Alaska Legislature: House Floor Session, 4/10/26, 10:30pm

provide a significant discouragement to people who might want to serve in an elected position and it's just totally out of hand so unfortunately this amendment is necessary I urge you just your support

Representative Kerrick.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise in opposition to Amendment 2,

and I guess I want to counter what the maker of the amendment has stated about APOC.

APOC has volunteer members on its commission.

They also have staff who,

especially over the last couple of years, have spent hundreds,

if not even thousands of hours investigating complaints,

many of which were erroneous. And to the maker of the amendment,

there are.

potentially policy fixes that this body could make that would better improve what APOC investigates,

how they investigate it,

those kinds of considerations.

But what's before us in amendment number two simply takes an existing challenge within APOC or series of challenges,

especially that have escalated over these last year or so, and it turns it into a just get rid of it. I think every member of this body, including the maker,

does want

want government accountability does want to see that kind of investigation take place where it's warranted so I would just ask members to oppose Amendment number two

Any comments in wrap-up, Representative McCabe?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't disagree with that. I tried to amend an APOC bill last year many times, eight amendments,

I think.

So I don't disagree with the fact that there's probably a better way to do that.

There is, I'm certain there's a better way to do this.

The better way would be for APOC to start following their own enabling statute,

but they're apparently not willing to do that,

so we have to take drastic actions.

Frankly,

the FEC would provide a better level of transparency and accountability for us right now, and I'm going to continue to bring this forward. I have another bill, in fact,

to help bring this forward,

but at this point...

I have no hope that this amendment is going to pass,

but I felt the need to stand up here and talk about it once again, and I will probably get hammered for it once again in my next APOC hearing.

But we need to understand clearly what is happening with some of our accountability.

Statutes such as APOC by our political opponents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I urge a yes vote.

Are we ready for the question?

The question being shall Amendment number two pass the House. Members may proceed to vote.

Will the Clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

18 yeas, 22 nays.

With a vote of 18 yeas to 22 nays,

Amendment No. 2 has failed to pass.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment No. 4 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 59, following line 28.

Representative McCabe?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Amendment 4.

There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an amendment to fund $2 million for the Talkeetna trooper post.

I want to be very clear about what we're doing here.

I'm not taking any extra money out of the budget.

The state recently received approximately $12.8 million in ANWAR lease revenues.

Before any of those can be spent,

Mr.

Speaker, or considered,

we have to pay our obligations.

That includes the required 50% share to the federal government.

That includes statutory transfers,

including the permanent fund and the public school trust fund. That includes other required setbacks that we must pay before we can use any of this money.

After all of that, what remains is a limited responsible balance of roughly $3 million that we can use to appropriate somewhere.

This amendment to fund the state trooper post in Talkeetna to bring it back to where it was before it was vetoed a couple governors ago.

Does not touch obligated funds.

These are unallocated funds at this point.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will take $2 million to reestablish the Talkeetna Troopers Post.

The balance supports continued responsible development in the coastal plain through aid.

I think there will be $988,000 left.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly how we should operate.

Pay what we owe first,

follow the law,

then make smart, targeted investments for our infrastructure,

for our public safety.

Public safety is a core function of government,

Mr.

Speaker,

as we all know.

This particular corridor,

the Talkeetna area,

the corridor, the Parks Highway from Wasilla to Cantwell,

frankly,

the trooper post, there's a trooper post north of Wasilla, small trooper post.

Most of them come out of Palmer.

There's a trooper post in Talkeetna. There's nothing in,

I'm sorry, there's a trooper post in Cantwell.

There is nothing in between,

Mr.

Speaker. It's an awful lonely road between Willow and Cantwell.

frankly,

and we need troopers up there.

If you live in Talkeetna,

if you have family in Talkeetna,

if you respect and understand the rule of law,

Mr. Speaker,

and understand the problems we have with drug use, hauling fentanyl up the Parks Highway to Fairbanks,

Mr.

Speaker, this amendment is for you.

It's disciplined,

it's responsible.

I think when Commissioner Cockrell put in for this last year was $2.4 million,

and I was assured it was going to go through last year, and for whatever reason it didn't, Mr.

Speaker,

but $2 million will get you four troopers and a sergeant. Probably one of those troopers will be a wildlife trooper,

but in any case, they will be able to patrol the highway north of Talkeetna.

support law enforcement and support accidents and support all the things that we need to do on that on that highway mr. speaker I urge a yes vote

Representative Jimmy.

Madam Speaker,

I oppose Amendment 4.

The money would reopen the Telkina Trapper post with leftover money from the Anwar lease sales.

First,

we worked so closely with the Department of Public Safety during the subcommittee process and were never told of an additional request for money to make this happen.

Secondly, public safety should have reliable funding.

Using one-time lease sales left over from the DPS doesn't give Alaskans or our troopers the stability they deserve.

I will be opposing this amendment.

Thank you.

Representative Elon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support.

I think that...

Representative from Big Lake brings a number of good points to the conversation.

But,

you know, our troopers provide many,

many more services, even though really their primary purpose is, you know, public safety,

law enforcement.

But in so many cases,

they provide so much more from being the first one on scenes whenever we have accidents to a variety of services. And so, again,

this just comes back to prioritization and for me, public safety.

Safety is a priority.

Thank you.

Representative Schwanke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of this amendment.

Talkied is on the other side, this copper and this was set in a river drainage from my home, but about seven years ago, I

lost a very good friend and her seven-year-old daughter.

in a head-on car accident near Talkeetna in the middle of a sunny day in September.

Volunteers did CPR on little Addie for 45 minutes.

If there had been troopers in Talkeetna,

she might be alive.

But they both passed away that day.

This has been a long time in coming.

We need to put troops back in Dachina.

The amount of drugs and illegal substances that are coming up the Parks Highway are more now than they've ever been.

Those substances come up the parks, they end up in Fairbanks, and they end up in our interior villages.

People are dying at a higher rate now than they've ever done before.

That is a corridor,

and we just let them drive right through.

This is a great use of these funds.

I hope you support the amendment.

Representative Eischied.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It's true that public safety is important to everybody.

And for many of the good reasons that we've heard already.

frankly we have such a big state and we ask them to do so much but the amount of money that we give to public safety is about 354 million dollars deed

is 1.7 billion health is 4.3 billion I think it's and these are really rough numbers if I'm interpreting this correctly

The university,

millions upon millions to a land grant university.

Why is it that public safety is so darn loved?

We know that we have some of the worst, that violent crimes has risen in Alaska.

We have some of the most heinous sexual crimes. We have fentanyl that's killing our kids.

It's coming through our borders,

it's coming up this highway,

and yet we say, oh, well,

the municipalities, they need to fund it.

This is in our hands to do something about it, and I know we can't wave a wand and suddenly there's more troopers,

but the Matsu has been asking for help and for more troopers year after year after year,

and specifically the representative from Big Lake has been bringing this talk heat and trooper post up.

over and over and over again.

I know he's had conversations besides having it on this floor to bring to the budget,

but it's what are we doing about that?

We keep acting like it's some nebulous problem that someone else is magically going to fix it. Well, the department didn't ask for it. Well, we're the people's house.

When are we going to solve this problem?

Obviously, there isn't a will to do it today,

and I'm disappointed because,

like we've been reminded,

we're only halfway through this budget process.

We get to send this, what we pass in this budget sends a signal to the other body,

please include this,

finish the work,

make it even better than what we could do.

This isn't the final vote,

but tell you what.

I would sure like to send the message over to the other body to say this is a priority because we every one of us know we are not doing enough in public safety.

Public safety not only adds added security to our roads but also the deterrence it gives people confidence that they're going to have someone that's going to be there when they didn't have that call for help.

When they see a trooper on the road,

they know if something goes awry, there's someone that will be there to help them.

When are we as the leaders of this great state going to address this issue?

Because year after year, we keep acting like it's someone else's problem.

It's our problem, Mr.

Speaker,

and I'm going to vote yes because this is the right thing to do.

Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Speaker.

I will join with my colleagues and others in rising in support of this amendment.

You know,

when I grew up in Ohio,

the towns would grow and there was old saying that, you know, towns move in this way. So people would buy land and the town would go and the traffic would happen and a bigger road would be built.

And those who were smart enough to put infrastructure to buy land would reap the benefits of that. And over my nearly 40 years in Alaska,

I have seen the artery from north from Anchorage up to the town on the edge of nowhere.

get more and more busy and more and more hazardous.

I take my heart in my hands and my rosary and my fist as I drive the Parks Highway sometimes.

It's a real hazard.

Traffic is growing.

There's increased passenger traffic.

There is increased tourist traffic and big buses.

There are commercial trucks ferrying freight up and down.

There is the Port of Alaska Freight that goes up the interior.

And this traffic will only increase in time. And we hear clearly from the representative of that district that it's a hazard.

right now and as the AK LNG project gets legs and slips a pipe go up and down the road and as the Susitna access road is happening there's going to be even greater hazards and even greater need to have the presence of law enforcement on that stretch of highway

This is the main north slope surface artery for the state, and it seems to be eminently appropriate that the state of Alaska should provide some assistance to improve public safety and the presence of law enforcement done this.

I have heard the argument about local control.

We heard those arguments in the south of my community in Anchorage, but local control and the ability to provide local control to functions that the state's doing now,

that's a touchy subject,

and that's one I would...

I would touch on gently.

I would notice, however,

more positively that it's going to be really easy to recruit troopers to live and work in the communities of Talkeetna and the surrounding areas,

Trappers Creek.

There are good schools in the Matsu where people are going to want to send their kids.

It will be a good post.

It will restore the safety we used to have.

And I think that if we take one time money and put it into a trooper post in Talkeetna, we're going to find out to our relief and surprise and gratitude that this was a good investment.

And we should keep it up. So I'll vote yes encourage others to vote yes as well

Representative Bynum?

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I would agree with some of the speakers that got up and said,

while the MATSU could be providing policing services to cover this gap,

that the MATSU should step up and do that.

I don't disagree with that, but they haven't.

Millions of people travel this highway every year up and down.

And we have an obligation for the public safety.

The trooper was also stated,

well,

it wasn't requested by the department this year.

Last year they requested this,

and then it wasn't in the budget this year. I was very surprised, Mr.

Speaker,

and so I went and asked them about this, and I said, why wasn't this included in the budget?

And they said, because they've been asking and asking,

and we keep saying no.

So they didn't feel like they could ask anymore.

I think this is a tremendous priority.

We need to protect Alaskans and protect the people to come here and visit.

And if the Matsu isn't going to be standing up additional police to do it, I think we have an obligation to do that.

And then we can follow up with a further conversation with the Matsu about how we can improve policing and give them options.

This is an immediate need.

I support it.

And wrap up, reps in my cape.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lots of great discussion. I appreciate it.

This will be a little bit long. Permission to read,

Mr. Speaker.

Permission granted.

Thank you.

So a couple things that I wanted to address.

Talkeetna is at about mile 97.

I think the Talkeetna spur is.

The next trooper post is in Cantwell, which is like mile post 90.

Or I'm sorry,

210.

So the member from District 22 started bringing it up and everybody else thereafter has brought it up, so I'd like to read this.

And this is a bit dated, so the numbers might be a little bit wrong,

but Matsu Borough residents are supported and protected by three police forces, actually,

including the Alaska State Troopers with 54 officers,

the Wasilla Police Department with 29 officers,

and the Palmer Police Department with 15 officers.

City police forces comprise 45% of the total police force in the Matsu serving 16,698 residents.

There are currently 110,000 residents in the borough and the borough is the size of West Virginia.

So I'd like to remind,

as the member from District 22 said,

and as I said last year,

there was a study done.

We polled the Matsuboro residents.

Turns out that it would take our property taxes to 20 mils immediately.

And for every sheriff that we put in place, the troopers would remove one trooper and send him elsewhere. So we would get a net zero gain in law enforcement and still have to pay 20 mils of property taxes. So,

of course.

The borough residents said no to that.

Nationwide, the rate of sworn officers is 2.4 officers per thousand people.

A little bit less in the cities in the West,

Wyoming,

Montana,

those cities, 1.6 sworn officers per 1,000.

The cities in the Matsu borough have 54 officers,

16,698 inhabitants.

That's 2.63 per 1,000.

The rest of the borough has 54 officers for 94,000, almost 100,000 residents.

That's 0.58 troopers per 1,000.

Additionally,

the cities of Palmer and Wasilla support school resources officers,

five in many of our schools.

I don't believe to address some of the questions,

we don't have near the traffic in Haines that we do on the Parks Highway.

And not near the traffic from Anchorage driving through our cities and on the way up to Fairbanks from other places.

I suppose we could put in a toll booth and give Mat-Su residents a pass to get through the toll booth and just charge everybody that was driving up the highway some sort of toll to pay for the law enforcement on the road.

Not practical,

but kind of a joke.

So last year, Mr.

Speaker,

I asked Commissioner Cockrell,

there was a jet and a trooper post in the budget last year.

And I asked Commissioner Cockrell,

okay,

jet,

trooper post,

jet, trooper post.

Unequivocally, without hesitation,

he said the trooper post in Talkeetna would be his number one priority in the budget.

And yet we hear that they didn't even bother to put it in this year because we have not funded it since 2016.

There's also some law enforcement in the in the valley Alaska Bureau of Investigation has 11 officers the there's a drug unit that has in major crimes unit that has seven officers there's

also

The motorcycle gang that has a huge clubhouse right outside of Talkeetna. I get calls about drug use and drug houses in Talkeetna and Trapper Creek all the time, Mr. Speaker,

all the time. And you know who is going to those drug houses and trying to evict the druggies and trying to evict the meth cooking?

The residents are doing it, Mr.

Speaker.

The residents. Can you imagine going to a drug house and trying to get rid of them because they're cooking meth around your kids?

Your kids are driving up and down the road on their Yamahas and right past a drug house that's got traffic going in and out at all hours of the morning because they're cooking meth.

The residents are going to be in there to evict them, and that can't happen,

Mr.

Speaker.

This isn't a big ask, and I actually did go through and try to find some money that we didn't have to take from anybody else.

This is public safety.

This is a core function of government,

Mr.

Speaker,

public safety.

I would appreciate a yes vote.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being shall Amendment number four pass the House,

members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

19 yeas, 21 nays.

Will the vote of 19 yeas and 21 nays, amendment number four has failed to pass the body.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment number seven will not be offered.

Amendment number 22 by Representative Bynum beginning page 59 lines 8 through 18.

Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move amendment 22.

There's no objection.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Amendment number 22 restores the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority ADA dividend to the board approved amount of $17 million.

For more than six decades,

the legislature has recognized the importance of keeping the dividend at the approved amount and trying to keep us from trying to make those decisions so that it can fulfill its mission of achieving economic development and job creation.

That framework is firms and was affirmed by the Constitution.

in the D.R. D.R.

Mendez, Alaska Supreme Court decision.

In 1996,

the legislature, by near unanimous agreement, codified this principle by establishing a statutory dividend structure to prevent ad hoc draws and political interference.

The statute remains in place today,

granting ADA's board the statutory authority to set the annual dividend between 25 and 50 percent of net income base.

on the current conditions.

Given the scale of capital commitments,

the requirements for major capital projects currently under consideration,

the board exercises statutory authority and approved a 25% dividend.

I have the statutes here,

Mr.

Speaker. I'm not going to read through them all,

but they do clearly establish that it is authority to set that dividend.

And I look forward to any questions.

Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker,

while it is true, and we'll hear this undoubtedly, we haven't really heard it yet,

that ADA has some independence from the rest of the state.

I have a legal opinion,

which I did not distribute but could,

from Mr.

Ian Walsh of our office,

dated essentially thirteen months ago; and in it, if I might read,

Permission granted.

Mr.

Walsh says, "The short answer to the question about whether the state legislature may appropriate money from ADA

And what restrictions apply is this.

The short answer is, quote,

the legislature has the power under the Alaska Constitution to appropriate unobligated money from ADA.

And what Mr.

Walsh highlights is that ADA, while it enjoys considerable independence,

is an instrumentality and a creation of the state.

And he cites to a number of authorities for his opinion,

including opinions of previous Attorney General,

the Hickel v.

Cooper decision,

and other authorities.

And I'll just read his concluding sentence,

if I might,

Mr. Speaker.

He writes,

again,

13 months ago,

in sum, because the dedicated funds clause of the Alaska Constitution does not permit the dedication of future state revenue to a particular purpose.

and ADA is considered an instrumentality of the state for purposes of the Constitution,

the legislature has the power under the Constitution to appropriate unobligated money from ADA.

The fact that the finance version of the bill,

which is before us in the vernacular it's called Committee Substitute 3, but at any rate, because the work draft before us

Does the following, it found a middle number,

I think the exact middle number, between 25% of the dividend potential and 50%. It resulted in about roughly $10 million more that would be drawn.

And I just wanted to highlight.

That this is not unusual. As I've said before,

the majority leader talked about how the administration worked vigorously to fund a full dividend in the 2019-2020 timeframe.

And one of the things the administration did was it sought to appropriate into its draft budget,

I think it was something in excess of $70 million from ADA's cash receipts or cash fund.

And so the notion that the state may ask ADA for greater contribution is not without precedent.

In fact, in the previous budget,

although the governor vetoed it,

the legislature writ large, really the conference committee,

concluded that it would try to fund with ADA.

receipts, a part of the dividend when we were in a harder place than we are now today.

As everyone knows, that was vetoed and it fell to the Higher Education Investment Fund to play that role.

But fundamentally,

for Ada to say all our receipts, which is effectively a kind of state revenue, are dedicated to our purpose,

would be a violation of the Constitution.

That's what Mr.

Walsh concludes.

Point of order, minor leader Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I would like to... the speaker is referencing a legal memo,

and I would like to have a copy of that, please.

That's easily arranged,

Mr.

Speaker.

It would take some time. I'm holding it in my hand. It would take some time.

Well, why don't we continue the debate? We'll get the legal memo distributed.

You bet.

So fundamentally, there's nothing illegal,

according to Mr.

Walsh.

His opinion is rather unequivocal in the final analysis.

He says we can do what we did.

And I asked for the body to reject this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Johnson.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I will be a yes vote on this. I'm quite happy to support the member from Ketchikan as he asked for a full uh dividend, statutory dividend. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Representative

Johnson at ease.

Will the House please come back to order?

We have several things in motion here.

My apologies, Representative Johnson,

do you want to just re-clarify your previous statement?

I said thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will clarify and say that I am quite happy to vote yes on this amendment to support the member from Ketchikan who is amendment is for a full statutory ADA dividend.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Small distinction there.

Representative McCabe, thank you.

How do I follow that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the co-chair of finance is correct.

We did dip into AIDA years ago. I'm not sure who did that. I think I said it last year, but we dipped into AIDA.

Causes a two point, two basis point, or I'm sorry,

it might even have been a 20 basis point reduction in their bond rating. So right now I think AIDA has a AAA bond rating, pretty close anyways,

top bond rating in the country,

one of the top.

And anytime the legislature gets to messing around in there,

it causes the bond rating to dip because people get worried that we're going to dip into there and create an insolvent corporation.

ADA,

in fact, there's several legal opinions. I read them the other day, yesterday or the day before,

I can't even remember,

that say that ADA is not under the Executive Budget Act. Those actually came from the Department of Law,

not from ledge.

legal mr.

speaker you know the governor the administration their office is an instrumentality of the state so is the Alaska Railroad we can't get into either one of their budgets so I'm not so sure why the legal opinion says that

that we can actually dip into Ada's receipts and Ada's budget in this manner.

Frankly,

Ada was designed to do exactly what it's doing.

It was designed to have the capital to help support things like Point McKenzie rail extension,

to support Alaska gas line development,

to support the Red Dog mine road,

to support Sneticham hydroelectric, to support the shipyards.

In Ketchikan and the new ones in Wrangell, create jobs.

That's what ADA is here for,

create jobs. They actually pay the state a dividend when they have a dividend.

But if they need to husband some of that to keep some of that for upcoming projects, then we should be smart enough to allow them to do that because resource development,

we said it earlier,

we must have resource development to fund our general fund.

fund our budget.

If we don't diversify our resource development,

if we don't get resource development,

then we can't put more money into our general fund.

ADA is a big part of resource development,

Mr. Speaker,

and we have got to take care of this.

Corporation. It's one of the crown jewels of Alaska. And just looking at it as a piggy bank, it's almost as bad as looking at the citizens PFD as the legislature's piggy bank. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Stapp.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So to reference the co-chair of Finance's comments earlier,

just because you can doesn't mean you should,

Mr. Speaker.

I support this amendment because it restores ADA's directed dividend as per their board of directors.

You can certainly go in and steal their money,

Mr.

Speaker.

We tried that last year. It didn't work out so well. If you were to do it this year,

you have the potential of doing a couple of things.

One,

you reduce the availability of capitalization of ADA.

to make their existing debts.

Two,

you also force them to make other decisions in terms of investments,

Mr.

Speaker.

If you want to go ahead and steal their cash reserves,

then you will fundamentally trigger a domino effect of them looking at their loans that are in deferred or low interest status and actually requiring to call them.

Mr. Speaker,

I live in a town where my public utility has $170 million of debt from ADA that is in deferred payment status,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while we build out gas infrastructure, ideally in the hope of a gas pipeline.

Mr.

Speaker,

if you defund ADA or you take more than their available dividend,

ADA will come to my public utility and say,

hey, by the way, because we got our cash stolen by the legislature,

we're going to have to call your debt.

That's what a bank does,

Mr.

Speaker,

when you can't pay.

Actually, everyone who's got a mortgage,

Mr.

Speaker, the bank reserves the right to actually call the loan.

Most people don't know that.

So if you go in and you wreck Ada's financials, you should not be surprised that they might take action that is adverse to somewhere in your community.

Mr.

Speaker,

Ada has loans,

fishing communities,

Western Alaska,

Southeast.

They have investments all over the state.

We passed a bill earlier saying we wanted them to have affordable housing,

Mr. Speaker.

And I guess in life you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I asked members to vote yes on this so we don't have negative consequences down the road.

Thank you.

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I also rise in support of this.

I was going to say about the same thing as the previous speaker,

but he did it much more eloquently.

In summary,

we read a poll recently where the legislature,

state legislature, I think has, I forget,

a 30,

35 percent range approval rating and bond rating agencies are even more critical of politically driven.

entities.

They have more confidence in a board of directors that operates their business according to established parameters and doesn't do crazy things that put their bonds,

their loans at risk.

And I think there is a very high possibility that some of these loans would be called in.

as the previous speaker mentioned.

So therefore,

I think we should be very careful about appropriating money from ADA for to meet political needs.

We should let them do their job and work with them instead of against them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Holland.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

As

As someone who's involved in the budget subcommittee process as well as some of the legislation we've looked at with ADA,

I think it's important to bring up a couple points.

And I'm speaking against the amendment.

The bond rating of ADA certainly is very strong,

and I think we should be proud of that. But we should also recognize that as because of the significant amount of cash that they keep on hand,

over five hundred million dollars of

of cash sitting in ADA at this point and that does give them the ability to have that strong bond rating but it is also a level of cash that if you look at their statements for 2025 you'll find out is more than they need they in their statements identify money that is obligated for current loans and other projects they identify current projects that they're developing and have near term

cash.

term view of needing money. They have mid-term commitments of money that they are planning on investing in new projects, and they have long-term projects that they are looking at needing to have funding. And then after all that's done, they eliminate the money that they have designated for the dividend.

And then after that, there's still over $40 million sitting there that is not obligated to current projects, is not obligated to midterm activities,

is not obligated to long-term plans,

is not obligated to dividend. It's just extra cash.

They have within their purview a 25 to 50 percent of profit decision that they can make. They've provided no clarity on why they chose to.

in a time of our own fiscal crisis to award us a dividend of the minimum of the range that they have.

This amount that we are seeing in the budget is not outside of the range that the board could have approved on their own.

And I

And opposed to the amendment because I think the amount that is in the budget is a prudent amount.

It's an amount,

quite frankly, that the board should have seen as reasonable.

It's within their authority. It's within the cash they have.

They still, after that, have a significant cash reserve that ensures that their bond rating,

their ability to work on obligations and future projects remain.

So I urge my colleagues to not support this amendment.

Thank you.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in support of the amendment.

I'm guessing the reason why the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority did not decide to be generous with their funds this year is because we decided,

well,

some members of this body and the other body.

wanted to take a lot of money from them. That was well and above anything that this has to do in the last year's budget.

But I think this debate that we're hearing right now, Mr. Speaker, goes a long way into explaining why the constituents that I represent are deeply, and I think truly and well-deserved, concerned that no amount of money is safe from the members of this body.

uh this body uh if you find it uh it will be spent and it will not be used for the purposes that it was originally intended. Then I think they have every right to be uh nervous about that, and I think we should support this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Iac.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in support of this. Shortly after session this summer, Ada stopped by and kind of gave me a good tour of some of the stuff that they were working on.

And I was really surprised and impressed with the amount of work they were doing and really kind of the limited knowledge that a lot of people seem to have about the work that they were doing.

And it impressed me.

So I would encourage everybody to vote yes on this. Their projects range wide from...

Hydro to...

renewables to Agrium,

the spot right there in Nikiski where they're looking at trying to turn that back up should we be able to get this AKLNG project across the line here.

So that is critical work for the state of Alaska.

So I would just urge a yes vote.

Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of this amendment.

You know, I don't believe we should be stealing the dividend from anyone,

you know, ADA or the people of the state of Alaska.

I just voted against that.

And Mr. Speaker,

apparently in the legislature.

You know, this is common practice, stealing dividends,

Point

and

of order.

I will.

Point of order.

Representative Stutes.

Mr.

Speaker,

we're getting a little off kilter here and it from Mason's 122 to we should refrain from impugning others or motives of others.

We've had a lot of attitude tonight,

Mr.

Speaker.

Representative Tomoszewski, duly noted,

would you please continue with your remarks?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't quite understand that ruling,

but I will continue.

Well,

we can call it stealing or we can call it a tax on the people's dividend,

on ADA's dividend.

This is what this amendment is about,

restoring that, just

to reach in and undermine.

What the Board of ADA has said and done,

and to just take money that we don't know anything about,

seems ridiculous to me.

It seems almost as ridiculous as other dividends that are being garnished from the people of Alaska.

And I rise in support of restoring this dividend.

Thank you.

Representative Carrick.

Thank you,

Mr.

Speaker.

I just have a quick question just generally and is in response to the member from East Fairbanks.

Am I to understand that the concern here is that if we don't give a state corporation their requested dividend percentage that we should as a body be concerned that this state corporation will take that out on us, those that represent the districts of this state and whom the state corporation is meant to serve?

It's a little concerning to me.

Just wanted to point that out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order, Representative Stepp? Would you please

Yeah, I actually

say

it's such a, yeah, I guess a point of inquiry in response, Mr. Speaker, if that member's asking to yield the floor to me for a response, I, um, I'd be happy to do that, but it requires your ruling.

I I'm going to take that as a a part of the wrap-up comments to the sponsor of the amendment and uh

If further information is needed, we'll deal with it at that time.

Representative Sandler?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I enjoy the parliamentary fun here.

You know, I rise in support of the amendment,

to be clear.

