HFIN-20260515-1500

Okay, House Finance. I will call House Finance to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 2:25 PM on Friday, May 15th, 2026. And, um, present today we have Representative Moore, myself, Co-Chair Foster, Representative Jimmy Representative Galvin. Representative Stapp.

Representative Tomaszewski. And if folks can mute their cell phones. And I've had a number of folks ask about the gas line. And just to reiterate my comments from the earlier meeting. We are not hearing the gas line right now.

It's not my intent to hear it at this meeting unless I am called in, called into a meeting and there's some change in plan. But at this point, we will not be hearing the gas line bill at this meeting. And so the items that we have before us are we'll be finishing up the amendment process for SB 140, that's the Fire Station Grant Program. And then we will go to Senate Bill 104, that is the Vehicle Boats Transfer on Death Bill.

And then after that, we'll also come back to a bill that we left off yesterday that we didn't get totally through, and that was the House Bill 138, the Behavioral Health Crisis Surcharge Fund. We still had to get through questions as well as fiscal notes. And so with that, we also have with us Representative Bynum, Representative Kucher-Schraggy. And so it looks like we might be missing two people. I'm going to see if we could just make a quick attempt to get them in the room.

I assume that is probably occurring right now. I assume folks are being called. Maybe if I could have Ms. Youngberg, if you can just come up while we are waiting and just give us a real short, quick update in terms of what the bill does.

Good afternoon. Margo Youngberg, staff to Senator Steadman. Senator Steadman sends his apologies. He will not be in attendance this afternoon. SB 140 is the fire station grant program that establishes a grant in the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, which would provide funding for up to 50% of the total project cost for the construction and renovation of fire stations.

Great, perfect, thank you. And so with that, we'll take a brief at ease. Awaiting, uh, the rest of our community members.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 2:29 PM. So where we left off was, uh, we had gotten through Amendment Number 2, I believe, and we had Amendment Number 1, 3, and 4. Amendment 1 was withdrawn. I'm going to refer to, um, Representative Jimmy just to confirm you had withdrawn Amendment Number 1, is that correct? Yes, Co-Chair Foster, that is correct.

Okay, so that next takes us to Amendment Number 3. Representative Jimmy, I move Amendment 3. Okay, we have an objection. Representative Jimmy, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Amendment 3 raises the cap on the state share for small communities off-road system depending on the population.

Small communities don't always have a tax base to pay for equipment on their own, so this makes the grant program work better for small communities. And I would like to also make a conceptual amendment 1 to amendment 3.

And we have an objection. Representative Jimmy. Thank you, Coach Foster. Um, in your packet is distributed It is— it conforms Amendment 3 to change made in Amendment 2. The change for Amendment 2 will change the language from a maximum on department contribution— contributions of up to 50% to a minimum on a grant application contribution of at least 50%.

So I heard your support. Um, let's see, I am not sure. I, I see there's a handout here and I'm not sure that I see my handout says it's Amendment 3. Is that— is this Amendment 1 to Amendment 3, the handout that you have here? I'm not sure if I understood the conceptual amendment to the amendment.

If you could repeat that.

If I may, Co-Chair Foster, call my staff up. Mr. Miller. Sure. Mr. Keenan Miller, can you put yourself on the record?

If you can put yourself on the record. So, and for the record, my name is Keenan Miller, staff to Representative Jimmy. When the finance Committee moved to adopt Amendment Number 2. The focus of the language in that section changed from the amount the department can contribute to the grant program to the amount that an applicant for a grant has to contribute to the grant program. So the conforming amendment, the amendment, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 3 essentially follows the shift made in Amendment 2.

It retains the lower cap on— or the lower floor on community contribution for smaller communities. The purpose of this is to make it easier for communities with less of a tax base or fewer financial resources to actually use this program, whereas otherwise the 50% grant contribution may have been too much. So all it does is kind of take a negative number and turn it into a positive number in a way to better align with the language in Amendment Number 2. Representative Bynum. Thank you, um, Co-Chair Foster.

I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what we're intending to do with the amendment. Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3. Currently right now, the language in the bill, page 1, line 12, just says that we— the department shall not award more than 50% of the total proposed grant. So for example, if I'm looking for grant funding and I put in $2 million of local money, they can only provide $2 million in the grant. If I have $10 million of local money— I'm sorry, $15 million of local money, it goes up to the maximum threshold, which is $10 million.

So I'm just trying to understand exactly, are you saying that you could provide— if I only had $2 million of local, that you'd be able to go to the maximum grant amount of $10 million? Is that what the implication is here? Mr. Miller.

I'm trying to wrangle with the math in my head here, Representative, but through the chair, right, the underlying amendment, Amendment Number 3, lowers the cap on community contribution for smaller off-road communities. By lowering the cap, it reduces the amount that a community with, again, a lower tax base might have to put in in order to get the grant funding. So the multiplier from the state is bigger for a smaller off-road community. The conceptual just conforms it to the, the perspective reframing. Follow-up.

Representative Bynum. Thank you. Co-chair Foster, through the chair, my understanding— there is no cap for the local community. The local community can contribute as much as they like up to the full cost of a project. So when you say cap, are you talking about the amount of money being provided from the department?

Or are you talking about the percentage? 'Cause Amendment Number 3 basically is saying that you get a better percentage match is what it looks like. So are you trying to just conform the language, just conform the language so that these other measures, Lines 6, 9, and 12, then comply with the Amendment 3? The underlying amendment. Mr. Miller.

Through the chair, yes. Conceptual Amendment Number 1 to Amendment Number 3 only conforms it to the perspective reframe that was adopted in Amendment Number 2 that changed it from a—. Excuse me, let me—. That changed it from a cap on what the department can contribute to a floor on what a community must contribute.

Okay. Representative Step. Yeah. So I don't necessarily read this conceptual amendment that way, Co-Chair. I read this— if I'm looking at Amendment 2 properly, we change the language to the grant applicant shall provide at least 50% of the total project cost and matching funds.

Funds for a grant. So that's 50% of total funds. So if I adopt this amendment, I'm basically saying I have to provide 75% of the matching funds for a grant to certain communities. Would I not, through the chair? Mr.

Miller, um, by my read of the conceptual, um, by authorizing Legislative Legal to make all further technical and conforming changes needed for the amendment to synchronize fully and completely with Amendment 2. We talked with Legislative Legal on the phone. This conceptual is to give you guys clarity on the fact that we're changing the floor now and not the ceiling. Um, and— I wonder if when you say cap, you mean match, possibly. And it would be nice— this is getting a bit confusing here, and I see a number of hands coming up.

We still on Representative Stepp, then we'll go to Bynum and Moore. But it might be better if we have that conceptual amendment written up. And also, we should probably back up a little bit just to bring Representative Hannon up to speed because she had amendment number 2, and so it be good for her to know what's happening here. Representative Stap, did you want to finish your line of questioning?

You know, I don't know if it's super material, co-chair. I don't think I'm going to be supporting the underlying amendment, even if it's an amendment. I think the bill is pretty much fine after Amendment 2 went in. So, thank you. Okay, co-chair Foster.

Okay, in the queue I have Representative Bynum, Moore, Gallivan and myself. Representative Bynum. Co-chair Foster, I believe that the, that the conceptual amendment 1 to amendment 3 is foundational to amendment 3, and so with that I will remove my objection so that we adopt it, and then we can talk about the underlying amendment, the amended number— amendment number 3. So I remove my objection to the conceptual amendment 1 of 3. So conceptual amendment number 1 has been been adopted to Amendment Number 3.

And Mr. Miller, if you can restate what can Amendment Number 3 does as amended, um, and maybe just, um, hold off for a quick second here. I just wanted to make sure that you were brought up. Speed her up, Senator Hannan, in terms of what Amendment Number 3 does right now. Yes, Senator Hannan. Thank you, Chair Foster.

What I'm missing is the conceptual amendment to Amendment 3. So it's now been incorporated into Amendment Number 3. Is this the conceptual amendment? Yes. Okay, thank you.

And so, Mr. Miller, if you can summarize what Amendment Number 3, as amended, what that does now. Yeah, so now, through the chair, Keenan Miller speaking for the record. Now Amendment Number 3, on line 6, when it conforms with Amendment Number 2 that was adopted, um, means that a community with a population of less than 500 off of the road system must pay at least 25% of the cost of a project for a grant. On line 9, now Amendment Number 3 means that a community off the road system with a population between 500 and 1,000 must pay at least 40% of the cost of a project. And now on line 12, it's essentially the same.

A community— any other category of community must pay at least 50% of the cost of a project.

