Legislature(1993 - 1994)
1993-04-24 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1728 SB 88 SENATE BILL NO. 88 "An Act relating to grants to municipalities, named recipients, and unincorporated communities; establishing capital project matching grant programs for municipalities and unincorporated communities; establishing a local share requirement for capital project grants to municipalities, named recipients, and unincorporated communities; and providing for an effective date" was read the second time. Senator Pearce moved and asked unanimous consent for the adoption of the Finance Committee Substitute offered on page 1624. Senator Adams objected, then withdrew his objection. There being no further objections, CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 88(FIN) was adopted. 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1729 SB 88 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 88(FIN) was read the second time. The following technical amendment will be made to CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 88(FIN) on engrossment of the bill: Page 14, line 17: Change "12" to "11" Senator Adams offered Amendment No. 1 : Page 14, lines 1-16: Delete all of Sec. 10 Page 14, line 17: Delete "immediately" Insert "July 1, 1994" Senator Adams moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 1. Senator Taylor objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 88(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 1 failed. Senator Adams offered Amendment No. 2 : 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1730 SB 88 Page 6, line 13: After "section.": Insert "A city located in a borough may list a borough project to which it plans to contribute." Page 6, line 23: After "AS 37.06.030.": Insert "If a city lists a borough project, the local share attributable to the city's contribution may be paid by either municipality or shared between them as they agree." Page 6, line 30: Delete "to the municipality" Page 6, line 31: After "section.": Insert "An appropriation shall be paid to the municipality or, if a city has elected to contribute to a borough project, to the borough." Page 7, line 2: After "account": Insert "or, if a city has elected to contribute to a borough project, from the city's account," Senator Adams moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 2. Senator Miller objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 88(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 2 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1731 SB 88 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 2 failed. Senator Adams offered Amendment No. 3 : Page 1, lines 1 - 2: Delete "relating to grants to municipalities, named recipients, and unincorporated communities;" Page 1, lines 3 - 4: Delete "establishing a local share requirement for capital project grants to municipalities, named recipients, and unincorporated communities;" Page 2, line 1: Delete "," Insert "and" Page 2, line 2: Delete ", and named grant recipients" Page 2, line 29, through page 5, line 15: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 11, lines 5 - 12: Delete all material and insert: "Sec. 37.06.030. LOCAL SHARE REQUIREMENTS. (a) For each draw made under AS37.06.010, the municipality shall contribute a local share 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1732 SB 88 to the cost of the capital project for which the draw is made. The amount of the local share equals the local share percentage as calculated under (1) of this subsection, divided by the state share percentage as calculated under (2) of this subsection, multiplied by the amount of the draw. For purposes" Page 11, line 15, through page 12, line 3: Delete all material and insert: "(A) 30 percent for a municipality with a population of 5,000 or more; (B) for a municipality with a population of 1,000 - 4,999, the greater of (i) 15 percent of the amount of the draw; or (ii) the amount that would be received by the municipality from a property tax levy of 1/1000th of a mill per $1,000 of grant funds received under AS37.06.010, but not more than 30 percent of the amount of the draw; (C) for a municipality with a population of under 1,000, the greater of (i) five percent of the amount of the draw; or (ii) the amount that would be received by the municipality from a property tax levy of 1/1000th of a mill per $1,000 of grant funds received under AS37.06.010, but not more than 30 percent of the amount of the draw;" Page 12, line 16: Delete ";" Insert "." 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1733 SB 88 Page 12, lines 17 - 25: Delete all material and insert: "(b) For each draw made under AS37.06.020, the unincorporated entity or" Page 12, line 26: Delete "receives the grant or" Page 12, line 27: Delete "grant or" Page 12, line 30: Delete "grant or" Page 13, line 2: Delete "grant or" Page 14, line 1: Delete "11" Insert "5" Page 14, line 2: Delete "disbursed or" Delete "AS37.05.315 -" Page 14, line 3: Delete "37.05.317 or" Delete "as amended or" Page 14, lines 4 - 5: Delete all material. Reletter following subsection accordingly. Page 14, line 7: Delete "9" Insert "3" 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1734 SB 88 Senator Adams moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 3. Senator Miller objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 3 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 88(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 3 YEAS: 7 NAYS: 13 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Duncan, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Donley, Ellis, Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 3 failed. Senator Adams offered Amendment No. 4 : Page 6, line 12: Delete $25,000 Insert $50,000 Page 8, line 27: Delete $25,000 Insert $50,000 Senator Adams moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 4. Senator Taylor objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 4 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 88(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 4 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1735 SB 88 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 4 failed. Senators Donley, Ellis offered Amendment No. 5 : Page 11, line 15: Delete "30" Insert "25" Senator Donley moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 5. Senator Sharp objected. Senator Donley called the Senate. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 5 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 88(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 5 YEAS: 6 NAYS: 14 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Adams, Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Kerttula, Leman, Lincoln, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 5 failed. 1993-04-24 Senate Journal Page 1736 SB 88 Senator Taylor moved and asked unanimous consent that CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 88(FIN) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. Senator Lincoln objected. The question being: "Shall CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 88(FIN) be advanced to third reading?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 88(FIN) Advance from Second to Third Reading? YEAS: 11 NAYS: 9 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff and so, the bill failed to advance to third reading.