Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/26/2021 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 | |
| SB64 | |
| SB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 2021
9:02 a.m.
9:02:24 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop 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
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Click Bishop; Paloma Harbour,
Fiscal Management Practices Analyst, Office of Management
and Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
SB 64 SHELLFISH PROJECTS; HATCHERIES; FEES
CSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with previously published
fiscal notes: FN1(DFG); FN2(DFG); and FN4(REV).
SB 128 APPROP: SPECIAL; AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT
SB 128 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations
to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits and
shellfish enhancement project permits; allowing the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to market aquatic
farm products; and providing for an effective date."
9:03:21 AM
Senator Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute for
SB 64, Work Draft 32-LS-0421\B (Bullard, 4/22/21).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
9:03:40 AM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, discussed the
committee substitute. She stated that the committee
substitute deleted Section 7 through 10 from Version A,
therefore removing the promotion of aquatic farm products
from the purview of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI).
Co-Chair Bishop REMOVED their OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wilson discussed the fiscal notes. He noted that
Fiscal Note 3 would not move with the bill.
Senator Hoffman MOVED to REPORT CSSB 64(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with previously published fiscal notes:
FN1(DFG); FN2(DFG); and FN4(REV).
9:06:35 AM
AT EASE
9:07:36 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
SENATE BILL NO. 128
"An Act making special appropriations relating to the
American Rescue Plan Act; and providing for an
effective date."
9:09:33 AM
PALOMA HARBOUR, FISCAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ANALYST, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, discussed
the presentation, "Senate Finance SB 128 ARP Budget Bill
Overview" (copy on file).
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the committee had any
discretion on the first several pages of items.
Ms. Harbour replied that once the funding was accepted, the
funds must be administered according to the prescription
outlined from the federal government.
Senator Wielechowski wanted to know where specifically the
legislature had spending discretion.
Ms. Harbour looked at slide 2, "American Rescue Plan (ARP)
-State Agency Program Specific Grants":
Education and Early Development included in the bill
?Institute of Museum and Library Services Funds
$2.2 million
?National Endowment for the Arts Funding $758.7
thousand (estimate)
Education and Early Development not included in the
bill
?Emergency Education Relief Funds awaiting state
maintenance of effort guidance; received 4/19 and
currently under evaluation
?Child Nutrition Program awaiting funding and
program information
Environmental Conservation not included in the bill
?Low Income Household Water Assistance Program
Funds awaiting funding and program information
Health and Social Services included in the bill
?CDC Funding for COVID-19 Testing (primarily
school and underprivileged testing) $22.0 million
?CDC Funding for COVID-19 Vaccinations $32.4
million
?ACF Funding for Pandemic Emergency Assistance
$3.4 million
9:15:33 AM
Senator von Imhof looked at the first bullet in the slide.
She wondered whether the money would be spread over four
years, or for each year.
Ms. Harbour replied that the money would be a multi-year
appropriation spread over the years.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether there was a prescription
of how the money was allocated.
Ms. Harbour responded that there would be a determination
program by program to determine how the money could be
spent.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the money would be a
designated fund.
Ms. Harbour replied that it would probably be federal
appropriation in the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), and then reimbursed by the federal
government.
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that the appropriations could be
done over time.
Ms. Harbour replied that there were timelines for
distributing the grants.
Co-Chair Stedman queried the flexibility of the committee.
Ms. Harbour replied that she was fairly certain that the
appropriation needed to be made for multiple years in year
one.
Senator von Imhof wondered why there were different years
designated in the bill.
Ms. Harbour replied that it was in order for the grant
recipients to know the timeframe to spend the money.
9:20:17 AM
Co-Chair Bishop wondered if the Child Nutrition was
intended to provide meals to children throughout the
summer.
Ms. Harbour replied in the affirmative.
Senator Wielechowski asked about the meeting with the
federal government related to the maintenance of effort
(MOE).
Ms. Harbour replied in the affirmative, and explained that
the federal government gave a walk through of the guidance
about how to calculate the MOE. She shared that the state
could seek a waiver if the MOE could not be met.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that OMB would come to discuss
the issue.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the remaining $1 billion
would be included in the bill.
Ms. Harbour replied in the affirmative, and stated that it
was the presentation.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the legislature could
allocate the funds for the districts.
Ms. Harbour replied in the negative. She stated that the
federal grant specified that it must be distributed in
accordance with the federal formula.
