Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/18/2021 01:00 PM 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 | |
| HB69 || HB71 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(FIN) am(brf sup maj fld)(efd fld)
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; and making capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, and reappropriations."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71(FIN) am
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making
supplemental appropriations; and providing for an
effective date."
3:52:22 PM
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that the committee would consider
a packet of amendments (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stedman spoke to Amendment 1, which deleted $2
billion on line 4, page 123 of the bill, and would insert
$4 billion. The amendment would move $2 billion in
additional funds from the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA),
which had a rough balance of $17 billion with $5 billion
available for appropriation. The proposed transfer would
take place in a year or longer. He referenced a transfer
that the committee had made a few years previously. The
amendment was sponsored by Co-Chair Stedman, Co-Chair
Bishop, Senator von Imhof, Senator Wilson, Senator Hoffman,
Senator Wielechowski, and Senator Olson.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stedman thanked the members for looking to the
future of Alaskans.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stedman spoke to Amendment 2, which stipulated the
amount necessary for a payment of a Permanent Fund Dividend
(PFD) in the amount of $1,000 and for administrative and
associated costs estimated to be $674,900,000 appropriated
from the General Fund to the dividend fund. He clarified
that there would be several dividend amendments to
consider.
3:55:46 PM
Senator von Imhof thought the amendment presented a
difficult choice. She thought the amount of $674 million
for costs to pay a $1,000 check took almost every dollar
available. She thought the consequences of the expense
signified less money for the economy, and less money for
infrastructure. She thought the cost would bring the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) balance to barely above
$500 million, which she considered was hardly enough to run
daily government. She pondered what would happen if there a
drop in oil prices, a wildfire, or an earthquake - all of
which had happened in the past few years.
Senator von Imhof reminded that the state budget had
borrowed from the CBR 28 times since 1970, and if the
opportunity was not available the state was putting itself
in a fiscal pickle. She acknowledged that the state needed
a PFD and that the committee needed to move the budget, so
she agreed to support the amendment.
Senator Hoffman stated he was on the record supporting a
constitutional dividend and the 50/50 plan [a plan in which
half of the Percent of Market Value draw on the ERA would
go to government, and half would go to pay dividends], but
he thought the decisions (along with rewriting the dividend
formula) should take place prior to a PFD amount greater
than $1,000. He believed that if the legislature funded a
dividend higher than $1,000 such as at the 50/50 Plan
level, the pressure would not be upon the legislature to
rewrite the formula or consider a constitutional amendment.
He believed that there would be pressure from the public to
resolve the issue. He thought in order to proceed, the
dividend should be no greater than $1,000.
Senator Olson acknowledged the sensitivity of the PFD
issue. He commented on the passion people had for the
dividend. He thought there was a balance between not taking
too much money from the ERA and still having enough funds
to run state government. He thought the PFD had been
shorted statutorily. He did not support the amendment.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection.
Senator Olson OBJECTED. He commented that he was only
voting against the amendment because he was in support of a
full statutory dividend.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: von Imhof, Hoffman, Stedman, Bishop
OPPOSED: Wilson, Olson, Wielechowski
The motion The MOTION PASSED (4/3). Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
4:00:43 PM
AT EASE
4:01:20 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to Amendment 3. He considered that the
amendment would be a starting point for a larger discussion
that would happen on the Senate floor. The amendment
proposed for the sum of $1,534,648,008 to be appropriated
from the Alaska Housing Capital Corporation Account to the
dividend fund.
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Wielechowski, Olson
OPPOSED: Hoffman, von Imhof, Bishop, Stedman
The MOTION FAILED (3/4).
4:02:42 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 4. He explained
that the amendment proposed to pay the full statutory
dividend, which he estimated to be about $3,400.
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Olson, Wielechowski, Wilson
OPPOSED: Hoffman, von Imhof, Stedman, Bishop
The MOTION FAILED (3/4).
4:03:38 PM
Co-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
4:04:20 PM
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, spoke to
Amendment 5. He drew attention to attached page 5a of the
amendment, which explained that the amendment was a
technical cleanup to extend the lapse date of the
appropriation to the end of FY 22.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what appropriation the amendment
referred to.
Mr. Ecklund explained that the amendment referenced a
Department of Health and Social Services appropriation for
a variety of programs with an FY 21 lapse date of June 30,
2021. The amendment proposed to extend the lapse date until
FY 22.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:05:25 PM
Co-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Bishop spoke to Amendment 6, a technical cleanup
which had been requested by the Department of Natural
Resources under the AS 03.05.076. The amendment proposed to
appropriate the unexpended and unobligated balance of
registration endorsement fees, fines, and penalties
collected for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, for
appropriation to the Hemp Pilot Project Program.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:06:26 PM
Senator von Imhof MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator von Imhof spoke to Amendment 7. She explained that
federal law required for states with Medicaid programs to
make Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH)
payments to qualifying hospitals. She relayed that the
amendment would provide funding to qualifying hospitals
that served a large number of uninsured individuals using
Medicaid. The amendment would provide funding for hospitals
in locations such as Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks, Bethel,
Juneau, and others with funding for psychiatric patients.
The funding allowed for beds and providers to provide a
variety of treatments and security needs. The funding was
for enhanced services, had been done for the past few
years, and had federal matching funds.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the matter had been overlooked
during the operating budget process.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:07:50 PM
Senator Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Hoffman spoke to Amendment 8. He recalled that
there had been several discussions in committee about food
security. He noted that during the COVID-19 epidemic the
news had reflected food lines throughout the Lower 48. He
thought food security was a little different in Alaska. The
amendment would change an appropriation on page 87, line 30
for food security grants from $5 million to $20 million;
and on page 89 from $5 million to $20 million. He
considered that food security was a major issue and
reminded that 90 percent of food required transport to the
state. He did not think enough attention had been given to
the matter of food security during the pandemic.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Senator Hoffman to speak to the fund
source.
Senator Hoffman noted that the fund source was the same as
in the previous bill and was from COVID-19 federal relief
funds.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the item was conferenceable.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:09:56 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 9. He recalled that
at the previous meeting the committee had voted to add $280
million in grants to tourism and other businesses to offset
revenue loss. He thought it was clear that the COVID-19
pandemic was still going on. He knew there were businesses
in the service industry with challenges finding workers and
knew there were tens of thousands of Alaskans that were out
of work. He mentioned calls from concerned constituents
when the governor had ended the federal pandemic
unemployment benefit program, which had provided an
additional $300 per week. He thought the state received
more benefits from the federal government than just about
any other state. He asserted that the state did not have
the tax base to support the state's economy without getting
50 percent of the budget from the federal government. The
funding could be as much as $200 million.
Senator Wielechowski continued to address Amendment 9. He
reminded that the law required a person look for work in
order to receive unemployment benefits. He thought for
people that were generally out of work it was not fair to
curtail the funding when federal funds were available. He
did not think $300 per week a large sum. The amendment
affirmed that the state wanted to accept the federal funds,
which would add $200 million to the state's economy and
would help small businesses. He noted that he had another
amendment that would incentivize people going back to work.
He thought the two amendments would help keep the economy
going.
4:12:57 PM
AT EASE
4:14:40 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wielechowski appreciated the willingness of members
to work toward a resolution to help the unemployed. He
thought there was another idea he wanted to work on with
members and would revisit the topic at a later time.
Senator Wielechowski moved to WITHDRAW Amendment 9. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stedman summarized that Senator Wielechowski had
been working with the co-chairs' offices on the concept of
the amendment in trying to come up with a way to encourage
people back to work. He hoped the amendment would be ready
for the floor the following day, with greater quality than
if had it been rushed to completion.
4:15:46 PM
AT EASE
4:17:00 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to Amendment 10. He explained that
although he supported smaller government, the amendment
would restore a deputy commissioner in the Department of
Administration. There was a vacant position because a
deputy commissioner was currently acting in the role of
commissioner, which was not a permanent arrangement. The
amendment would restore $211.7 thousand in interagency
receipts for the one full-time position that had been
deleted by the subcommittee at the last minute. He
explained that the Department of Administration (DOA) had
multiple administrative orders for reorganizing various
areas such as human resources, procurement, and internet
technology. Many of the reorganizations were in the final
stages and he did not want to hinder the leadership during
the multi-year approach to the consolidation of services.
He supported a step-down in subsequent years, but felt that
a better plan needed to be in place.
Senator Hoffman informed that he was the budget chair of
DOA, and it was the only department in which there was
three deputy commissioners. He mentioned that there were
much larger departments with fewer deputy commissioners. He
was supportive of restructuring, and believed it was
possible with determination. He thought the additional
position was not in the interest of the state and was a
waste of public funds.
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson
OPPOSED: Wielechowski, Hoffman, von Imhof, Olson, Bishop,
Stedman
The MOTION FAILED (1/6).
4:20:12 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 11, which pertained
to refundable oil tax credits. The amount placed in the
budget was $114 million, and the amendment proposed to
reduce the amount to $36,860,000. He explained that under
AS 43.55.028 the oil and gas tax credit fund was set up,
and it was a completely discretionary fund via
appropriation from the legislature and via issuing the tax
certificates by the Department of Revenue. He cited that
there was an applicable percentage that was recommended
under statute, which at $60/bbl or higher, was 10 percent
of revenue from taxes levied by AS 43.55.001. He thought
there was $368.6 million levied in taxes, which was how he
deduced the proposed amount. He noted that the way the $114
million was calculated was before deductible tax credits
were taken out, which he believed was never the intent of
the statute. He emphasized that if $114 million was paid
out in refundable tax credits, it used up one-third of the
state's production taxes for the year. He thought the
intent was for the payment to be a small amount. He
stressed that the state could not afford to pay $114
million. He thought his amendment followed the statute.
Senator Wielechowski continued his remarks. He noted that
for years the state had paid more when it had more money.
He thought it was unfair to cut dividends while paying
greater than the statutorily required oil tax credits. He
added that the statute was a discretionary statute versus
the PFD statute.
Senator von Imhof considered it oxymoronic to claim the
state did not have $114 million for oil tax credit payments
while proposing $2.5 billion in previous amendments. She
pondered that Senator Wielechowski had made a fair
statement about cutting oil tax credits if the state was
cutting PFD's. She thought the proposed number was low. She
would rather leave the original number in the bill and
allow the conference committee to come to a conclusion, as
she thought the House has proposed a zero number. She would
not be supporting the amendment.
4:24:31 PM
AT EASE
4:24:41 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman thought there had been an inadvertent
misstatement. He clarified that the House had proposed $114
million for oil tax credits payment. If the committee
adopted the amendment, the conference committee would be
able to adopt a number between $114 million and the $36.8
million as proposed. If the amendment did not pass, the
amount would be at $114 and would not be conferenceable.
Senator von Imhof apologized for misspeaking. She thought
having a different number than the other body made sense.
She appreciated the maker of the amendment for bringing the
topic forward and trusted that the co-chairs would be
analyze the amount along with the entirety of the budget.
She agreed to support the amendment.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 11 was
ADOPTED.
4:26:21 PM
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 12. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 13. He explained
that the amendment would remove $8.5 million from the
appropriation for the West Susitna Road Access Project. He
noted that the project was just added in the governor's
supplemental budget request a few days previously. He was
concerned that there had already been $175 million spent on
studies for the project, and he thought there had been
testimony indicating that a 6-mile trail had been built for
the $175 million spent. He understood that the proposed
$8.5 million would be for additional studies rather than
road construction. He thought enough funds had been spent
on studies and thought the funds should be removed. He
referenced a conversation with the director of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), who explained the funds
would be sourced from the General Fund. He noted there had
been no new revenues proposed and very few proposed cuts.
He did not support the expenditure.
Co-Chair Bishop spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
recounted asking staff from the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) how long it would
take to get to road construction readiness, who had
indicated it could be three to five years. He noted that
the road was going into a resource gold belt with strategic
minerals. He considered the state was in a 30 or 40-year
time horizon and mentioned the importance of a post-oil
economy. He thought the state would need to access more of
its natural resources. He did not support the amendment.
Senator Hoffman wondered about the total construction cost
of the road if the project was approved, and the source of
the funds.
4:29:56 PM
AT EASE
4:30:54 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that Amendment 13 would be held
till later in the meeting until testimony was available to
speak to the topic in greater detail. He MAINTAINED his
OBJECTION.
4:31:15 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 14, which pertained
to the Endangered Species Act legal and research needs to
protect state's rights to management. He understood that
the budget proposed to use federal funds, which he did not
understand. He thought the $5.25 million in the budget was
to much, and the amendment proposed to reduce the amount to
$4 million, which he thought had been in the budget for
some time. He considered that if OMB could explain the use
of the additional funds, he might be amenable to leaving
the original amount in the budget.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the budget subcommittee had
reduced the reduced the amount to $5.25 million down from
the original $7 million requested in the governor's budget.
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Olson, Wielechowski
OPPOSED: Hoffman, von Imhof, Wilson, Bishop, Stedman
The MOTION FAILED (2/5).
4:33:32 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 15. He explained
that the amendment pertained to $2.5 million in Revised
Statute 2477 funding [Section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866,
a federal law that authorized construction of roads across
federal public lands] which he understood had been cut
back.
Co-Chair Bishop affirmed that the funding had been cut
back.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Co-Chair Bishop to provide the
numerics.
Senator Wielechowski wanted the history of the funding.
4:34:17 PM
AT EASE
4:34:30 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop stated he cut the governor's request in
half from $5 million to $2.5 million.
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 15. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:34:49 PM
Senator Olson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Olson spoke to Amendment 16. He explained that the
amendment had to do with the design and construction of an
arctic port waste reception facility that would accept,
process, and dispose of waste and liquid waste products
produced by marine vessels including military vessels and
cruise ships. The project included the port supporting the
facility and the connecting components. He described the
need for additional port services to protect the marine
environment. He asserted that Nome had reached the level of
maritime development to serve the role in the Arctic. He
cited that the project would save transit time and prevent
disposal in Arctic waters. The final design efforts would
ensure a bid-ready constructable project.
Co-Chair Bishop liked the project but wondered if the
timing was right. He mentioned a forthcoming federal
infrastructure bill and thought the project was better
suited to wait until the federal funds came.
Senator Olson understood that Co-Chair Bishop was open to
the project and thought the fund source would be coming in
the near future.
Co-Chair Stedman agreed. He thought the proposal was a good
project to deal with not only the environmental impacts of
increased traffic in the Arctic and mentioned ports in the
Arctic. He wanted to work with Senator Olson in the future
to help with the project either through federal
infrastructure money or future capital budgets for a couple
ports in the area.
Senator Olson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 16. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:38:08 PM
Senator Olson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Olson spoke to Amendment 17. The amendment
pertained to the replacement and construction of a new
water-sewer system in Diomede. The water tank in the
community faced imminent failure if not replaced in the
current year, and there was high levels of arsenic and
nitrates in the water. He mentioned that there was active
disease in the community due to water quality. He explained
that the Village Safe Water (VSW) Program was unable to
fund repair the system at the time. The replacement cost
was $5.2 million. He emphasized that without replacement,
the tank was in immediate danger of failure. An additional
$2.3 million was needed to develop a water source treatment
system to combat high arsenic and nitrates in the water.
Senator von Imhof had seen the Village Wastewater Program
in the capital budget. She asked if the project could be
part of the program.
Co-Chair Stedman thought Senator von Imhof was asking about
the Village Safe Water Program, and if the program
qualified for any of the standard programs.
Senator Olson stated that Village Safe Water Program was
usually the program to deal with such projects, but at this
time would not fund the item because of its low score on
best practices.
4:40:32 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for clarification as to why the
project would not be funded because of low scoring on best
practices.
Senator Olson explained that the community had difficulties
and reminded that Diomede was an island without an airport.
The island consisted of bedrock that had erupted out of the
water, and it was difficult to have subterranean
infrastructure. He mentioned that the small community of 80
people was having a hard time getting help from the Village
Safe Water Program. He emphasized the need of the people.
Co-Chair Bishop understood the issue and stated that one of
the communities in his district had the same issue. He
thought that both communities had projects to bring to the
forefront in the next round of federal funding. He thought
both projects met the intent of the grant requirements of
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.
Senator Olson understood that there would be full support
of the project by both co-chairs of the committee for
future funding for the project.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that he had worked with Senator
Olson for almost 20 years and had always been supportive of
rural issues such as public safety, water and sewer, and
basic infrastructure.
Senator Olson recalled that Co-Chair Stedman had visited
his district and gotten a sunburn.
Co-Chair Stedman affirmed that he would return for another
visit.
Co-Chair Bishop was familiar with the area of Diomede
although had not landed there. He wondered if he and
Senator Olson had quid pro quo for each of the projects.
Senator Olson said he had a helicopter available.
Senator Olson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 17. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:43:34 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to Amendment 18. He explained
that the project was originally proposed by the governor as
part of a general obligation (GO) bond and had huge support
from across the state from diverse stakeholders including
outdoor enthusiasts, small businesses, and the tourism
industry. The project would piece together a multi-use
recreational trail from Fairbanks to Seward and had been
referred to by some as "the long trail." He explained that
under ARPA, coronavirus state and local recovery funds
would permit the state to develop plans to recover its
tourism industry, including developing attractions. The
project would be funded by federal funds and was a
statewide project. He thought the trail was similar in idea
to the Pacific Crest Trail, the Appalachian Trail, and the
Inca trail, which where trails people travelled to from all
over the world. He described the trail as a legacy project
that would attract visitors from all over the world.
Senator Wielechowski continued his remarks. He was happy to
see the governor had proposed the project in the GO bond,
which he was not sure was going anywhere. He thought the
project would be an opportunity to create an iconic piece
of infrastructure in the state to be enjoyed by people from
all over.
4:46:08 PM
Co-Chair Bishop also recalled that the project was in a GO
bond package. He had been on the Senate Transportation
Committee and had seen a great deal of support for the
project. He supported the amendment.
Senator von Imhof thought the project was a great idea, and
she would support it. She wanted to ensure that the $14.2
billion in ARPA Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds (CSLFRF) were available for appropriation.
Mr. Ecklund spoke to Senator von Imhof's inquiry and
explained that earlier in the day the committee approved
just over $1 billion of CSLFRF allocations. He explained
that the proposed amendment would add to the amount, and
during conference committee the members would have to pare
down the request to $500 million or below.
4:48:17 PM
AT EASE
5:00:03 PM
RECONVENED
Senator von Imhof noted that the committee had considered
previous amendments using federal funds for water and other
issues, and now the committee was considering a project
using federal funds for another use. She considered that
the committee should consider the project at a later time.
She referenced the federal infrastructure funding package
that was expected to come in the fall. She thought it might
make sense to lump the project with other projects at a
later time when more funding was available.
Senator Hoffman agreed with the Senator von Imhof's
comments. He noted there were similar projects using
federal funds for Senator Olson's district that included
water for families in Diomede. He believed that there was
an opportunity for use of federal funds, and it was a
matter of timing to get there. He knew that there would be
potential reductions in the Conference Committee. He
mentioned the forthcoming federal infrastructure package
and thought Senator Wielechowski's project could enhance
tourism, but thought it was a matter of timing.
Senator Olson agreed with Senator von Imhof that timing was
important but cautioned that federal funding was not
guaranteed. He asserted that the federal funds that had
been guaranteed had already been allocated for other
expenditures.
Co-Chair Stedman observed that the process of working
through the capital budget and amendments derived from the
administration had brought health, life, and safety issues
in rural Alaska to light. He emphasized that there was at
least one school in the state that was in danger of washing
away, and the state had an obligation to take care of its
children. He thought the amendment proposed a good project,
but thought it was difficult to push the amendment forward.
He would rather see the project considered when there was
additional federal funding available in August when
additional projects were being considered. He emphasized
the need for sideboards on the budget process and noted
that lack of support for the amendment was not indicative
of support of the project in the future.
5:04:48 PM
Senator Wielechowski relayed that he was disappointed. He
thought members were going back on their word.
Co-Chair Stedman agreed that he had previously supported
the amendment. He emphasized that he did not speak for the
committee and emphasized the importance of fairness. He
wanted to rectify the situation and thought there was a
timing issue.
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Olson, Wielechowski
OPPOSED: von Imhof, Wilson, Hoffman, Stedman, Bishop
The MOTION FAILED (2/5).
5:06:12 PM
AT EASE
5:06:35 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19. He
explained that there had been a proposal from the governor
of $10 million for road projects in the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Borough. The funds were not completely for state
roads and were for the discretion of the Mat-Su Borough
Assembly. He explained that the amendment sought to get
parity in stipulating that the appropriation would be
contingent upon Anchorage getting some more payment for
road rehabilitation. He asserted that Anchorage had
equivalent road maintenance needs as the Mat-Su.
Senator Wilson noted that he was from the Mat-Su. He cited
that the area was second in size to Anchorage. He listed
proposed capital budget items by area: $18 million for
Fairbanks, $17 million for Anchorage, $12.5 million for
Kenai. He noted that the Mat-Su would receive the fifth
largest amount of funding. He mentioned that Mat-Su was the
only part of the state that was growing. The borough had
worked with the state on maintenance projects while the
state did not have the time or means, and the funding would
assist with the matter. He did not think contingency
language was appropriate to add into the process.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator von Imhof understood there was potentially $10
million going to Mat-Su and wondered why the equivalent
amount couldn't go to the other areas. She thought the
proposed budget tried to spread the money around the state.
She pointed out $90 million dollars going to two projects
in Mat-Su. She emphasized looking at the budget in its
entirety.
5:10:27 PM
Senator Olson suggested that districts getting $10 million
gave him pause and appeared self-serving on the governor's
part. He thought it was inappropriate not to support the
amendment.
Senator Wilson mentioned the leading number of fatalities
and accidents involving bodily injury in the Mat-Su area.
He thought there was a life-safety issue. He was happy to
take members down some of the roads in the area.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned federal funds and general funds.
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Olson, Wielechowski, von Imhof, Hoffman
OPPOSED: Wilson, Bishop, Stedman
The MOTION PASSED (4/3).
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendments 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, and 25. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
5:13:06 PM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wielechowski spoke to the amendment, which proposed
to remove $8.5 million for the West Susitna Road Project.
Co-Chair Stedman thought an earlier question had pertained
to the cost of road construction and studies.
ALAN WEITZNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIDEA (via
teleconference), explained that the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) had currently
spent approximately $500,000 on pre-permitting studies for
the West Susitna Access Road. He thought the original
proposed appropriation was $10 million, and he thought the
amendment reduced the amount to $8.5 million. He explained
that AIDEA was looking to use the funding to complete a
permitting process to ultimately achieve a record of
decision under a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
filing with the designated federal agency.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Weitzner to discuss the cost.
Mr. Weitzner relayed that the early estimate for a total
cost of construction (at about a 5 percent level of design)
was approximately $300 million for the road that would link
from the Yentna mining district following the Donlin
pipeline route and linking to Port Mackenzie. He
highlighted the early stage of design and noted that the
estimated cost would condense with further design work.
5:16:14 PM
Senator Wielechowski explained that several days ago he had
asked for a report on how the previously expended roughly
$175 million had been spent. He asked if there was a reason
the committee had not received the report yet.
Mr. Weitzner did not understand the expenditure amount as
defined by Senator Wielechowski. He stated that the amount
of $175 million had not been spent on the West Susitna
Access Road and noted that his information came from the
Mat-Su Borough. He mentioned AIDEA's involvement in picking
up the former Road to Resources Project in 2019, since
which time AIDEA had spent (in partnership with the borough
and other private resource owners) about $500,000. He
guessed that Senator Wielechowski had referenced funds that
had been spent for the Port Mackenzie Rail Extension
Project within the Mat-Su Borough, on which $184 million
had been spent.
Senator Wielechowski stated the source of his information
was the supporting document provided by the administration,
which had shown there were four different appropriations
for the project totaling roughly $175 million. He recounted
that at the time he had inquired what had been accomplished
with the funds and the response had been "studies and a
six-mile trail."
Senator Hoffman asked what source of funding was being
utilized for the road. He asked if the funds were from
federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
funds. He inquired how many years AIDEA envisioned the
project would take and what other projects would be put in
jeopardy because of the size of the proposed project.
Mr. Weitzner explained that AIDEA was looking at
approaching the West Susitna Access Road much in same way
as the DeLong Mountain Transportation System and what AIDEA
proposed for the Ambler Access Road. The road would be a
privately-owned, operated, and funded user-access-charge
road. The road would have public access per the Mat-Su
Borough requirements.
5:19:40 PM
AT EASE
5:22:14 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his objection to the ADOPTION
of Amendment 13.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Olson, Wielechowski
OPPOSED: Hoffman, von Imhof, Wilson, Stedman, Bishop
The MOTION FAILED (2/5).
5:22:58 PM
Senator Hoffman MOVED to RESCIND the action on Amendment
19.
5:23:17 PM
AT EASE
5:23:55 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman clarified that there was a motion to
rescind the action of passing Amendment 19, which pertained
to the sum of $10 million for Mat-Su Borough pavement
rehabilitation.
Senator Hoffman clarified that procedurally a "yes" vote
would bring the motion to adopt Amendment 19 before the
committee for another vote. A vote of "no" would allow the
action of passing Amendment 19 to stand.
Senator Olson asked if there was a reason for the motion to
rescind the action.
Senator Hoffman thought there should be further discussion
on Amendment 19. He had decided to change his vote.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to rescind the
action on Amendment 19.
IN FAVOR: Hoffman, Wilson, Bishop, Stedman
OPPOSED: Wielechowski, von Imhof, Olson
The MOTION PASSED (5/2). The action on Amendment 19 was
RESCINDED.
5:26:07 PM
AT EASE
5:26:37 PM
RECONVENED
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment
19.
IN FAVOR: von Imhof, Olson, Wielechowski
OPPOSED: Wilson, Hoffman, Stedman, Bishop
The MOTION FAILED (3/4).
Senator von Imhof commented that she had named HB 69 the
turducken, because the operating and capital and the
Permanent Fund appropriation had been put in the same bill.
She was happy to find levity in a 150-page bill.
5:28:33 PM
AT EASE
5:28:36 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop MOVED to report SCS CSHB 69(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and authorization
for the Legislative Finance Division and Legislative Legal
Services to make any necessary technical and/or conforming
changes.
Senator Wielechowski OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Hoffman, von Imhof, Bishop, Stedman
OPPOSED: Olson, Wielechowski
The MOTION PASSED (5/2).
SCS CSHB 69(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four
"do pass" recommendations, two "do not pass"
recommendations, and one "amend" recommendation.
Co-Chair Bishop MOVED to report SCS CSHB 71(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and authorization
for the Legislative Finance Division and Legislative Legal
Services to make any necessary technical and/or conforming
changes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SCS CSHB 71(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and with one "no recommendation"
recommendations.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the meeting for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 69 Amendment Packet 1.pdf |
SFIN 5/18/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |