32%)
?94 receive $16.3 million in PCE
?$25 million in Bond debt
?$4.2 million in fisheries taxes
Mr. Andreassen mentioned the graph in the middle of the
slide that showed declining funding for AMHS over time. He
noted that port communities had active economies and were
good contributors to state priorities. The economies took
on bond debt, were less reliant on community assistance,
were major contributors to PERS and education, and had
police powers. He asserted that providing basic
transportation to communities would strengthen local
governments. He thought providing ferry service was a good
way for the state to strengthen local governments. He
mentioned that some cities could only be served by air
without the ferry system. He thought the committee had been
cognizant of the plight of AMHS.
Mr. Andreassen continued his remarks. He thought while
there was potentially going to be no cruise ship season,
AML saw a significant option for AMHS to meet the needs of
coastal communities and out of state travelers.
9:36:47 AM
Mr. Andreassen discussed slide 15, "Power Cost
Equalization":
Established in 1985
Provides economic assistance to communities and
residents in areas where kWH costs are 3 to 5 times as
high as the average of urban areas.
PCE was established at the same time that urban
communities benefited from major state-subsidized
energy projects such as the Four Dam Pool, Bradley
Lake, and the Alaska Intertie.
Rural communities not on the road system that are
dependent on diesel fuel do not benefit from the large
subsidized energy projects, and PCE is a cost-
effective alternative to provide comparable rate
relief to rural residents.
Mr. Andreassen cited a list of communities on the slide
that especially depended on the PCE. He thought the FY 22
budget included continued payment of PCE, and AML
encouraged continued support of the program.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the program pertained to payment
for the first 500 kilowatts.
Mr. Andreassen thought Co-Chair Stedman was correct.
Senator Hoffman thought the community of Arctic Village
paid a rate $1 per kilowatt, which was 20 times the amount
paid by other communities with a rate of 5 cents per
kilowatt.
Mr. Andreassen thought that Senator Hoffman was correct.
Mr. Andreassen added that both the PCE and the ferry system
brought down the transactional cost of communities, which
meant the communities had a better ability to see economic
development occur, which was a priority of local
governments.
Senator von Imhof observed that Mr. Andreassen's
presentation had some slides that pertained to CARES Act
funding. She thought transportation and AMHS had received
some CARES Act funding. She referenced slide 12, and police
protection as well as hospitals. She thought safety and
health were highlights of CARES Act funding, and she hoped
the presentation would address how the funds had offset
municipality spending.
Mr. Andreassen affirmed that he would touch on the topic.
9:39:52 AM
Co-Chair Stedman spoke to slide 15 and noted that many of
the communities listed on the were not well established as
cash economies. He continued that the income needed to meet
expenditures was questionable. He discussed differences in
communities and mentioned a community in his district that
had no Christmas lights due to the high cost of
electricity.
Mr. Andreassen presented slide 16, "PERS: Actuarial
Determined Contribution Rate":
Total rate is 30.11%
?Pension Benefits is 20.89% = Normal cost of
2.58% / Past service rate of 18.31%
?Healthcare Benefits is 3.12% - No past service
rate
?DCR is 6.10%
FY19 $592M Municipal Payroll
?PERS is $132 million w/ 22% cap
50M more at full rate
64 municipal employers = 18% of PERS
15k PERS/TRS DB employees
29k PERS/TRS DC employees
Mr. Andreassen relayed that another AML priority was the
state's pension system. He mentioned a graph on the slide
that showed PERS and the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS)
unfunded liability. He referenced the $2.3 billion
additional appropriation five or six years previously. He
noted that the healthcare side of benefits was overfunded.
He argued that when looking at the state's pension system,
there were 64 percent of municipal employers that made
roughly 18 percent of the overall pension system. Currently
employees were hired with defined contribution plans. He
saw an opportunity cost when considering recruitment and
retention of police and fire service employees and other
members of the work force.
9:43:40 AM
Mr. Andreassen spoke to slide 17, "How should we look
forward?" The slide showed a line graph entitled 'Inflation
Expenditures 10 Year Budget.' He was glad to see that the
governor's ten-year plan produced by OMB mentioned 1.5
percent inflation proofing being tied to the state budget
going forward. He thought it was worth looking at the
bigger picture and noted that the 1.5 percent was not
applied to the whole state budget. He thought it was worth
noting that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC)
and the Alaska Retirement Management Board both used higher
rates of inflation. He suggested that the state was not
thinking of how things would cost moving forward.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the ten-year plan was not worth
the paper it was printed on since it was not possible to
forecast that far in the future. He mentioned examples such
as the great recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted
there were substantial deficits in the plan. He asserted
that the committee would be considering a three-to-four-
year plan in which to make changes. He stressed the
importance of short-term planning.
Senator von Imhof thought it was important to consider the
reality that 20 percent of the state's revenue came from
oil and about 60 percent to 70 percent came from the
Permanent Fund. She asserted that commodity markets, and to
some degree the equity market, were at the whims of supply
and demand rather than being related to inflation. She
thought it was not possible to project increased revenues.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the ten-year plan was
statutorily required, and his comments should not be
considered overly disparaging.
Mr. Andreassen commented that there were many things that
were not included in state planning, and community
assistance and other formulas did not take inflation into
consideration.
9:47:30 AM
Mr. Andreassen displayed slide 18, "Keeping up with
Education":
Appears to keep up with inflation, but reality is:
?Adjustments for ADM
?Fails to adjust for increased costs of health or
retirement
Schools asked to do more with less
Avoiding litigation:
Kasayulie rural inadequacy
?Mat Su operations v. instruction
etchikan public education clause
Wheelock (2017) argues that the Public Education
Clause has not been challenged, and that "a claim that
the state has the responsibility to fund public
education at a minimally constitutionally adequate
level could succeed" (p. 125).
Mr. Andreassen relayed that AML was looking into unfunded
mandates imposed upon schools and did not see state
expenditures meeting the school's needs. He cited that the
committee had met with the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) Commissioner Michael Johnson the
previous week and had discussed the school bond debt
reimbursement and whether the state was following the law.
He considered the question of the state's progress in
avoiding litigation. He qualified that he was not arguing
for litigation but thought there was a valid question to
consider. He thought there were many that would argue that
the constitutional education requirement could be
successfully challenged. He suggested the legislature think
about how to adjust appropriately for inflation and other
school and community needs when considering where the state
was headed.
Mr. Andreassen referenced slide 19, "Community and Regional
Jails":
15 local governments provide community and regional
jails on behalf of the State's criminal justice
system; and these jails are an integral part of local
and state law enforcement.
Community and regional jails are essentially State
holding cells for pre-trial services.
State funding for community and regional jails has
been static for the last six years, and if adjusted
for inflation represents pre-2002 levels of State
investment.
In many cases, State funding is only 50% of the full
cost of managing the jail on the State's behalf, and
in all cases less than it needs to be.
?Haines receives $247k for $500k in expenses
?Kodiak receives $1.1M for $1.4M in expenses
?Petersburg receives $173k for $393k in expenses
?Seward receives $368k for $685k in expenses
?Dillingham receives $555k for $674k in expenses
Mr. Andreassen noted that the graph on the slide was
adjusted for inflation. He thought the state's payment to
local governments for the previous six years had been $7
million and had not increased according to need or
inflation. Many local governments received half the budget
from the state to complete the state service of jails. He
noted that the topic had been flagged for the Department of
Public Safety. He encouraged members to consider why the
payment had been $7 million for six years when considering
the matter in budget subcommittee.
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that the answer to most of Mr.
Andreassen's questions was that Alaska had a structural
deficit.
9:51:03 AM
Senator Wilson asked if all the communities with community
jails also had active police forces.
Mr. Andreassen answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman explained that the legislature was aware
of many of the issues, which needed to be balanced when the
budget was contemplated. He thought it was clear that the
state had not been able to make payroll with recurring
revenue for over 5 years.
Mr. Andreassen thought local governments would have the
same experience as the state when it came to delivering the
state service of jails if it was not funded.
Mr. Andreassen showed slide 20, "Addressing an
Infrastructure Deficit":
How do we plan for a $21.2 billion list of
infrastructure needs, in terms of time and resourcing?
?School construction and major maintenance
$2.3 billion
?Water and Wastewater rural
$1.6 billion
?Water and Wastewater urban
$1.6 billion
?Local capital needs
$4 billion
?Port and Harbor needs
$389 million
?State deferred maintenance
$2 billion
?STIP
$5 billion
?Broadband
$2 billion
?Jails
$500 million
Mr. Andreassen stated that to a large extent the
presentation made a case for addressing the state's revenue
shortfall. He emphasized that there was value being
delivered by local governments that depended upon the state
in partnership. He thought the state needed to be able to
address its budget deficit. He highlighted the total
infrastructure deficit and thought the information gave a
good sense of needs and how resources were being deployed.
Co-Chair Bishop asked where Mr. Andreassen got the
information for the $2 billion for broadband listed on the
slide.
Mr. Andreassen cited that the information was from an older
report and could be an estimate. He offered to follow up
with communities to get an updated number.
Co-Chair Bishop thought the number seemed low and would
appreciate updated figures.
Senator Wilson asked if AML supported the governor's
general obligation (GO) bond proposals and the use of the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation's (AHFC) dividend to
leverage federal funds.
Mr. Andreassen supported the idea of the state taking
necessary measures to support infrastructure but could not
comment on what was in the GO bond package that was
proposed. He asserted that the $350 million bond package
barely addressed the priority list for school construction
and major maintenance for the current fiscal year, and
barely addressed the port and harbor needs of the current
fiscal year. He stated that AML considered the proposal a
step in the right direction but recognized that the state
had not kept all its debt obligations such as school bond
debt reimbursement. He could not comment specifically on
the AHFC approach and how the state deployed its resources.
Co-Chair Stedman looked at the $389 million in port and
harbor needs and asked what comprised the total. He
wondered if new construction was included.
Mr. Andreassen informed that a later slide would address
the issue.
9:55:00 AM
Mr. Andreassen reviewed slide 21, "School Construction and
Major Maintenance Grants":
Inventory
1,008 schools
429 older than 40 years old in FY21
461 are original construction
23 million square feet x replacement cost
(274.23/sq) = $6.3 billion
757 municipal owned/maintained schools
More than 75% of all schools in Alaska are owned by
local governments
DEED just updated regs that for major maintenance
requests must be above $50,000 instead of $25,000
Also considering tying energy efficiency to
eligibility
?Average $ funded = 16%
?1,047 projects requested
?114 funded
?11% of projects funded
Mr. Andreassen thought it was important to note that of the
total that had been advanced by communities and schools
each year, 16 percent had been funded. A large portion of
the school districts were REAA school districts, and more
bond debt was utilized by school districts. Without school
bond debt reimbursement, there was a shift in who was
applying for the limited resource of grant funding.
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 22, "School Needs":
?FY22 School Construction = $162M
?REAAs $145M Municipal $17M
?FY22 Proposed Budget = $0 - GO Bond
?FY22 Major Maintenance = $187M
?Municipal $119M REAAs $68M
?FY22 Proposed Budget = $0 - GO Bond
?Compare to FY15 Maintenance List
?Municipal $72M REAAs $98M
Removal of bond reimbursement program has shifted
competition between REAAs and municipal
FY22 Six-year plan = $1.3B FY22 Need: $500M
?If calculated on average request = $2.8B since FY11
?16 Districts did not submit any project needs
?Districts/Municipalities report not submitting when
likelihood of funding is so low
Mr. Andreassen thought DEED would be completing its school
construction and major maintenance report soon, and the
numbers on the slide would be updated. He observed that
there was split between REAAs and municipal school
districts. He noted that in comparing the FY 15 maintenance
list to the FY 22 list, there was a shift as previously
mentioned. He used the example of Anchorage being on the
FY 22 list, when during the school bond debt reimbursement
program there was not the same competition between
municipalities and REAAs. He thought the six-year plan
pointed to about $1.3 billion in need, but from the average
request there was probably a total closer to $2.8 billion.
He did not see anything in the FY 22 budget to address the
matter.
Co-Chair Bishop thought that the maintenance list could be
considered inaccurate and pointed out that that were 16
districts that did not even apply. He thought there was a
fee for the pre-engineering to get on the list. He thought
the number did not reflect the true amount of maintenance
needed.
Mr. Andreassen thought there was no incentive for school
districts to apply for the funding based on the low
percentage of programs that were funded (11 percent to 16
percent).
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that almost 20 years ago, the
legislature had funded the entire major maintenance list
for one year, and the following year the list was as big or
bigger as people realized the items would be funded. He
encouraged his district to apply for the major maintenance
list. He thought when the legislature prioritized capital
spending, it had a tendency to look at maintenance
obligations. He reminded that education was one of the
state's constitutional requirements. He thought it was not
advisable to not apply for the major maintenance school
list.
10:00:00 AM
Mr. Andreassen looked at slide 23, "Municipal Roads -
Transportation":
Roads
?5,500 road miles = DOT road miles
?Municipal transportation budgets = $190 million
?Annual Need = $154-308 million annual
maintenance ($28k/mile)
?Projects within boroughs: STIP allocation $2.8
billion ($4k/capita)
?Projects outside boroughs: STIP allocation $1.9
billion ($47k/capita) Municipal Roads - Transportation
Municipal Airports
?Juneau International (City and Borough of
Juneau)
?Merrill Field (Municipality of Anchorage )
?Ketchikan International (Managed by Ketchikan
Gateway Borough)
?Kenai Municipal Airport
?Kodiak Municipal Airport
?Wasilla Municipal Airport
Majority of State airports maintained by contracts,
which include with cities and boroughs
Mr. Andreassen noted that roads comprised a significant
part of municipal budgets.
10:01:08 AM
Mr. Andreassen reviewed slide 24, "Ports and Harbors -
Transportation":
133 Public Ports and Harbors
-DOT&PF owns 16 harbors
-Municipalities own 11 ports and harbors
82 municipal facilities were transferred by DOT&PF
Grant program signed into law in 2006-24 harbors
transferred since then
?Total Need 2010: $595 million
?Ports and Harbor Matching Grants (2007-2019)
?AS 29.60.800
?Requested: 98 Awarded: 45
?$199,273,401.50(total project need $398,546,803)
?Total harbor grants awarded- $84,529,551.00
?AMHS terminals (STIP): $68.25 million
?No other port and harbor improvements included
Mr. Andreassen thought ports and harbors showed a glaring
example of where state transportation planning was not
connected back to the local level. He cited that Alaska had
more coastline than the rest of the United States combined,
and he thought that there was a huge gap in state planning.
He discussed the transfer of properties by the state and
the necessary construction. He pointed out the list of
municipal debt reimbursement projects under the heading
"TIDSRA/HB528 Municipal Projects." Each of the local
governments listed had taken out bond debt to upgrade ports
and harbors. The state had not been able to reimburse for
the projects, and the amounts were not funded in the FY 22
budget. He noted that some of the same districts also had
school bond debt.
Co-Chair Stedman referenced matching grant funds as
mentioned by Mr. Andreassen, which used federal funding. He
thought it would be inadvisable to use the funds for ports
and harbors because of delays with the funds. He noted that
the state harbor matching grant program was a 50/50 match
and targeted $10 per year. Communities that wanted to
participate could have 50 percent of initial harbor
construction paid for by the state. The maintenance of the
harbors would be the responsibility of the municipality. He
thought it was unlikely that the legislature would want to
involve federal funds in harbors. He referenced the state's
challenge with meeting expenditures and mentioned the
Harbor Matching Grant Fund.
