{"id":5814,"date":"2018-04-18T23:05:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-19T06:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spijue.wpengine.com\/news\/debt-doubt-legal-argument-may-threaten-states-ability-to-borrow-money\/"},"modified":"2018-04-18T23:05:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-19T06:05:00","slug":"debt-doubt-legal-argument-may-threaten-states-ability-to-borrow-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/debt-doubt-legal-argument-may-threaten-states-ability-to-borrow-money\/","title":{"rendered":"Debt doubt: Legal argument may threaten state\u2019s ability to borrow money"},"content":{"rendered":"
It’s a situation like a homeowner who opens a wall during renovations and unexpectedly finds termites. A legal dispute between attorneys could make billions of dollars worth of Alaska state debt invalid.<\/p>\n
In a legal opinion dated April 13, attorney Emily Nauman of the Alaska Legislature’s legal department wrote that “there is a substantial risk that a court may determine that (Senate Bill) 176 is unconstitutional.”<\/p>\n
That would mean that SB 176<\/a>, a proposal by Gov. Bill Walker to borrow up to $1 billion<\/a> to repay tax credits owed to oil and gas companies drilling on the North Slope, would be unlawful.<\/p>\n But the problem is more widespread: If SB 176 is deemed unconstitutional, other state borrowing programs might be as well.<\/p>\n Approaches similar to SB 176 have been used by the University of Alaska ($311 million debt), the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority ($300 million debt) and the Alaska Pension Obligation Bond program ($5 billion debt), among others. (The bridge authority and pension obligation bonds are authorized, but the money has not yet been borrowed.)<\/p>\n “A broad reading of the constitution … would be highly disruptive, and would likely invalidate multiple forms of existing debt in Alaska,” State Debt Manager Deven Mitchell wrote in a memo dated Monday.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth responded to Nauman’s interpretation of the Alaska Constitution with one of her own: “We’ve carefully reviewed the legal issues and are confident that these bonds are lawful under Alaska law.”<\/p>\n Ordinarily, this kind of dispute between attorneys would be normal: legislative and executive-branch legal opinions frequently differ, and there is no obvious sign that Senate Bill 176 will advance in this year’s Legislature. The Senate Finance Committee has not scheduled it for a hearing, and its language is not included in the state operating budget. The danger, if there is any, lies with programs that already exist.<\/p>\n