HFLR-20260409-1500

Will the House please come back to order?

We are debating amendments to the FY27 operating budget.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 51 by Representative Schwanke beginning page 11 line 4.

Representative Schwanke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 51.

There's an objection.

So the concept behind this amendment is it cuts back on a $3.7 million add that was offered in sub-finance to the early learning allocation.

The amendment that I'm offering today,

I feel, is rational,

it's fiscally responsible,

and it still supports our early learning partners,

specifically our Head Start partners.

If you look at the dollars in the amendment,

it keeps a 10% addition over FY26 funding numbers.

FY26 funding levels were adequate to help our partners meet their 20% non-federal match.

The FY27 early learning component covers a few different components that I'll just quickly highlight here.

Head Start,

non-federal match.

The increase this year in subfinance was 29% over last year.

Parents as teachers,

which is an important component for several of our colleagues here in the House,

it was increased 75% in subfinance this year.

Best beginnings,

imaginary library,

imagination library thread,

and then other miscellaneous additions that are admin costs,

travel,

including teaching strategies,

gold,

preschool assessments.

So early learning,

the allocation over the last three years went from $10 million to $15 million to $19 million this year.

So it's an 88% increase over the past two years.

To me, this is not sustainable and it's not fiscally responsible.

The amendment that I'm offering here today cuts back the addition.

To head start funding back to a 10% increase over FY 26 funding levels.

My hope here is that we can actually come together on at least one fiscally responsible amendment here during this process today.

I look forward to questions and discussion.

Further discussion on Amendment 51.

Representative Galvin,

Thank you. Mr.

Speaker,

permission to refer to my notes.

permission granted.

Thank you.

This amendment is going to be a line item decrement and it's unclear where that decrement is exactly going to go. It could be

going toward Head Start,

which would be problematic because we are with these funds we're ensuring that we have the full amount of the total match that's needed in order and that needs to be if we have it at

20%, that would be $16.756 million.

Then we end up with the federal match of 67.5. In the past, we've not had the full match, and so it's...

Something that I could understand why the representative think that we just heard from thinks that this amendment would make sense. But unfortunately,

what we are hearing is that.

There is less certainty with regard to federal matches these days and that they are looking for the states to have the full buy-in.

And I really don't want to risk not having the full head start opportunities for as many children as we can have.

I think that you've heard me speak ad nauseum about how important early learning is and how important we know that these investments

early equate to savings later.

Alaska is currently ranked 40th in the nation for overall child well-being according to Alaska Children's Trust.

James Heckman,

who is a Nobel laureate economist,

has said that every dollar spent on early intervention for kids brings a return on investment of seven to thirteen dollars.

And I believe this is true from what we're seeing. Whether it's parents as teachers,

head starts or others, we did hear in our subcommittee that we are seeing returns.

We are seeing more readiness.

We are seeing the connectivity between these early interventions and the governor's Alaska Reads Act.

So I would like us to be mindful of that and I would ask.

ask us to vote against this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Fields.

Hey, Mr.

Speaker, just a little historic context. It's true that in the last couple of years,

the legislature on a bipartisan basis restored support for early learning programs,

including Head Start and ILP.

And I applaud multiple members,

including the member from Wasilla,

for leading the charge on that this year.

The dollar figures have actually returned to what is historically normal before a year of cuts. So it looks like a large increase over two years, but actually just restored funding,

adjusting for many years of inflation adjusted cuts.

And that historically normal level is simply what it takes to provide these necessary and cost-saving services.

In wrap-up, Representative Schocke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to address the comments that we just heard. I would agree early learning is actually very critical and that is not in question here.

There was a comment pertaining to we don't know exactly where the cut will come from. Or, you know, that that's kind of an interesting concept because in sub-finance meetings we add money to individual components of allocations. But in this process,

all we get is the allocation number that we can address without going the extra mile and adding very specific intent language.

restoring funding to previous levels.

I appreciate the comment.

Unfortunately,

this is one of those situations where these are nonprofits that offer these programs.

I have a lot of head starts in my district.

I think they're great and I want to see them continue.

However,

This amount of money added to our operating budget creates 100% government-funded, non-profit-run programs. I think we need to think long and hard about what that looks like.

I'd like to ask permission to read a short statement from Real CAC,

which is one of the largest Head Start providers in my district.

Permission granted.

Our ability to meet the match requirement is largely due to the recent increase in state funds in addition to our volunteer hours.

donations and the in-kind support that we receive from nine of the buildings that we rent. We are able to capture in-kind from buildings that are provided to us in exchange for low or no rent.

However, we are required to have an appraisal completed on the facilities within the past three years for that in-kind contribution to qualify. So in short, we have learned that the FY26 funding levels were adequate.

for our Head Start providers to meet the 20% non-federal match.

However, what I'm asking us to do is to limit the increase to a 10% increase over last year's funding for the specific purposes of helping them with higher utility costs,

fuel,

electricity.

Most of these are in rural Alaska,

some are in the valley.

as well as ongoing appraisal costs.

So it's very important that we help these entities maintain up-to-date appraisals so that they can keep claiming these in-kind support metrics.

Also last year Head Start expanded into Valdez and Cordova in addition to Anchorage for home-based program services.

So to me this amendment is just one more opportunity here provided by conservative members of this body.

to create some sort of fiscal constraint on operating budget growth.

I hope you guys take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.

I d I would look forward to seeing some additional yeses on the board for this amendment. Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment No.

51 pass the body?

Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

15 yeas, 25 nays.

With a vote of 15 yeas to 25 nays,

Amendment No. 51 has failed to pass the body.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment No. 52 by Representative Schwanke, beginning page 11, line 21.

Representative Schwonke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I offer Amendment No. 52.

There's no objection.

Amendment number fifty two is a fairly simple amendment. There was a four hundred ninety thousand dollar addition made um during the budgeting process this year to the Department of Labor. That amount of money comes from um an initial allocation that was given to the Department of Education for a three year step down grant.

That grant was offered to a nonprofit to set up and operate ARC,

which is a recruitment and retention tool for teachers and districts across the state.

That contract was in place for one year.

It was completed and no contract was offered for the second year or the third year.

The website is operational.

It's up and running.

Most school districts do post positions on that website.

Many do not and have alternate opportunities for recruiting.

Several different websites are used at this point to recruit for teachers.

I do not.

Necessarily think that $490,000 is a responsible full increment into the Department of Labor budget with no strings attached,

no contract in place.

My ask is that we reappropriate the $490,000 to the Department of Education back where it came from specifically for the Alaska Arts Education Consortium.

The reason that I'm asking for this particular reappropriation is because this is a place where school districts statewide cut back first.

We've all seen this happen.

We have elective courses,

whether it's art,

whether it's music,

whether it's theater,

and the support for those types of classes are consistently cut first when districts are making their budget decisions for the year.

The current budget for the Alaska Arts Education Consortium is only $12,000.

One of the first asks that I had from my school district when I came to Juneau was if there's anything that you could do to help our theater program,

it would be amazing. We operate on a shoestring budget.

We have an amazing theater teacher in Copper River and I am very pleased to have her and I've seen what good that that program does to the district.

Now I'm a musician myself.

I had lots of different opportunities to learn how to play musical instruments when I was young and I felt like that was an incredible thing that was lacking in my own district,

but I will take theater because we have an amazing teacher that offers an amazing opportunity for our children.

However,

the funds for those types of programs are increasingly fleeting.

across the state.

When we talked to the Alaska arts education consortium, they suggested that thirty three percent of this could go to the rural arts initiative and they could partner with additional districts other than the current five. They could expand that to ten.

Thirty three percent could go to professional development and arts integration training for our teachers.

We could better integrate art with all of our curriculum.

And 33% could go to many grants for arts equipment and upgrades as desperately needed across our districts.

So I hope that you would consider taking an increment that is going into a department with no direction,

no contract.

No ending in sight as a full increment and put it into a program that would actually help directly all of our students throughout Alaska.

Thanks.

Brief it ease.

Thanks.

Will the House please come back to order under debate on amendment number 52,

Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I am urging a no vote on this amendment.

What we are doing here is taking funds out of labor that will go to recruitment and retention of educators.

And what I am going to share with you is what most of you already know,

and that is we are urgently needing help with recruitment and retention services to all of Alaska school districts.

And that's exactly what the ACSA has been doing, and we want to encourage that to continue.

to go on as it has been previously,

and it's better seated in labor.

It makes sense since this is about a workforce need.

And the arts are very important,

and it's also important that we recognize that we had at the start,

at the very first day of 2025 school year,

we were nearly 350 vacant teacher positions.

So, um what we've been doing in our unique position, we've had to hire uh international teachers, as you're well aware, over five hundred and seventy three um across the state and either J_ one or H_ one B_ visas. And um the funds that this

would be taking out and putting into arts do a lot of important work. They don't just recruit and retain.

They do things like mentoring, making sure that educational leaders get proper training.

They've even come up with,

in their recruitment efforts,

vignettes helping

Teachers who either are abroad or in the lower 48 understand what rural,

what it's like to teach in rural Alaska, how exciting it is.

Very important pieces of work that they've been doing that I want to encourage the body to support to continue.

I am not saying that arts are not important. Of course they are.

And with, I'll point out that with this amendment.

The budget for the Alaska Council of the Arts would be at $4.729 million.

So, again,

I encourage a no vote for this amendment.

Thank you.

Representative Allard.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I wasn't going to speak until I heard the last speaker speak,

and it triggered me.

Something that the last speaker failed to point out is that

There are superintendents and principals that fly around the state,

use $490,000 to lobby us with taxpayer money to get more taxpayer money while we're paying for them to fly down here and lobby us.

That is ridiculous.

Absolutely insane.

I don't need to hear any individual sitting on my couch asking me to give them more money when they use taxpayer money to come down here.

When I sit there and I look at individuals that are asking me for more money as they use taxpayer money to sit on my couch,

all I see in front of me is dollar signs.

All they had to do was write an email.

All they had to do was call me.

All they have to do is come to my office when I'm in Anchorage, Eagle River,

but instead they have to spend $490,000 throughout the year.

I can't cuss on things that they shouldn't be lobbying for.

I don't appreciate them using taxpayer dollars to line the hallways, to come to my office,

hold up signs,

write me nasty notes. I don't appreciate it at all.

I would really like,

Point

this is a of factual.

order.

Point of order.

Mr.

Speaker.

As we know,

Masons 101,

please confine the debate to the question before the body,

and I think we're just slightly off that at this point.

And I'm going to agree with the Rules Chair.

Representative Allard, could you please redirect your comments to the amendment before the body?

Yes, and I will continue to make comments directly to this amendment.

on how we get lobbied using this $490,000 but the bottom line is this is a very good cause this is to go to Children's Arts Council what how would how would we not want this we want to do things for the children so thank you mr.

speaker and I am done for the day

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

While it is true that ACSA is funded by dues from the school administrators,

from money that we give them,

I think that they should be able to fund a teacher,

a separate teacher hiring.

Whatever venue,

if you will,

website,

even though the states already spends millions of dollars on Workplace Alaska,

I don't understand, I guess, why the teachers need us to spend money and build another big empire out of ACSAA simply to do to replicate something that the state already has in Workplace Alaska.

Why aren't we using that?

I mean, we use that for everything else.

We use that for pilots,

firefighters.

We use it for law enforcement. Workplace Alaska uses that for DOT,

for everything.

Why are teachers,

why do they have to have their own separate one run by a big empire that's being created here?

I'm also concerned that there's really no oversight. We won't have any oversight over this and it could be used for political purposes much like our dues money or the money we give to them to spend for dues,

frankly,

as the previous speaker said.

Workplace Alaska gets millions.

to do this very thing and now we're going to create another empire I don't know I just have a huge problem with that I would personally rather spend the money on our children than I would spend the money on a new empire created for this purpose thank you mr.

I don't know.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And wrap up Representative Schwancke.

Representative

Hello.

Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of this amendment. I believe the amendment sponsor kind of pointed out that it was unclear whether they were doing anything. And then the representative from Anchorage talked about what they did.

I've looked around for this and for other things and I don't see.

any measure of results of what they were doing.

And so then we're only left to make pretty subjective judgment,

and I guess I would rather see this spent on the arts council than recruiting that we don't know the results of that expenditure.

