Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
06/11/2017 02:00 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 | |
| SB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 23(FIN) am
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; amending
appropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
2:09:19 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-GS1854\T.5
(Martin, 6/10/17) [Due to amendment length, it is not
included in minutes. See copy on file for detail].
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, explained
Amendment 1 accomplished a few goals. One was to reduce the
appropriation to Knik Arm from $5 million to $2.5 million
and the second would do the same for the Juneau Access
project, with half going to Northern Lynn Canal
transportation improvements. The third goal was to correct
two drafting errors, including a double appropriation to
the Alaska class ferry. He detailed when the version of the
bill originally contained the appropriation in both the
language and the numbers sections. This amendment used the
amount not used for Knik Arm to eliminate the double
appropriation and put it into the Kivalina School. The draw
from Knik Arm to Kivalina School was reduced to $500,000.
The remainder of the $2 million in the Knik Arm project
went to federal highway match and to correct another draft
error on marine overhaul on page 7 of the legislation. The
intent in the committee substitute was to restore the
governor's numbers and there were two components to that, a
fund source change and a $1 million reversal of a
decrement. The draft of the bill contained a fund source
change but did not have the reversal of the decrement, so
$1 million of the Knik Arm would go towards the item.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a summary of the main difference
between the House and Senate versions.
Mr. Labolle explained for the Knik Arm, the House
originally took $5 million, and Senate took zero. The House
was now taking $2.5 million. The original of the House
version appropriated the entirety of the Juneau Access
funds to other Southeast projects and the Senate did not
appropriate any of them. The amendment split it in half.
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that there was a 50/50 split in
the amendment.
2:13:11 PM
Representative Pruitt had received his answer.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Neuman OBJECTED. He thought the Knik Arm
crossing was an important project for life, health, and
safety.
Vice-Chair Gara found the Knik Arm project unaffordable.
Representative Pruitt thanked the chair for his efforts;
however, he was in opposition to the amendment.
2:15:14 PM
Representative Tilton thanked the chair for looking at the
issue to restore some funds to the Knik Arm crossing. The
project was extremely important to the community
Representative Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson, Neuman
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
2:16:49 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2 (copy
on file).
Section 1, Page 8, line 15
DELETE: $35,100,000
INSERT: $34,100,000
Section 1, Page 8, line 18
DELETE: $22,900,000
INSERT: $23,900,000
Explanation:
Amendment 1 provided an additional $1,000,000 for
state match, therefore the Federal Aid Highway State
Match Appropriation can be reduced and the
accompanying explanatory language adjusted.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Labolle explained Amendment 2 cleaned up Amendment 1,
which left the item overfunded by $1 million.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, There being NO further
OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.2:17:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 30-GS1854\T.10
(Wallace/Martin, 6/10/17).
Page 76, line 28:
Delete "(a)"
Page 76, line 31, through page 77, line 1:
Delete all material.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Labolle explained Amendment 4 restores money from the
Public Education Fund to the Alaska Gasline Project.
Representative Pruitt was opposed to the amendment. He felt
the project had made positive gains, and he felt the funds
allocated did not harm its opportunity to go forward, so he
preferred to keep the funds in the Public Education Fund.
Representative Wilson believed it was difficult to speak to
Amendment 4 without speaking to three other amendments. She
believed supporting education was the right way to go. She
was opposed to the amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara supported the amendment. The operating
budget already fully funded the Base Student Allocation
(BSA).
Representative Neuman was opposed to the amendment. He felt
it was very important to realize that many people in the
state had lost faith in the gas pipeline. He stated he was
not sure the gas price made that project economical, but
the state did need other funding sources. He felt putting
the money towards education was very important.
Co-Chair Seaton supported the amendment. He spoke to the
aim to establish further revenue sources in the state.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Neuman, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
2:23:21 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 30-GS1854\T.9
(Wallace/Martin, 6/10/17); Amendment 5, 30-GS1854\T.8
(Wallace/Martin, 6/10/17); and Amendment 6, 30-GS1854\T.7
(Wallace/Martin, 6/10/17) (copy on file):
Amendment 3
Page 76, lines 25-27:
Delete all material.
Page 80, line 5:
Delete "and (m)-(o)"
Insert "(m), and (n)"
Page 80, line 16:
Delete "35(l)-(o)"
Insert "35(l)-(n)"
Page 80, lines 17-18:
Delete "35(l)-(o)"
Insert "35(l)-(n)"
Amendment 5
Page 58, lines 12-15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 80, line 5:
Delete "34, 35(a), (b), (d)-(k), and (m)-(o), and
40"
Insert "33 34(a), (b), (d)-(k), and (m)-
(o), and 39"
Page 80, line 7:
Delete "35(c), and 36"
Insert "34(c), and 35"
Page 80, line 11:
Delete "34(b), and 43(b)"
Insert "33(b), and 42(b)"
Page 80, line 12:
Delete "34(b), and 43(b)"
Insert "33(b), and 42(b)"
Page 80, line 14:
Delete "35(a)-(k), and 38-40"
Insert "34(a)-(k), and 37-39"
Page 80, line 15:
Delete "35(a)-(k), and 38-40"
Insert "34(a)-(k), and 37-39"
Page 80, line 16:
Delete "33, 34(a), 35(1)-(o), 36, 37, 41, and
43(a)"
Insert "33(a), 34(l)-(o), 35, 36, 40, and 42(a)"
Page 80, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "33, 34(a), 35(1)-(o), 36, 37, 41, and
43(a)"
Insert "33(a). 34(l)-(o), 35, 36, 40, and 42(a)"
Page 80, line 19:
Delete "sec. 34(a)"
Insert "sec. 33(a)"
Page 80, line 22:
Delete "sec. 34(b)"
Insert "sec. 33(b)"
Page 80, line 25:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 80, line 28:
Delete "34(b), 42, and 43(b)"
Insert "33(b), 41, and 42(b)"
Page 80, line 30:
Delete "35(a)-(k), and 38-40"
Insert "34(a)-(k), and 37-39"
Page 80, line 3l:
Delete "sees. 44 and 45"
Insert "sees. 43 and 44"
Amendment 6
Page 57, lines 20-23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 80, line 5:
Delete "32(a), 34, 35(a), (b), (d)-(k), and (m)-
(o), and 40"
Insert "31(a), 33, 34(a), (b), (d)-(k), and (m)-
(o), and 39"
Page 80, line 7:
Delete "35(c), and 36"
Insert "34(c), and 35"
Page 80, line 11:
Delete "34(b), and 43(b)"
Insert "33(b), and 42(b)"
Page 80, line 12:
Delete "34(b), and 43(b)"
Insert "33(b), and 42(b)"
Page 80, line 14:
Delete "secs. 25-30, 32, 35(a)-(k), and 38-40"
Insert "secs. 25-31, 34(a)-(k), and 37-39"
Page 80, line 15:
Delete "secs. 25-30, 32, 35(a)-(k), and 38-40"
Insert "sees. 25-31, 34(a)-(k), and 37-39"
Page 80, line 16:
Delete "31, 33, 34(a), 35(l)-(o), 36, 37, 41, and
43(a)"
Insert "32, 33(a), 34(l)-(o), 35, 36, 40, and
42(a)"
Page 80, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "31, 33, 34(a), 35(l)-(o), 36, 37, 41, and
43(a) and (c)"
Insert "32, 33(a), 34(l)-(o), 35, 36, 40, and
42(a) and (c)"
Page 80, line l9:
Delete "sec. 34(a)"
Insert "sec. 33(a)"
Page 80, line 22:
Delete "sec. 34(b)"
Insert "sec. 33(b)"
Page 80, line 25:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 80, line 28:
Delete "34(b), 42, and 43(b)"
Insert "33(b), 41, and 42(b)"
Page 80, line 30:
Delete "Sections 25-30, 32, 35(a)-(k), and 38-40"
Insert "Sections 25-31, 34(a)-(k), and 37-39"
Page 80, line 31:
Delete "secs. 44 and 45"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Labolle explained the amendments. The items were those
in Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL),
Department of Public Safety (DPS), and Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT), and were
removed with the funds remaining within the AKLNG project.
Representative Wilson communicated that she would withdraw
her objection. She did not want to start putting operating
budget funds into the capital budget. She spoke about 20
positions that had not been filled and a graduating class
of 5 in the Alaska State Troopers. She WITHDREW her
OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He commented on
the amendments. He spoke to a shortage of troopers in
Alaska. He had concerns about one-time allocations for
those positions. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:26:24 PM
Representative Neuman OBJECTED. He MAINTAINED his
OBJECTION. He believed the state needed to fund its
troopers.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
Amendments 3, 5, and 6.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Wilson, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Neuman, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendments 3, 5, and 6 were ADOPTED.
2:27:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 30-GS1854\T.11
(Wallace/Martin, 6/10/17) (copy on file):
Page 51, line 14, following "CAPITALIZATION.":
Insert "(a)"
Page l, following line 15:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The sum of $40,000,000 is appropriated from the
budget reserve fund (AS 37.05.540) to the oil and gas
tax credit fund (AS 43.55.028) to pay outstanding tax
credit liabilities."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
2:28:04 PM
AT EASE
2:28:23 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Labolle explained Amendment 7 would restore $40 million
of the $288 million of the oil and gas credit payments in
the Senate version of the bill.
Representative Wilson asked if it was the intent to restore
the statutory amount to be paid on the credits.
Mr. Labolle answered that the House version of the
operating budget and the amendment would bring the total to
the statutory amount.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion. He thought
it would be better to go above the statutory limit. He
believed maintaining the statutory limit would harm future
negotiations with banks. He recognized that foreclosure had
the potential to leave banks with leases in their hands,
which would be a unique situation. He trusted that the
conversation was not over in the current year. He wanted to
hold to the deal that Alaska made with oil companies. He
WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:31:54 PM
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that credits had three mechanisms
for utilization. The first mechanism was as production tax
credits that could be used to offset future production,
they could be sold to other companies with tax liabilities,
or, if available, the state would buy the credits back. The
utilization was optional and not a cash layout obligation.
He wanted the public to understand that the state was not
obligated to pay cash for the credits.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that it was obvious there were
competing needs in the state, but without a fiscal plan it
was not possible to fund everything. He believed the
amendment was appropriate. He spoke to the Senate's
proposal of $288 million for payments while making cuts to
education.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 7 was ADOPTED.
2:34:49 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 8 (copy
on file):
Agency:
Natural Resources
Project:
Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources (ASTAR)
Funding Source:
UGF
Explanation:
The reappropriation of the entire balance of the
Reservoir Studies for North Slope and Cook Inlet
capital project will result in a FY2018 Supplemental
request for work that is scheduled. Retaining $500,000
in this capital appropriation would avoid a
supplemental and allow the department to continue
reservoir modeling efforts which are used for
decisions related to equity redeterminations for state
royalty revenue.
Page 57, line 31
Delete "$7,803,482"
Insert "$7,303,482"
Page 58, lines 7 & 8
Delete "estimated balance of $3,297,753"
Insert "not to exceed $2,797,753"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster noted the amendment had been brought
forward by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He
asked the department to address the amendment.
ED KING, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, explained that the amendment would leave
$500,000 in the fund that was being reappriopriated in the
current version of the bill to the ASTAR project. Those
funds were to pay for licenses in the department's Resource
Evaluation section to do things like redeterminations and
other day-to-day operations. The department had not planned
to pay for the expenses out of its operating budget because
it had funds in the reservoir account. Removing monies from
that fund would leave the department without the ability to
pay for the software for that study. The department would
include the fees in the operating budget in the future.
2:36:54 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the state was paying for
the items.
Mr. King answered that DNR needed the licenses to stay on
par with the industry for anything related to subsurface
studies. They had no previously needed to pay for them from
the operating budget. There is no longer a mechanism to pay
for them.
Representative Wilson asked how much the studies had cost
the preceding year.
Mr. King answered the cost had been about $300,000 per
year. He detailed this included expertise and consultants.
The funds were needed annually.
Representative Wilson asked what would happen when the
funds disappeared.
Mr. King answered that the department had not planned to
pay for the licenses out of the operating budget in the
current year. Without the reservoir studies, it would need
to include the funds in the operating budget beginning the
next year.
Representative Wilson asked whether making a supplemental
request was normal with DNR.
Mr. King replied that the department had not planned to pay
for the cost in the operating budget in the current year as
they thought they would be included in the capital budget.
Otherwise the department would be forced to ask for a
supplemental request if the funds were not allocated.
2:39:32 PM
Representative Wilson asked what the capital appropriation
had been initially.
Mr. King responded it was a reservoir study appropriated in
2011. The legislature at the time wished to have a deeper
understanding of reservoir characteristics in Cook Inlet.
They were now in the midst of that study and removing the
funds would terminate the exercise.
Representative Wilson commented on the department's
testimony that the supplemental would be used if the funds
were not allocated. She wanted the supplemental to be as
low as possible. She WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Neuman OBJECTED for discussion. He remarked
that the operating budget item was being included in the
capital budget. He asked for the plan in the future.
Mr. King answered if the department did not have the
reservoir studies as a capital budget item, it would need
to be included in the operating budget going forward.
Representative Neuman asked if there was a mechanism in
place for companies working in the area to cover the costs
for the oil and gas permits without a capital expenditure.
2:42:34 PM
Mr. King replied that the particular operations under
discussion were not centered on permitting, but to ensure
the state was receiving the appropriate royalty from
companies. It was not something the industry was asking the
state to do, but was done to protect the state's own
interests.
Representative Neuman asked if the software was a one-time
purchase.
Mr. King replied that the contracts were annual.
Mr. Labolle relayed that the project had been originally
reappropriated in the Senate version of the bill and went
to the federal highway match. The ASTAR project was a
request from DNR so it was deemed appropriate to fund it
together with the DNR funds already in the federal highway
match.
Representative Guttenberg remarked if the project ended,
the state lost information and better understanding of the
reservoirs in Cook Inlet. The value was understanding the
resources in the ground. He asked if the work needed to be
done perpetually.
2:46:05 PM
Mr. King replied that the study would have a termination
date. The software needed to be purchased annually in order
for DNR to verify it was getting the correct royalty share.
He explained there was no end to needing the software, but
there would an end to the study itself.
Representative Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.
2:47:08 PM
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 9,
30-GS1854\R.A.1 (Wallace/Martin, 5/13/17):
Page 7, following line 30:
Insert new material to read:
1t is the intent of the legislature that the new
oceangoing vessel to replace the F/V Tustumena be
constructed by a shipyard facility that produces the
best value and most advantageous proposal to the
state. The commissioner of transportation and public
facilities shall award the contract using a
competitive proposal procurement method unless the
commissioner concludes, in writing, that the use of
the competitive proposal procurement method is not in
the best interests of the state. The Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities shall consult
with the Federal Highway Administration to determine
whether an open and competitive proposal procurement
method can be used."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment contained
intent language. The amendment encouraged the department to
look at existing facilities in the state to build the
vessel.
Representative Wilson asked if there was a problem with the
state's procurement process.
Representative Ortiz replied he was not aware of a problem.
He elaborated that in the past, vessels under construction
had been constructed with federal dollars and ships being
built in ports in Louisiana. He furthered that once the
construction had taken place, there had been problems with
the vessels and cost overruns. The amendment encouraged the
department to look at the possibilities of constructing
vessels in the state.
Representative Wilson appreciated the language, but her
bigger concern was that if procurement did not allow it
currently, there may be an issue with the process. She
asked if the intent language would change the way
procurement was working.
2:50:47 PM
Representative Ortiz deferred to the department.
MIKE VIGUE, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, answered that the
Tustumena was a federal aid project, funded by the Federal
Highway Administration. The typical process when using
federal funds was to go with a low bid. His understanding
was the amendment would ask the commissioner to look at an
innovative procurement methodology which would mean the
department would have to ask the federal agency how to
proceed. He underlined that this was not unprecedented.
Representative Wilson was concerned that the state did not
currently attempt to get the best value for the state. She
surmised that the amendment would direct DOT to go to the
Federal Highway Administration to request an exception to
the lowest bid process.
Mr. Vigue replied in the affirmative.
Representative Guttenberg believed that many times the
lowest cost was not the best value. He asked whether the
commissioner could not make the federal request without the
language in the amendment.
2:54:13 PM
Mr. Vigue answered that the department could still go to
the federal agency and ask them to procure in a different
manner.
Representative Guttenberg surmised the intent language
provided more leverage.
Mr. Vigue indicated this was the case.
Representative Pruitt asked if it would not be simpler to
ask the DOT commissioner to tell the federal government to
build the ships in Ketchikan.
Representative Ortiz replied there were other ship building
facilities outside of Ketchikan. He thought the amendment
spoke for itself.
Representative Pruitt thought the language in the amendment
did not necessarily speak for itself. He asked what "most
advantageous proposal" meant. He believed the amendment
language was vague.
Representative Ortiz appreciated the comment, but stood
with the amendment language as it was.
2:57:09 PM
Representative Neuman supported doing all work the state
could in Alaska; however, he thought the amendment could
present legal issues. He mentioned the open bid process. He
wondered about the restriction for "best value to the
state."
Representative Ortiz replied that the amendment left the
issue up to the commissioner to determine the definition of
"best value to the state." Additionally, the amendment
specified the department "shall consult with the Federal
Highway Administration to determine whether an open and
competitive proposal procurement method can be used." It
was merely intent language and was not legally binding in
any way.
Representative Neuman had been looking for a clearer
explanation on the record about the intent. He was
satisfied with the answer.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 9
was ADOPTED.
3:00:10 PM
AT EASE
3:01:21 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 10, 30-
GS1854\T.3 (Martin, 5/13/17) (copy on file).
3:01:39 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT conceptual
Amendment 11, 30-GS1854\A.9 (Martin, 5/13/17) (copy on
file):
Sec. A. DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS.
The proceeds from the sale of state-owned land in Fox,
Alaska, that was intended for a veterans' cemetery in
Interior Alaska, are appropriated to the Department of
Military and Veterans' Affairs for land purchase,
planning, and construction for a veterans' cemetery in
Interior Alaska.
Sec. B. LAPSE. The appropriation made in sec. A of
this Act is for a capital project and lapses under
AS 37.25.020.
Sec. C. Section A of this Act takes effect July 1,
2017.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Guttenberg explained the amendment related
to a state-authorized veterans' cemetery. He gave
background on the attempts to purchase land for the
project. There was currently another parcel available, and
the amendment said that if the state bought that parcel,
and there was still money for the project, the money would
go to that. There was an estimate of $100,000 for Davidson
Ditch impacts. He stated the money would follow the
project.
Representative Wilson wondered where the money would go
without the intent.
Representative Guttenberg answered it would go nowhere - it
would sit in a fund that could not be used.
Representative Wilson thanked Representative Guttenberg for
his work on trying to locate a piece of property. She
wanted to ensure he would be able to do what he needed to
do.
Representative Guttenberg thanked Representative Wilson. He
explained it was intent language - the money would follow
the project. The other piece of property would be
purchased, which was owned by the Alaska Mental Health
Trust.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure the project would
not be further delayed. She WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 11
was ADOPTED.
3:05:46 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 23(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations.
Representative Neuman OBJECTED for discussion. He objected
to removing funds from the Knik Arm project. He spoke to
the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) and remarked that the federal Department of
Transportation had gone through the numbers and concluded
the total cost would be about $782 million, and there were
cost overrun contingencies. He stated it would not cost the
state anything according to the experts. He believed the
issue was political. He wondered how the state could let
people die on its roads. He stressed that it was a bridge
to a community to address serious road congestion. He spoke
to the project viability. He stated it was not a bridge to
nowhere, but a bridge to the fastest growing area in the
state. He was distraught that politics was taking the lead
over Alaskans lives. He understood that it impacted other
areas in Anchorage.
3:14:01 PM
Representative Pruitt believed some great things had been
done in the capital budget. He thanked the co-chair and
Senate for their work. He agreed with Representative Neuman
on the Knik Arm project. He believed it was ironic that the
state's largest city was out of land. He remarked that the
money was restored to AKLNG and added if the project came
to fruition, it would present the opportunity to bring gas
to the Anchorage/Mat-Su area, leading to value added
investment. He stated one of the largest problems would be
lack of access to the area by the needed workforce. He
spoke to the goal of growth in Alaska. He stressed
substantial savings to the state would occur. He believed
in some cases the budget was a little short-sighted. He
underscored growth in Alaska would require investment. He
understood what the statute said in terms of the
legislature's liability, but there was a secondary
responsibility related to how the international community
would perceive the state in terms of how it fulfilled its
obligations. He shared that constituents had communicated
that their companies would cease to exist if the state no
longer paid for the credits. He wanted to grow Alaska and
send a pro-business message.
3:19:42 PM
Vice-Chair Gara believed the bill represented the most
responsible capital budget the legislature could pass. He
spoke to the need to fix the budget deficit. He recognized
the passion by some for the Knik Arm Bridge; however, he
did not believe the state had the funds. Additionally, the
state did not have the money for a $770 million Juneau
Access road. He agreed the state should fix the portions of
highways that were the least safe, including on the Glenn
Highway.
3:21:44 PM
AT EASE
3:22:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to report the
legislation from committee.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Neuman, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to give the Legislative Finance
Division and Legislative Legal Services the ability to make
technical and conforming adjustments.
There being NO further OBJECTION, HCS CSSB 23(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with five "do pass"
recommendations, five "amend" recommendations, and one "do
not pass" recommendation.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Legislative Legal Services for
their hard work on the bill, Legislative Finance Division,
and his staff.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day. He recessed the meeting [Note: the meeting never
reconvened].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|