Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/10/2011 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB106 | |
| SB46 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 46 | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 10, 2011
1:08 p.m.
1:08:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Charlie Huggins; Senator
Linda Menard; Senator Bill Wielechowski; David Gray, Staff,
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Miles Baker, Chief of Staff, Senator
Bert Stedman
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
SB 46 BUDGET: CAPITAL
CSSB46(FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation.
CSHB106(FIN)
HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CSHB 106(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 106(FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities and
regulations of the Alaska coastal management program;
establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy Board; relating
to the development, review, and approval of district
coastal management plans; relating to the duties of
the Department of Natural Resources relating to the
Alaska coastal management program; relating to the
review of certain consistency determinations;
providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of secs. 1 - 13 and 18, ch. 31, SLA
2005; and providing for an effective date."
1:09:07 PM
Co-Chair Stedman discussed Housekeeping.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft SCS CSHB
106(FIN) Work Draft version 27-GH1965\H 5/13/11, as a
working document before the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
1:10:47 PM
}David Gray, Staff, Senator Lyman Hoffman{ explained
version H of the bill. He stated that the bill maintained
the House structure of the new coastal policy board: four
commissioners, four representatives from coastal districts
in the four Alaskan regions, and one industry
representative from industries operating in the coastal
zone. He stated that the board would act to review and
provide oversight for the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The department would retain all responsibilities for
program management.
1:12:03 PM
Mr. Gray detailed the Senate changes to the bill. He cited
page 3, line 31 through page 4, line 7. In the House
version, the public members of the board served at the
pleasure of the governor. The Senate version would require
that members be removed for cause only. Causes for removal
were as follows: lack of contribution, neglect of duty,
incompetence, inability to serve, and misconduct. A removal
recommendation could be made by the board or the governor.
The individual up for removal could appeal the removal
recommendation.
Mr. Gray looked at page 8, lines 11 through 16. The
language detailed a new concept for coastal districts to
present enforceable policies. The language stated that the
districts must present a policy that employed the least
restrictive means to achieve its objective. Senate changes
added the factors of: the economic effects of alternative
methods, the technological feasibility of the alternative
methods, and any other relevant factors. The Senate version
recognized that the requirement to provide an economic
analysis could be beyond the means of smaller coastal
districts. The Section had been added to provide
flexibility enough to cater to the needs of each district.
1:14:57 PM
Mr. Gray cited page 10, lines 8 through 12, which had been
amended to read:
* Sec. 13. AS 46.40.060(c) is amended to read:
(c) After the board has reviewed the district
coastal management plan and submitted recommendations
under (b) of this Section [IF, AFTER MEDIATION, THE
DIFFERENCES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED], the department
shall enter findings and, by order, may [REQUIRE]
(1) approve the plan or portions of the
plan;
(2) require that the district coastal
management plan be amended to meet [SATISFY] the
provisions of this chapter [OR MEET THE STATEWIDE
STANDARDS] and district plan criteria adopted by the
department;
(3) require [(2)] that the district coastal
management plan be revised to accommodate a use of
state concern; or
(4) require the coastal resource district
to submit additional information if, in the judgment
of the department, additional information is necessary
for the department to approve the plan or portions of
the plan [(3) ANY OTHER ACTION BE TAKEN BY THE COASTAL
RESOURCE DISTRICT AS APPROPRIATE].
Mr. Gray discussed the changes found on page 12, lines 6
through 8. Subsection (d) of the Senate version stated:
(d) Notwithstanding AS 46.40.030(a)(4), in
reviewing and approving a district coastal management
plan under (a) of this Section, the department may not
require a district to designate areas for the purpose
of developing an enforceable policy.
1:16:39 PM
Mr. Gray referred to page 15, section 24. The previous
House version had offered two definitions, one for local
knowledge and one for scientific evidence. The Senate CS
would delete both definitions. Under current regulations
the language "not contradicted by scientific evidence" was
unnecessary.
Mr. Gray looked at page 16, Section 27. The House version
required the policy board to make recommendations to the
legislature concerning clean water and air pertaining to
coastal management determinations. The amended Section
would require a second report from the board every four
years containing an overview of the entire coastal
management program. Finally, the Senate version provided
clear language as to who would be making departmental
decisions in discussions with the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, SCS CSHB106(FIN) Work Draft 27-GH1965\H
5/13/11 was ADOPTED.
1:19:36 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman offered thanks to his staff for crafting
the new version. He believed that the version before the
committee could be agreed to by both bodies.
Co-Chair Stedman noted the two fiscal notes from the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that had
already been adopted by the Conference Committee on the
Operating Budget and looked to the new fiscal note from DNR
for $6,715,800 to cover the cost of the Alaska Coastal
Policy Board and 34 staff positions.
1:20:52 PM
Senator Olson queried the DEC "carve out" had not been
included in the bill.
Co-Chair Stedman requested an explanation of the carve out.
Mr. Gray explained that the DEC carve out required that
nothing pertaining to DEC permitting would be rolled into
coastal zone management program permit overviews.
Essentially, the DEC permits would be automatically
accepted by the coastal zone management program; this
limited the action districts could take concerning coastal
zone management. The federal government had asked the state
to review the carve out in order to allow for more local
participation.
1:22:28 PM
Senator Olson stated that the frustrations he had heard
from constituents were that some local plans had been
rejected by DEC. He wondered what local communities could
do to appeal departmental decisions. Mr. Gray stated that
communities could appeal directly to the commissioner. He
added that the DEC deputy commissioner would be on the
board, which would create an avenue for appealing directly
to the commissioner.
CSHB 106 (FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
1:23:49 PM
RECESSED
3:37:21 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 46
"An Act making and amending appropriations, including
capital appropriations and other appropriations;
making appropriations to capitalize funds; and
providing for an effective date."
3:38:43 PM
Co-Chair Stedman discussed Housekeeping. He stated that
this would be the sixth meeting on SB 46, which had been
heard previously on February 21, March 15, March 16, March
17 and April 11.
Senator Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT CSSB 46(FIN) Work Draft
version 27-GS1740\S, 5/10/11 as a working document.
Senator Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
}Miles Baker, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman{ discussed the
changes in the committee substitute (CS). He stated that
the CS added $107 million to the budget:
· $51 million federal dollars
· $50 million from the Alaska Capital Income Fund
· $155 million from the general fund
· The $155 would be offset by a reduction of $150 million
of general obligation bond authority.
Mr. Baker highlighted the primary changes found in the
current bill version. He revealed that the bill contained
$50 million in additional funds for the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) Weatherization Program, which
brought the program total to $100 million, $75 million for
low-income weatherization, and $25 million for the home
rebate program. The governor's original request for the
program had been $75 million. He pointed out the governor's
FY 11 supplemental capital items, totaling $51.5 million,
had been added to Sections 13 through 15 of the bill.
Federal dollars constituted most of the funding, however,
$1.7 million of the funds would come from the general fund.
The bill would increase the savings deposits to the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) by $500 million. The
increase, located on Page 145, would enlarge the FY 11
surplus deposit from $300 million to $500 million and the FY
12 from $200 million to $500 million.
3:41:30 PM
Mr. Baker referred to the document "2011 Legislature-
Capital Budget Statewide Totals-Senate CS3 Structure" (copy
on file). The net increase of $107 million in spending was
reflected in reports 1(a) and 1(b), which compared the CS
that had been adopted previously by the committee to the
current bill. Reports 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) compared the
current CS with the governor's original request. Column 5 of
Report 2(a) reflected the $778,264,000 difference in
additional spending, but did not include savings deposits.
Report 3, "Multi-year Agency Summary"(copy on file) broke
down spending into 10 columns, each column representing a
Section in the CS:
· Column 1, Section 1: FY 12 Capital Budget
· Column 2, Section 4: Energy projects
· Column 3, Sections 7, 8, and 9: cruise ship tax
projects
· Column 4, Section 10: school infrastructure projects
· Column 5: Language Section
· Column 6: FY 12 supplemental
· Column 7: total spending
· Columns 8, 9, and 10: Operating Budget
3:44:43 PM
Mr. Baker stated that two grants totaling $2.2 million had
been added to Section 1, for the Department of Fish and
Game. The first change could be found on page 56, line 10.
The second could be found on page 56, line 24. He remarked
that the items were added based on an agreement in the
Conference Committee on the Operating Budget. The Senate
version of the operating budget had included funding for
both items in FY 12. An agreement had been made to concur
with the House to remove the items and list them as three-
year capital grants in SB 46.
3:46:02 PM
Mr. Baker looked at Section 4, the energy Section. An
additional $50 million had been added to the Weatherization
Program based on discussions in committee and public
testimony since the introduction of the previous CS. He
noted that all of the energy projects and project amounts
in Section 4 had remained unchanged. Structural changes had
been made. Page 108, line 28 reflected the change of the
appropriation title to read, "Energy Generation Projects."
Intent language had been augmented from the previous bill
concerning the 50 percent match requirement, and the
expectation was that Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) would
examine the appropriations and return to the legislature by
February 2012 with reappropriation requests. The original
intent of the language was to make clear the legislature's
desire that the AEA manage the responsibility of vetting
the energy projects. In the event that AEA found that any
of the project amounts were not at 50 percent, they could
return to the legislature with recommendations for the
rebalancing of the appropriations in order to bring the
state's investment up to 50 percent.
Mr. Baker pointed out that the expectation that the AEA vet
the programs and return to the legislature with
recommendations had caused confusion. The previous language
had asked AEA to use the statutory criteria of the
renewable energy grant program as guidance in vetting the
projects, while at the same time calling for the
application of the 50 percent match requirement; the
statutory criteria of the renewable energy grant program
does not require a 50 percent match. The reappropriation
language had been removed, and the 50 percent match
language specific to generation projects had been retained.
Transmission projects, most of which were Alaska Railbelt
Cooperative Transmission and Electric Comapany (ARCTEC)
Energy Projects, were listed as a separate appropriation on
page 107, line 24. The appropriation was a single
appropriation, with allocations. Under the new CS, the AEA
would be given a lump sum for the ARCTEC projects, with
recommended allocations; this would give AEA the
flexibility to move the funds where necessary. Because the
projects were transmission projects, they would not be
restricted to the 50 percent match requirement. The
appropriation total was higher than the previous CS because
of the addition of "Association Soldotna to Nikiski
Transmission Upgrade" (found on page 108, line 10). The ten
ARCTEC projects totaled $96.5 million.
Mr. Baker concluded the list of structural changes to
Section 4.
3:51:57 PM
Mr. Baker referred to page 129 of the CS. The current bill
reflected an additional $200 million in savings, in
addition to statutory budget reserve deposits. The savings
were accomplished in four Sections of the bill. Section 16
made available an additional $49 million for previously
approved certificates of participation (which was state
revenue bonding), $25 million for the Anchorage Jail, and
$24 million for the Alaska Psychiatric Institute. The
intent was to pay off the most significant debt shouldered
by the state. The language was intended to make funds
available that would otherwise been required in the
operating budget to pay down the debts. Report 3, Column 9,
reflected the change. Section 24 (page 133, line 29 through
page 133, line 13), depicted the use of the 2008
Transportation General Obligation Bonds and replacement of
the $150 million bonding authority with general funds. The
bill included contingencies from the State Bond Committee
that required that the bond committee verify the amounts.
3:54:58 PM
Mr. Baker stated that Section 22 was a new addition to the
legislation. page 131, line 27, reflected the approximately
$8 million to be appropriated to the Department of Health
and Social Services for the Low Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP). The roughly $8 million of FY 12 operating
funds would replace federal dollars that had been cut from
the program. Sub-Section (a) reflected a $3.3 million
dollar appropriation to be used for grants to tribal
entities for energy assistance under AS 47.25.626 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2012. Sub-Section (b) listed
the $4.6 million for the regular energy assistance program
grants for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.
3:56:22 PM
Mr. Baker looked to Page 130, which reflected additions to
Section 19. Sub-Section (c) was a $30 million dollar
appropriation form the general fund to the Alaska Housing
Capital Corporation account. The Alaska Housing Capital
Corporation is a savings account set up within the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), with the intended
purpose of capital spending. The current balance of the
account was approximately $370 million. The additional $30
million dollars would bring the account to $400 million.
line, 14, Sub-Section (d) stated after the $30 million was
transferred and added to the account, the account be used
to fund postsecondary scholarship programs at a later date.
The language in the sub-Section would earmark funding for
the postsecondary scholarship program.
3:57:42 PM
Mr. Baker continued to page 143, Section 39, titled
"Reappropriaton of Legislative Appropriations." Sub-Section
(b) had been changed to read:
The unexpected and unobligated balance, not to
exceed $750,000, of the appropriation made in sec. 1,
ch. 12, SLA 2009, page 44, line 29 (Budget and Audit
Committee - $19,501,800) is reappropriated to the
Legislative Council to conduct for the legislature an
independent third-party scientific and
multidisciplinary study of the potential large mine
development in the Bristol Bay drainage for the fiscal
years ending June 30, 2011, June 30, 2012, and June
30, 2013. The $450,000 for the expansion of the study
of mine development in the state had been moved and
added to the amount that would be reappropriated to
the Legislative Council for a system-wide redesign of
BASIS, the legislative document management system.
3:59:04 PM
Mr. Baker returned to page 145, which detailed changes to
the savings deposits. The nonseverability language in
Section 49 had been changed to read:
Notwithstanding AS 01.10.030, in the event that a
court of competent jurisdiction finds the contingency
in sec. 48(a) of this Act is invalid, then the
contingency in sec. 48(a) of this Act is not severable
from the appropriations made in sec. 4 of this Act if
(1) the governor has vetoed, weather by striking
or reducing, any appropriation in sec. 4 of this Act;
and
(2) the legislature, by action or inaction, has
failed to override all vetoes of, including reductions
to, appropriations made in sec. 4 of this Act in the
time and manner allowed under art. ii, sec. 16
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
Mr. Baker stated that the language was necessary to protect
against a third party delaying the appropriations from
going into effect. He furthered that the language spoke to
the concern that the issue would remain unresolved legally
if the governor chose to veto an item in Section 4, and the
legislature overrode the veto.
4:00:59 PM
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION CSSB 46(FIN) was ADOPTED as a working
document.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to REPORT CSSB 46(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations. There being NO
OBJECTION it was so ordered.
CSSB 46 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation.
4:01:42 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:01 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCS for CS for HB 106 version H.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| NEW DNR Fiscal Note HB 106 51011.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| Rpt 1a 2011 05 10 Statewide Totals CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 1b 2011 05 10 Agency Summary CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 1c 2011 05 10 HD Summary CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 1d 2011 05 10 Project Compare by HD CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 2a 2011 05 10 Statewide Totals CS3 vs Gov.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 2b 2011 05 10 Agency Summary CS3 vs Gov.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 2c 2011 05 10 HD Summary CS3 vs Gov.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 3 2011 05 10 MultiYear Agency Summary CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| SCS SB46 Ver S 51011.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |