Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/2016 09:00 AM Senate 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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB101 | |
| SB201 | |
| SJR12 | |
| SB196 | |
| SB210 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 2016
9:22 a.m.
9:22:14 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:22 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jane Conway, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Bill
Stoltz, Sponsor; Alexei Painter, Fiscal Analyst,
Legislative Finance.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ben Ellis, Director, Alaska State Parks; Dirk White,
Pharmacist, Sitka; Jessica Geary, Finance Manager,
Legislative Affairs.
SUMMARY
SB 101 STATE PARKS FEES & SALES OF MERCHANDISE
CSSB 101(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Natural
Resources.
SB 196 POWER COST EQ FUND: RESERVE ACCT;DIVIDEND
SB 196 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note by the Senate Finance Committee and
one new zero fiscal note from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
SB 200 MANDATORY PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN SCHOOLS
SB 200 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 201 PHARMA BD & EMPLOYEES;DRUG DIST/MANUFAC
SB 201 was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one previously published
fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
SB 210 COMM. REV. SHARING;PROP. TAX EXEMPTIONS
SB 210 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SJR 12 CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
SJR 12 was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with two previously published
fiscal notes: FN1 (LEG), and FN2 (GOV).
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the schedule.
SENATE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to fees for use of state park system
facilities; and relating to the sale of merchandise by
the Department of Natural Resources."
9:23:21 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled that the committee had
previously adopted the committee substitute (CS) for SB
101(FIN) (version E), which had included an amendment. She
noted that the public hearing had been opened and closed on
March 17, 2016.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the fiscal note, (OMB
component 3001), from the Department of Natural Resources.
The appropriation was for Parks and Outdoor Recreation with
an allocation for Parks Management and Access. He conveyed
that it was a zero fiscal note with no capital and no added
employees.
BEN ELLIS, DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE PARKS (via
teleconference), addressed the fiscal note and shared that
state parks was not looking for an appropriation to start a
program. He thought there were many steps needed before the
department was able to sell merchandise as proposed in the
bill. He furthered that the department had not put any
funds towards getting a trademark, but had done some
preliminary work on a business plan. He thought the program
would move forward by reallocating funds that would have
been put toward park operations. He thought it was a modest
way to grow the concept.
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed out that the bill was taking a
different direction from the previous committee. The CS
would allow more flexibility for the department to sell
products to benefit the parks, which she thought some might
view as competition with private companies.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to report CSSB 101(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSSB 101(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Natural Resources.
9:26:47 AM
AT EASE
9:28:58 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 201
"An Act relating to the Board of Pharmacy; relating to
the licensing and inspection of certain facilities
located outside the state; relating to drug supply
chain security; and creating a position of executive
administrator for the Board of Pharmacy."
9:29:03 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to a document from Senator
Cathy Giessel dated April 9, 2016, in response to questions
from the committee (copy on file).
JANE CONWAY, STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, addressed the
document that answered the questions that had come up at
the previous hearing of the bill:
1. Would SB 201 apply to regulation of international
wholesalers? (sub question.....do our AK licensees do
business with wholesalers in Mexico or Canada or
similar?) But even so, we can't regulate a business in
another country could we?
Alaskan pharmacies do not do business with wholesalers
in Mexico or Canada since they presumably don't sell
US FDA approved drugs and as such the FDA does not
allow import of said drugs.
Ms. Conway specified that drugs must be licensed in the
United States and be approved by the United States Federal
Drug Administration (FDA).
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that her question had been if
an international or foreign country could market directly
to Alaskans, and somehow bypass the FDA.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to the first question, and
asked for professional feedback on the matter.
DIRK WHITE, PHARMACIST, SITKA (via teleconference), relayed
that he recently finished his term as president of the
Board of Pharmacy. He stated there had been ongoing
conversation regarding importation of drugs from foreign
countries. He recounted that in the Clinton era, the
importation of pharmaceuticals was going to be allowed but
was later quashed by the U.S. Justice Department. He
discussed the Drug Quality Security Act (DQSA), and
informed that there was a practice called "track and
trace," under which pharmacists were ensured as to the
provenance and pedigree of the items that had been ordered.
