Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/05/2000 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 5, 2000
1:50 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 102, Side 1
TAPE HFC 00 - 102, Side 2
TAPE HFC 00 - 103, Side 1
TAPE HFC 00 - 103, Side 2
TAPE HFC 00 - 104, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Foster
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Grussendorf
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Moses
Representative J. Davies Representative Phillips
Representative G. Davis Representative Williams
Representative Austerman was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Torkleson, Staff, Representative Dyson; Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Nancy Welch,
Department of Natural Resources; Rick Thompson, Regional
Manager, Land Office, Southeast Region, Department of
Natural Resources; Wayne Regelin, Director, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game; Tamar
DiFranco, Deputy Director, Statewide Design and Engineering
Services, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Carol Carroll, Director, Division of Support
Services, Department of Natural Resources; Mike Tibbles,
Staff, Representative Therriault; Eddie Grasser, Staff,
Representative Masek; Wendy Lindskoog, Alaska Railroad
Corporation; John Manley, Staff, Representative Harris.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Carrie Williams, City Manager, Whittier; Phylis Johnson,
General Counsel, Alaska Railroad corporation (ARRC); Craig
Hughes, Project Engineer, Alaska Railroad corporation
(ARRC); Blair McCune, Deputy Director, Public Defender
Agency; Sheri Buretta, Chairman of the Board, Chugach Alaska
Corporation.
SUMMARY
HB 320 "An Act approving the application for and
acceptance of a grant of certain federal land by
the Alaska Railroad Corporation; approving the
conveyance of the entire interest in the Whittier
DeLong Dock and associated uplands, tidelands, and
submerged lands by the Alaska Railroad
Corporation; relating to use and disposition of
the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated land; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 320 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 349 "An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game,
means of access for hunting, trapping, and
fishing, the definition of 'means' and 'methods,'
and hunting safety education and game conservation
education programs; relating to the purposes of
game refuges, fish and game critical habitat
areas, and public use areas."
CSHB 349 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Natural Resources.
HB 362 "An Act authorizing the exchange of land between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc.,
between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the
United States Department of the Army and the
United States Department of the Air Force, between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Chugach Alaska
Corporation, and between the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 362 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 368 "An Act relating to release of persons before
trial and before sentencing or service of
sentence; relating to custodians of persons
released, to security posted on behalf of persons
released, and to the offense of violation of
conditions of release; amending Rule 41(f), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 368 was Postponed.
HB 372 "An Act relating to criminal sentencing and
restitution."
HB 372 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 426 "An Act relating to transfers of public land or
grants or conveyances of interest in public land
among the Alaska Railroad Corporation, the
Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, and the Department of Natural
Resources to relocate or widen the Seward Highway,
to relocate railroad facilities, and to relocate
adjacent utility facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 426 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 372
"An Act relating to criminal sentencing and
restitution."
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, testified in support of
the legislation. He noted that virtually all justice systems
around the world have focused on restitution of the victim
after public safety. He noted that there has been a
tradition of paying debts to society by paying the King
instead of the victim. An effort has been made to return to
a focus of restorative justice and restitution of victims.
He observed that the juvenile justice system is committed to
the restorative justice system. The legislation places
current practice in statute and allows a negotiated
agreement between the victim and the perpetrator to work out
restoration of the community and victim as part of the
sentencing agreement.
PETER TORKLESON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DYSON observed that
HB 372 is post-adjudication. The judge may consider letting
a willing victim and defender negotiate a way, such as
community service, to make the victim whole. Vermont has had
stellar success in cost savings and reduced recidivism
rates. He acknowledged concerns by the Department of Law
regarding sentencing of potential felons. He pointed out
that under lines 9 - 10 the negotiated sentence must comply
with general sentencing guidelines. He stated that some
people that commit technical felons, such as those that
commit property fines, should be allowed to negotiate under
the section. The legislation is permissive.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if discussions occurred
regarding the exclusion of violent felons from the
provisions.
Representative Dyson stated that violent felons would be
excluded. Mr. Torkelson pointed out that line 6 excludes
violations under AS 11.41, which includes person to person
assault and murder.
Representative Phillips referred to the negotiated agreement
and questioned the rationale of giving the defender the
right to request negotiation. Representative Dyson gave
examples of negotiations that may be presented by a
defendant. Confronting the victim and apologizing is helpful
in restoring the perpetrator.
In response to a question by Representative Phillips,
Representative Dyson noted that more than half of offenders
chose to enter into an agreement and more than half of those
that chose negotiation fulfill their obligation. If the
agreement is not fulfilled than the perpetrator returns to
the original penalty. Agreements have the force of law.
Representative J. Davies questioned if the legislation
limits the ability to restore costs to the "King".
Representative Dyson emphasized that the community gets an
opportunity to recover costs.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that after an offender is
convicted a fine is charged and that surcharges pertain to
the fine or penalty. He clarified that the victim and the
perpetrator could agree on something to make the victim
whole and pay a fine to the community and that the surcharge
to the state would be included. Representative Dyson agreed
that surcharges would be included and added that the cost of
adjudication could be included.
Vice Chair Bunde clarified that the judge would monitor non-
compliance. Mr. Torkelson stated that some perpetrators
approach the court to negate the contract and resume the
original sentence.
Representative Grussendorf summarized that the legislation
would resolve the civil aspect of minor criminal offenses.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW provided
information on the legislation. The department is not
opposed to restorative justice, but has some concerns
regarding the legislation. She gave a brief history of
current sentencing procedures. She observed that the main
focus of presumptive sentences in the late 70's was to
impose a sentence according to the offence and to provide
uniformity for certain acts. She maintained that restorative
justice is a bend in the road. She acknowledged that it is
appropriate in certain cases and added that judges are using
the process in mental health cases, substance abuse and in
minor property crimes. Statutory authority is not needed for
restorative justice. She expressed concern that the
legislation sets parameters around the use of restorative
justice. She stated that the department is concerned that
restorative justice would be allowed in cases that they do
not feel are appropriate such as first time unclassified
felonies, first time class A felonies, and second offense
class B and C felonies; this includes arson and burglaries.
She maintained that these are serious crimes and questioned
if a victim would be in a position to negotiate with an
offender.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the department is also concerned
that allowing negotiation between a victim and an offender
is difficult because the victim is not in an equal
bargaining position, victims are not represented. She
recommended that the courts continue their current practice
of slowly applying restorative justice in cases where it is
appropriate without legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti noted that in a victimless crime there is a
question of who is the community. There would be cases where
it is unclear who represents the community or what is best
for the community. She summarized that the department has
problems with the legislation but not with restorative
justice.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the judge does not have
to accept a negotiated agreement if he/she does not believe
it is adequate punishment.
Ms. Carpeneti expressed concerns regarding equality of cases
where the offender has enough money to negotiate a
settlement that the victim thinks is fair as opposed to the
person that does not have enough money to pay for the car or
the window to make the victim whole.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if judges could be relied on
not to allow perpetrators to buy their way out of adequate
punishment.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that it would be easier for a judge
to address the issue on a case by case basis. The
legislation provides for mitigating factors for a negotiated
fee.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if the state
prosecutor would not act as the victim's attorney. He asked
if the legislation could require that the state agree to
negotiation.
Ms. Carpeneti noted that defenders have one attorney for his
or her only interest. The interest of the prosecutor is
divided. She agreed that the legislation could require
agreement by the state. She acknowledged that there has not
been a problem with the current use of restorative justice.
Vice Chair Bunde summarized that the legislation is
permissive and that judges can choose not to use the
provisions of the law. Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the
provision is permissive but emphasized that it is difficult
for a judge to know if there has been intimidation. She gave
the example of an older person that has been the victim of
someone known to them. She stressed that victims can be
fragile and afraid to speak for themselves. She noted that
restorative justice is being used for cases involving mental
health. She suggested amending the purposes of sentencing
under AS 12.55.005. She stated that restoration to the
victim and community could be added to sentencing purposes.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that the judge initiates
restorative law under the current practice. If the
legislation is passed the victim or the offender could
initiate justice.
Ms. Carpeneti noted that, in Anchorage, cases are directed
to particular courts where judges have adopted procedures.
She suggested that the legislation would result in defense
lawyers contacting victims. She pointed out that defendants
often will not plea guilty unless they know what their
sentence would be. She maintained that the provision is not
practical due to plea negotiations.
Co-Chair Mulder expressed concern with presumptive
sentencing. He summarized that the department is concern
that the legislation would allow the court to circumvent
presumptive sentence. Ms. Carpeneti explained that a
negotiation would be a mitigating factor and would allow the
court to reduce presumptive sentencing.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the negotiated settlement
should include the judge. Ms. Carpeneti stated that it would
depend on the type of case but that it would not a bad idea
to include the judge. Co-Chair Mulder emphasized that the
judge would be the third party to balance the agreement. He
noted that there are some factors that might want to be
exempted. Ms. Carpeneti responded that there has been
discussion on excluding cases that are outside of AS 11.41.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms.
Carpeneti noted that an offender that burns down a house and
an offender that burns something in someone's yard would
both be included under arson.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Ms.
Carpeneti explained that the legislation adds a mitigating
factor. She discussed presumptive sentencing under AS
12.55.125. She noted that terms were set for what were
deemed to be the right time for certain offenses. Then
mitigating factors were set out to allow the court to raise
or lower sentences. Factors of mitigation have to do with
excuses. The defendant has to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that it was a mitigated crime. The legislation
would add a mitigating factor without clear and convincing
evidence.
Representative Grussendorf questioned how "community" would
be defined. Ms. Carpeneti responded that she did not know
how community would be defined.
BLAIR MCCUNE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY
testified via teleconference in support of the legislation.
He clarified that mandatory fines and surcharges would be
included. He pointed out that the Victim's Rights Act
protects the victim. He noted limitations on the contact of
victims by the defendant's lawyer or the defendant. The
state while representing the public interest also often
represents the interest of the victims.
Mr. McCune observed that juvenile court cases are screened
to be sure that the cases chosen are appropriate. There is a
victim offender mediator, which helps the process. He
suggested that judges would be less inclined to take cases
negotiated through straight contact. He maintained that
restorative justice is about mediated controlled and
carefully screened cases, in which the interests of the
community, the victim and the offender are taken into
account and carefully weighed. He noted that restorative
justice has worked well in other states.
Representative Grussendorf reiterated his questioned
concerning the definition of "community".
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 102, SIDE 2)
Mr. McCune gave examples of the interpretation of community.
Mothers against Drunk Drivers were involved in a DWI case.
Other restorative justice cases have included local merchant
associations in downtown areas that were vandalized. He
acknowledged that community is not strictly defined.
Representative Grussendorf summarized that the judge would
decide the definition of community. Mr. McCune affirmed.
Representative Dyson expressed confidence in the judge's
ability to look after the interest of the victims. He
pointed out that judges are already doing it and that the
legislation would just authorize current practice. He
stressed that there are good application opportunities for
rural Alaska and emphasized that it is not a new practice.
Representative J. Davies expressed concern that there not be
unintended consequences. He asked for purpose of including a
mitigator.
Mr. Torkelson responded that the purpose was to allow the
judge to take the negotiation into account.
Representative J. Davies noted that all the other mitigators
were on the nature of the crime itself. He pointed out that
there would be a new class of mitigators.
Vice Chair Bunde stated that his concern is with the victim.
He stressed that he would rather have his loss restored than
have someone sit in jail.
Representative Dyson observed that perpetrators that go
through restorative justice have lower incidents of
recidivism. He maintained that working to restore a loss
expresses the magnitude of the crime and the loss on the
offender. He felt that it would be a greater punishment to
face victim and be accountable.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that he wanted to assure that
judges do not just rubber stamp negotiations but take an
active role.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if some of the more
serious crimes should be excluded. Representative Dyson
acknowledged his concern and added that making up for a
burglary is a good experience for the burglar. He emphasized
that it can work for very violent crimes and urged that the
judge make the decision.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that burglary and
arson can turn into very serious offenses.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if lesser and greater extents
of arson can be separated.
Representative J. Davies stated his intention to offer
amendments on the legislation. He stated that he would like
to add a requirement that the court approve the negotiation
before it happens.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the judge should be involved.
Discussion ensued regarding involvement of the judge. Co-
Chair Mulder argued in support of the judge's involvement.
Representative J. Davies stressed that there are classes of
restorative justice that would not require the involvement
of the judge during negotiations.
Representative J. Davies restated his intention to offer an
amendment that would insert a sentence at the end of section
1: in this section "community" shall be defined by the
court. Mr. Torkelson observed that "community" is defined as
a group of people with common interests.
Representative J. Davies stated that his amendment would
make it clear that is not up to the offender to define the
community.
Mr. Torkelson questioned why would the defense attorney
allow to a defender to go into something without knowing the
outcome. Representative J. Davies pointed out that have the
choice to agree or go back to the original sentencing.
HB 372 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means
of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the
definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety
education and game conservation education programs;
relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game
critical habitat areas, and public use areas."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with proposed committee
substitute, work draft 1-LS1405\ Utermohle, 4/4/00 (copy on
file).
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT observed that
a proposed committee substitute was created to address
concerns expressed during the 3/29/00 House Finance
Committee meeting. He reviewed the committee substitute.
Sections 1 and 2 deleted "enhancement" and inserted "and
maintenance" in a number of places. The change addressed
concern that the department may be expected to increase new
populations whether than maintain healthy populations.
Page 3, section 4 addressed concerns by the Department of
Fish and Game that the definition of means and methods did
not cover all current practices. Language was modified to
add "substances" and the "use of" to allow the use of a tool
or substance. The sponsor and the Board of Game's attorney
worked on the amendment.
Representative J. Davies questioned if it could be read to
be redundant. He questioned if the language would address
the manner in which the tools are used.
Mr. Tibbles stressed that the intention is to include means,
tools, implements, devices and the use of substances. He
observed that the use of a substance would include poison to
trap or bait.
Language was added in line 31, page 3: "consistent with (1)
of this section". The addition addresses the concern that
the protection of traditional use of fish and game not be
elevated to the same level protection, enhancement and
preservation of the fish and game habitat. Subsection (1)
would be the ultimate goal or the purpose of a state
wildlife refuge. Subsection (2) would remain a purpose, but
it must remain consistent with subsection (1).
Subsection (3): "perpetuate and enhance general public
recreation in a quality environment" was deleted.
Sections 7, 8, and 9 address the ability of the department
to work with municipalities and private non-profits to
develop hunting safety education and wildlife conservation
education programs. Currently, private non-profits are
required to establish programs for the primary purpose of
preserving hunting, fishing and trapping. The department
testified that they would read the wildlife conservation
education programs broadly. The Potters Marsh viewing center
was referenced. He observed that organizations engaged in
wildlife conservation education programs might not be
created for the primary purpose of preserving hunting,
fishing and trapping. The intent is to not exclude these
organizations.
Sections 10 through 15 deal with public use areas. The word
"preserve" was deleted and replaced with "maintain" in each
of the sections. The change addressed the concern that
public use areas would be more like refuges.
EDDIE GRASSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MASEK provided
information on the committee substitute. He explained that
legal counsel for the Board of Game stated that the language
would cover most of the contingencies that the Board would
have to address under section 4. He stressed that the intent
is that the use of tools would also be included.
Representative J. Davies questioned if Mr. Grasser would
object to the insertion of "manner of" in front of "use".
Mr. Grasser stated that he would not object to the change.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned why is the section of means and
methods needed in the definition. Mr. Grasser stated that
the section was inserted as the result of a regulation by
the Board of Game requiring bones to be packed out of the
field. He stressed that statutes clearly state that bones
are not part of the edible portion of an animal that would
need to be packed out.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that they are working hard at a
definition that may work and questioned if it would not be
better to address the particular concern. Mr. Grasser noted
that there is no definition of the terms and expressed
concern that the Board of Game has used this as a loophole.
Representative J. Davies agreed that it would be simpler to
state that bones were not included in items that would be
packed out.
Mr. Grasser referred to deletion of section 6, subsection
(3). The language was removed to avoid confusion.
Mr. Tibbles noted that the department would not be able to
preclude kayaks from nesting grounds if the language were
included.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that the problem was
addressed with the inclusion of "consistent with", which
modified subsection (3).
Mr. Grasser stated that they would not object to its
insertion.
WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME provided information on the
committee substitute. He noted that the proposed committee
substitute resolved concerns with one exception. Section 3
gives local advisory committees veto authority over actions
of the Board of Game. He pointed out that they are advisory
committees. There are over 80 advisory committees. They
sometimes share jurisdiction. He noted that the Board of
Game has a though process and rarely closes down access.
Representative J. Davies stated that he also had concerns on
the issue.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned how the change from "enhance" to
"maintain" relates to sustained yield. Mr. Regelin did not
think the change would have an effect.
Vice Chair Bunde asked for more information on the language
on page 3, line 26. Mr. Regelin explained that the language
would not cause problems for the Board or department.
Vice Chair Bunde referred to page 4, line 18 "with other
organizations". Mr. Regelin stressed that the department
attempts to cooperate with all private groups to have joint
programs, but didn't want to have a mandate. Mr. Grasser
explained that 4H organizations would be able to participate
if the legislature chose to do a pass through grant and the
department chose to assist them. The language is permissive,
not mandatory. The grants are subject to legislative
appropriation. Municipalities and private non-profits that
are setup to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping would
only be allowed to participate in wildlife conservation
education programs; they would not be allowed to participate
in hunter training programs.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 103, SIDE 1)
Mr. Grasser expressed trust that the legislature would not
allow money to be funneled to anti-hunting groups to attack
hunting and conservation education programs. The legislature
can appropriate to individual pass through grants. Mr.
Regelin stated that the language would provide that the
primary purpose must be to preserve hunting, fishing and
trapping. Vice Chair Bunde emphasized that there are no
"side boards" on other organizations.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislation states:
hunting safety education not hunting, safety, education.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that education could be in
favor of or against hunting.
Representative J. Davies noted that there are wildlife
conservation programs that would not be pro or anti-hunting.
Mr. Regelin observed that 4H doesn't have as its primary
purpose hunting, trapping or fishing, but that they have a
strong program that the department would like to support.
Mr. Grasser did not think that the legislature had
appropriated funding for any of the programs in the recent
years. The legislation provides a mechanism to work with
organizations, but the organizations would need to work with
the department and the legislature.
NANCY WELCH, LAND MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
expressed concerns with language being deleted on page 5,
line 31. She felt that the reordering would tip the multiple
use scales toward the Department of Fish and Game. She noted
that the Susitna Area Plan is deleted from the provision.
The Susitna Area Plan is the basis the department uses for
decision making. She stressed that the Susitna Area Plan
contains provisions for its modification.
Representative J. Davies MOVED Amendment 1: delete language
on page 3, lines 7 - 9; insert "specifically authorized by a
regulation adopted by the Board of Fisheries of the Board of
Game, provided that the local fish and game advisory
committee with jurisdiction over the area where the
regulation would apply has been notified in writing of the
proposed regulation". The amendment would address concerns
of the advisory committee. This would remove the absolute
veto power of the advisory committee.
Mr. Grasser observed that there would not be a need for the
subsection as amended. The advisory committees are already
notified. He maintained that subsection 2 only places a
higher standard on the Board for actions reducing public
access. He gave examples of previous Board actions.
Co-Chair Mulder asked about circumstances where a local
advisory committee tends to be dominated by commercial
fishermen. He observed that such a Board could attempt to
maintain their level of take at the expense of non-resident
sport fishermen. He asked how the regulation would apply to
such a situation. Mr. Grasser replied that the Board could
act regardless of subsection (2). He noted that the
recommendations of one advisory committee would not be
enacted if there were a conflict with another advisory
committee.
Representative Grussendorf observed that Board of Fish
members are under a lot of scrutiny and pressure to make the
best decisions. He pointed out that people in local areas
(advisory committees) have a lot of self-interests in mind.
That interest may not be in the best idea of management and
cause problems with sustained yield. He stressed that the
Advisory Committees cannot be allowed to make the final
decisions.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that subsections 3, 4, 5 & 6
would stand by themselves. He did not think that subsection
2 would provide veto over actions that the Board (of Fish)
has taken under the other provisions. Representative J.
Davies disagreed. Vice Chair Bunde asked how many advisory
committees are in the state. Mr. Grasser replied that there
are 84 advisory committees. Vice Chair Bunde suggested that
the subsection would give power to the advisory committees
and in affect create multiple game boards in the State. He
expressed concern that the local advisory committees would
not have a statewide perspective.
Mr. Tibbles noted that he spoke with the drafter of the
bill. He explained that subsection 2 would only apply in
the absence of any of the other provisions. The subsection
would encourage the Board to use the other provisions and
justify why they are restricting access.
Representative Phillips felt uncomfortable with the
inclusion of subsection 2. She pointed out that the advisory
committees do not have legislative oversight.
Mr. Grasser argued that allowing advisory committees to have
veto power is not a new concept. He maintained that each
advisory committee would have an opportunity to object to
provisions of the Board of Game affecting their unit.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that there are many
people that hunt and fish outside of their own areas. Mr.
Grasser explained how the process works. The Board of Fish
or Game would have to create a special use area with access
restrictions. Regulations are promulgated and they are
published for public review before the meeting takes place.
Then the Board makes the decision. Then the Advisory
Committee can take action.
Representative J. Davies stressed that then the advisory
committee would have a veto. Co-Chair Mulder stated that
the access would not be restricted.
Representative Grussendorf could not imagine the Board of
Fish and Game making a decision without a rational reason
for the decision. He maintained that action of the Board of
Game would be supported with data and biological studies.
He argued it would not be a good idea to give veto power to
the advisory committees.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that the Board of Game could
decide to eliminate a controlled use area and let more
people in; the local advisory committee could decide to
retain restrictions. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that
the traditional means of access may not be restricted. Vice
Chair Bunde clarified that once an area has been restricted
that the provision would not apply.
Mr. Regelin agreed with Vice Chair Bunde's conclusion. He
stated that he has not seen a board of game close an area
without a good reason. He spoke against providing veto
power to advisory committees.
Representative J. Davies asked how many advisory committees
have jurisdiction in an area. Mr. Regelin replied usually
one, in some areas it is five or six and is determined
through the regulatory process.
Representative Grussendorf reiterated that a Board would not
make a decision without supporting documentation. He pointed
out that advisory committees would overlap in regards to the
Board of Fish.
Mr. Grasser acknowledged concerns. He referred to issues in
Noatak. He pointed out that there are some access
restrictions that were not implemented for public safety or
conservation issues. He maintained that there are very few
places left where people can use different forms of access.
The intent is to protect areas like the Nelchina Basin.
Vice Chair Bunde noted that he served on an advisory
committee and observed that they can be politicized.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Phillips, Bunde
OPPOSED: Davis, Therriault, Mulder
Representatives Foster, Moses, Williams, Austerman were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-3).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
delete section 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3: insert
"manner of" before "use" on page 3 line 25. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4: delete
subsection (f) beginning on page 5, line 31, [PERPETUATE AND
ENHANCE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC USES DESCRIBED IN THE SUSITNA AREA
PLAN].
Mr. Grasser argued against the amendment.
Representative G. Davis observed that the area plans are
required under the designation of the land use in the area.
He expressed concern with the deletion of the Susitna Area
Plan.
Mr. Grasser pointed out that the Susitna Area Plan also has
within its confines suggestions of uses such as parks. He
maintained that the Recreation River Plan reduced any need
for the Susitna Area Plan.
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the amendment.
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES observed that deletion of
the Susitna Area Plan would take away something that the
department uses to settle contradictory uses.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 103, SIDE 2)
Ms. Carroll explained that the nature of the public use area
is not changed. The guidance is removed.
Representative Phillips pointed out that the plan would
remain and that the department can still go to it for
guidance.
Representative J. Davies stressed that the language provides
a link.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
4.
IN FAVOR: Davis, Grussendorf, Phillips, Davies
OPPOSED: Foster, Bunde, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Moses, Austerman and Davis were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-4).
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5 delete
sections 15 - 19. These sections address the Goldstream
Public Use Area. The deletion would leave the existing
statutory language in place. He stressed that the multi-use
trail has been protected by the existing plan. He added that
the first purpose is to enhance recreation. There is a large
area that encompasses mining. He noted that fish and
wildlife protection is the second priority. He expressed
concern that the legislation would impact existing mining.
He emphasized that there is not a problem.
Co-Chair Mulder agreed with comments by Representative J.
Davies. He stressed that the change does not include or
exclude anything. He concluded that the Goldstream Public
Use Area was only included for consistency with other public
use areas.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that without a compelling reason
to maintain the language that he would support the
amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a zero fiscal note.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 349 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 349 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources.
HOUSE BILL NO. 362
"An Act authorizing the exchange of land between the
Alaska Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc., between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the United States
Department of the Army and the United States Department
of the Air Force, between the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and Chugach Alaska Corporation, and between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Municipality of
Anchorage; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, SPONSOR testified in support
of the legislation. She noted that House Bill 362
authorizes the Alaska Railroad Corporation to enter into
several land exchange agreements needed for a track upgrade
and realignment project.
The bill approves exchanges of Railroad landholdings for
equivalently valued land owned by the Air Force and Army on
Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson, Ekiutna, Inc., Chugach
Alaska Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage, and
certain landowners in the Birchwood area.
Federal legislation is also necessary because of the land
swap with the military. The Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC) is working with the Washington delegation to get
this passed.
The exchanges outlined in HB 362 will allow the ARRC's
track realignment project between Anchorage and Wasilla to
proceed, and will also allow the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to relocate a portion
of the Seward Highway just north of Seward.
Upgrading and realigning the track will increase safety and
efficiency. Straighter track is safer due to reduced track
and equipment wear, consistency in train handling,
increased sight distance, and reduced maintenance
requirements.
Running time between Anchorage and Wasilla would also be
decreased from 95 minutes to 53 minutes, making commuter
service more viable.
The railroad plans an investment of $45-60 million for the
improvements. These funds will come from federal
transportation grants as well as the ARRC's operating
revenues. No general funds will be required.
Representative J. Davies questioned the impact on the
highway system.
WENDY LINDSKOOG, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION (ARRC) provided
information on the legislation. She explained that grade
separated crossing at the military base would be paid by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. The
movement of the tracks helps to facilitate the department's
work. The cost of the grade separated crossing at Beach Lake
Park would be incurred by the railroad. The grade separated
crossing along the Seward Highway is a Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities' project. The
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has asked
the railroad to move the track over through land exchanges
to accommodate the project.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there is a plan to relocate
fiber optic cable. Ms. Lindskoog affirmed that the plan is
to relocate the fiber optic cable so that it would remain
within the railroad right-of-way. This is part of the
railroad's cost.
In response to a question by Representative Phillips, Ms.
Lindskoog affirmed that arrangements have been made with the
military.
Representative Phillips questioned if the rails between
Wassila and Anchorage would support a fast train and if
there is an ability to lease out the tracks for a commuter
fast track.
CRAIG HUGHES, PROJECT ENGINEER, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION
(ARRC) testified via teleconference. He noted that the
railroad had not looked at the market for a commuter
service. He stressed that travel time would be reduced from
95 minutes to 53 minutes. The improved track would support a
train operating at 50 miles an hour. The rail currently runs
at 35 miles an hour. Representative Phillips noted that
Amtrak operates at 75 to 80 miles an hour. Mr. Hughes
responded that the tracks would not support a train
operating at 75 - 80 miles an hour.
Representative J. Davies questioned if there has been a cost
analysis of what it would take to support a 75 to 80 miles
an hour computer rail. Mr. Hughes responded that the cost of
the project has not been figured at anything over 60 miles
an hour.
Ms. Lindskoog pointed out that light and heavy rail cannot
be mixed.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if there has been
discussion of game on tracks. Mr. Hughes explained that they
found that snow depth is a greater factor than speed.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Ms. Lindskoog
observed that the interest of the Chugaik Corporation is in
Seward.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the language on page 3,
lines 2 - 16 were absolutely necessary for the legislation.
(a) Contingent upon the conveyance to the Alaska
Railroad Corporation by the Chugach Alaska Corporation
of an equivalent interest in real property onto which
the railroad utility corridor may be relocated, the
Alaska Railroad Corporation is authorized to convey the
corporation's entire interest in approximately 6.4
acres of railroad utility corridor between railroad
mileposts 14 and 15, within Township 2 North, Range 1
East, Sections 6 and 7, Seward Meridian, to the Chugach
Alaska Corporation.
(b) The conveyances described in this section are made
for the purpose of realignment of the railroad to allow
relocation of the Seward Highway by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to improve highway
operations and enhance safety.
(c) Land conveyed by the Chugach Alaska Corporation to
the Alaska Railroad Corporation shall be held and
managed by the Alaska Railroad Corporation in
accordance with AS 42.40.
(d) This section constitutes legislative approval
under AS 42.40.285(1) for the Alaska Railroad
Corporation to convey its entire interest in the land
described in (a) of this section.
Ms. Lindskoog responded that the language is not necessary
for straightening of the track. She emphasized support for
creating a grade-separated crossing that would help the
general safety of the public. She thought that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities would
view the language as important.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies,
Representative Murkowski stressed the importance of
straightening the track and did not want to see the bill
derailed by adding pieces of other legislation. She thought
that the other bills would be acceptable.
Lindskoog stressed the importance of straightening the
track.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that HB 362 could be the
locomotive to pull other legislation along.
HB 362 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 426
"An Act relating to transfers of public land or grants
or conveyances of interest in public land among the
Alaska Railroad Corporation, the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, and the
Department of Natural Resources to relocate or widen
the Seward Highway, to relocate railroad facilities,
and to relocate adjacent utility facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
TAMAR DIFRANCO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES testified in support of the legislation.
She observed that the Department of Natural Resources has
management responsibility for Chugach State Park, but may
not modify the boundaries of the park without legislative
approval. This has been interpreted to mean that the
department may not relocate easements without legislative
approval. The purpose of HB 426 is to provide the Department
of Natural Resources the ability to work with the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Railroad
corporation and utilities with easements within the Park in
order to modify, improve, upgrade, and enhance pubic
facilities within the Park.
Ms. DiFranco observed that the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities has four projects proposed for
construction along the Seward Highway within the Park, in
the next three years. The legislation would allow the
Department of Natural Resources to modify and/or relocate
highway rights-of-ways for these projects.
Representative Phillips questioned if Representative
Murkowski would have problems with combining HB 426 with HB
362. Representative Murkowski did not see any problems with
combining the bills.
Ms. Lindskoog observed that the legislation seeks pre-
approval for any work that the railroad or the highway needs
to make the improvements. The railroad supports the bill.
The legislation has been driven by concerns of the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
HB 426 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 320
"An Act approving the application for and acceptance of
a grant of certain federal land by the Alaska Railroad
Corporation; approving the conveyance of the entire
interest in the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated
uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands by the Alaska
Railroad Corporation; relating to use and disposition
of the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated land; and
providing for an effective date."
JOHN MANLEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS testified in
support of HB 320. He noted that the United States Army
notified their intent to surplus the DeLong Dock. The Alaska
Railroad Corporation applied for conveyance of the dock. The
legislation gives legislative approval for the railroad to
receive the DeLong Dock and its underlying real estate. The
bill also ratifies an agreement between the city of Whittier
and the Alaska Railroad Corporation to transfer the real
estate to the city and lease the land underlying the north
half of the dock. The railroad would in turn lease the south
half of the dock to the city.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Mr.
Manley noted that the title is in the process of being
transferred.
PHYLLIS JOHNSON, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION testified via
teleconference. She explained that the railroad was given
priority for the transfer as a state entity. Representative
G. Davis noted that there has been interest by different
groups.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there was a proposed
amendment:
Page 2, line 20
After "Whittier."
Insert "Neither the corporation nor the city of Whittier
may grant any special right, privilege, or preference to a
third party to provide management services at the dock. A
contract for management of the dock by a third party shall
be awarded by competitive sealed bidding"
Mr. Manley expressed concern that the amendment was too
tightly written. He pointed out that the railroad
procurement code mirrors the state's procurement code.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that there is no statutory
reference that can be made to the railroad code. Mr. Manley
questioned if the statute could reference the variety of
contracting methods available to the railroad.
Ms. Lindskoog stated that the Alaska Railroad Corporation
was not concerned with the amendment.
Ms. Johnson explained that the railroad is not under the
state's procurement code, but is required to have its own
procurement code, comparable to the state's. The Alaska
Railroad Corporation's procurement code mirrors the state's
code. She thought that it would be possible to come up with
language that would allow competitive sealed bidding and
RFP's.
Co-Chair Mulder stated that he wanted to make sure that
everyone would have the opportunity to bid. He asked her to
work on an amendment that would be less direct and still get
to the spirit of the competitive bid.
SHERI BURETTA, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHUGACH ALASKA
CORPORATION provided information on the management terms.
She maintained that the Chugach Alaska Corporation should
have first right of refusal. She noted that Resolution 8,
passed in the previous session, urged the Alaska Railroad
Corporation to select an Alaskan bidder for the design and
construction of its projects. She felt that changes to HB
320 were contradictory to the resolution.
Co-Chair Therriault noted frustration on the part of the
legislature regarding the railroad's ability to negotiate
with the Chugach Alaska Corporation on behalf of the
legislature. He maintained that the bidding process should
not be restricted to one corporation. Ms. Buretta stressed
that the Alaska Chugach Corporation is in a unique situation
due to the direct impact on its communities.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 104, SIDE 1)
Representative Phillips pointed out that the purpose of the
resolution was to look at Alaska hire for an Alaskan
company. She did not think that there was a difference in
the intent to allow bids by Alaskan companies.
CARRIE WILLIAMS, CITY MANAGER, WHITTIER testified via
teleconference in support of HB 320. She stressed that the
division of property between the railroad and the city of
Whittier is fair and necessary.
Vice Chair Bunde commented that the railroad can do as it
sees fit to mange its business, but that it is still a state
agency with legislative oversight. He stressed that it is
not in the best interest of the state to enter into a law
that is illegal in relationship to the procurement code.
Representative Phillips did not support the merger of HB 320
with HB 426 and HB 362. Representative J. Davies agreed and
stated that he did not see a compelling reason to combine
the other bills.
Representative G. Davis spoke in minimizing legislative and
cautioned against micro managing.
HB 320 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
House Finance Committee 22
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|