I'd like to call this meeting of the House State Affairs Committee to order.
The time is 3.19 p.m. on Thursday, February 12th, 26th.
We are here in room 120.
Please silence your cell phones today.
Members present are including Representative St.
Clair, Representative McCabe,
Representative Vance,
Representative Holland,
Representative Hymshoot, Vice Chair Story, and myself, Chair Kerrick.
Let the record reflect we have a quorum to conduct business.
And I'd like to thank our support staff, our record secretary,
Cecilia Miller,
our moderator from the Juna LIO, Renzo Moises,
and the committee aid for today's hearing,
my staff Stuart Relay.
Thank you all for helping us today.
On today agenda, we had one item,
consideration of amendments to House Bill 124
on the Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority from my office.
This is the one item on our agenda today for consideration.
And this is our sixth hearing on this bill.
At our last hearing, on February 5th, I set an amendment deadline for February 10th at 5 PM.
We have received 20 amendments for committee members.
Information today, we do have Randy Raro, the executive director of the Alaska Industrial and
Development and Export Authority online for questions.
We also have a couple other staff with the, with Ada,
we have the Chief Financial Officer, Gene Cornmuller,
and it looks like also General Counsel for Ada Kent Sullivan,
are available.
We do have lot of amendments today,
so I would kindly ask members to please keep your comments
concise, if possible.
And also, when moving your amendment,
reference both the amendment number that's on your packet as well as the n.number in the top
corner so that we can keep track of where we're at and what amendment we are looking at.
It's also my intention to chair while we take this bill up today and be as
If that appears like it'll be a challenge,
then we may take a brief at ease
to change up the chairmanship,
but hopefully we can make it work today.
So with that, we could go ahead
and start taking up, the amendments today?
Madam Chair.
Yeah, Representative McCabe.
So do you mind if I make just to leave a couple,
small comments?
Here we go.
You don't mind I know you don come on. We're gonna let you sit in the chairman's sleep for being accommodating
So you know mind the comment do you
Representative McCabe would you like to offer an opening comment today? I appreciate it
So I did some research just because I was curious, you
Know I got some calls people saying hey eight is not communicative and they don t you
know, they didn't ever have any public meetings
And so so I looked
and in 2025 they had 15 board and special meetings. April they
had three commenters. May they have two. June they
had one. August they three and one telephonic. October they
had 3 and 1 teleophonic and December they
had four. There were 72 written comments and I
have the agendas in the meeting minutes. So I wanted to make that
The extra paperweights that I brought, these five volumes of data and information that are available for those
that're concerned about ADA being not communicative and not being transparent,
they publish a ton. Trust me, I look through a lot of it. A ton of information
specific to Ambla Road, especially because they know that people are concerned
Also, since three of us sit on the fisheries committee, and this morning we talked about
aquaculture associations and their struggle for funding, which is a big part of Alaska's
economy, I'd just like to point out that in October 2012, the McDowell Group Research
$33.1 million loan from ADA for PAWSC.
I think that's what it's called PWSAC,
which is one of the Aquaculture Association.
So this is demonstrative, in my opinion,
of what ADA does for our state.
So I just wanted to bring that up.
It's not just mining roads.
It is not logging.
It isn't ANWR.
It also is some of resources that
that we like frankly and so I want to make sure that I brought that up because we probably
won't see it in the amendments. I just wanted to bring it up in front. Thanks.
Thank you Representative McCabe. Also we'll just take this opportunity to
note for the committee members that Ada did provide written responses to a lot of the questions
that were asked and those are distributed. They were distributed to offices so
I'm sure and I think there's a couple things Ada is still following up on so just wanted to note that too
Representative him shoot. Thank you for the opportunity
I'll be really quick in case this becomes a food fight, which I hope it doesn't
I also wanted mention Ada's changes in ketchup can not my district
But an adjacent district and the change they made there between shipyard operators has resulted in 70 jobs being restored in Ketchikan
It was a really good move and when they first announced that they were ending the contract with the initial operator
I was terribly concerned about what's going on here, are they closing it down or what
is happening?
Spoke with the representative from District 1 and then now we are, I don't know, like
a year later and the addition of jobs back into Ketchikan that had been there before and
had kind of petered out because of the, the I guess, contractor they had has been really
nice to see.
I'm not seeing any additional opening comments and I will give everybody a
chance to offer a closing comment so I think it would be wise of us to get
started with the amendment process and we do have the first amendment is from my
office however very brief it is hold on this is the one that's
House State Affairs is back on the record, just had to double check something with my staff.
I am not going to offer amendment number one, it's duplicative of a later amendment,
and so I'm just going choose not to operate at this time at all.
Actually, I just won't offer it.
And so that brings us to amendment two, Representative St. Clair.
Madam Chair, I move amendment number two.
I'm gonna object for discussion.
Would you like to speak to your amendment?
Yes, ma'am, briefly.
Currently, ADA has an ability to sue and be sued
and make decisions in the best interest of ADA.
Under HB 124, decisions on whether ADA could defend itself
by bringing a lawsuit on breach contract or lease
will be publicized by requiring approval from the AG.
Decisions now of whether to sue or not sue are made by the authority using the same objective, reasonable, and proven
investor with it and with the advice of expert attorneys who drafted the documents.
Bottom line is there's no other organization or corporation within the state that I know of that says that the AG has to give.
Thank you, Stewart.
Do I need to do it all over again?
No, I think we've heard you okay.
Okay, there's no other corporation that I know of in the state that does this.
And applying it just to ADA is a bit inappropriate in my opinion.
Thank you Representative St. Clair.
I'll jump, put myself in a queue here.
I'm going to support amendment number two, which is also known as end dot 14 for information.
I agree that it's unnecessary to make this a requirement on ADA that's not currently on other
corporations. And I think we had a good discussion about this authority. So I support this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there additional discussion here?
Amendment number two is there any further objection?
Seeing none amendment number 2 also known as end up 14 has been adopted
Madam chair, I apologize for not
You told us to and I still didn't do it. It's okay. You're doing good. I also
Should mention that the documents I mentioned in response to previous committee hearings that Ada provided are also posted online
So I just
Vice chair story. Thanks for pointing out that
They are also available there for the public's information.
So that brings us to amendment number three,
also known as N.21, and I'm going to move amendment
number 3,
and we'll look for objection for discussion, thank you.
So hearing objection, amendment three removes the requirement
that ADA get legislative approval by law
for a project's over 100 million.
and requires them to get approval from legislative budget and audit for projects over 100 million.
This is meant to provide data with greater flexibility for legislative approval, especially
as LBNA would have that authority during the interim.
So it helps to alleviate the potential large lag time that we have seven months of the
year with our legislative interim
And it still requires legislative approval, but it reduces the burden on both the legislature and ADA for approvals.
And also, LBNA would be granted this authority year round, so it's not, it would
be something that could be approved even during session just through LBNAs process.
Is there any representative McKate?
Thanks Madam Chair. So I objective this for several reasons. One is LBNA doesn't
meet as much as we would like. And frankly, this further politicizes as most of this
bill does.
LBNA is as we know a political committee, it depends on, you know, who's in control of
the House or who is in the control the Senate and in fact the chairmanship swaps back and
forth as every two years.
So I just think that we are trying to insert ourselves as a legislature into a business.
To me, it's like a state government trying to tell a bank how to do business,
how do it do its business.
We've already given it some guidelines, we've
already give it a some statute and some legal restrictions.
And I think we ought to just let them do the business of the state the way they have been doing.
I understand the angst from everybody and the fact that they claim that
Ada hasn't been responsive and Ada hadn't had meetings.
But Ada is trying, under Director Rooraro,
to change their culture so that they are not like that anymore.
And so they're responsive, and so, they
are open,
and they have meetings,
and take public testimony.
So, I just think that trying to ride herd on them,
I'll say it again,
I've said it many, many times on the floor.
I can't think of a worse group on
the planet to right herd over top of Ada.
one of our jewel of corporations, then the Alaska State Legislature.
We can't even manage our own budget, how are we going to mandate it as?
I think we saw Representative St. Clair.
Yes, Madam Chair, thank you.
I oppose this and it's kind of for the same reason as the last
amendment that it actually supported the Last Amendment.
But it is for, like the representative from Big Lake said,
It politicizes and injects us into a conversation that we don't necessarily need to be.
And I would ask if anyone can name any other state corporation that has to do the exact same thing,
or is this just something we're putting on Aida.
Representative Hymshoot.
Thank you, Chair Kerrick.
I will just point out a couple of differences from my colleagues.
And the way I see this, one is it's public money we are talking about that AIDA is using,
Secondly, other corporations may be making large business decisions, but they're not necessarily
investment decisions.
My question, the reason I wanted to check in, is I get notices for LBNA but I don't pay
attention.
Do they meet regularly, do they have a monthly standing meeting or is it as needed?
they can meet as often or as little as the chair decides to.
It's very similar in that respect to ledge council,
which is an advisory council for the legislature.
LBNA has a lot more broad authority
and they typically in past practice have met
when there's pending issues before LBNNA.
