Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
03/15/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB39 || HB41 || HB62 | |
| Presentation: Mechanics of Constitutional Budget Reserve Vote, Reverse Sweep, and Effective Dates | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 15, 2023
1:35 p.m.
1:35:36 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Laib Allensworth, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon; Megan
Wallace, Chief Counsel, Legislative Legal Services; Alexei
Painter, Director, Legislative Finance Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
HB 39 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUND; SUPP
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 41 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 62 RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT FUND
HB 62 was REPORTED out of committee with eleven
"do pass" recommendations and one previously
published fiscal impact note from the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development:
FN7 (CED).
PRESENTATION: MECHANICS OF CONSTITUTIONAL BUDGET RESERVE
VOTE, REVERSE SWEEP, AND EFFECTIVE DATES
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 62
"An Act relating to the renewable energy grant fund
and recommendation program; and providing for an
effective date."
1:35:42 PM
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
1:37:15 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon summarized HB 62. He explained that HB 62
extended the Renewable Energy Grant Fund and Recommendation
Program for 10 years and set a new sunset date of June 30,
2033.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Representative Coulombe had
joined the meeting.
1:38:05 PM
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the fiscal impact fiscal note,
for the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (FN1 (CED) allocated to Statewide Project
Development, Alternative Energy, and Efficiency. [Co-Chair
Johnson had stated that the fiscal note was zero in error.]
1:38:50 PM
LAIB ALLENSWORTH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON,
clarified that the fiscal note had a fiscal impact of $1.4
million that was included in the governors budget request.
1:39:07 PM
AT-EASE
1:39:48 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that the fiscal note totaled
$1.4 million and was already included in the governor's
budget.
1:40:25 PM
Representative Josephson asked what the administrative
costs were for FY 23.
1:40:47 PM
Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
responded that $1.4 million was appropriated in FY 23. He
furthered that the amount the average cost to run the
program each year.
1:41:24 PM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 62 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 62 was REPORTED out of committee with eleven "do pass"
recommendations and one previously published fiscal impact
note from the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development: FN7 (CED).
1:42:10 PM
AT-EASE
1:46:24 PM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: MECHANICS OF CONSTITUTIONAL BUDGET RESERVE
VOTE, REVERSE SWEEP, AND EFFECTIVE DATES
1:46:39 PM
Co-Chair Johnson introduced the next item on the agenda.
1:47:13 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, CHIEF COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
Alaska State Legislature, introduced the presentation
entitled, "Constitutional Budget Reverse Sweep and
Effective Date Overview," dated March 15, 2023 (copy on
file). She indicated that she would review the mechanisms
of the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) and the Reverse
Sweep in light of the recent litigation surrounding both
budget items. She discussed the litigation and its impact
on the historical analysis of the sweep and spoke to
effective dates.
Ms. Wallace explained the Constitutional provisions of the
CBR found in Article IX, Section 17 of the Alaska
Constitution. She delineated that subsection (a)
established the CBR fund and covered the deposits and
investments of the fund. Subsection (b) established a
formula in which the legislature was able to access the
funds via majority vote. She furthered that subsection (c)
allowed for appropriation from the fund for any public
purpose upon approval of three quarters of both houses of
the legislature. All of the deficit spending and reverse
sweep mechanisms were appropriations under subsection (c).
1:49:56 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked about subsection (d). She pointed
out that it was amended in 1990. She asked if Section 17
was part of the original Constitution. Ms. Wallace
responded that all of Section 17 was approved by the voters
in 1990 via a constitutional amendment.
1:50:50 PM
Ms. Wallace turned to slide 2 titled "CBR Sweep Mechanism:"
The CBR sweep provision was established in Article IX,
Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution:
(d) Repayment requirement "If an appropriation is
made from the budget reserve fund, until the amount
appropriated is repaid, the amount of money in the
general fund available for appropriation at the end of
each succeeding fiscal year shall be deposited in the
budget reserve fund. The legislature shall implement
this subsection by law."
Ms. Wallace explained that subsection (d) meant that any
money left in the General Fund (GF) that was available for
appropriation was effectively swept into the CBR, which was
the reason it was referred to as the sweep.
1:51:53 PM
Representative Josephson offered that the debt was not like
a credit card debt that had repercussions if the debt was
not repaid. There was no penalty or fee for not repaying
the CBR. He asked if he was correct. Ms. Wallace answered
in the affirmative. She added that there was no specific
enforcement or penalty if the legislature did not repay the
fund. The only consequence was that there would be a sweep
every year until the amount was fully repaid.
1:52:48 PM
Representative Stapp asked for a definition of "amount of
money available for appropriation" in context of the
Earnings Reserve Account (ERA). Ms. Wallace deferred the
answer to future slides. She pointed out that there were
many upcoming slides that would discuss the topic.
1:53:30 PM
Ms. Wallace continued on slide 2. She communicated that the
sweep occurred by operation of the Constitution under
subsection D. The legislature occasionally decided to adopt
what was called a "reverse sweep." It was not possible to
stop the sweep from happening, but an appropriation could
be passed to return all of the swept funds back to all of
the original sub funds or accounts from whence they came.
Ms. Wallace discussed slide 3 titled Reverse Sweep:
• The "reverse sweep" is an appropriation from the CBR
that returns swept funds back to the original subfund
or account. The "reverse sweep" is an appropriation
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), and requires a 3/4 vote to
pass.
• The sweep is effective at the end of a fiscal year
(June 30) and the reverse sweep is effective on the
first day of the following fiscal year (July 1).
Ms. Wallace commented that if a reverse sweep passed, the
only sweep that would actually occur was an accounting
event involving the reconciliation of accounts at the end
of the fiscal year.
Ms. Wallace moved to slide 4 titled How the Sweep Works:
The Department of Administration's Division of
Finance(DOF) accountants calculate the sweep while
preparing the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
(ACFR). The sweep represents unreserved, undesignated
fund balances of the general fund subfunds.
• DOF accountants calculate the sweep in
September as the ACFR is prepared yet the amount
of the sweep is posted in the financial records
as of the end of the fiscal year (June 30th).
• After the ACFR is prepared (historically by the
end of October), the ACFR is audited by the
legislative auditor. The sweep amount is adjusted
as necessary. The sweep amount is adjusted as
necessary.
1:56:49 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the key agencies that
voiced opinions on what was sweepable were not in
agreement. He noted that included the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Legislative Finance Division (LFD), and
the Division of Legislative Audit. Ms. Wallace replied in
the affirmative and furthered that there had been moments
of disagreement between the different agencies. Ultimately,
the entity that carried out the sweep was the
administration via the Division of Finance [Department of
Revenue.] She reported that there had been litigation over
its decisions regarding what was swept.
1:58:18 PM
Ms. Wallace continued on slide 5 titled Statute
Implementing Sweep Was Found Unconstitutional:
• AS 37.10.420 was intended to implement the sweep.
• The Supreme Court in Hickel v. Cowper found this
statute unconstitutional in 1994.
• Since then, the executive branch has had to implement
the sweep without statutory guidance. The list of
sweepable funds has been driven by legal
interpretations of Hickel v. Cowper.
• The legislature could pass a new statute that attempts
to define which funds are sweepable, but absent this
or a court case the administration's interpretation is
operative.
Ms. Wallace offered that after the Hickel v. Cowper
judgement the legislature had not attempted to define which
funds were sweepable.
Ms. Wallace summarized slide 6 titled Hickel v. Cowper -
874 P.2d 922 (Alaska 1994):
• To determine whether a fund is sweepable under art.
IX, sec. 17(d), the two-part test is whether the fund
is:
(1) "in the general fund" and (2) "available for
appropriation."
• Hickel addressed the phrase "available for
appropriation" and held that funds which may be used
to pay state expenditures without further legislative
action or further legislative appropriation -- are
not available for appropriation and thus not
sweepable. On the other hand, funds that require
further appropriation are considered "available for
appropriation" and are sweepable.
