Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Apfc Office Appropriation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Finance approves amendment to specify Juneau and Anchorage APFC appropriations
Summary
The House Finance Committee adopted Amendment 85 to create a separate appropriation for an Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Anchorage office, a move supporters said would preserve legislative oversight; opponents argued it would not prevent the corporation from operating outside Juneau.
Juneau — The Alaska House Finance Committee adopted Amendment 85 on April 1, adding a separate appropriation labeled for an Anchorage office of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) and signaling legislative intent about where APFC operations should be funded.
Co‑Chair Josephson, who offered the amendment, said the measure reflected a widespread view among legislators that the Legislature should assert its appropriation authority over where APFC locates staff and offices. "This amendment is meant to be very serious and a structure amendment," Josephson said, adding it was offered in defense of the legislative prerogative and the preferences of many members.
Legislative Finance staff member Alexi Painter explained that the amendment pairs with a structural change that, together, would create a distinct appropriation for an Anchorage office while preserving the Juneau appropriation. "The subcommittee denied the governor's structure change to rename the existing appropriation from Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Juneau office to just Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation," Painter said. "So this adds another appropriation for the Anchorage office."
Debate ranged from procedural questions about enforcement to larger disagreements about whether the Legislature can prevent APFC from maintaining or opening offices regardless of appropriation labels. Several members noted the governor vetoed a similar line last year and the board had retained the Anchorage office despite that veto. Painter confirmed last year's veto removed a $100 appropriation for the Anchorage office and that, absent further legal action, the board could continue to operate an Anchorage office without a specific appropriation.
Members proposed conceptual amendments and alternatives during the discussion. Representative Foster proposed a conceptual amendment to require APFC to open multiple regional offices; after objection and discussion, he withdrew that conceptual amendment. Representative Allard proposed a conceptual cut of a requested $392,000 position tied to an Anchorage hire; that concept picked up debate but did not pass as a motion. A separate conceptual amendment that would have eliminated a proposed Anchorage employee position failed on a roll call 5‑6.
When the committee voted on Amendment 85 in its original form, the roll call recorded eight members voting yes and three voting no. The clerk read the roll: Representatives Jimmy (yes), Johnson (yes), Galvin (yes), Stapp (no), Allard (no), Bynum (yes), Hannon (yes), Foster (yes), Shrogy (yes), and Co‑chair Josephson (yes). The clerk announced the motion passed 8‑3.
Supporters framed the amendment as protecting legislative appropriation authority and seeking clearer budgeting and oversight of APFC costs. Opponents said the committee's leverage is limited: without enforcement or litigation, they warned the corporation could retain offices regardless of appropriation labels.
The committee proceeded to other amendments after adopting the measure.