The co-chair from Anchorage's long discussion of the legal memo,

and I very much appreciate getting the copy that's read,

says that lays out a very clear arguments and over four pages as to how the legislature,

why the legislature can appropriate aid of money. But after a careful reading, I find no place in its four pages, Mr.

Speaker, where it says the legislature must.

appropriate ADA money.

Well,

we have the authority to do so to some degree,

and the basis of that is that these are unencumbered available funds and the Constitution prohibits dedicated funds,

so it is neat, right, and salutary that we should have the ability to reach in and spend money from ADA's dividend. However,

I'm

You know, this is exactly what we propose to do here,

is to exercise the legislature's appropriation ability,

whether that's a big appropriation or a little appropriation, and we as a matter of policy can decide whether it's more important to get a cash dividend or to leave that dividend with ADA so they can continue doing the good works that have been described and we've seen evidence of for many decades in Alaska.

I believe that the conservative position is to not take all we can, even though I think we heard that just because you can.

And it doesn't mean you should.

So,

again, the conservative position would be to leave more money with ADA and enjoy the money we are getting from other sources and be satisfied with that and let ADA continue to do the good work with the money it has. Thank you.

And wrap-up, Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll try to answer the question from the member from Fairbanks, and it was asking about whether or not ADA would be punishing.

member or districts around the state and I don't think the answer to that is yes the answer is no but they are they do provide financial instruments and when we harm their ability to perform and they need to call on those financial instruments do a call on the money as you'd say they may need to do that so I think that's what what the member was trying to refer to

Permission to read, Mr. Speaker.

Permission granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alaska Statute 4488-020 through Alaska Statute 4488-205 lays out the authorities and the development of how ADA is given the authority to operate.

ADA operates with a board.

They are independent from the state,

and they make financial decisions for the benefit of the state.

It is one of the few organizations that actually provides a net benefit,

positive revenue to the state through a dividend.

The board establishes what that payment is.

Statute says that it's 25 to 50 percent at the board's authority.

We look across the state at the different agencies that we have,

and I'd be hard pressed to point to any that actually provide hundreds of millions of dollars to us as revenue.

Under EDA as a statutory authority,

it's not good fiscal policy for us to be doing what they're trying to do in the budget here.

But it raises serious questions about the health of the organization if we were to do this,

meaning take the additional $10 million.

Their bond rating could be at risk.

That means their ability to

pay.

perform their duties is at risk.

The Finance Committee did not have any substantial review of ADA's financial position or evaluate how this move would impact the overall health of the organization.

We know that these types of actions have caused harm in the past and will cause harm in the future if we take additional.

revenue through that dividend at our discretion as opposed to the professionals that we put in place to make those decisions.

I urge a yes vote.

Are you ready for the question? The question being shall amendment number 22 pass

the body?

Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please clock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

21 yeas, 19 nays.

We voted 21 yeas to 19 nays. Amendment number two has passed the House. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 34 by Representative Ruffridge,

beginning page 40,

line 27.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be offering amendment 34 through 38 at this time.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment.

Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order?

Madam Clerk?

Amendment number 39 by Representative Rupprich beginning page 44 line 12.

Representative Rupprich.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move amendment 39.

There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

we've made some changes to the underlying budget, so luckily on line 11 this says adjust fund sources and totals accordingly.

But Amendment 39 takes up some additions to the budget specifically under the line legislature.

So this is our legislative operating budget, and it's an increase of $2.5 million approximately.

One is for $912,000 to align with anticipated expenditures in fiscal year 27. We are anticipating the need to replace loss of

also federal funding to gavel Alaska and then we have $750,000 for funding a 30-day special session so the grand total of those things is 2.5 million and I think

Right now, given the, you know, current state of our budget, which is in deficit, we are going to hopefully need to cut a few things from the budget. This one would actually say to cut it and put it towards a dividend payment, hopefully in addition to the one that we have in the budget currently. I await your debate. Thank you.

Representative Fields.

Uh thank you Mr Speaker. I would just note with the complexity of gas line legislation before us and an unknown decision for FID and a corresponding need for us to potentially convene and consider an equity investment, those of us who are very interested in a gas line um

Both need to be able to convene and consider such proposals, including an equity stake investment and it's imperative that the public have transparency, including appropriate coverage of any such special session. So while normally I might support cutting this funding, this year is very different um with pending events.

Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Um I too rise in opposition and uh

Just so members know,

last year our regular operating budget substantially went up because the travel costs for many of our staff and the cost to transport vehicles has continued to decline.

We have not set in place policies and restrictions on moving of staff or families to Juneau, and so the anticipated costs this year...

to our operation is 900 additional is 912,000 just to meet what is our expected predicted revenues.

The cost for gavel coverage, to have it for this session the Juneau Community Foundation stepped in and gave about 60 or 70,000 for this current fiscal year because of course there is no longer any federal money that helps.

subsidized public broadcasting and that's where we're beamed out of so Gavalesca is not a part of public broadcasting but we've used their mothership technology to beam out and for coverage for us to be able to continue to do that will be about $855,000 per year.

Special session last year,

the money was vetoed from the budget and cost us about a million dollars to have it.

We had a million dollars for the special session in our budget.

The governor vetoed that.

We still have about $250,000 for it.

The anticipated is that it costs us a million dollars for a 30-day special session.

And so the $750,000 for that would bring us up to having a million dollars.

our special session budget allocation.

So that 2.5 million dollar increase to the legislature's budget is not anything glamorous or new or expansive but I would urge you to defeat this amendment if you would like to stay broadcasting and be able to move your cars and anticipate that we might be called a special session.

Briefly please.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order under debate on Amendment number thirty nine,

Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment.

You know, I appreciate the concerns that folks have brought up about potential special sessions, about transportation, about being able to broadcast. But, you know, one of the things that we happen to have here is the power to appropriate.

I don't doubt our abilities to be able to fix this should we need to find some additional funds later on, but this seems like a great time.

Everybody else has had to take a little bit of a haircut on a lot of areas,

and I think this is a great way for us to be able to kind of rein some stuff in as well.

So please press the green button.

Any wrap-up comments?

Representative Ruffridge.

Yeah,

thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I would say to the comments in debate a couple of things.

One.

If we have some sort of need,

we have a lot of days left in session to accomplish some of the things that are before us, including some gas line legislation, if that's part of it.

And in fact,

we're debating the budget right now.

If we wanted to have an equity stake in anything,

we probably could have had that as a debate session for our budget, but maybe we'll put that in the capital budget.

Special session,

I always think it's funny that we appropriate money for that, like we're hoping that happens.

I would actually prefer that number to be zero all the time, and that way we don't...

I don't know. Don't plan on it.

And then just as maybe a point of levity, Mr.

Speaker,

a lot of entities have figured out how to monetize entertainment,

which I think a lot of what we do here is pretty entertaining,

but that funny music just plays when all the real entertainment stuff is happening. I think KT00 could probably sell a streaming service that would be...

projecting during the ad eases and it would probably cover that eight hundred and fifty five thousand dollar deficit pretty easily. Uh thank you uh for your support for amendment thirty nine.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment number thirty nine pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

Nineteen yeas, twenty one nays.

The vote of nineteen yeas to twenty one nays, Amendment number thirty nine has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Madam Clerk.

Amendment number forty by Representative Ruffridge beginning page twenty two line eleven.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent that we rescind action on Amendment twenty eight for the purposes of funding the hatchery program in the Department of Fish and Game.

There is an objection.

Brief it.

Brief it.

Will the House please come back to order? We have a motion before the body to rescind previous action in failing to adopt Amendment Number 28.

Ready?

A very brief at ease.

The House please come back to order.

The document in question has been distributed.

Representative Chwaki.

Uh, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here.

Well this this emotion is very narrowly debated.

I t we have letter in front uh in front of us that you wish to be handed out. So you have the option of debating the m the motion itself. I'm looking at the Chief Clerk up brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order?

Representative Schwanke, if you could keep your comments very narrowly confined and brevity would be appreciated as well, and I will grant you the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the potential to rescind the vote on Amendment No.

28.

Specifically, I wanted to hand out a letter that was offered to the sub finance team back in February that described why the change that they made was going to result in a very catastrophic end game for

The Fairbanks Hatchery,

the Ruth Barnett Hatchery.

So I honestly hope that everyone has had an opportunity to rethink their votes on this and I hope that we do rescind and pass the amendment. Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall previous action failing to adopt Amendment number 28 be rescinded and members may proceed to vote?

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the Clerk please announce the vote?

19 yeas, 21 nays.

With a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, the motion to rescind previous action has failed.

Mr. Majority Leader?

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House stand at adjournment until Monday, April 13th at 10.30 a.m.

The motion, the motion to adjourn trumps all of the objections.

Uh, there is— it is briefly debatable.

It's nothing.

So the motion is not debatable,

but it can be amended in terms of dates and times.

I've just been advised.

And the motion to— the motion before the body,

Mr.

Majority Leader, is to adjourn.

Adjourn till Monday,

April 13th at 10.30 a.m.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall the House adjourn till April 13th at 10:30 a.m.?

Uh, the m— it's this is non-debatable, and I'm gonna rule you're out of order. Are you ready to vote?

Oh.

Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.

Representative Sadler?

I wish to change my vote to no.

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

21 yays, 14 nays.

The House is adjourned.