Ms. Wallace advanced to slide 7 titled Recent Changes in
Interpretation and Resulting Litigation:
• In 2019, relying on an Attorney General opinion, the
administration expanded the scope of the sweep to
include additional funds.
• Most significantly, the sweep was expanded to
include the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Fund and the
Higher Education Investment Fund.
• Litigation followed.
Ms. Wallace detailed that the Hickel v. Cowper judgement
was the law of the land for roughly 25 years.
Ms. Wallace pointed to slide 8 titled AFN v. Dunleavy,
3AN-21-06737CI (August 11, 2021):
• The Alaska Federation of Natives brought a lawsuit
against the administration challenging the
sweepability of the PCE Fund.
• On August 11, 2021, a Superior Court ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs, finding that PCE should not be
subject to the sweep because the PCE fund is a
separate fund outside the general fund.
• The court noted that the legislature has also
created other "separate funds" and listed those other
funds in footnote 77 of the opinion. It was there that
the court noted that the legislature established the
statutory budget reserve fund in AS 37.05.540(a) "as a
separate fund in the state treasury." Based on this
notation, our office has advised that the statutory
budget reserve fund would also likely be considered
outside the general fund and not subject to the sweep.
• The case was not appealed to the Alaska Supreme
Court.
Ms. Wallace voiced that the administration decided not to
appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but the case would
bind the administration in respect to the PCE fund.
2:04:55 PM
Ms. Wallace continued on slide 9 titled Short v. Dunleavy,
520 P.3d 142 (Alaska 2022):
• After the PCE decision and a failed 2021 sweep, the
Attorney General wrote a memorandum stating that money
already appropriated from the Higher Education
Investment Fund (HEIF) for fiscal year 2022 could
likely be spent despite the appropriation having an
effective date occurring after the sweep, but
maintained the position that the HEIF's remaining
corpus was subject to the sweep.
• A group of students then sued the governor alleging
that the Higher Education Investment Fund (HEIF) was
not sweepable. Legislative Council filed an amicus
brief supporting the students' position.
• The Alaska Supreme Court determined that the HEIF
was sweepable. The Court held that the HEIF was
"available for appropriation" under the Cowper test,
particularly focusing on the fact that the monies in
the HEIF, by statute, must be further appropriated to
be spent.
In 2022, the legislature amended AS 37.14.750(a) to
establish the HEIF "as a separate fund in the state
treasury." ch. 15, SLA 2022.
At the time of the Short litigation, the HEIF was
established "in the general fund."
Ms. Wallace elaborated that since the administration could
not expend the funds without a legislative appropriation
the Alaska Supreme Court determined that HEIF was
sweepable. The plaintiffs had argued that the court should
consider overruling the Cowper decision ruling, but the
court refused. Therefore, the legislature adopted HB 322
[HB 322 - Ak Marine Hwy Funds, Higher Ed Inves Fund,
Chapter 15 SLA 22, 06/29/2022] that amended AS 37.14.750(a)
to establish the HEIF as a separate fund from GF in the
state treasury as well as the Alaska Marine Highway System
Fund in AS 19.65.060 (a) and the Alaska Marine Highway
Vessel Replacement Fund in AS 37.05.550(a). She noted that
although the Supreme Court upheld the HEIF corpus sweep in
the prior year, the legislature passed a supplemental fund
transfer and reestablished the fund in the previous years
operating budget and deposited $342.5 million into the fund
subsequent to the governors veto.
2:10:17 PM
Ms. Wallace discussed slide 10 titled Scoop vs. Sweep:
• After the failed 2021 sweep, the Attorney General
advised it was legally defensible to not sweep the FY
22 funds appropriated in the budget that had passed
but not yet taken effect, and the governor ordered
that those FY 22 appropriations not be swept.
It was from here that the concept of "scooping" the
funds before they are swept was born.
• In the Short v. Dunleavy litigation, the superior
court held that the HEIF was available for
appropriation and sweepable, but that the FY 22
appropriations made from the HEIF should not be swept,
even though those appropriations had not yet taken
effect at the time of the sweep. The superior court
reasoned that "the money is no longer available for
appropriation because the money can now be expended
without further legislative action." This decision was
ultimately affirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court,
although the Court did not specifically analyze the
"scoop" portion of the superior court's opinion.
Ms. Wallace advanced to slide 11 titled Special Effective
Dates:
• Article II, sec. 18 of the Alaska Constitution
provides "Laws passed by the legislature become
effective ninety days after enactment.
The legislature may, by concurrence of two-thirds of
the membership of each house, provide for another
effective date."
Enactment occurs when the governor signs the
bills or allows the bill to become law without
signature. See AS 01.10.070, and art. II, sec. 17,
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
Ms. Wallace moved to slide 13 titled Retroactivity
Clause:
• A retroactive clause does not amount to a special
effective date.
• A retroactivity provision may be adopted by majority
vote rather than the two-thirds vote required for
effective dates. ARCO Alaska, Inc. v. State, 824 P.2d
708 (Alaska 1992).
Ms. Wallace highlighted slide 14 titled Failure of
Effective Dates and Resulting Litigation:
• Historically, the Attorney General has advised that
"A strict interpretation of the absence of an
effective date would imply that no money may be
expended under the appropriations made in this bill
until 90 days after you sign the bill. However, it
would be irresponsible to disrupt state government
functions to await the constitutionally specified
effective date." 1989 Inf. Op. Att'y Gen. (May 25,
883-89-0076).
• However, in 2021, the Attorney General filed suit
against the Legislative Affairs Agency, alleging that
LAA improperly advised employees that it would
"likely" be the legislature's position that "the
retroactivity clause enables the work of the
Legislature to continue." The Attorney General's suit
was dismissed by the superior court on grounds that
the action was prohibited under Article III, Section
16 of the Alaska Constitution. The case is under
appeal and awaiting final decision from the Alaska
Supreme Court. (Taylor v. LAA, S-18292).
• To avoid litigation and uncertainty, the legislature
should adopt special effective dates on appropriation
bills.
Ms. Wallace recounted that in 2021, the legislature
initially passed its budget, but it failed to approve the
special effective dates for the budget. A government
shutdown might occur in the scenario where effective dates
were not approved. Previous historical attorney general
opinions implied that the administration could rely on
retroactivity provisions to keep state government operating
while waiting for the bill to take effect in 90 days.
However, in 2021, the attorney general took an opposite
view.
2:16:08 PM
Representative Josephson was familiar with all of the cases
apart from Taylor. He understood that Attorney General (AG)
Taylor approved all of the appropriations for FY 22 except
for sweeping the corpuses of all funds. He referred to it
as the Taylor memo. He surmised that the slide countered
what actually happened 2021 and was perplexed. Ms. Wallace
answered that Representative Josephson was correct. She
elucidated that two distinct issues or positions existed.
The summary related to the scoop and also addressed the FY
22 appropriations as one issue. Subsequently, the lawsuit
was filed, and she thought it was a matter of opinion
whether they were consistent or not.
2:18:12 PM
Representative Hannan concluded that the presentation
touched on big funds and litigation. She recalled that
there had been an agreement between OMB and LFD on which
funds were sweepable and which were not. She remembered a
list of smaller funds and the nexus between OMB, LFD, and
the Department of Law on whether funds were sweepable or
not. She wondered about the list.
2:20:13 PM
AT-EASE
2:20:34 PM
RECONVENED
2:20:52 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that LFD did not have opinions on which funds
should be swept and which should not. He communicated that
the Division of Legislative Audit held those opinions. He
delineated that there were multiple lists regarding
sweepable funds. In 2019, the Division of Finance in
conjunction with DOL and OMB changed the scope of what the
DOF had done in the past and implemented future sweeps
based on the changes. He recalled that Legislative Audit
had agreed to the changes. He described the sweep issue as
an academic issue until FY 2020, when no reverse sweep
occurred. Legislative audit disagreed with the scoop
provision in the FY 2021 statewide audit. He elaborated
that in the prior year, the legislature and the governor
made a series of changes to the budget to cope with the
ramifications of funds not being swept in FY 2021 and FY
2022. There were several funds where the effective dates
thst
were changed to June 30 versus July 1. Some funds were no
longer subject to the sweep by the action, like the
Department of Environmental Conservations Spill Prevention
and Response Fund.
Mr. Painter continued that there were a number of funds
where the legislature and governor decreased appropriations
from sweepable funds to bring revenue and expenditures in
line because the funds balances were no longer available.
Currently, there were likely fewer issues if a reverse
sweep was not adopted. However, there were still impacts
that were evident in the supplemental because the purpose
of the funds was a way to deal with volatile revenue. He
exemplified a Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DOL) fund where the expenditures and revenues did not
match up to pay claims due to the workings of the accounts
and the inconsistency of when funds came into the account;
due to the sweep, there were no funds when needed.
Consequently, an Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) request
for DOL was included in the supplemental to account for it.
The result of not having a reverse sweep was that more UGF
was spent on a year to year basis. Some of the funds
revenue lapsed into the CBR instead of replenishing the
funds. He lacked current information regarding the
consequences of the most recent fiscal year without a
reverse sweep. He was unsure if there were any lingering
disagreements among agencies regarding sweepable funds due
to litigation. He noted that the only disagreement he was
aware of was between the auditor and administration
regarding the scoop provision.
2:25:46 PM
Representative Hannan had found the prior list information
helpful in understanding the issue regarding the many funds
that were affected. She commented that by legislative
policy, there were a number of areas where the public was
required to pay fees for licensure, investigations, etc.,
those smaller funds in various agencies where the revenue
collected was expended in the next fiscal year. She asked
if there was a sense of how many of the small funds, funded
by fees that were not part of a reverse sweep that needed
to be recapitalized existed. Mr. Painter answered that in
the absence of FY 2022 financials, he thought that there
would be more balances resolved than in FY 2021, the first
year of the sweep. It would be expected that the current
years and future sweeps would be fairly minimal. However,
it was difficult to do more than speculate at the moment
without current financials.
2:28:20 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon hoped that there would be a presentation at
some point about the reason why the CBR and the sweep was
ever enacted. He recounted that in 1990, when the CBR was
enacted, there were many oil tax disputes involving
hundreds of millions of dollars. The CBR was set up as a
fiscal stability tool or lockbox that required a three-
quarters vote to expend. With the onset of declining
revenues in 2014, the three-quarters vote was routinely
employed and not weaponized as it was in more recent years
leading to multiple years of special sessions that carried
on into the summer or fall. He relayed that during the
2000s, oil revenue was high and grew the balance of the
CBR to $16 billion. He furthered that his point was that
many of the theories in the presentation had not been
tested since the three-quarters vote had been seen as
perfunctory. Currently, the vote was difficult to obtain
and was avoided if possible. The three quarters vote was a
very high bar that instigated all of the machinations and
issues currently under discussion that in prior years
worked as a gentleman's agreement. He believed that
providing some background on how the CBR became a contested
issue brought clarity to the present situation.
2:32:26 PM
Representative Stapp asked what the Cooper test was. Ms.
Wallace returned to slide 6. She read through the
definition of what comprised a sweepable fund:
(1) "in the general fund" and (2) "available for
appropriation."
Representative Stapp quoted from the Alaska Constitution
Article 9, Section 15 and read the last sentence as
follows:
All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited
in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law.
He read from the Cooper case:
The ERA was effectively not subject to appropriation
because all income from the Permanent Fund shall be
deposited into the General Fund unless otherwise
provided by law. The ERA was established as a separate
account in the fund and all income from the fund shall
be deposited by the corporation into the account as
soon as it is received. Therefore, money in the ERA
never passes through the general fund as is never
appropriated as such from the legislature.
Representative Stapp asked if the legislature appropriated
money from the ERA. Ms. Wallace responded in the
affirmative. She elucidated that money was appropriated for
several purposes. During the time of the Hickel decision,
the legislature only appropriated money from the ERA for
the Permanent Fund Dividend. In addition, the notion that
the legislature never appropriated money from the ERA was
corrected by the court in a later statement. Representative
Stapp commented that his fear was that the state might have
made the entirety of the ERA subject to the sweep
provision. Ms. Wallace answered that the Supreme Court
addressed that concern in Footnote 32 of the opinion. She
explained that because the ERA was established outside of
the GF and was not part of the GF the ERA failed the two
part test. The decision in the Short Case from 2022
reaffirmed the Hickel Case and the Hickel precedent.
2:36:07 PM
Representative Josephson noted that the Hickel case also
addressed endowments and trust funds. He noted that they
were separate due to the way they were designed and created
to be self-sustaining and were not available for
appropriation. He deduced that they did not pass one part
of the two part test. He asked for comment. Ms. Wallace
responded that Representative Josephson was correct in that
the endowment trust funds had not been historically swept.
The Hickel case addressed trust receipts and decided that
they were counted as available for appropriation because
they were appropriated for the purposes they were created
and were only counted for in Article IX, Section 17 (b) in
the calculation of whether the legislature could access the
CBR by a majority vote. She noted that the legislature had
never accessed the CBR using that provision. Representative
Josephson wondered if there had ever been a challenge
regarding the sweep for funds based on fees for the expense
of a board or commission, etc. Ms. Wallace responded that
prior presentations from the OMB director indicated that
funds from donations were not sweepable.
Representative Josephson asked whether Mr. Painter had an
opinion regarding if a three-quarter or simple majority
vote was necessary to expend funds from the CBR for the FY
24 budget.
Mr. Painter responded that he would have to revise his math
given the decrease in the price of oil. Generally due to
the balance of the ERA, they were not close to the
threshold. He noted that with the comparison of the prior
years appropriation provision, the calculation was done on
all appropriations. The closest the legislature had gotten
to the simple majority vote was when $4 billion was
deposited into the Permanent Fund for inflation proofing in
the previous year. He surmised that the inflation proofing
in FY 23 was estimated to be $4.2 billion but considering
the ERA balance the calculation would be a few billion
short.
2:40:20 PM
Representative Coulombe was confused about the funds that
could not be swept under DOR. She asked why funds like the
Exxon Valdez oil spill account was not sweepable. Mr.
Painter responded that the list in statute like the HEIF
Fund, had been modified and is no longer in the GF. The
Exxon Valdez oil spill fund was not available for
appropriation other than the specific amount appropriated
because the expenditure was determined by the trustees of
the fund. The Public School Trust Fund was established
before statehood and only the amount set in statute was
available for appropriation. Sometimes the test for the
available for appropriation part could be difficult to
determine with trusts. He ascertained that the only part
that could potentially be subject to the sweep would be the
amount available for appropriation and only if the
legislature chose not to appropriate that amount.
2:42:31 PM
Representative Galvin asked about the appealed decision in
the case on slide 14, Taylor versus LAA. She asked if Ms.
Wallace had heard anything about the decision or the timing
of it. Ms. Wallace replied that it was unknown.
2:43:21 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon referred to the Wielechowski decision that
ruled on the legislatures power to appropriate. He related
that the power was constitutionally created and rose above
anything in statute. He asked whether he was correct. Ms.
Wallace answered that from a general perspective, it was
correct. She elucidated that if a statute recommended
appropriating funds via a formula or percentage the current
legislature could use its own discretion whether they were
going to follow it.
2:44:34 PM
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the agenda for the following
day's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
2:46:20 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 62 Public Testimony Rec'd by 031423.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| Leg Legal HFIN CBR Sweep Effective Dates 031523.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2023 1:30:00 PM |