Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/27/1998 01:50 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
April 27, 1998
1:50 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 127, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 98 - 127, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 98 - 128, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 98 - 128, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:50 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative J. Davies Representative Martin
Representative G. Davis Representative Grussendorf
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Moses and Hanley were not present for the
meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp; Dick Bishop, Vice President, Alaska
Outdoor Council, Juneau; Kevin Brooks, Director, Division
of Administrative Services, Department of Fish and Game;
Thomas Bringham, Director, Division of Statewide Planning,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Jack
Kreinheder, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor; Wayne Regelin, Director,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and
Game; Henry Springer, (Testified via Teleconference),
Director, Association of General Contractors, Anchorage;
John Scoen, (Testified via Teleconference), Director,
Office of Audubon Society, Anchorage; Marco Pignalberi,
Staff, Representative John Cowdery; Kevin Saxby, (Testified
via Teleconference), Assistant Attorney General, Department
of Law, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 227 An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement
Project Authority; relating to the powers and
duties of the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 227 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 250 An Act relating to management of game and to the
duties of the commissioner of fish and game.
HCS CSSB 250 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
note by the Department of Fish and Game.
SENATE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to management of game and to the
duties of the commissioner of fish and game."
Representative Kelly MOVED that work draft #0-LS1352\L,
Utermohle, 4/23/98, be the version before the Committee.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the only change was on Page
3, adding the definition of "sustained yield". There being
NO OBJECTION, the work draft was adopted.
SENATOR BERT SHARP spoke to the proposed legislation. He
noted that in 1994, the Legislature passed SB 77,
implementing intensive game management. Since that time,
the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game have
had difficulty interpreting and implementing the
legislation.
He pointed out that SB 250 narrows down and defines
legislative findings that provide for high levels of
harvest for human consumption, consistent with the
sustained yield principle. It further states that big game
prey populations should be managed biologically. That
would be accomplished by amending AS 16.05.255(g) and
adding a new definition for sustained yield.
The Board of Game is further instructed to establish
harvest goal and seasons for managing big game prey
populations in order to achieve a high level of human
harvest. To further assist the Board and the Department,
the bill contains definitions of harvestable surplus and
high levels of human harvest. These terms exist in law and
need clearer definition.
Senator Sharp advised that the Board of Game had
definitions proposed for the categories on their agenda at
the January meeting in Bethel and then again at the March
meeting in Fairbanks without coming to a conclusion. The
Department as well as the Board agrees that there is a need
for definitions in this area.
Senator Sharp noted that the committee substitute is a
product of working closely with the game users and the
Department. He urged the Committee's support.
KEVIN SAXBY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE,
acknowledged that most of the Department of Law's concerns
had been addressed in version before the Committee.
KEVIN BROOKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, noted that Senator
Sharp had worked with the Department in addressing the
legislation. He spoke to Section #3, which addresses the
way in which the Division budgets and accounts for federal
aid dollars. That section stipulates that those funds are
made only to the Division of Sport Fish and Wildlife
Conservation. He discussed that in the Department's
budget, there are approximately $4 million dollars, funds
which other divisions use. From these funds and those from
the Division of Administrative Services, compensation and
administration is paid.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that the legislation would require a
series of amendments to the current budget, moving all the
fish and game funds and federal receipts out of
administration and habitat, and then increasing the inter-
agency receipts. An action which would increase the
overall budget. Mr. Brooks reiterated that the Department
has specific concerns in regards to Section #3 and asked
Committee members to reconsider if portion of the bill was
necessary.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if Section 3 would prohibit or
track the use of funds. Mr. Brooks replied that it was the
Department's impression that all those funds would be
placed into these two divisions, allowing for documentation
for the Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) used by other
divisions and requiring inclusion in both places in the
budget. He advised that this is the current situation. He
believed that the proposed action would increase the
Department's budget request by $4 million dollars.
DICK BISHOP, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC),
JUNEAU, noted that AOC strongly supports the bill before
the Committee. He pointed out that 60% of Alaska is
controlled by federal agencies and they generally are not
willing to enhance habitats or populations on their lands.
Thus, management to provide for abundant populations fall
to the State on State and private lands.
Mr. Bishop pointed out that SB 250 would bolster
legislative policy regarding the importance of managing
Alaska's big game populations to provide for their
continuing well being and would benefit people under the
sustained yield principle.
Mr. Bishop added that it is necessary to ensure that the
dollars contributed by hunters and trappers are spent to
benefit the management and uses intended. Section #3 of
the bill would provide a safeguard against that. He added
that the definitions contained within the bill are
consistent with sound game management practices and would
provide benefit to all Alaskans.
Mr. Bishop pointed out that it is mistakenly claimed that
there is an inherent conflict between hunting management
for hunting versus non-consumptive uses. Mr. Bishop
stressed that this is false. It is clear that with sound
management, prey populations can be enhanced, which in turn
makes the ecosystem strong and enhances the survival of
prey, predators and scavengers of all kinds.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if Mr. Bishop could provide
examples of past misuse of the federal funds. Mr. Bishop
replied that there had been transfers in the past to other
divisions within the Department which did not require a
(RSA) at the discretion of the commissioner.
Senator Sharp commented on the Department's trouble with
Section #3 and noted that he had never heard of funds
transferred within the Department as being double counted.
He noted that RSA's leave an audit trail which is good
business practice when transferring money that is highly
restricted, indicating how funds are being used. He noted
that Section #3 would mandate that the funds flow through
the Division of Sport Fish or the Division of Wildlife
Conservation. It places no restriction on legitimate uses.
Representative J. Davies noted that he did not see the
Division of Wildlife Conservation indicated in Section #3.
WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, advised that the Division of
Game was changed in 1987 by Governor Cowper to the Division
of Wildlife Conservation. He recommended that language be
corrected in Section #3.
In response to Representative Grussendorf, Senator Sharp
noted that he had had problems when trying to move money
around in the Department of Fish and Games budget. He
reiterated that an audit trail would be helpful in tracking
that budget.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned how this system would work
since RSA's were not reflected in the budget. Senator
Sharp recommended that by adding an effective date of July
1, 1999, would dovetail with next year's budget.
Representative Mulder asked if the Department supported the
bill. Mr. Regelin replied that the Department did not
support Section #3 of the bill, however, had reached
agreement with the remaining portions.
Representative J. Davies advised that he had a problem with
the definition of "sustained yield" in the bill. He
referenced Page 3, Line 5, language "high level of". He
believed that referred to intensive management of game.
Intensive management is defined on Page 2, Lines 18-19, "to
enhance, extend, and develop the population to maintain
high levels". He recommended omitting the words "a high
level of" on Page 3, so that "sustained yield" would refer
only to the ability to maintain. Representative J. Davies
suggested that the definition "intensive management"
consistent with "sustained yield".
Mr. Regelin replied that the intensive management law was
written in 1994, and that the legislation does not include
all of that law, only the new changes. He believed that
the Department could work with the definition of "sustained
yield".
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #1 to Page
2, Line 6 and Line 9, deleting "game" and inserting
"wildlife conservation". There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #2, which
would add an effective date to Section #3 of July 1, 1999.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #3, Page
2, Line 19, deleting "for" and inserting "consistent with"
and Page 3, Line 3, to delete "a high level of".
Representative Kelly OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Representative J. Davies explained that the two sections
worked together more fluidly if the language were amended
without changing the intent of the bill. Senator Sharp
responded that Amendment #3, when analyzed in context of
intensive management legislation would break the linkage
with the board of game. The board still has the ability to
determine which gaming populations will be identified and
subject to intensive management. He believed that that the
bill should keep the language "a high level of" because it
would continue to be a selection, identified by the board,
for high-level yield harvest.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 127, Side 2).
Representative J. Davies referenced the findings language
which indicates that high use would be provided for, by
implying to always be "mindful, of the need, not to
diminish the resource". He believed that the deletion of
language on Page 3 would not change the intent, but rather
would inter-relate the terms in a more consistent way.
Representative Mulder MOVED to divide Amendment #3.
Representative J. Davies stated that the amendment on Page
2 would be mute without the amendment on Page 3.
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #3a. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Kelly maintained his OBJECTION to Amendment
Representative J. Davies asked if the proposed change was
made to Page 3, would the definition of "sustained yield"
be more consistent with the traditional definition.
Mr. Saxby replied that the framers of the Article 8
principle intended a much broader definition of "sustained
yield" then any of the "then" current definitions applied
by the U.S. Forest Service. They intended to have the
Legislature enact laws that preserved a great deal of
freedom for future application of sustained yield
management. He noted that he was reluctant to say that
there was any traditional definition of sustained yield
mandated by the Constitution. The Legislature is permitted
to "set the bar" where they want too.
Mr. Regelin added that in the wildlife management
textbooks, there is no definition of "sustained yield",
although, there is written language addressing the
principle. Definition #4 defines the "high level of human
harvest" which is based on the biological capabilities of
the population considering hunter demand. He believed that
this is a matter which the Department and the board of game
could work with. Representative J. Davies understood that
"sustained yield" meant a non-diminishment with a periodic
yield.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, G. Davis,
Foster, Therriault
Representatives Moses and Hanley were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
JOHN SCOEN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF AUDORBON SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE, testified in
opposition to the proposed legislation. He pointed out
that the bill defines "high harvest levels" as the highest
and best use of big game. He noted concern that the bill
would require the Department to manage every big game
population in the State to meet the high harvest level
whether or not there is a demand for that harvest. He
believed that the bill would not serve broad public
interest in management of resources and that hunting is an
important activity, and there must be management
conservation when dealing with these resources.
Representative Grussendorf asked which problems in the
legislation had not yet been addressed. Mr. Saxby
responded that a primary problem would exist by adopting
any statutory definition of "sustained yield", which would
invite the Alaska Supreme Court to refine it for us. In
Title 38 and 41, there are statutory definitions of
"sustained yield" which relate to forest management. In
the one instance that the Alaska Supreme Court has had to
examine that definition, it was narrowed from what the
Legislature had adopted. As soon as a definition of a term
used in the Constitution is created, then the Legislature
comes before the Supreme Court's turf. He stressed that
definition of these terms should be largely left to the day
to day managers. He emphasized that the current version
before the Committee has addressed a number of concerns
which would have caused the Department of Law to recommend
the Governor veto the sustained yield issue.
Representative Kelly MOVED to report HCS CS SB 250 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was adopted.
HCS CS SB 250 (FIN) out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Fish and Game.
HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement
Project Authority; relating to the powers and duties
of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
MARCO PIGNALBERI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY,
commented that the purpose of HB 227 was to increase public
involvement, stability and discipline in capital project
planning for the State of Alaska.
Planning for Alaska's capital improvement projects is
presently carried out by the Planning Division of the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF).
Three regional planning teams carry out research and
planning. These regional planning teams coordinate with
the local governments, including Anchorage Metropolitan
Transportation System (AMATS) and Fairbanks Metropolitan
Transportation System (FMATS) within their region. These
regional plans are feed into the statewide planning team in
Juneau at which point they are consolidated into statewide
plans. These stipulations are required for internal
management and to meet requirements for federal funding.
Mr. Pignalberi noted that HB 227 would come into play at
the level of statewide prioritization and funding
alternatives. It would not change the basic planning
process now in use, although, it would change the method by
which projects are rated, prioritized and submitted to the
Governor and the Legislature.
Mr. Pignalberi pointed out that despite efforts of DOTPF to
make the planning process more inclusive and transparent to
the public, capital project planning remains a science for
most Alaskans. He suggested that planning was hindered by
a lack of continuity at the executive level. He noted that
past DOTPF commissioners have had an average tenure less
than two years. Permanent professional planners become
committed to the project which they work on.
Mr. Pignalberi explained that the provisions of HB 227 are
intended to make the capital project planning process more
comprehensive, coherent to the public and stable in its
role of building Alaska's infrastructure. The Authority
would have a single purpose mission rather than be
entangled with the multi-purposes of the Governor,
Legislature and DOTPF.
Mr. Pignalberi urged passage of the proposed legislation.
He noted that both the federal highway administration and
the federal aviation administration have testified in other
committees expressing deep "fear" of "potential" problems
in the legislation. He guaranteed that this would not
happen. Mr. Pignalberi closed, noting that no one knows
what the State's priority projects are now for any mode of
transportation. HB 227 will provide policy and continuity.
Representative Martin voiced concern with the separation of
the proposed authority and the Executive Budget Act.
Additionally, he believed that by such an Authority
establishing fees would be in direct competition with the
powers of taxation. He stressed that the legislation would
be interfering with the Executive Branch of government. He
pointed out that the role of the commissioner would loose
all power to the proposed authority.
Representative Grussendorf noted that under the current
system, it is clear who gets held accountable for problems
which occur and credit due. He questioned who would
ultimately be responsible in a system proposed in the bill.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 128, Side 1).
Mr. Pignalberi addressed Representative Martin's concern,
pointing out that it was the intent that the proposed
legislation fall within the Executive Budget Act.
Representative Martin recommended that there be an
amendment which specifies that the authority stay under the
Executive Budget Act. Co-Chair Therriault suggested
checking with legal drafters to find that statute
placement.
Representative J. Davies thought it preposterous that more
duties would be added in order to create an authority. Mr.
Pignalberi noted that this was an issue that some attorneys
have differed over and that it was not central to the
sponsor's interest. He pointed out that Legal Services had
recommended that it be added and he felt it could be
removed.
Representative J. Davies referenced Page 3, Line 21, and
asked what authorization the authority would have power to
revise. Mr. Pignalberi replied that all planning powers
that currently reside within the Department would move to
the Authority.
Representative Martin asked if Mr. Pignalberi thought by
statute, the legislation could change the power of the
Executive Branch authority. Mr. Pignalberi stated that was
the intent, which could be done by changing statute.
Representative Martin disagreed, pointing out that there
need to be a change to the Constitution. The Constitution
states that all commissions are part of the Executive
Branch. Mr. Pignalberi pointed out that all changes being
made are changes in statute. He advised that 17 positions
in the Department's Headquarters Planning Division would be
moved to the Authority. The Department has many other
functions which would not be moved such as operations,
design and maintenance.
Representative J. Davies asked if it would be funded by
general funds. He stressed that the federal government
will not fund a separate planning effort. Mr. Pignalberi
stated that the federal government would fund whatever
process the State comes up with. They will not fund a
duplicative activity.
HENRY SPRINGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS, ANCHORAGE, spoke in
favor of the proposed legislation. (Testimony inaudible).
THOMAS BRINGHAM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE PLANNING,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
commented that HB 227 was a well intentioned effort to add
stability to the transportation project development
process. However, close examination of the bill has left
the Department to conclude that if enacted, it would cause
many problems in an attempt to solve problems that no
longer exist. As a result, DOTPF does not support the
legislation. DOTPF believes the process available for
prioritizing and selecting projects is fair, stable and
provides well for statewide transportation needs.
He enumerated the problems created by the bill:
? The proposed Authority is not a true authority or
commission which would be responsible for all
capital and operating activities of the
department. Capital programs approved by the
authority would still be subject to legislative
approval on a project by project basis. Under
the Authority as proposed in HB 227, the
Department and staff would be serving two
masters, the Governor and the Authority. There
are 13 states which have commissions with direct
line authority, i.e., the commissions are
responsible for all aspects of the operations of
the department. There are 15 states that have
commissions that are advisory to DOTPF or the
Governor and DOTPF. Unlike these two types of
commissions with clearly defined roles, the
Authority proposed in HB 227 would establish an
Authority with responsibilities that are more
than advisory but less than a commission with
line authority. The in-between status lead to
confusion both inside and outside DOTPF.
? The intention of HB 227 in regard to the day-to-
day operation of the Authority is unclear.
? This Authority will increase the cost of project
selection and add costs and delays to programming
efforts. It would add another layer to the
existing project approval process, and would
reduce responsiveness and add general fund
administrative costs.
? The legislation would give the Authority the
ability to delete and add projects to the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
Changes to the federally funded program must be
made in accordance with the STIP process.
Deviation from the process would render the
project ineligible for funding.
Mr. Bringham added that the Department has submitted a note
outlining what the fiscal impacts of the legislation would
be. These impacts total over $500 thousand dollars per
year. All staff and related costs are to be paid for with
State general funds.
Representative G. Davis voiced frustration with the current
process and the lack of public input. He noted that there
is a lot of flexibility in the planning process regarding
how federal dollars are spent.
Representative J. Davies asked how the prioritization of
projects would occur when the bill was in place. He asked
if the Authority made a change, would the proposal need to
go through the public process again. Mr. Bringham replied
that was not clear to the Department. At present time, the
regional staff works with the communities to pool the
projects together and the highest scored ones go to
statewide competition.
Representative J. Davies asked the relationship between the
AMATS and the FMATS. Mr. Bringham responded that federal
law protects the AMATS program. That program must be
totally incorporated into the Department's STIP. The State
agency does not have any authority to change it.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 128, Side 2).
JACK KREINHEDER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated that
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) believes that the
proposed Authority would be an unnecessary level of
bureaucracy. Mr. Kreinheder agreed with Mr. Bringham in
problems which would occur during a turnover, when the
Authority becomes "out-of-sink" with the Administration.
At that point, they would become a dual entity to do
business with. He projected that the Governor would end up
ignoring the commission, as the Governor's constitutional
power can not be changed by statute.
He pointed out that OMB would suggest to the Governor that
the proposed legislation would create constitutional
problems. Mr. Kreinheder advised that the Administration
is open to suggestions for improving the planning process
with public and legislative input.
In conclusion, Mr. Kreinheder stated that in regard to the
legislative amendments, the entire concept is flawed. He
recommended against going with a full commission,
suggesting that an advisory commission could address some
of the problems. Mr. Kreinheder would recommend the bill
be vetoed.
HB 227 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M.
H.F.C. 13 4/27/98 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|