Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/13/2016 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 | |
| HB137 | |
| HB222 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 222(FIN)
"An Act relating to increases of appropriation items."
10:20:37 AM
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, explained
that the legislation aimed to protect the legislatures
constitutional power of appropriation by allowing the
legislature to now only decide what additional money was
accepted during the interim, but more importantly, to
specify what would not be accepted. She relayed that all
appropriations had to be authorized by lay, meaning that
they must be included in a budget that was voted on by the
full body during legislative session. She said that for
some appropriation items, the full amount was unknown
during the budgetary process, which meant that additional
funds could become available during the legislative
interim. She related that in order for the Executive Branch
to accept the additional funds, the legislature had
codified the Revised Program Legislative (RPL) process, a
two-step process that appropriated money contingent upon
the governor following AS 37.37080. She elaborated on the
RPL process. She explained that the spirit of the RPL
process was to allow the Executive Branch to efficiently
accept funds in a timely fashion when the legislature was
not there to approve them, and if the process did not
exist, all funds would be delayed until the next
legislative session. She noted the RPL would not be
considered new funds, but new programs could be added using
an RPL if allowed by appropriation language approved in the
budget. She related that the bill would allow language to
be written into the budget that would expressly prohibit
the use of the RPL process for a specific appropriation
item. She furthered that items would need to come before
the full legislature, either during a special session or
the next budget cycle. She relayed that the bill would
increase the waiting period from 45 to 90 days. She
highlighted that the legislation would not change the
legislative budget process. She asserted that the bill did
not present a Constitutional problem because it would stop
an appropriation before it occurred, rather than
controlling the expenditure after the legislature had
appropriated the money to the executive branch.
10:25:40 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill assumed that
mandates would be attached to any accepted funds.
Ms. Lucky understood that the legislation would not alter
how RPLs were vetted.
10:27:05 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division, to the table for further
clarification. She offered her understanding of the RPL
process.
10:27:21 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
clarified that the RPL process differed between the Capital
and Operating Budgets. He said that because the legislature
could not delegate its power of appropriation to a
committee, any new capital project would be viewed as an
independent appropriation; only existing capital projects
that were already on the books could go before the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for the RPL process.
He explained that the appropriation for the Operating
Budget were more broad, and were granted to an agency in
order to meet its mission; as long as an RPL fell between
the mission or responsibility of the agency, it could be
for a brand new purpose.
10:28:40 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill would curb the
encouragement, written into certain legislation, for
departments to seek federal funds.
Mr. Teal replied that he was not sure. He said that the
primary language was, "unless expressly prohibited by the
language of the appropriation", which he interpreted to
mean that a department could prohibit certain programs or
allocations from participating in the RPL process. He said
that there could even be language in the annual
appropriation bill that said that specific departments
could not use the RPL process.
10:30:33 AM
Senator Dunleavy spoke to the Department of Education and
Early Development. He relayed that the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) had been developed in 1965
because the federal government wanted to bypass
legislatures, whom they believed were not implementing the
Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Teal responded that Alaska was one of several states
that appropriated federal money. He siad that there were
states where federal money went directly to education, and
was not appropriated by the legislature, the legislature
appropriated only General Funds. He contended that it did
not work that way in Alaska; and agency could not accept
federal dollars, and spend it, without legislative
authority. He stressed that even if the federal government
was trying to give the Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development money to do something, the legislature
retained control over whether the department could accept
the funds.
10:33:11 AM
Senator Dunleavy warned that it was "important to read the
fine print" when the federal government offered Alaska
money.
Mr. Teal agreed that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee would be responsible for paying attention to
potential mandates attached to federal dollars.
10:33:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the bill addressed the RPL
process of the whole legislature. She noted that there were
other sections in statute that addressed how other funds
were accepted.
Ms. Lucky commented that the bill would allow the
legislature to put a statement in the budget that
restricted the use of the RPL process for particular
programs. She noted that the legislature already possessed
the power to restrict the RPL process by fund type; HB 222
would hone that restriction by specific appropriation
level.
10:35:50 AM
Senator Olson asked whether there were other states that
had implemented similar restrictions.
Ms. Lucky replied that information was still being gathered
on what other states had implemented.
10:37:13 AM
Senator Bishop hoped that the bill would not limit the
governor's ability to accept federal funds in the event of
an emergency.
10:38:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the bill would not change
how often LB&A could convene. She believed that in the
event of an emergency the committee could convene quickly
and respond to an emergency.
10:38:11 AM
Ms. Lucky remarked that the issue had been researched. She
deferred further response to Mr. Teal.
10:39:15 AM
Mr. Teal said that once the governor declared a disaster,
LB&A would not be involved at all.
10:39:33 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the sponsor had discussed
the legislation with members of the Executive Branch,
specifically, the issue of the 90 day provisions.
Ms. Lucky replied that the sponsor had not had a discussion
with the Executive Branch.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that amendments were due at
noon the following day.
CSHB 222(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 137 Public TEstimony Vincent-Lang.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Public Testimony Hansen.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 SCS CSHB 137(RES) Responses to Questions for Senate Resources 3-28-16.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB222 Background Information.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 222 |
| HB 137 Hunting-Sport Fishing License Increase Compromise Proposal - Sommerville.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Wildllife Resoration - PR Funds for Alaska FY02 - FY15.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 SCS CSHB 137(RES) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |