How State Affairs Committee can now come to order?
The time is currently 3.16 p.m. on Thursday, February 5, 2026 and we are here in room 120.
Please remember to silence your cell phones.
Today we have members present, Representative St. Clair, representative Holland, and my
Our record secretary is Andrew Gianati,
and our moderator from the Juneau LAO is Kyla Tuppo.
Our committee aid for today's hearing is my staff,
Stuart Relay.
And we've also just been joined by Representative McCabe.
Today on our agenda, we have two items,
House Concurrent Resolution 9,
celebrating the Declaration of Independence
as 250th birthday, and House Bill 124
on the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority,
from my office. We do only have one hour today so the second half of our regular committee time
will be utilized by the Department of Administration's Budget Subcommittee. And we will go ahead and
start with the first item on our agenda today, House Concurrent Resolution 9, honoring America's
semi-quincentennial.We heard this resolution on Tuesday, set an amendment deadline for Wednesday,
I'm also going to recognize that Representative Vance has joined us.
Is there any further discussion on House Concurrent Resolution 9?
Seeing none, can I get a motion representative, him shoot?
Thank you Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs pass committee substitute for House Concurrent Resolution 9 also known as 34-LS-1011
I from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
Thank You seeing and hearing no objection House concurrent resolution 9 version I has been passed from Committee.
I'd like to also just recognize that Vice Chair Story has just joined us. Thank.
All right to be late.
And so the second and final item on our agenda today
is House Bill 124 on ADA.
This is our fifth hearing on this bill.
Just for committee members' information,
today is my intent to bring forth the committee substitute,
have continued discussion.
We do have Randy O'Rara with ADA's executive director
and we also have Mark Davis, special counsel for ADA
available for questions.
So, bring this bill back forward for continued discussion for the remainder of our committee
time today.
And after adopting the committee substitute,
bring the bill up again at the end of next week to consider additional member amendments
and have a final discussion on the Bill at that time.
motion to adopt the committee substitute as our working document and object to
that so we can have our office describe the changes to it. So Vice Chair Story
can I get a motion for the Committee substitute?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move that the House State Affairs Committee adopt committee substitute for House Bill 124,
also known as 34-LS0411 backslash and as our working document.
And I am going to object for discussion and ask my staff to really to walk through the summary of changes.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the record, Stuart Relay, staff for Representative Kerrick.
Madem Chair Committee, members, the summary of changes for version N is as follows.
In section two, it removes the board designated seat for a person representing an environmental advocacy organization.
In Section 8, it increases the ADA revolving fund cap from $500 million to $3 billion,
and also provides an inflation adjustment mechanism for that number.
In section 9,
it increase the threshold for project approval from 10 million
to 100 million.
also provides an inflation adjustment mechanism.
It also adds a requirement
that an independent feasibility study
be completed for each project over the threshold
and that contractor shall be approved
by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
Section 11.
Further amends AS44-88205 to specify that ADA is subject to the Executive Budget Act.
It does not make any other changes to section from the previous bill.
Section 13 is the last section that has been changed.
It changes the public records and the Public Records requirements.
Specifically, it has all new language specifying that the information in the possession of ADA is a public record.
It further provides ADA the authority to adopt regulations to designate and
withhold public disclosure information that is privileged and proprietary.
That information includes personnel records and proprietary information relating to investment decisions.
For members information, the language in section 13 relating the public records of ADA is nearly identical to that for the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
That is provided for members attention in AS4242.20.
Again, that's for The Railroad.
This section requires the authority to adopt regulations.
And earlier in this bill, in sections four and six, it requires regulations to be adopted by resolution passed by the board.
All the other sections, Madam Chair, are unchanged.
And that is the summary of changes.
Thank you and before we go to questions I'd just like to offer a comment on the committee
substitute that this new version is meant to try to juxtapose better between the discussion
we had with Ada's executive director and the public comment and feedback.
If members will recall back at the very initial presentation of House Bill 124 I had said
have a thorough committee discussion on that that's still my goal here and also to find
a better balance between current operation and micromanaging ADA and so this committee
headroom from current valuation at about $1.7 billion, up to $3 billion for the cap.
And it also provides, as I said initially, the definition of a smaller project moving
from $10 million to 100 million provides a lot more latitude than the original version
of the bill does.
For example, Section 13, the proprietary investment decision information should be private.
It was not really my intent to not have that be disclosed originally.
And so the changes to Section 14 are meant to hopefully provide a more direction for
offering public information while keeping those privileged decision making items.
still being proprietary information.
So those changes are, as the bill sponsor,
the attempt to better juxtapose these two competing interests.
and happy to take questions. My staff is also happy
to Take Questions. Representative McCabe.
Yeah, thanks. I'm curious why we used, you know,
the Alaska Railroad isn't, they don't make loans,
so they're not a public financial instrument. Why did we use
their language instead of like A, GFC or somebody
that actually does handle loans and handle proprietary
information for the public records?
It was just a comparison tool, but we can look at what the AHFC requirements are just as another
comparison. And I think the point is well taken about a corporation that provides loans versus
a state corporation. That doesn't. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. I know that they can do it says in there
that it can. Do regulations and I get that probably a smart thing to do if we go forward
The second question, if you don't mind, follow-up is for Mr. Davis, and I am wondering, he is sort of the bond in the financial guru,
and, I've talked to Mr Davis before about eight of things and bonding things,
and i'm wondering what he thinks of these changes,
and maybe now is not the time, maybe the next time we run this,
he could have a cogent response, but I'm really curious to see if he think these
agree just as the wrong word, but limiting is a better word to Ada as
the original bill was, or if this is some form of a compromise in his opinion.
We'll go to Mr. Davis and also just note that Mr Vararo and Mr Davis are more than welcome to
join us for further committee discussion as well. So if you don't have responses to
questions about the committee substitute today, I think we fully understand and are happy to.
invite you back again. But Mr. Davis, if you have a comment.
My name is Mark Davis. I'm special counsel to Ada. In response to
Representative Cage's question, we just got this bill recently, and I cannot give you a
full comment, but one thing I could tell you is the, for example, the limit been raised from 10
Better, yes, but is it good enough to know?
Let me give this a quick concrete example.
And we were approached by the YK Cutsman Hospital
in Spanish, and that led the site to Nevada session
to provide $169 million in short-term capital
to get that hospital built.
The reason for that was the hospital
in no fault of the head loss there construction loan.
So we flooded loan anticipation notes.
within a matter of months in the hospital we got built.
If we had to go to the legislature,
and that's over $100,000,
then we would not be able to finance that project.
And there were other projects at the similar sites.
So essentially, ADAT often functions
as a gap capital organization,
like counter-cyclical economic environment,
and this bill is incompatible with that.
Thank you.
Thank you representative I'm sorry. I wasn't taking a cue but representative him shoot then Holland
Thank You to the chair.
I wanted to go to this speaker that we just had
With my question through the chairs. So that example from Bethel is certainly compelling is there a way to
maintain a
Certain amount of short-term capital for the situation you described
While sticking within the confines of this bill for other projects, I mean, is there a way to so to speak split the baby
Well, Senator chair let me respond to wage first making aid up under the entire
Exactly the budget that is assessment makes our decision sub to appropriation
And therefore we wouldn't be able to move accounts or they would pick something and get said
But there's been no way to give aid in the flexible ways these at times under the executive budget act.
And we sometimes do provide capital quickly.
And the other thing we do is we respond to business cycles.
For example, in 2008, when there was a financial crisis, the aid of loan participation program had to work pretty quickly to.
get loans out to businesses that were facing a lack of capital elsewhere.
And we did that.
And again, with the structures in this bill,
with a reporting requirement and being subject to appropriations, I don't think that would be possible.
Follow-up, follow-ups.
Thank you. I do not know if this question is for the bill's sponsor or for
the individual online, Mr. Davis I think.
the 100 million limit that were not captured in the 10 million and what are
examples of projects that would not be captured
in 100,000,00 million?
Representative to this chair, right now I don't have a full list of
eight of products in front of me so I'm really not able to give you that but
we'd be happy to try to provide you with that information.
Okay, thank you.
I'm going to invite my staff back up to, in case there's questions for our offices, the bill's sponsor.
I'll go, I think, next to Representative Holland, and then if Mr.
Relay can think of, or can pull up the list of projects that we have access to with over an under 100 million just to give a couple examples while we're doing that.
Representative Holland great. Thank you through the chair, and I think you're addressing my first question regarding the hundred million
Because I see it addresses the question that I raised at the last hearing asking for the pipeline of projects
So that we could see what was in that pipeline and that might give us some idea of
things that are
10 million versus things are 100 million what that affects. So looking at that will be helpful to do that.
I would just note that one of the options we might explore regarding this question is the
role of LBNA of being able to help out with these emergency situations that have come up.
