JUNEAU -- The Alaska Legislature wants to save money by suspending its popular debt reimbursement program for local schools, but may not have enough votes to include one of its main targets: the Anchorage School District's $59 million bond package now before voters.
Legislators specifically targeted the Anchorage election when they rewrote Sen. Anna MacKinnon's bill calling for a five-year moratorium on new entrants into the school construction and maintenance debt reimbursement program specifically so that it would cover the Anchorage election.
That program pays as much as 70 percent of the cost of bonds issued for school projects and is considered crucial to winning voter approval.
The change the Legislature made moved the effective date from after the April 7 election in Anchorage back to Jan. 1, meaning the state wouldn't help local property taxpayers pay off the bonds.
The bill won easy approval in the Senate, but when it came to the House floor for a vote Wednesday there weren't the needed 27 votes to make the bill retroactive. Bills generally take effect 90 days after being signed by the governor unless the bill itself specifies otherwise.
Rep. Liz Vazquez, R-Anchorage, opposed the Legislature interfering with an Anchorage election already underway.
"I detest any government agency or group that decides retroactively to change its rules," she said.
Following the vote, House Majority Leader Charisse Millett, R-Anchorage, a bill supporter, asked for reconsideration. That means a second vote on the bill as early as Thursday and gives time for supporters to round up additional votes.
The vote to make the bill retroactive was 24-14, but needed two-thirds, or 27 votes, to pass.
Absent Wednesday were two members of the majority caucus, which largely supported the bill and the retroactive clause. One, Rep. Ben Nageak, D-Barrow, had a doctor's appointment in Anchorage but is expected back for Thursday's session. The other, Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, was already excused Thursday and was in her district attending ComFish, the big commercial fisheries trade show.
Rep. Chris Tuck, D-Anchorage, said including Anchorage under the moratorium would increase local tax bills.
"Now we're saying people are going to have to pull it out of their pockets to pay for it," he said.
Anchorage needs the rebuilt and maintained schools he said.
"These aren't wants, these are needs," he said.
But Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Anchorage, called the bill "a hard but necessary vote to take."
"In a time of fiscal challenges it is not inappropriate to stand down from spending on what we would like to so we have money available to pay for what we have to," he said.
Rep. Sam Kito, D-Juneau, once managed the debt reimbursement program for the Department of Education and Early Development and said it is necessary to keep spending to maintain the state's $7 billion in insured value of school buildings.
"By taking a holiday these costs aren't going to go away," he said.
Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, supported the moratorium and said too much importance was given to school buildings. She said she attended two years of her schooling in borrowed space in churches following a vandalism incident when she was in school.
"Guess what? Our education was pretty good," she said.
Wilson said the state was "not breaking any promises" to local taxpayers because local governments such as Anchorage always state in their bond materials the state subsidy for bond reimbursement is subject to appropriation by the Legislature.
Anchorage School District officials say they've been clear in the information they've presented to voters that the reimbursement will only happen if the money is provided by the Legislature.
Rep. Steve Thompson, R-Fairbanks, said Alaska is paying nearly $120 million a year toward local school bond debt, but given the fiscal crisis it cannot afford to increase that amount.
The House Finance Committee he co-chairs sponsored a companion measure to the Senate bill that was voted on Wednesday. In 40 years, the state has never failed to appropriate what's needed to cover debts, but has four times suspended new entrants into the program because of weak state finances, he said.
Vazquez said she'd have supported the bill had it been done before Anchorage placed its measure on the ballot.
If the state has to cover the cost of the Anchorage bonds that will mean an additional $2 million a year cost to the state, Thompson said.
"It just means we are going to be pulling more money out of our savings," he said.