Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/2016 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HB222 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 17, 2016
1:31 p.m.
1:31:23 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
ALSO PRESENT
Julie Lucky, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Megan Wallace, Legislative Legal Services, Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 222 INCREASE OF APPROPRIATION ITEM
HB 222 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to increases of appropriation items."
1:32:20 PM
JULIE LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, introduced
the legislation and read from prepared remarks:
House Bill 222 would codify a process to allow the
legislature to prevent the governor from using the
Revised Program Legislative - which we know as RPLs -
procedure from increasing funds for a particular
specified budget item. As we all know the legislature
has the constitutional power and duty to appropriate.
All appropriations must be authorized by law, meaning
they must be included in the budget bill that we pass
during our legislative session with the whole body
voting on it.
For some appropriation items the exact amount may not
be known when you all finalize the budget or there may
be additional funds that come available during the
year while the legislature is not in session. In order
to allow the governor to accept these funds, the
legislature codified a process in the late 1970s that
is what we call our RPL process. Just to be clear, the
RPL process can only be used to accept additional
funds for existing budget items; it has to be
something that was included in the budget and then
additional funds become available.
1:34:21 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted Representative Kawasaki had joined
the meeting.
Ms. Lucky relayed there were two necessary steps to the RPL
process. She noted she had provided information about the
RPL process and budgetary language in the bill packet for
committee members (copy on file). The first step was to
include language in the budget that allowed an open-ended
appropriation for specific types of receipts (listed in
Section 24 of the current and prior year budgets), which
allowed additional funds to be accepted as long as the
process outlined in AS 37.07.080(h) was followed. Second,
the governor must follow the process outlined in AS
37.07.080(h) to submit the RPL to the Legislative Budget
and Audit (LBA) Committee for review. The submission of the
RPL started a 45-day clock; at the end of the 45 days, the
governor could expend the funds. She noted the LBA
committee was not required to hold a hearing on the RPLs,
to take any action, and had no authority to reject or
reduce the funds. She explained that giving the committee
the authority would require a constitutional amendment as
it would be an improper delegation of duty. She added
Legislative Legal Services was available to answer any
constitutional questions.
Ms. Lucky continued to address the RPL process. She
reiterated the process included putting language in the
budget and following the statutory process. The practice
involved the RPL coming in from the executive branch, the
Legislative Finance Division conducted a review of the RPL,
and LBA typically added the RLP to the next meeting agenda
for consideration. The committee could take an action to
approve the RPL, meaning it agreed with accepting the
additional funds, which would waive the 45-day waiting
period and would enable the governor to accept and
appropriate the funds immediately. The committee could also
make a recommendation to reduce or reject the additional
funds; however, the recommendation was not binding. Most of
the time the executive branch respected the LBA
recommendation and would reduce the amount of funding or
may bring the RPL up during a subsequent meeting with some
changes made by the recommendations. She detailed the
governor could still use the funds after the 45-day waiting
period if LBA rejected the RPL; however, statute required
the governor to review the request and send LBA a statement
with the reasons the governor wanted to expend the funds
notwithstanding LBA's recommendation.
1:37:28 PM
Ms. Lucky stated the spirit of the law related to the RPL
process was to allow additional funds for already approved
budget items to be accepted in a timely fashion when the
legislature was not in session. Without the process, all
funds would have to be approved during the regular session
budgeting process; any funds coming in from May to December
would have to wait until the legislature convened. During
the past interim there had been a situation where the RPL
process had been used to accept funds that had been
rejected by the legislature during the budget process. She
detailed the case had been unique where a budget item had
been approved by the full legislature and yet the
legislature chose not to accept additional funds for that
particular item. She elaborated it had uncovered a basic
problem in the process in which the legislature could not
fully exercise its power to appropriate. The situation had
been viewed by many as an "end-run" to the budget process
and a threat to the balance of powers.
Ms. Lucky continued that as chair of LBA, Representative
Mike Hawker thought the topic was important enough to bring
to everyone's attention. She relayed Representative Hawker
had spoken with Legislative Legal Services about coming up
with some possible solutions, which had led to HB 222. The
bill would allow the legislature to establish language
expressly prohibiting use of the RPL process for a specific
appropriation item. The legislature would have to know in
advance it did not want to accept additional funds on a
specific item and would have to put language about the
specific item into the budget during the budget process.