He noted that he received an electronic file every time he
placed an order from a wholesaler, which would show the
pedigree of each item that was ordered. He discussed
prevention efforts by the Board of Pharmacy to ensure that
wholesalers were following DQSA regulations. He pointed out
that the board had no jurisdiction over international
pharmacies or wholesalers, and added that there were
loopholes.
9:34:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon was unclear as to Mr. White's response
on the matter of directly accepting drugs from wholesalers.
She wondered if the bill should endeavor to prevent the
ability to purchase drugs from a wholesaler that marketed
internationally. She wondered if the committee should amend
the bill to ban the ability to purchase internationally.
Mr. White clarified that the prohibition she described was
essentially what pharmacists had been operating under.
According to regulations, he should not be able to purchase
from an international pharmacy or wholesaler, but he was
sure there was a way around the rule, which is why he had
mentioned a loophole. He referred to copious amounts of
packages that were being sent from out of state, and
thought the FDA was unable to inspect them all. He asserted
that he would always order from a major national
wholesaler. There were also small regional businesses which
were licensed and certified and inspected, and were able to
ship into other states. He did not see that the
international concern was a priority.
Ms. Conway spoke to the regulation of internet sales on the
first page of the document:
2. Are internet sales regulated? Sub question - would
AK licensees purchase off the internet? Are they even
allowed to do that?
Alaskan Pharmacies may purchase off the internet from
Wholesalers licensed in the United States and purchase
FDA approved drugs. Alaskan pharmacies may not
purchase and then dispense drugs from wholesalers
(presumably out of the country) that are NOT FDA
approved.
Ms. Conway stated that individuals could purchase
medications over the internet. She noted that there had
been discussion about an internet corporation forming to
address the dot-com pharmacy industry; so that a person
could look up an internet pharmacy to see if it was
certified as handling FDA-approved drugs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon related that the committee had addressed
the fiscal note on April 9, 2016. She noted that public
testimony had opened and closed on the same date.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to report SB 201 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
SB 201 was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (CED).
9:38:36 AM
AT EASE
9:42:06 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the office of attorney general.
9:42:10 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed FN 1, (OMB component 0) which
had no department appropriation or allocation and was a
zero fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed FN 2 (OMB component 21), for
the Office of the Governor, with an appropriation for the
Division of Elections. He specified that FN 2 was a zero
fiscal note from FY 17 through FY 22. The note assumed the
election would be an addition to the regular election on
the governor's cycle.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for explanation as to why there
was an OMB component number of zero, and a fiscal note from
the Legislative Affairs Agency.
JESSICA GEARY, FINANCE MANAGER, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (via
teleconference), relayed that she was asked by the sponsor
of the legislation to prepare a fiscal note. She had
prepared a zero fiscal note because the bill had zero
fiscal impact on the agency.
SENATOR BILL STOLTZ, SPONSOR, discussed the bill. He
specified that the bill was based on the premise of
providing a "people's lawyer," and that 43 other states
elected the attorney general. He stated that the primary
motivation was not to adhere to the practices of the rest
of the country, but rather to provide for a people's
lawyer. He wanted to put the matter before voters so they
could make the final decision.
Senator Olson referred to the formation of the Alaska
Constitution and pondered the discussion of the framers on
the topic of an elected attorney general. He recounted that
there had been strong proponents of not having an elected
attorney general, and the framers had considered the
Missouri Plan. He mentioned the Judiciary Committee and
Ralph Rivers [former territorial legislator and member of
the constitutional convention]; and wondered what
disagreement the sponsor had with the original rationale
and arguments of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Stoltz agreed that the constitutional framers had
been the prevailing voice on the matter of choosing an
attorney general. He recalled that former Governor Bill
Egan, the chairman of the constitutional convention, had an
opposing view but had been in the minority. He continued
that the Missouri Plan applied to the selection of judicial
officers.
9:46:34 AM
Senator Olson thought the Missouri Plan had considered
matters in the Judiciary Committee, which had decided to
have the prevailing vote and have an appointed attorney
general.
