Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/2022 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 | |
| SB162 || SB163 | |
| SB241 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE BILL NO. 241
"An Act making appropriations for the operating
expenses of state government and certain programs;
making capital appropriations and supplemental
appropriations; capitalizing funds; and providing for
an effective date."
2:31:15 PM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced himself.
MILES BAKER, INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT COORDINATOR, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced himself.
Mr. Steininger discussed the presentation, "State of
Alaska; Office of the Governor; Infrastructure
Appropriation Bill SB241; Senate Finance Committee; April
6, 2022" (copy on file). He highlighted slide 2, "SB 241
Infrastructure Overview." He noted that there were backup
documents posted to the OMB website that would be provided
to the committee. He discussed the funding for the
legislation as it was illustrated on the slide.
2:34:15 PM
Mr. Steininger pointed to slide 3, "Updated Fiscal
Summary." He said that the summary included both the
appropriations the bill as well as all the amendments
introduced, to date, by the executive branch. Additionally,
adjustments had been made to oil and gas tax credits to
reflect the current oil price forecast. He summarized that
with all the amendments and adjustments the UGF budget for
FY 23 was $4.8 billion, with an All-Funds budget of $11.7
billion, this with the spring forecast left a surplus of
$2.2 billion in FY 23. He noted that there were differences
in this presentations numbers versus the figures just
presented by Director Painter. This was because the LFD
presentation was based on the Senate CS and the OMB
presentation was based on the governors proposed budget.
2:35:32 PM
Mr. Baker addressed slide 4, "Federal Infrastructure Bill
(IIJA/BIL)":
?Enacted November 15, 2021 (PL 117-58; HR 3684)
-year reauthorization of established federal
programs and some new programs
?Only a portion of "Alaska" funding will come through
the State of Alaska
?Many program details are still pending
?Much less discretionary than recent stimulus: CARES,
CRRSA, ARP
oNo "tranches" of unrestricted federal payments
oSpending parameters established by federal
agencies
?Traditional State/Local capital priorities largely
ineligible
?Funding flows by formula (apportionment or
allocation) or grants (competitive and discretionary)
oApproximately 60 percent by formula and 40
percent in grants on a national basis
?Local governments, tribes and other entities eligible
for most programs
Senator Wilson asked about the sixth and eighth bullet
points. He wondered whether the administration was looking
at projects that would normally be state funded that could
be offset to local entities that receive federal funding.
2:39:47 PM
Mr. Baker replied that because of the focused effort on
infrastructure part of the process had been understanding
the federal bill and how it ties in with other
appropriation bills that had already been submitted. He
believed that within the next 6 months there needed to be a
continued effort to use the best funding sources available.
2:41:09 PM
Senator Wilson commented on the possibility of offsetting
broadband funding. He thought it could he helpful to find
other projects that could be offset by federal dollars.
2:41:51 PM
Senator von Imhof noted the eighth bullet points and asked
about audits that could be conducted to assure that the
monies were being spent as intended and wondered whether
they would be conducted by the state or the feds.
Mr. Baker responded that he had not seen any indication
that the federal government would audit the grants any more
than normal. There would be checks to assure that the state
followed the federal highway and EPA programs. He said that
there was no money specifically in the bill for technical
assistance for grantees. He did not expect that the state
would be expected to conduct audits. He relayed that if
local governments were seeking a rise grant for
infrastructure projects it would be their responsibility to
meet the requirements.
Mr. Steininger added that ARPA and CARES Act funding flowed
through the state to subgrantees, which made the state a
responsible party in the chain. He noted that those funds
were audited. He said that if a state was not a party to
the grants, the grantee applying would be subject to the
audit.
2:44:54 PM
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether SB 241 reflected all
the funds available to the sate under the federal
infrastructure bill.
2:45:22 PM
Mr. Baker replied that the bill was the best effort to
appropriate and ask for authority for the funding the
administration knew was coming to the state.
2:46:06 PM
Senator Wielechowski referred to Section 17 of the bill:
Sec. 17. SUPPLEMENTAL FEDERAL AND OTHER PROGRAM
RECEIPTS. Federal receipts from P.L. 117-58
(Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) and
designated program receipts under AS 37.05.146(b)(3)
that include federal receipts received from P.L. 117-
58 (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), received
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, and that
exceed the amounts appropriated by the Thirty-Second
Alaska State Legislature, are appropriated conditioned
on compliance with the program review provisions of AS
37.07.080(h). For the purposes of this section,
"exceed the amounts appropriated" includes
appropriations for which no previous federal receipts
from P.L. 117-58 (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act) have been made.
Senator Wielechowski and assumed that there would be no
objection from the administration to remove the section
from the bill.
2:46:39 PM
Mr. Baker thought that there were so many unknown variables
that balance, and flexibility was necessary, and the
administration needed to be able to make decisions when the
legislature was not in session.
2:47:23 PM
Mr. Steininger said that the administration would oppose
the removal of Section 17.
2:48:04 PM
Senator Wielechowski commented that the section would allow
the governor to go through a revised legislative program
process, which meant that if additional federal funding
were received the governor would only have to advise the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee of how he wished to
spend those funds. He thought that the process was
unconstitutional and that the section should not be in the
bill.
2:49:04 PM
Senator von Imhof requested clarification on the second
bullet point 5-year reauthorization of established federal
programs and some new programs.
2:49:52 PM
Mr. Baker stressed that Congress typically reauthorized
programs in 5-year increments and all the surface
transportation and EPA Water and Sewer programs were up for
reauthorization. He relayed that much of the bill was
spending that would have occurred anyway and had grown into
the infrastructure bill as most of those programs were
infrastructure related. Some new programs had been added
such as broadband and electric vehicle charging
infrastructure, critical minerals, rare earth elements and
clean energy technologies.
2:50:35 PM
Senator von Imhof asked whether the 5-year authorization
for federal programs meant that the programs were funded.
2:50:48 PM
Mr. Baker stated that traditionally the authorizations were
done separately, and Congress would appropriate yearly. In
the case of this legislation all 5 years had been
appropriated, with some exceptions.
2:51:55 PM
Senator von Imhof surmised that the bill created forward
funding of federal dollars. She wondered about the
difference between state and federal forward funding and
noted that the governor had sued the legislature for
forward funding education. She requested further
clarification from legislative legal.
2:52:31 PM
Mr. Baker responded that the bill did not forward fund. He
said that in some cases grants would be given upfront. He
suggested some ways that it could be perceived that forward
funding was occurring.
2:53:15 PM
Mr. Steininger furthered that the bill did not forward fund
any future appropriations. He said any forward funding was
at the federal level where the rules were different from
the state level.
2:53:48 PM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the process was just
beginning. He did not think that the bill would gain
traction and that the projects contained in the legislation
would likely be handled in other vehicles. He hoped that
the issue could be handled in the regular legislative
session and hoped that the administration would avoid
calling any special sessions. He spoke to Senator
Wielechowskis concerns about Section 17 and noted that in
the previous year the legislature had complied with the
governors requests only to have the governor veto his own
solicitations.
2:56:40 PM
Mr. Baker pointed to slide 5, "Federal Infrastructure Bill
(IIJA/BIL)":
Transportation
?Roads, bridges, airports, ports and waterways, rail,
public transit, electric vehicles (EV), and safety
programs
Other Infrastructure
?Energy, power grid, broadband, water, resiliency, and
environmental remediation
Federal Infrastructure Bill:
$973 billion over 5 years
$423 billion in base spending
$550 billion in new spending
$284 billion for transportation
$266 billion for other infrastructure
2:57:35 PM
Senator Wilson asked whether a portion of the funding would
go to the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
Mr. Baker replied in the affirmative. He furthered that the
funding was mostly an increase in the federal transit
administration formula dollars, which were based on
passenger numbers.
2:58:33 PM
Mr. Baker looked at slide 6, "SB 241 Infrastructure
Development":
Key Principals:
?Include identifiable funding coming in FY22 or FY23
?Identify coordination and implementation needs
?Maintain pressure on UGF spending
?Provide Local Government and Tribal Support
?Maintain tight nexus to programs in federal
legislation
?Pursue significant competitive opportunities for
which Alaska is uniquely positioned
3:00:24 PM
Co-Chair Bishop queried the baseline UGF match for the
programs in the bill.
Mr. Baker replied $50.8 million.
3:00:51 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked about unknown elements of the federal
funding. He thought $50 million might not be enough.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there was a simple
document that could be distributed that defined where the
federal funds could be spent.
3:02:19 PM
Mr. Baker replied that the information was on the next
slide.
3:02:42 PM
Senator Hoffman asked about local government and tribal
support. He wondered what support team was in place to
provide support for the over 500 tribes in the state.
Mr. Baker replied that the situation was evolving and there
was a request for money to expand the effort.
3:04:14 PM
Senator Hoffman thought that the work to support tribal
entities would be significant and hoped that the
administration understood the immensity of the undertaking.
3:04:26 PM
Co-Chair Stedman echoed Senator Hoffmans concern. He added
that he hoped for clear definition between the branches of
government pertaining to what the executive did in
execution and what the legislative did in oversight. He
believed it was in the states best interest that the
branches of government worked as a team to maximize the
utilization of the federal funds.
3:06:16 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the administration was
prepared to come back on Monday with a draft organizational
chart.
3:06:41 PM
Mr. Baker replied that nothing had been solidified as far
as administrative support. He expressed willingness to
continue the conversation.
3:07:18 PM
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that space in the Atwood Building
in Anchorage could be utilized to house the support staff,
which he believed needed to be more than 3 people.
3:07:59 PM
Senator Wielechowski wondered how much flexibility was
allowed in the appropriations and how much authority was
available to the legislature. He thought a document that
detailed the parameters could be helpful.
Mr. Steininger thought that it was important to note that
there was not a large amount of discretionary funding
coming, so everything on the list in the bill was directed
by the federal government. The funds could not be moved
around, and the administration did not have discretion as
to where the funds would go. He said that there was more
flexibility within the surface transportation program.
3:10:34 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether that applied to the
entire bill. He understood that the appropriations in the
bill could not be changed.
3:11:05 PM
Mr. Baker cited the Governors Infrastructure Bill Summary
(SB 241/HB 414 (copy on file). He stated that the only
difference for lines 1 through 10 from previous budget
th
requests submitted December 15 of every year was that the
bill provided supplemental funding in FY 22 and increased
funding in FY 23 from what was submitted in December. Lines
12 through 16 contained small UGF augmentations. He noted
that the federal earmarks were federally determined. He
said that lines 21 through 23 were subjective and that
based on conversation at the table would continue to be a
focus. He stated that the last four lines were the most
subjected and were four areas where the state was uniquely
positioned to compete for large amounts of federal dollars.
He said that proposal in the bill was for seed money to
craft competitive applications for anticipated future
funding opportunities expected in the second or third
quarter of 2022.
3:13:18 PM
Co-Chair Stedman believed that money going to Tribal
entities should be considered. He thought possible overlap
should be identified. He added that broadband was a prime
area where duplicate efforts could be an issue.
3:14:24 PM
Senator von Imhof was pleased to see the $5,480.0 for the
State Infrastructure Planning and Coordination (Slide 15).
She hoped that there was a plan for the funding and that
all comprehensive guidance was provided by the state to
stakeholders. She hoped that some of the Surface
Transportation funding could be spent to improve particular
trails in the state.
3:16:37 PM
Co-Chair Bishop understood that Senator Sullivan supported
the National Trails Program in the highways bill on the
federal level.
3:16:53 PM
Senator Hoffman voiced his concern that DOT funding would
not be spent equitably across the state.
3:17:47 PM
Co-Chair Bishop felt that there was a common theme at the
table, which was to work with all entities and stakeholders
to capture and maximize every federal dollar possible for
the state. He noted that DOT consistently worked to bring
in above and beyond the expected number of federal dollars
to the state.
3:19:58 PM
Co-Chair Stedman requested an infrastructure list divided
by DOT region across the state.
3:20:19 PM
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) might have the projects included
by house districts.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping.
SB 241 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 241 22.04.06 Attachment 1 - Infrastructure Bill Summary.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 241 |
| SB 241 22.04.06 Attachment 2 - DOTPF Airport Improvement Program Details.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 241 |
| SB 241 22.04.06 Attachment 3 - DOTPF Surface Transportation Program Details.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 241 |
| SB 241 22.04.06 GOV Infrastructure Bill SFIN FINAL.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 241 |
| SB 162 Handout - FY23 Increments Restoring Decrements or Vetoes.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 162 |
| SB 162 LFD Presentation- SFIN Operating CS 4-6-22.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 162 |
| SB 162 LFD Spreadsheet Packet 040622.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 162 |
| SB 162 Work Draft version W.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 162 |
| SB 163 Work Draft version G.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 162 FY23 CS 1 Language Explanation.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 162 |