Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/07/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 65: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT. CHERYL FRASCA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB), OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, commented that when the governor's office was working on the budget, a number of different departments suggested repealing out-of-date statutes and changing certain fee amounts. She said that HB 65 pertained to many different state agencies. She called the members' attention to a sectional analysis in their bill packets. She stated that the bill had been heard by the House Labor and Commerce Committee and later the House State Affairs Committee. MS. FRASCA urged the committee to return to the House Labor and Commerce version of the bill. Number 632 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that Ms. Frasca explain HB 65, section by section. Number 646 MS. FRASCA first referred to sections 1-32 of the House State Affairs Committee substitute for HB 65, which related to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board. She said that currently liquor licenses were issued annually. House Bill 65 proposed to change that so that licenses would be issued biennially. The change, she said, would result in the ABC board's workload evening out. License fees would be doubled, she noted, because they would only be issued every two years. The bill did not increase the license fees, she added. She indicated that she was not requesting the committee to make any changes to these sections of the bill. MS. FRASCA then addressed sections 33-35 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. She said that those sections would allow the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to charge fees for public guardian services, based on an individual's ability to pay. The OMB was not requesting any change to these sections, either, she noted. She stated that section 36 was also added by the House State Affairs Committee. Currently, she said, receipts from the sale of fish and game licenses were deposited into the fish and game fund. MS. FRASCA added that vendors were then paid for the sale of the licenses from the general fund. Section 36 provided that the fish and game fund both received the proceeds from license sales and be used to make payments to vendors. The OMB was requesting no change to this particular section, she said. Number 680 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concerns with section 36, from an accounting standpoint. Number 686 MS. FRASCA stated that each vendor kept $1 from the sale of every fish and game license. Accounts were adjusted quarterly, she added. Number 694 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued to express concerns with the program's budgeting and accounting procedures. MS. FRASCA stated that the effect of section 36 was simply to change the fund source from the general fund to the fish and game fund. She said that she would have a representative from the Department of Fish and Game contact Representative James to discuss the matter further. Number 707 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED to section 36, for accounting reasons. She called the accounting "deceptive." Number 718 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the ability to discern the difference between vendor payments and revenues still existed. Number 720 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman, but said that expenses taken out of the proceeds were not recognized in the budget process. Number 727 MS. FRASCA noted that the House State Affairs Committee had eliminated two sections from HB 65, which authorized the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) to assess a 1% loan guarantee fee. This, she said, would help to offset losses resulting from student loan debt cancellation due to the death, disability, or bankruptcy of the student. She asked the House Judiciary Committee to reinsert these provisions. She said that the provisions were estimated to generate approximately one-half of the revenues lost every year by the ACPE. Number 738 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the ACPE had not set the fee at an amount commensurate with the anticipated losses. Number 745 MARY LOU MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ACPE, said that because the ACPE historically had charged no fees at all, it was felt that a 1% fee would be fair. Number 753 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that she would like to see the section reinstated. She added that the ACPE should be notified that if it wished to increase the fee at a later date, it should alert the legislature. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what the House State Affairs Committee's rationale for deleting the section had been. Number 759 MS. FRASCA replied that there had been no discussion on the matter. Number 762 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that it was standard operating procedure for loan funds to include a fee to cover losses. She said that it was responsible of the ACPE to institute the 1% fee. Number 767 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Phillips that most loan programs implemented a fee to cover losses. However, she said, student loans were very small, and every dollar counted. In that light, she said, it was unfair to make students who paid back their loans pay for those who did not. Number 775 MS. MADDEN commented that students could increase the amount of money they requested from the ACPE, in order to cover the cost of the 1% fee. She pointed out that federal student loan programs instituted a 6% fee to cover losses. Number 792 MS. FRASCA commented that sections 39-43 in the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 contained a similar 1% fee provision, but for other programs operated by the ACPE. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 36-38 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 795 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if recipients of loans addressed in sections 39-43 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 could also increase the amount of their loans to cover the cost of the 1% fee. MS. MADDEN replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 39- 43 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. TAPE 93-56, SIDE B Number 000 MS. FRASCA called the members' attention to sections 44-46 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65, which had been deleted by the House State Affairs Committee. She asked the committee to reinstate all three of the sections. Those sections pertained to the Department of Labor's (DOL's) ability to adopt regulations to establish fees for the issuance of certain certificates. Additionally, she said, the sections would change the time cycles for issuing the certificates. Number 020 MS. FRASCA stated that section 44 would allow the DOL to set a fee for administering examinations and processing applications for special boiler and pressure vessel inspector commissions. Currently, she said, there was no charge for these services. Number 028 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN PROPOSED an AMENDMENT to section 44, but subsequently WITHDREW it after he realized that his amendment did not pertain to the section under discussion. Number 068 MS. FRASCA mentioned that the DOL currently issued plumber and electrician certificates for one or three years, as provided in statute. Section 45, which was deleted from the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, would give the DOL the authority to set the time period by regulation. The DOL's intent was to issue the certificates every two years, she said. The effect of reinstating section 45 would be to even out the revenues taken in by the DOL, she noted. Number 082 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification of the effect of reinstatement of section 45. Number 102 DON STUDY, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND SAFETY, DOL, stated that reinstatement of section 45 would even out the flow of program receipts into the DOL. Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to compare the change proposed in section 45 with the change made to the ABC licensing procedures. Number 124 MS. FRASCA commented that section 46 of the House State Affairs Committee substitute to HB 65 provided for a phased- in implementation of the ABC license provisions, so that revenues would flow evenly into the general fund. Number 136 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the House State Affairs Committee had deleted sections 44-46. Number 140 MR. STUDY did not have any idea why the sections had been deleted. Number 143 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT indicated that, as a member of the House State Affairs Committee, he knew that many of the changes made to HB 65 were part of a policy to limit the agencies' regulatory authority. Members of the House State Affairs Committee had expressed concern that agencies might establish unreasonable fees for certain services. Number 165 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that specific dollar and percentage amounts were included in HB 65, thereby limiting the latitude granted to the agencies. Number 176 MS. FRASCA stated that there was a philosophical debate regarding whether fees should be set in statute or by regulation. Recent trends had been to establish fees by regulation, she said. She noted that the regulatory process included public participation. She said that it was up to the House Judiciary Committee to decide whether fees should be set by regulation or in statute. She noted that the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 established the fees in statute. Number 195 MR. STUDY commented that, if the committee decided to set fees in statute, a transition period should also be provided for in statute. Number 205 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported phasing in programs, as it would level out workloads and revenue flows. She mentioned that setting fees in statute would make it more difficult to change those fees later. On the other hand, she said, the legislature did not have the authority to repeal regulations. Until that happened, she was inclined to establish fees in statute. Number 223 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Frasca to explain what the House State Affairs Committee had done to sections 44-46. Number 226 MS. FRASCA replied that the House State Affairs Committee had deleted everything. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the Senate's version of HB 65 set fees in statute. MS. FRASCA noted that DOL Commissioner Charles Mahlen had submitted proposed language for the committee's consideration. MR. STUDY commented that the AMENDMENT would put language into HB 65 that was nearly identical to language included in the Senate version of the bill. Number 265 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment would allow the DOL to set fees by regulation. MS. FRASCA stated that the first amendment in Commissioner Mahlen's submission appeared to be similar to section 44, which enabled the DOL to set fees for special inspector commissions, for which there currently was no charge. Language would have to be drafted to put the fee in statute, she said. The amendment pertaining to section 38 would take the place of section 45, she noted. Number 272 CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed his support for the resolution allowing the legislature to repeal regulations. He preferred leaving the House State Affairs Committee's substitute for HB 65 as it was, realizing that it would have to eventually be melded with the Senate's version of the fees' bill. Number 288 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman. She commented that setting fees by regulation would be more efficient than setting them in statute. However, she said, without legislative oversight for regulations, she preferred to set them in statute. Number 303 MR. STUDY commented that the fees set forth in sections 44- 46 were included in the DOL's FY 94 budget. He mentioned the impact of budget cuts on the DOL's programs, and said that if the fees included in sections 44-46 were disallowed, elevator and amusement ride inspections would probably be discontinued. Number 326 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Study to comment on the Senate's proposals regarding the DOL fees. Number 330 MR. STUDY replied that the Senate had proposed an additional cut to the Division of Labor Standards and Safety. Number 333 MS. FRASCA commented that the Senate's version of the fees' bill would set fees in statute, thereby generating the fees which Mr. Study was discussing. She added that the DOL faced a different reduction, from a cut made by the Senate Finance Committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Senate version of the fee bill would put the DOL back at the appropriate funding level for certain programs. MS. FRASCA replied in the affirmative. Number 346 MR. STUDY stated that his division dealt with public safety and worker safety issues. Budget cuts would, at some point, increase injuries and fatalities, he said. Number 358 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 44 and 45 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 375 MS. FRASCA noted that section 46 pertained to the generation of program receipts, and would allow fees to be set by regulation. Number 383 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about rushing through the sections of HB 65. She was uncomfortable with section 46's authorization for the DOL to charge a new, nonrefundable application and examination fee. Number 400 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that both the House and Senate leadership wanted to pass an omnibus fees' bill. He said that there would be a meeting of the House version of the bill and the Senate version. Number 407 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the Chairman's comments had given her some comfort; however, she still wanted to give HB 65 adequate consideration. Number 412 CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative James' concerns. But, he said, no matter what the committee did to HB 65, he knew that the bill would be subsequently discussed and perhaps amended in a conference committee. For that reason, he did not want to put an inordinate amount of effort into working on the bill, knowing that it would be tinkered with later. He expressed his support for maintaining the House State Affairs Committee's deletion of section 46. Number 424 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recommended that the committee reinstate section 46. He said that, as the state cut back paying for services out of the general fund, important safety services needed to continue, and had to be paid for somehow. He made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 46. CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED. Number 436 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Nordlund that certain services could not be continued forever, without the state charging fees for those services. He questioned what amount the state should charge for certain services, given that there had been no fees in the past. He was uncomfortable referring to fees without knowing the amount of those fees. Number 451 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that there were dollar figures in section 46. She supported for Representative Nordlund's motion. She cited the public process inherent in the regulation adoption process. She noted that the agencies knew how much to charge for services, as they were directly involved in the provision of those services. Number 463 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the effect of the lengthy regulation writing process on the DOL's budget. Number 472 MS. FRASCA commented that section 59 of CSHB 65 (L&C) allowed departments which would be promulgating regulations to get a "head start" on the regulation writing process. A roll call vote on reinstatement of section 46 was taken. Representatives Nordlund, Phillips, and Green voted "YEA." Representatives Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the MOTION FAILED. Number 491 MS. FRASCA explained that section 47 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 authorized the Alaska Police Standards Council to issue regulations to establish fees for processing applications for state certification of police, probation, parole, and correctional officers. The fee was expected to be $50, she said. She indicated that this provision was also included in the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. Number 498 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Frasca who would pay the $50 fee. Number 499 MS. FRASCA replied that the individual applicants would pay. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that a municipality could pay the fee, if it so desired. There being no objection, section 47 REMAINED in the bill. Number 505 MS. FRASCA explained that section 48 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 had been deleted by the House State Affairs Committee. Currently, she said, there was a $10 permit application filing fee for employment agencies. Section 48 would increase that fee to $100, she added. She was not aware of why the section had been deleted by the House State Affairs Committee. Number 515 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that the House State Affairs Committee had discussed the exorbitant increase contained in section 48. Number 519 MR. STUDY commented that the fee had not been increased in 40 years. CHAIRMAN PORTER added that the House Labor and Commerce Committee had agreed that it would be impossible to process an application for $10. Number 523 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the fees suggested in HB 65 were not out of line. But, she expressed concern that those fees could be increased later. She believed that $100 was a fair fee for employment agency permit applications. There being no objection to reinstating section 48, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 534 MS. FRASCA explained that section 49 in the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 amended the definition of "program receipts." Currently, she said, Aetna reimbursed the state for administering the state employee health insurance program. Those reimbursements had been previously defined as "general fund program receipts." Section 49 would change the definition to "benefit systems receipts," she said. MS. FRASCA explained the effect of sections 50 and 51 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. She said that currently, the federal government paid the state monies which the state used to pay risk management premiums. She added that the federal government had criticized the state because the state deposited some of the monies into the general fund and some of the monies into a reserve account. Sections 50 and 51 would have the effect of complying with the federal government's requirements. If they were not included in HB 65, she said, the state might have to give some of the federal money back. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to clarify her remarks. MS. FRASCA stated that the federal government wanted the state to put more of the money into the catastrophe reserve account than it had been. Number 571 SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (DOA), said that these monies currently all flowed into the general fund. The monies were then appropriated for various purposes. But, she said, the federal government had appropriated those monies for insurance purposes and wanted the monies to go back into the state's insurance program. By putting the monies into the catastrophe fund, they would be used for the settlement of extraordinary claims in the future. Number 591 MS. FRASCA explained section 52 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. She said that the section clarified the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) ability to accept cash or other donations to support parks. Section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 was deleted by the House State Affairs Committee, she said. It would authorize the DNR to promulgate regulations to set fees for day use of state parks, admission to visitor centers, sale of firewood, and a number of other activities. Number 602 CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a document in their bill packets which pertained to this section. Number 605 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about whether the DNR would need to hire personnel to go out and collect these fees. Number 613 DAVID STEPHENS, CHIEF, PLANNING OPERATIONS/SERVICES, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, commented that such fees would be collected by an "iron ranger" (collection box), on an honor system. Volunteer campground hosts exerted subtle pressure on park users to deposit their fees in the "iron ranger." Very little staff time would be devoted to the emptying of the "iron rangers." He said that the existing system enjoyed good compliance. Number 629 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if reinstating this section would take care of the concerns addressed by Neil Johannsen, Director of the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative. Number 634 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 637 MS. FRASCA commented that section 54 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 pertained to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). She said that the section would allow the DEC to charge fees for services which it currently provided, but for which it did not currently have the authority to charge fees. Number 644 CHAIRMAN PORTER had heard concerns expressed that the DEC would use this particular section to recover monies lost to budget cuts. Number 647 JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEC, stated that her agency could not receive and expend the funds to which section 54 pertained, without legislative authority. She said that her agency currently had no plans to establish fees authorized under section 54. But, she said, if it came down to a choice between losing general funds or losing "primacy" for the solid waste program, the DEC might opt to establish fees. She indicated that a similar situation might exist for the hazardous waste program. Number 668 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if fees would flow back to the DEC, or if they would go into the general fund. MS. ADAIR replied that all of the fees would be deposited into the general fund. The DEC would then identify them in their budget submission to the OMB as "general fund/program receipts." Number 673 MS. FRASCA commented that while the DOL's budget anticipated program receipts, the DEC's present FY 94 budget did not reflect receipts anticipated, under this particular section of HB 65. She reiterated Ms. Adair's comment that the DEC would need to come back before the legislature to request the authority to receive and expend the funds. Number 681 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the legislature had, the year before, authorized the DEC to increase permit fees. She had received comments from constituents regarding these increases. Number 687 MS. ADAIR explained that when permit fees had been increased, the DEC had held numerous public hearings, and had sent out thousands of pieces of mail on the subject, in addition to running advertisements in newspapers. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why section 54 was necessary, since the DEC had increased its permit fees last year. MS. ADAIR stated that the fees to which Representative Phillips was referring were for restaurant inspections and seafood inspections. Number 693 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the fees in section 54 were for. MS. ADAIR replied that section 54 expanded the fees program, so that the DEC could establish fees for solid waste permits and hazardous waste permits. Number 697 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS recommended that the DEC, when sending out bills for permit fees, include an explanation of what the fee was for. TAPE 93-57, SIDE A Number 003 MS. ADAIR acknowledged that there had been some problems with billings for restaurant inspections. Number 020 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that several departments might be charging the public for work on a single permit. Number 040 MS. ADAIR replied that no department other than the DEC had authority to assess fees on the permits under discussion. She added that a municipality could undertake some of the permitting activities; if a municipality chose to do so, she said, then the DEC was statutorily precluded from charging a permit fee, as it would not be issuing the permit. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the DNR would charge any fees for the permits under discussion. MS. ADAIR responded that the DNR would not charge any fees for these particular permits. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the permitted entities would require business licenses. MS. ADAIR replied that certain facilities would probably require business licenses. MS. FRASCA explained that sections 42 and 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 should be deleted, as amendments to other sections of HB 65 made the sections moot. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42 and 43 from the bill. Number 103 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about a boat launching fee on a river in her district. She made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's action on reinstating section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. Number 162 MS. FRASCA stated that section 53 would allow the DNR to set fees by regulation. She noted that the House State Affairs Committee had taken existing regulation fees and put them into statute. Additionally, she said, that committee had reduced boat launching fees. Number 172 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred to have a particular portion of the House State Affairs Committee's section 42 included in HB 65. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, on the grounds that if the state maintained a boat launching ramp, someone needed to pay for that maintenance. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the ramp she was concerned with had been built by private individuals, but was maintained by the state. The people who built the ramp objected to having to pay to use it, she said. CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative Phillips that, because the state maintained the ramp, user fees should help to pay for that maintenance. Number 214 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on charges for visiting historic sites. Number 224 MR. STEPHENS replied that the state park system maintained only a handful of historic sites. He said that historic sites along the side of the road were not administered by the state park system. Number 237 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that the language in HB 65 was unclear as to which historic sites were covered. He asked if the DNR intended to put its temporary fees in regulation. Number 250 MR. STEPHENS replied that it was the DNR's intention to add the temporary fees to existing regulations. The temporary fees would allow the DNR to get a head start on collecting the fees, before the regulation writing process was completed. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it was the DNR's intention to turn the temporary fees into permanent fees. MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative. Number 275 MS. FRASCA mentioned that public input would influence the amount of fees set by the DNR. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there was a big difference between the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 53 and the House State Affairs Committee's section 42. Number 314 CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative James that the two sections were very different. A roll call vote on rescinding the committee's action on the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 53 was taken. Representative James and Kott voted "YEA." Representatives Nordlund, Phillips, Green, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the MOTION FAILED. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42 and 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that deleting sections 42 and 43 was essentially a conforming action. A roll call vote on deleting sections 42 and 43 from the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 was taken. Representatives Phillips, Green, Kott, Nordlund, and Porter voted "YEA." Representative James voted "NAY." And so, sections 42 and 43 were DELETED. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED. Number 380 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OFFERED an AMENDMENT relating to page 15, lines 7-8 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. He said that his amendment would implement a user fee for oil spill contingency plan review of $1 per gallon based on the realistic maximum oil discharge described in a contingency plan, but not to exceed $2,500. He expressed support for amending his amendment to include a minimum fee, also. Number 436 MS. ADAIR commented that the House State Affairs Committee's section 44 took existing DEC authority to set fees by regulation, put those fees in statute, and lowered them significantly. Due to this section, she said, the DEC had submitted a $789,000 general fund fiscal note to HB 65. She said that contingency plans were based on barrels, not on gallons, and that only facilities with more than 10,000 barrels of oil had to have a contingency plan. She indicated the DEC's opposition to Representative Green's amendment, as the revenue generated would not cover the agency's costs. Number 686 MS. ADAIR stated that a similar provision was contained in HB 167, Air Quality Control Program, but was also included in HB 65, as a "safety net" in the event that HB 167 did not pass the legislature this year. Number 723 MS. ADAIR expressed an opinion that, if both bills passed, HB 65's section 55 would simply become moot. Number 730 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee should write a letter of intent which said that if HB 167 passed, section 55 of HB 65 would not be enacted. Number 732 GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, stated that could be accomplished through an additional section in HB 65. Number 735 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 55 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65, and to add a section to the House Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 65 that stated that if HB 167 passed, section 55 would be repealed. There being no objection to the motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 755 MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 56 was retained in the House State Affairs bill, and included technical amendments related to the OPA and the DOA's accounting system. She asked that the Committee not make any changes to this area of HB 65. MS. FRASCA explained that another component of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 56 was retained by the House State Affairs Committee in section 45 of its version of HB 65. This section repealed the DNR's authority to promulgate regulations to set fees for park use. She asked that the committee delete this particular provision. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE section 45 of CSHB 65 (STA). An "at ease" was called at 4:20 p.m. The committee reconvened at 4:22 p.m. There being no objection to Rep. Nordlund's motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED. MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 57 established the DNR's temporary fee schedule for parks, which the committee had discussed earlier. The House State Affairs Committee had deleted this section from the bill; Ms. Frasca requested that the committee reinstate it. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 57 of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 58 was a conforming amendment regarding ABC licenses. This section was also included in the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, she said. The committee had no objection to maintaining that section. MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 59 (the House State Affairs Committee's section 47) allowed agencies which would be promulgating regulations to get a head start on that process, instead of waiting for the effective date of HB 65. The committee had no objection to maintaining this section of the bill. MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 60 (the House State Affairs Committee's section 48) pertained to the OPA. She said that this section stated that the amendments which authorized the OPA to charge fees for public guardians have the effect of amending a court rule. The committee had no objection to maintaining this section. Number 825 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's sections 61-64 (the House State Affairs Committee's sections 49-51) included the effective dates of HB 65's provisions. There being no objection to including the effective dates, they were MAINTAINED in the bill. Number 830 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee had before it a Judiciary Committee substitute, which was an amended version of the House Labor and Commerce Committee substitute. TAPE 93-57, SIDE B Number 019 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested amending an existing statute which pertained to section 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. He said that it might be better to offer his amendment on the floor. He noted that the DNR currently issued, free of charge, a state camping permit to disabled U. S. veterans. He said that his amendment would change that policy to offer that benefit to Alaska residents only, rather than all U. S. citizens. Number 090 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment could be more easily made in committee than on the floor, as a Judiciary Committee substitute had to be drafted anyway. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that Representative Kott could bring the amendment to the attention of the House Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that he would do that. Number 128 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that a Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 65 was now before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED to PASS CSHB 65 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 128 next.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|