Legislature(2015 - 2016)
2015-04-25 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf2015-04-25 Senate Journal Page 1183 SB 64 Message dated April 24 was received stating: Dear President Meyer: Under the authority of Article II, Section 17, of the Alaska Constitution, I have let the following bill become law without signature: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(EDC)(efd fld H) "An Act relating to school bond debt reimbursement." Chapter 3, SLA 2015 [Effective Date: See Chapter] Under current law, a municipality is eligible for school construction bond debt reimbursement at varying percentages, depending in part on the date of the election authorizing the bonds. The bill would place a five-year moratorium on the state's obligation to reimburse school 2015-04-25 Senate Journal Page 1184 construction debt payments for elections that take place after January 1, 2015, but before July 1, 2020. The bill version that passed the Senate had two effective date provisions. One would have made the bill effective immediately upon becoming law (AS 01.10.070(c)); the other would have made the section reinstating a modified school debt construction reimbursement program effective July 1, 2020. In addition, some sections of the bill were to be retroactive to January 1, 2015. Like most legislation, the bill was not without controversy during the legislative process. Some objected to a moratorium on the State's partial school construction debt reimbursement in light of the long- standing nature of state assistance with school construction costs, even in times of budget shortfalls. But I understand that our current budget situation requires the State to take actions it may not have in the past. Additionally, some legislators objected to the proposed retroactive application to January 1, 2015. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives on April 2, 2015; the alternate effective date clauses- including the immediate effective date provision-did not receive the constitutionally required two-thirds vote. House Journal, April 2, 2015, page 0684. The Department of Law has advised me that the bill will still have retroactive application despite the failure of the effective date provisions, since an effective date clause operates independently of the date of retroactive application. The failure of the effective date clause does not change the date of retroactive application. Whether the bill takes effect immediately or 90 days after signature by the Governor, the date of retroactive application remains the same. See, Arco Alaska v. State, 824 P.2d 709, 711 (Alaska 1992). Yet news reports lead me to believe some members of the public thought the failure of the immediate effective date also meant failure of the provision on retroactive application. This Confusion is understandable. So while the bill is legally sound, and even though I support efforts to reduce our State's budget, including debt service, I would prefer that this have been done in a manner more understandable for Alaskans. 2015-04-25 Senate Journal Page 1185 For these reasons, I have not signed CSSB 64(EDC)(EFD FLD H) and have allowed it to become law without my signature. Sincerely, /s/ Bill Walker Governor