Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2002 03:37 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 26, 2002
3:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to officers and employees of the executive branch.
MOVED SJR 37 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to information regarding proposed expenditures.
MOVED SJR 38 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 313
"An Act repealing a provision relating to legislative approval of
construction projects of the Alaska Aerospace Development
Corporation."
MOVED SB 313 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 37 - No previous action to report
SJR 38 - No previous action to report
SB 313 - No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Capitol 518
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 37 and SJR 38
Annalee McConnell
Director of the Office of Management & Budget
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 37
Steve Conn
AkPIRG Representative
P.O. Box 101093
Anchorage 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 313
Steven Cleary
CODE Representative
P.O. Box 1093
Anchorage, AK 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 313
Stacey Fritz
P.O. Box 84997
Fairbanks, AK 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 313
Sean McGuire
351 Cloudberry Lane
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 313
Ed Davis
P.O. Box 71616
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 313
Mike Milligan
12056 Gara Drive
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 313
Pat Ladner
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation
4300 B Street
Juneau, AK 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 313
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-11, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. Present were Senators
Stevens, Phillips and Chairman Therriault. Senator Davis was on
an important telephone call and expected to arrive soon.
The first order of business was SJR 37.
SJR 37-CONST AM: HIRING FREEZE
SENATOR PETE KELLY introduced the resolution as a way to reduce
state spending. He said, "It's very difficult for us to force the
executive branch to engage in what is considered by most people
to be a fairly simple and common sense response to budget
problems. This constitutional amendment is designed to do just
that. It gives the Legislature the authority to require the
executive branch, through resolution, to initiate a hiring
freeze."
The Legislature would pass a resolution, which would enact a
statute and the governor would then be directed toward that
statute to begin a hiring freeze. The framework for that
resolution would be worked out by the next Legislature after this
constitutional amendment is passed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT referred to the exception for temporary
emergency positions needed for health and safety and asked who
makes that determination and what constitutes health and safety.
SENATOR KELLY replied the Constitutional Amendment does not
directly speak to those issues. We have a resolution that one
might consider a sample resolution that we heard up in finance
today that talks about health and safety. The Constitutional
Amendment doesn't do that and, I think the sponsor statement is
probably in error to bring up that specific thing regarding this
constitutional amendment."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it would then apply to all general funded
positions.
SENATOR KELLY said it could. The Legislature would make those
determinations as needed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for verification that a concurrent
resolution requires a simple majority in both house.
SENATOR KELLY agreed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked the administration's representative to
testify.
C
ANNALEE MCONNELL, Director of the Office of Management & Budget,
said it is her understanding that the reasoning behind the
proposal is that some in the Legislature feel that it is
unconstitutional to require a hiring freeze because of the
separation of powers. Therefore, it would be necessary to go to
the voters to allow the Legislature to be the body that
determines whether there will be a hiring freeze or not.
One of the issues this raises is whether this kind of function
makes sense in the Constitution because it is not very specific
on purpose about how particular programs should be administered.
The Legislature has the power to make appropriations but
recognizes that the execution or management of programs requires
some flexibility within an administration.
Although the resolution is being presented as a response to the
fiscal gap, the administration does not believe this is the best
response to that issue. There is already difficulty in filling
positions in many areas of state government because of
competition with the federal government and the private sector
and every position is not filled today. Looking to the
Legislature to decide what a hiring freeze should look like would
place them in the administration's current difficult position of
having to decide which positions are critical for maintaining
public safety functions.
The Legislature does have the option to suggest changes to
statutes that are on the books as a means of cutting the budget.
This type of budget cutting would generate healthy discussions
about taking the state out of the business of providing
particular programs and services and provide the public the
opportunity to express their views on the importance of
particular services. Putting something of this sort in the
constitution as a way of forcing the administration to do a
hiring freeze is an awkward maneuver.
The specifics of a hiring freeze are a more appropriate topic for
the Finance Committee, but she wondered whether this is necessary
to put into the Constitution because there are other ways to make
budget cuts more directly if that in fact is the goal. Governors
have done hiring freezes on their own initiative in both 1999 and
1986 when there were precipitous drops in revenues and without a
constitutional amendment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT agreed that the Legislature controls the
budget, but once it is passed they have little control. If there
is a drastic reduction in revenue part way through that fiscal
year, they want the administration to carry some of that money
forward to the next fiscal year, they have no power to direct
that action. They can eliminate programs and make statutory
changes as well as passing an amendment to the budget but all
these are subject to a governor's veto. It is because of this
lack of direct control over the budget once it is passed that
makes this attractive.
C
MS. MCONNELL thought the provisions that currently exist do
allow the Legislature to cut the budget mid year. It is true that
the veto could be overridden, but that is a function of the basic
system that says if the Legislature passes a measure and the
governor vetoes it, then that veto may be overridden by a three
quarters vote of the entire Legislature. This is a much more
direct approach and puts the responsibility for the decisions
about which areas should be funded on the Legislature, which is
the arm that has the appropriation power. A hiring freeze doesn't
necessarily affect the fiscal gap. Cutting a federally funded
project does not help with the fiscal gap and neither does
cutting a position at the Fairbanks or Anchorage International
Airports.
The Legislature can change specific parts of the budget and
evaluate whether it is a wise action in terms of the services
that are needed because the administration would be able to tell
the Legislature what the impact would be for any cut proposal.
This is a good reciprocal process for determining whether a cut
should be made and if so, where. A hiring freeze is an across the
board cut that doesn't distinguish between life safety or not.
In prior years when the administration has proposed certain areas
for budget cuts they have not been acceptable. Closing DOT/PF
maintenance stations or letting roads melt open rather than
plowing are examples. Such changes are better addressed
individually so the impact on services can be evaluated.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT replied that the current system allows for
the Legislature to make changes but it is a system where a simple
majority increases spending but there must be a super majority to
make any kind of reduction.
He asked whether she thought the proposed language for the
resolution and the amendment has enough flexibility for the
Legislature to tailor the hiring freeze to the immediate
circumstance.
C
MS. MCONNELL replied that if she were reading the amendment as a
citizen she would assume that it meant all vacancies. There could
be statutes that say differently, but it seems that even a
statute that addresses an across the board hiring freeze is still
not getting at the specific issues of whether it helps the fiscal
gap or whether it goes to the places that the Legislature feels
that money should not be spent. In the Department of Labor there
are some general funded positions in the research section that do
the work that is necessary to get the federal funds. There are
about $550 million in funds in the budget that come from the
federal government and are dependent on population and formulas.
If a position is frozen and accurate data cannot be produced, the
state's share of federal formula programs is put in jeopardy.
Another example is worker compensation hearings. The Legislature
agreed that it was taking too long to get a worker compensation
hearing so another position was added in last year's budget. That
person was hired but another hearing officer is now leaving. If
that vacancy is not filled, the changes made last year were for
naught.
If the Legislature believes there are ways that the
administration should be holding back on spending, a more
strategic way of doing that is by taking specific actions in the
budget. Although it would take a super majority to override a
governor's veto, the Legislature has that same obligation now
when the budget is formulated. It should not be easier to cut the
budget than to establish it in the first place. The same goes for
budget amendments; there is not a different threshold for budget
amendments or supplemental budgets than for the original budget.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted that the fiscal note was the standard
note for anything that goes onto the ballot.
There was no additional testimony. There was no committee
substitute and no amendments.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move SJR 37 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SJR 37 moved from committee.
SJR 38-CONST AM: PRIORITY OF EXPENDITURES
SENATOR KELLY explained the resolution would require the
administration to submit subsequent budgets with each
department's activities ranked in order of value. Though it is
the Legislature's responsibility to appropriate funds, the
departments are better equipped to evaluate and prioritize their
own activities and production.
The passage of SJR 38 would put this resolution to a vote of the
people and, if approved, would amend the Constitution of the
State of Alaska.
This is similar to the statute that Representative Dyson is
passing through both bodies. He said he is of the opinion that
the statute alone isn't sufficient because of the separation of
powers and the discussion that was held for SJR 37.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT stated that, by law, the governor must submit
the budget to the Legislature by a certain date. He asked whether
the concern is that with Representative Dyson's legislation the
governor would choose to ignore the requirement.
SENATOR KELLY replied that is his concern.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted that Section 1 places the existing
language into subsection (a) and subsection (b) is added. He
confirmed that Senator Kelly was anticipating that a statute
would flesh out the particulars if this were enacted. He asked
for an explanation of a prioritized fashion.
SENATOR KELLY replied that the prioritized fashion would be
established by law. The Legislature would decide on some form of
prioritization, then pass that statute and require the governor
to submit it in that form. "Like in the last one, [SJR 37]
governors may veto these statutes, they have that right, but at
some point a governor is not going to veto this and then that
statute is going to sit there almost dormant and then, like in a
resolution form, you could require them to do that on the other
one. On this one, you've got the constitutional authority. … At
some point it is going to require the governor to participate in
this process. Some governor is going to have to pass this statute
and not veto it. It will have the luxury, so to speak, of a
gubernatorial veto whereas the last one we were talking about
didn't because it's enacted by resolution."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if he envisioned the mechanism would
have to be "turned on" each year or once the Legislature does it
by resolution the governor shall submit the budget with this
detail year after year.
SENATOR KELLY said the form would be determined by the different
Legislatures. He assumes it would be passed just once, but
different Legislatures in different years may choose different
forms and they would have to pass the change by law.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked what action would be taken if a
Legislature no longer wanted the information at all.
SENATOR KELLY said it would be repealed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said this Legislature might want this
information, but there will be an election this fall and the
governor is building the budget during the election process. He
asked whether he puts the prioritized document together for the
next Legislature.
SENATOR KELLY replied he envisions it the same way that the
budget is created every year. There would just be a rider added
requiring prioritization.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if this would be the budget document
itself or a separate document.
SENATOR KELLY said the budget document would have the rider.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT stated there was no proposed committee
substitute and no proposed amendments. The attached fiscal note
for $1,500 is standard for anything that will be placed on the
ballot.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move SJR 38 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SJR 38 moved from committee.
SB 313-NO LEGIS APPROVAL OF AEROSPACE PROJECT
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced he proposed this legislation to
repeal the section of the statutes that relates to legislative
approval of construction projects of the Alaska Aerospace
Development Corporation (AADC).
Section 14.40.886 that is proposed for repeal reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of AS
14.40.821-14.40.990, a proposed construction
project of $1,000,000 or more shall be submitted
by the corporation to the legislature for
approval at a regular session of the legislature.
Repeal of this section would not and is not intended to give AADC
the same standing as the railroad. If this legislation were to
pass, there would still need to be an appropriation by the full
Legislature for AADC to accept and expend federal funds or
corporate receipts coming into the corporation. By removing this
section of the statute it would be clear that Legislative Budget
and Audit would be able to make modifications to that budget
without having to wait for the next time the full Legislature is
sitting in session. Thus AADC would be able to be more responsive
to meet the needs of its clientele.
Committee members had no questions but there were a number of
people that wanted to testify via teleconference.
STEVE CONN with the Alaska Public Interest Research Group
(AkPIRG) went on record in opposition to SB 313. He said this is
a public corporation and they believe passage of this legislation
would rob residents and their representatives of the kind of open
debate and questioning that allows them to know the benefits as
well as the downside costs and risks of the various projects
undertaken by AADC. With benefits come costs and risks that are
more than a budgetary matter to be dealt with by a budgetary
agency because they deal with things that impact quality of life.
Such matters should be discussed in an open forum as originally
intended.
STEVEN CLEARY with the group Citizens Opposed to Defense
Experimentation (CODE) testified in opposition to SB 313. He said
he echoed Mr. Conn's testimony.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether CODE's concern is more
environmental than expenditure of dollars.
MR. CLEARY said his group is currently seeking to do three
things. Two of those are to get an environmental impact statement
(EIS) out on the Kodiak Launch Complex and to get public input
into the process and they see passage of SB 313 as a matter of
taking the public out of the process.
STACEY FRITZ said she was representing No Nukes North, which is
an organization that promotes educated opposition to missile
defense activities in Alaska. There are about 300 group members
that would like in depth information on this issue.
"It should be deeply disturbing to all of us that Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld has recently exempted the new Missile
Defense Agency from normal Pentagon oversight procedures.
According to Rumsfeld's orders, the Missile Defense Agency can
now conduct tests without involving the Pentagon Office of Tests
and Evaluations. Missile Defense Agency commanders no longer have
to specify new weapons requirements. The agency no longer has to
report back to the Pentagon on the project's timelines or costs
and Secretary Rumsfeld has clarified that he retains the right to
approve contingency or emergency deployment of any experimental
defense test assets. So not only has the public been removed from
information about where billions of their tax dollars are going,
they can not even be assured that their federal government knows
anything about it."
She said passage of this legislation would remove the state's
oversight of major construction projects at the Kodiak Launch
Complex. Rather than making the AADC more responsive to its
clientele, which is largely the Department of Defense, the people
of Alaska would rather see the Legislature and the AADC be more
responsive to the public.
She wanted to go on record as opposing the bill and urged the
Legislature to retain all oversight of missile defense activity
anywhere in the state and particularly at the Kodiak Launch
Complex.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked her if she would still be against the
legislation knowing that the full Legislature would still control
the appropriation process. He informed her that any unanticipated
project that is funded by the federal government or through
corporate receipts would still have to be appropriated by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee under the powers that are
given to it by the full Legislature.
MS. FRITZ said it is her understanding that the bill is
attempting to remove state oversight of major projects on Kodiak
and she doesn't feel there has been enough scrutiny of the major
projects there. She hopes that money coming in from anywhere for
Kodiak Launch Complex projects would be subject to scrutiny by
the Legislature.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT informed her that it already is subject to
scrutiny and the passage of this legislation wouldn't change that
scrutiny. No money can be received and spent by the corporation
without the underlying appropriation that is made by the full
Legislature. This bill simply clarifies that the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee, which is made up of Senate and House
members, can make budgetary adjustments during the eight months
of the year that the full Legislature is not in Juneau. It is a
misconception that is largely borne out of the budget system that
has led people to believe that the bill removes state oversight
of AADC.
MS. FRITZ said she would like to believe that is true and
although she doesn't fully understand the budget system she would
still like to voice her concern as a relatively informed member
of the public on this issue.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if No Nukes North is philosophically
against the Missile Defense Initiative.
MS. FRITZ replied they are opposed both environmentally and
politically. They try to provide in-depth information on missile
defense activities in Alaska to promote educated opposition to
the project.
SENATOR PHILLIPS told her he represents Fort Richardson and maybe
Elmendorf so he has a constituency that views the issue
differently than she does. He was interested in determining
whether her opposition is philosophical or fiscal because he has
fiscal concerns.
MS. FRITZ said she is fiscally opposed as well but it is
difficult for her to separate the environmental from the
political because she believes missile defense will create a new
arms race in space and on earth. This is globally destabilizing
and environmentally unsound.
C
SEAN MGUIRE testified in opposition to SB 313. It is disturbing
to him to have political leaders try to remove information from
the public on any level and he believes this makes the public
wary.
SIDE B
4:25 p.m.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he understands that the budget process
is complicated but this legislation would not change the fact
that AADC is a state corporation that cannot receive or expend
any money without the approval of the full Legislature. This
would make it clear that while the Legislature is not in full
session, the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee would be able
to make modifications to the budget that was passed by the
Legislature. The meetings would be publicly noticed and would
take into account public testimony. This committee is comprised
of members of the House and members of the Senate with the
chairmanship alternating between the bodies every two years. The
Legislature is still well informed of monies received and
projects that are approved. Current wording is a redundancy that
was incorporated when AADC statutes were first put into place
because the Legislature was unsure how the corporation would
develop. Part of the concern was that the corporation had the
power to issue bonds for projects. The Legislature was somewhat
concerned that they would issue bonds in amounts that exceeded
$1,000,000 and expend those receipts without Legislative
oversight. With the passage of this bill, oversight and
accountability are maintained with the added benefit of increased
flexibility.
C
SEAN MGUIRE replied that does make him somewhat more comfortable
but it still makes him uncomfortable when four or five members of
some committee are making these decisions because this is taking
away from a whole range of ideas and views.
c
SENATOR PHILLIPS corrected Mr. MGuire on the composition of the
committee and said opportunities arise that might be lost if it's
necessary to wait until the next legislative session.
ED DAVIS from Fairbanks said he wanted to give his historical
viewpoint regarding military launches taking place on state
subsidized facilities. Between the mid 1980s and into the early
1990s he was a leader in starting a group called Sane Alaska,
which encouraged a sane nuclear policy.
As AADC was beginning, his group was losing membership because
the Cold War was coming to an end and the threat of an arms race
was reduced. However, one of the last issues they became involved
in was the Star Wars research that was planned at the University
of Alaska Poker Flat Research Range. With the exposure of what
that really meant they were told there was no intention of
delving into things that might destabilize global security by
triggering an arms race.
With respect to SB 313, he doesn't want to lose any public
disclosure or Legislative oversight that would prevent doing
something that might not be in the best interest of the state,
the country or the world.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it is in the operating budget where the
Legislature authorizes the University of Alaska Legislature to
receive and expend funds that come from different sources.
Because of the university size, the authorization number is
large. They have a bit of leeway in their appropriation and when
some of the research money that was previously referred to came
available, they had authorization on the books to receive and
expend that money. With respect to AADC, they are proposing that
rather than making an empty appropriation of $10 or 20 million in
anticipation of projects that may come in, they would like
Legislative Budget and Audit to be able to look at those projects
as they come in and reserve judgment until they come in. Viewed
this way, the bill provides the opportunity for more oversight
because there wouldn't be any blanket authorization.
MIKE MILLIGAN from Kodiak testified in opposition to SB 313. He
has always been a strong supporter of the rocket launch facility
in Kodiak and is excited about its future. He wants to go on
record as reminding the people with CODE that a fantastic job is
being done in preserving the democratic exchange of information.
He said that if we are to automatically get away from missile
defense it doesn't mean that India and Pakistan will stop
building missiles. However, he is generally opposed to
legislative bodies giving up authority. This democratic society
operates with oversight and this appears to be an attempt to make
it easier for some of the federal interests that are involved in
a rocket launch facility to come in whenever they want to. The
Kodiak facility is in the development stage and the development
and proposals need to be planned and held up for review.
Kodiak recently had a very exciting Athena rocket launch with
four satellites. The launch facility offers an opportunity for
Alaska and humankind. The future of the facility is bright but it
is a future that needs dedicated legislative oversight.
Personally he wants to see the military continue to use the
launch facility because they are best prepared to contribute the
resources that will make it a viable facility. They can do that
with the understanding that the Legislature meets in the spring
and that is when they need to present their proposals. This will
ensure both legislative and public oversight.
SENATOR STEVENS addressed his comments to everyone who had
testified via teleconference. He questioned whether any of them
had read the statutes that deal with the AADC because all the
concerns voiced regarding relinquishing oversight are stated in
the statutes. He found it disturbing that they would say
Legislators are not doing their job when they obviously haven't
even read the statutes. He suggested they should read the
statutes before testifying.
MR. CONN said, "You're absolutely incorrect. We believe that the
current situation requires more oversight not less oversight
during the summer, in a period in time when the citizenry is not
focused on what you are doing in Juneau."
SENATOR STEVENS said, "You ought to read the statute and then
read the Executive Budget Act in 37.07. It says everything that
every one of you has spoken about is already in statute and this
act that Senator Therriault has introduced doesn't repeal any of
that. You're not reading what's already in statute."
MR. MILLIGAN was somewhat opposed to the comments made by Senator
Stevens. Alaska has a political season and [balance
indecipherable because he and Senator Stevens were talking at the
same time.]
SENATOR STEVENS interjected, "You're not reading, you're not
listening to what I said. If you read 37.07 it says in section 6:
'Public participation and development of an annual budget
including opportunity for public to review and comment on the
plans and programs of the office of the governor and all state
agencies.' It already says that in law. You're not reading--
you're telling us to do what's already in statute. And you're
using it to try to further your mechanism to prevent the
development down there and saying we're not doing what's already
there. It's already in law."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that gets back to one of the issue that
was brought up concerning the university proposal that caused
concern in Fairbanks. That kind of blanket appropriation is the
other way of dealing with this situation and provides little to
no oversight. In that type of instance, a blanket authorization
would be given so that any proposal coming in would be pre-
authorized. In contrast, this request requires that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee look at and evaluate each
proposal as they come in, which offers more oversight than the
system under which the university currently operates.
The existing statute says you can only act during the four month
window of opportunity when the Legislature is sitting in session.
That has turned out to be unworkable. For example the Legislature
is frequently unable to tell whether a client will want a range
safety upgrade in any one of the eight interim months or whether
there will be federal or corporate money for that upgrade.
Without this legislation, the only other way for the Legislature
to deal with that potential scenario is to give a blanket
authorization even though none of the specifics of a project
would be known.
MR. MILLIGAN wanted to comment on a conversation he had with some
British aerospace technicians that were in Kodiak for the launch
that took place the previous summer. He said that ultimately, it
will be necessary to have range safety equipment permanently in
place at the Kodiak launch facility.
He then asked Chairman Therriault why changes couldn't wait until
the regular legislative session. While the facility is still in
the development stage, he thought it important to put the
appropriations on a calendar year format.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT countered that if they anticipated that
equipment would be needed at the range but they weren't sure when
it would be authorized in the federal budget, they could pass a
capital appropriation that would stay on the books for five
years. Such an appropriation would be pre-authorized and could be
used at any time. There would be no further legislative
interaction at that time, which is exactly the concern voiced
today. With the passage of this bill, any proposal would have to
go to the administration and they would have to propose that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee take it under
consideration. If it were close to the regular legislative
session, it would probably be put off, but if it was just after a
regular session, the administration would have to take it to
Legislative Budget and Audit and they would have to have a
meeting and then take action. The authorization for Legislative
Budget and Audit to take action is only granted to the committee
on a year-by-year basis.
Passage of this bill would keep the Legislature from having to
consider a blanket authorization, which contributed to the
controversy at Poker Flat. He didn't think that any of the
testifiers would want to see that sort of situation repeated.
PAT LADNER, President and CEO of the Alaska Aerospace Development
Corporation, wanted to clarify that the portion in statute that
refers to leasing Poker Flat has to do with the origination of
AADC because the launch complex was initially meant to be at
Poker Flat. The language is in statute so that AADC could, as a
corporation, be allowed to use Poker Flat.
Regarding public scrutiny of the Kodiak Launch Facility, there
have been four environmental assessments done by three separate
federal government agencies. The public did have an opportunity
to participate in the process and they all resulted in a finding
of no significant impact. The Ballistic Missile Defense Office
has made it clear that they anticipate conducting environmental
documentation that complies with the law at the Kodiak facility.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER wanted to respond to Senator Stevens's
comments and said the language that would be repealed refers to
appropriations over $1 million. He said he used to work for the
Army Corp of Engineers and is familiar with how federal and
private appropriations work. There is a significant planning
cycle required for appropriations of that size and he can't
imagine that there would be any difficulty tying the planning
cycle into the regular legislative session. With that in mind, he
didn't think there was a big problem that needs to be addressed
by the passage of this bill.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the bill is straightforward, but there
is misunderstanding on how it impacts the budgeting system. Once
again he clarified that the bill would still require Legislative
oversight and interaction before any client could go to AADC and
propose that a capital project be undertaken.
There was no committee substitute and no amendments were offered.
He noted the zero fiscal note from the aerospace corporation.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR STEVENS made a motion to move SB 313 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SB 313 moved from committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|