Okay, thank you. And so just in a nutshell, all we're doing is smaller communities, they have a hard time coming up with a match. So we are lowering the match requirement. Representative— we will finish off with Representative Bynum and then come back to the list. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, good chair Foster. By looking at the amendment, I know that when we went through and we thought carefully about amendment number 2 that was adopted, in there we wanted to look at specific criteria that had to be put in place for consideration, and one of those items that we did is we talked about developing an evaluation metric, and that we were going to be looking and ranking projects not just based on, not just based on the financial aspect, but that the public safety and emergency factors were part of that. And that there was this discussion about operating revenue and the ability to maintain, effectively saying that when we look and evaluate these projects, that you take into all things considered, how important is it to that community? And so when we take the project A and B side by side, that if you had, for example, a remote rural community versus, downtown Anchorage, and you want to look at the impact of this facility to the community, that the rubric would tell me that when we score those things, the rural community is going to get preference because the impact of public safety. So I'm not sure, other than the concern of saying that a local community, a small community, may have difficulty locating or finding a match, that it is being disadvantaged in any way.

I mean, we are creating a fair apples-to-apples comparison in the current form of the bill as amended. And so I am not 100% sure that creating this— creating this change is helpful because one thing that we don't allow in the bill right now is we don't let you go and do say, take CAPSES money and use that for your match. But you can use community assistance money. So there are other programs out there to help our rural communities with things like this that they can use as their match to then go compete for the fire station money. So just based on that and trying to make sure that we have a very clear statute I appreciate the idea of this amendment, but I do know that there are other revenue opportunities available to rural communities that will give them preference for those other sources that they can use for match.

So I won't be supporting the amendment today. Okay, next up I've got Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. This question is for Senator Sedman's staff. I just wanted—.

I didn't hear if he was in support of the amendment or if he was neutral or where he was at with this. So if maybe we can get an answer on that. Ms. Youngberg.

Again, Margo Youngberg, staff to Senator Steadman. Through the chair, the bill sponsor does not necessarily support this amendment. I think when it was brought to him in instances where a community has a greater need beyond what they can provide match to, the CAPSES would still be an available choice. And of course, CAPSES doesn't require community match necessarily. So appreciate that.

Thank you. Next up, Representative Gelman.

I think that maybe I've My question was just answered. I was really going to say this makes a lot of sense to me for communities that can't bond, that can't put out, you know, an ask of the community. Can we tax here so that we can get a cart to help save our houses from all burning down? They don't have that— a cash basis. That is exactly what this is for.

As far as I can read, the Amendment 3, the underlying amendment, not the amendment to the amendment, but as— let's presume it is amended. That is exactly what it is doing. It talks about a community with less than 500 that is located off the road system. So I think about how for them to get anywhere, for them to get any food for them to get used— buy any fuel for, you know, going out to get their food. It's just very— I just— I'm at a loss.

I have to say that. And I think I said it already to the senator. I felt like CAPSES— to say just go use the CAPSES program is a little bit off-putting for me. I've been here 4 years, so— and I've never seen that work. For any community.

So I'm, I'm sort of struggling with how to deal with that because I don't want to be the legislator from Anchorage who's only looking after Anchorage people and Anchorage police or fire stations when they're important, certainly. And we do have a lot of people in Anchorage, but the less than 500 community is also important. And so I resonate with what you are trying to do here, Representative Jimmy, and I would be supportive, but I also don't want to tank a bill. So I'm frustrated with that and wanted to voice that publicly. Thank you.

Thank you. I've got myself and Representative Stepp. With regard to the CAPSES, normally CAPSES is something that we refer to when we have discretionary funds that we allow every community to, you know, typically we would say, okay, everybody, we've got extra money and everybody gets $1 million and you can figure out how you want to spend it. And a lot of time, and then if the project's in CAPSES, and then we go to CAPSES and use that. The problem is we haven't done discretionary funding this year.

We're not doing— we didn't do it last year and didn't do it the year before. I don't even remember the last time we allowed for discretionary spending. We refer to CAPSES in terms of when we look at statewide things and things like that. So for that reason, I'll be supporting the amendment. Representative Stout.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Foster. Just for the record, we did quite a lot of discretionary spending in the 32nd legislature, 33rd, excuse me. We had 2 years of capital discretionary spending. But I will say, I am not gonna support this amendment, and I'll kind of tell you why. So if you look at the language that was adopted in Amendment 2, We capped the eligible award at $10 million.

And the other part of the amendment we adopted, it says 2 members of a statewide association of fire chiefs who do not have a fire station project grant applications under evaluations are in the board cycle. And when you look at what this amendment would do, which would basically take that and shift that all front-loaded to communities, it's highly likely that this bill, all this bill would do would be the small location fire station program. Um, like a Fire Chiefs Association in Fairbanks, they're going to represent 50 fire stations. Anchorage, maybe 150. So the odds that one of those cities would have a project on this list would pretty much go to zero if you were to adopt this, because the people who are ranking the list can't be on the people who are receiving the projects.

And because I've now changed the percentages, even though like Rural communities, I don't think you need to change the percentages because the costs are higher. So they are in theory already going to get more money. They are going to just split the grant percentage-wise. But if you go to 75% or 60%, I know we flipped the numbers backwards in the conceptual amendment. You are just going to have this program, if you do allocate money, it is just going to soak it all up to those ones.

So that is— I just think between the two amendments you have structurally changed this bill in a something that it's not really designed to be. So I'm not going to support the amendment. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Let's see, we've also got with us Representative Allard.

And just for clarification regarding the discretionary thing, co-chairs certainly refer to the CAPSES when looking at projects, but again, you know, those are statewide projects. Those are, you know, they sometimes can be district-wide projects, but I I don't think any of us have had anybody in the last 5 years have the co-chairs come to you and say, you have a million dollars and you can decide how you are going to spend that. And that is what I mean when we talk about discretionary. So in years past when we had big capital budgets, the capital co-chairs would go to every district and say, you have so much money to spend. So with that, we have a question from Representative Hannan, then we'll come back to you.

I was going to make just a short note. Sure, Representative Schrag. Just on this, I don't even know that it's really relevant to the bill in front of us, but just in terms of CAFSES, I do remember the first year of the 33rd Legislature, we actually concurred on the capital budget for the first time in a very long time because there was CAFSES projects for many members. So it wasn't a lot of money, but there were— there is some history of CAFSES funding, just for perspective. Thank you.

Rare. Representative Hannan. Thank you, Chairman. And I, I too appreciate the members' interest in trying to develop something that is perceived as working for communities. But I want to assert this is, I think, setting up the loan program or the grant program is designed to address the opposite kind of things where there is a local community that Code Red wasn't going to fill the need.

And when the state has said we're going to invest in a local public safety cop shop, jail, fire station, it didn't fit that need. We did structure Amendment 3 to make sure that even if you were a small community and your only source of revenue, because you didn't have a lot of property tax, but it was community assistance or a bed tax, you could use those revenues as your match. And if you look at the Harbor Grant Program, you'll see many communities are not borrowing the max. They're borrowing a much smaller amount saying, here's how much we can manage out of our own money. And I think this idea of a grant program is when we go, We want communities to have a partial buy-in.

That it's not designed to match all the fire response needs in the state, which I think are much bigger and different, and the state has some responsibility to still bear the whole cost. And we're not doing that right now. And this isn't funded, but I think there's sort of two or three streams of ways we should be addressing fire safety. And a grant program, I think, by its design and nature of this grant program, is for communities where you say you got to have a local buy-in to both the funding and then the ongoing maintenance. And I think in our much smaller communities, you know, and I know we talked about Code Red was brought up yesterday.

That's a program that we should be on every few years, if not annually, funding so that we are making sure that truly the most remote Code Red and Code Blue programs are able to meet that need. And those are in communities that don't have taxing bases or other mechanisms to self-fund. So I'm with regret going to oppose the amendment because I think that it would then sort of bring people into this that should still— the state has a bigger obligation to fund wholly and on an ongoing basis. Representative, uh, Galvin. Thanks.

I just will offer one last comment about this, um, just given my conversation with someone who used to be in charge of the Code Red kits that were sent out to rural Alaska. He had worked on this for over 20 years, and he said over the last 10 years it's completely dried out. There's been no money for They did used to put CAPSES requests in. They no longer had done that because it had— he felt like it just wasn't happening. Nobody cared.

And for me, I feel like this— I mean, maybe they cared, but they just didn't have the funds, I should say, or chose to put them elsewhere. And for me, this might be a workaround because I think the core— I hope the core intent is to make sure Alaskans are getting firefighting services. I think that's what we're after here. And so one piece of that is the larger fire stations, and the other piece is sometimes it's going to be a small cart. What was explained to me is that PFAS is no longer allowed to be used, and so they were struggling because other— the, the other chemicals that would be used to help stop the fires in rural Alaska were more expensive and they should have been replaced.

And the biggest problem, he says, is that once it gets to -40 degrees, they're useless, that they really needed to replace them. And so they wanted to and they've tried to, but they haven't been able to. So for me, I know that this may not be exactly a square into a square hole. It might be a little bit different, but if— I can't imagine that it's outweighing— we didn't put in weights when the consideration of the grants are happening. I know in BERGER, for example, this is in education, they don't just look at the project amount and then how much each district is putting into it.

It's a little bit different. So I'm not sure that this would suck the life out of all of the money so that the urban areas wouldn't get any. I'm not sure that that's a problem. But anyway, I'm just going to say I'm going to be voting for it because I appreciate the concerns that I've been hearing from so many different communities.

No further. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I don't want to delay the— delay the vote here, but I did want to point out that CAPSES is a separate program not related to this. This program clearly outlines what monies can be used for the match, and it says you can use any source of funding for the match with the exception of state dollars.

And then they give a listed exception, and Community Assistant— the Community Assistance Program is part of that. They can use that, they can use fishery monies that are coming from the state, and they can also use the commercial passenger vessel money if their community is receiving those funds. And I know that that Community Assistance Program, you know, we spend millions and millions of dollars a year for communities, and they can dedicate those dollars toward this program if they so choose to apply. So, um, I, I know that the program will be set up to effectively advantage those small communities because the public safety need is tremendous. So I just want to clarify, there's a lot of conversation about CAPSES, separate issue.

Representative Gell— I'm sorry, Representative Jimmy, wrap up. Yes. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Thank you all for your opposition and support for this amendment and for helping me shed the light on the high need of fire safety in villages. I grew up watching people, men fight fires with honey buckets, and 99.9% of the time the houses are lost because they cannot fight the fire quick enough.

Just this last session, I had my chief of staff Rachel come out with me, and we were videotaping around Tuksekg Bay, and it was the post office. We really have a small post office. And all of a sudden I see men running in the background and I tell her to change her phone from the post office to a teacher housing which was on fire. Men were running with buckets in their hand and there's only about 5 or 6 men and that did— luckily they caught it right just in time. But most of the 99.99 time out of the time they cannot put the fire out.

People lose homes, people lose their lives, but I appreciate you guys letting me shed this light. Go ahead. Okay, Representative Stepp, do you maintain your objection? Okay, the objection is maintained. Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 3 as amended by Conceptual Amendment Number 1.

Can you please call the roll? Representative Galvin? Yes. Representative Jimmy? Yes.

Representative Moore? No. Representative Hannan? No. Representative Bynum?

No. Representative Stapp? No. Representative Tomaszewski? No.

Representative Allard? Representative Josephson? Yes. Representative Schraggy? No.

Representative Foster? Yes. 4 Yay, 7 nay. And a vote of 4 yay to 7 nay, Amendment Number 3 is not adopted. That takes us to Amendment 4, Representative Jimmy.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment 4.

Okay, we have an objection. Representative Jimmy. Boyana, Co-Chair Foster. Amendment 4 allows rural communities without fire stations to get funding for major equipment. Communities might get most— may get more funds, more bang for their buck.

For a fire cart, portable pump, or other bigger-ticket firefighting tools that they cannot afford with their tax base. This makes sure the program can help them with major equipment to purchase. I urge your support. Questions? Representative Ballard?

Anybody else have any questions? Representative Moore? Uh, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Uh, Senator Soodman's staff. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting your name.

Ms. Youngberg. Margo Youngberg. Youngberg. Sorry. To Ms.

Youngberg, what is the position of the sponsor's feelings on this amendment, please? Ms. Youngberg. Thank you. Through the chair, as was indicated this morning by the senator, I think this amendment makes the piece of legislation a little broader than was the intent of his original bill. Thank you.

Further discussion? Rep. Sandstad. Thank you, Rep. Foster.

I appreciate the comments from the bill sponsor staff. I don't think I'm going to support the amendment. We talk a lot about Code Red. I mean, that's kind of what that is entailed. There's other kind of vehicles.

This is really supposed to be for kind of these fire station renovations in a very kind of meticulous way. And I'm just not sure how our structured materials work that was put in from the member of Juneau in Amendment 2 would work if we added all this additional stuff. Like, I don't know exactly how the ranking system would work. I don't know, maybe the member from Juneau could read it and help me figure it out, but I think I'm going to be a no for the mean part. Thanks.

Further discussion? Seeing none, Representative Jimmy, would you like to wrap up? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. This amendment would help many villages be able to get firefighting tools, equipment, which is a lot better than buckets. Thank you.

Sorry, we've done wrap-up, Representative Galvin. We got into a big clash over this the other day. Um, so with that, uh, Representative Hannon, do you maintain your objection? Okay, Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 4. If you could please call the roll.

Representative Bynum?

No. Representative Moore? No. Representative Allard? No.

Representative Galvin? Yes. Representative Hannan? Yeah, uh, no. Representative Stapp?

No. Representative Tomaszewski? Representative Jimmy? Yes. Representative Josephson?

Yes. Representative Schraggy? No. Representative Foster? Yes.

4 Yea, 7 nay. So on a vote of 4 yea to 7 nay, Amendment Number 4 has not been adopted. Briefities. Briefities.

Okay, House Finance back on record, and we are on Senate Bill 140, fire station— fire stations and fire station grant program. And so if it is the will of the committee, Representative Sharagi, I would entertain a motion. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move SB 140, work order 34-LS0489/i, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. The House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes necessary.

Do we have any objections? Representative Bynum, would you like to speak to your objection? Thank you. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I just wanted to say, tell the senator thank you for bringing this bill forward.

I think it will be a good addition to grant matching program. I know there is not funding for it now, but there will be in the future. So just pass along my thanks. With that, I withdraw my objection. The objection has been withdrawn.

Hearing no further objections, Senate Bill 140, which is version 34-LS0489/i, moves out of committee as amended with individual recommendations. And attached fiscal note, and House Finance Committee authorizes alleged legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. So folks could please sign the yellow committee reports. And let's see here, do we have the next bill sponsor? Are we waiting on the senator, or you want to jump right in?

Okay, so let's see, let's just take a very quick at ease here.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 3:10 PM. And next up we have Senate Bill 104. That is the Vehicle and Boats Transfer on Death Title Bill. And I'd like to invite up Ms. Jenna Calhoun, and I believe Senator Kawasaki is maybe coming later, maybe not. Maybe if you can put yourself on the record.

For the record, Jenna Calhoun, staff to Senator Kawazaki. He sends his regrets that he is unable to be here. He had an important appointment to attend to, and he had confidence in me to be able to present this bill on his behalf. But again, he sends his regrets. Great.

Okay, so what we are planning to do is we'll walk through the presentation We have public testimony and we have a fiscal note and we'll open it up for questions. So pretty much the standard. And if you can go ahead and proceed with the presentation. Thanks. Thank you, Chair Foster.

Again, for the record, Jenna Calhoun, staff to Senator Kawazaki. SB 104, an act relating to the transfer on a title on the death of the owner and providing for an effective date, continues the work of the Uniform Real Property Property Transfer on Death Act that was passed in 2014, uh, by the 28th Legislature. This created, um, a Transfer on Death deed, which is a non-testamentary, uh, vehicle, which means that you do not need a will, uh, for these. And then it's going to mean that the assets that are subject to a TOD deed skip the probate process. At this point in time, a Transfer on Death deed can only be used for real property, which is land or anything permanently attached to it.

What SB 104 does is it extends this idea of a TOD deed to boats, vehicles, and other certain manufactured homes that are titled through the DMV. What's important to note here is that there can be no more than 2 beneficiaries on a TOD deed for these boats, vehicles, and some manufactured homes. An owner can revoke a TOD deed or change the beneficiary at any time without notice to that beneficiary, and the designated beneficiary can disclaim their interest at the point of time that they receive the interest of the boat or the vehicle. The beneficiary of the TOD deed would also be subject to the conveyances and covenants, assignments, contracts, liens, and other interests to which the boat or the vehicle is subject to. And it also— SB 104 also establishes the procedure to obtain this TOD deed, which means— which is basically the owner will just fill out an application at their local DMV under the Department of Administration and would have to submit a fee.

These fees would serve to fund the program. There are many benefits to SB 104, one of which is lowering the cost of probate for Alaskans. On average in America, it costs $14,225 to settle an estate. Uh, when it comes to an estate, most Alaskans don't have huge portfolios of stocks or whatnot, but they do have cars and they do have boats. Uh, so by being able to skip the probate process for those commonly owned assets, we're saving Alaskans money.

Not only that, but we are saving the court's time and money in administrating these probate cases. Uh, what's also wonderful about SB 104 is that it allows Alaskans without ready access to estate planning tools to actually have estate planning, especially those in rural Alaska who may not have access to a lawyer at all times. They do have access to a DMV. It also expedites the beneficiary's access to boats and vehicles. As you know, Senator Kawasaki represents Senate District P, which is in the cold, dark heart of Alaska in Fairbanks.

If you do not let— if you do not touch your car for 6 months in Fairbanks during the winter, which again the probate process can take up to 6 months to 2 years, that car will no longer be able to run. Another thing to consider is our local family fishing businesses where that boat is their main asset. If that family fishing business cannot access that boat for 6 months to 2 years, their business is no longer going to be able to to run. By being able to skip the probate process, these people can access those assets quickly and be able to maintain those vehicle— uh, vehicles. Uh, Chair Foster, would I be able to speak to the fiscal note at this time?

Sure. Our fiscal note is one-time programming fee of $75,000. Uh, that's going to be for, um, 125 hours of programming at— sorry, 600 hours of programming at $125 per hour to get this system programmed into the DMV's database. From there, like I said, the fees that those people are paying for these deeds would serve to fund the program. And that's a small cost to pay for the amount of savings that not only Alaskans will see from this bill, but also the state of Alaska through the judiciary.

Branch for not being able to— not having to adjudicate these probate cases. I do have two invited testifiers, and thank you so much for y'all's time.

Okay, thank you very much. Um, so let's go right into the invited testimony here. Ms. Abigail O'Connor, if you can put yourself on the record.

Through the chair, uh, good afternoon. This is Abigail O'Connor. I'm the Chief Legal Officer with Peak Trust Company, but I'm more speaking to you today as a trust and estates lawyer in Alaska. I still do have a small practice, and I've done many probates and estate planning. And so I'm speaking to you from that experience.

SB 104 is an incredibly practical and helpful bill that will help Alaskans when they're dealing with one of the most difficult times of their lives, which is the loss of a loved one. One of the logistical problems we have with probate is the car, because once a person dies, that car needs to be parked. We have an insurance problem if the car is driven, and The car can be held up in probate for months, if not a year or two. And that's, as mentioned previously, can be problematic for the car, but also for the family. We have family members who may be relying on the car to get to work or school.

This bill would allow for virtually the immediate transfer of the car to the to the survivors, whoever's designated, so that they can start using it immediately. We can get it insured, and it really does solve that problem for the family. Likewise, as mentioned, for those families who rely on boats for fishing, this would be helpful for them. I have— because this bill has been proposed before, I've had the opportunity to discuss it with my clients clients when we're talking about their estate planning, and it was universally well received by clients, Alaskans who are doing their estate planning, that they may be able to in the future name a beneficiary for their car and how helpful would that be. And so I, I think this, this bill will be very well received among Alaskans.

I think it will be used, uh, and I think it will help So I wholeheartedly support this bill. Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. O'Connor? Seeing none, our other invited testifier is Ms. Holbert calling in from Fairbanks.

If you can put yourself on the record.

Ms. Holbert, are you there?

Maybe we'll come back to her in a moment here. I am also going to open up public testimony on SB 104, and if folks would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected]. Is there anyone in the room or online who would like to testify? Seeing none, again, if folks would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected]. I'll go ahead and close public testimony on SB 104.

And Ms. Linda Holbert, are you there?

Okay, let's see, I have a note here. We have a Fiscal note from DMVA, which would be normally Kathy Wallace. However, I received a note saying that Mr. Dan Stickle was going to present that note. I don't know, Mr. Stickle, I don't think you're presenting DMV's note, but I just want to do a double check. Mr. Stickle?

Dan Stickel, Chief Economist with Department of Revenue. I'm available to present the Department of Revenue fiscal note for House Bill 138. Okay, thank you. Um, so with that, Ms. Kathy Wallace, if you can present DMV's fiscal note and if you can give us the control code. Yes, hi, Kathy Wallace For the record, Director of the DMV.

DMV, as the bill sponsor stated, has a $75,000 programming fiscal note estimated at 600 hours of programming time at $125 an hour. That, that estimate is based off of other programming priorities and jobs that we have done in the past that are similar to what it would take to program the TOD to be able to print on the titles.

Okay, I don't think I see any questions regarding the fiscal notes. Um, Representative Hannon, could she give us the control code? Thank you. Ms. Wallace, do you have a control code on your fiscal notes?

Through the chair, yes, I do. Sorry about that. It is K-X-B-F-A. Perfect, thank you. Okay, uh, seeing no questions on the fiscal note, I'm going to come back to Ms. Linda Holbert.

Are you there?

Linda Holbert, are you available? Yes, good afternoon. I'm— hello, yes, if you can—. This is Linda Holbert in Fairbanks. If you can put yourself on the record and proceed with your testimony.

Yes, I'm so sorry, I've been on hold ever since too. This is Linda Holbert, I'm calling in from Fairbanks. I've been in, uh, living in Alaska for over 55 years. For the last 35 years I've been associated with New York Life. I think this bill is very important.

It really provides a very important service to many people. As, as we've discussed before, the importance of not having to probate very, very important assets, being able to transfer them like boats, campers, this kind of thing, really facilitates a lot of transfer of assets. I strongly support this bill, and I apologize for not being able to get through I don't know why I've been on hold. Thank you so much. Bye-bye.

Oh, it's quite all right, Ms. Holbert. Do we have any questions of the committee? I don't see any questions. So with that, we very much thank you for waiting and appreciate your testimony. And so do we have any questions of the bill sponsor, Representative Hannon?

Thank you, Chair Foster, and I know that we passed this bill a couple years ago. So, Ms. Culkin, can you tell us the history of what happened and why did it not make it all the way through the process or was it vetoed? Ms. Calhoun? For the record, Jenna Calhoun, staff to Senator Kawazaki. I will have to get back to you on that.

I was not— I did not study up on the history of the bill. I am very familiar with the contents of the bill during this legislation— legislature.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, my concern is if it made it all the way through and got vetoed, I want to know if there are any changes to address that. I'm pretty sure you recollect it because I was like, why can't we include airplanes? And then that was federal. And I know that we had, you know, broad support I think it's important. We jokingly in my family have a vehicle that we call my dead dad's rental car that we keep registered to have everyone in the family have access to, blah, blah, blah.

And my family has taken advantage of transfer on death of a piece of real property. So I absolutely support this. I just can't recollect, and I don't know if any other members of the— I think it was the 33rd that we got it. HB 81. I'm looking at it.

Okay. Any further comments on that? Ms. Calhoun. For the record, Jenna Calhoun, staff to Senator Kawasaki. Representative Galvin is correct.

Previously it was HB 81. I do know that it went quite a ways forward. And again, I'm not sure as to why it was not brought to the finish line. Finish line. I do know that it was previously Representative Rauscher's bill and we were his companion.

And now that he's a senator, it's now with Representative Garrett Nelson. Okay. Any further questions? Representative Bynum. Thank you, co-chair.

I just was looking in the record and it looked like that bill passed the House 40-0 but then stalled in State Affairs in for in the Senate. Representative Gallagher, the information I have confirms— confirms that it did not make it to the governor and it had great support. And I just wanted to offer that for me, I don't need any amendments to this bill. I don't know where the rest of the committee is, but it would sure be nice to finally get this accomplished if it's possible. Any thoughts from the committee about moving?

I wouldn't be opposed just based on the history. Sometimes I don't want to move too fast, but I think for the statements made, I think it would probably be okay if— Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I know that this was a companion to one of our colleagues in the minority. And then, correct for the record, it was stalled in the Senate when it went through last time, not State Affairs.

So I apologize for that. So I don't have any objection for it to be moving. Representative Sharkey. Yeah, co-chair Foster, similarly, just having reviewed the record and heard everything that we've heard today, I would support moving this out of the committee, especially knowing that there's a minority companion. And it sounds like maybe Representative Bynum can't represent his entire team here, but no No flags have been raised.

So look to the will of the committee. But one last question. Representative, what was the Senate passage vote? To clarify, it did not pass the Senate. It passed bill—.

This bill today that we're looking at before we move it. Was it a 20-0 vote in the Senate? From my recollection, recollection, yes. Representative Hannan, for the record, Jed Calhoun. Thank you.

Okay. Representative Schraggi. If it is the will of the committee, I would entertain a motion. Absolutely. Co-chair Foster, I would move Senate Bill— or I move that we pass out of the committee Senate Bill 104, Work Order 34-LS0617/G, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.

And I don't think it's necessary, but just to be safe, and we I would move that we give legislative legal the ability to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. Okay. Any objection to the motion? Hearing no objections, CS for Senate Bill 104, which is version 34-LS0617/G, moves out of House Finance with attached recommendations and individual— with attached fiscal notes and attached recommendation. House Finance gives authorization to Ledge Legal to make conforming and technical changes.

And so with that, Ms. Calhoun, any, any words? For the record, Jenna Calhoun, staff to Senator Kawasaki. Thank you to the House Finance Committee for hearing this bill and for teaching me very valuable lessons and what I need to study for this committee. And to you, Representative Bynum, thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Calhoun.

Please pass our regards on to Senator Kawasaki. Thank you for all your hard work. And so the last order of business that we have today is just to pick up where we left off from this morning's meeting with regard to the behavioral health crisis surcharge fund bill. That is Senate House Bill 138. And what I think we'll do is where we left off was we're going to go through the fiscal notes and then go back to questions.

So with that, maybe if we could get a very quick short summary of just what the bill does, just to refresh everyone's memory, and then we'll go to the fiscal notes. And I believe that was Mr. Johnson, is that right? Hayden Johnson? Yes.

So good afternoon, House Finance Committee members. For the record, my name is Hayden Johnson. I'm here to give a refresher on House Bill 138. So House Bill 138 would establish a 98 monthly— a 98-cent monthly surcharge on each wireline and wireless telephone number and create a dedicated— sorry, my apologies— create a designated behavioral health services fund. At 98 cents per line, the estimate— it is estimated to generate between $6 to $8 million in sustainable funding.

And this money would not only be used for the 988 call line, but kind of the complementary services that surround that, such as mobile crisis teams and crisis stabilization centers and all of the appropriate training and education that goes along with them. Great. Thank you. And that was $628 million, not $68 million. Is that correct?

Yes. $628 Million. My apologies. It would be great if it was $68, but I don't think so. With that, we've got fiscal notes and the first one, Mr. Dan Stickel.

If you can walk us through the fiscal note and give us the control code. Hi, this is Dan Stickel, Chief Economist with the Department of Revenue. So our fiscal note is control code GGWJA.

So in terms of revenue, the revenue impact was indeterminate. We did not, uh, a revenue estimate on the bill. We heard from, uh, the bill sponsor earlier that $6 to $8 million per year of funding was a target. After we prepared the fiscal note, we did do some additional research that seems like a, a fairly reasonable range. Uh, the analysis we came up with pointed towards the higher end of that range.

In terms of operating expenditures, we are requesting one additional position to implement the tax. That would be a Tax Technician 3, uh, at an initial cost in fiscal year 2027 of $118,300 and an ongoing annual cost of $114,300.

We are requesting a $500,000 capital appropriation for the costs to upgrade our tax revenue management system to to add the surcharge as a new tax type within our division. Do we have any questions for Mr. Stickel? Representative Galvin. Thank you. I do have a question.

I think I misheard this morning's testimony where I thought it was maybe $38 to $68, but instead it's $628. Is that what you just said? $628 Million in revenue? Mr. Stickell?

Representative Galvin, through the chair, so that's what I heard this morning was a range of $6 to $8 million. And the analysis that we did independently pointed to something on the high end of that range. Okay, thank you. I will wear my hearing aids next time. Thank you.

And Representative Hannon? Thank you. Chair Foster, Mr. Stickell, as you know, sometimes fiscal notes draw the attention and any bill that costs money draws some resistance. Is there a reason that Department of Revenue can't include in the fiscal note the expected revenue generated by the bill?

Representative Hannan, through the Chair, so at the time, at the point in time that we prepared the fiscal note, we were currently in the process of analyzing the revenue impact, and so that's why we did an indeterminate impact. If we were to prepare a fiscal note today, it would, um, probably be on the high end of that $8 million— of the $6 to $8 million range.

Thank you. And I thank you, Chair Foster, and I appreciate it. But, um, yeah, we've heard this verbally, and I keep, you know, having it in print, especially from someone as credible as Mr. Stickle, really helps us bring home that we would have enough revenue generated to fund the Careline program that we are hoping that it would. But that is my, you know, anytime Mr. Stickle puts a number down on paper, it is pretty trusted and respected. So good words, Mr. Stickle.

Uh, any further discussion on this fiscal note? Seeing none, Mr. Stickle, thank you very much. Next we're going to go to Ms. Jen Carson. Thank you for coming back today, and if you can walk us through the fiscal note, maybe note the control code that you have with you.

Yes, for the record, Jen Carson, Director for the Division of Behavioral Health. I have fiscal note control code PDXZP. For the Division of Behavioral Health, we have submitted a zero fiscal note. The work can be absorbed through existing resources. Great.

Thank you. Questions? Representative Hannon. Thank you. Ms. Carson, since you have been at behavioral health, my question is a A little bigger than the fiscal note, but since he gave me the opportunity to speak, thank you, Chair Foster.

We've— the Care Line is pretty vital. It's been hugely successful. The demand has grown.

Care Line Alaska spoke, though it's kind of stabilizing. I happen to represent Juneau, where we built a for-purpose Crisis Now program that has been shuttered for lack of funding.

And so I'm looking to see what you think our needs are statewide for Crisis Now programs, whether you— I mean, because one of the things is, you know, the downside of our 988 care line is we don't have resources to respond in many locations in Alaska. When the Care Line gets someone, there are a few communities that have crisis services able to, you know, be drawn in and meet that. But for many of our callers, there isn't a service available. Could you just help us understand the magnitude of what we need out there for Crisis Now funding? Because I don't want people to mistake that this program, if this bill passed, would secure step 1, but step 2 of access, step 3 of treatment, step 4 of recovery, I don't think that $8 million gets us there.

And I guess I just want to hear from you of the magnitude and scope of the program, of the problem that we have and what we'll need to do. So I don't want any of us to ever walk away and think, We've taken care of our CrisisNow interventions because we have a 98-cent surcharge to make sure that the phones get answered. Ms. Carson. Yes. Jen Carson, Director of Behavioral Health.

Through the Chair, Rep. Hannon, that is a very large question. We know that if you look at the CrisisNow model, it's really 3 steps, right? It's someone to a place to call or a place to contact, right? Someone to respond and a place to go. We know that throughout Alaska, we are still working to develop all three of those.

We now have in place the Crisis Contact Center, the call center, which is available throughout the state. It is free to all Alaskans. Who call. That right now is supported through braided funding, right? So we have general funds, we have federal funds, and then some funding through the Mental Health Trust Authority to cover those costs.

For the next one, someone to respond, that's our mobile crisis. We do have some authority through Medicaid to cover those costs. Right now we don't have— I don't believe we have anyone billing Medicaid for those services.

We also— I know a lot of that is covered by local communities as well as support through the trust. Then a place to go.

As you remember, a few years ago, I can't remember the date, but it was SB 172 that authorized subacute crisis stabilization centers. We have the first two that will be coming online later this year, both in Anchorage, and then we are working through the division to work on kind of some lower-level stabilization centers.

I don't have an estimate for you, Rep. Hannon, on how much that would cost to implement this completely throughout the state. That would take some work for us. But it would be startup costs for many communities, organizations to set up additional facilities. Also to hire staff to be a part of mobile crisis. And then also thinking about that transportation to get someone to and from whether it's the subacute setting or a lower-level setting.

Thank you. Okay, Representative Gelvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair, Thank you for being here and thank you for your work. I think I just want to make sure I heard you correctly in part of your answer related to Medicaid.

You said something about no one billing for those services. What did you mean by that? Ms. Carson. Yes. Through the Chair, Rep. Galvin, for mobile crisis, there is an opportunity to bill Medicaid for those services.

And at this time, I don't believe there's any mobile crisis unit that is billing Medicaid at this time. And some of it has to do with definitions of what is needed to bill those services. Follow-up? Follow-up? So is it— That there is a lack of somebody working in the department who is able to sort that out and then walk through the paperwork and see if there's opportunity and then follow through with the implementation of the Medicaid service billing?

Is that what I'm hearing? Ms. Carson. Yes, through the chair. I think it's a little more complicated than that. The division is working with our contractor Guidehouse on how we can provide support to providers and also look at opportunities that we might have to make some changes with our definitions.

Okay, thank you. That makes more sense. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Great.

Representative Allard and then staff. Representative Allard. Thank you. Don't we have an Alaska Care Line? Through the chair, sorry.

Miss Carson. Through the chair, Rep. Allard, the Care Line and 988 are synonymous. They work together. Okay, can I continue? Thank you.

So, but the Alaska Care Line is not being replaced by 988, am I correct in saying that? Through the chair, yes, that's correct. Why do we need 988 exactly? So 988 is a through the chair, sorry, is a national, federal. So the CARE line actually operates our 988 CARE call line.

And so we're just going to be adding a tax on this to every single person in the state of Alaska. Is that what we're breaking this down to? I'm sorry, I'm trying to catch up. Yeah. Ms. Carson.

Yes. May I defer to the sponsor? Mr. Johnson. Yes. So through the chair to Representative Allard, this bill would charge people that have a billing address with a phone company in Alaska, and that's per phone line.

So if you have 2 phone lines, then that's— then you would pay $2 per— roughly $2 per month, but only if you have a billing address in Alaska. May I represent Ballard? So we're going to tax the citizens. So I guess my question is, On this fiscal— did we kind of come up with 8 through the co-chair? I apologize.

Did you come up— or not you, but is there a— we were talking about how many millions this might cost our tax. What would the fiscal note be? Ms. Carson? For the Division of Behavioral Health, our fiscal note is zero. Okay.

Was there something else we were talking about, a fiscal note? Am I missing something? I think you might be referring to how much this would raise, and it would be between $6 to $8 million, um, according to Mr. Stickle, maybe on the high end. Is that right, Mr. Johnson? That's what I was hearing on the line.

Yes, that is true. Wouldn't that money be better used as like direct counseling instead of taxing like for additional on it? All right, it's fine, I'll figure out. Thanks. Okay, and we're on questions for Ms. Carson.

We've got Representative Stap, then Bynum. Representative Stap. Yeah, I think, Co-Chair Foster, through Chair Galvin asked you some questions. I don't really quite understand the guidehouse answer. So like years ago the state got away from behavioral treatment recovery grants for the purpose of going to innovation waivers under the 1115 program.

There's supposed to be cost neutrality through the feds. So is there an active request for an 1115 innovation waiver to be able to fund these behavioral health services, i.e., the mobile crisis units? Through the chair. Ms. Carson. Yes, through the chair, I would like to get back to you on a comprehensive answer on that question.

Okay, follow up, Mr. Kocher. Representative Steff. Yeah, and the reason I say that is because I'm struggling to kind of understand the purpose of the bill to apply this surcharge tax basically per lines to folks who live here if there is a better pathway to to just leverage what we do already, which is the federal funding aspect, you know, rather than do that. Especially since there's no guarantee that the money is actually going to go to the place that we say it is in the bill. But I have another question, Kocher, for the bill sponsor.

Rep. Sensenbrenner. Yeah, I think Kocher Foster, through the chair, what services specifically do you actually entail this being funded for? Because when I read it, it's a little vague. Page 3, line 22 says recruiting and retaining qualified behavioral health services personnel. I don't know what that— I mean, I know what recruitment and retention is, but it's not defined at all.

Who are we giving the money to do the recruitment and retention to? Are there any restrictions? What's the thought process through the chair? Mr. Johnson. So through the chair to Representative Staff, the thought process behind that is that Qualified staff would be people such as the ones answering the phones, the ones going out if it's needed, going out in the mobile crisis response team.

Those would be trained people kind of to deal, to be dealt with those situations. People vetting those would, I believe, be the people that either manage the care line, so the people at the care line, and then from the, I imagine, the hospital would be the people vetting and training have the staff to go and do that. You have time. Yeah, follow-up, Mr. Kocher. Representative Stout.

Yes, so I read this in subsection G, behavioral health crisis service fund is established in the general fund. The fund consists of money deposited there. Legislature may appropriate annual estimate balances to Department of Health for these purposes. So here's a question for you. So let's say I have this money and, you know, TANF Chiefs Conference, for example, they say I want to have 5 staff members who work on behavioral health, and now I'm taking a bunch of money from everyone who pays on their phone bill and I'm giving it to TANF Chiefs Conference.

Is that— because when I read Section 3, or this section of the bill, line 3, recruit and retain qualified behavioral health services, I read that as a way that I can appropriate this kind of money I've collectively taken to— from everybody to basically anyone I want to in the state. No matter if they are a public or private entity, no matter what, as long as they are doing these services. And I am not sure if that is actually the intent. The way your answer was, was that you want this specifically for 988, but I don't see any restriction on the bill. Of course, you know, that doesn't really matter because there is no restriction on appropriation power anyways.

But when I read that, I just— I don't see any kind of 988 component. Through the Chair. Mr. Johnson. Yes, so through the chair to Representative Stapp, um, usually the legislature is pretty good about keeping those designated funds to their designation, and I believe that it would be hard for a legislator to argue to take away money from a service that helps people and a service that ultimately would, would help save lives. When's the last time the vehicle rental tax got appropriated to tourist marketing?

Through the chair.

Mr. Johnson. Through the chair to Representative Stapp, could you please repeat your question one more time? I said, when's the last time the vehicle rental tax got appropriated to tourist marketing? That's what the statutory obligation of the vehicle rental tax is for. So when you say you don't— you think the legislature does a good job at not doing that, I think there's plenty of examples that we don't do that.

But that's not really the question on the —what I'm saying is the money that's being collected under this fund when I read the bill, as long as someone is recruiting and retaining qualified behavioral health services personnel, I could appropriate that money to anyone if I were to follow the statute for any reason as long as it meets that kind of open definition. My question is I don't know if that's your actual intent. Because when you gave the answer, you were talking specifically about 988, but when I read this on page 3, I don't see it restricted to this, the mobile crisis team. I see it as any behavioral health service you could appropriate out of this fund. Through the chair, Mr.

Johnson. So through the chair to Representative Stapp, the intent with the bill is that the bill would not only fund the 988 call line but also kind of those complementary services. So even though most— we, we have found that most calls or most crises can be resolved through the call, the extra bit of money would be for instance, the crisis response people and then the stabilization centers, those extra complimentary services. I'm not familiar with the rental car tax myself as that is a little bit before my time, but I will look into it and try to come up with a better answer for you at another time. Thank you.

Yeah, no worries. Follow-up, Mr. Kuchera? Representative Steph?

Yeah, I guess, I guess, you know, You know, I would just ask the sponsor, maybe— I know that we're not here right now, but maybe we would think about if we really want to put guide rails on this, we should probably amend some of this language, I think, to make it the purpose more strict to the utilization. Because I just— there's a lot of sections in the bill, or rather most of these subsections, these numbers, there aren't really any clarifying definitions. So I could just see folks appropriating money out of this fund for a ton of different purposes because the definitions are not really narrow. Through the chair, that's it. I'd like to try to get the questions out of the way for the fiscal note before we move back into the bill.

Do we have any questions for Ms. Carson in the fiscal notes? Representative Bynum, do you have any questions in the fiscal note? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I, I'm good with the fiscal notes. I understand that they really cover just departmental costs.

I'll wait for my questions to get back to the bill. Okay. I think this is related to the fiscal note. Okay, Representative Gelvin. Thank you.

I, I, the question is for Mr. Stickell, and it may not be directly on this page, but in the bill it says Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund. Is that enough for the bill to make it clear that it would go toward 988 and corollary services. Mr. Stickel.

Again, Dan Stickel, Chief Economist with the Department of Revenue, to represent Ms. Galvin to the Chair. I think from the standpoint of Department of Revenue, it is that we would be deposit— separately accounting for that revenue. If the— as far as the, the budgetary language goes, I would defer that to, um, to OMB. Okay, a follow-up question is, I'm looking here at our typical phone charges, and I'm assuming this is where you are drawing— how you would draw— right now you said it's indeterminate, but you think it might be on the higher side of $8 million. But at my— for example, I'm looking at my bill and it I already have an added $6.51, all surcharges, taxes, and fees.

Part of that is Alaska Universal Service. The way it also breaks down is company fees and surcharges, Federal Universal Service, and one is $2.01 on government fees. Fees and taxes. So I guess my question— oh, and also there's a 911 surcharge fee. So my question is, when we add 98 cents to this, is that how you're— are you like finding out how many customers there are in Alaska and then adding, multiplying that by 98 cents per line except for when it's many lines, over 150 lines, I guess?

Is that how you're doing your calculation? Mr. Stiegl, I share to Representative Galvin, to the chair. So we have information around the 911 surcharges collected in the state and the number of phone lines that pay those 911 surcharges. That gives us an estimated number of lines per capita.

Unfortunately, only about 80% of the state is in an area that pays the 911 surcharges, so that is a somewhat limited data point. And then we have— so we have to extrapolate from that the number of phone lines that each person in Alaska will have. We apply population to that. We have to account for the administrative fees and the number— as you mentioned, if there's more than a certain number of lines, there's a cap on the amount of fees paid by one payer. And so that's where we came up with kind of a range of estimates.

And actually, in the range of estimates that we were looking at, it was a little over $8 million was kind of the number that we would be confident putting in a fiscal note. Using some other estimates, it could be a little bit higher than that, up to potentially around $10 million. Final follow-up, if I may. Thank you. Through Co-chair Foster, Mr. Stickle, is it possible— I know as busy as you are, this may be asking for the impossible because it's a very busy time for you— but could you imagine, as this gets to the floor or in the next bit of time, is it possible to create an updated fiscal note?

I don't know how that works, but I think seeing that $8 million plus will make a big difference to getting this passed. Mr. Stickle, sure, sure. Representative Galvin to the chair, I will be happy to bring that recommendation to our commissioner's office and see what we can do. Thank you very much, co-chair. Okay, and on the fiscal note, Representative Stout.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, uh, through the chair, Mr. Stickle, thanks for being here. Mr. Stickle, question, there's a note in here about a $500,000 capital cost needed to contract with FAST Enterprises to develop a new tax model on a very short timeline. What is that, through the chair?

It's in the notes. Representative Stout, through the chair, so we have a comprehensive tax revenue management system We brought in a contractor, Fast Enterprises, to build that system for us and maintain it for us. And when we add a major new tax type, there's a cost to building out that module in the system. So the baseline cost for that project would be $250,000, but given the effective date of the bill, it would be an accelerated rollout. And so that's why it would cost $500,000 estimated.

Follow-up. Representative Staff. Yeah, thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster, the Chair, Mr. Stickell. I assume if we pay the premium fee for the acceleration, they'll be able to complete the work in the allotted amount of time, or do we know that? Through the Chair.

Representative Staff, through the Chair. So that's the assumption within the allotted amount of time, and if the system was not fully ready to go on July 1st, we would work through that. You know, potentially companies or taxpayers potentially could make payments for some period of time and then file the returns at a later date. We could work through that in the regulatory process. I thought— Representative—.

Yeah, thank you, good. Chair Foster, through the chair to Mr. Stickel. So if you just made the effective date like January, wouldn't you cut off $200,000, $250,000 in the fiscal note? Through the chair, Representative Staff, through the chair, um, directionally, that's how it would work. I don't know exactly exactly where we would draw the line in terms of what an accelerated cost would be, but certainly if it was a January 2027 date, then it would be a lower cost.

I can say with certainty if we had a full year for the rollout, it would be the lower cost. Okay, uh, just a quick follow-up and then I'm done. I represent staff. Yeah, thank you, good year, Foster, through Chair, Mr. Stickle. Uh, yeah, if you could just kind of tell us like what that time frame you is acceptable so we wouldn't have to pay extra money, it would be probably helpful if we could get that for the committee.

Thanks. Okay, and on the fiscal notes, Representative Allard, then Tomaszewski. Are we still talking about the fiscal note? Fiscal notes, yes. Well then, I guess— I don't know if it's relevant.

Let's try it. So it says on page 4, line 4, subsection— thank you to H. Nothing in this section creates a dedicated fund.

So I guess I will hold off on asking a question about the fiscal note because I think we are just writing a blank check. But I will wait because I have some other questions. Thank you, co-chair. Okay. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, co-chair Foster. Through the chair, on the fiscal note to direct Dr. Stickle, one new tax technician 3 position. How many vacancies do we have in the department of that particular position, or what is the vacancy rate of that particular position?

Yep, Thomas, SPCC chair. I don't have that information at fingertips. We'd be happy to provide it. Back to the committee. What I can say is our, our tax division has lost over 30 budgeted positions over the last decade, and the vacancies that we do have are due to either being required to hold vacancy open due to vacancy factor or hiring challenges.

But we are basically at capacity in terms of exist existing staff administrating taxes, and so we, we can't absorb, uh, the, the work related with a new tax type without adding staff. Okay, thank you. Okay, any further discussion on the two fiscal notes? Seeing none, thank you very much, Mr. Stickel and Ms. Carson. Coming back to questions for the bill sponsor, Representative Allard.

Thank you. Just for clarification through the co-chair, is this— this also— this tax will go on cell phones? Uh, through the chair to Representative Allard, um, it is for both wireline and wireless phones. Oh, wow. Okay, that's probably why my phone's blowing up.

Everybody's listening to this. All right, so then I have a question in regards— so, um, thank you, co-chair. So we have 988, we have Alaska Careline, we have Alaska Mental Health Hotline, We have Veterans Crisis Line, 988, you just push the number 1. We have crisis text line, text NAMI. We have National Domestic Violence Hotline.

We also have the National Sexual Assault Hotline and Trevor Lifeline. So I know a lot of those would also address suicide issues, but I'm just trying to figure out, because when I'm looking here and comparing it to the rest of the country, the— I mean, this charge is almost in some states triple and quadruple and 8 times the amount, which is alarming that we would be doing that. So, and then you have the medical, what is it, the MCT teams, and then we don't have dedicated funds. So basically what we're allowed to do, or whoever gets this money, just spend it however we want and there's no guardrails. I know that's a lot coming at you, so I guess I just want to try to figure out what are we exactly trying to do do with this money when we have plenty of hotlines here?

And where do you want this? Like, in rural Alaska? Do you want it in Eagle River? Because we already have things set up in our municipality. Mr. Johnson.

So through the chair to Representative Allard, um, to answer your question, this would be, um, for statewide services. So yes, it would be in rural and both in Eagle River. It is across the state. And then I believe the first part of your question was about the money. And so the money would be used for not just the 988 call line, but the complementary services around that.

And so that's for the crisis response teams, the stabilization centers. I know that I keep saying those two, but that's one of many kind of two primary complementary services with that. Thank you. Can I do some follow-ups? So with the mobile crisis team, where, where do you think those are going to be coming?

Where Who do you think is going to be running those in, I don't know, in some of these rural areas? And like, how are you going to set something like that up? I know what it took to set it up in the municipality, and it's, it's not an easy lift. So I'm just trying to figure out, when you, you state that there's still no dedicated funds, like, it can just do whatever they want. There's no dedicated funds in this bill.

Through the chair to Representative Allard, um, I appreciate your concern about that. Um, Majority of the calls that come to 988 can be solved on, through the call. It is very rare, or it is not very rare, but it is—. What percentage? I'm sorry.

I do not have exact numbers for you off the top of my head, but I can get you that later if you would like. But the majority of calls to 988 can be resolved on the call line. It's really more when you need that extra step. So 988 is kind of the first layer of care because you always want to give someone provide someone the first kind of minimum of care when they're going through a mental health crisis and then kind of go up from there. So after the 988 line, if you're— if someone is calling the 988 line and that isn't working, at that point, would you then send a mobile crisis response team?

And I know that they are not set up everywhere in the state, but our hope is that through this funding, we can eventually reach a point where they could potentially be in every major community. We have them in every major community. So, ma'am—. That's Representative Ballard for the record. Representative Ballard.

Thank you. So for the mobile crisis teams across the country, they've proven to be failing. There are mobile crisis individuals that go into hostile environments. They think they can fix whatever is happening with an individual and they've been shot. And across the country they're being shut down.

So I know they're not being shut down in Alaska, but it's not working in Anchorage. It's the largest city. So I guess my question is, what are we trying to achieve? Because if most of these can be solved doing the phone, and we have— I've just listed, I think, 8 different phone lines— then I don't understand why this needs to be a state ordeal instead of just allowing the boroughs to do what they're doing currently. So, and taxing everybody is outrageous.

All right, thank you. I'm done. Mr. Johnson, any comments? Actually, let's go to Representative Bynum. Thank you, co-chair.

Mr. Foster, just a couple, I guess, technical questions. I'm— this time I'm not going to get into the value of what we think 988 does, how it's implemented in broad general terms, but my questions specifically revolve around the technical aspects of the bill. So when I go through the bill and I look at the I mean, it does have some framework in it that it does mimic what we do for 911, but it appears to be missing some things. And so when I go to look at, for example, in the 911 section of statute, it's very prescriptive on how and what you can use the funds for. And in 911, the FCC actually has some very tight restrictions and you can only use those funds for the implementation of the 911 service.

So basically being able to have a phone number to call and then get dispatched. When I look at 988, this is very broad in what we can use the funds for, but in the statute it doesn't make any reference to the FCC and/or any federal law about how we can use these funds. And when we go look at federal law, the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, that's 47 USC 251ac, specifically outlines how we can charge for these fees. And they, they, they specifically outlined that it can be for basically for the routing of calls. And then there's personnel specifically used for the response of acute mental crisis, mental health crisis response, outreach, and stabilization services.

So when I start to think about that, then you look a little bit deeper and you want to understand, like, what is it that the federal law is actually saying that we do, and what is the FCC's role? They talk about operating cost, personnel cost, admin cost, and specifically mobile dispatch for the purpose of acute mental health crisis response. And then there's also discussion of federal audits that are associated with that. So when this model, how are we dealing with compliance with federal law through the audit process, or are we just collecting the money and then giving that to a, um, third party or non-state entity, as I'd say. Mr. Johnson.

So through the chair to Representative Bynum, I think that is a very good question. And I can answer part of that and then the rest I will have to follow up on. So this does kind of mirror the 911 language or kind of, I should say more so, complement the 911 language. And the reason for that is, is that if it works for 911, we would hope that would work for 988. It's much similar to how, you know, you pay $2 for 911 in the hopes that someone helps someone in a car accident, brings them to the hospital.

Um, this is kind of runs along similar lines of if someone's on a bridge, you hope that someone will come get them. Um, and so that— and as for the second part of your question of compliance with federal law, I'll also do more research and get back to you at another time. Thank you for your question, though. Follow-up? And just so folks know, at 4:15 we will go ahead and adjourn now until our 6:00 meeting.

So, Representative Bynum? Thank you. Through the chair, thank you for that. I think it is definitely something that is an important aspect that we need to understand, because once we collect those fees and then what we do with them is subject to federal audit. And I think about what we have right now with, like, And back in Ketchikan, we just instituted a couple years ago mobile integrated health.

And one aspect of having the mobile integrated health is, is that it reduced call volume on police fire for a whole variety of events that went beyond just this purpose, but they do respond for this purpose as well. So when we think about using mobile integrated health, That is being paid for, for a holistic approach, but the law only allows us to use this money for a very narrow approach. So how we would apply that, I think, matters, and understanding it will matter. The next thing that I wanted to ask about is that when we look at 911, the— there's a provision, and it's called the immunity for 911 systems, and I don't see anything in, in the law here that applies for an equal setting. So we don't have immunity for 988 systems.

Was there any consideration on why we wouldn't include a provision in law for immunity for the system operators? Mr. Johnson? Yes, through the chair to Representative Bynum, once again, that is something that is new to me, but I will get back to you on that before the next hearing, so I appreciate your question. Okay. Follow-up?

Just for the record, Co-Chair Foster, I bring it up because when we look at the statute for 911, it isn't to say that if somebody does something negligent that there isn't some level of responsibility, but what it is saying is that basically when you call 911, when you're trying to get response, you can't hold the 911 system and the municipality in this case, or the state in this case, responsible for an action that occurred. And so it's kind of a safety measure. And we, we probably should have something very similar, specifically when we're talking about 988, because we are trying to get immediate response. But then you may have unsuccessful events, and I would be very cautious about making sure we're addressing that issue. Okay.

I've got Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, a comment. We've had 988 running for a while already.

I imagine there's a built-in immunity, but we could probably make sure about that. Secondly, with regard to the FAA— or, sorry, it was the FCC— my guess is that this bill is aligned with— because I see it's in the packet— other states that have this: California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont, Washington. All of them, the idea is— and not the idea, what's already implemented is an extra charge to help pay for 988 plus crisis response. So I think that's outlined. But I would— it might be helpful to hear from Ledge Legal at some point to make sure that we've covered the necessity for FCC and an audit, should that come to be, that we're getting— calculating all of the right pieces for that.

And it's important to know that we're doing that. But I also think— I'm guessing that this bill has been modeled looking at other states. But I want to make sure that we get that on record to see if that's true. Do you know if Ledge Legal looked at what has already been done and modeled this bill accordingly? Mr. Johnson, through the chair, to Representative Galvin, to the best of my knowledge, yes.

Okay, um, thank you for that. And, um, I am looking forward to hearing more if we can once, um, we hear from Mr. Stickell, just a little more sense of whether or not— and perhaps it's the Department of Health— that there's clarity around what these dollars are going toward. And if it needs to be further stated in the bill, I see it says it in the bill, but maybe it needs to be better articulated to ensure that it's going toward what your intention is, which I'm guessing is similar to the other states. Again, that's It says it here as 988 and crisis response. So the corollary services necessary, it might look different in every community because Ketchikan's got things going.

Anchorage does too. But maybe it— there it might look different in Toksook Bay or somewhere else. So I do appreciate, you know, making sure that we get the language in there that would encompass all of the any corollary services that you feel are proper. And thank you again for putting this bill forward. And last questions, Representative Josephson.

Yes, I, I, uh, my question really is for Representative Bynum. Were you asking Mr. Johnson about an immunity provision? Is that what you asked him about? Representative Bynum. Thank you, co-chair Foster, through the chair to Representative Mr. Josephson, yes.

Okay. I guess I'm a little surprised because I think Mr. Josephson has done a great job. I'm not saying you disagree. But if he were my staffer, it wouldn't occur to me that he would prepare something on immunity in this bill. It just wouldn't have occurred to me to advise him to prepare anything about that.

Now, it may be absolutely germane to the bill. But I— anyway. If I could respond just briefly. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Through the Chair, so I come across the immunity provisions for 911 systems because I went into the statute and looked under 911 surcharges. And under 911 surcharges is 2935.131. And the next section or 2 sections later, it's actually the the next section is 133, and it goes directly into the immunity provision. And so that's where it came about, and I just didn't see it in the bill. I thought maybe it was already in statute under the other section of 4398 section, but it's not.

This is kind of its own— this bill is the new creation standalone, and so it just didn't create those other components, and that's why I thought I should ask about it. It just seems If I could, Representative Josephson, that this is a funding bill. It's not to create 988. It's about funding programs like 988 or ancillary to it. That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Coach Afonso. Just a quick response to Representative Galvin is that yes, I understand that we have a 988 system that's running, but we are creating a mechanism to create a tax on phone lines.

And phones are obviously regulated under the FCC, and not just lightly, they are heavily regulated. And coming from a public utility background, our utility did own a telecom company, and I knew that it was very problematic when we talk about rates and fees and then what you do with them. So although we have a 988 system, we can fund that from general funds. Directly, and we don't have any of these issues. But as soon as we put a tax in place, those FCC and federal law rules apply.

Okay, thank you. And so, Mr. Johnson, thank you very much for taking the questions. Our next meeting is scheduled for this evening at 6:00 PM. However, it should be a fairly short meeting, shorter than it was supposed to be. We will be taking up Senate Bill 21.

That is the Alaska Work and Save Program Bill. We will not be taking up Senate Bill 24, which is the tobacco bill. We're intending to take that up tomorrow. We have a number of committee members who will not be able to make it to this evening's meeting, and they would like to be here for amendments. So we'll just be taking up the one bill.

So if there's nothing else, tomorrow's meeting. Schedule too. So yes, um, we were hoping that we would know for sure when we would take up the, uh, that, but the issue we have right now is we're not sure if folks are going to want to be going to church in the morning. So we're trying to figure out what time if we're going to have a meeting in the morning. And, uh, and so we'll get that figured out.

Um, other folks may have some other commitments. It is— oh wait, no, tomorrow's Saturday, so that's not okay. That is a very good— I am going to have Mr. Anderson come up.

Some people go to church on Saturday. Yeah, that is true. Mr. Anderson. For the record, Brody Anderson, staff to Representative Foster. Tomorrow morning's calendar for this committee is— was scheduled to have SB 23 civics education and then SB 24 SB 178, Expanding Early Intervention Services, because SB 178 was waived out of committee this afternoon.

There is a spot available for SB 24, Tobacco, to be in that place. Going into the afternoon schedule, we have— Can you tell me the time? That was at 9:00 AM. Thank you. The afternoon schedule is, uh, HB 381, oil and gas, uh, the gas line bill, then SB 79, payment of wages and payroll card, and then SB 174, invasive species management.

Depending on whether or not, uh, we move forward on the gas line bill, that'll open up spaces there for further— there's quite a bit of amendments for, uh, for SB 24, so to to get through it before floor tomorrow might be a stretch. So then we have room there. The evening schedule at 6— that was at 1:30, Representative. At 6 PM, we have SB 167, PFD eligibility for PFD overturning convictions. That's SB 167.

And then we have SB, uh, SB 211, which is extending occupational licensing boards Both of those have public testimonies and any other further questions and answers, fiscal notes review and the like. SB 167 is the first time we're hearing that bill. Mr. Chairman, that summarizes tomorrow's calendar. Representative Galvin. Yes, thank you.

Mr. Brody mentioned 381, the gas line bill, and then saying it said that that may or may not happen depending on whether or not it moves forward. I'm wondering if the body here will have a report of what's happening so that that's for public record, or what's going on with that? Representative Galvin, regarding the gas line, that is a moving target right now. Um, it would be my preference that we be able to take the bill in the entirety and go through the normal process. However, that might be very— oh gosh, what's the word I'm looking for— truncated very, very quickly, and we may not have any more hearings on that.

But we just don't know at this time. And in terms of whether or not we'll get a hearing on that, I would love that, but we're We're just going to have to— we'll find out hopefully by tomorrow. Any further questions? Sure, Representative Josephson. Thank you, Chairman Foster.

Mr. Anderson, in terms of tomorrow, there's a fair amount of fatigue here. I certainly feel it. Would you agree that of all the possible bills, the one we really need to school up on because we have to make real decisions is the tobacco nicotine bill? That's the— Probably one of the more significant decision points for us tomorrow. Because, because we don't have— are we— do we have amendments for other bills tomorrow?

Through the, through the chair, far be it for me to speak for the priority of this as, as caucus member or as committee members. Far be it for me to speak. SB 24, the tobacco, is lined up with amendments to be potentially moved after all those amendments are reconciled. And it is a— that bill has been moving through, and we are— you are the last stop for it. The SB 23 is also primed tomorrow for amending and moved, which is the civics education in the morning.

So in regards to workload with, with priorities for amendments and possible moving them to the floor. Those are the two bills that are primed for, for that, that level of priority setting. The other bills are being heard for the first time or in the process of, of further review to have the committee decide what further actions you'd want to take on those bills. Perfect answer for me. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

I was going to say, don't answer that, don't answer that. You did a good job of saying, uh, you're far Far be it that you do the priorities and state what the priorities of the committee are. So thank you for that. And if there's nothing else for— come for the committee will be adjourned at 4:20 PM.