Senator Stoltz thought that there had been a decision to
have a governor's appointment of the judiciary, with a
voter retention plan. The judiciary committee had also
dealt with the attorney general, and appointment had been
the majority view in the years of 1955 and 1956.
Senator Hoffman asked if the sponsor had any concerns that
there would be a qualified individual outside of the major
population centers. He thought everyone was well aware that
it would be difficult for people outside of major
metropolitan areas to get elected statewide.
Senator Stoltz mentioned former Governor Bill Egan, former
Governor Jay Hammond, as well as Governor Bill Walker as
examples of major elected officials from smaller cities
within the state. He thought the system had worked well in
spite of the geography of the state.
Senator Olson discussed historical gubernatorial elections
in which unique circumstances had contributed to the
victory. He remembered that there had been a split vote in
1974, and Jay Hammond had won.
Senator Stoltz recalled that Governor Hammond, when he won
the election in 1874, had beat every former Governor of
Alaska both through the primary and general election.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to report SJR 12 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
SJR 12 was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with two previously published fiscal
notes: FN1 (LEG), and FN2 (GOV).
9:50:06 AM
AT EASE
9:52:38 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that SB 200 [scheduled but not
heard], pertaining to mandatory physical activity in
schools, would be addressed in the afternoon meeting. She
detailed that the committee was waiting for a CS, and
wanted to share it with the sponsor prior to the bill
hearing. She recalled discussion from the previous day
regarding an exception if there was inclement weather or a
safety issue. The CS would address the exception, and the
committee was waiting for the sponsor to review the
language to see if it was acceptable.
SENATE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to the use of certain unexpended
earnings from the power cost equalization endowment
fund."
9:53:34 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed SB 196. She noted that the
public hearing had been opened and closed on March 16,
2016.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the fiscal note (OMB
component 2602) from the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development (DCCED). He stated that it was a
zero fiscal note with no added capital or added employees.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the fiscal note (OMB
component 0) for various departments from the Senate
Finance Committee. He informed that the note was for
informational purposes only, and had to do with the
dividend funds from the PCE Endowment Fund. He read from
the bottom of the fiscal note:
Why this fiscal note differs from previous version:
Initial version. This fiscal note for information
purposes only. Beginning in FY16, it assumes a six
percent earnings rate and two percent program growth
rate for each fiscal year. In FY18 through FY22, Power
Cost Equalization Endowment funds (DGF) would be
available to replace Unrestricted General Funds
(UGF) expenditures for Community Assistance and
Rural Energy Programs. Depending on actual earnings
in a fiscal year the amount available to replace UGF
will vary from zero to $55 million.
Vice-Chair Micciche specified that the fiscal note showed a
$17 million displacement in FY 18, with no impact in FY 17.
He continued that there was a $17.2 million displacement in
FY 19, a $17.5 million displacement in FY 20, a $17 million
displacement in FY 21, and a $16.6 million displacement in
FY 22.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Vice-Chair Micciche had been
referring to the dividend coming from the PCE Endowment
Fund.
Vice-Chair Micciche answered in the affirmative.
Senator Hoffman stated that he had introduced the
legislation primarily to reflect the original intent of
funding the PCE program. He clarified that the endowment
was never meant to have additional funds for any other
purpose. He explained that the bill would stipulate that
any additional earnings would be used for other state
purposes.
Senator Dunleavy commented on the $4 billion budget
deficit, and wondered why the state would not use the fund
to backfill some of the deficit. He understood that the
fund gave assistance to some Alaskan communities, and asked
if anyone wanted to comment on the matter.
9:57:15 AM
Senator Hoffman thought that the purpose of the PCE
Endowment Fund was discussed and brokered prior to his
tenure in the legislature. He recounted that the fund had
been in existence for well over 30 years. He mentioned that
the funds were split when the Four Dam Pool [four
hydroelectric facilities (dams and lake tap projects) built
by the State of Alaska in the early 1980s] was being built.
The fund was intended to address the high electricity costs
(for heating) in rural Alaska, and was an attempt to
equalize the power throughout the state of Alaska. He
thought by keeping the funds in the endowment it was not a
drain on the GF, but rather a long-term solution to address
higher costs throughout the state. Conversely, if the funds
were taken it would be a one-time use, and people in rural
Alaska would end up paying substantially more in electrical
costs. He noted that the PCE program only gave credit for
the first 500 kilowatt hours (kWhs) of electricity use per
month. He discussed electricity use in rural and urban
areas of the state. He saw the bill as a commitment to
lower costs and make the state a more affordable place to
live.
Senator Dunleavy acknowledged the history of the PCE
program and supported the concept of helping people in
rural Alaska with energy costs. He hoped that the state
would be able to drive down the overall cost of state
government so that it could continue to have funds such as
the PCE endowment fund. He referred to proposed use of the
permanent fund and potential new taxes, and thought that it
was important to have discussions about all potential
sources of funding. He thought the issues were complex and
was not sure the legislature would be able to come up with
a complete financial package to address the deficit by the
end of session. He wanted to use care in examining all
funds to see how each might help with the $4 billion
deficit. He had lived in rural Alaska and experienced the
cost differential. He thought the legislature needed to be
prepared to answer questions about the PCE Fund as well as
the Higher Education Fund.
10:01:02 AM
Senator Olson stated that the PCE Fund was put together at
a time when natural gas and hydro-electric power were being
developed in the state. In order for rural Alaska to reap
benefits of the natural gas investments and pricing, as
well as the Four Dam Pool; the compromise was the creation
of the PCE Endowment Fund. He discussed the idea of adding
a surcharge on natural gas coming out of Cook Inlet, which
was semi-subsidized by the state, to help pay for the
budget deficit. He discussed the difference in power cost
between his residences in Anchorage and Golovin.
Senator Dunleavy did not disagree. He thought there were
people in the state who did not benefit from Cook Inlet gas
subsidization (through tax credits) by the state; and there
were people in the state who did not benefit from PCE. He
believed the points being addressed were important to
feature in ongoing conversations.
Vice-Chair Micciche pointed out that it was the first time
the state had asked the PCE Fund to help offset costs in
other areas. For the purposes of the legislation, the aid
would be for community assistance and rural energy
programs. He noted that there were discussions about the
level of subsidy in Cook Inlet. He was relatively
supportive of the bill.
10:05:10 AM
Senator Bishop stated that if there was a PCE Endowment
Fund dividend, the excess earnings would be split between
the community assistance program (50 percent), the
renewable energy grant fund (30 percent), and the PCE
Endowment Fund (20 percent). He recalled that the previous
year the committee had strengthened the PCE Fund by using
the prudent investor rule. He thought the committee was
doing its job working towards maximizing state assets. He
agreed with Senator Dunleavy that it would take continued
work to solve the budget problem.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled a PCE bill from the previous
year, in which more prudent investment was implemented. She
thought the bill went an additional step in reducing the
draw from 7 percent to 5 percent, in aid of trying to keep
the corpus of the fund whole. She recalled priorities that
were articulated in a Senate Majority press conference that
included how to positively impact the bottom line of the
state budget, which she thought the bill accomplished. She
pointed out that the bill left all of the PCE Fund
available for appropriation in a future year. She asserted
that the House had proposed accessing the fund for the
University, and she did not concur with the idea. She
explained that there were excess earnings above the funding
to the PCE program, after which the funds would roll off to
different areas and reduce the call on cash to the GF. The
bill would reduce GF spending, and she thought it was worth
consideration by both bodies. She thought if the bill was
not passed, the PCE Fund would be at risk. She discussed a
reduction in tax credits that would result in an increase
in gas bills.
10:09:26 AM
AT EASE
10:16:34 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to report CSSB 196(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CSSB 196(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation with one new fiscal impact note from
the Senate Finance Committee, and one new zero fiscal note
from Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
10:17:15 AM
AT EASE
10:21:30 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the community revenue sharing
program; changing the name of the community revenue
sharing program to the community assistance program;
and relating to the municipal property tax exemption
on the residence of a senior, a disabled veteran, and
a widow or widower of a senior or disabled veteran."
10:21:43 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the CS for SB 210, which had
been adopted on April 6, 2016. Public testimony had opened
on closed on the same date. She clarified that the
committee was considering bill version H.
10:22:11 AM
AT EASE
10:23:06 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the fiscal note, from DCCED
(OMB component 2879); with appropriation and allocation to
Community and Regional Affairs. He shared that the note
showed $6.1 thousand of fiscal impact in FY 17 with no
additional costs, positions, or capital. He relayed that
the committee believed that the department could handle the
minor amount of work resultant from the bill, and it
intended to zero out the fiscal note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for the support of the committee
to zero out the fiscal note. The fiscal note was amended to
zero. She informed that the committee would request the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) to provide a forthcoming
zero fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Micciche relayed a concern from his district and
mentioned a spreadsheet that showed an increase in
community revenue sharing in some communities, and a larger
proportion of decrease of community revenue sharing in
other communities. He asked if Co-Chair MacKinnon could
explicate and confirm that no communities in the state
would receive an increase.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked LFD staff to explain the breakdown
of how the state would assist communities under the bill.
ALEXEI PAINTER, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE,
discussed the spreadsheet "FY 17 Community Revenue Sharing
Estimates," (copy on file). He explained that under the
status quo distribution of $60 million versus the proposed
distribution of SB 210 (under any amount), no community
would receive more funding under the formula in the
Community Revenue Sharing Program. The bill would change
the way that pro-rating worked, so if one were to compare a
pro-rated base in the status quo program to a pro-rated
base in the new program, it was true that some communities
would be better or worse off. He reiterated that when
compared to the original $60 million program, no community
would receive more funding under SB 210.
Vice-Chair Micciche thought that when some people had
initially looked at the calculations; it had showed an
actual increase for Aleutians East, False Pass, and some
other areas. He asked if Mr. Painter could explain the
logic of the bill and its relationship to the PCE program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there was a policy decision,
and referred to the SB 196, which had just passed from
committee. She explained that SB 196 had proposed a change
to the PCE Fund structure, in which excess earnings would
be diverted to the revenue sharing program. It was
estimated to be in the amount of $17 million for FY 17. She
considered the two bills to be interrelated.
10:27:36 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that the bill being considered
(SB 210) would change the name of the program from
Community Revenue Sharing to Community Assistance. He
continued that the program funding had been reduced from
$60 million to $38.2 million, half of which was expected to
come from PCE Endowment Fund earnings.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that for FY 17, if the fund was
not re-charged, there would be $38,200,000 available under
the current stepdown in statute. She continued that under
SB 210, the pro-rated share would be changed. If there was
expected earnings on the PCE Fund, there would be $17
million to go to the Community Revenue Sharing Program.
Senator Hoffman stated that the governor's proposal was to
spend $50 million on the revenue sharing program in the
current year, and increase the amount to $60 million in
subsequent years. The committee was evaluating whether or
not the state could continue to fund the program at the
same high level. Since the state no longer had surplus
revenue to share, he thought the title change to the
Community Assistance Program was more appropriate. He
thought by changing it to a $30 million program, it would
not necessitate funding an additional $35 million in the
current year. He noted that the fund had $115 million, and
in order to get a three-year average the fund would have to
contain $150 million. Subsequently, the governor had
requested the additional $35 million. If the legislature
moved forward and reduced the program, the state would not
have to come up with $35 million, and there would be enough
funding already to cover a $30 million program. He did not
believe the state could continue on the path it was on. He
thought it was more likely that the program could survive
at the lower funding level. He noted that each legislature
would have to consider the financial conditions of the
state at the time.
10:31:00 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche thought it was unjustified to simply
end the program, and thought the bill was an appropriate
action. He referred to other bills that impacted
municipalities, and thought that SB 210 had a much smaller
impact. He thought that the bill was a healthy compromise.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the bill was from the Senate
Finance Committee, and asked that any input be directed to
her office. She referred to discussion regarding the
definition of "community" and how large a community should
be. She recounted the same discussion pertaining to the
size of schools. She had heard conversation about
considering 50 residents to constitute a community, or
whether 11 members in a geographic area qualified for
community assistance of $96,000. She clarified that the
bill did not propose a change to definitions of community,
but noted that there was an anomaly in the Aleutians East
Borough that had a population of 39 and received state
assistance in the amount of $385,000.
Mr. Painter clarified that the population of Aleutians East
Borough was actually higher, and the 39 individuals were
those that did not live in an incorporated borough.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Painter to discuss why
Aleutians East would get extra compensation if communities
were already receiving funds from other sources.
Mr. Painter stated that there were boroughs with
incorporated communities that received the borough share of
the program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the boroughs were
overlaid upon the city or village designations, and both
were getting assistance.
Mr. Painter answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Painter to create a
spreadsheet to illustrate the cities with the boroughs
overlaid atop, with associated revenues, to better
understand how the program gave assistance to the boroughs.
She thought the information would also be helpful in the
next committee of referral if the bill was successful on
the Senate floor.
10:35:04 AM
AT EASE
10:39:14 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy thought that he would benefit greatly from
additional consideration of the bill. He wanted to discuss
some questions about the bill with staff from LFD.
Senator Olson referred to an earlier discussion about
communities that did not have city governments. He
commented that he would like a list of such communities,
the population, and how much money each community was
receiving from the revenue sharing program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated she would be happy to hold the
bill until the afternoon meeting.
Vice-Chair Micciche opined that there were a lot of
legislators that thought that it was time that the
communities with tax authority and/or a fund balance move
beyond community revenue sharing. He thought the bill was a
healthy compromise. He acknowledged that the program was
slightly advantaged to smaller communities that (in some
cases) had the revenue sharing program as its only state
support. He thought there were communities that objected to
the proportional differences. He thought it was a healthy
shift for larger communities that had a greater ability to
provide for themselves.
10:41:30 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the conversation around the
creation and reduction of the revenue sharing program had
to do with Senator Hoffman's comments regarding the fact
that the state could no longer afford to share funding it
did not have. She pointed out that the governor was
proposing multiple ways to provide revenues through taxing
different industry groups and individual Alaskans. She
suggested that larger communities had the ability (provided
by the legislature) to tax themselves, and thereby had a
greater ability for self-determination. She noted that the
smaller communities, which had not already done so, still
had the opportunity to tax themselves.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that some of her constituents,
as well as other residents, had asked that all of Alaska be
incorporated as boroughs so as to tax residents and
contribute to education and other activities funded by the
state. She thought the bill was a compromise. Instead of
eliminating all revenue assistance to communities with
taxing authority, the compromise was to reduce to a $30
million program and utilize earnings from the PCE Fund. She
referred to the suite of interlocked bills, including one
that concerned the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). The
committee had heard from a variety of people, including
those that were highly vocal and critical of the
legislature and cost-shifting. She discussed PERS and TRS
liability. She thought it was fair to say that more
conversation was needed on the topic. She agreed that
proportionally, smaller communities were protected in a
better way; and noted that if the previous bill went
forward, part of the PCE fund would help lower GF spend.
10:45:08 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche thought Co-Chair MacKinnon's remarks
were well stated. He related that he tried to be able to
put himself in other people's shoes. He referred to his 5-
year tenure as mayor of an Alaskan community. He thought as
mayor he would have taken issue with the proportional
change proposed in the bill. He acknowledged the difference
of his current role, as well as the changed fiscal climate.
He reiterated that the bill was an appropriate compromise,
especially considering a PCE Fund shift.
SB 210 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the afternoon schedule, at
which time the committee would do a full walk-through of
the capital budget. She noted that she would work to move
out SB 210 and SB 196 together so that they could travel
together. She reiterated that the two bills were a portion
of the same suite of bills.
10:46:37 AM
AT EASE
10:47:02 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the afternoon schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
10:47:43 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 200 Public Testimony Nees.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 200 |
| SB 200 NEA Alaska Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 200 |
| SB 210 Community Revenue Sharing Estimates.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 210 |
| SB 201 Responses to questions during SB 201 hearing SFIN 4.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 201 |
| SB 210 with $38.2 million vs Status Quo with $60 million.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 210 |