The bill would prohibit using the RPL process going through
LBA for the particular item. Additionally, the bill would
ensure the executive branch could not use the RPL process
to fund items that were considered but denied by the
legislature during its regular budget deliberations. The
bill also included a technical change. She explained that
Representative Hawker's office had been unclear about
whether or not any action by LBA would hasten the 45-day
timeline. Legislative Legal Services' position was that the
only way to shorten the timeline was with an approval vote
by LBA. Therefore, the bill sponsor had requested to
include a technical change clarifying that should LBA chose
to recommend rejecting the funds, it would not shorten the
timeline and the governor would have to wait the initial
45-day period. The bill did not make any changes to the 45-
day period; it only clarified that unless LBA approved and
took an affirmative vote on the RPL, the initial 45-day
waiting period would have to be honored.
1:40:30 PM
Ms. Lucky shared that others were available online for
questions.
Co-Chair Neuman recalled that when he had served on the LBA
many of the funds coming through had been excess federal
highway funds. He referred to the 45-day time period. He
believed some of the funds would impact projects under
construction. He elaborated the money had already been
approved by the legislature through the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) appropriation
process, but there were other funds coming in that may be
needed during the construction season. He wondered if the
timeframe was shortened or extended past 45 days if it
could impact projects.
Ms. Lucky believed it was the reason the 45-day waiting
period could be shortened by a positive approval vote by
LBA. For example, if the money came in and LBA had a
meeting where the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) testified there would be a problem with a
project if the funds were not received in 15 days, LBA
could approve the RPL and the funds would be available
immediately.
Co-Chair Neuman believed the option was a wonderful
opportunity.
Co-Chair Thompson added that the option could also help
avoid missing an entire construction season.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the problem may have
arisen during consideration of a program in the previous
year. He asked for verification that the bill had nothing
to do with Medicaid and it was not the sponsor's intent to
affect the Medicaid expansion lawsuit in any way.
Ms. Lucky answered in the affirmative. She shared that the
bill had come about because it exposed a loophole in the
process, by which if the legislature had the power to
appropriate it should be within its power to limit
additional monies. The bill did not have a retroactive date
and she believed if a retroactive effective date was
included it would have no impact on previous RPLs because
the specific language had not been included in the budget
that would be required by the process. However, it was an
example of a time that the legislature had in full session
found an appropriation it did not want to add money to, but
there was no process by which it could prohibit using the
process. The bill would also have no effect on the
governor's ability to call the legislature back into
session to have the full body review additional funds or
any RPL. The bill would only allow the legislature to limit
the process the legislature (had put in place to streamline
the accepting of additional money) for items it approved
of.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised the bill was not about
Medicaid, but was about the legislature making sure it
could use its appropriation authority properly and setting
limits on when the executive branch could or could not seek
to use the legislature's appropriation authority.
1:45:12 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if the governor would not
have been able to do Medicaid expansion if the bill had
been law during that time.
Ms. Lucky deferred the question to Legislative Legal
Services. She remarked that the example of the Medicaid
expansion was so complex related to mandatory versus non-
mandatory and how a supreme court case impacted the issue.
She was uncertain how the bill would have impacted Medicaid
expansion because she did not know if it would be possible
to parse out the appropriation item.
Representative Kawasaki looked at page 2, line 3 of the
legislation related to the 45-day period provision. He
asked for verification the 45-day period language referred
to the original timeframe and did not include an additional
45 days. Ms. Lucky answered in the affirmative. She
elaborated the sponsor had asked for a clarification on
what Legislative Legal Services believed was the current
practice. The language "until the 45-day period has
elapsed" referred to the initial timeline.
Representative Gattis discussed that there was a 90-day
session, in which the legislature could appropriate money.
Outside of the session, the option allowed LBA to conduct
business. She wondered how other states with biennial
legislative sessions conducted business outside of session.
Ms. Lucky answered that she had not researched other
states. She would get back to the committee.
Representative Gara did not want Ms. Lucky to research 49
other states. He referred to Ms. Lucky's earlier testimony
that the bill did not address something because it was
unconstitutional. He asked for detail.
Ms. Lucky deferred to Legislative Legal Services for
detail. She explained there had been some questions about
why the state could not allow LBA to reject an RPL, which
was the process she had been referring to. She explained it
was seen as an unconstitutional delegation of powers.
Currently, the executive branch was notified of the
additional money and was allowed to use the money 45 days
after notifying LBA. People had asked why LBA only had a
recommendation option. She believed that allowing LBA to
reject the funding would be an unconstitutional delegation
of powers.
1:49:23 PM
Representative Gara asked if it was because the action
would be seen as doing something the legislature as a whole
should do. Ms. Lucky answered in the affirmative.
Representative Guttenberg asked how many times the governor
had requested an RPL in the LBA process. He stated it would
be for capital projects and other. He remarked that LBA met
a limited number of times per year. He wondered how many
times the committee met on a policy substantive issue
versus a capital project or other.
Ms. Lucky deferred to David Teal (director of the
Legislative Finance Division). She detailed there had been
16 RPLs (one RPL had been submitted twice) in the past two
fiscal years. She believed there had been hundreds of RPLs
during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funding years. As money had come in it had been for
university projects and many various things. She elaborated
that the process was used widely for many different things.
Generally the RPLs were just accepted because they related
to items that had already been approved by the legislature
- it merely meant opting to accept additional funds. Her
review had shown a few capital projects that had been
deferred to the next capital budget, which LBA had
determined would be better considered by the full
legislature. Since the process had been in place in the
1970s there had been seven times the governor had elected
to spend the funds after the 45-day period had expired
(where LBA had not agreed with using the funds). She
believed the governor's decision to go forward with
Medicaid expansion was the first time where a policy call
was made via an RPL.
Representative Guttenberg asked when the seven times had
occurred [when the governor had elected to spend the funds
after the 45-day period had expired where LBA had disagreed
with the use of the funds].
Ms. Lucky answered that the seven instances had occurred
since 1979. The specific items occurred in the early 1990s
and the last was in 1998.
1:53:07 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the legality of the
rejection of an RPL. He asked if the legislature currently
had the authority to reject an RPL outright.
MEGAN WALLACE, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), replied in the negative. She detailed that
LBA could advise the governor it did not approve the RPL,
but it did not have authority to explicitly reject or
prevent the expenditure after the 45-day period elapsed.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the language "Unless
expressly prohibited by the language of the appropriation"
on line 3 [page 1]. He asked if the language would allow
LBA to reject an RPL.
Ms. Wallace answered in the negative. She explained the
language would allow the legislature in an appropriation
bill (e.g. the operating budget) to insert language
underneath an appropriation or allocation stating the RPL
process was not to be used to increase the amount of the
specific appropriation.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the governor would have
been prevented from accepting the Medicaid expansion RPL if
law had been enacted before the preceding year.
Ms. Wallace answered that the question was complex. She
elaborated even if the legislature were able to state that
an appropriation item could not be increased through the
RPL process, the general prohibition against changing
substantive law in an appropriation bill would still be
intact. If the bill had been law at the time and the budget
included language specifying the appropriation item could
not be increased through the RPL process or under AS
37.07.080(h), it would have merely prevented the governor
from accepting additional Medicaid funds through the
particular process. However, it would not have impacted the
substantive legality of whether expansion was permitted or
prohibited. The state's Medicaid statutes included
provisions about what happened if Medicaid was not fully
funded. She believed if the situation had occurred and the
legislature had not accepted the additional federal funds
necessary to implement Medicaid expansion, services would
have needed to be prorated under the substantive Medicaid
provisions or the governor hypothetically could have
submitted a supplemental budget or called a special session
asking for the legislature to approve the funds. The bill
would just prohibit taking the additional federal receipts
as they came available.
1:56:55 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if there was another way
the governor could add money to a program if the bill
allowed the legislature to include language in the budget
preventing the governor from using the RPL process to add
money to a program.
Ms. Wallace replied that the bill would not prohibit the
governor from using the process; it would only prohibit use
of the RPL process under specific appropriations as
requested or noted by the legislature. The governor would
still have the ability to introduce a supplemental
appropriation or separate appropriation bill asking the
legislature to approve the increase.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that it meant during the
interim there would be no way for the governor to increase
the funds appropriated to a program until the next
legislature came in and a supplemental budget could be
submitted. He asked if the request could be submitted
through Legislative Council or another avenue through LBA.
Ms. Wallace agreed that if the legislature expressly
prohibited the use of the AS 37.07.080(h) process there
would be no other avenue for the governor to accept
appropriations until the legislature went back into session
and approved a supplemental or some other substantive
legislative action was taken.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the action would have to
be affirmative. He returned to the topic of Medicaid
expansion. He asked for verification that Governor Bill
Walker could not have expanded Medicaid until an
appropriation was approved by the next legislature
(supplemental or otherwise) if he had not had the ability
to use the RPL to expand Medicaid. He wondered if it would
have resulted in a new Medicaid formula.
Ms. Wallace believed that if Medicaid had been expanded,
but there was a prohibition of receiving additional federal
receipts as they became available under the RPL process and
the legislature did not approve the receipt of the
additional funds, the proration statutes would take effect.
She explained the Medicaid statutes did not differentiate
between the expansion population and the required
categories; therefore, all Medicaid recipients would have
seen their services prorated per that statute.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the seven times [the
governor had elected to spend the funds after the 45-day
period had expired where LBA had disagreed with the use of
the funds] and asked how many times the issue had been a
significant policy change.
Ms. Wallace answered that she had not looked into the issue
recently, but in her research over the summer she had
determined that the governor had only moved forward in a
couple of instances after LBA rejected the funding. She did
not know whether the instances involved a substantial
policy change.
2:01:29 PM
Representative Gara believed the Medicaid funds coming into
the state were not differentiated between expansion and
non-expansion funding. He provided a hypothetical scenario
in which the state's population spiked and the state
qualified for additional federal Medicaid funds. He asked
for verification that if the bill passed and the budget
included language specifying the legislature could not
accept additional Medicaid receipts, the state would be
prevented from accepting funds during the interim and
individual's services would be prorated down.
Ms. Wallace replied that he was generally correct. She
referenced AS 47.07.020(a), which required Medicaid
coverage for individuals under federal law. She explained
that because the particular provision did not differentiate
between the expansion population and traditional Medicaid
recipients, if the legislature prevented acceptance of
additional federal receipts through the RPL process and
there was insufficient funding to provide services for
required recipients, the proration statutes went into
effect for all of the recipients. For example, the state
would not stop paying for the Medicaid expansion
population. All Medicaid recipients would be impacted by
the proration.
Representative Gara relayed the legislature had always
operated under the assumption that legislative intent
language was constitutionally unenforceable. He asked if
the bill language specifying the legislature could prohibit
the acceptance of funds would be constitutional.
Ms. Wallace replied that generally intent language was
unenforceable. For example, if language had the effect of
amending or changing existing law; however, language was
appropriate in the budget if it explained an item of
appropriation or how an appropriation was to be spent. In
the particular case, if the language stated something like
"this appropriation item may not be increased under
37.07.080(h)" it likely would not be deemed
unconstitutional because it was merely describing the
appropriation. She detailed the substantive change in the
bill would go hand-in-hand with the budgetary language. She
explained the legislature would have the statutory
authority to include the language in the budget; therefore,
the language would not have the effect of amending existing
law. Transversely, it may not work if the legislature tried
to insert the language in the budget without the bill
because it may have the effect of amending existing law.
2:05:56 PM
Ms. Lucky clarified that the RPL process involved two
steps, which was outlined in statute. She explained the
governor did not have the outright authority to accept the
RPLs, the authority was granted annually by the legislature
in the budget. She noted the authority had been granted in
Section 24 of the prior year's budget (included in member's
bill packets). Another option could be for the legislature
could to remove the language from the budget, thereby
choosing not to grant the executive branch the power to use
the RPL process to accept additional funds. She relayed
that limiting the power (granted annually in the budget)
would meet a constitutional challenge.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the legislature would have to
specify it did not want to accept specific funds or whether
it would be sufficient to remove the language giving the
ability to accept RPL funds from an appropriation bill.
Ms. Lucky answered that the RPL process could only be used
for appropriations existing in the budget. She explained
the one particular statutory process was limited to
additional funds for items already residing in the budget.
Co-Chair Neuman explained he had wanted to clarify that the
legislature did not have to specifically state it did not
want to accept funds and that it was already determined the
legislature chose not to accept funds by not including them
in an appropriations bill.
Representative Gara surmised that if the bill passed it
could somehow prohibit a category of federal money the
legislature did not intend to prohibit. He reasoned it
would mean waiting until session or addressing the item in
a special session. For example, he believed the governor
would have to call a special session to consider accepting
funding if $50 million in federal funds coming in during
the interim fell within the definition of something the
legislature chose to block in an appropriations budget.
Ms. Lucky replied in the affirmative.
2:10:00 PM
Representative Guttenberg referred to an excerpt from HB 72
in members' packets [Section 24, page 80, lines 19 through
27] related to federal receipts; designated program
receipts; and specific programs including the University,
Exxon Valdez oil spill trust receipts, and the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (copy on file). He wondered
how much more detail would be needed if to prevent
something specific from going through the RPL process. He
wondered if it would require listing all of the programs in
the budget or just specific programs the legislature chose
to prohibit receiving additional federal funds.
Ms. Wallace responded that Section 24 was a general
allowance of federal receipts or other program receipts
received during the interim. The specific section served as
the appropriation by the legislature for conditioned on
compliance with the RPL process with no restriction. She
elaborated that if it was the legislature's intent to
prohibit the RPL process to be used from increasing an
appropriation item, language would either need to be
inserted under the specific appropriation (whether in the
numbers or language sections) expressly saying the
appropriation may not be increased through the process
under AS 37.07.080(h). Alternatively, an explicit reference
to an exclusion could be included in Section 24, which
would likely be sufficient to prohibit the increase. Some
kind of express prohibition would be necessary, otherwise
the item would serve as authority to go ahead and increase
an existing appropriation based on the receipt of
additional federal or other program receipts.
Representative Guttenberg observed that Section 24 looked
like a denial of the state's ability to expand Medicaid. He
wondered how it was different.
Ms. Wallace answered that Section 24, subsection (b) from
the FY 16 operating budget was not standard language; it
was one-time-only language. The specific language had the
effect of amending existing law under a complicated legal
analysis as to whether Medicaid expansion recipients fell
under the required category under substantive law. She
elaborated the subsection changed the way the state's
substantive Medicaid provisions were interpreted.
2:13:47 PM
Representative Gara provided a scenario where the bill
passed and the legislature inserted language [in an
appropriation bill] prohibiting the state from accepting
any RPL funds during the interim for Medicaid expansion.
However, he understood that Medicaid expansion and
[original] Medicaid funds were not divisible and were
treated as general Medicaid funds. He wondered if the
scenario meant the legislature would be prohibiting all
additional Medicaid funds from coming in during the
interim.
Ms. Wallace replied that if there was some prohibition
against receiving additional Medicaid receipts as they
became available and the funds were needed to fully fund
Medicaid, the governor would either have to submit a
supplemental appropriation request or another appropriation
bill asking the legislature to approve the receipt of
funds. If that did not occur the proration would kick in
and the services for recipients would be impacted.
Representative Gara clarified that if the legislature tried
to ban the acceptance of Medicaid expansion funds during
the interim, the action would also ban the acceptance of
additional Medicaid funds even for the non-expansion
Medicaid recipients.
Ms. Wallace answered in the affirmative. She specified
there was currently no differentiation between Medicaid
funds for the expansion population or traditional Medicaid
recipients.
Representative Gattis clarified that she could research the
other states. She did not intend Ms. Lucky to do the work.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the bill was
not intended to address Medicaid expansion and pertained to
any other revised program language.
Ms. Lucky agreed. She detailed the legislation basically
"shoring up" a rules based system where the legislature had
the power to appropriate and to appropriate additional
unknown funds via Section 24. The bill was a way to limit
the appropriation made in the budget bill with a vote of
the full legislature. The bill did not specifically deal
with Medicaid funds. She furthered that based on the nature
of the Medicaid appropriation it was unclear whether the
process would have affected that ability other than
affecting the ability to receive funds above and beyond
what the legislature had put into the budget. She believed
the legislature could choose to account for the amount of
federal money it was comfortable with spending in the
budget process; therefore, additional receipt authority
would not be needed regardless of the timeframe of the
incoming funds. She deferred to Mr. Teal for further
detail.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to hypothetical statements made
during the meeting. He asked about the entire universe of
other federal programs the bill may apply to. He wondered
if there were any limitations.
2:18:56 PM
Ms. Lucky deferred the question to Mr. Teal.