Senator von Imhof noted that there was $45 million for
Child Stabilization Grants, and wondered whether the
legislature could direct the $45 million or the department.
Ms. Harbour replied that the department would determine the
direction of the funds based on the guidance from the
federal government.
Senator von Imhof asked whether the discussion was related
to the $1.19 billion.
Ms. Harbour stated that it was the second to last slide of
her presentation.
9:25:03 AM
Senator von Imhof disagreed, and felt that the slides had
mixed money that the legislature could determine allocation
and money that the legislature could note determine
allocation.
Ms. Harbour replied that the legislature appropriated the
federal receipt authority for all the funding in all of the
buckets. She explained that she was addressed the details
of the "buckets", such as the Childcare Stabilization
funding.
Co-Chair Stedman explained that there was approximately $2
billion, and shared the details of how the legislature
could utilize those funds.
Senator Wilson wondered whether the full guidance would be
provided on May 10.
Ms. Harbour replied in the affirmative.
Senator Wilson queried the probability of a change to the
current guidance.
Ms. Harbour replied that it was constantly changing, and
hoped that it would simply be additions to the
appropriations list.
9:30:10 AM
Senator von Imhof asked for a specification of whether each
item was part of a direct grant to the department or
whether it was a discretionary item.
Senator Hoffman looked at the last category on the slide,
and remarked that the first bullet related to $22 million
for testing, and noted that it said, "underprivileged
testing." He asked for that definition.
Ms. Harbour clarified that it should read "underserved
populations." She explained that it was fairly broad, and
hoped for more of a definition from the federal government.
Senator Hoffman asked if "underserved" referred to testing
only. He wondered why there was so much money for testing,
but only $10 million for vaccinations.
Ms. Harbour replied that the allocations were in ARP. The
$22 million for testing was to help schools reopen and
scale up testing in underserved populations. She stated
that the additional money for COVID vaccinations was $32.4
million.
Ms. Harbour pointed to slide 3, "ARP -State Agency Program
Specific Grants continued":
Health and Social Services included in the bill
(continued)
?WIC Benefit Improvements $1.2 million (estimate)
?Child Care Development Fund Grants $28.4 million
(estimate)
?Child Care Stabilization Grants $45.5 million
(estimate)
?Child Abuse Prevention Funding $291.0 thousand
(estimate)
?Mental Health Block Grant Funding $3.0 million
(estimate)
?Substance Abuse Block Grant Funding $4.7 million
(estimate)
?LIHEAP Program Funding $23.7 million (estimate)
?Supporting Older Americans and their Families
Funding $7.0 million (estimate)
?Pandemic EBT Administrative Grant $768.4
thousand (estimate)
Health and Social Services not included in the bill
?Child Care Assistance awaiting state match
requirement guidance
?Home and Community-Based Services Enhanced
Federal Participation awaiting state match
requirement guidance
?Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Administrative Grant Increase awaiting funding
and program information
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the $300,000 for Child
Abuse Prevention funding was required under a formula.
Ms. Harbour deferred to Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS).
9:35:53 AM
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that the presentation in the
meeting was intended as an introduction. He stated that
there may be an attempt to breakdown each section and
subject in future meetings.
Co-Chair Bishop asked about the general fund match.
Ms. Harbour replied that she could not detail general fund
match.
Ms. Harbour addressed slide 4, "ARP -State Agency Program
Specific Grants continued":
Labor and Workforce Development included in the bill
?Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds to AVTEC
$441.0 thousand (estimate)
?Unemployment Insurance System Modernization
Funds $6.0 million (estimate)
Military and Veterans Affairs included in the bill
?Emergency Management Grant $882.3 thousand
(estimate)
Revenue not included in the bill
?Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Grantspreviously submitted as amendments
Transportation and Public Facilities included in the
bill
?Federal Transit Administration Grants $6.6
million
Transportation and Public Facilities not included in
the bill
?Federal Aviation Administration Airport Grants
awaiting funding and program information
University of Alaska included in the bill
?Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds to UA
$30.8 million (estimate)
9:40:19 AM
Ms. Harbour looked at slide 5, "ARP Coronavirus State and
Local Fiscal Relief Fund (CSLFRF)":
Capital Projects Funding $112.3 million
?This is a placeholder appropriation included in
the Governor's ARP package to be refined as
further guidance is made available, anticipated
by May 10th.
?Act states, "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)."
?Use of these funds require application to the
Treasury for specific projects.
?Initial indications that Treasury may limit this
to broadband projects.
Commerce Community Pass-Thru Funding $185.4 million
(estimate)
?Grants to Alaska communities defined as "non-
entitlement local governments and counties" that
will pass through Commerce
?Funding is based on a formula established in the
Act and clarified by Treasury, anticipated by May
10th.
Co-Chair Stedman queried the definition of a "non-
entitlement local government and counties."
Ms. Harbour replied that the U.S. Senate provided initial
estimates for allocations for those entities. She stated
that the list was comprised of cities.
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that it was a pre-described list.
Ms. Harbour agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that the committee must wait for
guidance before appropriation.
Ms. Harbour agreed.
Co-Chair Bishop recommended a timeline for turnaround of
the grant money.
Senator Olson asked about the unorganized boroughs of the
state.
Ms. Harbour replied that the census areas were also
included in the list.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the $185 million had any
direction allowance for the legislature.
Ms. Harbour replied that the funding would be allocated
directly to communities based on a formula set out by the
federal government.
9:45:20 AM
Senator von Imhof queried the specific sections of the
bill.
Ms. Harbour replied that Section 2 was the funding for
local communities and Section 1(h) was the capital funding.
Senator von Imhof asked that in the future the sections be
included in the presentation.
Ms. Harbour highlighted slide 6, "ARP CSLFRF State Funding
Uses and Restrictions":
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 (COVID
19) 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.
Senator Wielechowski queried the guidance on water and
sewer infrastructure.
Ms. Harbour replied that she did not have any specifics.
Ms. Harbour pointed to slide 7, "ARP CSLFRF State Funding
Categories."
Senator Wielechowski asked for explanation of the use of
funds.
Ms. Harbour replied that there was a hope to better define
the use of funding after the federal guidance.
Co-Chair Stedman queried the flexibility of the committee.
Ms. Harbour replied that the funding was available through
December 2024, so there was some flexibility to determine
the use of funding over that timeframe.
Senator Hoffman stated that his question had been answered.
Senator von Imhof wondered who would be the manager of the
money.
Ms. Harbour replied that those questions would be answered
with the development of the program.
9:55:55 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there would be discussions
related to the timing to minimize errors in structure and
targeted areas of the economy.
Senator von Imhof hoped that there was work with the banks
to determine a targeted approach.
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether the $112 million for
broadband was imbedded in the other number.
Ms. Harbour replied in the negative and explained that the
federal government outlined that use for infrastructure.
Co-Chair Bishop surmised that the two areas addressing
broadband had one as descriptive and one as optional.
Ms. Harbour agreed.
Ms. Harbour looked at slide 8, "ARP CSLFRF Special
Provisions":
General Fund Offset Section 1 (f), (g), and (i)
?(f) and (i) offset $120 million in UGF
expenditures with ARP funds in FY21 allowing for
deposit to the general fund or CBR.
?Structured as unallocated budget items,
allocation will be made based on allow
ability criteria from the Federal Treasury.
?Federal fund increase will be offset by
general fund decrease in the same budget
line items to ensure no net change to
program funding.
?(g) offsets $19.3 million in DGF or other
restricted fund expenditures with ARP funds over
FY21-FY24.
?Priority will be given to areas with significant
fund balance issues caused by COVID.
Disallowed Appropriation Backfill Language Section 9
?Utilizes the general fund offset concept to
ensure that a program, if found unallowable, can
continue without interruption.
10:01:03 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried the safety parameters.
Ms. Harbour replied that the legislature had the
flexibility in how the funding may be spent.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that it was abnormal to give so
much flexibility.
Ms. Harbour agreed, and explained that the appropriation
was strictly for FY 21.
10:06:44 AM
Senator Hoffman asked for the document that Ms. Harbour was
referring.
Ms. Harbour agreed to provide that information.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that there would be discussions
about how to handle the $1.019 billion.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the following day's meeting's
agenda.
SB 128 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:15:12 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 128 ARP CSLFRF Plan Summary_4.16.2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 SFIN OMB ARP Bill Overview 4.26.21.pdf |
SFIN 4/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 ARP Direct Agency Grant Detail_4.16.2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 128 |
| SB 64 Work Draft ver. B.pdf |
SFIN 4/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Explanation of Changes ver. A to B.pdf |
SFIN 4/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 128 vonImhof document - FED COVID Relief.pdf |
SFIN 4/26/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 128 |