Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/17/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB26 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 17, 2015
10:27 p.m.
10:27:31 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 10:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Michel, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Sana
Eire, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services; Jeff Ottesen, Director, Division of
Program Development, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
SB 26 BUDGET: CAPITAL
HCS CSSB 26 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
CSSB 26(FIN)
"An Act making and amending appropriations, including
capital appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date."
10:28:27 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 26(FIN), Work Draft 29-GS1781\L,
Martin, 4/17/15.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, addressed
the changes in the committee substitute (CS). He referenced
page 14, line 9 that added $25 million in federal receipts
for the Juneau access project. He moved to page 27, line
22, and noted that the Medicaid Services line was reduced
from $40 million to $30 million. He turned to page 35,
Section 17, line 23 and read:
(4) to the Department of Corrections, not more than
seven percent of the total amount appropriated;
Mr. Michel reported that the language regarded fuel
triggers. He relayed that the former Section 20 was removed
from the bill and was a fund transfer in the amount of
$13.3 million, which was appropriated from the general fund
to the Alaska Housing Capital Corporation account. He drew
attention to Section 29, beginning on page 42, subsection
27 (line 4, page 45) which contained the addition of $175
thousand to the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) appropriation for Naknek. He elaborated that the
previous Section 30 was removed which contained a
reappropriation of the unexpended and unobligated balance
not to exceed $850 thousand of the estimated balance of $2
million from the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) Fairbanks Virology Lab for the Municipality of
Anchorage's Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (DVSA)
program. The money was going to be returned to DHSS but the
item was removed from the budget. He cited Section 35
beginning on page 48, line 9) that was a DOT
reappropriation for the Inter-Island Ferry Authority for
its northern route service. He pointed to Section 36 (page
48, line 24) and remarked that the Norton Sound Health
Corporation funding for feasibility planning and design
work for the Behavioral Health and Wellness Center was
removed. He identified that Section 37 (beginning on page
48, line 29), the governor's reappropriation of $900
thousand was reduced to $725 thousand and of that amount,
$175 thousand was appropriated to Arctic Power for
promoting Arctic energy issues. He concluded with the last
change found on page 61 that extended the 13th Avenue
Gateway Elementary Improvements for one year.
Representative Gara asked whether any language related to
the Constitutional Budget Reserve was included in the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that language had been inserted
but was subsequently removed. Mr. Michel concurred with Co-
Chair Thompson.
Representative Gara cited the cut to Medicaid Services
found on page 27 and asked for more information. Co-Chair
Thompson replied that the original figure was $92 million,
which was reduced to $40 million and combined with the
current reduction totaled $30 million.
10:36:54 PM
SANA EFIRD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, responded that the money included in
the $30 million was a supplemental request from the
department.
Representative Gara asked whether the department agreed
with the item. Ms. Efrid responded affirmatively.
Representative Gara asked about the removal of the
reappropriation for domestic violence and sexual assault.
Mr. Michelle explained that the transaction related to the
FY 2015 budget; DHSS funded the money to the DVSA project.
The money was reappropriated back to DHSS in the FY 2016
budget and the reappropriation was currently being removed
in the CS.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for more information regarding the
$25 million in federal receipts for the Juneau access road
and the $45 million appropriation for the Knik Arm Bridge
project and what the consequences were of not including the
appropriations.
JEFF OTTESEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
answered that both of the projects remained under the
governor's administrative order number 271 and the
appropriations could only be accessed if the order was
lifted and "several downstream steps were accomplished." He
explained that the Juneau access project had to complete
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) record of
decision. The Knik Arm Bridge project had to complete the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) application and await approval. He expounded that
the federal agencies reacted to any hesitancy shown by the
state once a plan was approved. The appropriations would
assist the process of moving forward on the projects if the
administrative order was lifted.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the appropriations would
negatively affect any other Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) projects. Mr. Ottesen responded
in the negative and stated that the appropriations were
demonstrating "intent" and were not expected to be expended
in FY 2016. Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the federal
government could take the money back if the funds were not
appropriated. Mr. Ottesen informed the committee that each
year the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) was federally required to have enough projects ready
and eligible to use federal funding or the funding would be
rescinded and reappropriated to another state. He added that
projects were complex and sometimes took several years and
could get easily stalled in the process. The department's
challenge was to have enough projects ready to retain the
federal monies and the two large projects would assist DOT
in the process.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether some of the two project's
federal dollars could be used for other projects on the
STIP using a STIP amendment. Mr. Ottesen answered that the
department's challenge was not having enough eligible
projects for the available funding. He voiced that DOT was
averaging approximately $100 million to $150 million during
the course of one fiscal year in excess money from projects
that were being completed under-budget. He delineated that
the unused project funding was referred to as "de-
obligations." The department must expend the funds on
another federal project within the same fiscal year. He
maintained that the de-obligations allowed the mega
projects to move forward without impacting the "regular"
program projects.
10:44:08 PM
Representative Gattis asked whether the funding was in a
"use it or lose it" situation. She wondered whether the
department lost federal funding in the past based on the
de-obligation scenario. Mr. Ottesen responded in the
negative. However, he worried that DOT was likely to lose
some funding in the future.
Representative Gara asked whether the Juneau Access project
and the Knik Arm crossing were ready to receive funds. Mr.
Ottesen replied that the projects were not currently ready
but it was acceptable if the projects were ready in FY
2016, FY 2017, or FY 2018. Representative Gara asked
whether DOT had considered expanding the "most dangerous
highway in Alaska;" the road between Anchorage to Portage.
Mr. Ottesen responded that DOT had several Seward Highway
projects. He articulated that the projects were complex due
to several factors including the endangered beluga whales,
Chugach State Park "4(f)" issues, active utility line, an
active railroad line, and active traffic during
construction. The factors were slowing down the preliminary
work by several years.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the money was
appropriated in the previous year's budget. Mr. Ottesen
responded in the affirmative and added that DOT requested
funding authority on a sustained basis to demonstrate
intent.
Representative Guttenberg discussed how the STIP worked. He
thought that when DOT accepted federal money for a specific
large project subsequently, the STIP was reassessed and
other projects were displaced lower on the STIP and were
delayed for one or two years. Previously funding for the
Juneau Access project moved other projects down the list
displacing projects that have been in the planning process
for one or more years and displacing other projects
indefinitely. He expressed concern that accepting the large
project funding "constantly" displaced and delayed other
projects that were "in the works for a long time" and were
closer to being ready.
Mr. Ottesen responded that the question was "complex" and
the department played "a zero sum game." He explained that
some projects on the STIP slow down as the fiscal year
progresses either due to permitting or other issues. The
STIP displacement process that Representative Guttenberg
referred to was "very real" but was driven largely by "the
facts on the ground of individual project progress" rather
than any indiscriminate decision making process by the
department. The motivating factor for DOT was not losing
the funding to another state. In essence, any shovel ready
project on the STIP displaced another project on the STIP.
He discussed the fact that historically a large project
took money away from other projects on the STIP. He
exemplified the year the marine highway vessel the M/V
Kennicott was built and a large portion of federal funding
was allocated to the project in one fiscal year, at the
expense of other projects. Presently, the department
discovered ways to "moderate" the pace of project
construction to keep each project's spending relatively
small compared to the fiscal year's total program spending.
He added that DOT did not "necessarily" expend funding at
the same pace the legislative authority was requested. He
commented that DOT was "very mindful of managing the
program" in a way that was inclusive of every part of the
state.
10:51:45 PM
Representative Guttenberg commented that in some ways Mr.
Ottesen agreed with him. He related from personal
experience that he saw a project in Fairbanks, "ready to
go" listed on the STIP for approximately ten years, only to
be displaced year after year. The contractors involved
invested in equipment in preparation for the project, but
were delayed year after year. He reiterated his concern
about new project money displacing other projects on the
STIP "…that people are waiting for… year after year."
Mr. Ottesen restated the problem differently. He pointed
out that currently although over half of the federal fiscal
year was over only one third of the federal funding was
obligated. Therefore, two-thirds of the federal funding
must be obligated in less than half of the time left. He
emphasized that the problem was that the projects
themselves were not ready and eligible for funding and had
not passed off on the many requirements imposed on DOT by
federal, state, and local governments.
Co-Chair Thompson suggested that Representative Guttenberg
pursue questioning the Fairbank's project at a later time.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the two projects added in the
CS affected any other projects on the STIP. Mr. Ottesen
replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for clarity about the Inter-Island
ferry reappropriation. Mr. Ottesen explained that the
funding was reappropriated from a completed project that
had left over funds. He furthered that there were two ferry
terminals built with federal funding that passed through
DOT for the Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA). One was
located in Coffman Cove on Prince of Wales Island and the
other was located in South Mitkof on Mitkof Island.
Subsequently, the IFA decided not to operate out of the two
locations due to cost factors. Therefore, the state was
facing repayment of the $27 million in capital costs for
the two terminals. The federal government required
operating out of the terminals or repaying the money. The
department agreed to operate marine highway vessels out of
both terminals beginning in May 2015, but due to the marine
highway budget cuts the service was "impossible to
deliver." The department decided that the only other
solution to avoid repayment of the $27 million was to
subsidize the IFA to provide the service to the two
terminals.
10:57:17 PM
Co-Chair Neuman commented that Mr. Ottesen had worked for
DOT for over 27 years and expressed gratitude for his
service to the state. He remarked that it was a privilege
to work with him over the years and commended him for his
many years of exemplary service.
Co-Chair Thompson echoed the same sentiments.
Representative Pruitt asked how many years the state would
have to operate out of the two ferry terminals. Mr. Ottesen
answered that the terminals were 13 years old and that 20
years was considered a useful life for the project; the
obligation would last another 7 years. He detailed that
$500 thousand times 7 years amounted to $3 million versus
$27 million for the full costs of the project.
^AMENDMENTS
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 14, line 23 [SAME]:
Delete all material.
Page 14, line 26 [line 27]:
Delete "109,920,000" [84,920,000]
Insert "155,220,000"
Adjust fund sources and totals accordingly.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment reverted
back to the Senate version numbers for the Federal Surface
Transportation program receipt authority, which removed the
$45 million in receipt authority for the Knik Arm Crossing.
He believed that it was time to give up on the project
because of the excessively high costs. He offered that the
first phase costs of the project was roughly $1 billion.
Phase 2 and the new or upgraded approach roads would bring
the project costs to $1.7 billion.
Co-Chair Neuman maintained his objection.
Representative Guttenberg stated that Administrative Order
271 halted any projects that would obligate the state and
wondered how the receipt authority could be spent if the
order was not lifted. He also objected to the receipt
authority because he believed the money would displace
other projects on the STIP. He emphasized his concern about
other projects in the state being displaced farther down
the list or removed due to the addition of the Knik Arm and
Juneau Access projects. He wanted to understand what
projects would be displaced or removed from the STIP with
the addition of the receipt authority for the projects. He
strongly supported Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that he just heard comments that
were in opposition from the departments comments in regards
to the issue. He restated that the department assured him
that no other project on the STIP would be affected by the
inclusion of the two projects in the CS. He reiterated the
comments stated by Mr. Ottesen.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:
Page 17, following line 24:
Insert new material to read:
"APPROPRIATION GENERAL
ITEMS FUND
UAF Engineering Building (HD 1-5) 8,000,000 8,000,000"
Adjust fund sources and totals accordingly.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
11:08:27 PM
Representative Guttenberg explained that Amendment 3
maintained the work on the next phase of the engineering
building on the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
campus. Without the funding, the contractors would leave
the project making startup more costly when funding was
appropriated to finish the project. The $8 million kept the
project in tact at a minimal level. He voiced that the
funding was included in the governor's supplemental budget.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the $8 million would come
from the general fund. Representative Guttenberg responded
in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki thanked Representative Guttenberg
for making the amendment. He communicated that the
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) project "jumped" ahead
at the expense of the UAF project. The future of the state
relied on engineers and he felt the project was important
for both campuses. He concurred that halting the
construction now would impose much higher restart costs. He
voiced that the funding would complete two classrooms and
the building would operate unfinished until the $30 million
additional needed was appropriated to complete the project.
Representative Gattis understood the request and
acknowledged that every legislator had projects needed in
their areas. However with a fiscal crisis looming in the
state she could not support the amendment due to lack of
funds.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
11:13:44 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4:
* Sec. A. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature to appropriate education funds at the same
level as would be distributed through the foundation
formula under AS 14 .17.410 to keep school funding
even with the fiscal year 2015 education
appropriation, including the one-time funds
appropriated by sec. 32(b) and (c), ch. 18, SLA 2014,
adjusted for inflation.
* Sec. B. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT. (a) The sum of $32,243,700 is
appropriated from the general fund to the Department
of Education and Early Development to be distributed
as state aid to school districts according to the
average daily membership for each district adjusted
under AS 14.17.410(b)(l)(A) - (D) for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2016.
(b) The sum of $37,000,000 is appropriated from
the general fund to the Department of Education
and Early Development to be distributed as state
aid to school districts according to the average
daily membership for each district adjusted under
AS 14.17.410(b)(l)(A)-(D) for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2016.
(c) The amount necessary to fund the base student
allocation at $5,880 under AS 14.17.4 70 is
appropriated from the general fund to the
Department of Education and Early Development for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016.
*Sec. C. Section A of this Act takes effect June 30,
2015.
*Sec. D. Section B of this Act takes effect July 1,
2015.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained Amendment 4. He noted the
amendment maintained the education funding at last year's
level including inflation. He believed the education cuts
would result in the loss of hundreds of teachers across the
state. He stated that when academic opportunities were cut
the students lost a level of education that could not be
reclaimed when funding was increased. The amendment
restored the $47 million that was removed by the Senate. He
wanted students to have the resources necessary to succeed
in school.
Representative Wilson believed that the funding belonged in
the operating budget and would not support the inclusion of
education funding in the capital budget.
Representative Kawasaki asserted that the capital budget
represented the "opportunity" for the committee to restore
the education funding that was removed by the Senate. He
did not want to rely on a six member conference committee
to restore the funding and felt it was the appropriate
vehicle to "do the right thing today."
Representative Munoz agreed with Representative Wilson that
the capital budget was not the proper vehicle for education
funding but fully supported the intent of the amendment.
11:18:53 PM
Representative Edgmon echoed Representative Munoz's
sentiments and reminded the committee that three members of
the committee sat on the operating budget conference
committee and requested that the three members carry the
"strong message forward" to restore the education funding
in the operating budget.
Co-Chair Neuman maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
11:20:03 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5:
Page 60, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The unexpended and unobligated balances of
the appropriations made in sec. 4, ch. 16, SLA
2013, page 105, lines 22 - 24, and sec. 4, ch.
18, SLA 2014, page 87, lines 10 - 11, lapse into
the general fund on June 30, 2015."
Page 60, line 19:
Delete "and 41"
Insert "41, and 43(e)"
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained Amendment 5. The amendment
removed the unobligated funding for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project from Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
and returned $6 million to the general fund. He believed
that the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project was a $6
billion project that would most likely never be built due
to the exorbitant costs. He felt that the legislature
should focus on the natural gasline project and apply some
of the project funding to education.
Representative Pruitt felt that it was appropriate to
retain the money for the project in the AEA account and
urged the members to vote no on Amendment 5.
Co-Chair Neuman thought that the decision to continue with
the project should be reexamined in the future but
supported retaining the funding as part of the decision
making process.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the project was
included under Administrative Order 271 and the money was
not able to be expended on the project. He did not believe
the project was going to move forward this summer and did
not want to leave the $6 million sitting in a fund when it
could be used for education and other needs.
Representative Kawasaki relayed a story from personal
experience about his discovery in 2008 that the project
would benefit Fairbanks energy needs and subsequently
supported the project. However, with the fiscal crisis
looming "it was a matter of priorities" to reappropriate
the funding for more realistic projects of greater need in
the present. He remarked that the hydroelectric project was
"stalled."
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
11:26:40 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6:
Page 60, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The unexpended and unobligated balance of
the appropriation made in sec. 1, ch.16, SLA
2013, page 12, lines 20 - 25, lapses into the
general fund on June 30, 2015."
Page 60, line 19:
Delete "and 41"
Insert "41, and 43(e)"
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained Amendment 6. He noted that
the amendment would eliminate the $17.3 million of
unobligated funds for the Bragaw Extension road project in
Anchorage. He opined that the project was controversial, of
questionable benefit, and was unaffordable for the state.
The money was better prioritized for educational needs. He
addressed the argument that the extension could cut one to
three minutes of time off of an ambulance drive to a
hospital. He delineated that Anchorage ambulances had the
capability to turn red lights to green, which negated the
time saving argument.