So I'm in support of the amendment,

thank you.

All right, to wrap up

Let's see,

Representative Henshutes.

Representative Stapp.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I just want to provide the body with some additional information.

The Alaska personnel and teacher and personnel website,

ATP,

is

Recruiting for district positions,

not state positions,

even though a great deal of state funding goes into our school districts,

and we're all aware of that,

the people working for the school districts are district employees,

and there's a lot that goes into hiring an educator.

I just want to make it really clear that.

There has to be a fit between the community and the place where that person is going to teach or whatever other work they're doing in the community.

So there are some specific needs that are addressed by ATP that wouldn't be addressed on the workplace site.

And then I also wanted to add that ACSA is a dues funded organization.

There is a contribution from school districts to their budget.

However,

most of that is used for mentorship of superintendents who then mentor the principals and the teachers who work with the kids.

So that superintendent development is a really important part of that.

I oppose this amendment because that work is critically important to do and we should not take funding away from it. Thank you.

Representative Staff.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I don't know how I'm going to vote on this amendment.

A couple of reasons.

Firstly, when I talked to labor,

they didn't quite understand why this allocation is in labor's department when used to be in deed because that's kind of where the contract is.

So I don't know if the commissioner is even.

and use this money for the intended purpose.

And I talked to other folks and they said it would be for to help districts across the state recruit teachers at in-service,

which obviously is a challenge right now.

The allocation goes to the Council on the Arts,

which,

you know, I don't really know a whole lot about and I don't know if I need to give them $490,000 either,

Mr.

Speaker,

to be quite honest.

So, yeah,

I don't, maybe in wrap up someone could clarify whether or not.

Labor can actually allocate the funds appropriately.

Thanks.

Well, for the third time, if I say the word wrap-up, there's probably going to be a couple microphones,

so Representative Hawkey in closing.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm hearing a lot of conflicting comments on this floor that I am very confused about.

So just minutes ago,

we heard comments that we can't cut something because we don't know exactly where that cut is going to come from.

But on this amendment, we can't reappropriate this money because of why?

Because it's going somewhere to be used in a certain way.

Except there's no contract in place.

The department that is going to receive these funds doesn't know how they will use it. There's no intent language.

There's no contract.

There's no plan for this money.

So just because we will it to go to where it used to be spent when it was in another department doesn't mean that's where it's going to be spent in FY27. So.

I just don't understand what we're doing here.

I just heard some numbers thrown around that Council for the Arts has millions of dollars.

Well, guess what? The Alaska Council for the Arts has $12,900.

They support schools statewide.

There are so many needs and so many asks from our schools statewide for support in arts programs.

One example is helping a district replace lighting in a theater.

We're talking tens of thousands of dollars that a district isn't necessarily going to spend because,

well, they got 10% of their lights. They work. Just make that work.

There are so many places these funds would do so much good for our districts all across the state.

I could go on and on about the places where these dollars could be used,

but if we can't pass a simple amendment like this that takes funding from some random appropriation and put it towards something that we all know is incredibly important,

then I'm not really sure what we're doing here.

Hope you support it. Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being shall amendment number 52 pass the body.

Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll.

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote.

Nineteen yeas, twenty one nays.

So the vote of nineteen yeas to twenty one nays. Amendment number fifty two has failed.

Madam Clerk,

please come back to order.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 53 by Representative Bynum beginning page 82 line 12.

Bynum?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment 53.

There is an objection.

There is an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have in front of us here is an amendment for the Renewable Energy Fund.

Now typically we know the REF is a capital expenditure in nature. However, we have an interesting mechanism here that we have to appropriate funds from the operating budget for the purposes of the capital program. So it's a two-part process.

So we have to have the money in the operating budget and then we also have to include the projects from the REF in the capital budget.

Permission to read.

Permission granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The Renewable Energy Fund or the REF benefits Alaskans by reducing and stabilizing energy costs through the development of renewable energy projects.

The program is designed to produce cost-effective renewable energy for heat and power to benefit Alaskans statewide.

So specifically, Mr.

Speaker,

this is the program looks at the cost of energy,

but the cost of energy not just for your electric bill, but the cost of heating when they're making a determination on the program.

The Alaska State Legislature established the REF in 2008 with the passage of House Bill 62.

In 2023,

the sunset was removed from the Alaska statute extending the program in perpetuity.

The renewable energy fund is managed by the AEA and is in coordination with a nine-member board,

the renewable energy fund advisory committee or the ref committee.

The program provides grant funding for the development of quality qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects and this is an important part of this is that this isn't just put in a grant application and then we get to just arbitrarily choose the AEA and the refact committee or the refact makes a decision based on the quality of these applications and how they'll benefit the communities.

Since its inception,

296 REF grants have been awarded and funded via legislative appropriations totaling nearly $333 million.

Over 110 statewide operating projects have been built with the REF, and it's displaced more than 13 million gallons of diesel annually.

So let's think about that with the way that we have our current energy cost.

These projects directly benefit Alaskans and the bottom line of the dollar that comes out of their pocket.

And when diesel fuel,

as we've seen,

has grown or has went up in cost 55,

65 percent, looking back at these types of investments,

they pay off.

The states continue investment in the renewable energy projects through the REF program,

reduce energy cost,

it creates jobs,

utilizes local energy sources and resources,

and keeps money in our local economies.

It fosters economic development.

Mr. Speaker, I handed out a document here, and it's probably a little hard to see, but it's a list of the R_E_F_ projects. And the list that I handed out has a total of twenty nine, but there are more.

And over the years, Mr. Speaker, we've had what are called rounds on these uh on these projects.

And last year was round seventeen.

This year is round eighteen, and periodically what happens is the A_E_A_ and the refact get together and they re-evaluate all of these projects based on that scoring criteria specifically to ensure that when new projects come in that they are evaluated based on their cost benefit to Alaskans.

So this p this this this particular amendment is is increasing the number of projects that we are

that I'm suggesting that we would include.

Currently in the budget,

we have three projects.

But when we look at the high energy costs that we're currently facing today,

it is a wise investment for the future to say,

let's make these investments in capital an important priority for Alaska.

When we look at the list, there's projects in here for biomass heating.

There's grid resiliency projects for hydropower upgrades.

There are solar and battery projects because under certain circumstances when a community is on purely diesel,

a solar and battery implementation saves diesel fuel.

There's dam raise extension projects that make more power available,

offsetting millions of dollars of cost to Alaskans.

I could go down the list, Mr.

Speaker,

and many of the list here,

and my initial amendment in front of you funds the top five projects.

I've had a few members come,

Mr.

Speaker,

and they've asked if there was a possibility if I would agree for an amendment to my amendment to extend that to the top nine projects.

If it were my will,

Mr.

Speaker, we'd be funding all of the projects,

and I think the total program is about $41 million.

But I understand that we have fiscal constraints on us,

but I do believe that if we are going to invest in capital,

that we do it based off of a process that doesn't just benefit any one district.

It's a process that's evaluated. It's a process that's fair.

And it's a process that's scored.

So when you look at this list that I'd hand out, Mr.

Speaker, some of these things when you look on here, you might think, well, the p this this the the grants that are being provided are specifically gonna fund the full project, and that isn't the case either.

So if we go down to, for example, item number four, this is a goat lake hydro project. This is for a dam raise of that project.

And when we look at the cost of this project,

the amount of money that they're asking for through the grant is being leveraged through federal tax incentives.

As we're aware in previous legislation at the federal level,

there are hundreds of millions of dollars available,

but those hundreds of millions of dollars,

Mr.

Speaker,

are only available if we can leverage them with initial capital investment.

So the line on here that's really kind of an important line is the BC ratio,

and this is the benefit-to-cost ratio,

and some of these projects are very high on the benefit to the cost to Alaska.

I've talked with many of these utilities throughout the state.

And they put a lot of effort,

time, and their own money and energy into making sure that these projects are going to be developed in a responsible way and going to provide a benefit to Alaskans and their pocketbooks through rates for many generations to come.

I'll be interested to hear if there's any questions about the program.

or why we might may or may not want to make these investments. But with that, Mr. Speaker, I would offer amendment one to amendment fifty three and it's being distributed.

Brief it is.