So if this legislation were to pass with this amendment
It's possible that LB&A would have an increase in their meetings due to this legislation, potentially.
Okay, thank you.
Representative McCabe.
Thanks, not trying to get in a food fight here, but yes, it's public money.
But the Choo-Choo trains are public choo-chooed trains.
The housing projects that AHFC has are Public Housing Projects.
Should we be involved in Fairbox Recovery for the railroad or
for rent that AhFC, has for our buildings?
Or should we just trust the board process?
We have appointed the governor as appointed a board over top of Aida.
And yes, I agree with you, it's public money,
it belongs to all of Alaskans.
But why do we think that it is in our purview to sort of tell them what to do?
That would be, we're devolving into a true democracy here.
you know, 21, 11, and 1, 2, for Aida to do anything, um, I just think there's a reason we have
of the board set up the way it is. Thank you. I'm sensing that the objection is maintained.
You have a thing? I think we're going to see a bit of that today. Um, so seeing no further
discussion and with the objections maintained, will the clerk please call the role on Amendment
Rep. St. Clair.
No.
Representative Story.
Yes.
Representative Hymshoot.
Yes?
Representative Holland.
Yes!
Representative Vance.
No!
Representative McCabe.
Nope!
Chair Kerrick.
Yes!.
Four days, three days.
So with a vote of four yeas and three nays, amendment number three, also known as N.21.
has passed and that brings us to amendment number four representative
McCabe. Thank you Madam Chair and amendment
number 4 which is n.4.
Thank You. I'm an object for discussion
representative McCabe
Thanks. So currently five public members are appointed to the board by the governor without
requirement confirmation by legislature. These new requirements further politicize the Board
for no reason that I can see it doesn't really solve the problem that everybody has been bringing
So current law requires all board members to act under an objective standard as a reasonable
and prudent investor would do much like the permanent fund board does I can't see us getting
involved in in their business either and it should always be the standard the railroad board is the
same retirement board all of those public corporations of the state that belong to Alaskans are all
Currently, the term for the Aida Board public members is two years under HB 124 current board members terms will be terminated automatically when the legislature confirms at least two members under a new staggered term schedule.
The President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House will appoint members who do not have to be
qualified as the other members do, which I think is a problem.
Once again, this section politicizes the board.
It inserts the legislature into the, into
the Board process and we've seen it with, with other boards
that the Legislature has had point, pointees to is,
sometimes the appointees aren't necessarily qualified to do.
the board duties and for that reason I offer this amendment.
Okay, thank you.
Is there discussion on amendment number four?
Seeing none, Representative McCabe, I,
I'm opposed to amendment four because I do think that one of the challenges is
And that's good for economic development to some degree.
There's also a call for more input from folks that are
representing the public and their interests.
And the intention here is that whoever, as with many other
boards and commissions, other entities in the state,
having these appointments offers just a bit more diversity
of perspective.
That's something that I would like to see retained in the legislation, and so I'm going to remain opposed.
Thanks, Madam Chair. So just to be on the record, we don't do this for the railroad. We don' t do it for AHFC.
We do not do that for permanent fund.
Corporations that are actual corporations of the state. Yes. We do it for some boards and commissions
I agree there are one or two that we do am Hobbes a classic example of you
legislature inserting itself via members and creating a big snarled mess so I
can't stress enough to the public that this is a is
Do you remove your objection?
No, I do not.
Any further discussion?
Vice Chair Story.
Yes, thank you. And I'll do respect to rep McCabe. I feel it's this is a really important part of this bill because what I'm hoping to do is build confidence in Ada back up with the public.
And, I think it is appropriate to have board members appointed by these two different roles because I
think that will help grow that confidence and an understanding of the projects.
on good economic development projects, and I would like to see it not as politicized.
And to me, when you bring more people into it, that does not always have to, because
of the goal, again, we have this agency is to be spurring economic
development.
And I think everyone would agree with that if it's sitting on there.
So I actually think that this is a positive thing for growing confidence in
as, you know, really contributing.
Representative St. Clair.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support this amendment, and as I was reading through,
if we go to page one, line 13, just briefly toward the end
and possess as demonstrated leadership skills,
yet it doesn't define what that is.
This needs to, I guess my question is,
Ada has a higher credit rating than we do,
yet now we are trying to throttle them back
and I haven't heard anything illegal that they've done.
So I'm a yes on this, Madam Chair, thank you.
I don't see further comment.
And the objection is maintained so thank you for the discussion. I'm gonna have the clerk
Please call the roll on amendment number four
Representative McCabe, yes
Representative St. Clair
Yes
Representative Story
No
Representative Hamshoot, no
Representative Holland, No
Representative Vance
Chair Carrick no
Three yeas four nays the vote of
Three a's and four days amendment number four also known as end up for does not pass and that brings us to amendment
Number five, which is the same as
Amendment number two that was previously offered and accepted
So if it's okay representative McCabe, we're gonna get past that one
And so that would bring us to amendment number six, also known as N.5, Representative McCabe.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move amendment six which is yes, N dot five.
I'm an object.
Representative McKeop.
Thank You, madam chair.
Maybe I should hand all my amendments to representatives in clarin and then would last like amendment
two did.
Anyways, to explain this, currently members serve two-year terms at the will of the governor.
Under HB 124 members would serve three-year terms with no ability to be removed by the governor,
even for breach of statutory duties of a board member such as making decisions based on the
objective standard of reasonable and prudent investor instead of politics. Again, this politicizes
the board and the decision-making process of the Board. Board members should always have to act
and our mission to create jobs and economic development and make decisions based on objective
business standards. They operate under GASB rules.
They do everything under business, under Business Standards and I think that we
need to allow them the ability to remove a board member if something happens
that maybe compromises their board.
Representative Sinclair
Thank You Madam chair, I agree. I'm a yes on this amendment. It's there's you this is a an
Ada accountability bill
Yet now we're putting members in there that aren't going to be held accountable
Because the accountability is the governor and their ability to determine it's an at-will state
But we are now instead of making it accountable. We are no longer making an accountable for these new members with the governor not being able to
Terminate people if if they do something wrong whether it be morally stitched or lee or whatever. Thank you, Madam chair
Yes, thank you just comment through the chair if a person does something ethically wrong their people will be removed whether
They're on this board are not I
Mean I believe that there's laws of people doing things illegally. They are going to be removed from the board
That's Madam chair may I retort
Who has who's gonna have the legal authority to remove them it is my question and I don't think that are the troopers gonna go
pick them up arrest them or
The governor having that authority is within his scope and I think it needs to be retained.
Thank you.
So I'll jump in and comment.
I'm opposed to amendment number six.
This original language isn't meant to politicize the board.
In fact, I believe it removes some of the current politicization that could exist with Ada.
And if you're a board member on ADA, you then have some obligation to potentially pursue what the governor would like you to pursue.
I associate myself also with Vice Chair Story's comments that if somebody is conducting conduct illegally on any of our boards,
the Governor is not the only entity that can take action against someone in that capacity.
Deliberatively had the three-year terms as opposed to two- year terms.
I think that that helps to remove some of the politicization of
the board as well because it's less subject to the current sitting governor.
Whoever that may be, a little bit of a longer term allows for
potentially more informed investment decisions, more time doing that work.
And the original language that's currently in the bill,
partisan per se, and I do see removal of section 3 as restoring a little bit of that potential
for politicization.
Not saying it's what's necessarily happening, just saying that this is some of the reasons
why that was originally in there, representative McCabe.
Thanks.
Yeah, the problem I see as well is you have a person that is appointed by the Speaker of
who is totally unqualified, he just happens to be a friend of the Speaker of
the House. We've never seen that done before, right? And he makes some
financial decisions as a board member and some financial some votes that are
unethical maybe, maybe not against the law but just unethical or maybe
not even in accordance with some of
the proper fiduciary or pecuniary reasons.
And now we're saying that the governor can't remove him, and oh, by the way, the person that,
the Speaker of the House, no longer is in the house.
He retired or he's gone, but yet this board member has another two years to run and as
busy as we are, we don't get a chance to remove Him and the Governor can remove
Him.
I think this is a hugely political problem and maybe even a procedural problem with the
vice chair story. Thank you through the chair on on the bill on page one line
11 and whoops a line well 12 13 14 it says each of whom has expertise in
private sector business or industry or both and possesses demonstrated leadership skills.
Start wrapping up debate on this amendment representative McCabe and then Saint Clair
Yeah, so so who determines the expertise so once again, you know, there are a number of ways you can determine expertise
There's really no defining
Thing in here and a speaker can
Pretty much say if he's gonna be appointing I
Question this guy and I found that he understands what he supposed to do on on the Ada board. So
I'm sorry, but the language isn't tight enough for us to do that.
Representative Sinkoff.
I am looking around for further comment. Representative Vance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I like the three-year staggered terms.
I was just looking at the AMHA board,
of which I co-sponsored and voted for and helped to work on that bill.
It's not perfect, but I hope to the idea was to create longevity and planning
because of the problems that that occurred but the point that rep McCabe
has made about the governor you know serving at the pleasure of
the Governor I think is important as well as what rep St. Clair said is who
are they accountable to? And that's very vague here. And as I'm thinking about other statutes of
boards, there's like the Board of Fish, I have a lot of opinions about those members and how
they're chosen and the qualifications and statute. While they may not be technically doing things
that are illegal, my constituents can tell you that there are activities that cannot pass the
I think there needs to be someone that can remove board members for things that are unsavory
and that do not reflect the public trust.
And sometimes you can't pin them down as something directly illegal.
was asked to resign. That's the diplomatic way, right? But there are times where someone says,
well, no, I'm not going to go. And I think leaving that portion in there that serves at the governor's
pleasure is important because there has to be an authority and the Governor is the executor
the corporations objectives, but that you're holding the public trust into the standards
that we're providing. And just like within our offices, you know, sometimes, we get the
final say on our staff for whatever reason, and maybe they weren't doing anything illegal
and they would be better for elsewhere.
I think there needs to be that latitude
on these very important things.
So, you know, I keep in mind, next year,
we don't know who the executor is going to
be. We don t know if this person is gonna
be red, blue, or yellow.
And what should our statutes look like
that can fit that mold?
And so I wish we could kind of split the
baby down the middle on,
longer term when we think of the two-year time frame that we have here you just
start getting your work going and then it's time for re-election so I like a
little bit longer-term but I'm gonna support this amendment because I think
ultimately the governor serving at the pleasure of
the Governor for that accountability piece is highly important.
I don't support this amendment for two reasons.
One, I like that longer term of three years,
coupled with the stability of the board.
And I only recently learned that the Board of Regents
can't be dismissed.
And so I guess I just hadn't realized that.
And, and I know that our state Board
of Education is kind of a revolving door
according to the administration.
And it feels like...
people should be allowed to serve out their their term
So I don't think I can support this amendment, but I am really grateful for the conversation
All right, I'm seeing no additional discussion,
but there is an objection maintained representative McCabe do you have a
Thanks. So I guess I'm questioning what you just said. The Board of Regents can't be dismissed
and under this bill without this amendment there would be no way to dismiss for the governor to
dismiss and I don't even see a way in there for legislature to dismissed somebody.
you were concerned that you learned that the regions couldn't be dismissed and not
and we are saying the same thing now about the ADA board, right?
Correct. So you think it's a good thing? I do. That they can't
be dismissed? Yes. Okay. And I sort of agree with that.
And in the case of some of our
Not to go off an opine, but in the case of some of our potentially most impactful
Boards and organizations and the Board of Regents has very very broad authority
It that long term of serving without worrying without having to worry that your decisions might lead to your dismissal
based on the current sitting governor is something that I
think is of benefit to the stability and health of
the university system, and I also think it benefits ADA to have that sort of same stability
of knowing that when you get appointed and you are on that ADA board, your decisions are at your
purview and your not worried about am I making the decisions the governor would like me to make?
And again, I'm not trying to insinuate that that's strictly what takes place currently.
I think is just a concern that folks have when they look at decisions.
And this sort of removes the public's concern around that.
Okay, clarify.
Yes, we'll go to Representative Hymshu and then St. Clair
and do you kind of want to wrap up discussion
on this amendment?
Yeah, the staggered terms mean that that turnover
will happen.
So you get in your seat and you just kind
of get up to speed and get dismissed.
I kind hope that the process of the governor
confirmed by the legislature actually would be in this bill would then make sure that we have
high-quality people regardless of their politics and regardless
of the governor's politics. And because the terms stagger when a new governor comes in,
if she or he wants to go in a different direction, whoever turns out that year or is up for reappointment
brief comment. I see you're out of the queue. Just a brief
comment, just on this one, I'm going to support I don't
support the amendment, but I do want to just voice my support
for the language that we have with the caveat that I am
concerned from what I've learned that the
in the bill that would remain around the legislature's involvement and approval perhaps is not constitutional for our corporations.
That's a layer of appointment for a corporation that I don't think we can take away from the executive.
So I'm going to not support the amendment because of the underlying parts of
the language, but I just want to flag that that may be something forced to look into down the road as this bill advances.
Thank you.
Looking around
I'm gonna do wrap-up comments representative McCabe, and then we're gonna we gonna take it to the boat, right?
So thanks for wrap up. I appreciate that and and let's just be clear for the public here
This is in my opinion. This bill is a thinly disguised way to stack the board with
Environmentally conscious
people
and then not allow them to be taken off if they create trouble on the board.
We've seen it before in many of the boards, and I think it's a frustrating way to do business, frankly.
So, the big hedge funds that have CEOs that are very ESG, DEI,
They start stacking the boards of the companies that they manage or that
they own big stocks and big shares in and then those companies slowly start to
fail and they start lose money. So do you remove your objection?
I do not. All right. Will the clerk please call the role on amendment number
Representative Vance
Yes
Representative McCabe. Yes
Representative St. Clair. Yeah
Representative Story. No
Representative him shoot. Nope. Representative Holland. no
Chair Carrick no
Three yeas four nays with a vote of three days and four days amendment number six also known as end out five has not passed
And that brings us to amendment number seven,
also known as N.06, Representative McCabe.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move amendment, number 7, N dot six.
Object, representative McCabe?
Thanks.
So it is already subject to all the state personnel related
laws and the board members, all of whom
are currently required to have expertise in private sector
business or industry, I'll have professional qualifications.
they have the discretion to hire an executive director.
It doesn't make any sense to me to exempt ADA
from the current personnel laws
and to make up a new system of personnel law.
Once again, we are completely gutting ADA
with all of these, up with this bill,
and restructuring it, and this is,
this another politicized attempt,
or political attempt to,
or another attempt
to politicize the board.
and the way that they do business in the director that
they hire. So hence, I offer this amendment.
Is there a discussion?
Looking around, um,
I don't see discussion. I am going to maintain my objection on this. Um,
and I do feel it's important that the board establish their personnel policy
and minimum qualifications for an executive director.
and that's just been one of the sort of foundational aspects of
the bill. So you will see these again.
I don't have more articulate comments at the moment.
I do not see any further discussion and I would ask the clerk to please call the roll.
Representative Holland.
No.
Representative Vance.
Yes.
Representative McCabe.
Yes
Representative St. Clair.
Yes
Representative Story.
No
Representative Hymshoot.
No
Chair Carrick.
No
Three A's, Four Nays.
The vote of three A's and Four nays, amendment number seven
also known as N.6 has not passed.
Briefities.
House State Affairs is back on the record.
I can't remember if I announced the vote.
I believe that I did on The Last Amendment.
But I guess I'll restate it.
Amendment number seven, also known as N.6, is not adopted.
And that brings us to amendment number eight,
conveniently known
as n.8, Representative McCabe.
How convenient.
I move amendment eight.
And I object, representative McCabe,
Thank you, madam chair. So currently Ada can keep its assets without being raided by the legislature if it pays the required or statutory
dividend to the
legislature
Under HB 124 eight his assets are no longer separate from the state
Ada, can't keep any assets over the threshold and must pays those funds
Along with the current statutory dividend
To the Legislature
There actually is some constitutional
discussion going on, on several fronts, one of which is a previous Supreme Court case that indicates that ADA is not subject to the Executive Budget Act.
And another one that basically says that this would be sort of forward funding by requiring them to put any assets over the threshold, pay them back to legislature.
actually procedural legal constitutional structural issues with this and also just on a even barring
all of that we've already seen what happens when we radiate they lose their bond rating.
So not only are we going to gut the division itself but now we're going
Because any time a legislature gets involved with a financial instrument like this, like ADA,
the bond rating agencies that give us our bond ratings,
look at that with sort of a skeptical eye,
wondering if we're actually going to create fiduciary issues for the agency itself,
representative Holland great. Thank you. I'm gonna support this amendment as we
move ahead you'll see that this Amendment is really a part of the
foundation of a series of amendments I have later and so this discussion we have
now will probably help set the stage for what's coming up so we don't need to
repeat that at some point down the road
Fundamentally, I am supportive of ADA having an open-ended fund corpus size and this was
attempting to put a limit on how big ADA could ever get and I think it's fine that we encourage
ADA to grow and that its assets might grow over time through its success.
While I have separate concerns about the process by which we look at the dividends,
And whether or not there is a constitutional argument to be made about the legislature's right and ability to
have those returns, that's a separate discussion from this particular amendment that we'll come back to later.
This amendment specifically is part of what I have also integrated in mind that removes the cap on their corpus and the size of their fund.
And so I will support this amendment.
Thank you.
I'll jump in the queue and then I see additional folks.
I am going to oppose Amendment N.8, but not because of what's in N dot eight, to Representative
Holland's point, I think the language that is in Amendment in number eight is duplicated
in a later amendment, which I support.
procedurally, I'm going to not accept this amendment in favor of accepting a
later amendment. However, appreciate the commentary on this. I think I had
representative Hymshoot and then Vance.
