Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/09/2015 09:15 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB26 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 9, 2015
9:16 a.m.
9:16:03 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Anna MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:16 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Pat Pitney, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
SB 26 BUDGET: CAPITAL
SB 26 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 40 SUPPLEMENTAL/CAPITAL/OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
SB 40 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SENATE BILL NO. 26
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations and other appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
9:16:34 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred committee members to capital
budget detail sheets.
9:17:00 AM
AT EASE
9:19:31 AM
RECONVENED
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, addressed the governor's capital
budget. She began with amendments on a document titled
"FY2016 Capital Gov Amended Items Only Project Summary"
dated February 5, 2015 (copy on file). She explained that
the discussion would pertain only to governor's amendments
proposed following the governor's budget submittal deadline
of December 15, 2014. She detailed that the governor's
initial capital budget of $106 million was limited to items
with federal matching funds. Projects shown in the document
before the committee had been added subsequent to December
15. Page 1 included a $3 million request for Department of
Administration deferred maintenance, renewal, repair, and
equipment. She elaborated that the increment would come
from the Public Building Fund and would provide a very
modest amount to deferred maintenance. She relayed that
page 3 provided a project breakdown.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there were two separate $3
million increments. Ms. Pitney replied that there was only
one $3 million request. She addressed a $15 million request
for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) under the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. She
expounded that the proposed request would pay for the
Renewable Grant Program with funds from the Renewable
Energy Fund that had been capitalized in the operating
budget.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked for an explanation about why the
governor believed each item was critical and necessary to
include in the current budget. He asked Ms. Pitney to
address the question for each increment.
Ms. Pitney agreed. She relayed that the Renewable Grant
Program had been built up over several years to change the
nature of energy in Alaska. The hope was that the next time
oil prices increased the state would be utilizing more
renewable energy sources, which would lead to a reduced
footprint and cost.
9:23:39 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that she served on the REFAC
[Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee] with Senator
Hoffman. She explained that the $15 million request was
based on statute. She asked Senator Hoffman to elaborate.
Senator Hoffman expounded that the statute had passed
several years earlier and the target had been to spend $50
million. The state had a target of reaching 50 percent by
2020. He stated that the program was incredibly successful;
continued funding would reduce energy consumption in many
areas, particularly in rural Alaska. He pointed to high
energy costs in rural areas, where communities spent $8 to
$9 to generate electricity and similar amounts for one
gallon of heating fuel. He relayed that it was critical to
keep moving the program in the current direction. He
asserted that Alaska was looked to as a leader on renewable
energy given its high energy costs and its position as the
northernmost state. He believed the program was well-worthy
of the legislature's continued support.
Vice-Chair Micciche addressed the deferred maintenance
items. He observed that the state had been waiting 10 years
to replace the water pipeline in the State Office Building
for a mechanical upgrade. He did not believe it was the
year the state would catch up on deferred maintenance. He
did not intend to discount the importance of the renewable
energy fund.
Ms. Pitney replied that the amounts for deferred
maintenance were significantly lower than in former years.
She explained that the minimal amount would be used to
continue the program. She communicated the perspective of
the administration that the situation was a pay now or pay
later scenario. She discussed that the item represented a
few steps to continue forward. If the money was not paid in
the current year a certain amount of expertise would be
lost or projects would be only partially completed.
9:26:58 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered what would happen if the state
took one year off from spending on the project. Ms. Pitney
asked for clarification on the item he was speaking to.
Senator Dunleavy addressed the renewable energy fund and
deferred maintenance increments. He wondered if there would
be negative impacts if one year was taken off from spending
on the items.
Ms. Pitney answered that taking one year off would stall
the program, which could cause some people to leave the
program. She surmised that if the program was not running
the administrative and science expertise would not be
necessary. There were projects underway that would be
closed out. Additionally, there would be no planning for
the next project; therefore, there could be an inefficiency
gap between one project and the next. She stated that
momentum would be slowed and it could drop particular
programs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to page 79 of a capital budget
review [a Legislative Finance Division document titled "The
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget: Legislative Fiscal Analyst's
Overview of the Governor's Request"] that included a
conversation about deferred maintenance in Alaska. The
administration was estimating deferred maintenance costs of
close to $1.8 billion. She stated that the $3 million
appropriation represented a small drop in the bucket in
relation to the overall facility maintenance needs. She
noted that everything was on the table for consideration.
