Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Weather
House Finance Removes Contingency Clause in Capital BudgetWith that issue gone, at least for now, representatives focused on actual spending priorities in the bill.Related Content
The House of Representatives was scheduled Friday night to take up the capital budget – the legislation that triggered the special session 26 days ago. The House Finance Committee removed the controversial contingency clause inserted by senators that was intended to tie Governor Parnell’s hands on line-item vetoes.
With that issue gone, at least for now, representatives focused on actual spending priorities in the bill.
Members of the Democratic minority forced discussion on several items in the budget, including where savings should be deposited and the expansion of the port of Anchorage.
Rep. Mike Doogan failed with his proposal to move a deposit of $2.2 billion from the statutory budget reserve to the principal of the permanent fund.
"What I'm really trying to do is just take a certain amount of money, which is, at this point, excess to the state's needs, and put it into the permanent fund, which I've always seen as the place where we should put money when we have the opportunity. This looks like an opportunity to me," Doogan said.
But members of the majority caucus said there needs to be a long-range fiscal plan first.
"We start to make this, with regard to the dividend program, even more of an entitlement, by driving that up,” said Rep. Reggie Joule, a Kotzebue Democrat who caucuses with Republicans. “Until we make a decision from the fiscal policy group about how we're going to handle long-range fiscal decisions, I think we need to be a little more diversified."
Rep. Les Gara also failed in an attempt to reduce port expansion funding.
Gara argued that fiscal accountability in the project is lacking, given that the estimated cost has ballooned from $300 million in 2004 to $1.1 billion today.
"I'm not saying this port doesn't need to expand. People have made a good case that this port does need to expand,” Gara said. “The question is, for how much money, how efficiently, with what level of oversight? And by reducing the $37.5 million request down to $20 million, I think we could send a message to the port and the municipality that somebody needs to get involved in overseeing a project that is now $800 million more than it was than when it was originally proposed."
But Rep. Anna Fairclough, R-Eagle River, objected. "We have seen cost overruns that are unacceptable. My understanding is that the current administration, Mayor Sullivan, has created a new agreement, or they're getting ready to sign a new agreement that puts the municipality directly in conversation with MARAD [the U.S. Maritime Administration], so that they're at the table with the contractor, so the oversight can be increased."
The House narrowly failed to concur on changes made by the Senate to coastal zone management legislation, meaning that a House-Senate conference committee is needed to resolve the issue.
The Legislature must adjourn by midnight Tuesday, on the 30th day of the special session.
|
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled.
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
|
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
glen norris said on Friday, May 13 at 8:29 PM
This not an entitlement..... WE OWN the oil & gas in this STATE that it what the PFD is ther for .!
67036042Add a comment
Most Popular