Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/14/2022 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 | |
| Economic Outlook: Moody's Analytics | |
| SB168 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 14, 2022
9:02 a.m.
9:02:23 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson (via teleconference)
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator David Wilson (via teleconference)
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Robert Myers, Sponsor; Dawson Mann, Staff, Senator
Myers; Andy Mills, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; Dom Pannone,
Administrative Services Director, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dan White, Senior Director, Economic Research, Moody's
Analytics.
SUMMARY
SB 168 DONATIONS/GIFTS FOR DOT and PF SIGNAGE
SB 168 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: MOODY'S ANALYTICS
^ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: MOODY'S ANALYTICS
9:03:51 AM
DAN WHITE, SENIOR DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH, MOODY'S
ANALYTICS (via teleconference), discussed the presentation,
"Economic Outlook" (copy on file). He looked at slide 2. He
stated that Moody's Analytics was separate from Moody's
Investors Service. He stated that both were owned by the
same corporation, but should be considered separate.
9:06:31 AM
Mr. White pointed to slide 3, "The Pandemic Recovery
Roadmap." He stated that the slide gave context about how
far they fell during the pandemic, and also gave context
about how much the state has already come back. He noted
that it was a roadmap with signposts to keep an eye out,
in order to determine the baseline economic outlook in the
presentation.
9:11:07 AM
Senator von Imhof asked for a definition of "QE."
Mr. White replied that QE was defined as quantitative
easing.
Co-Chair Stedman ask that acronyms not be used in the
presentation.
Mr. White addressed slide 4, "Lots of Gas in the Tank." He
stated that the slide showed the positive outlook related
to what is available moving forward.
9:15:46 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried the source of the money.
Mr. White replied that most of the fiscal stimulus came
from the federal government.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether there had been
conversation about how much time would be used to use all
the stimulus money.
Mr. White replied that there was a significant portion of
the workforce that has not returned to work since the
beginning of the pandemic, and were using some of the
funds.
9:20:49 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered whether there was variation by
region or state.
Mr. White replied that there was only national data
available.
Mr. White looked at slide 5, "Record Level of Fiscal
Support. He stated that the slide was used to prove a
prescient political test. He noted that some people would
see why the U.S. could spend more political money, and
others would see that money needed to be spent at a lower
rate.
Senator von Imhof noted the $$6 trillion deposit in twenty
four months had been deposited the U.S. She wondered how
that would affect the typical taxpayer.
Mr. White replied that one of the reports was a long-term
fiscal outlook, because there was a thirty year projection.
9:27:37 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for more detail about the forecast
for inflation. He stated that the debt to GDP would be more
than 200 percent in thirty years. He shared that the
pandemic had moved a generation forward in the debt
concerns.
Mr. White replied with slide 6, "Not Done With Inflation
Yet." He stated that inflation would be well above the
Federal Reserve target for at least another year.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether recalled that inflation
was difficult to slow down in the 1980s. He surmised that
there was no anticipation of systemic change forcing an
inflation cycle similar to the early 1980s.
Mr. White replied that it was the hypothesis, and agreed.
9:34:53 AM
Mr. White addressed slide 7, "Lots of Curveballs Still Out
There":
Using alternative scenarios in the revenue forecasting
process help to add important context around the most
relevant risks:
("Stagflation") What happens if inflation isn't
as transitory as the baseline forecast assumes?
(Geopolitical Shock) What happens if the economy
suffers an exogenous shock from geopolitical
events in Ukraine/Russia?
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether stagflation was under the
Nixon administration.
Mr. White replied that it was during the 1970s, during the
Ford and Carter administrations.
Senator von Imhof remarked that the GDP in Alaska had been
falling since 2012. She stressed that the state had not
increased its GDP for a decade.
9:40:31 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried the possibility of the federal
reserve running an intentional inflation cycle to dilute
the debt.
Mr. White replied that it was highly unlikely.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that Japan had not been able to come
out of the 1980s bust on real estate. He wondered whether
Japan was merely not spending money.
Mr. White agreed, and stated that Japan had not been able
to increase their productivity due to a supply issue.
Mr. White looked at slide 8, "Extended Recovery Depends on
Energy." He remarked that the lines should be split,
because of the natural resource employment versus stock
price.
9:45:41 AM
Mr. White addressed slide 9, "What to watch? Employment to
Population Ratio (EPOP)." The slide indicated that women
predominately fall out of the workforce during prime
working age - falling to less than 65 percent in 2020. He
suggested keeping a close eye on the EPOP.
9:50:28 AM
Senator von Imhof asked about the green line on the slide
which represented EPOP prime age women.
Mr. White said that during the pandemic the working
population women was - he noted that the men took a hit
during the Great Recession. He said that industries that
were made up of women employers were hit harder during the
pandemic. He admitted that women were more often primary
caregivers to children and the elderly.
Mr. White thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman thanked the presenter.
9:54:22 AM
AT EASE
9:59:46 AM
RECONVENED
10:00:08 AM
Co-Chair Stedman HANDED the GAVEL to Co-Chair Bishop.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping.
SENATE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to program receipts; and relating to
the acceptance of gifts, donations, and grants for the
purpose of providing signage for assets under the
control of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities."
10:00:47 AM
SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation.
He stated that the bill would give the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) the receipt
authority to take donations to put up signage after the
legislature names a project.
10:01:27 AM
DAWSON MANN, STAFF, SENATOR MYERS, discussed the Sectional
Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: AS 37.05.146(c) Page 1, Lines 5-7
This section adds gifts, donations, and grants
received by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities to the definition of program
receipts and non-general fund program receipts found
in the Fiscal Procedures Act in accordance with
section 2 of this bill.
Section 2: AS 44.42.060 Page 1, Lines 8-14, Page 2,
Lines 1-3
This section adds that the department may receive
gifts, donations, and grants in accordance with a
memorandum of understanding with the donor party. This
section also outlines that the funds may not be used
until the necessary funds have been collected from the
donor.
Senator von Imhof queried the process for funneling the
money.
Senator Myers replied that the intention was for DOT to
partner with an entity for administration then deliver the
funds to DOT for sign materials and labor.
Senator von Imhof surmised that the money would go toward
the plaque and not DOTs bureaucracy.
Senator Myers agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there was sometimes signage
for trails through the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). He felt that there should be a discussion with DNR
on that issue. He pointed out that safety issues should
also be addressed, such as crosswalks.
10:06:48 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether the intention was mainly for
land transportation corridors, or whether the bill also
included airports.
Senator Myers replied that bridges would be the most common
piece, but could be anything owned by DOT.
10:07:52 AM
ANDY MILLS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, explained the
legislation and the process for how DOT took third party
receipts.
Co-Chair Stedman queried the other processes for naming a
DOT-owned entity.
Mr. Mills replied that there were other ways to name the
bridges and other corridors, and he agreed to provide that
information.
10:11:01 AM
Co-Chair Stedman felt that it used to be rare to put the
naming into legislation.
Co-Chair Bishop requested every option for naming.
Senator von Imhof commented that there could be an
amendment to the bill to include DNR naming. She stressed
the pertinence of addressing safety issues as well.
Senator Olson wanted to ensure that non-state entities
would not have to provide a fiscal note, and therefore DOT
would not have the grounds to reject a public proposal.
Mr. Mills replied that the process for naming would not
change in the bill.
Senator Olson asked whether the bill created an avenue for
funds.
10:15:34 AM
Co-Chair Bishop replied in the negative. He explained that
the bill allowed entities to donate funds to build the
sign.
Senator Olson restated his question.
Mr. Mills replied that the funds received were for a
specific project.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the outline of costs for
the donating entity would include the administration,
actual signage, and labor.
10:17:06 AM
DOM PANNONE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that there
was a standard quoting process for the signs.
Senator Wielechowski surmised that there would need to be a
legislative appropriation before receiving the funds.
Mr. Pannone replied that the bill created a mechanism for
DOT to create a future fiscal note with program receipts.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that millions and sometimes
billions of dollars were spent annually on DOT, and queried
the issue of the state paying for signage.
Mr. Pannone replied that, in the past in bridge-naming
bills, there was high scrutiny around the cost of the sign.
Co-Chair Bishop queried the process for replacement.
Mr. Mills replied that the cost was often rolled into
project costs that were in the surrounding area.
10:25:11 AM
Co-Chair Bishop felt that most of the bridge bills had a
fairly low fiscal note.
Co-Chair Stedman explained the tracking of fiscal notes in
the legislature. He felt that the small cost of the naming
bills did not have a large impact on the state budget.
10:29:23 AM
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the department would
have the authority to accept a large gift or organization
to name a road or public facility.
Mr. Mills replied that the legislative process would occur
first.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether there were ways to name
a bridge that the legislature would not be aware in
advance.
Mr. Mills replied that he was not aware of that mechanism
for naming.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether there should be a dollar
threshold attached to the bill. She remarked that sometimes
the money was not an issue, but rather it was a place for a
person to put their emotions.
10:34:01 AM
AT EASE
10:34:55 AM
RECONVENED
10:35:13 AM
Senator Wilson wondered whether DOT could return to the
funders for replacement funds.
Mr. Pannone responded that DOT paid for sign damages out of
their operational budget. He did not see DOT returning to a
donor to ask for repair funds.
Senator Wilson wondered whether the bill would make that
issue possible, because of the authorization.
Mr. Pannone replied that the bill only added the donations
to program receipts.
Co-Chair Stedman asked that DOT present the cost of the
signs over a five-year period.
Mr. Mills replied that in the year prior there were two
naming bills and accounted for less than $20,000. He agreed
to provide further information.
Co-Chair Bishop stressed that they were already existing
signs.
Senator von Imhof stressed that there was already authority
in statute to do what was proposed in the bill.
10:40:10 AM
AT EASE
10:42:06 AM
RECONVENED
10:42:16 AM
Mr. Pannone replied that the department could accept the
funds, but the bill would create a fiscal note to expend
the funds.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how much money had come from
foundations for the purpose intended from the donating
entity.
Mr. Mills replied that the bill codified a path for a third
party payment.
Senator Wielechowski queried liability if the department
failed to follow the terms of the donation.
Mr. Mills agreed to provide that information.
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
10:46:46 AM
AT EASE
10:47:01 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop stated that the afternoon's meeting will be
cancelled.
SB 168 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:47:21 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 168 v. A Sponsor Statement .pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM STRA 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Support Document 2.1.22.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM STRA 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 v. A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM STRA 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| 020822 Moodys_AK_020822.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 168 Senate Finance Feb 14 - Responses DOTPF (2-24-2022).pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |