Legislature(2015 - 2016)BILL RAY CENTER 230

05/12/2016 10:00 AM Senate FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:04:54 AM Start
10:05:36 AM SB138
10:41:27 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSSB 138(FIN) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
SENATE BILL NO. 138                                                                                                           
     "An  Act   making  appropriations,   including  capital                                                                    
     appropriations,     reappropriations,     and     other                                                                    
     appropriations;  making  appropriations  to  capitalize                                                                    
     funds; and providing for an effective date."                                                                               
10:05:36 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon  commented that the committee  would hear                                                                    
two amendments for consideration.                                                                                               
Senator Olson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:                                                                                       
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                      
     TO: CSSB 138(FIN), Draft Version "P"                                                                                       
     Page 3, line 22:                                                                                                           
          Delete "17,997,268" in both places.                                                                                   
          Insert "25,235,690" in both places.                                                                                   
     Page 3, following line 25:                                                                                                 
          Insert new material to read:                                                                                          
     Kivalina K-12     7,238,422                                                                                                
      Replacement School -                                                                                                      
      Kasayulie (HD 40)"                                                                                                        
     Adjust fund sources and totals accordingly.                                                                                
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
Senator Olson  presented Amendment  1, on  behalf of  one of                                                                    
the educational  institutions in his district.  He commented                                                                    
on  the   three  branches   of  government.   The  amendment                                                                    
contained  what he  referred to  as a  court-ordered capital                                                                    
item.  He referred  to  the Kasayulie  vs.  State of  Alaska                                                                    
lawsuit [filed  by a  couple from  Akiachak who  claimed the                                                                    
state's    method   of    financing   school    construction                                                                    
discriminated  against rural  students]; and  specified that                                                                    
although the  legislature was  not part  of the  lawsuit, it                                                                    
was  the appropriating  body for  the  state. He  emphasized                                                                    
that if the situation was  not remedied, over time the issue                                                                    
of  a   school  for   Kivalina  would   become  increasingly                                                                    
expensive  and  difficult  to address.  He  plead  with  the                                                                    
committee to pass the amendment and address the issue.                                                                          
10:07:40 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Bishop asked about the  timeline for the school site                                                                    
Senator Olson  thought that there  had not been  a finalized                                                                    
site selected  for the  Kivalina School.  He thought  if the                                                                    
amendment was passed, the committee  could put in provisions                                                                    
with safeguards  for the state  in the case that  the school                                                                    
was not built.                                                                                                                  
Vice-Chair  Micciche stated  that the  previous year  he had                                                                    
been uncomfortable  with the amount  that the  committee had                                                                    
appropriated  for  the school,  but  in  recognition of  the                                                                    
lawsuit he was  convinced at the course of  action taken. He                                                                    
thought  adding more  funds without  a final  plan made  him                                                                    
less  comfortable  in  light  of  the  $4.1  billion  budget                                                                    
deficit.  He was  more comfortable  waiting to  see a  final                                                                    
plan before moving forward with additional funding.                                                                             
10:08:59 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon  spoke in opposition to  Amendment 1. She                                                                    
recounted   working  diligently   with  Senator   Olson  the                                                                    
previous  year  to  provide  $43,337,400  for  the  Kivalina                                                                    
school  project;  an amount  which  she  considered to  have                                                                    
extinguished  the lawsuit  requirements. She  furthered that                                                                    
the committee  could have approached the  funding with small                                                                    
allocations  of  $5  million  at  a  time  until  there  was                                                                    
sufficient funds. She considered  that without a plan, there                                                                    
was  already enough  funding that  was pigeon-holed  for the                                                                    
project.  She   revealed  that  the   project  began   as  a                                                                    
renovation  project;   and  the  community  and   the  state                                                                    
together had decided that erosion  was happening in the area                                                                    
and the  administration of former Governor  Sean Parnell had                                                                    
entered  into  a  replacement project,  which  she  believed                                                                    
increased the state's liability. She  added that some in the                                                                    
legislature  did not  believe it  had increased  the state's                                                                    
liability, but  felt that the  state should be looking  at a                                                                    
replacement school. She emphasized  that for the previous 10                                                                    
years of  arguing over the  issue, the children  of Kivalina                                                                    
had been in conditions that  they should not be. She thought                                                                    
that any future legislature could  add funding to the amount                                                                    
available once  a plan  was in place.  Until that  time, she                                                                    
did not  think it was  prudent to allocate  additional funds                                                                    
to the project.                                                                                                                 
10:10:46 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Olson clarified that there  had been a site selected                                                                    
for  the school,  and there  was need  for an  environmental                                                                    
impact statement (EIS)  in order to get the  funding for the                                                                    
road to the school.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.                                                                                    
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Olson                                                                                                                 
OPPOSED: Bishop, Dunleavy, Micciche, MacKinnon                                                                                  
The MOTION FAILED (4/1).                                                                                                        
10:11:50 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:                                                                                  
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                                                                                                      
     BY SENATOR MACKINNON                                                                                                       
     TO: CSSB 138(FIN), Draft Version "P"                                                                                       
     Page 33, before line 1:                                                                                                    
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
     "* Sec. 10.                                                                                                                
    LEGISLATIVE INTENT RELATING TO FUNDING FOR KIVALINA                                                                         
     SCHOOL.  The   legislature  intends  that   the  amount                                                                    
     appropriated  by sec.  1,  ch. 38,  SLA  2015, page  3,                                                                    
     lines  23 -  26, for  construction of  a Kivalina  K-12                                                                    
     replacement  school  satisfies the  state's  obligation                                                                    
     under the  consent decree entered into  in Kasayulie v.                                                                    
     State, 3AN-97-3782 CIV (Sept.  1, 1999). No funding for                                                                    
     the  construction  or  renovation of  a  Kivalina  K-12                                                                    
     school is  appropriated in this  Act. It is  the intent                                                                    
     of the  legislature that  the Northwest  Arctic Borough                                                                    
     School District  expedite the completion  of a  plan to                                                                    
     replace the existing Kivalina K-12  school to allow for                                                                    
     the construction of adequate  school facilities for the                                                                    
     students of Kivalina."                                                                                                     
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
     Page 49, lines 17 - 18:                                                                                                    
          Delete "secs. 13(2), 14, 16(b), 17, 19, 21, 23,                                                                       
          24, 25(d), 25(e), and 28"                                                                                             
          Insert "secs. 14(2), 15, 17(b), 18, 20, 22, 24,                                                                       
          25, 26(d), 26(e), and 29"                                                                                             
     Page 49, line 19:                                                                                                          
          Delete "secs. 13(1), 25(a) - (c), 29, and 30"                                                                         
          Insert "secs. 14(1), 26(a) - (c), 30, and 31"                                                                         
     Page 49, line 23:                                                                                                          
          Delete "Section 11"                                                                                                   
          Insert "Section 12"                                                                                                   
     Page 49, lines 24 - 25:                                                                                                    
          Delete "secs.  15, 16(b), 17(a),  19, 20,  22, 23,                                                                    
          24(a), 24(b),  24(c), 25(a), 25(d), 25(e),  and 26                                                                    
          - 29"                                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs.  16, 17(b), 18(a),  20, 21,  23, 24,                                                                    
          25(a), 25(b),  25(c), 26(a), 26(d), 26(e),  and 27                                                                    
          - 30"                                                                                                                 
     Page 49, lines 25 - 26:                                                                                                    
          Delete "secs.  15, 16(b), 17(a),  19, 20,  22, 23,                                                                    
          24(a), 24(b),  24(c), 25(a), 25(d), 25(e),  and 26                                                                    
          - 29"                                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs.  16, 17(b), 18(a),  20, 21,  23, 24,                                                                    
          25(a), 25(b),  25(c), 26(a), 26(d), 26(e),  and 27                                                                    
          - 30"                                                                                                                 
     Page 49, line 27:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 17(b)"                                                                                                   
          Insert "sec. 18(b)"                                                                                                   
     Page 49, line 31:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 21"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 22"                                                                                                      
     Page 50, line 3:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 24(d)"                                                                                                   
          Insert "sec. 25(d)"                                                                                                   
     Page 50, line 6:                                                                                                           
          Delete "10, 11, and 32"                                                                                               
          Insert "11, 12, and 33"                                                                                               
     Page 50, lines 8 - 9:                                                                                                      
          Delete "Sections 15, 16(b), 17(a), 19, 20,                                                                            
          22, 23, 24(a), 24(b),  24(c), 25(a), 25(d), 25(e),                                                                    
          and 26 - 29"                                                                                                          
          Insert  "Sections 16,  17(b), 18(a),  20, 21,  23,                                                                    
          24, 25(a), 25(b), 25(c),  26(a), 26(d), 26(e), and                                                                    
          27 - 30"                                                                                                              
     Page 50, line 10:                                                                                                          
          Delete "secs. 34 and 35"                                                                                              
          Insert "secs. 35 and 36"                                                                                              
Senator Dunleavy OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that  she offered the amendment                                                                    
in respect  for the  children of  Kivalina, and  for Senator                                                                    
Olson.  She  thought  the  children  of  Kivalina  had  been                                                                    
disadvantaged   for  many   years,  and   stated  that   the                                                                    
legislature  had appropriated  a  substantial  sum of  money                                                                    
that  resolved   the  lawsuit  regarding  the   school.  She                                                                    
furthered that the prior appropriations  did not resolve the                                                                    
state's obligation  to the children.  She pondered  that any                                                                    
future legislature  could act independently (of  the current                                                                    
actions).  She clarified  that the  amendment restated  that                                                                    
the state  had complied  with the court  order, and  met the                                                                    
obligations to the lawsuit.                                                                                                     
10:12:56 AM                                                                                                                   
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
10:16:12 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that  Senator Dunleavy had objected                                                                    
to Amendment 2.                                                                                                                 
Senator Olson thought the amendment  declared that the state                                                                    
had satisfied its  obligation to the consent  decree, and he                                                                    
wholeheartedly disagreed.                                                                                                       
Senator Dunleavy WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                        
Senator Olson OBJECTED to Amendment 2.                                                                                          
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  read  from   the  language  portion  of                                                                    
Amendment 2 [see above].                                                                                                        
10:17:59 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Olson  asked  if  it   was  possible  to  have  the                                                                    
administration comment on the amendment.                                                                                        
PAT  PITNEY,  DIRECTOR,  OFFICE OF  MANAGEMENT  AND  BUDGET,                                                                    
OFFICE OF THE  GOVERNOR, spoke to Amendment  2, stating that                                                                    
the administration  believed that  an additional  $7 million                                                                    
towards  the school  construction,  above  what had  already                                                                    
been appropriated,  was necessary to meet  the commitment of                                                                    
the settlement.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   asked  about   the  $43   million  the                                                                    
legislature had  appropriated the  previous year,  and where                                                                    
it resided.                                                                                                                     
Ms. Pitney informed that the  funds were in the general fund                                                                    
(GF) until the project would start.                                                                                             
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there  was a plan for the school                                                                    
construction project.                                                                                                           
Ms. Pitney  believed there  was a  plan, but  not sufficient                                                                    
funding to start the project.                                                                                                   
10:19:44 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon  asked if there  was a plan for  a design                                                                    
for the school.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Pitney  thought that  there was a  site concept  for the                                                                    
school construction,  and the district  was waiting  for the                                                                    
necessary funding as well as a community agreement.                                                                             
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   wondered  if  the  school   was  being                                                                    
designed to conform  to the amount of funding,  or whether a                                                                    
funding amount would  be requested to fully  fund a specific                                                                    
Ms.  Pitney  thought there  were  two  separate issues:  the                                                                    
legal issue, and the school  construction issue. She thought                                                                    
the funding  request that the administration  made satisfied                                                                    
the legal settlement issue.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  asked  if   Ms.  Pitney  had  read  the                                                                    
settlement decree.                                                                                                              
Ms. Pitney had not read the  decree in its entirety, but had                                                                    
consulted  with the  Department of  Law (DOL)  and read  its                                                                    
briefs on the matter.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair MacKinnon  asked if  Ms. Pitney  had been  told via                                                                    
the  briefs  or  the  decree   that  the  legislature  could                                                                    
allocate money on multiple occasions versus one occasion.                                                                       
Ms.  Pitney stated  that it  was very  possible to  allocate                                                                    
money  on multiple  occasions, and  the settlement  required                                                                    
additional   funds   (based    on   DOL's   analysis).   The                                                                    
administration  had put  forward the  appropriation to  meet                                                                    
the requirement.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair MacKinnon  posited that the decree  stipulated that                                                                    
the  legislature was  required to  use the  number that  the                                                                    
Department  of Education  and Early  Development had  on the                                                                    
books  ($43,237,400),   which  was   the  amount   that  the                                                                    
legislature had appropriated.                                                                                                   
Ms. Pitney did  not have the materials in  her possession to                                                                    
confirm Co-Chair MacKinnon's statement.                                                                                         
10:22:06 AM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair Micciche reported that  there had been a specific                                                                    
funding  amount  that  had  convinced  him  to  support  the                                                                    
appropriation  the previous  year.  He  echoed Ms.  Pitney's                                                                    
assertion that  there were two distinct  issues. Considering                                                                    
the  fiscal   challenges  in  the   current  year,   he  was                                                                    
comfortable waiting  for further  development of a  plan. He                                                                    
qualified  that  if  he  saw a  plan  to  deliver  equitable                                                                    
education services to  the students of Kivalina  he would be                                                                    
more   likely  to   support   additional  expenditures.   He                                                                    
mentioned that he considered the funding to be sequestered.                                                                     
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   thought  that   it  might   require  a                                                                    
representative from  DOL to  argue Senator  Olson's position                                                                    
on the  amendment. She understood that  the parties involved                                                                    
in the lawsuit had until July  1, 2015 to reopen the lawsuit                                                                    
if the  allocation did not  satisfy the consent  decree. She                                                                    
emphasized to  Senator Olson  that she  wanted to  make sure                                                                    
that all  Alaskans were treated fairly,  and reiterated that                                                                    
she  had worked  closely  with him  the  previous year.  She                                                                    
stated  that funds  had been  set aside,  and restated  that                                                                    
future legislatures could  do what they believed  was in the                                                                    
best interest of the school.                                                                                                    
Senator  Olson asked  what kind  of difficulties  Ms. Pitney                                                                    
anticipated  considering  the  lack  of  the  additional  $7                                                                    
million. He asked her to  consider the diminishing amount of                                                                    
money in the Constitutional  Budget Reserve and increasingly                                                                    
severe budget crisis.                                                                                                           
Ms. Pitney  believed (specific to  the $7 million)  that the                                                                    
highest risk the  state faced was a lawsuit  and a reopening                                                                    
of all of the rural school funding inequality issues.                                                                           
Senator Olson  thought the lawyers  and the  lobbyists would                                                                    
be  the  only  winners  in  the  situation  if  it  was  not                                                                    
10:25:18 AM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair  Micciche  recalled  that the  higher  settlement                                                                    
amount  was a  choice by  the  state, and  thought that  the                                                                    
actual settlement number was much lower.                                                                                        
Senator  Dunleavy   thought  the   Kivalina  school   was  a                                                                    
complicated issue,  and mentioned site selection  and island                                                                    
erosion.  He recounted  that the  original  approach to  the                                                                    
issue   was   to   renovate  the   existing   building   for                                                                    
approximately  $17 million.  He stated  that there  had been                                                                    
extensive  research   and  discussion  on  the   matter  the                                                                    
previous  year,  and  remembered  language  in  the  lawsuit                                                                    
suggesting that the state would  not need to fund beyond $17                                                                    
million to  settle the lawsuit.  He discussed access  to the                                                                    
school construction  site and was  unsure if the  design had                                                                    
been  completed. He  thought the  state had  time to  do the                                                                    
right thing  for Kivalina. He  discussed the  propensity for                                                                    
burgeoning costs  on projects such  as the  Kivalina school,                                                                    
and  thought  people  would  be coming  back  to  the  state                                                                    
requesting additional funds to complete the project.                                                                            
Vice-Chair  Micciche thought  the legislature  may have  put                                                                    
itself in a  position of having an open door  to spending on                                                                    
the  school by  moving  beyond the  original settlement.  He                                                                    
wondered whether DOL would share  its evaluation of the case                                                                    
and how they arrived at the  amount of $50 million to settle                                                                    
the case.                                                                                                                       
Senator Bishop  did not see  an avenue for  another lawsuit.                                                                    
He  wondered if  $7  million in  additional  funding was  an                                                                    
accurate number,  and did  not think the  funding had  to be                                                                    
completed  immediately. He  was  fully in  support of  doing                                                                    
what was right for Kivalina,  after seeing a finalized plan.                                                                    
He mentioned  the open  and active  EIS, and  cautioned that                                                                    
there would  be wetlands disturbance with  unknown costs for                                                                    
10:28:37 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Olson  mentioned  satisfying  the  consent  decree,                                                                    
after which it would be a legislative issue.                                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  commented  that anyone  could  bring  a                                                                    
lawsuit against the state, and  pointed out that the lawsuit                                                                    
had  expired.  She recounted  that  the  state had  met  its                                                                    
obligation, and  could have provided incremental  funding to                                                                    
satisfy the lawsuit.                                                                                                            
Senator Olson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                         
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Bishop, Dunleavy, Micciche, MacKinnon                                                                                 
OPPOSED: Olson                                                                                                                  
The MOTION PASSED (4/1). Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.                                                                               
10:30:06 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon highlighted a  request for $7 million for                                                                    
airport erosion on page 10, line  7 of the bill. She asked a                                                                    
department representative  to speak  to the  committee about                                                                    
why  it should  include $7  million for  an airport  if they                                                                    
were considering relocating a school.                                                                                           
MIKE  VIGUE, DIRECTOR,  PROGRAM  DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
TRANSPORTATION  AND  PUBLIC  FACILITIES,  relayed  that  the                                                                    
airport  erosion control  project  was  intended to  provide                                                                    
permanent repairs  for what  happened in  a 2005  West Coast                                                                    
storm. He furthered that whenever  there was a storm in that                                                                    
area  of  the state,  there  were  erosion problems  at  the                                                                    
airport  runway.  The  project  was listed  in  the  Airport                                                                    
Improvement  Program  (AIP)  for  2017  for  $7  million  in                                                                    
federal  authority  to  accept and  spend  Federal  Aviation                                                                    
Administration (FAA) funds.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  asked  Mr.   Vigue  to  discuss  safety                                                                    
standards, and  how it might affect  Kivalina transportation                                                                    
if the funds were not appropriated.                                                                                             
Mr.  Vigue did  not feel  it was  his area  of expertise  to                                                                    
discuss   runway  safety   issues.   He   stated  that   the                                                                    
information  would need  to come  from one  of the  aviation                                                                    
professionals in the department.                                                                                                
Co-Chair  MacKinnon asked  if Senator  Olson  would like  to                                                                    
defend the $7 million request for Kivalina's airport.                                                                           
Senator  Olson  asked  Mr. Vigue  what  kind  of  additional                                                                    
federal  funds  would  be  in jeopardy  if  the  $7  million                                                                    
request was withdrawn from the capital budget.                                                                                  
Mr. Vigue stated that the  funding was listed in the current                                                                    
plan approved by the FAA, and  it was FAA funding that would                                                                    
be  coming to  the  project.  If the  project  did not  move                                                                    
forward, the  $7 million  would be  used by  another airport                                                                    
project  in the  state.  He furthered  that  the funds  were                                                                    
specific to FAA grants.                                                                                                         
Senator  Olson  asked if  there  was  a specific  amount  of                                                                    
federal funding that would be  jeopardized if the $7 million                                                                    
was not included in the capital budget.                                                                                         
Mr. Vigue stated  that the state would not  lose $7 million;                                                                    
rather, the FAA funds would  go to another project listed in                                                                    
the AIP.                                                                                                                        
Senator  Olson asked  if there  was  a way  that the  monies                                                                    
could  be  used  to  fund  the  request  that  had  been  in                                                                    
Amendment 1 offered earlier in the meeting.                                                                                     
Mr. Vigue stated  that what Senator Olson  suggested was not                                                                    