Representative Pruitt voiced that "sometimes your ambulance
is your car" and the few minutes "could mean a lot." The
road could be the lifeline in an emergency scenario. He
acknowledged that the project was controversial but felt
that it was necessary to enhance the north/south traffic
flow. He asked the committee to vote no for the amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler asserted that he opposed the amendment
in favor of quicker access to the hospital in an emergency
situation.
Representative Kawasaki initially did not think that the
extension project was controversial. He shared that he
received letters from local Anchorage community councils in
opposition to the project and wanted to respect the local
communities' requests. He supported reprioritizing the
funding for other priority needs.
Co-Chair Neuman maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson,
Neuman, Thompson
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
11:31:39 PM
Co-Chair Thompson explained the sponsor requested a
technical correction on (motion to amend the amendment to
$50thousand from $100 thousand) Amendment 7 to change $100
thousand to $50 thousand.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7:
Page 46, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The sum of $100,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Department of Health and
Social Services, office of children's services,
for foster and adoptive parent recruitment
advertising for the fiscal years ending June 30,
2016, and June 30, 2017."
Page 60, line 19:
Delete "28 - 39"
Insert "28, 29, 30(a) - (d), 31 - 39"
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained Amendment 7. He reported that
in prior capital budgets approximately $50 thousand to $100
thousand was included to advertise for adoptive or foster
parents. He declared that the state had a "massive
shortage" of adoptive parents. He believed that the
amendment would save the state money and "was a small
investment." He offered that if only two children were
adopted due to advertising the children's removal from
foster care would save the state the costs of the amendment
and savings on social workers.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that Representative Gara
was a tireless advocate on behalf of foster care. He
elaborated that the small investment to keep the program
intact was a huge cost saver in the future for social
services, public safety, and educational costs. He urged
support of Amendment 7.
11:36:04 PM
Representative Wilson discerned that the capital budget was
not the appropriate vehicle for the amendment and would
vote no for Amendment 7. Representative Gara remarked that
the funding for the advertising had always been in the
capital budget but would try to include it in the operating
budget.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 7.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
8:
Page 39, lines 25-31
Delete $5,000,000 for Barnette Magnet School's
phase 4 renovations.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Wilson reported that the conceptual
amendment removed the $5,000,000 reappropriation for phase
4 renovation at the Barnette Magnet School in Fairbanks.
She detailed that the school was initially listed as number
5 of the school construction fund list and the governor's
proposed capital budget funded school construction projects
through number 4 for a total of $10,867,503. She maintained
that the project was not more important than the other
school's needs on the list that was not funded. She
understood that the Fairbanks North Star Borough was going
to bond for the project and even though inclusion in the
capital budget would save the local constituents money she
did not support the idea of prioritizing the project and
funding it in this manner.
Representative Kawasaki spoke against conceptual Amendment
8. He asserted that the project was important and the
number one priority for the school district and borough. He
noted that the project moved up to number 5 from the 10th
position on the major maintenance list. Phase 4 completion
was guaranteed in 2007 when the project was initiated. The
$5,000,000 funding was not enough (half of the amount) for
completion, but the project would procure local support.
The borough planned to bond for the phase 4 renovations. He
pointed out that SB 64 (An Act Relating to School Bond Debt
Reimbursement - Enacted 4/25/2015) placed bonding for the
project in "jeopardy" since the bill eliminated the state
match. He opposed the conceptual amendment.
11:42:03 PM
Representative Guttenberg spoke in opposition to the
amendment. He relayed that he contacted the borough and was
told that bonding for the project was not certain; the
decision to bond had not been made. He recounted that the
project was number 5; the next project on the list. The
method of adding it to the capital budget by a legislator
"reaching out and advancing it" was entirely appropriate
and was "done all of the time" by the legislature.
Co-Chair Neuman removed his objection.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).
Co-Chair Neuman move MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 26 (FIN) out
of committee with individual recommendations.
There being NO OBJECTION, HCS CSSB 26 (FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation.
11:45:38 PM
AT EASE
11:48:03 PM
RECONVEYNED
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the following
morning
ADJOURNMENT
11:48:43 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:48 p.m.