Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/01/2004 05:06 PM Senate 283
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 283-APPROP:CAPITAL/SUPPLEMENTAL/REAPPROP/CBR
CO-CHAIR GARY WILKEN called the Conference Committee on SB
283 to order. Present were Senators Therriault, Hoffman and
Wilken and Representatives Williams, Kott, and Joule. He
announced that Senator Therriault would review the limited
conference committee report and then present a proposal for
consideration. The committee will then take up any other
issues members would like to address.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT informed members that according to
the report received from the first conference committee,
those members were able to agree on certain items but were
unable to agree on the contingency language, the budget
reserve votes and miscellaneous appropriations in Section
4. The first conference committee did not have the power to
consider an alternate list of projects, which the new
conference committee can. He distributed to members a
document describing some of the discussions among the
Senate members and pointed out that Senate members have not
agreed upon that list at this time.
With regard to replacing the discretionary list of
miscellaneous appropriations, SENATOR THERRIAULT explained
that it contains $7.8 million to go down the Dept of Ed's
major maintenance list through project 16. It includes
$1,000,000 for the People's Learning Center, phase I, which
was in the Governor's capital budget proposal last year. It
also contains money for the Dillingham school roof repairs,
as Dillingham is unable to sell bonds or avail itself of
the major maintenance list. The House and Senate proposals
differ in their amounts for the Foundation Formula. The
House number is $84,500,000, while the Senate number is
$82,000,000. The new Senate proposal remains at $82,000,000
and the extra $2,500,000 will be used to cover the
additional costs.
Regarding the transition funding, SENATOR THERRIAULT noted
that Senator Hoffman brought to members' attention that the
transition floor would cost about $3.6 to hold harmless.
The Senate Majority has countered with a proposal to just
hold those dollars that are being steered into the formula
for PERS/TRS and take the position that every district in
the state should get the full benefit of every one of those
dollars.
SENATOR THERRIAULT further explained:
...The PERS/TRS dollars, which is about 40 to 45
percent of the money that's being run into the
formula, if you hold that harmless and do not use
any of that money for erosion of the transition
floor, that would cost a little over $1.4 million
and so we have added that in here because we know
that is important to a lot of rural districts.
And then we have the Shishmaref erosion problem,
we currently have a zero there, but we've got the
little side box (pointing to the document
distributed to the members), if you look at the
side box we're proposing that the $420,000 from
[reappropriations] be done - be quickly done in
this bill. That gathers up matches and Corps of
Engineers money, there's some BIA money that's
currently in place. Right now we think with the
[reappropriation], we can get up to $2.8 million
for the Shishmaref problem. We know that that is
not the entire fix so we're continuing to review
that proposal.
So that brings us up to a total - a little lower
than $11 million so that's where we are right
now. We still think there's a little bit of
latitude to shift around within these numbers but
we wanted to just put these on the table to let
you know where we are in some preliminary
discussions on the Senate side.
We do have a run here for the transition floor -
the color-coded sheet. If you look at the third
column from the right, that shows you what this
$1.4 would mean to individual districts. Up at
the top, Alaska Gateway would benefit from this
$1.477 million. The largest benefit to any
particular district is Lower Kuskokwim. They've
still got quite a bit of transition floor so it
would benefit their district $671,000. So you can
look to see if you've got particular [indisc.]
that are impacted by that.
In addition, I just wanted to touch on another
component of the [SB] 283 package and that is
that over the years when we were still funding
municipal matching grants - the Municipal
Matching Grants Program, if you were a small
district and were trying to save up money for a
large project, you could basically take your
$25,000 minimum appropriation each year and sort
of set it into the bank and that was held in an
account in the general fund for unincorporated
communities and municipalities. When the reverse
sweep did not take place, all those sub accounts
were swept into the general fund - or into the
CBR and so my staff has been tracking that for
the past couple of months. It's a substantial
amount of money - a little bit more than $2
million. In Senator Olson's district it's about
$400,000, Senator Lincoln's district is the
largest amount spread throughout a lot of her
unincorporated communities, $760,000, but we do
have a breakdown of the communities that would be
impacted by that and so the reverse sweep was
part of the original bill sent over from the
Senate. So, I just wanted to make sure that your
members on the House side are aware that that
reverse sweep component does have this aspect to
it to.
So, I just mainly wanted to put this on the table
to let you know, again, some preliminary
discussions that have taken place on the Senate
side so you have a chance to look over these
numbers and then you have some discussion right
now or just set the next meeting so you have time
to go back to your respective caucuses to discuss
these numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE affirmed the Shishmaref numbers are
correct and said he is glad to see the reappropriation
number in the proposal. He indicated that the BIA money has
been available for a while. The Corps of Engineers funds
came up within this last year and money to match it was
found. He maintained:
I just want to make sure that what doesn't get
lost in this is the $3.4 is taken into account in
all of that. That just goes to magnify the
problem the community is facing. But these
numbers are pretty hard to [indisc.].
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he originally thought the $3.4 was
for the entire project but now understands that [the
project] is broken down into three components. The two
components [in the proposal] will address the buildings at
most risk. He continued:
And the $3.4, it seems like there's still a bit
of distance there before you get up to the
lagoons and the tannery, which I think is on the
southern part of the island. A little bit of
confusion yet while I'm trying to track down some
information. It's my understanding that it's
expected that this is not a permanent fix, that
you are facing the elements there and so I'm just
trying to get some information that if the $3.4
was not all secure and there's still some erosion
down on that southern end of the island, if this
is a ten-year fix, can we expect that that
portion would erode up to buildings within that
ten years or beyond that ten years or we just
don't know?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE acknowledged that Senator Therriault's
questions were good ones and affirmed that the fix [in this
proposal] is a temporary one. He added that it would be a
good time to talk to some hydrologists and engineers about
the waterworks and get some of that information. He thought
those issues can be addressed when the committee next
meets.
CO-CHAIR WILKEN suggested including the aerial map as part
of the record to show everyone where the money will be
used.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS asked if the PERS/TRS [funds] will have
to be fixed each year by the legislature.
CO-CHAIR WILKEN said he would think the state is going to
be facing the PERS/TRS problem for five or six years. He
explained that this proposal would establish the precedent
that it will be addressed every year. He added:
What we're saying, I think, by doing this the
first year of this five or six-year period 'til
we get up to the 35 percent contribution rate
that we're saying that at least it's our
expectation that we would fund the PERS and TRS
as we have here at 100 percent and not at the 60
percent so that number would change but I think
our intent, and the policy call we're making
here, would carry on each year, although each
year it would be subject to the legislature's
appropriation.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS asked if any piece of legislation will
have to be amended to do this.
CO-CHAIR WILKEN said no, it is his understanding it would
be a grant back to the schools. The foundation formula
would remain the same, as would the student dollar. This
loss would be plugged back in as a grant.
SENATOR HOFFMAN suggested eliminating the rolling floor
through legislation to save $1.4 million.
SENATOR THERRIAULT responded:
To answer the question directly, this is just a
one year - you're not having the impact with this
year's appropriation and of course [Legislative]
Budget and Audit has approved a contract to go
back to the cost factor study and make some
adjustments to that so the legislature may be
getting to the point where they have the
information to go in and review and make,
perhaps, a complete modification to the
foundation formula that would take care of the
floor. The next legislature will hopefully have
that cleaned up report and whether they make the
policy call next year to completely rewrite the
formula that would take care of that, that's a
possibility certainly.
CO-CHAIR WILKEN repeated that the major maintenance would
cover projects 1 through 16. The Dillingham school roof
repair funds are to cover two schools. The transition
funding is the result of the committee's work but Senate
members asked Mr. Jeans at the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) to do a run and the numbers are
identical.
There being no further questions, CO-CHAIR WILKEN announced
the committee would meet again on Monday at a time to be
arranged. He then adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|