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that any allocation and program using federal
receipts would be eligible for the review. He referenced
Section 24 and relayed the provision was not limited to
federal receipts; it included Exxon Valdez [oil spill trust
receipts], University receipts, the Alaska Marine Highway
System fund, and other. He stated that out of the seven
times the 45-day rule had been used [when the governor had
elected to spend the funds after the 45-day period had
expired where LBA had disagreed with the use of the funds],
about half were Exxon Valdez related RPLs. He noted that
issues came and went, and he believed the Exxon Valdez
issue was one of the past. He clarified the bill applied to
any program that used any of the receipt types listed in
Section 24 [of the FY 16 budget bill] or similar language
appearing in other budget years.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the bill was
not intended to impact Medicaid.
Mr. Teal did not believe it could be because Medicaid had
already been expanded. He specified the program could not
be differentiated between the expanded population and pre-
expansion population. He did not disagree with any
statements made by Ms. Lucky and Ms. Wallace. He observed
there was perhaps still confusion about exactly what the
bill meant. He believed the intent was clear that the RPL
process would not be available if an appropriation bill
passed by the full legislature specified that the
legislature could not use the RPL process through LBA. He
explained the legislature could not "do that as is done in
[Section] 24(b) because that's trying to use an
appropriation bill to change substantive law." Once
substantive law was changed the appropriation bill could
take that action.
2:22:10 PM
Representative Gara pointed to the Section 24 excerpt from
HB 72 in members' packets [page 80, lines 19 through 27].
He provided a scenario where excess federal funds came in
for an item in the budget. He thought Section 24 limited
permissible funds to certain areas (i.e. money related to
Exxon Valdez, AHFC, AMHS, and other), but under current law
he thought any additional funds related to an appropriation
were allowable and accepted through the RPL statutes. He
asked about the purpose of listing the examples in Section
24.
Mr. Teal answered that the purpose was to limit the fund
sources that could be approved via RPL. For example, until
about 2000, General Fund (GF) program receipts had been
listed in the budget bill section as an allowable fund
source. He detailed the specific fund source had been
removed because during the five-year plan of the late 1990s
when there had been an effort to reduce GF spending, the
legislature had discovered that executive branch agencies
would cut their GF receipts and count it as a GF budget
reduction to meet their target and the funds were
subsequently restored in LBA. He furthered that agencies
could no longer bring a request for additional GF program
receipt authority to LBA for approval.
Mr. Teal relayed the fund sources listed were important;
any fund sources not listed were not a valid RPL. He
referred to a question from Co-Chair Neuman about whether
leaving an item out of the budget indicated an RPL was not
allowed. He believed the answer in relation to the
operating budget was no. He elaborated the operating budget
was broad and an RPL did not have to be something that was
addressed in the operating budget already. The new
program/money merely had to fall under the legislature's
general responsibilities in order to qualify for the RPL
process. However, in the capital budget, a capital project
approved by the legislature could be increased, but if
there was no existing capital project the RPL process could
not be used because the project had not been approved by
the full legislature. He summarized that capital and
operating RPLs differed, which was the reason for the RPL
language in both the capital and operating budgets.
2:25:57 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted he had been on LBA one time.
He thought Mr. Teal had communicated that absent of an
appropriation within the budget, the RPL process was still
the way for LBA to accept an appropriation.
Mr. Teal responded in the affirmative. He stated it was not
possible to come in with a brand new capital project. He
provided an example of money coming in from a foundation
wanting to give the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) funding for a school program. He
expounded the money was not currently in the budget, but
fell under the general responsibilities of DEED; therefore,
the money could be accepted even though there was no
existing program. He reiterated that the RPL process for
capital versus operating budgets differed; related to the
operating budget it was possible to come in with an RPL
without an existing program in the operating budget.
Representative Kawasaki remarked that HB 222 specifically
addressed an increase of an appropriation and did not
mention a new appropriation. He wondered if it appeared
somewhere else.
Mr. Teal answered that an increase of an appropriation
merely meant an increase could be from zero to $10,000; it
did not necessarily mean existing funds were necessary.
Representative Kawasaki referred to statements by President
Barak Obama related to early education and pre-K. He noted
the programs were not a current part of Alaska's budget. He
provided a scenario where federal funds were allocated to
states and Alaska received the funds. He wondered if the
state would accept the funds through the RPL process.
Mr. Teal replied that it was a perfect example of the
ability to accept an operating RPL for federal receipts.
HB 222 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:29:19 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB222 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Background Information.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 226 Background.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB 226 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB 226 Support Letters.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB222 NEW FN LEG 3-16-16.pdf |
HFIN 3/17/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |