Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/18/1994 01:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 18, 1994
1:30 p.m.
TAPE HFC 94-68, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94-68, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94-69, Side 1, #000 - 645.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee to order
at 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Hoffman
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Martin
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Navarre
Representative Brown Representative Parnell
Representative Foster Representative Therriault
Representative Grussendorf
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Brice; Mary Sansome, Assistant Attorney
General-General Civil Section, Department of Law; Jim Clark,
General Counsel, Alaska Forest Association, Juneau; Jan
Hansen, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department
of Health and Social Services.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 409 "An Act relating to the maximum amount of
assistance that may be granted under the adult
public assistance program and the program of aid
to families with dependent children; proposing a
special demonstration project within the program
of aid to families with dependent children and
directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to seek waivers from the federal
government to implement the project; and providing
for an effective date."
HB 409 was HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
SB 178 "An Act relating to civil nuisance actions; and
providing for an effective date."
HCS CSSB 178 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal
note by the Department of Law.
1
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance
that may be granted under the adult public assistance
program and the program of aid to families with
dependent children; proposing a special demonstration
project within the program of aid to families with
dependent children and directing the Department of
Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the
federal government to implement the project; and
providing for an effective date."
MARK GREENBERG, CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY, WASHINGTON
D.C. spoke in support of three features of the proposed
demonstration project:
* An increase in work incentives for Aide to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) family
members;
* The waiver of the 100 hour rule, that currently
disqualifies two parent families with a full time
worker regardless of the family's income's; and
* Waivers of vehicle equity which disqualifies
families who own a single vehicle worth more than
$2,500.
Mr. Greenberg discussed the workfare requirement. He
emphasized that running a workfare program costs money. He
asserted that evidence implies that workfare programs do not
dramatically raise employment. He questioned if funding
would be better spent to improve job programs.
Mr. Greenberg questioned the equality of reducing payments
to all AFDC and Adult Public Assistance (APA) recipients in
order to fund a program available to a few.
Representative Brown asked if federal welfare reform will
include waivers allowed for in HB 409. Mr. Greenberg
pointed out that the federal administration has not
introduced legislation. He observed that federal policy
encourages state reform but requires programs to be cost
neutral to the federal government.
HB 409 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
SENATE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to civil nuisance actions; and
providing for an effective date."
2
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENTS 8 and
9 (copies on file). She explained that Amendment 8 would
clarify that definitions of "nuisance" as a civil public or
private nuisance.
Representative Parnell noted that a motion was pending from
the 3/17/94 House Finance Committee meeting, to report HCS
CSSB178 (FIN) out of Committee. Representative Therriault
WITHDREW HIS MOTION to report HCS CSSB178 (FIN) out of
Committee.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 8. She
stressed that Amendment 8 attempts to clarify that current
statutes and regulations regarding "nuisances" cover private
and public nuicances. She observed that court
interpretations have found that "nuisance" means public
nuisance.
MARIE SANSOME, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL-GENERAL CIVIL
SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW agreed that Amendment 8 would
clarify that private nuisances would be included in the
context of air pollution statutes which cover public
nuisances.
Representative Hanley referenced 18 AAC 50.110. He
suggested that if there is a violation of the terms or
conditions of a statute or regulation than a person has the
right to sue for a private nuisance.
Ms. Sansome stressed that definitions of nuisances addressed
by the amendment are related only to the application of the
statutes as to public nuisances. She suggested that the
amendment would clarify subsection (d).
JIM CLARK, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU observed that the point of measurement is at the
property line. He alleged that because showings are made at
the property line it does not matter if it is a public or
private nuisance.
Representative Hanley questioned if 18 ACC 50.110 defines
air pollution as a nuisance.
Representative Brown suggested that the Committee expects
and intends that page 1, line 12 triggers statutes and
regulations that protect people from private nuisances and
therefore Amendment 8 is unnecessary.
Ms. Sansome referred to subsection (d) she noted that it was
added at the request of Mr. Clark. She emphasized that
there are legal opinions that statutes cited would only
3
cover public nuisances. She suggested that if the intent is
to reflect that the statute definitions should apply to a
private nuisance that Amendment 8 should be adopted. She
suggested that there is a potential conflict between
subsection (d) and section 2.
Mr. Clark reiterated that permits are issued based on
conditions at the property line. Ms. Sansome and Mr. Clark
disagreed with the interpretation of statutes in regards to
public and private nuisances. Mr. Clark asserted that
Amendment 8 would interfere with the affect of the shield
provided by subsection (d). He alleged that adoption of
Amendment 8 would require changes to AS 46.03.900.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-68, Side 2)
Co-Chair Larson reiterated Representative Brown's concern
that the legislation apply to private nuisances. Mr. Clark
stressed that if a violation of the permit occurs a private
nuisance suit could be initiated.
Representative Navarre observed that permits deal with
public nuisances. He stressed that if the permit is not
violated and a civil claim existed the private property
owner would not be able to bring action. He restated that
if there is a private nuisance caused by something that did
not violate a public permit process an action could not be
brought. He summarized that the issue is whether or not
private nuisances are included in the public permit process.
Mr. Clark reiterated that if there is a violation of the
regulation the shield is down.
Ms. Sansome noted that according to AS 46.03.870 (a),
permits and regulations issued by the state are for the
benefit of the state and public and do not create a right in
a person. She doubted that a person could demonstrate that
the violation of the air nuisances statute created a right
to a remedy. Mr. Clark asserted that private nuisance suits
are available except when the shield is up. He observed
that the legislation describes when the shield is up and
when it is down. Ms. Sansome questioned if air pollution
regulations would cover private nuisances if the legislation
is adopted. Mr. Clark maintained that the right of action
for a private nuisance is created in section 1 of the
legislation.
Representative Brown restated her motion to ADOPT AMENDMENT
8. Representative Therriault OBJECTED. A roll call vote
was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Navarre
OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Foster, Grussendorf, Martin,
4
MacLean, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (3-8).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 9 (copy on
file). She explained that the amendment rephrases AMENDMENT
1. The amendment would provide that the shield is up when
there is a "showing by the licensee, permittee, or person
subject to the order that the proposed activity will not
result in any emission or discharge that is injurious to
human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property,
or that would injuriously interfere with the enjoyment of
life or property; or". She stated that she understood that
Amendment 8 was not adopted because the Committee feels that
it is unnecessary and that private nuisances are covered.
She explained that Amendment 9 will make clear that private
nuisances are expressly addressed in the permitting process.
Mr. Clark noted that Amendment 1 was offered by the
Department of Law. He clarified that a nuisance showing is
not currently being made in respect to water. He maintained
that Amendment 9 would create a new condition which would
make the legislation prospective. There are regulations
requiring showings in regards to air and solid waste.
Representative Therriault OBJECTED to the motion to ADOPT
AMENDMENT 9. A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Hoffman, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Therriault, Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell,
Larson
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Representative Brown referred to subsection (f). Subsection
(f) provides that the state is held harmless from inverse
condemnation. She observed that the state of California has
a similar shield in respect to timber operations. She
stressed that individuals are suing the state of California,
not for inverse condemnation, but for violations under the
permitting processes.
Representative Brown objected to line 30, page 2, to award
full reasonable attorney fees and costs to a person who
prevails in defense of a claim or court action. She opposed
changing the rules of civil procedure in this way. She
emphasized that there is currently judicial discretion to
look at the circumstances and determine how court costs are
spread.
Representative Therriault MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 178 (FIN)
5
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Navarre
OBJECTED.A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Grussendorf, Hanley, Martin, Parnell,
Therriault, MacLean, Larson
OPPOSED: Hoffman, Navarre, Brown
The MOTION PASSED (8-3).
HCS CSSB 178 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Law.
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance
that may be granted under the adult public assistance
program and the program of aid to families with
dependent children; proposing a special demonstration
project within the program of aid to families with
dependent children and directing the Department of
Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the
federal government to implement the project; and
providing for an effective date."
Representative Therriault provided members with AMENDMENT 1
(copy on file). He MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 1.
Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED. Representative
Therriault explained that Amendment 1 would allow the
Fairbanks North Star Borough to participate in the
demonstration project. He maintained that the cost of
including Fairbanks in the demonstration project will not
exceed revenues anticipated to be raised by the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE spoke in opposition to Amendment 1.
He expressed concern that the workfare will not be effective
in achieving the desired goal. He suggested that the
workfare program will not result in the gain of marketable
jobs.
Representative Hanley disagreed that workfare programs will
not encourage marketable job skills.
Members discussed the introduction of House Finance
Committee legislation.
Representative Therriault noted support of individuals in
his district for Amendment 1 to HB 409. He clarified that
Fairbanks cannot be included in the demonstration project
without the adoption of Amendment 1.
6
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT AMENDMENT
1
IN FAVOR: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
MacLean, Larson
OPPOSED: Brown, Grussendorf, Hoffman
Representative Navarre was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-3).
JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES observed that the
adoption of Amendment 1 would increase the cost of the
legislation by $300.0 thousand dollars annually in FY 95 -
99.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-69, Side 1)
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 2 (copy
on file). She MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 by including,
Amendment to Amendment 1 (copy on file). There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown explained that Amendment 2 would create
the Healthy Families Program. She stressed that the program
would address a number of social problems. She noted that
section 5 would provide that the program is funded through
the ratable reductions in AFDC and APA. She observed that
the sponsor may not support funding the program through the
ratable reduction.
Representative Martin asserted that the program should be
reviewed by the House Health, Education and Social Services
Committee. Representative Brown noted that the House
Health, Education and Social Services Committee declined to
entertain amendments while the bill was before their
Committee.
Representative Hanley did not feel that the program could be
funded at this time. Representative Brown MOVED to delete
section 5, Funding Intent, from AMENDMENT 2. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown WITHDREW AMENDMENT 2. She expressed
her intention to offer Amendment 2 at another time.
Representative Navarre MOVED to add a new paragraph to read,
"(4) an area consisting of a home rule city that is
contained within the boundaries of a second class borough
located on a peninsula within a hundred miles of Anchorage,
with a population of 65,000 persons or more and the second
7
class borough described in this paragraph."
Representative Navarre WITHDREW his MOTION.
Co-Chair MacLean provided members with AMENDMENT 3 (copy on
file). She explained that Amendment 3 would allow the North
Slope Borough to participate in the demonstration project.
Representative Hanley spoke in support of Amendment 3. He
noted that the Department of Health and Social Services has
decided to allow all persons in rural areas to participate.
There being NO OBJECTION, AMENDMENT 3 was adopted.
Representative Navarre asked if the amendments adopted by
the Committee would necessitate an increase in the ratable
reduction. Representative Hanley stated that Amendment 3
would not result in an increase to the fiscal note. He
reiterated that Amendment 1 will not result in a net
increase in the ratable reduction.
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 4 (copy
on file). She explained that Amendment 4 would delete the
ratable reduction to Adult Public Assistance (APA). She
argued that the majority of APA recipients are elderly or
disabled persons. She questioned if APA benefits should be
reduced in order to fund the demonstration project. She
pointed out that the APA clinet group is not in a position
to benefit from the results of the demonstration project
since they are unlikely to return to the work force.
Representative Brice spoke in support of Amendment 4. He
raised the issue of equality. He did not feel that APA
clients should be asked to pay for a program that will not
benefit them. Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT
4.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Larson, Representative
Hanley observed that APA payments are at 110 percent of the
poverty level, AFDC payments are at 74 percent of the
poverty level. He explained that the Department of Health
and Social Services did not want the discrepancy between the
two recipients to increase. He acknowledge that the there
are inequities in the legislation.
Ms. Hansen reiterated that the Department of Health and
Social Services desires that any reduction be across the
board. She noted that there is a disparity between the
level of payments for AFDC and APA.
Representative Brown emphasized that there is little chance
that clients served by APA will be able to return to the
8
work force. She noted that APA clients are unable to work.
Representative Brown suggested that the program could be
funded without the inclusion of APA. Members discussed
anticipated revenues. Ms. Hansen noted that an
appropriation from the legislature is needed to fund FY 95.
She acknowledged that the ratable reduction is in excess of
what is need in FY 95. She reiterated the Department's
position to maintain an across the board reduction. She
clarified that APA clients are living outside of state
institutions.
Representative Hanley OBJECTED to the adoption of AMENDMENT
4. A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Hoffman, Navarre, Larson
OPPOSED: Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault, MacLean
Representative Foster was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (5-5).
HB 409 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
9
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|