That was an idea that came up earlier because we don't necessarily need to think.
of the legislature approving something as waiting until we're back in session and going through
the full process if there was some authority that was vested in the Legislature through
a committee that has authority to act at any time when we are not in Session as they have
been very actively with the gas pipeline project doing that. I was curious though just for some
clarification on the dollar amounts going on here. The current capitalization of ADA is about one
7 billion, you're going to three curious, where that number might have come from if there's
some thought about the question that is in statute about making sure ADA has enough money.
That's clearly laid out that they have to assess that and have tell us whether or not
but they should have according to statute.
And then on the 100 million kind of related question,
if there was any thought on that number,
and I'm raising it in particular because there were some
$50 million transactions that were proposed
that we're pretty controversial in terms
of what was the process and the engagement
of those $15 million proposed projects that they had done.
Relating to the constituents and the feedback I had gotten looking for a dollar amount
It would have been at forty nine million dollars or something to have swept up some of those other projects
So I'm curious about those two numbers in terms of your thoughts on where those numbers have come from and how we might view the decision to propose those
Yeah, I suppose I'll respond first representative Holland
Both the $3 billion and $100 million are somewhat arbitrary.
It was just an attempt for our office to provide ADA with plenty of headrooms,
so it's nearly double what they currently have in assets.
And so to Representative McCabe's points about a fire sale taking place
wanted to fully prevent that happening in the...
anywhere in the near future, or ever, because if you provide enough headroom,
you provided the opportunity to plan, and there are no projects in
the billion dollar range being proposed for ADA to invest in right now.
So there's nothing pending that would go above that cap.
in any near-term future and so that was why decided to effectively double what
they have in current assets and use that as a cap number and I agree with you
about the potential and even likelihood that some projects at 50 million or 49
million, or 51 million could also be
relatively controversial and that that may be a good number.
So I'm open to where we put that threshold.
I am especially open
to the idea and would consider it friendly to really specify
that LBNA constitutes legislative approval.
that doesn't have to be the entire legislature.
The point is to have better dialogue and communication
with people that are making wraparound funding
and economic decisions in the legislature,
so essentially involving more policy making,
consultation with some of this large scale
economic development that goes forward.
And I wanted to address one other point there,
which is that the
public testimony requirements and public engagement requirements are unchanged in this committee substitute.
And so I see that as a way to ensure we're having that additional dialogue with the public.
So a project could be controversial at 5 million, 10 million and 50 million.
Or it could controversial a higher threshold.
But this is where the Public Engagement Requirements in the bill, I think,
alleviate some of that concern. I think the real concern for the state is where we have
very large dollar amounts that the State is often also investing in in other wraparound ways.
And so that's 100 million seems and adjusted to inflation seems like a much better place to
consider a large enough dollar threshold for a legislature to be more involved in.
if that helps answer questions.
Yeah, I've got to follow up.
All right, let's go to the follow-up,
and then I'd like to go back to Mr. Relay
to help add more context to rep him shoots question,
and than to replicate.
All Right, thanks, and I just,
I wanted to fall up on the other item here
related to The Executive Budget Act,
and just wanted a note that I think it's really helpful
that you brought this in because,
and, just also want to clarify from what I have learned
that Ada always was subject to
the executive budget act.
There was some uncertainty about the extent to which it was
exposed in terms of operating versus capital budget.
So this change, I think, is a valuable one to provide some
clarity.
I don't know if there's anything more you want to offer as a
sponsor about, the thought on this addition or change.
If not, that's fine.
I just, it caught my attention.
It was a, a
valuable addition.
Representative Holland, it was just a requested way to possibly change.
And I also agree that there's value in having more subjugation with the executive budget act.
So it is, I don't really have any additional comment there, Mr.
I almost called you representative.
Mr Lee, do you have a any.
commentary on just maybe providing a couple of example projects that are above and below
say 50 and 100 million if possible. Yeah thank you Madam Chair for the record Stuart Relay
staff to Representative Carrick. So the information I'll be referencing is from slide 16 from your
I'm in previous presentations as well and kind of just says what types of loans aid is has given out
I would note
The Yukon Casket Quim Health Corporation was a hundred and sixty two million as representative McCabe has pointed out the interior
Gas utility project which has been really important for Fairbanks. That was one hundred thirty nine million
projects in the $50 million range.
Ada's done some work with Cook Inlet gas.
Blue crest energy was 32 million.
Hex was 50 million in
the Cook inlet.
And I just want more larger project chief, Andrew Isaac Health Center, was $249 million.
So again, this information came from slide 16 here, and happy to answer any additional questions on that.
Thank you, I'm going to go back to Representative Hymn-Shoot if you have a follow-up.
Yeah, thank you through the chair, Mr. Relay.
Were any of those approved to your knowledge under an emergency situation?
hospital in Bethel? That would be a question for Ada. I unfortunately don't have that information. Thank you.
All right, so I have representative McCabe next. Thanks. So a couple questions first. Hopefully the
fiscal note for the CS is forthcoming. The new fiscal not for this CS? Yes. Okay.
Thanks for that, and as far as the Executive Budget Act, if we're going to do that then
let's do the railroad.
Let's all of the corporations that the state owns and put them all under the executive
budget act.
So there's a reason that ADA is not under that executive budget Act and there is a
reason the Alaska Railroad is also not on to the
Just sort of a opinion, maybe, but
I think that
There's a reason we didn't do that with Ada and there's the reason. We didn t do it with the
With the railroad
Don't have a comment to that but appreciate the comment
I'm gonna go to Representative St. Clair and then we'll we go back around for round two
Also, just process-wise we are
We made a motion to adopt committee substitute. I objected for discussion. Happy to continue
discussion here. But maybe after this next question, we can.
Oh, you can skip me and we could adopt it and then talk about it.
I just don't want to forget to do that today. So I'm going to remove my objection to adopting
the committee's substitute, are there any additional objections? Seeing and hearing none,
known as version n is our working document now we can feel free to continue discussion
representative saint claire thank you madam chair specifically going to section 13
i saw that a lot of the testimony the public testimony this is more of a rhetorical question
slash comment than anything else and they a lotta public testimonies said there wasn't transparency
The agents Ada told us they were giving them two minutes, but a point of contention was that Ada
Wasn't doing a back and forth with them responding to their questions. We don't do that
So if that's setting a new standard
Then that it's also going to have to apply to us
It's a pointed contention because I get frustrated too when I ask questions and they say yep and move on to the next one
But that is just how we do it
And if I have a follow-up real quick
Sure follow number five what what is the significance in Mr. Relay you may be
able to answer this section five. What is a significance of this?
It adds to or. Oh so for the records who are really staff for
representative care representative saying Claire section 5 is conforming
language relating to section.
14, yes, section 14 relating to the Attorney General's
approved lawsuits.
Okay, one more follow up.
I've been quiet most of the day.
You're doing great.
Thank you.
Through the chair, is that standard language?
Section 14 to my knowledge, I don't believe so.
So is it?
Yeah.
Follow-up one more one. More follow-ups going to representative McCabe's point
Are we gonna do this for all the other corporations if if we're specifically?
Single out Ada for this. That's we shouldn't be doing that
And if We are going To make changes to Ada it needs to be pushed across the board to all The other Corporations. Thank you
I think points well taken representative St. Clair and Representative McCabe bring up
good points, valid points about parity with other state corporations, I will just note, you know,
I am open to those conversations about other State corporations. The reason this is a bill
that specifically has the single subject ADA as opposed to all State Corporations is in direct
response to the scope of the work ADA is doing and the public desire for a lot greater transparency
And we have that with the railroad, I know the very next thing that would come up is why doesn't the
railroad do more of this? Point well taken. I mean,
I do think that there is a desire for a lot of our state corporations to have additional
transparency and openness. Given the nature of some of ADA's investment decisions,
that's why this is the bill before you and not one that is directly related to
another state corporation.
I'll go to Representative St. Clair, then back to representative.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Is there any specific instance or investment that was made by Ada that is inappropriate or wrong?
I mean, we're talking about.
They're they're not doing things right, but we really can't put our finger on what they haven't done right
I mean the transparency I got that but that that's been cleared up and then with the Attorney General
Yeah, it's a parody across the board. So I'm just trying to find out specifically
If there is a project or an investment that they made that we're saying no you shouldn't have made
That that was a bad decision. I I Mean we were bringing a stick before the carrot. Thank you
Thank you Representative Sinclair. You know what I would say is I'm not bringing
this legislation forward in response to any particular projects and I
would tell you if I was. I do have a lot of constituents very
transparently that are very concerned about projects like Ambler Road. Other
people's constituents are concerned
about West Sioux Access.
I am not bring this
legislation for indirect response either of those two projects or any
But there is a trend over time for as long as I've worked in the legislative world.
And as Long as i've known of Ada, that Ada has an opacity to it, which people find very off-putting.
And a lot of these investment decisions do impact the state's investment decision.
And so that's where I do feel like the concerns are very valid.
In general, I think about a project like Ambler Road.
I'm actually neutral on that Ambler Road project personally. I don't have a strong position in
favor of or opposed to it. But whatever decision Ada makes on investing in a project of
that or similar scale is going to have economic, social, environmental and other downstream impacts
on what the state will do. So that's really where this legislation motivation originally comes from
and it remains my motivation through the process. Thank you. Hopefully that adds to it. Representative
McCabe. Thanks. Yeah, there are some projects that Ada has invested in that have not done real well
I could list off a dozen of them, but every single time,
it's because we put our fingers in the pie
like we are doing right now.
So let's put the big elephant in
the room right on the table right
now, we're doing this to prevent
ADA from investing in projects that might
have an eco or an
environmental issue with some people.
ADA is here. The reason they're here is to invest in money-making
corporations that will make a return for ADA or that
will create jobs or help with resource development.
It's not here to hug the fish and kiss the trees and everything else that we have an EPA
to do that.
We have a Department of Environmental Conservation.
We've departments and permitting processes to that, killing ADA because they might fund
Sorry, it is I don't like this bill. I'll never like. This bill
I think it needs to be buried as deep as we can possibly bury it.
I'm sorry Ashley
I know your heart's in the right place, but you don t kill a project before it even gets started without running through the
environmental process. That's why we have an EPA
We generated a lot of comments there I will I just gonna note that
Representative McCabe, you're more than entitled to your opinion on my motivations for this bill.
But the motivations I just stated to Representative St. Clair are the actual motivations.
I'm not here to prevent economic development or resource development.
But I am here, to respond to constituents who want more involvement in that process,
Related to these projects eight is investing in in a more informed manner, and so that's that is actually my motivation here
So you buy if I respond sure okay, so I was in front of the
Matt's who assembly once listening to discussion about the west to sit and ask access road and
representative
Sumner
Former representative summer Sumter who was an assemblyman there said something that I I found pretty for
profound, and even more profound not that I actually know him, right? He said it is a mistake
to shut down. It sends a poor message that Alaska is not open for business if we shut
down projects at this level. We have an environmental permitting process where the public has ample
opportunity to make comment. I told you the other day I've been to 20 plus maybe 30
open, open meetings that, that
Ada has advertised for West
assistant access and various
projects that they've had.
So just because we have a bunch
of folks that feel like they
have not been heard, do they
feel they have
not being heard because they
haven't gone or because Ada
hasn't responded to them.
Ada as a mandate.
And I think that
they are doing what they're
supposed to be doing.
They have ample opportunity to comment with the EPA, the NEPA,
the environmental assessment.
There are 100 ways to comments right now.
It's a mistake to send a message to the world
that we are willing to shut down projects
before they even get to that point.
We need these projects, we need resource development.
push them forward to the point where they no longer make environmental sense, if you will.
And then if we need to shut them down, then we
need a shut down. But why send a message to businesses, to small businesses?
that we're going to put somebody on the board or we are going
to limit ADA to shut down these projects.
To me, it doesn't make financial sense in any manner.
So sorry.
And I wasn't critiquing you.
I know you're responding to your constituents, and I think your heart is absolutely
in the right place, but I have a huge problem with the way we going about this right now.
Thank you, we'll go to Representative Vance and then Vice Chair Story.
Thank you.
Well, I yelled at him before committee, so that's what she did.
And I told him I wasn't done with him yet.
So I do have questions.
Chair Kerrick,
I have constituents who have been on the end of the side of not feeling that there's transparency
They are on the phone waiting to be able to speak for hours on end.
I think my mayor may have been in part of lawsuit.
People feel very, very strongly about this.
However, my district is also very much pro resource development and
building our economy in a way that meets the requirements that we have set a strong standard fully for that.
I'm willing to work with you on this bill, but I need to have, like there's still some things that I have trouble with with the CS.
So on section eight, which is limiting the value of the funds and the accounts.
Yes, you put a really high threshold on there.
But why limit them at all?
Because, yeah, why, I'll start with that single question.
at all on what they do, because that could be communicated as we want to cap economic investment in our state.
And I don't think that's what you're wanting to communicate.
So do you have a justification for why you kept a limit in the bill?
Thank you, Representative Vance.
I think there's twofold things here.
One is a cap sends a message that we are going to
take a look at that. Should Ada's valuation get up to that cap? So in some ways it acts as though
it's a sunset date in a sense. So it is a chance for should we reach that gap and Ada is doing
remarkable things and we really love everything Ada has been working on or maybe we don't but we
really like that Ada have grown so much. It offers an opportunity to come back and adjust the cap.
