Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/07/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
  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  repealing out-of-date statutes and changing certain fee                      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