Yeah, through the, not through to the chair, to
Tell me more about the three billion. What would this if this?
Bill were not changed in the cap stayed in place the way it is in a bill
What with that prevent Ada from doing?
like exact like
past examples
If you have them
You know, I don't have the example right with me.
It seems to me it was in 2013,
and maybe Director Roraro could answer,
but there was a time, 2019,
I think, where the legislature went into ADA
and took, maybe it's Representative Lincoln,
went in to ADA and they rated ADA of, you know
certain amount of money.
I'm not even sure how much it is.
And that's kind of what I object to because it caused our bond rating to fall.
And maybe like I say director Rauraro would be better to answer that if you don't mind.
OK. Sure. Director Raro if
you heard that question.
There this is. Yes chair.
This is Randy Rararo executive director for Aida.
R-U-A-R-O to Section 8 in the amendment.
There's a couple issues rolled into that section.
The first is the having a cap at all at $3 billion.
If aid is successful with its landmark development,
as soon as those resources are proven or able to be put on to our books,
we would run past the $ 3 billion limit very quickly
you know, pretty drastic majors to reduce, somehow reduce that number. It'd be hard to do,
I think, very difficult. And so, ADA, I guess, opposes that cap at all.
And then the transfer of funds out of ADA automatically triggered in any future year when
I think that's also violating current statutes which separate our assets from
the legislature's control and then there is the constitutional issue of forward
appropriating for other legislators' slatures in the future.
Thank you. All right. I
think I had represented advance next in
the queue. Thank You Madam Chair.
I am in support of this amendment because
Out of all of the things in the bill, Section 8 is one of my highest concerns because, well, things that Mr.
Raro just mentioned, but the amount of unexpended and unopplegated money required to reduce the aggregate value of
all funds and accounts in authority to that amount lapses to the general fund.
That just seems like the most imprudent action we could ever take on a
Corporation that we want specifically making sound
financial decisions into our economy if
We were running our own business, which is what this is and
We said hey, we know you have some irons and the fire on some projects
but
the rest of the money that you have set aside for the future to be able to make sound decisions,
you're going to have to turn that over. You're gonna have
to get rid of that, just completely sweep it. No business would do that. Like, no one making
sound financial decisions would ever require a business to do
that because that would completely, I think that
And it would cause the people to start
obligating money in an imprudent manner.
One of the frustrations that we have with our departments,
and we've heard stories about, you know, they have a budget,
and if they don't use it all,
they'll have that, every year that they won't get that much
the next year.
And so, for instance, I've had stories
places, you know, across the state, the DOT buys up more snow plows,
you and they have several in the yard just to spend that money.
Well, meanwhile, we know it could have been used for better things and it
creates imprudent spending. I don't want to put
this public corporation that has a reputation for making sound
investment, to have to be forced to make decisions like that,
so that they don't lose it.
We want them to be making decisions that are going to make the sound investment that we
know is going be prudent for the long term that's going
to matter to our economy.
And by doing that one action alone, I think would be one of the worst things that
we could do to the corporation.
fall in line with you what you're wanting for transparency and accountability.
This one to me just seems like a very poor financial business-minded decision.
So I will be in support of Amendment Number 8.
And is there further discussion?
Let's take just a couple more comments and wrap up discussion on this one, Representative Holland.
for clarification on what you see coming up ahead in the future amendments if we were
to accept this amendment does it create a problem in some of the
future amendment that you were anticipating when you said you are inclined to not support
this because of something coming out. So to represent of Holland what I was going to say is that we
There's nothing in this amendment which conflicts with a future amendment that I support
What I would object to and the reason why I don't intend to vote for this Amendment is because it simply removes the cap without
addressing the concern about it as revolving fund
revenue which your later amendment does address that and so
Passing this amendments does not affect the future amendments before us
and
I look to the will of the committee on that, but for my part, one of
the main reasons this bill was brought forward is to take action
regarding the revolving fund, and so
I don't support this amendment as a standalone amendment.
That's where I'm at.
I do not see any additional discussion from the Committee
Last comment on this one.
I'm so sorry, it's a question again.
On the slides from Ada from Mr. Raro on slide nine,
it says AS44.88.190b, Ada's, quote,
funds, income, or receipts may not be considered
or constitute money of the state.
And that's giving me pause right now.
I don't know what that means, because it doesn't
Section 8, sorry, can you repeat that? Sorry. I was just the funds income or receipts may not be
Ada's funds, income, or recedes may NOT be considered or constitute money of the state.
And then section 8 says
the value of all funds and accounts and the authority to that amount lapses into the general fund, which is the money of the state.
I don't know, I'm confusing myself.
I'll offer a resource.
Without trying to answer this question, we may have he and Walsh online from the Legislative Council
to be able to help with these kinds of questions.
Future amendments do get into the heart of the question being asked right now
So if you want to pursue this question, it might be that we bring on
Enwals to help discuss a little bit more. Are these state funds or not?
Or or naught, but just let's you know
There's a potential resource available for you if we want on this. Question. So I'm gonna I may be suggest that
We roll amendment number eight to
Not to the bottom, But just to The future so that We don't tie up
Ian Walsh is time for longer than we need to.
If we do have additional legal questions,
we could roll those amendments which have legal
questions attached to later.
So,
Madam Chair, who is Ian Welsh?
Ledge legal, is that who you have?
Yes.
So not Department of Law.
I'm sorry, but Ledged Legal is not the appropriate body
to comment on these, you should have Department
of law, if you, I think.
I think that leg legal has a separate, totally separate function than the Department of Law who will have to defend this in court and they should be the ones commenting on it.
And no disrespect meant to leg illegal, but they have a different function.
So.
I thank for now, thank you Representative McKabe.
I thing for, now we're going to roll amendment number eight, not to the bottom, like I said,
but just two later moment and we can.
come back to that question. So procedurally, how do you you have to table it or do something
because we've already moved it? Oh, that is true. Um, I'm going to move to
table the amendment then with the intention to bring it back up during this hearing today.
Is there objection to tabling the Amendment? You know there is. Okay.
But I I'm going to move to table it so that we don't tie up time on the phone with an additional counsel person
And I would ask the clerk to call the roll on tabling amendment number eight
Representative Hymshy, yes
Representative Holland. Yes
Representative Vance
Representative McCabe. No
Representative St. Clair
Representative story. Yes
Chair Carrick yes
four case three days
So amendment number eight also known as n.8 is tabled
We'll go now to amendment Number nine also
Known as N dot nine representative McCabe. Thank you madam chair. I move amendment
Number 9
If you will bear with me, I'm going to go through amendment number nine section, subsection by subsection.
And it's going take a little bit to read this one if you don't mind.
So section nine, sub one.
Currently, Ada has to obtain approval. Is that sound right?
a project financed under any of its programs through local permitting authorities.
Under HB 124-8, it has to obtain a certified resolution of the political subdivision of
the state in which a product is to be located.
There are often multiple political subdivisions affected by a
project.
Some may be in favor, some may not.
Failure to obtained.
unanimous consent would result in stopping the project even if a single
subdivision representing only a small percentage of the population opposed
the Project.
Ninths of two currently ADA has to find projects that create jobs
in our economically feasible bond projects require reporting
to the legislature.
This section repeats requirements already in statute for ADA.
9-sub-3 currently ADA must comply with NEPA studies on resource development projects where
economic and social impacts are studied, reported to the public, and the
public is given a chance to comment. Under HB 124-ADA would have to compile a
redundant study of the economic, social, environmental effects of a project in
conjunction with multiple state agencies on projects and conduct a public hearing
For resource development projects, this requirement is already met through federal NEPA permitting
and ADA holds multiple meetings now on resource-development projects with the public and provides data
from NEAPA studies, etc. I think that might be what this is part of. Sections 9, sub-4, and 5.
Currently, ADA submits annual reports to the legislature and audits of financials and
Decisions are made based on objective reasonable and prudent investor standards.
Under HB 124, ADA will have to get approval from the legislature for all major projects.
There is no timeline for action, no requirement for moving bills through committee, et cetera.
And there is not requirement that a legislator's vote is based on an objective standard of whether the project creates jobs and economic development.
A vote can be based personal views, political views lobbying.
etc. This process politicizes project approval process and makes project decisions depend on
subjective political views of individual legislators. It brings uncertainty and delay to the project
approval. In addition, the legislature can only act by passing bills. Bills are subject to veto
by a governor creating even more opportunity for politics to decide the outcome of a project,
Most project sponsors will just simply not use eta due to the uncertainty
Uncertainty created by this new regulation in fact if I was a business owner starting a brewery or
Starting an interior gas utility or something like that, and I'm sorry. I just had to get that in there
I certainly wouldn't go to etah
If if I thought that it was going to take the legislature two years of a single session to get it through to a governor
Who may not be politically aligned with the Legislature and then veto it so?
I'm sorry, but this piece of the bill is extremely ill thought out
Thank you representative McCabe do we have discussion on amendment number nine representative aitz
I am in support of this amendment for a lot of the reasons that were mentioned.
But on page 4, line 29, number 4 it says obtain an independent feasibility study of
the project from a contractor approved by the LBNA.
And to me this whole section just looks like, a lotta it looks
like it's already in regulation.
They're already having to meet certain standards.
but we're adding another layer of red tape that will slow projects down and and add the the politicization
that I don't think is necessary for these projects for instance you know one of the
funding from ADA, and we know on Fisheries Committee how valuable hatchery programs
are to the state of Alaska, they not only help in our coastal communities for our commercial
fishing, but they provide an immense amount of fishing opportunities for sport and personal
use.
But most people don't know that.
to being able to decide if eta putting money to, for instance, a hatchery program, I think
a lot of people in this body would say no, because they've listened to a
lot information that is not accurate. And that's just one example of how
us being involved in these limits, the economic opportunities that really matter to our
And and even more so legislative budget not it isn't the entire legislature. It's a few it's
What is it nine members maybe
so I think I
Think of most of what what you have in here of wanting to make sure that they're abiding by
I'm a lot of the processes is covered in regulation
That and it is probably already in practice, but I
even more concerned about the lines of another study that's going to take more time, it's
going take money by legislature budget and audit committee and say you had one member
on there that was opposed to that project and the example that I'm using right now is
They could slow down that feasibility study. They can make it even more
And do all the massinations that that people do when they don't like something and I think that would be
unfortunate when it comes to
looking at a project on its own merit and
And and something that will be good for that region that may be someone
from a completely different region
completely understand the value and
By us taking a step back from that allows the process of what the corporation does to be able
to do so a lot smoother and be to get that money in motion in our economy the way it's needed.
So I'm in support of amendment number nine.
Thank you Representative Vance. Is there additional discussion?
I know you've got wrap up comments.
We're going to save it so you can do wrap-up.
Okay.
Representative Holland?
Yeah, just briefly.
I was trying to find a section.
I'm not going get there in time, but I just want to note that there are portions of what
this amendment would do that I support that are going
to come up later in amendment.
So there's, I think, some important rationale around the notion that
Some of this oversight is probably more than I would support.
I'm not going to support this amendment
because we're stripping away everything in there,
but I just want to acknowledge that there's portions of that
that we are going come back to on some future stuff
that acknowledge part of what this
amendment was getting at I think is necessary.
Thanks.
Thank you, Representative Holland.
I will just offer I am going
to maintain my objection.
Section number eight and nine really get at the heart of why I was asked to bring this legislation forward by constituents that have reached out.
The issues in section nine in particular are consistent areas where folks that are impacted by a lot of projects pursued by ADA would like more information prior to their
And I've just heard that over time from a number of different very large projects of AEDAs.
So that is why the combination of the previous, or the current Section 8 rather, we haven't amended it yet.
But the Current Section Eight and Section 9 go together and I'm going to stand by what the language currently is in the bill.
Do we before we go to representative McCabe do we have additional questions or comments from the committee on this
Just one more represent just just briefly I was trying to find this
back when I was being recognized.
But there is already precedent for this
in the enterprise development account
that is in statute right now.
This is $4488155 that has a $25 million limit
that says that loan participation may exceed $ 25 million
with legislative approval.
And it goes on to provide a framework for that.
So in this case, the $100 million amount is four times
the amount that is required for legislative approval in some of the other sections of ADA's operations.
So there is precedent for this kind of legislative approve.
Okay, I'm going to go to wrap up from Representative McCabe.
Thanks, so interior gas utility was $139 million.
We passed 33 bills last year of
the 300-ish that were put in queue.
You can see from the amount of time this committee has spent on this bill alone a hump time consuming it is to get through
Transportation we've spent weeks on or two weeks at least on one road
So four five hearings on on 1 little 16 or 32 mile section of road. So I can't well
This is exactly what you do when you when your
fighting off a lawsuit, you find a court that's jammed up and can't take the lawsuit and it just extends the period.
So to me, this is just another way to put a roadblock on a project.
Whether it's good for the state or not, they don't seem to care.
And I just think, yeah, 25 million might be or 100 million, might
be four times the 25,000, but we're getting into the arena right now with
bigger projects, especially the gas pipeline, where $100 million isn't even near enough.
I think you heard Director O'Rara testify that we would be approaching the cap pretty
soon with the Gas Pipeline and some of the projects that are in the ADA pipeline.
So not to talk about too many pipelines at once, but so.
Yeah, I mean, out of all those two sections in the bill that I think need repair,
if it was up to me,
I would just jack up the number nine and remove everything underneath.
So, and I that's what this amendment kind of does.
So you can remove your objection.
I'm happy with that.
You're going to get me on one of these.
I know, right?
I keep trying.
The objection is maintained.
Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number 9.
Representative story
No
Representative him shoot no represent Holland no
Representative Vance
Representative McCabe, yes
Representative St. Clair. Yes
Chair Carrick no
Three yeas and four nays with the vote of three a's and for nay's amendment number nine also known as amendment
N.9 rather has not passed
And that brings us to amendment number 10, also known as N.10, Representative McCabe.
Thank you, Madam Chair, move amendment 10.
And I object, representative McCabe?
So thanks, Madame Chair.
This one's pretty simple.
Currently, accounting of assets is provided to the legislature by January 10th of each
year.
Section 11, repeals and then re-imposes the same requirement.
very brief at ease
back on the record house to the fairs
had to confer with my staff again
Um, do we have discussion from the committee?
I, uh, I would note that I am going to oppose this amendment.
Um.
We do have a later amendment, which provides.
A better definition of indirect ownership and.
It may or may not resolve some of the concerns that this amendment is seeking to address but
with section 10
but
I'd like to defer to the later amendment that also addresses a similar issue and
I
Opposed this
Representative Sinclair
Thank You Madam Chair this Amendment
n.10 does not
address anything with Section 10. It deals with 11, page 5, line 12.
Yep, thank you for it. Yeah, it doesn't deal with section 10,
it's with, section 11. Oh, we're disconnected with something here.
Yeah. I apologize for saying clear you are correct.
That's why I'm sitting here flipping pages back and forth because I've
trying to figure out if I skipped a gear or if something has skipped
Okay, let me change my statement.
I still am opposed to this amendment.
I don't want to delete section 11 either.
We've had some robust discussion about
subjugation to the executive budget act.
I think that the point has been sort of
belabored at future or at former committee hearings.
And I again, stand by inclusion of the annual report
being due to legislature by January 10th.
And I would, now that we're on the same page, thank you Representative St. Clair for correcting me.
Is there any discussion on, the amendment that Representative McCabe actually offered that I did not speak to?
Representative Holland first, and then McCabe?
Well, I think I'm just looking for clarification.
So we are on Amendment 10.
Amendment ten is an amendment, that would repeal section 11.
Am I correct with where we're at and what we are doing?
Yes.
Thank you.
So just speaking in opposition to the amendment, currently, ADA has already been subject to
the Executive Budget Act with the clarification under current statute that it's tied to
the operating budget.
The CS bill now simply clarifies extending the Executive Budget Act to ADA, and I support
that intent of the performance-based oversight of our activities and the role specifically
that the executive budget act gives to the legislature to have oversight on
what the state is doing with its assets and its agencies and departments.
So I support the language as it has, I oppose the amendment that would make this change.
Thank you.
Representative McCabe.
Thanks. So yeah, this will immediately result in a complete destruction of our bond rating.
If you have a financial instrument that can be rated by a legislature
made up of 60 elected officials at any.
Any whim the bond agencies will I mean we will we'll be lucky to survive the reduction in in bond rating
If you ask me
There there is a reason that this was structured so that only the operating budget was subject to the executive budget act
And it was specifically to keep our fingers out of the pie and this
Section here
Putting the entire
agency under the executive budget act, that's available to us, look at what's happening to
us right now with the governor's budget, with a $1.9 billion hole in it, we could go in and
close down ADA and strip out everything from ADA. And the financial rating agencies know
that. They would know that with this language and they would absolutely, would crater, absolutely
And, you know, out of everybody in here,
I'm sure Representative Holland knows that the best,
he understands bond ratings and what they mean
to people for lending agencies.
Not saying the rest of you don't,
but it is a big factor.
It is huge factor, there's a reason
when your bond rating gets increased or decreased,
it's news.
It's always news on the local news channels.
ADIS bondrating is now AAA bond-rating,
or ADAS bondrading has fallen,
We talk about that all the time.
Putting this section in there and putting them,
aid a completely subject to the Executive Budget Act,
we might as well just close it up
and have a fire sale and be done with it.
And I'd like to say one more thing, sorry.
I'm unclear why the drafter changed line 28.
So instead it says by January 10th of each year make available to the legislature and then they remove the words by
January tenth of the year. I'm just a little unclear
It maybe it's just the stylistic thing, but it
Anyways, that's unnecessary as well, so
I couldn't I could get into their legicles mind for your bill
I read it, but you know, sometimes legible makes technical changes that
belie the understanding of non-lawyers.
Okay, I don't see any additional discussion. Representative Holland.
Great, thanks. I'll just make the comment, you
know and I'm not an expert in the executive budget act,
but I do agree that
Making this change will have any effect on bond ratings or anything.
This does not open up any door to rating ADA.
All the Executive Budget Act does is provide clarity, transparency, and
disclosure of what our budgets are,
and it clarifies the role of
the different parts of our governments to be involved in budgeting.
So I think the idea that extending the Executive Budget Act from not just the operating budget,
which it is already subject to, so all of the great bond ratings for all these years
Authority of the Executive Budget Act provide transparency and accountability and
responsibility that this simply extends it to all of
the operations of ADA. It makes no change in how ADA operates, it makes
no changes in the bond rating or the risk organization. Just simply says we
will use good prudent budgeting processes.
Let's do, I don't see any additional comment, let's
Representative McCabe. So I appreciate that in 2019 the legislature dipped into Aida and took two million dollars out and our bond rating went down
20 points
Went down two steps, right?
And that's two-million dollars. Just imagine what it would be like
If we went into the Ada right now, just like we did last year
When we tried to go into ADA, fortunately, it was vetoed.
We tried going to ADA.
Now we went into the higher education fund.
We're looking in the couch cushions for money, folks.
And ADA is a plum target.
bond rating agency worth their salt is going to look at this and they're going
to say what you mean the legislature can now it's now subject to the executive
budget act and the Legislature can go in there at their will and take money and
sell assets and monetize assets of course it is gonna affect the bond
rating that's what bond-rating agencies do that is what those are the kinds of
and financial instruments such as ADA is subject to outside influencers or outside sales or
outside takeovers, hostile take overs, all of those sorts of things are what they look at.
And you can be darn sure that they are going to look
at this and say, yeah, no, we're not doing this. So thanks.
The objection is maintained.
Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number 10,
also known as N.10.
Representative St. Clair.
Yes.
Representative Story.
No.
M shoot.
No, representative Holland.
No representative Vance.
Yes, Representative McCain.
Absolutely.
Chair Carrick.
No
three yeas and four nays the vote of three a's and for nay's amendment number 10 has not been adopted and
That brings us to amendment Number 11 also known as n dot 11 representative McCabe. Thank you, madam chair
I move number amendment 11
object
representative mccape
So, thank you madame chair this amendment the lead section 12 page plate
Page six lines nine through 28.
Again, this section's unnecessary.
Eight of submits its annual financial audit
and annual report to the legislature by January 10th.
They also currently develop missions and measures.
The annual audit, annual reports and all actions
are already made available to legislature.
In fact, I was cruising through, gosh,
I think 300 or 400 pages.
earlier today, minutes of board actions are posted to the website.
You know, I'm unclear why people think that ADA is not transparent.
I mean,
I was able to find everything I wanted and more looking on their website, so.
Anyways, that's why I offer this amendment.
It's totally unnecessary. This section.
So I I will be maintaining my opposition to this section
I just want to note that it was my staff kindly noted it for me. It was on
February 3rd at 4 27 p.m. And our committee
Mr. Rara was going through the sectional of the bill section by section and offering commentary
Lot a lot of it. Was in opposition on this particular section deleted
He had said that Ada does not oppose the metrics and measures that are in this section.
So this is not something that is opposed by Ada and I do think having reporting requirements
and having Ada establish performance metrics is a positive thing for increasing confidence
in Ada's decision making and for their decision-making.
So I'm going to oppose amendment.
Thank you Madam Chair, I have a question on page 6, line 23 and 24, one of the inclusions
along with the report and the performance metrics, you've added a list of all actions
taken at each meeting of authority since the previous year's annual report.
So they should have minutes that they already provide, but you're wanting them to include
additional list of actions taken and I'm no offense to the people who are
diligent and comb through every action that Ada or any other department takes
but you're asking this to send the legislature and we get we
get dozens of reports who who's reading this who is coming through and looking
As we've gone through the legislature and we ask the departments and the corporations
to provide these reports, which many are necessary.
But then when we start getting into the minutia and ask them to do all these different things,
we just keep adding, adding and pretty soon they spend a good percentage of their time
the different good ideas that we have for them and it takes them, the time that takes
to fulfill those things takes him away from their mission. And so I feel like this is
duplicative, but I'm wondering why you specifically put that line in there.
What are you hoping to achieve that's not already happening in the extensive reports that
that we can clearly see because I'm starting to get a greater understanding of all the
things that people to do in these reports and the time and attention and then if a T
isn't crossed and I isn t dotted, we nail them for it, right? And help me understand
I feel like Randy Raro is trying to be be gracious of saying,
hey, we already do a lot of this stuff.
This to me seems like it's really getting into the minutia.
Yeah, just a very briefly respond representative Vance.
I see a list of actions taken as being something somewhat
open to interpretation once the legislation should
in all likelihood a more streamlined version
of what the minutes will provide.
So the minute's are gonna be,
as we know, looking at minutes,
as the stack is bigger, much,
much larger than what Representative McCabe has on his desk,
but a list of actions is something
that would probably encompass for the year
less than a one inch binder's worth.
And that does still seem like a lot,
but there are a lotta folks who have asked
for more information.
and not to imply that Director Raro was greatly in support of this but it sounds like from
his previous testimony that this is all information that is able, that the ADA is
able to provide without a tremendous amount of additional heavy lifting. So if
they can provide it and the public is asking for it, and as policymakers wanting
to understand better the investment decisions and decision-making process
I believe this is something that is of benefit overall.
And that's just the perspective that I have on that.
Thank you.
I think St. Clair was in the queue first.
No, Representative Holland.
Great, thanks.
I'm, I guess, speaking in opposition to the amendment and
support for the language that's currently in the bill.
I just want to note that, you know,
I've had the opportunity to learn a lot more about Ada and the process of looking at this bill,
and I am very grateful that we've gone through this process, and learning a little.
But I will say this particular section, 4488-210,
the expectation of the communication to
In my opinion has not been well met by Ada in the past.
If you strictly read what this section said originally and you go and look
at what we've received, they could have done a lot better.
And I think, and I'm learning by virtue of going through this, you know,
there's a, a much more impressed with Ada and what they're doing.
And, I am filtering through a lotta comments I got from a
lot of constituents of people that said,
Providing more clarity more transparency to Ada and I looked at 210 when I you know really had to dig into I thought wow
This section if he didn't really did this well
We probably would not be having a lot of these conversations
But I think these changes are valuable they provide more Clarity
But at the end of the day we still need to you
Know suggest that 210 in general could be done
better. This is going to provide a little more clarity. As far as the findings from the
annual meeting since the last annual report, right now the annual reports are done at the
end of June. So what I found going into this was that there was a huge gap between June
of last year when the Annual Report was there and I was trying to figure out what has Ada
and trying to paw through all the minutes to get there versus trying
to find this list of key actions, this would be very valuable. It would create
a lot more transparency to see what's going on rather than saying it's out on
the web, go find it someplace if you can. So this language, it would
be different if the annual report were done in December and that annual
report reflected a very timely current snapshot of what is going
a big gap, and as we've seen a lot of projects. So I pose the amendment, I support the changes
that are being made here, but I also just want to reinforce, 210 is a great section. If Ada did
this really well, if they met and surpassed this section, even as without the change is being
made in this bill, i think it would have been a very positive step in building more confidence
Thank you Representative Holland.
I don't see a additional discussion on this amendment.
So I'm going to go to wrap up comments.
Representative McGade.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
So folks and for the folks watching online,
this is how the legislature spends your money.
The fiscal notes on the bill alone are huge
and I am given to understand there are new fiscal
notes coming out that are going
to be significantly.
Significantly higher one of the reasons is because of all the people they're going to have to hire to do this
so
It's it's pretty easy to say well that the data is all there
We just need to parse it out, but that takes a person
It takes the person to put it together it takes it person and maintain the database
It take a Person to take notes at the meetings
so
I think that people should understand, when they say to me all the time, how's the legislature, what are you spending money on this time?
How are we going to cut the budget?
Well, we cut budget by not doing crazy stuff like this that we don't need to do that's redundant, that is already there and that
we can find, or we could make a phone call and ask a question.
a budget amendment at this point okay um the objection is maintained thank you
representative mike please uh call the roll on amendment number 11 also known as
n dot 11
representative mecane yes representative st claire yes
representative story no representative hymchute no
Representative Vance. Yes, Chair Carrick. No
Three yeas and four nays
The vote of three yes and for nay is amendment number 11 has not been adopted
And that brings us to amendment Number 12 also known as n.12 representative McCabe. Thank you, Madam chair
I move amendment 12
Jacked
Representative McCabe, thank you madam Chair this
This amendment deletes
Section 13, and the reason you know currently project and loan applicants can keep their financial trade secrets and tax and similar business information confidential.
The effect of this section in HB 124 is unclear to me and others.
Read one way all business, information protected under current laws would have to be released as a public record.
If that is the case, loan and project borrowers and
sponsors are unlikely to apply if their information has been made public or
released to the legislators.
This section to me is just big brother.
And it's a way for anybody that's applying for an aid alone,
some of the, say, Cook Inlet gas drilling companies that needed an aid
alone to, you know, expand and to drill some gas for us and find new gas and
Cook inlet. Now all of a sudden all their financials would have to be public to
us, and everybody else. And I think that that is a huge, huge mistake. People
just won't come to aid us. So once again, we might as well just close the
I have Representative St. Clair and then Vance.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, to caveat off of a member from Big Lake,
I would not do business with someone
that is going to release my information.
This is like the death quo for Ada.
Thank You.
Representative Vance?
ThankYou, Madame Chair, I'm looking at section 13, line 6.
What page would be on page seven, line six,
that talks about if a legislator has a valid legislative
purpose for reviewing information in possession
of the authority and agrees to maintain confidentiality
of information, the Authority may not prevent a legislative
from reviewing the information even if the
information is withheld from the public disclosure.
I'm wondering what, I can kind of see where you're going
I guess I want to know what is your intent with this because there's been projects that
I've heard in the past where legislators have wanted information on important projects and
And to me, asking a legislator to sign an NDA on something is a breach of public trust
in itself, and I know that just based on conversations that one legislator who did sign
an NDAA told another one, don't do it, it's not worth it.
They kept the confidentiality, but I think it creates,
like there's a moral question here that I
think we need to examine because the public is depending on us
to be completely transparent with them, right?
And this is where we may have to trust
that the people that we have in these investment decisions.
are doing their due diligence with these companies,
these investments to make good financial decisions,
but also the environmental, the social,
everything that a project entails.
We can inquire and ask for information,
but this section where it talks about that,
I understand that you don't want them to withhold,
but I just feel like there's a bigger question here
make a breach of the public trust that we have if we're not able to communicate what
it is that
we know. And so if you have a reason obviously there's a
reason that you put this in there and I just want to hear kind of where you are
on this because I struggle with the entire notion of us not being able
Information that we have because of the public trust. I'm sure. Can we take a brief physiological brief at ease?
Can I respond to representative Vance first and then I'll take natties so if you want to get up
So to represent if Vance's points in section
B
Section 13 letter B.
I just want a note that the board
retains the authority to adopt regulations and determine what is privileged information.
So it's not just open to a broad brush interpretation of the legislature in part C.
And then otherwise just wanted to offer the context that this CS version and the language
in this section is modeled after what's currently in statute for the Alaska Railroad.
utilizing that same model for ADA and whether one opposes that for the railroad
or not I think is a different question that maybe you're getting out here but
that's where this came from essentially. I'm gonna take a brief at ease.
Okay, how state affairs is back on the record after a quick bio break scheduling break
We are currently on amendment
Number 12 also known as n.12 is their additional discussion on this amendment
Seeing and hearing none the op the objection is maintained. Will the clerk please call the roll
Representative Vance
Yes.
Representative St. Clair.
Yes?
Representative Story.
No.
Representative Hamshoot.
No
Representative Holland.
No
Chair Carrick.
No
Three A's and four nays.
With the vote of three A's and
four a's amendment number 12 is not accepted.
And that brings us to amendment 13, also known as N.13.
Representative McCabe.
Thanks Madam Chair.
I move amendment thirteen.
I'm only going to object for discussion, Representative McCabe.
Yeah, thanks.
So, aid employees are protected from lawsuits and personal liability, just like every other state employee and state government service, except legislators, and every another employee in the nation.
HB 124 removes the protection only for ADA employees.
This has the potential to cause ADA to shut down.
No reasonable person except legislators would work under such exposure to liability and having to incur defense costs personally against frivolous lawsuits.
So I remove my objection and I just want to say Representative McCabe, you and
I were on the same page on this one.
I didn't offer amendment one because after hearing testimony from Ada, this seemed unnecessarily punitive.
I agree with your assessment.
And I would be happy to see it pass.
Is there any objection to amendment 13?
Seeing none, amendment 14, also known as end dot 13,
was adopted and rep McCabe, you can't say,
you never got anything out of the amendment process.
That brings us to Amendment number 14 also know as
end Dot two, representative McCabe.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 14, N.2.
I object.
Representative McCabe.
Thank you, Madem Chair.
This particular amendment seems to be what all the kerfuffle is
about is Amla Road.
This project is a proposed 211 mile industrial road from the Dalton Highway to Alaska's remote
Ambular Mining District that would enable access to large deposits of copper, cobalt,
gallium, germanium and more.
Keep in mind that this road is actually required under an ilka by Congress.
I understand the objections to it, I think it's already been going through a pretty robust
public process, especially with the landowners.
In October 2025, President Trump approved the project under an ILCA Section 1106, directing
federal agencies to reinstate and issue necessary permits, rights away, and authorizations
promptly.
The permits for the road have been held for years due to protracted litigation and the
president has finally allowed this project to go forward to support the administration's
energy dominance agenda.
The decision finds that the Road is in the public interest given our need for access
to domestic critical minerals and there is no economically feasible and prudent alternative
route.
The decision directs the BLM National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
reissue necessary permits to construct the road. In addition, the U S government is announcing
the partnership with Trilogy Metals, investing $35.6 million to support mining exploration
in Alaska's Ambler Mining District.
this investment makes the U.S. government a 10% shareholder in
trilogy medals and includes warrants to purchase an
additional 7.5% of the company. So Alaskans understand and to
be perfectly clear, this is exactly why this aid of bill
seems to have come forward. I get that.
The sponsor has had people ask her to bring it forward.
It's 100% centered on the Ambla Road.
And the fact that ADA is going to be financing
the AMBLA Road, so if you don't get what you want
through the NEPA process, through
the cultural and tribal consultation process
through all of the other processes, as last resort,
you go to the legislature and you get them to shut down
the funding mechanism that could contribute
some funding to this.
So, I just want to make sure that my constituents and my public understand why I'm so opposed
to this bill because this is just another method that those that are opposed to any
development Alaska is going to try to use to shut down that development.
Don't support this amendment
I can tell you're just crushed I
Hey, I just I'd like to just take this. I know I I've had a discussion offline outside of the committee with you
I
just want to reiterate that
this legislation is being brought forward because
This legislation has been brought ford in the past other versions of a similar
legislation on eta
It's being bought forward, because I have had constituents
Similar to Representative Vance, speak about the testimony opportunities,
the public transparency challenges that they've faced.
I recognize that there is leadership under Ada right now that may turn that ship,
regardless of whatever bill exists out there, and more power to them to do that.
I'm not bringing this legislation forward, and I object to comments that would suggest
I am bringing the legislation for it because of Ambler Road or any other specific project.
And I know we've discussed that, I just want to make that clear on the record from my perspective
that this legislative is coming forward from broader concerns rather than concerns over
And while I do have some constituents
who would really be upset with me saying it,
I'll say it again on the record.
I am neither in support of or opposition to Ambler Road.
I don't have a firm position on that particular project.
So that will make a lot of my constituents upset to hear
if they heard this, but that's true.
And so this legislation is being brought forward
out of broader concerns.
I respect the perspective that you've brought to the conversation, but I just also want to make my motives very clear as well.
Thanks, and if you don't mind, apologies, it wasn't my intent to question your motives.
You're doing what your constituents ask you,
and I think that's admirable, actually.
But I also do think, regardless of what...
People are saying they're picking on they are picking up on the things that Ada has had problems with in the past
I mean, we've heard
Oh, well the Valdez grain terminals or the cannery and anchorage or many of the other projects that that
Ada, has funded that have not done so well and and we you know in
the Past yes, they have probably had some issues with
Transparency and with public comments and you know, so that's those are the issues
I would pick on too if I wanted to shut down if
I want to just shut Down Ada and
You know at the at The end of the day you go to the lowest common denominator, right?
You go To the first link in the chain and You try to break that because that?
That's how you stop projects and they know that and
I know that you know, that too, but you're doing exactly what you are supposed to do, and I think that's admirable.
I wasn't questioning that.
What I am questioning is the people that brought that to you,
and it's very transparent in this particular section of the bill.
That you have a constituency as well to respond to
Representative Holland great. Thanks
Just a couple brief comments. I'm just going to say this one time because they I think apply to the next amendment
First off I find it a little ironic that a lot of our discussion has been about the idea that we should keep the legislature
Out of aid as business and yet we have two amendments here that specifically put language into statutes
telling the legislature to get into aid as business.
So there's a little incongruity to me in terms of what we should be doing or what
we shouldn't be. But in the general nature of these amendments and this bill, this is from my
requests from constituents, very strong requests related to that comment.
This has also come about from, you know, I've got a list here of seven other issues and
projects going on here that have created an environment where people would like to see
more clarity, transparency, and accountability of what ADA is accomplishing.
I think there's a lot of support for what Ada has done in many areas, but also an expectation.
of how they go about their investments in the future that could be improved.
So anyway, I will be opposed to this amendment and the next one primarily because I don't,
somewhat paradoxically don t want to get the legislature into mandating a particular project.
Representative Sinclair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Reading this Amendment, this is exactly
what ADA was designed for, to fund development, projects, revenue for the state, jobs for
Alaskans, this is pretty much their mission statement.
And in contrast to my neighbor here, in the legislature getting involved in these things,
I'm not saying it's right, I am not seeing it wrong, but I think private business, or
the government does best when it stays out, out of the way, thank you.
Thank you Representative St. Clair, seeing no further discussion, Representative McCabe for a wrap up.
Thanks, yeah, so these amendments are numbered on the
way they are for specific reason, that we are submitted the the
way that they were.
this is the Hail Mary right? I mean basically we're saying okay if you're gonna gut
Ada then at least we ought to put language in there to do with the Anilka law what Congress
says we were supposed to. So while it does seem a little bit paradoxical frankly so do you.
So thanks. I think I'm being impugned but I'll not not I would never do that.
Okay, I don't really know how to respond to that,
so I'll just give it back to you.
I'm just gonna respond.
Let's have the clerk call the roll and stuff, how about that?
Representative Holland.
No.
Representative Vance.
Yes.
Representative McCain.
Yes
Representative St. Clair.
Yes
Representative Story.
No
Representative Hymshit.
No
Chair Kerrick.
No
Three yeas and four nays with a vote of three yes and for nay's amendment number 14 also known as n.2 has not been adopted
This brings us to amendment Number 15 also
known is n dot three representative McCabe. Thank you, madam chair. I move amendment 15
And I object representative mckabe
Thank You madame chair, I have two pages to read on this one, but I will suffice it to say that
Ada owns the
1002 section of Anwar, and this is exactly the same thing.
Ada has the leases on these. Ada should be able to develop them,
and I think that with the current regime in Washington, D.C.,
those that are concerned with any development in Alaska
have decided that they are finally down to having to shut down Ada
to shutdown that development.
and that's, in my opinion, what they, not you, Madam Chair, but what is happening here is
they're trying to shut down Aida because of Anwar as well as because
of Ambler. So this simply says, this is again the Hail Mary that says okay, well,
let's see if we can't get this in there because AIDA is supposed to be doing exactly this.
This creates jobs. We've been able to responsibly develop our fossil fuels,
responsibly developed the North Slope.
You've heard me say it before. I probably said it a dozen times in this body.
I have a friend who was fired because he spilled more than a teaspoon full of
transmission oil and he didn't report it as an oil spill on the north slope.
It's an automatic, you're gone.
We do things like that in Alaska.
We develop our resources more responsible than anywhere else
on the planet.
And I think aid is a large part of that.
One of our resource is our people and the jobs
that Ada creates.
And this is what they are trying to do with developing
ANWR as well as AMBLER.
So hence, this paradoxical amendment.
All right. Any comment?
No, I covered it all in the previous comments. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank You Representative Holland, and I feel I've done similarly in my previous comment.
So I have nothing additional to add.
Seeing no additional discussion.
I maintain the objection and will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number 15 also known as n-dot-3
Rep. Hymshoot
No
Representative Holland no
Representative Vance. Yes. Representative McCabe. Yeah
Representative St. Clair. Yep
Representative Story. No
Chair Carrick no
three yeas and four nays
with vote of three a's and four nays amendment number 15 also known as n.3
has not been adopted. This brings us to amendment
number 16 also know as end dot 22 which for the committee
members information will be the last amendment we will take up
today. Representative story. I move amendment
Thank you, I'd like to speak to my amendment.
Right now, as the bill's written, it says each member of the public
make comments for not less than two minutes.
This ed language is specified that ADA may lower the per person time limit for
a testimony, but it may not be lowered to less then a minute.
I feel that I've served in other.
hearings and different committees and sometimes you have a lot of people who
want to comment and it's very important to hear everybody who's before you but
sometimes I think it is important say not less than one it will be one minute
testimony and also requires in here that when people send in public comments to
On their on their net on there when I put here
It's published on the public internet internet website just think it's important right this is part of again
making people
See that Ada is doing their due diligence and hearing from the Public
And so if I've taken the time to written, I think, right in,
just like we do,
I thing it's important to post it,
so people know we got it because otherwise,
they just wonder did it get there?
Are the people who serve on ADA, are they reading it?
So I that helps build public confidence
that their information is getting there,
and then also there's the part about our...
Adding some written justification when they're adopting
amending a repealing a regulation,
I think it gives rationale,
and I thinks that's publics,
even if you don't like the rationale
at least you know what that rationale is
and can understand a little bit more.
So that is my amendment.
Representative, I'll go St. Clair
and then McCabe just to mix it up.
Okay, thank you Madam Chair.
I object to this amendment for several reasons.
If in the first part of page three,
line five following minutes,
or if shorter than a lot of time is necessary,
how do we do it?
We just watched finance go through this.
You can call in until 7.30.
That's when we stop taking callers
and we'll keep going until the end.
What if someone wants to get in at 731?
You know it there's a standard set the legislature has set a Standard we need to maintain it and stick with it
That's why I oppose this when it comes to
Comments on the authorities public website. Do they have that now? I don't know
But we might want to check that out before
Before we put this into statute and finally the justification do we justify everything that we do?
Do we have to justify? Everything that? We do
Do the private organizations and corporations have to justify, does the railroad have
to do it?
Does permanent fund corporation?
You know, we're setting higher standards for ADA and for no real reason that I've seen.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative McKabe.
Thanks.
So I have been to probably a dozen ADA meetings in the last two years, I think, maybe longer.
But every meeting I've been to, they said no time limit.
You know, one meeting was in the rain, we were all crouched under the little gazebo
that was wherever they had the meeting, it was available.
They had food, you had a microphone, if you wanted to talk,
you just went and talked and they didn't cut anybody off.
There were people that talked for five minutes,
there were a people who had talked 30 seconds.
Very responsive. I just think maybe people just don't realize it or they don t see the announcements or stuff or that, whatever that is, but I also think that it s
I tend to agree with the representatives Sinclair. All of the comments that come to us are not on our websites under the bills. You can t find many comments
I wrote a comment to ledge finance, or I
wrote an email to transportation.
Even when I was a chair of transportation,
you can't find them.
You just can find him.
So I don't know how we can hold Aida to a standard
that we don t hold ourselves to.
And it just seems very prescriptive
to set time limits on public testimony in a bill.
Are we going to set their lunch hours to when the eight employees lunch hour time periods?
You know, how deep in the weeds do we want to get?
Is there additional, thanks Representative McCabe.
Is their additional discussion on amendment number 16?
Representative Story, did you want offer any wrap up?
Sure, I appreciate the comments. I just wanted to say that when director Ruharo
was on the line last week, he talked about he thought it was reasonable if
they did not already.
Post comments that they got I think as a chair of our committees
When someone writes directly to the committee we have to post it on basis
And so I thing that that is important about Ada that
They would also do that the current bill the Current Statute is a total period of at least one hour
and I
is what is under the direction right now.
And again, I think there are times when there
are projects, when a lot of people call in.
And I thing it's important that people do have a time.
And everyone will be heard.
And that's really important.
And it just says a total of at least one hour.
But it gives permission to cut it off.
And I think it's really important that when people call in that they're heard. Thank you
All right, thank you representative story. I'm guessing the objection is maintained
Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number 16 also known as n.22
Representative story yes represent of him shoot yes, represent him Holland. Yes
representative Vance
Representative McCabe. No. Representative St. Clair.
No
Chair Kerrick. Yes.
Four gays and three nays.
It's voted four gays in three
nay's amendment number 16 has
been adopted.
So at this time we do have a
couple of committee members with
additional obligations this evening.
Thank you all very much for
staying a little bit over time.
Yeah, we need to pull that off.
So I was going to address that.
Oh, sorry.
He's going address.
That.
So really brief at ease.
House State Affairs is back on the record just a little bit of housekeeping there
So I just wanted to note for committee members. We have not completed our amendment process on House bill 124
We had stopped after amendment number 16
We Have in the queue an additional four amendments from representative Holland.
We also have a currently tabled amendment
It's my intention to bring that amendment up, which is amendment Number 8
First order of business and once that has been taken off the table and addressed to then complete the additional four amendments on the agenda at our next hearing at this time, House bill 124 is going to be set aside for Tuesday's hearing with no more items on our agenda today.
here in the Gruenberg room. Our agenda for that meeting will be updated to include House Bill 124
for the rest of our amendment process. We will, as time allows, take up the following bills
in addition. House bill 130, the flexible time credit bill from Representative Josephson,
on peace officer face masks from representative hannon there is invited testimony that will
be asked to join us if possible.
House bill 152 which we began to hear last session and will take up again for a third
or fourth hearing on the education head tax from Representative Galvin and House Bill 278
the Alaska Ireland Trade Commission from Rep. Costello.
and I thank committee members again for staying a little bit late today to
hopefully ensure we are able to get through as much as possible in our
hearings next week. And with no further business before House State Affairs
today we adjourned at 5 28 p.m.