On a broader scale, I've asked the question to myself,
what role is ADA in the state's
entire economic development picture?
Do we want ADA to be kind of this wild, wild west territory
that some people feel where they can grow and grow
and there's no limit to that?
Is there investment, are there
investment decisions currently a measure
Or are they just a part of that decision-making?
I think there's a lot of organizations and businesses in the state that are doing economic development.
ADA is but one of them, and they are one the most powerful and one
of the more broad and sweeping economic-development organizations.
But they're not the end-all be-alls.
So I'm think, in my opinion, a cap helps to provide a little bit of sidebar around how much ADA's role.
Is a part of the conversation around the entirety of economic development, but I could see where others would disagree about having a capital and I think those are valid considerations.
Sure.
So in that same section, it says the amount of unexpended and unobligated money would be lapsing into the general fund.
This to us seems like a simple mechanism. However, this could in my mind can completely hamstring
their money that is set aside and
And invested specifically for economic development and then it's going to be plopped into the state general fund
I think that would divert it from its purpose
So is there a reason that you specifically put that that information in there because I I
Think that takes a very different turn than just
putting a cap
Representative Vance, I think part of it, too, is just to prevent the fire sale discussion that we had about
we're just going to have to divest tremendous amounts of assets to get underneath the cap.
The reason why that language is in there is so that ADA has opportunity to prepare well into the future,
I would imagine, between their current valuation and $3 billion cap in this committee substitute.
But should they have an investment that say goes a few hundred thousand over that or even a couple million over
that, there's a mechanism to at least capture that so that those funds aren't preventing an
investment decision per se. So if you had like a forty million dollar project and you were going
to go over the cap by a million or two dollars it wouldn't require ADA to just not invest in that
if that makes sense.
So that was kind of, there is a protection mechanism
against one singular project pushing them right
over the threshold and having no way to capture that valuation.
But again, very open to discussion about how to tweak that, improve it.
I appreciate the response.
It just looks like every year that this would have to happen,
applying it to realistic investment decisions don't happen within a calendar
year. They take they take years. We've seen that with the LNG project, right?
It's it's a long-term thing and for ADA to make a commitment to invest
because that's what it would have to obligate the funds for that may kind of
get them ahead of their skis if they're having to do within the calendar year
And so I'm just looking at the practical application of that and not wanting to hamstring them from having
Making wise investment decisions versus oh, let's we need to put that in here so that it doesn't we don't lose it
Right for that next fiscal year
The
The next question that I have if I may is on section 9 project oversight, which is a full page of
of the oversight, and you mentioned that earlier
about how much you want the legislature to have oversight.
But then on the very last line of that section, page five,
line three, it says obtain legislative approval by law.
The power of the legislature is the power
of The Purse, and we're called upon to be experts
in a lot of things that we are definitely not.
And just like,
and this is gonna be dicey, so bear with me,
the Legislature created the Board of Fish
to make allocative decisions
because we shouldn't be making allocative decisions
over the fishery
in itself is a full-time job. It involves so much data, so
much public engagement, and it involves people's ability
to feed their families, sustain their family's with income,
so many things, right? And it feels like we have created
ADA, the legislature created ADA in a similar vein
to be able to make investment decisions.
to have people who understand that field. It's full time to do that. And so by
having this level of project oversight to me feels like it would be a burden on us
that would go beyond the scope of what we're already mandated to
that are meant to invest in Alaska.
So can you help me, I mean, this is a full page,
there's a lot of material here on oversight,
and especially the last line legislative approval by law.
If there are so many moving pieces on projects
that they need, why would we want everything
to be approved by Law?
Because then our law books are going to fill up
very, very quickly.
And if there's a project that's important in my district,
why would I want the politics of a different region weighing in on something that isn't going
to impact their community in the same way? For instance, my community feels very differently
about all of the aspects of The Fishery than Representative McCabe's community does.
And they do, and I feel like that would complicate this process that should be a business investment economy type of decision.
Am I making sense here?
So can you walk us through more details about this level of oversight?
Because the other provisions of the bill that create the accountability, the transparency, I can get on board with.
But this, I think, is going to further complicate, really, the intent of ADA and ultimately what could keep things moving for us that builds our economy.
Yeah, thank you so much for the comments, Representative Vance.
And having it be, and maybe changing the language on legislative approval there.
But to a representative Holland's point earlier, the committee substitute says we're going to have an independent feasibility study by a contractor approved by legislative budget and audit.
So there's a little bit of communication happening there, I think that level of
All of these things that are on page four of the bill are super important for
the legislature on these.
However, we've defined large, which now we have to find it as over 100 million in
this committee substitute.
I think it's really important that there be another entity taking a look at that and
It has to make a lot of, again, wraparound decisions related to these larger investments
and policy decisions that are impacting those projects, but I would be open to working on
how that works and how formalized that process is, if that makes sense.
So in my mind, having an interim committee like legislative budget and audit, able to
Doing some of the items on page 4 and doing some
of oversight that's listed in section 9 is the critical piece
there. Putting it in statute is not necessarily as critical of a
piece if we've specified how that is going to work, if that makes
sense. So I would be open to the feedback.
Follow up, follow up.
The size of the project has been determined by the dollar amount, and how did you come
to the conclusion to use a dollar mount? Because in my mind, a large project where the legislature
obviously wants to have a say is, for instance, the Alaska LNG, which we did have, say, years
through the entirety, almost the entireity of the state, right?
Obviously, that's a big project where maybe the legislature
should be able to be more engaged in those decisions.
How did you come to the decision to using a dollar mount versus geography?
Good question, representative Vance.
Sorry, I got a note while you were asking that question.
I think that's also why the committee substitute has the adjusted for inflation language.
Because I consider 100 million to be, and many of the people I've spoken with and
interacted with regarding this legislation, consider that to
be a good valuation of what a large project is versus a smaller project.
But of course, in context, 100 millions not very much for the gas line.
And yet, a project as large as that.
Or anything over a hundred million in my opinion would still constitute a large project
So I'd have to think more about why not do it by a different value rate by different metric
I
Think a 100 million dollars and using a dollar figure is something that
We can wrap our brains around in this building. It's something the public can rap their brains round as opposed to
trying to have different
If the suggestion is if we should have different valuations for different regions, but also again
Wasn't really something that I'd considered
Well, you know
Used to be
375 for a good as you now espresso now. It's
$750 $10 but I'm you tip so you no I have a lot of reservations on on
us basing policy based on dollar figures.
Our budget obviously is around that and our limitation.
But when we're talking about this,
I think the gnome, the port of gnom, was 200 million,
if I remember correctly.
Now, these resource guys might know
the more recent number on that.
Very important project.
I believe we passed our resolution as a legislature
a number of years ago in support of that
and with getting federal dollars for that
but as far as
Do I think the legislature needs to have direct oversight of that project?
That doesn't feel like it's my district is gonna be like oh my goodness
You need to make sure that you have your your the pulse on this right?
So that for example would blow past your limit
important project to the state
but it's not as impacting as many communities, right?
Directly.
And that's why I ask about looking at it
from a geographic standpoint of whether our constituents
would want our oversight on something based on how it is
going to be impacting our communities.
So I think that might be a more thoughtful approach
greater justification to have the legislature engaged is more
Geographic, you know, like I have not made comments on the West Houston access road because
It's it's long ways from my district. It is very important to development and things like that, right? But
I've decided to let the representatives there be able to interface with their constituents
on that issue.
But there's obviously larger projects like the LNG where people are saying, hey, what
do you know about this?
So, I appreciate your openness to get this figured out, but just trying to understand
how you came to the decisions for these things.
I will leave it, you know, the rest of it for now, but those were kind of the main ones
of what the CS that I had questions about and just kind
of understanding the direction that you wanted to go because my district would be very pleased
if we made a clear process for the transparency in that engagement.
Ada's ability to invest into our communities and economic development that builds our economy.
But I also want them to have a responsibility to tell their story.
What are they doing and why are the doing it and be proud of it?
Because I think the public feeling that there's a type of secrecy.
is where we've had a lot of the issues.
I know that they have to go into executive committee out of privacy over a
lot the information that have respect that 100%.
But I feel like they haven't done as good of a job in.
interfacing with the public that makes them feel like they have a fuller understanding of what's going on.
So I know that they made positive changes with our friend over there with Ms.
Edra, I'm hearing really good things that she has increased that engagement.
But we also don't want their future to be based on one really
the policies that they have to abide by so that
they continue that culture.
So thank you for letting the indulgence of my questions.
Yeah, thank You Representative Vance.
And just to reiterate too, you know, I am really open to
additional conversation.
The committee substitute,
I think is my best attempt to reflect the testimony we've heard
from the public and from ADA and kind of start the conversation
from a new point A for the coming week.
We have a couple more, I think we have at least one more question in the queue.
We only have about five minutes left, Vice Chair Story.
Thank you, Chair Kerrick.
I appreciate all the comments and the dialogue that we've had so far.
I know that when I have my constituents and when
Letters that we've gotten from the public and we have gotten quite a few of them there from all around the state
I mean, I know and I believe all of us at this table want to have economic development happening in Alaska
But I know that we also want everyone to think that the agencies that
we work with that are part of us are transparent and the public is the correct information.
And we've had a history of that not happening in various state organizations and projects that
we have done, whether it's been capital projects and
projects at ADA, people want to have more information, so I appreciate the intent of
gives the public, you know, the insurance that there is transparency to diligence and that
there's a wide variety of committed people to the state of Alaska who suver on the board.
And so like so when I look at your attempts to do that, Chair Kerrick, with the appointments
the different by-law adoptions.
When I look at the public comments,
I had a couple of questions just based on
being a school board member when there's,
and certainly here in education and other committees
when the there has been a topic of great interest
and a variety of opinions on it.
You get a lot of information and people want to testify
but usually when we've had like 60 people in the room,
we limit it to under two minutes.
we adjust it to a minute or something.
And so saying here it has to be two,
of not less than two minutes sort of gives me pause,
not saying that I don't want to have that everyone
to what they would like to say on the record.
I just know that we unfortunately aren't able
to always hold to two-minutes and we makes adjustments.
And, so, I was just,
Myself, I was just making a note to look at what we have done. What are our regulations for us?
Because we, you know, want people to be commenting to us all the time and so anyway
I wanted to look at that with the published written responses to the public
Last hearing I said I think it's really important that when people write in one way
They feel heard and that we're transparent if they're all published up on the whatever site the
entity has that
Letters that people have taken the time to write that they because otherwise, I don't know. Did they get them?
Did some members of the you know entity get? Them or not?
So I mean when I look at this bill to me the intent of this Bill is to make sure that there are
There's confidence level in what we are the information that we're getting
from the entity and that's what we're working towards.
So there's a few things I'm going to look at
and the transparency things
and I just really appreciate the discussions
that have come up today.
Thank you, Vice Chair Story.
Yeah, I really appreciated the discussion too.
I know that everyone around this table doesn't agree about where ADA is at currently or with the legislation where it's at
currently, but this legislation is an attempt to start a discussion that I
know we will continue next week and just for members' information it is my intention that we
will spend our Thursday hearing next
week on nothing but the bill and amendments to this bill.
I know that there's probably going to be amendments generated, so that's my intention.
And we will see where those discussions take us, but I'm looking forward to that discussion
and continue dialogue.
And I just want to note, too, a couple of really quick things.
To the comments about we're hamstringing Ada with this bill, I think it's really important
a difference of interpretation. I know that a lot of people feel that way, and I'm not going to
discount their concerns about it, but this legislation doesn't say that projects will not go forward.
It puts sidebars on ADA and its scope,
but it doesn t say we are going wholesale prevent projects.
I get that folks do have opinions that that will be the effect of it.
But I just want to be clear that the legislation is not saying that.
can still go for it. There's just additional process there. I also just wanted to highlight that
again, this bill is not meant to say that ADA is useless or should stop existing. If I wanted
to introduce that bill, I could have, i didn't introduce, that Bill. ADA has had a cumulative
economic impact of 55.4 billion dollars in its 60 years of existence. That's noteworthy and
Even though I do have a lot of constituents that would maybe prefer economic development take place through everything but ADA I don't necessarily feel that way.
When you look at the loan participation programs that ADA has and you
look some of their smaller development and local development, it seems very clear to me that
ADA serves a valuable role in Alaska and I'd like it to continue.
So I just wanted to get those intents on the record as we continue the discussion.
and I look forward to the amendments, so at this time I am setting an amendment
deadline for House Bill 124 for next Wednesday, February 11th at 5 p.m.
Please get your amendments to our office by then or communicate with our
office if you are still waiting for amendments
to come back from Ledge Legal as soon as possible.
And as a reminder, please have amendments drafted to
the now current version N.
So that concludes our business for today. Our next hearing is on Tuesday, February 10th at 3.15 p.m.
Here in room 120. Currently our agenda is as follows.
We will take up House Bill 250 on peace officer face masks from representative Hanen.
We'll then take out House bill 180 on digital driver's licenses by the governor's
administration and then House will 130 on state employee flexible time credit from Representative Josephson.
um all for first hearings but we will have our full two hours and with nothing else on the agenda
we are adjourned at 4 16 p.m.