newsminer.com

Every day, it seems, the Legislature is discovering important details about the rules regarding the federal stimulus law and what it means for Alaska.

Here is the latest analysis by Larry Persily,a House Finance Committee staffer, about the federal stimulus law, distributed today to legislators:

In answer to some of the questions raised during Friday’s and Saturday’s House Finance hearings on the economic stimulus appropriations bill (HB199):

Can the Legislature impose restrictions on school district use of Fiscal Stabilization Funds (Part A, the $93 million)?

The answer is no, yes, sort of, maybe, kind of. But even if it is legal, is it good policy?

The U.S. Department of Education is expected to issue additional guidelines on the Fiscal Stabilization Funds today — which may (or may not) specifically address this issue. But I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, considering how slow the federal agencies have been in addressing questions.

The stimulus bill dictates how legislatures must distribute the money to local school districts and says the districts must follow the provisions of the stimulus bill in deciding how to spend the money (general education and support, and repair and renovation of facilities, but nothing on general maintenance).

The bill includes no provisions for directed state control over the money after it is disbursed to the districts (there are reporting requirements, however). But it also does not prohibit legislatures from exercising their state constitutional powers of appropriation.

So maybe, just taking one item for example, the legislature could direct the stimulus appropriations to repair and renovation of school facilities, taking away the choice from school districts. This would apply only to the Fiscal Stabilization Funds, since the Title I and special education funds are tightly directed under federal law. But is it good policy for the legislature to impose the same spending decisions on every school district in the state?

While some districts may have worthwhile repair projects ready for bid, others may not, which could delay the use of stimulus funds. And even if a district has a worthwhile repair project, maybe that district’s top need is instructional support, and legislative direction of the stimulus funds to 2-by-4s and Sheetrock would do little good for that district.

Not to mention the legal debates that might ensue if legislators tried to manage how school districts spend the stimulus money.

Maybe the best answer would be for the Legislature to add intent language to the stimulus appropriations bill to clearly state its views on how school districts should and should not use the stimulus money, rather than trying to dictate the decision to school districts.

True, intent language does not carry the force of law, but considering the attention focused on the stimulus money I expect districts would pay attention to the statement.

44 governors have signed on to the stimulus program (some with conditions)

I’m told that 44 governors (as of this morning) had sent in their certifications to the federal Office of Management and Budget, signing up for some if not all of the stimulus money.

Some of those 44 certifications included conditions to allow the state to back out of accepting any particular funding at a later date.

The deadline for governors to certify their states’ participation in the stimulus program is Friday. (The law does not specify what time Friday, or what time zone, in case anyone is wondering.)

The DEC air quality grant program.

Though the DEC component is called the Air Non-Point and Mobile Sources Program, the $2 million available to the state under the stimulus bill is a federal grant under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and is not limited to mobile sources of pollution.

The state could award the $2 million in grants to municipalities and nonprofits, in addition to state agencies, for improvements such as more efficient and cleaner-burning electrical generators, new school buses and plug-in posts to reduce idling vehicles during the winter.

“Mobile source” means a source of pollution that is moving, such as trucks and buses. A “point source” is an identifiable, stationary source of pollution, such as a manufacturing plant.

The purpose behind the stimulus money is simply to reduce diesel emissions, regardless of the source, and the Non-Point and Mobile name is merely the label on the DEC program.

In order to distribute any of the $2 million in grants to municipalities or nonprofits, DEC will need statutory for the grant program. Though it has disbursed smaller sums of federal money under the program in years past to the state Department of Transportation and Alaska Railroad, it has done so with Reimbursable Services Agreements (RSAs) which can only be used to send funds to other state agencies.

The money must go to agencies with jurisdiction over transportation or air quality, which would appear to disallow grants directly to utilities.

No state match is required for the program.

Other states are switching and accepting unemployment funds

Several governors who initially voiced concerns about accepting federal stimulus funds for unemployment programs have changed their minds and decided to accept the money.

They report hearing from constituents who wanted their state to accept the funds — even though it meant changing the rules to expand eligibility — while other governors said they changed their mind after hearing from the U.S. Department of Labor that states could revert to their old eligibility standards at a later date.

Nevada Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons is among those to switch after it appeared legislators were ready to overrule him.

“As our economic crisis deepens, Nevadans are suffering because of layoffs, business closings and other cutbacks. We have the responsibility to do everything we can to help our unemployed workers get through these difficult times, even if that means passing legislation that we would not necessarily approve during prosperous times,” the governor said in a statement March 25.

Tennessee Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen also changed his mind and decided to accept the unemployment programs funds after pressure from legislators and constituents.

“It took a few days to look at this, to determine just what the long-term costs of these benefit improvements would be,” he said in a budget address. “This seems like a good trade-off at a time like this, and I recommend that we accept these funds.”

Other governors, including the chief executives of Texas, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi, are holding firm and refusing to request the funds.

In Florida, the governor wants to accept the funds but House leadership is balking at taking the stimulus money for unemployment programs.