Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/04/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| SB98 | |
| SB25 | |
| HB125 | |
| HB38 | |
| HB81 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to inactive state accounts and funds;
relating to the curriculum improvement and best
practices fund; relating to the fuel emergency fund
and fuel emergency grants; relating to the special
Alaska Historical Commission receipts account;
relating to the rural electrification revolving loan
fund and loans from the fund; relating to the
Southeast energy fund and grants from the fund; and
relating to the Exxon Valdez oil spill unincorporated
rural community grant fund and grants from the fund."
2:21:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster requested a brief recap of the bill.
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, SPONSOR, introduced himself and
provided a brief overview of the bill. He explained that SB
25 was a "simple improvement bill, which reduced
administrative costs and complexity associated with the
maintenance and tracking of accounts that were no longer
needed but were still open. The legislature had a history
of creating accounts that eventually sat dormant or the
original purpose of the account is no longer necessary. The
bill establishes a bi-annual review of funds to identify
funds that are no longer needed. The legislature would
ultimately decide which funds could be closed. He
summarized the bill as an elegant little bill or
performance improvement bill that reduced unneeded
accounts and funds.
Co-Chair Foster asked Senator Kaufman if he wanted to
discuss some of the accounts that could potentially be
eliminated. Senator Kaufman answered that many of the
accounts had names that sounded compelling but were
intensively vetted. He mentioned a handout (copy on file)
included in the bill packet that contains a sample of the
funds for potential elimination.
2:24:32 PM
Alexei Painter, Director, Legislative Finance Division,
explained the zero fiscal note (FN1 (LEG). He indicated
that the Legislative Finance Division (LFD) prepared the
fiscal note and determined that LFD would be able to absorb
the additional duties described in the amending language of
the legislation within its current resources. He added that
the bill required the division to create a report by the
session beginning in 2025.
2:25:24 PM
Representative Galvin cited a list of inactive funds
included in the sponsor statement. She reported that the
sponsor statement mentioned analyzing 39 funds. She
wondered why only five were listed.
2:26:18 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, STAFF, SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, confirmed
that there was a larger list of inactive or unused funds.
He offered that he had received a memo listing which funds
could be repealed under the single subject rule and which
would require specific bills because they affected more
than one section of Alaska Statutes. They began the process
by looking at funds on the single subject rule list and
through the vetting process found stakeholders of various
funds that had contractual obligations or outstanding loans
that were tied to some of the funds, which reduced the list
from 9 funds to 5 funds that were compiled under the single
subject rule. He exemplified that the Rural Electrification
Revolving Loan Fund was duplicative with the Electrical
Service Extension Fund that was currently in use for the
same purpose.
2:27:43 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how funds were managed
that were just sitting there. He questioned why there was
no active management and whether the state was spending
General Funds (GF) to manage the inactive funds.
Mr. Painter replied that the funds proposed for repeal all
had a zero balance and did not have a cost associated for
management of the funds. He added that after the failure of
the reverse sweep for a few years, the accounts had a zero
balance. Treasury did not charge basis points to manage
many of the small accounts, it would be impractical to
charge pennies for their management.
2:28:53 PM
Representative Hannan asked about the Fuel Emergency Fund
listed on the sponsor statement. She noted that the reason
for repealing the fund was because the Disaster Relief Fund
statute was amended in 2000 to add fuel shortages as an
allowable use. She determined that the governing statute
for the Disaster Relief Fund appeared to require that a
disaster had to be declared. She discovered that the Fuel
Emergency Fund did not need a disaster declaration to
disperse funds. She wanted to ensure that another
inefficient step was not being created unnecessarily, like
the need to declare an emergency, through elimination of
the fund. Mr. Painter responded that the legislature had
not put money into the fund since 1994. He deduced that
while there were theoretical instances in which the fund
had a purpose, it was left unfunded for decades and could
not serve the purpose. He supposed that the legislature
could begin using the fund again.
Representative Hannan asked if the Disaster Relief Fund
statute required that there be a declared disaster to
expend the funds. Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative.
Representative Hannan expressed concern about eliminating
an emergency fund. She had heard of communities running out
of fuel. In circumstances where a disaster was not
declared, she was apprehensive to eliminate the fund and
was interested in recapitalizing the fund.
Senator Kaufman responded that the Disaster Relief Fund
Statute was amended to add fuel shortages as an allowable
use, making the fund unnecessary.
Co-Chair Foster asked if a disaster would need to be
declared in order to use the Disaster Relief Fund. Senator
Kaufman answered in the affirmative. Co-Chair Foster was
also concerned that there might be uses for the fund.
2:32:58 PM
Representative Josephson assumed that each of the funds
were established under a bill. He asked if there would be
placeholder or hollow statutes without an accompanying
fund. He deduced that under the title of cleanup there
would be laws with no purpose. He asked whether he was
correct. Senator Kaufman found the inverse to
Representative Josephsons scenario and discovered that the
statute had moved on, but the fund still existed. He felt
that the most important aspect of the bill was not the list
but establishing the mechanism to cleanup unused funds.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that the amount of funds in the
state statutes were expansive. He understood the need to
rid the books of dormant funds. He favored the elimination
of the Fuel Emergency Fund being removed as long as the
Disaster Relief Fund remained. He mentioned that the Bulk
Fuel Loan Upgrade Program in the Capital Budget dealt with
the issue. He questioned how the Fuel Emergency Fund would
be allocated on a programmatic basis acknowledging the fact
that if one community was in need many others would be in
need.
Co-Chair Foster noted his opinion had been swayed by Co-
Chair Edgmon. He voiced that the current process was
working.
2:36:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony on SB 25.
2:36:36 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
2:37:13 PM
Co-Chair Johnson moved to was REPORT CSSB 25(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations recommendation
and the accompanying fiscal note.
2:37:32 PM
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz guessed that prior to the bill, there
was no one looking at the accounts. He wondered why the
accounts were not being scrutinized prior to the bill and
why was a bill necessary to close the accounts. Senator
Kaufman answered that the opportunity was there, but the
focus and the process was not there. The bill provided the
statutory framework. He believed that the bill created a
routine process that benefitted the state.
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:39:27 PM
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 25 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with nine "DO
PASS" recommendations, and one amend recommendation and
with one previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (LEG).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 81 Sectional Analysis .pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| SB25 Fund Backup Information - LFD Presentation extract 050423.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 25 |
| HB 125 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050423.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 125 |