possible, as the funds were FAA  funds and had to be used on                                                                    
airport improvement projects.                                                                                                   
Senator Olson asked if the terms  of use (for the FAA funds)                                                                    
included roads to the airport.                                                                                                  
Mr. Vigue  stated that roads  that went to the  airport were                                                                    
an  eligible expense,  as long  as the  road was  part of  a                                                                    
grant approved by FAA.                                                                                                          
10:34:31 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator  Olson  commented  that  having  been  to  Northwest                                                                    
Alaska the  previous day,  he had  observed that  the ground                                                                    
was  frozen and  there was  no significant  erosion able  to                                                                    
occur  until  storm season.  He  understood  that the  state                                                                    
airport  in  Kivalina  was compromised  by  not  having  the                                                                    
proper size runway for commercial  air taxi operators, which                                                                    
were the  only link out  of Kivalina when travel  across the                                                                    
water  by  snow  machine  was   restricted  by  weather.  He                                                                    
mentioned the  reliance upon helicopters  as the  only means                                                                    
of transport.  He wondered  if what he  had described  was a                                                                    
valid concern.                                                                                                                  
Mr. Vigue believed Senator Olson  described a valid concern,                                                                    
but  reiterated that  he did  not have  expertise in  runway                                                                    
safety. He  thought the fact  that the FAA had  approved the                                                                    
grant and  the fact that  the road  was included in  the AIP                                                                    
indicated  that  the road  work  was  for permanent  erosion                                                                    
control measures, and assumed it was important.                                                                                 
Senator Olson asked if Mr.  Vigue was aware of any accidents                                                                    
that had happened in the  recent past in Kivalina because of                                                                    
the inadequacy of the airport.                                                                                                  
Mr. Vigue answered in the negative.                                                                                             
Senator Olson referred  to an aircraft that  had been caught                                                                    
in a strong  crosswind and had lain next to  the airport for                                                                    
multiple years.                                                                                                                 
10:36:38 AM                                                                                                                   
Senator Dunleavy asked for confirmation  that the $7 million                                                                    
was all federal funds.                                                                                                          
Mr. Vigue answered in the affirmative.                                                                                          
Senator  Dunleavy  thought the  issue  was  moot, since  the                                                                    
funds were not UGF, but rather federal receipts.                                                                                
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   noted  that  the  entire   village  of                                                                    
Kivalina   benefitted   from    the   airport   for   moving                                                                    
transportation  goods in  and  out  of the  area  in a  safe                                                                    
manner. She commented that the  state did not have a village                                                                    
relocation   happening,  however   there   was  a   relevant                                                                    
conversation around  the school site selection.  She thought                                                                    
that it  was a valid  conversation for the  consideration of                                                                    
the  committee,  but clarified  that  the  $7 million  being                                                                    
discussed  was  allowing DOT  to  allocate  safety funds  to                                                                    
airport  runways  that  were   not  complying  with  federal                                                                    
aviation  guidelines. She  acknowledged  that Senator  Olson                                                                    
was a pilot.                                                                                                                    
Senator Olson commented  that when operating as  an air taxi                                                                    
operator,  the airport  concerns  were  valid. He  mentioned                                                                    
insurance concerns and the seriousness of accidents.                                                                            
Senator  Bishop  thought  he  may  have  misunderstood,  but                                                                    
wondered  if (hypothetically)  AIP  funds could  be used  to                                                                    
connect a road to the airport from the school in the                                                                            
Mr. Vigue clarified that FAA funds were eligible for roads                                                                      
that provide access to the airport.                                                                                             
10:39:06 AM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair Micciche moved to repot CSSB 138(FIN) out of                                                                         
committee as amended and with necessary technical and                                                                           
conforming changes.                                                                                                             
CSSB 138(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do                                                                          
pass" recommendation.                                                                                                           
10:40:03 AM                                                                                                                   
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
10:41:16 AM                                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 138 Version P Amendment P 1.pdf SFIN 5/12/2016 10:00:00 AM
SB 138
SB 138 version P Amendment P 2 MacKinnon.pdf SFIN 5/12/2016 10:00:00 AM
SB 138