The Alaska House of Representatives begins debate today on amendments to Alaska’s proposed $11.3 billion state spending plan, but lawmakers still don’t have an agreement on how to pay for it.<\/p>\n
“Obviously we have a $2.5 billion deficit, and that’s up for debate on how we cover that,” said Rep. Jason Grenn, I-Anchorage.<\/p>\n
“I think both sides agree that a draw (from the Alaska Permanent Fund) — a structured draw — has to be part of any fiscal plan, but for right now we’re going to be talking about the details of the budget for the next week,” he added.<\/p>\n
The budget proposed for fiscal year 2019 (which starts July 1) is bigger than the $10.2 billion budget lawmakers approved last fiscal year, but the amount of the increase is misleading without a look at the details.<\/p>\n
Since Gov. Bill Walker released his proposal in December<\/a> (and an amended version in February), lawmakers’ biggest change is a billion-dollar item affecting the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.<\/p>\n Walker’s original proposal would have allowed the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation to sign investment deals of any amount. The revised budget under consideration by the Legislature limits the corporation to $1 billion without additional Legislative approval.<\/p>\n Because the state budget is a document that defines what is allowed to be spent in the coming year (as opposed to what’s actually spent), that limit shows up in the budget as a $1 billion increase in spending. That’s even though the money won’t exist (and thus can’t be spent) unless AGDC finds an investor.<\/p>\n “We wanted a check and balance, and that’s the only way to do it,” said Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole and a member of the House Finance Committee.<\/p>\n If the Legislature had permitted AGDC to accept investment deals of any amount, the budget headed to Representatives today would look much like the one proposed by Walker.<\/p>\n According to documents from the nonpartisan Legislative Finance Division<\/a>, the draft budget under consideration on the House floor differs by only $75 million from the governor’s proposal, if the billion-dollar pipeline authorization is ignored.<\/p>\n There’s only a $37 million difference in “unrestricted general fund” spending, a term that refers to spending paid for with state taxes (mostly oil taxes) rather than directed fees, federal money and the Alaska Permanent Fund.<\/p>\n “This budget is somewhat inflation adjusted from last year, but no more than that,” said Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage and vice-chairman of the House Finance Committee.<\/p>\n The biggest difference in unrestricted general fund spending between the governor’s proposal and the one headed to the floor today is a $19 million boost for the University of Alaska.<\/p>\n That would give the university $336 million in unrestricted general fund spending<\/a>: more than the $317 million proposed by the governor, but less than the $341 million requested by the university’s board of regents<\/a>.<\/p>\n “The people of the state of Alaska deserve it and need it,” said Rep. David Guttenberg, R-Fairbanks and the lawmaker who suggested the increased funding.<\/p>\n He said the Legislature “determines through its policies where we want to go as a state,” and he believes Alaskans want a university that trains Alaskans well for Alaska careers and keeps the state as the top Arctic research center in the country.<\/p>\n