Vice-Chair Micciche believed there were many assets that
the state should probably consider taking off its books. He
would look for buildings and assets that were not as high
on the priority list as some of the others where deferred
maintenance could be passed on to the next buyer. He agreed
that everything was on the table.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed in her review of deferred
maintenance spending that it pertained to both public and
non-public buildings. She believed the legislature needed
to consider how the state was investing in other people's
buildings. She acknowledged that there may be circumstances
where the state had a long-term leases that required the
state to contribute in some way.
9:31:11 AM
Ms. Pitney moved to a reappropriation request for the
Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Program on page 6.
The request focused on public buildings in communities. She
detailed that the proposed reappropriation would come from
the Mount Spurr Geothermal Project and was not to exceed
$2.2 million.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered why the funds would not be
deposited back into the general fund instead of going to an
already well-funded state program. Ms. Pitney answered that
the increment would go towards continuing the momentum of
the program. She remarked that the funds could be deposited
into the general fund and then to the project. She added
that the method was certainly the legislature's call.
Ms. Pitney continued on pages 8 through 16. The requests
were included in the reappropriation of Mount Spurr funds
to the highest priority energy projects, which had
traditionally been funded through AEA. Pages 8 and 9
included funding for Kake and Port Heiden rural power
system upgrades. Page 10 pertained to Tuluksak bulk fuel
upgrades. Page 11 included funds for the Electrical
Emergencies Program. Pages 13 through 16 addressed school
district major maintenance grants in the amount of $13
million, which included the top four projects; $10 million
of the request was a reappropriation.
9:35:44 AM
Ms. Pitney explained that there were four pieces of
deferred maintenance in the amendments, which totaled
approximately $25 million to $30 million. She noted that
the amount was significantly below the $100 million in
addition to school major maintenance that had been funded
in the past. She concluded that the funding reflected a
small step to continue the program. She moved to page 17
related to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The
request included federal ($375,000) and DFG ($125,000)
funds for deferred maintenance on three shooting ranges;
the DFG funds were directed at range maintenance.
Senator Dunleavy asked about the amount of the required
state match (page 17). Ms. Pitney replied that the state
match was $125,000 (25 percent).
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the funds would roll into the
following year if they were not used in the current year.
Ms. Pitney answered that capital projects had a five-year
time horizon.
Ms. Pitney addressed a funding request for the Alaska
Arctic Policy Leadership on page 19. She detailed that the
small appropriation had been requested given the timing of
the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council. The increment
was to ensure that Alaska's policy agendas were at the top
of the Arctic Council's agenda. The appropriation would be
in coordination with the current legislative commission on
Arctic policy.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked where the proposed $500,000
increment would be spent on the Alaska Arctic Policy
Leadership. Ms. Pitney answered that Craig Fleener had
taken on a special assistant role on Arctic policy; he
would have the details in the coming weeks.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if the increment included Mr.
Fleener's salary. Ms. Pitney replied in the negative.
Vice-Chair Micciche expressed his interest in seeing a
breakdown of the expenditures that would occur over the
three-year period. He did not believe the state could
afford contingencies at present. He understood that the
state had a bright future, but he believed that every
dollar spent needed justification.
9:40:30 AM
Senator Olson wondered how much funding the state had
allocated to Alaska Arctic Policy Leadership in the past
(when the U.S. did not have the Arctic Council
chairmanship). Ms. Pitney did not believe the state had
funded a special assistant position in the past. She did
not know the amount that had gone into the Arctic Policy
Commission; however, she believed the commission was a good
investment for Alaska in order to put its policies forward.
She opined that the progress made by the legislature on the
issue was laudable.
Ms. Pitney addressed a reappropriation from a completed
project to the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC)
for an information technology systems refresh. She detailed
that $530,000 would be reappropriated from a $16 million
dormitory replacement project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to DSL services on page 22. She
wondered the item would be a one-time software purchase.
She explained that the capital budget chair tried to ensure
there was a clean line between operating expenses and one-
time capital budget expenses.
Ms. Pitney replied that she would follow up on the
question. She believed the item was potentially bandwidth
related and was possibly an operating expenditure. She
surmised that it may be below the level at which the
funding would cover. Co-Chair MacKinnon understood.
Ms. Pitney highlighted a $1 million request to acquire
subsurface lands on northern Afognak Island with funds from
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.
Senator Dunleavy asked for verification that the land was
state-owned. Ms. Pitney replied that she was not certain.
Senator Dunleavy made the assumption that the land was
state-owned. He asked for verification that the action
would use $1 million to take state land out of the
possibility of development. Ms. Pitney replied that she
would follow up on the question.
Senator Dunleavy asserted that it looked like the request
would remove the possibility of development on the land. He
thought it was a "triple whammy." He elaborated that 1) it
would cost the state $1 million; 2) it would remove state
land from development possibilities; and 3) it would make
the federal government happy, but not the state. He asked
for verification that the increment was $1 million.
Ms. Pitney affirmed that the request was $1 million. She
turned to a request on page 25 for the Cook Inlet Oil and
Gas Resources and Statewide Energy Database ($400,000 in
federal receipts and $400,000 in general fund match). She
elaborated that the database would help to find
undiscovered resources.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the request was an operating
budget item or a capital budget expenditure. Ms. Pitney
replied that the request was a capital budget expenditure
for database development. Future use of the database would
be funded through personnel within the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR).
9:45:35 AM
Ms. Pitney addressed a federal budget increment for the
upgrade and repair of critical volcano monitoring
instruments (page 28). The $500,000 request was federally
funded and related to emergency and safety.
Vice-Chair Micciche noted for the public's benefit that
items funded with federal receipts were passed through the
capital budget.
Ms. Pitney replied that the legislature had the
responsibility to appropriate all funds, which included the
authority to receive federal funds. She detailed that it
was a "pass through"; the agency could not spend the
federal funds without the authority of the legislature. She
turned to a request that would reappropriate DNR funds
within the department to unified permit automation and
document management (page 31). She expounded that the
increment included four entities looking to obtain
development permits; the database was intended to
streamline the process. There had been prior funding to the
project; no additional funding was anticipated going
forward.
Senator Hoffman pointed to the one-time $1 million
reappropriation on page 31. He observed that approximately
three-quarters of the amount would go to personnel
services. He wondered if the personnel services designation
included state employees; if so, he asked whether they
would be temporary hires. He believed there were about
eight positions that would be located in Anchorage. He
referred to page 34 where some of the positions were listed
as PFT [permanent full-time], which led him to believe the
funds were not one-time.
Ms. Pitney would follow up on the question. She detailed
that the permanent full-time analyst/programmer positions
would transition to other projects or would transition out;
the employees had been permanent full-time to date.
Additionally, there were three long-term non-permanent
positions associated with the project development.
9:50:08 AM
Ms. Pitney moved to an $850,000 request for the
continuation of the Alaska Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault Intervention Program under the Department of Public
Safety (page 35). The program had received one prior
appropriation of $850,000 the previous year. Page 36
included a $2 million request for the Empowering Choice
Housing Program under the Department of Public Safety for
rental assistance for victims. The rental assistance went
towards helping a victim get out of a domestic violence or
other problem.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that under the Alaska housing
program there had previously been a preference for
individuals seeking shelter from domestic violence. She
elaborated that the state had eliminated the preference.
She believed general fund or other dollars had been
substituted to support that part of the population that was
bottle-necking other low-income families from receiving
housing.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the funds only passed
through the capital budget. More specifically, he asked
what percentage of the expenditures were recovered with the
Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs) of perpetrators. Ms. Pitney
replied that the $2 million increment was entirely derived
from the PFDs of criminals.
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that the funds were
essentially pass through funds. Ms. Pitney answered in the
affirmative. She elaborated that the fund source was the
recommendation of the administration; however, she
acknowledged that it was the legislature's choice to
determine how to best utilize the funds.
Co-Chair MacKinnon was uncertain that PFD funds were being
used properly according to statute. The committee would
need to explore the issue further related to the two
requests (pages 35 through 37) to ensure statute was
adhered to. She noted that it did not mean the governor's
request would not be followed, but the funding source would
need to be examined.
9:53:29 AM
Ms. Pitney turned to a $350,000 DPS reappropriation request
on page 38. She detailed that funds would be reappropriated
from a completed video arraignment project to upgrade
trooper video equipment and storage. Page 40 included a
$4.6 million request for the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) under the Department of Revenue. Funds
would go to the new Teacher, Health Professional, Public
Safety and Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) programs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that the governor proposed
eliminating some VPSO positions that had not been filled.
She wondered if the elimination of the positions was
reflected in the housing program. Ms. Pitney believed the
increment was in alignment with the positions. She
elaborated that in addition to unfilled VPSO positions
there was tremendous turnover. There was also a lack of
housing in some communities that had not yet been
identified.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested further detail to ensure that
the construction of housing was in line with locations that
had existing officers.
9:56:06 AM
Ms. Pitney relayed that beginning on page 43 there was a
list of projects in various communities over the past
several years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that the state was creating a
significant amount of housing. She wondered if it was safe
to assume that any appropriation would actually build a
house to completion. She wanted to ensure the funding did
not only partially fund items. Ms. Pitney replied that it
was a safe assumption, but she would follow up.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that the proposed request was
$40 million from FY 16 through FY 21. He was concerned that
competition from the private sector could potentially
deliver the same result at a much more cost-effective
price. He also worried that planning to build that far in
advance in communities that may or may not continue to have
the need could result in a surplus of state-owned real
estate. He believed it was for an honorable reason, but he
wondered how far in advance the project was planned. He
asked if it was ongoing effort for the state to construct
rental units and housing for state positions when there may
be a smaller number of position in the future.
Ms. Pitney answered that the program had been ongoing. She
relayed that there were communities that were still with
need. She stated that it was a choice the state faced in
the current environment. She added that the increment was
much smaller than in past years.
Vice-Chair Micciche was unsure the smaller increment would
solve the problem if it was not the right choice to
continue building housing or if there was private sector
competition. He wondered how the administration felt about
the competition with local businesses that may want to
provide housing at a lower cost. He wondered if the role
was appropriate for the state.
Ms. Pitney replied that the intent of the program was to
have housing to attract qualified individuals to service
communities. The issue had been seen as the most
significant barrier to recruiting qualified personnel into
the communities.
Senator Dunleavy noted that the program had begun in 2001.
He detailed that the program's initial purpose had been to
provide infrastructure and teacher housing in many of the
state's rural villages that had complicated land ownership
issues with tribes and tribal corporations. He elaborated
that it had not been easily available for private
contractors to go in and build housing. He explained that
the teacher housing provided a Housing and Urban
Development-like program for first time homebuyers anywhere
in the state. He highlighted that a portion of the current
request included a partnership between school districts,
tribes, and other where the money was a loan that was paid
off over time to teachers and others. Until 2001 in rural
Alaska operating dollars were used to build teacher
housing. He noted that it had been thought that it was more
appropriate to have a different revenue stream to build
infrastructure.
10:01:03 AM
Senator Olson stressed that it was not possible to recruit
VPSOs to villages without housing. He asserted that the
housing program had been contributing to the success of the
VPSO and teacher programs. He thought missing the point
would be detrimental. He spoke to tragedies in small
communities such as Manokotak and Tanana that would
continue without first line responders like VPSOs. He
firmly believed that the housing was justified and
necessary in order to continue the success of VPSOs.
Vice-Chair Micciche supported the value of the housing, but
he wondered if it was being done as efficiently as
possible. He was interested in private partnerships
whenever possible.
Senator Olson pointed out that there were very few people
in villages who could put money together to build a private
facility. He noted that Native corporations had witnessed
this fact and had primarily stayed out of the issue. He
believed the chance housing would be built that was not
state sponsored was minimal.
Ms. Pitney turned to an $11 million request for AHFC energy
programs on page 47. The request was made up of $3 million
from the AHFC dividend, $6.6 million in general funds, and
$1.5 million in federal receipts. The funds would keep the
weatherization and home rebate program continuing; it also
provided funds to assist with weatherization and
rehabilitation of existing homes for low and moderate
income families. The request represented one-quarter of the
amount appropriated in the past (up to $100 million had
been appropriated in the past, but between $44 million and
$51 million had been appropriated in the past few years).
She relayed that the program had a good return on
investment. She briefly highlighted pages 49 through 52
related to the AHFC Weatherization and Home Energy Rebate
Programs. She turned to a $1 million request for the Cold
Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC) on page 54. The
funding would go towards the ongoing operation of the
program; it assisted AHFC and with determining the
appropriate design for Alaska's climate at the lowest
energy footprint possible.
10:05:42 AM
Ms. Pitney addressed a $29 million request for the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) on
page 56. The request was made up of $24 million in federal
highway capital funds and $5 million in capital improvement
project receipts. The increment focused on improving
traffic in congested areas. She detailed that the state
equipment fleet replacement was the primary component from
the highway capital fund (fleet replacement occurred after
a 5 to 7-year lifecycle).
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred page 57. In her review of the
operating budget she had observed an increase in fish and
game and boats. She remarked that the request would help
cover some of the cost, which was related to replacement
vehicles. She wondered what the administration was
proposing to purchase. She requested detail on what would
be purchased and how old the vehicles were. She noted that
there was surplus money coming in from the sale of some of
the equipment. She wondered what the average mileage was on
vehicles that were surplused and whether the state received
the value of items when they were surplused.
Ms. Pitney would follow up on the questions. She turned to
an $8 million request for DOT deferred maintenance,
renewal, repair, and equipment (page 60). She communicated
that prior year appropriations had ranged from $25 million
to $27 million. The increment would address a few of the
department's highest priority deferred maintenance needs.
10:09:11 AM
Ms. Pitney turned to a $12 million reappropriation request
on page 61. The increment would reappropriate the funds
from the estimated Alaska Aerospace Corporation balance of
$22 million to Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) vessel
and terminal overhaul and rehabilitation. She added that
the funds could just as easily go back into the general
fund for appropriation to AMHS. She relayed that the
increment was an operating item that could be discussed for
future budgets. She added that the annual maintenance
requirement had traditionally been in the capital budget,
but could be transferred to the operating budget in future
years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that Co-Chair Kelly did not
want items moved from the capital budget to the operating
budget at present.
Ms. Pitney addressed an $8 million request for the
University of Alaska Fairbanks engineering building (page
64). She detailed that the building was partially complete
(walls were currently up); the increment would allow for
the completion of an additional floor and a couple of labs.
She added that the total amount needed to complete the
facility was slightly over $30 million. Page 65 included an
$8 million request, which was the final deferred
maintenance component. The increment was for the University
of Alaska system for its highest priority deferred
maintenance requirements. She communicated that the
increment had been around $37 million in prior years, but
had fluctuated depending on the year. Page 68 included a
reappropriation of $1 million to capitalize the Emerging
Energy Technology Fund with funds previously allocated to
the Mount Spurr Geothermal Project development.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked Ms. Pitney for her presentation.
She informed the committee that it would hear from each
department related to the items discussed.
Senator Dunleavy asked for verification that the items
discussed during the meeting had been added to the
governor's original budget dated December 15, 2014. Ms.
Pitney replied in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy asked for the total cost of the additions.
Ms. Pitney replied that the net was $43 million; including
reappropriations the total was closer to $80 million. The
additions would increase the capital budget to $150 million
in general funds and over $1.4 billion in federal funds.
10:13:44 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche saw the value in the projects and did
not want to come across as doubting the administration's
approach. As the former mayor of a small town he understood
that it was helpful to keep buildings for extra storage and
other uses. However, he wondered if the committee could
receive a comprehensive evaluation of property controlled
by the state that may not need to be controlled any longer.
He wondered about putting property up for sale, which would
reduce the state's maintenance and holding costs.
Ms. Pitney answered that she would follow up on the
question.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered how complicated the effort
would be to identify property that would be best for
surplus sale. He wondered if there was a running tally of
state properties and how they were used.
Ms. Pitney replied that that the best source of information
to start with would be the deferred maintenance list to
prioritize the facilities. She detailed that the state had
a variety of facilities ranging from gravel coverage,
campground kiosks, a crime lab, fish hatcheries, office
buildings and other. She agreed that the facilities
represented a tremendous cost to the state and it would be
worth a systemic look.
Co-Chair MacKinnon communicated that the Senate Finance
Committee would have its "hands firmly on the steering
wheel." She recommended against the inclusion of any
discretionary funds in the capital budget. She wanted to
ensure that health, life, and safety issues were addressed
in the budget. She asked committee members to include
requests in the Capital Appropriation Submission and
Information System (CAPSIS). She noted that requests
totaled $1 billion to date. She added that there continued
to be communities and entities requesting money that would
benefit individual projects. She recognized the projects
were important to the people asking for them and served the
people of Alaska in many ways. She emphasized the $3.4
billion debt facing the state. She stated that projects
with matching money may have greater consideration than
those requesting general fund dollars only. She was
interested in hearing ideas that could reduce the state's
operating budget or expenses in the future. She wanted to
lower the public's expectation related to what could be
done in the current year. She spoke to the importance of
maintaining the integrity of the process. She explained her
intent to look at operating budget items and the use of
one-time funds. She had requested that the administration
take a high-level look at its budget to determine how much
had been cut in recurring dollar costs versus one-time
expenses; it appeared to her that the capital budget was
taking the majority of the hit. She discussed that in past
years the capital budget had been used to stabilize the
economy. She referred to 2008 and 2009 when capital budget
projects helped to maintain the state from falling into
recession. She wanted to let Alaskans know that the
committee was working hard to understand what would make a
difference.
10:21:37 AM
Senator Dunleavy thanked Co-Chair MacKinnon for her
comments. He believed that Alaskans understood that the
state had an issue with its revenues. He also believed that
Alaskans were concerned about the legislature's ability to
understand the problem. He thought the statements would
reassure Alaskans that the legislature would be "tight" on
the budget. He opined that many legislators would perfectly
understand why there would be no discretionary funding in
the budget for projects in individual districts. He
believed it was the beginning of reality. He thought the
state needed to take a year off from spending and to reduce
the size of government. He spoke to the need for reducing
and restructuring.
Vice-Chair Micciche hoped all legislators heard Co-Chair
MacKinnon's message. He believed the state would be in
great financial shape again in the future. He noted that
when adjusting for inflation per capita, the spending in
1981 was higher than current spending. He believed the
state had an incredible opportunity to right-size its
budget. He did not believe the situation should be looked
at as impending doom and gloom. He greatly supported the
thoughts shared by Co-Chair MacKinnon. He believed oil
prices would rebound.
Senator Hoffman agreed that the state needed to tighten its
belt; however, his districts did not have much in the way
of state spending. For example, the state may only be
providing a small amount of revenue sharing and some funds
for the school in the community of Oscarville. He discussed
that there were still many unmet needs in rural Alaska that
were health, life, and safety issues (i.e. water, sewer,
and other). He remarked that the prior governor had spent
significant time on VPSOs. He elaborated that without a
VPSO, entire communities were at risk in the event of a
shooting. He believed that as the state tightened its belt
it needed to remain cognizant that health, life, safety
issues existed in rural areas. He spoke to the importance
of remembering that many Alaskans living in rural
communities had far different circumstances than those
individuals living in urban areas. He wanted to ensure that
individuals were treated fairly.
Senator Bishop did not disagree with comments made around
the table, but he wanted to reassure Alaskans that they had
not been forgotten. The legislature was working to
determine the best path forward related to state spending.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated members' comments. She
stated that "we're in it together and together we will be
successful." She discussed the schedule for the following
day.
SB 26 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:27:30 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY2016 Capital Gov Amend Dept Appropriations and Allocations 2-5-15.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2015 9:15:00 AM |
SB 26 |
| FY2016 Capital Gov Amend Dept Summary 2-5-15.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2015 9:15:00 AM |
SB 26 |
| FY2016 Capital Gov Amend Priority Summary.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2015 9:15:00 AM |
SB 26 |
| FY2016 Capital Gov Amend Reapprop Balances.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2015 9:15:00 AM |
SB 26 |
| FY2016 Capital Gov Amended Items Only Project Summary.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2015 9:15:00 AM |
SB 26 |
| FY2016 Capital Gov Amended Items Summary.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2015 9:15:00 AM |
SB 26 |