10:06:02 AM
Mr. Andreassen addressed Co-Chair Stedman's comments. He
clarified that the slide was not a suggestion that the
projects be included in the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), but rather a suggestion that
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) consider port and harbor infrastructure as a piece of
the state's economy.
Co-Chair Stedman asserted that DOT did not plan for ports
and harbors, which led to dilapidated harbors and the need
for the Harbor Matching Grant Fund.
Mr. Andreassen agreed. He noted that in 2010 the Army Corps
of Engineers conducted a survey of port and harbor needs,
and the same survey had been done again in 2020. He
referenced the bar graph on the slide, which reflected the
survey results and showed that the need had doubled between
the two periods of time.
Mr. Andreassen discussed slide 25, "Municipal Water and
Sewer":
SRF from 1989-2019 - a total of 275 projects that were
advanced,
?30 were applied for from cities within the
Unorganized Borough for a total of $34,301,207
?245 projects (89% of all projects) advanced by cities
within organized boroughs or by boroughs themselves
account for $504,349,476 (93% of the total funding).
VSW from 2015-2020 - 259 projects have been funded,
including a total of $80,202,219 of State funding, the
25% match for federal funds of $224,584,607.
?Of that, 206 projects within the Unorganized Borough
accounted for $61,740,725 of State funding, or 77% of
the total State expenditure.
The loan program required nearly the same amount of
State funding as the grant program: $61,471,546 from
2015-2019 compared to the VSW's $61,740,725 from 2015-
2020.
?SRF funds are not free, with the majority repaid to
the State over time at 1.5% interest
Mr. Andreassen noted that the State Revolving Loan Fund and
Village Safewater Program were good programs with different
roles, that were not meeting the total needs of
communities. He thought the Indian Health Service
maintained a list of needs, which was roughly $1.6 billion.
10:08:47 AM
Mr. Andreassen presented slide 26, "COVID's Impacts":
Local governments have experienced the pandemic
differently, but all have felt an impact. The real
differences are 1) lost revenue, and 2) implementation
of public health actions.
Adak lost $555k in lost taxes and fees
Anchorage lost $23 million in taxes and fees
Anderson 60% decline due to lost tourism
Aniak did not bill city customers for three months
Brevig Mission closed bingo and pull tabs resulting
in lost staff
Chevak closed bingo and pull tabs resulting in staff
reductions
Coffman Cove reduced moorage fees
Cordova revenues declined by $500,000Craig sales
tax down 20%, bed tax down 50%; employee furloughs
Denali Borough lost $4.25 million in taxes and fees
Dillingham forgiving interest and penalties on
taxes, utility fees
Fort Yukon lost about $300,000 due to gaming; staff
reductions
Grayling 30% reduction in revenue
Holy Cross bingo and pull tab closures resulted in
employee layoffs
Hughes - $23,000 reduction resulted in staff and hour
reductions
Huslia down 8% leading to reduction to public
services
Juneau lost $34.82 million in taxes and fees
Kake losses of 35-45%; staff reductions
Kenai Peninsula Borough lost $4.5 million in taxes
Ketchikan Gateway -lost $4.75 million
Marshall furloughs and reduced hours
Metlakatla lost $1.15 million in fees
Petersburg lost $420k in taxes and fees
Platinum - $35,000 decrease
Sand Point lost more than $400k in taxes and fees
Saxman reducing staff
Seward lost $2.5 million in taxes
Shaktoolik 2-5% drop in sales tax
Skagway lost $8.82 million in taxes and fees
Soldotna stayed the same
St. Michael lost nearly $150k in taxes and fees
Unalakleet lost $5,000Whittier loss of $2 million
Mr. Andreassen thought more work was needed to fully
understand the impacts of COVID-19 on communities. He
stressed that everyone experienced the pandemic
differently. He discussed lost revenues. He mentioned
hugely increased community costs and the state's allocation
of CARES Act funding. He mentioned additional public
health, public safety, hospital and schools' action that
could be covered by CARES Act funding; while lost revenue
could not be mitigated by the funds. He discussed the
impacts of COVID-19 on revenue-generating activities in
small communities. He discussed the revenue impacts of
reduced tourism.
10:11:27 AM
Mr. Andreassen spoke to slide 27, "COVID's Impacts":
In response to the pandemic and impacts of vetoes,
local governments have maintained fiscal stability
and:
?Implemented furloughs or reduced staff hours
Eliminated or reduced programs or services
?Increased or added new taxes
Waived fees or other normal charges
?Accessed grant programs or took out loans
Reduced capital budget
?Spending down of emergency reserves
Eliminated travel and training
?Adjusted prior year appropriations.
At the same time, the Governor asked of local
governments appropriate local level actions in
response to the pandemic. This meant that instead of
statewide orders, local governments were charged with
implementing public health mitigation strategies in
response to CDC and DHSS guidance. This included:
?Emergency operations centers and incident
commanders in place
?Metrics for evaluating risk levels and responses
?Public health mitigation measure
?Economic support mechanisms
Mr. Andreassen thought the slide gave an idea of how
communities had responded to the pandemic.
Senator Wielechowski asked if AML had a position on whether
the legislature should pass a law extending the disaster
declaration.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that AML supported the extension of
the disaster declaration.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Mr. Andreassen could discuss
the impact to communities if the declaration was not
reenacted.
Mr. Andreassen emphasized that local governments depended
upon the state for many things during emergency response
and emergency management. He felt local governments had
lost a partner without a disaster declaration in place.
Many of the items on the slide became more challenging
without the state being able to respond. He continued that
AML was concerned about what actions local governments
would have to take.
Mr. Andreassen displayed slide 28, "CARES Act Doesn't Make
us Whole":
157 cities and boroughs have applied for and received
at least their 1stdisbursement of CARES Act funds
26 communities have not requested CARES Act funds -
only 8 of those are municipal
?$18M of $568M not yet disbursed, or 3% of all funds
88% of all funds reported spent by original deadline
of 12/30/2020
?91 recipients expended 90% or more of their
allocation by the original deadline
?Many delayed attributing expenditures when the
extension occurred
Expenditures:
?Payroll $193M
Public Health $65M
?Economic Support $225M
Other$18M
The CARES Act CRF came with restrictions, and provides
that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover
costs that:
1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the
public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19);
2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently
approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment
of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and
3. were incurred during the period that begins on
March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020.
Mr. Andreassen stated that the majority of cities and
boroughs had applied for and received CARES Act funding. He
shared that that AML had hired a CARES Act program
coordinator and had worked with communities to help. He
thought communities had also received the funding through
other sources such as tribal allocation. He thought some
communities were so small there was concern about liability
of taking on the funds.
10:16:25 AM
Senator Hoffman asked about communities that did not apply
for CARES Act funding and asked if the law allowed for a
regional entity to apply on behalf of a community. He used
the example of the Association of Village Council
Presidents, which comprised approximately 60 communities.
He thought some cities might not have the resources to
carry out the funding request. He asked if the matter had
been considered by the Congressional delegation and if it
was considered in light of the extension of the CARES Act.
Mr. Andreassen informed that the CARES Act allowed for
transfer between governments. The prime recipient (tribes
or local governments) would receive the funds and then
grant them to a regional or local government level. The
first recipient would be responsible for reporting.
Senator Hoffman asked if Mr. Andreassen was aware of any
communities that had done the fund transfer, and if AML was
assisting in getting the funding transfer accomplished.
Mr. Andreassen was not aware of any communities that had
engaged in a fund transfer. He stated that AML had
suggested the transfer and had tried to provide the
pathways. He commented on the challenges of the CARES Act
experience for cities and boroughs that had to put a lot of
new processes into place. He thought there had been a high
level of risk and uncertainty. He thought that there was an
opportunity with the extension of the CARES Act deadline.
Mr. Andreassen noted that the majority of CARES Act funds
received by local governments were not in the form of
economic support. There had been a significant investment
into the state's economy. He discussed restrictions on the
funds and exemptions. The funds had displaced some losses
in budgets.
10:20:00 AM
Mr. Andreassen referenced slide 29, "CARES Act
Expenditures":
?Decontamination trailer
ease of airport facilities
?Monitors for fishing season
?Small scale quarantine/isolation unit
?Ambulance
?Renovate apartments for quarantine
?Pumps and equipment for water/sewer
?Updating city building for sanitation
?Transit van to assist elders
?Childcare assistance
?Commercial grade washer/dryers
?Heating oil and utility assistance
?Food credit at local restaurants
?Software upgrades
?Cameras for inmate/visitor communications
?Modifications to the clinic
?Air purifiers and sanitizing
?Updates to community pools, showers
?Telework and cloud-based solutions
?Shipping costs for PPE and emergency vehicles
?Property assessment technology virtual
?Internet connectivity for students
?Water delivery
?Grants to hospitals
?Project postponement fees
?Non-congregate setting conversions
Mr. Andreassen showed slide 30, "FEMA upgrades":
? Biden Administration announces 100% reimbursement of
eligible expenses since January 2020, and expansion of
eligibility
? All work eligible under FEMA's existing COVID-
19 policies, including increasing medical
capacity, noncongregate sheltering, and emergency
feeding distribution will be reimbursed at 100%
federal share.
? The costs to support the safe opening and
operation of eligible schools, child-care
facilities, healthcare facilities, non-congregate
shelters, domestic violence shelters, transit
systems, and other eligible applicants will be
eligible after Jan. 21.
? Provision of personal protective equipment,
disinfecting services and supplies
? State and Local Governments can/should consider
items charged to CARES Act/CRF that could be applied
to FEMA for, and the difference then available for
economic recovery or to meet other needs, that would
still be eligible to apply to the CARES Act funding.
? Potentially $100M from local governments, if
capacity to submit for reimbursement
? Review of DHSS $330M some portion of agency and
non-agency support
? Unified Command expenses
Mr. Andreassen encouraged the committee and the state to
look at how to reallocate funds to take advantage of the
new opportunity to be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 31, "Next Aid Package":
Proposed right now at $350B
?State of Alaska $827M 5th lowest in nation
?Local Governments $258M
AML proposing floor of $1.25B and additional $500M
floor for localities
Counties based on population; cities on CDBG
?Some Alaska localities on both lists, but not
consistent
?Denali Borough, which will have lost $7M in revenue
last and this year, receives $409k
?Municipality of Skagway, which lost $9M just last
year, receives $221k
?Yakutat, Petersburg, Skagway, and Haines should be on
both list, with consolidated cities
State role in distributing census areas funds ($16M);
city funds maybe ($46M) otherwise direct through
Treasury; Treasury will track disbursements and
reporting
Mr. Andreassen proposed that small population states had
been penalized under the aid package formula.
Mr. Andreassen showed slide 32, "AML Perspectives A Case
for Revenue":
?Underfunded Priorities
?Public safety, education, community assistance,
health
?Pensions and debt, unfunded mandates
?Economic Recovery and Growth
Reducing transaction costs energy,
transportation, broadband
?Third leg of "stool"
?Infrastructure Deficit
?Water/sewer, local CIP, deferred maintenance,
roads, ports
?Obligations like school construction and major
maintenance
10:24:09 AM
Senator Wilson considered the slides and estimated that the
budget would have to be about $31.5 billion to meet all the
expected needs as proposed by Mr. Andreassen. He asked how
the deficit would be addressed by revenue.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what Senator Wilson had calculated.
Mr. Andreassen thought a big portion of the $30 billion was
the infrastructure deficit. He suggested that the deficit
could be paid down over time. He relayed that AML struggled
with seeing infrastructure obligations underfunded over
time, which had been occurring because of a revenue
shortfall. He mentioned the $1 billion gap in the following
year's budget. He thought the state needed some kind of
revenue measure to meet the needs of next year's budget.
Senator von Imhof suggested thinking about "new cash." She
considered whether new cash would be a result of increased
oil revenue, budget cuts, or money from the state's
savings. She pondered what to do with new cash and thought
Mr. Andreassen was proposing competing priorities. She
thought the governor proposed that any new cash would be
paid out in dividends. She thought that rather than paying
the full dividend, Mr. Andreassen was suggesting using any
additional cash for the competing priorities laid out in
the presentation.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that AML had formed a fiscal policy
the previous fall after considering the same question posed
by Senator von Imhof. He thought the organization had
agreed that the state had clear constitutional obligations
and queried how the state would balance the obligations
with statutory obligations and other needs of the state. He
cited public education, public health, public welfare
(including public safety) as obligations that were
underfunded.
10:28:02 AM
Senator von Imhof asked if AML had a one-page legislative
priority list that had priorities and accompanying dollar
figures.
Mr. Andreassen stated that AML had a two-page letter and
would follow up with the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman lamented that there were not enough funds
to keep everyone happy and that the state needed to
prioritize its spending.
Senator Hoffman asked if AML had discussed the Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD) and if so, what was its position on the
dividend amount and what was proposed in the governor's
budget.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that AML had a resolution in support
of the legislature finding a solution regarding the PFD. He
thought there were as many opinions amongst local
governments as there was in the legislature. He thought
local governments agreed that stability was needed. He
continued that AML had passed a resolution in support of a
sustainable draw, and a resolution in support of the
sustainability of the Permanent Fund's future. He noted
that AML had no position on the governor's proposal.
Mr. Andreassen reviewed slide 33, "Tax to GDP Where is
Alaska, compared to other states?" The slide showed a
scatter plot. He explained that the slide showed how Alaska
compared to other states in an analysis of tax to GDP. He
observed that local governments were doing their part.
State tax compared to GDP was the lowest in the nation. He
thought knowing how state taxation related to the economy
was a new way of looking at the information. He considered
that international research indicated that taxing the GDP
effectively would result in economic growth while meeting
infrastructure needs such as education. He asserted that
there was room for the state to address its tax to GDP
ratio, considering that the tax applied to one portion of
the GDP more than others.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that one of the challenges with
charts such as the one depicted on the slide was that
Alaska was the only state that owned sub-surface rights.
Most other states had income tax, sales tax, or some form
of property tax. He thought it was hard to compare Alaska
to other states.
10:32:15 AM
Senator von Imhof thought Co-Chair Stedman had made a good
point. She thought Alaska was the only state in the union
that paid a cash dividend to its citizens. She questioned
what kind of cash potential was taken out of citizen's
pockets if imposing a sales tax or income tax. She pondered
if the state used additional cash to invest in job-creating
projects as in other states.
Mr. Andreassen referenced slide 34, "Identifying our seed
corn," which showed a line graph and a bar graph. He
referenced Senator von Imhof's comments and considered how
the state could do economic development and look at its GDP
in the same way it viewed the Permanent Fund. He thought
the presentation had described that if transactional costs
were lowered, and investments were made; models had shown
GDP growth. He offered to follow up with the committee as
it considered prioritization and cash. He noted that the
Alaska Conference of Mayors had been discussing the
prioritization of GDP growth.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that it might be nice if the
Alaska Conference of Mayors met and discussed what things
might look like if the Earnings Reserve Account was
significantly reduced, which was being faced currently. He
thought the cost shifts would be unbearable across the
state.
Senator Wilson appreciated the presentation. He recalled
that Mr. Andreassen was not a legislator or state employee,
but rather was a registered lobbyist. He was concerned
about allowing registered lobbyists into the building
before the general public.
Co-Chair Stedman thanked Senator Wilson for his comment,
and recognized the point being made.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
10:36:51 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 021721 SenFin - Condition of Communities.pdf |
SFIN 2/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
Alaska Municipal League |