Walker, 062415 AKAGO, AGO JU2015200430

Case DateJune 24, 2015
CourtAlaska
The Honorable Bill Walker
AGO JU2015200430
No. JU2015200430
Alaska Attorney General Opinions
June 24, 2015
         The Honorable Bill Walker          Governor          State of Alaska          P.O. Box 110001          Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001          Re: CCS HB 2001: Fiscal Year 2016 Operating Budget Our file: JU2015200430          Dear Governor Walker:          At the request of your legislative director, we have reviewed CCSHB 2001, making appropriations for the operating and loan program expenses of state government and for certain programs; making appropriations for the operating expenses of the state's integrated mental health program; capitalizing funds and repealing appropriations; and making appropriations from the budget reserve fund under art. IX, sec. 17(c) of the Alaska Constitution.          While this looks like a typical operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it is actually the second operating budget passed by the legislature this year. An operating budget, CCS HB 72(brf sup maj fld H) (ch. 23, SLA 2015), was passed in the First Regular Session of the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature and is now law, but was underfunded by approximately $3, 000, 000, 000. To account for the funding shortfall, you made vetoes and reductions to HB 72 to ensure continued operation of critical state functions and vetoed or reduced less critical appropriations to maintain services. The bill before you, CCS HB 2001, restores most of your line item vetoes and reductions, adds additional appropriations not in the prior operating budget bill includes an executive branch-wide unallocated reduction of approximately $30, 000, 000, and contains provisions authorizing a withdrawal of revenue from the budget reserve fund.          We review the highlights of the bill below, but first note that you are receiving this bill somewhat later in the year than usual since this bill was passed June 11, 2015, and transmitted to you June 23, 2015. We bring to your attention our general concern over delays in transmitting bills to you for review. Once a bill has passed both houses, transmittal to you for consideration is a mandatory ministerial function (1981 Inf Op. Att'y Gen (July 6; File no. J-66-005-82). We adhere to our earlier opinion that the substantial delay or failure of the legislature to transmit a bill that has passed both houses presents several potentially serious constitutional questions. (1988 Alaska Op. Att'y. Gen; June 16; File. no. 883-88-0176). We are available for further consultation on this issue should the situation arise again          Most provisions of the bill are to be effective July 1, 2015 (sec. 21), others take effect immediately (sec. 20) or June 30, 2015 (sec. 19). If this bill is signed by you before July 1, 2015, it will take effect July 1, 2015. See, AS 01.10.070(d). If you sign this bill on or after July 1, 2015, it will take effect at 12:01 a.m. the day after it is signed. Id.          I. Introduction.          This budget, as well as the budgets for the last few years, sets out the following introductory language in sec. 1 of the bill: "[a] department-wide, agency-wide, or branch-wide unallocated reduction set out in this section may be allocated among the appropriations made in this section to that department, agency, or branch." Section 1, p. 2, lines 4-6. The bill includes an executive branch-wide unallocated reduction which is discussed below.          II. General intent language.          As in prior years, the bill contains numerous expressions of legislative intent accompanying certain appropriation items. And, as we have opined in the past, the expressions of legislative intent in the operating budget may violate the confinement clause of the Alaska Constitution ("[b]ills for appropriations shall be confined to appropriations." art. II, sec. 13). In Alaska State Legislature v. Hammond, Judge Carpeneti adopted a five-factor test to determine whether the language violates the confinement clause:
[T]he qualifying language must be the minimum necessary to explain the Legislature's intent regarding how the money appropriated is to be spent. It must not administer the program of expenditures. It must not enact law or amend existing law. It must not extend beyond the life of the appropriation. Finally, the language must be germane, that is, appropriate, to an appropriations bill.
Memorandum of Decision at 44 -45, No. 1JU-80-1163 (Alaska Super., May 25, 1983). We discuss the legality of general intent language in our May 13, 2015, review of HB 72 and refer you to that opinion for more detail.          III. Department of Administration.          In various places in sec. 1 of the bill, the legislature provides several expressions of legislative intent regarding the Department of Administration (DO A) that are the same as the intent language HB 72.[1] Our advice here is the same as in our May 13, 2015, bill review for HB 72—generally reporting requirements are set out in statute, (2007 Op. Att'y Gen. 2 (June 6; 883-07-0070)), but to the extent that this reporting requirement is not otherwise set out in statute, DOA may wish to comply as a matter of comity.          III. Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.          The legislature did not include any intent language in these appropriations and there are no apparent legal concerns with this section. Section 1, p. 4, line 33, through p. 6, line 3.          IV. Department of Education and Early Development.          The legislature did not include any intent language in these appropriations and there are no apparent legal concerns with this section. Section 1, p. 6, line 5, through p. 7, line 10.          V. Department of Environmental Conservation.          Here the legislature included two expressions of legislative intent related to plans to reduce the cost of the oil spill response drills and exercises and report its findings to the finance committees and requesting that DEC develop a plan to increase cost recovery efforts for spill prevention and response and report its findings related to that plan to the finance committees. Section 1, p. 8, lines 11 - 16. As set out above, DEC may wish to comply as a matter of comity.          VI. Department of Fish and Game.          The legislature included several expressions of legislative intent regarding the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), including statements that DFG focus its research and management of fishery systems on stocks of concern in order to manage sustained yield, and not reduce personnel or appropriations to any program or project...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT