Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/19/2000 02:00 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 19, 2000
2:00 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 127, Side 1
TAPE HFC 00 - 127, Side 2
TAPE HFC 00 - 128, Side 1
TAPE HFC 00 - 128, Side 2
TAPE HFC 00 - 129, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Mulder
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Grussendorf
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative J. Davies Representative Phillips
Representative G. Davis Representative Williams
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken; Nanci Jones, Permanent Fund Division;
Shirley Dean, Child Support Enforcement Division; Robert
Buttcane, Department of Health and Social Services; Jane
Demmert, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Aging;
Dick Bishop, Alaska Outdoor Council; Kara Moriarty, Staff,
Senator Wilken; Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative
Therriault; Joe Dubler, Senior Finance Officer, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Department of Revenue;
Annalee McConnell, Director, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor; Barbara Miklos, Director,
Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue;
Joe Balash, Staff, Representative Therriault; Kevin Brooks,
Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of
Fish and Game; Bill Stolz. Staff, Senator Halford; John
Bitney, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, Department of Revenue; Devon Mitchell,
Executive Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority,
Department of Revenue; George Utermohle, Legal Counsel,
Legislative Affairs Agency.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Monte Faye Lane, Fairbanks; Kevin Delaney, Department of
Fish and Game; Stan Bloom, Fairbanks; Allen Barrette,
Fairbanks; Lisa Harbo, Fairbanks; Mark Hem, Fairbanks; Greg
Machacek, Fairbanks; Tom Scarborough, Fairbanks; Joseph
Hart, AHTNA, Glennallen; Robert Buttcane, Department of
Health and Social Services; Jon Sherwood, Kenai, Division of
Medical Assistance, Department of Health and Social
Services; Diane Wendlandt, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 281 "An Act providing for the issuance of general
obligation bonds in the amount of $665,000,000 for
the purposes of paying the cost of design,
construction, and renovation of public elementary
and secondary schools, renovation of state
buildings, capital improvements at the University
of Alaska, and capital improvements to state
harbors; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 281 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note
by the Department of Revenue.
HB 287 "An Act making and amending capital appropriations
and reappropriations and capitalizing funds; and
providing for an effective date."
CSHB 287 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation.
CSSB 4(FIN)
"An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to
establishing an office of victims' rights;
relating to compensation of victims of violent
crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent
fund dividend for persons convicted of and
incarcerated for certain offenses; relating to
notice of appropriations concerning victims'
rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency
Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and
providing for an effective date."
CSSB 4(FIN) was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 73(FIN)
"An Act relating to assisted living homes; and
providing for an effective date."
CSSB 73(FIN) was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 204 (FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the
Alaska Commission on Aging; and providing for an
effective date."
HCS CSSB 204 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new
fiscal impact note by the Department of
Administration.
SB 207 "An Act relating to the establishment and
enforcement of medical support orders for
children; and providing for an effective date."
SB 207 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note
by the Department of Revenue, published 1/20/00.
CSSB 301(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Chitina dip net fishing
permit; and providing for an effective date."
HCS CSSB 301(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new
fiscal impact note by the Department of Fish and
Game.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 73(FIN)
"An Act relating to assisted living homes; and
providing for an effective date."
MONTE FAYE LANE, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
support of SB 73. She noted that the situation is grave.
Assisted living home providers are trying to survive
financially and to stay in business. Care is given 24 hours
a day. The hourly rate paid by the state is only $2 dollars
an hour. The rate paid by the state is below the minimal
wage and is not sufficient for financial survival. This
results in a great number of persons housed in full nursing
facilities.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the intent is to pass the
legislation once funding for the fiscal note is resolved.
CSSB 73 (FIN) was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 301(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Chitina dip net fishing permit;
and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 1-LS1516\S, dated 4/19/00
(copy on file).
SENATOR WILKEN, SPONSOR testified in support of CSSB
301(FIN). The Chitina fishery is one of the largest in the
state. Over 10,000 household permits are issued each year,
with approximately 20,000 - 30,000 Alaskan residents
participating. Last year approximately 118,000 salmon were
harvested. In Dec. 1999, the Alaska Board of Fisheries
reclassified the Chitina Personal Use fishery to a
Subsistence fishery. The designation of the dip net fishery
as subsistence will have little impact on the way the
fishery is managed and has little to do with the need to
secure public access and provide services. Regulations
governing the Chitina Fishery require people to have a
permit issued by the Department in their possession. This
permit serves as the harvest record.
AS 10.05.340 (a) (22) sets a fee for a "Chitina Personal
Use Dip net Permit" at $10. This fee has been in place since
1990. Proceeds from this fee go the fish and game fund and
have been used to pay Chitina & Ahtna Native Corporations
for access across their lands and for outhouse and garbage
services. An agreement between the Department of Fish and
Game and the Corporations determines the percentage
distribution and services.
Senate Bill 301 amends the existing statute by renaming the
"Chitina Personal Use Salmon Dip Net" fishing permit to the
"Chitina Dip Net" fishing permit, and increases the permit
fee from $10 to $25 dollars. It changes the name of the
permit to remove the words "personal use", as it is no
longer a "personal use" fishery. The legislation changes the
fee to coincide with the new agreement reached between the
Corporations and the Department of Fish and Game. This new
agreement is intended to provide for maximum legal public
access to the dip net fishery while minimizing conflicts
between the private landowners and the fishermen at Chitina.
The legislation was amended in the Senate to exempt senior
citizens.
Senator Wilken observed that private property owners are
impacted by dip netters crossing their land to access the
river. The legislation is an attempt to negotiate a
settlement between corporations, private landowners and the
state to resolve conflicts of private property and signs and
fences.
In 2000, dip netters will pay $25 for their permit. Since
the fishery is now designated a subsistence fishery there is
no requirement for a sport-fishing license to fish there. In
1999, people were required to have a $15 dollar sport
fishing license and the $10 dollar Chitina permit, for a
total expense of $25 dollars. Under this plan, only the
proposed $25 dollar Chitina permit will be required.
Since the Chitina permit is a household permit, families
could save under this plan. For example a family of two
adults paid a total of $40 dollars last year, this year it
will only be $25 dollars. Services will be significantly
increased and improved over past years. Access to the Native
lands is more identified than in previous agreements. The
process of obtaining the permit will be available from
Department offices in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks,
Glennallen and Chitina. This will allow better service to the
public, making it easier and faster to obtain the permit, and
decreasing the management costs to the Department of Fish &
Game.
Without a change in the name of the permit, the Department is
unable to collect a fee for the permit, because it is not a
personal use fishery. Without the permit fee or other
provisions, funding for services and access would be
unavailable. It is uncertain what the Corporations would do
with regard to affecting access to the river, but families
going to Chitina this summer could be faced with the
potential for conflict.
Senator Wilkens noted that the legislation is supported by
the Alaska Outdoor Council, Alaska Dip Netters Association,
and the Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that the revenue collected by the
Department of Fish and Game would be reduced. He pointed out
that those that are not trespassing would still need
permits.
Senator Wilken responded that everyone has the opportunity
to trespass. He emphasized that he would not have introduced
the legislation if he didn't think that private land was
being impacted. Boaters fish from the shore, which can be
public or private.
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the legislation
and stressed that there is a problem.
Representative Phillips spoke in support of the legislation
and stressed that there is a similar problem in Homer with
hunting in the backcountry.
STAN BLOOM, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
support of the legislation. He spoke in support of the
intent language adopted by the Senate Finance Committee. He
stressed that dip netters pay for their services. He
observed that state funding is not available to pay for the
services. He felt that the legislation would help to reduce
conflicts. He pointed out that 30,000 dip netters impact
land owned by Native corporations.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that Mr. Bloom supports the
intent and findings included in the legislation. Mr. Bloom
added that money should be appropriated for services. He
added that the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities should be involved and included in the intent
language.
ALLEN BARRETTE, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to CSSB 301(FIN). He noted that the court ruled
that there is a 300-foot easement to the river. There is a
right-of-way provision included in state law. He maintained
that there is plenty of public land available without
trespassing. He expressed concern that the legislation would
encourage other large property owners to negotiate
trespassing taxs with the Department of Fish and Game. He
noted that sportsmen and subsistence users use a state trail
though his private property. He questioned if the Department
of Fish and Game would collect a trespass fee for other
areas. He asserted that other groups are not being charged
an access fee.
LISA HARBO, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to CSSB 301(FIN). She did not feel that she
should pay an access fee to the state for fishing on the
railroad right-of-way, which belongs to the state. She
stressed that the state should establish where public access
exists instead of requiring a fee.
MARK HEM, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to the legislation. He pointed out that the
Native Corporation is a conglomerate of landowners operating
for profit. He suggested that money be set aside to survey
the land and determine the problem. He acknowledged that
there is no agreement and that there may be problems in
Chitina, but emphasized that it is not a good reason to pass
a law. He stressed that the state would be guilty of
discrimination if it refused an access tax on other private
land used to access state land. He noted that the fee was
charged 10 years ago, but pointed out that the fishery has
increased. He maintained that most people do not know that
they are paying a trespass fee, but think they are paying a
fishing permit. He asserted that there are objections to
paying a fee to a private corporation.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if Mr. Hem had seen the proposed
committee substitute, which would provide funding to
identify public lands within the Copper River Railroad
right-of-way. Mr. Hem responded that he had reviewed the
proposed committee substitute. He acknowledged that the
proposal is a good attempt to try to reconcile something for
the up coming year. He expressed concern that the state
would give public money to survey private property. Co-Chair
Therriault pointed out that when he surveyed his property
that his neighbors also benefited. He stressed that the
state's right-of-way is being surveyed. Mr. Hem noted that
the corporations are putting forth the allegations of
trespass.
GREG MACHACEK, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
support of the legislation. He recommended that the problem
be put to rest. He acknowledged that corporations may
benefit from marking the right-of-way, but emphasized that
it needs to be addressed. He felt that the fee was on the
high end. He maintained that if the legislation does not
pass that more people would access the fishery from boats.
TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference. He
stressed that the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities is the manager of the right-of-way. He emphasized
the need for a physical survey to establish the right-of-
way. He felt that the Department of Natural Resources should
manage the area as a state campground and that the
Department of Fish and Game should manage the fishery. He
did not think the legislation is a long-term solution. He
estimated that it would take $100 thousand dollars to survey
the land and recommended that the state purchase the land,
He suggested a sunset clause. He questioned if the current
Administration would address the situation.
JOSEPH HART, ATTORNEY, AHTNA, GLENNALLEN testified via
teleconference in support of the legislation. He noted that
he represents the corporations that negotiated the agreement
with the state. He pointed out that the mean high watermark
has never been established. The private property owners
provided the toilets that are present. He noted that other
states require a fee for private property access. He
observed that the agreement has been in place for more than
ten years. He maintained that money should be put aside to
pay for services. He noted that the Native Corporation pays
people to pick up trash from those that are using their land
to access the fishery. He observed that the corporation owns
the land beneath the right-of-way. He maintained that the
land is not for sale or trade.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 127, SIDE 2)
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Hart
acknowledged that it would be good to establish the right-
of-way. He felt that establishment of the right-of-way would
strengthen their arguments that the public is going outside
the right-of-way. He maintained that there are safety
concerns with parking. The original fee request was $25
dollars and would make public money available for services.
Representative Austerman pointed out that other private
landowners establish and collect their own fees. Mr. Hart
responded that the Department of Fish and Game agreed to
work with private landowners and the public to collect fees.
JOE BALASH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT provided
information on the legislation. He explained that the
Department of Natural Resources was included since they
manage state land. There was not a conscious decision to
exclude the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities be
included. He pointed out that the Corporation technically
owns all the land within the right-of-way.
DICK BISHOP, VICE-PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC)
testified in support of the legislation. He observed that
the intent language reflects concerns and maintained that it
is appropriate. The legislation is essential to allow people
to fish in the coming summer. A long-term solution would
still be needed. He agreed that the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities would need to be
consulted. He pointed out that the intent is to assure that
the fishery can begin at the start of the season. He
acknowledged that not all of the members agree with the
Council's position.
Representative Austerman questioned if the state should be
responsible for the collection of fees charged by other
private property owners that imposed an access fee for
hunting. Mr. Bishop responded that the ideal situation would
be for the private landowner to take responsibility for the
collection of fees. He stressed that it is not possible to
address the issue in the context of the bill. He added the
issue should not preclude resolution that would allow dip
netters to have access in the current season.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that a sport fishing license fee
cannot be assessed, since it is no longer a sport fishery.
He felt that there should be some cost associated with the
use of the resource. He noted that the state would retain $7
dollars of each trespass fee that it collects. He questioned
the financial impact on the Department of Fish and Game.
KEVIN BROOKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME acknowledged that the change in
designation has created problems. The entire amount would
come to the state. The state would pay the corporations $18
dollars of the $25 dollar fee. The department will work to
maintain efforts to manage the fishery. He noted that the
legislation would be a solution for the upcoming season,
while they continue to work on a long-term solution.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned the cost of collecting the fee
and stated that he would like to see the activity pay for
itself. Mr. Brooks responded that the $7 dollars would cover
the provision of services that have been described, such as
bathrooms. The management cost would be born by the
department. He noted that cost would not be under the
Division of Sport Fish. He observed that it would be hard to
quantify the cost of the collection because there is already
an ongoing effort. He stressed that the fee is to cover
access.
In response to a question by Representative Austerman, Mr.
Brooks confirmed that a portion of the $10 fee that was
charged before it became a subsistence fishery covered
access fees to the private landowner.
Representative Austerman asked if there is a regulation to
institute an agreement between the landowners and the fees
that were collected. Mr. Brook responded that the department
has statutory authority to enter into cooperative agreements
under Title 16. He noted discussions are occurring regarding
the collection of fees.
Co-Chair Therriault amended the proposed committee
substitute to read: Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
identify the portion of the Copper River Railroad right-of-
way, associated with the Chitina dip net fishery, to carry
out this intent. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT work draft 1-LS1516\S, dated
4/19/00 as amended. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Senator Wilken expressed his appreciation for the amendments
to the legislation, but questioned if the change from a 5-
year to a 3-year negotiated agreement would be of concern to
the Department of Fish and Game.
Representative J. Davies suggested that the sunset be on
June 1, 2001. Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a
contract for the current year and that the next negotiation
would be for three years.
Senator Wilken noted that the legislation only fixes the
fee. Negotiations on the agreement can occur without
changing the fee or requiring additional legislation.
Representative J. Davies responded that the sunset date
would require the legislature to review the issues.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT a sunset date of on
June 1, 2001. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
KARA MORIARTY, STAFF, SENATOR WILKEN explained that the
department expressed concern that a sunset would be
detrimental to negotiations.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW his motion.
Representative Austerman questioned the fee structure. Mr.
Brooks explained that there would be a new fiscal note of
$150 thousand dollars in contractual: $130 fish and game
funds and $20 general funds from the senior exemption.
Representative Austerman observed that the legislation
specifies that the survey would be paid from the fee
collected. Mr. Brooks noted that there is $100 thousand
dollars from the $10 dollar that was collected. Co-Chair
Therriault observed that the cost of the survey would be
negotiated; it would not preclude the department from
requesting general fund support from a future legislature.
Mr. Brooks clarified that the revenue estimate is based on
10,000 permits resulting at $150 thousand dollars. This
money would be fully allocated for the current year.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 301 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative
J. Davies OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Brooks
explained that the amount collected, which goes to the
department is the existing $100 thousand dollars. Co-Chair
Therriault noted that there is enough authorization to
reflect the portion of the money that is retained by the
department.
Representative Austerman noted that the survey would not be
done until the next year.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 301(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Fish and Game.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN)
"An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to
establishing an office of victims' rights; relating to
compensation of victims of violent crimes; relating to
eligibility for a permanent fund dividend for persons
convicted of and incarcerated for certain offenses;
relating to notice of appropriations concerning
victims' rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules,
and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 1-LS0029\S, dated 4/19/00
(copy on file).
BILL STOLZ. STAFF, SENATOR HALFORD spoke in support of the
legislation on behalf of the sponsor. He noted that the
primary purpose of the legislation was to fill the mandate
of the victim's right constitutional amendment that was
enacted in 1994. The legislation would create an Office of
Victim's Rights, which would have an advocate with powers to
help facilitate the constitutional rights of victims. The
legislation creates a funding mechanism by increasing the
pool of incarcerated persons that would be ineligible for
permanent fund dividends. The Office was placed in the
legislative branch in order to avoid conflicts with other
agencies. Victims for Justice support the legislation.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT provided
information on the proposed committee substitute. He noted
that there were two changes in the proposed committee
substitute. The first change addresses the concern of
increasing the size of government.
The victims' advocate shall appoint a person to serve
as acting victims' advocate in the absence of the
victims' advocate. The victims' advocate shall also
appoint assistants and clerical personnel necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter. Subject to AS
36.30.020 and subject to the approval of the Alaska
Legislative Council, the victims' advocate shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, conduct the duties and
work of the office by entering into personal services
and other contracts the victims' advocate finds
necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that there are portions of the
work that could not be contracted out with a private non-
profit organization. He clarified that it is not the intent
that the entire portion be contracted.
Representative Phillips observed that she had not seen the
issue before the Legislative Council. Mr. Tibbles explained
that contracting is under the competitive process set up by
for the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council would
be requested to review the contracts. Representative
Phillips tried to clarify that the Legislative Council would
not be taking the job of victims' rights under its umbrella
and that the Council would only be responsible for letting
out the contract.
Mr. Tibbles noted that the effective date was changed to
July 1, 2002. This would allow receipts to be collected
before the Office is created.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT work draft 1-LS0029\S, dated
4/19/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that updated fiscal notes were
needed.
Representative Phillips noted that the authority was
originally under the Department of Corrections. She
questioned why it was transferred to the Legislative
Council. Mr. Stolz did not know why the authority was
transferred but guessed that the intent was to avoid
conflicts.
Representative Grussendorf observed that the Department of
Corrections is required to notify the victim every time
certain things happen and questioned if the authority is
being removed too far. He asked where the office would be
located. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the entity would be
located within the legislative branch. Mr. Stolz pointed out
that section 10 of the public notice section was amended to
conform to section 9.
Representative J. Davies observed that "traditionally",
ombudsmen are located in the legislative branch since they
are checking up on the administrative branch.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 128, SIDE 1)
Representative Phillips observed that the Legislative
Council had not discussed the transfer of authority. She
requested that the proposed committee substitute be held.
Mr. Stolz pointed out that similar legislation (SB 219,
1998) and the original bill did provide for the ombudsman
authority to be under the legislative branch. The
Legislative Affairs Agency has previously submitted fiscal
notes.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, DIVISION OF JUVINELLE JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES provided information regarding
the legislation. He expressed appreciation for the
participation of victims. He observed that victims help to
hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions and
have helped reduce recidivism. He noted that portions of SB
4 would add victims' services. He expressed concern that the
legislation would create an "entity to watch the doers of
service, provide services to victims." He suggested that
agencies that work directly with victims be given additional
resources to do more of what they are mandated to do under
the Constitution. He acknowledged that the legislation is
part of the movement toward restorative justice.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Buttcane noted that in the juvenile system, victims are
notified of proceedings of delinquency hearings. Victims are
provided an opportunity to give statements to the court for
juvenile delinquency dispositions. Victims advocacy groups
help arrange victim/offender mediation in the informal
process. Victims are notified when juveniles are being
released from youth facilities. Victims are also given
access to the criminal justice system: notification and
opportunities to be present at sentencing.
Representative Grussendorf questioned what would be the role
of the paralegals and ombudsman mandated by the legislation.
Mr. Buttcane observed that victims sometimes hesitate to
participate in the system and felt that an advocate would
give victims support and help them to take a more active
role in the juvenile and criminal justice processes. He felt
that one of the drawbacks would be that the ombudsman would
highlight deficiencies in the Department of Health and
Social Services' ability to do all that they are asked to do
through negligence or inadequate resources. There is a civil
penalty that could result in punitive action against an
individual or agency. The Department of Health and Social
Services felt that the civil penalty would be problematic.
He stressed the need for more resources and front line
services and questioned the need for an ombudsman.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW noted that she had not had time to look at the committee
substitute. She echoed the comments made by Mr. Buttcane.
She stated that there are some concerns that resources would
be spent on an ombudsman level of services rather than on
direct services to victims that are already given by other
agencies. She observed that legislation sponsored by
Representative Dyson would provide a provision for
negotiated pleads between defendants and victims. She
stressed that if this legislation were enacted into law an
ombudsman would be kept busy negotiating pleas on behalf of
victims. She noted concern with the potential level of
increased work considering the level of funding accompanying
the legislation.
Representative Phillips noted that the responsibilities of
the Legislative Council go beyond negotiating the contract.
She observed that the legislation states that:
(a) Subject to restrictions and limitations imposed by
the executive director of the Legislative Affairs
Agency, the administrative facilities and services of
the Legislative Affairs Agency, including computer,
data processing, and teleconference facilities, may be
made available to the victims' advocate to be used in
the management of the office of victims' rights and to
carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(b) The salary and benefits of the victims' advocate
and the permanent staff of the victims' advocate shall
be paid through the same procedures used for payment of
the salaries and benefits of other permanent
legislative employees.
(c) The victims' advocate shall submit a budget for
each fiscal year to the Alaska Legislative Council, and
the Council shall annually submit an estimated budget
to the governor for information purposes in the
preparation of the executive budget. After reviewing
and approving, with or without modifications, the
budget submitted by the victims' advocate, the Council
shall submit the approved budget to the finance
committees of the legislature.
Representative Phillips concluded that an agency is being
created.
SB 4 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 204(HES)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; transferring the office of the
long-term care ombudsman from the Alaska Commission on
Aging to the legislative branch; and providing for an
effective date."
JANE DEMMERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
AGING, provided information on SB 204. She observed that the
bill would extend the sunset on the Commission. The
Commission is in a role that directly impacts the lives the
older Alaskans around the state through its grant programs.
The Commission assists in funding direct services. She
observed that discussion has occurred regarding the
organizational out-stationing of the long-term care
function. She noted that the Commission looked at out-
stationing options during the interim in consultation with
four different agencies: State Ombudsman, Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority, Disability Law Center and Alaska
Legal Services. Given the youth of Alaska's assisted living
industry and rapid growth in developing long-term care, the
Commission concluded that it would have a higher level of
status within state government. The State Ombudsman Office
concluded that it would not be in the best interest of
persons with concerns regarding the performance of state
government to have the two offices merged. The Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority was not ready to assume the
responsibility, but has remained interested and involved in
the Search Committee. The Commission has restructured its
bylaws to provide a clear definition of the role of the
Commission in interfacing with the Ombudsman Office. The
Commission feels that it has crafted a healthy and
responsive approach to support that function. She
acknowledged that there are merits to a transfer.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the Commission would be
satisfied with an extension of time to allow further
discussions. Ms. Demmert responded that the Commission would
be satisfied with a time extension.
Representative Phillips pointed out that the legislation
passed from the Senate Finance Committee only contained the
provision to extend the sunset date. On the House side,
there was an amendment to place it under the Legislative
Council. She noted that the Legislative Council was not
consulted. No research was done regarding cost. An audit of
the issue concluded several options. She observed that a
long-term care task force would consider the issue during
the interim and recommended that the ombudsman be placed
under the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority for the
meantime. She maintained that the long-term ombudsman would
not be properly placed in Legislative Council.
Representative J. Davies agreed that the issue should be
discussed further. He felt that it might be appropriately
placed under the Legislative Council with more
consideration.
SHARON CLARKE, STAFF, SENATOR MIKE MILLER, mentioned that
the sponsor's intent was solely to extend the Commission on
Aging. The discussion on the ombudsman was added at the
direction of another senator. She clarified that the intent
was not to place it under the Legislative Council: the
Legislative Council was only one of the options.
Representative Phillips clarified that the amendment did not
come from Senator Mike Miller. Ms. Clarke acknowledged that
the discussion did come up with Senator Miller. It was not
acted upon.
In response to Vice Chair Bunde, Ms. Clarke explained that
discussions in the Senate Finance Committee indicated that
the long-term care task force could address the issue.
Vice Chair Bunde asked if there was a letter of intent.
Representative Phillips MOVED to adopt Amendment #1.
Amendment 1 would remove language relating to the Long-term
Care Ombudsman from the legislation. The legislation would
be returned to its original language, with an effective date
of June 30, 2000. The sunset date would be the year 2004.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED a Letter of Intent that would ask
that the Long-term Care Task Force address the placement of
the ombudsman. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, CO-CHAIR THERRIAULT observed that with
the adoption of Amendment 1 the title change resolution was
not needed.
Representative G. Davis asked the impact of the amendment on
the fiscal note. Mr. Tibbles replied that the long-term
care ombudsman portion of the fiscal note was $138.0
thousand dollars. The RSA or interagency receipt to the
legislation would not be needed with the adoption of the
amendment.
Representative J. Davies recommended that there should be a
revised fiscal note. Mr. Tibbles reported that there would
be a new analysis.
Representative Williams MOVED to report HCS CS SB 204 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the new fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
HCS CSSB 204 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Administration.
SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to the establishment and enforcement
of medical support orders for children; and providing
for an effective date."
BARBARA MIKLOS, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION testified
via teleconference in support of SB 207.
Senate Bill 207 helps both parents by providing more
flexibility in child support cases. It gives the
parents a choice by allowing the Child Support
Enforcement Division to establish a medical support
order without also establishing a financial support
order at the same time.
The child support agency is currently required to
establish a medical support order whenever a child
starts receiving medical assistance benefits. This is
to ensure that the non-custodial parent provides health
care coverage if available at a reasonable cost from
his or her employer. Under existing statute, the agency
must also establish a financial order at the same time
-- even though the parents may not want or need a
financial order. This creates problems if the financial
order for monthly child support payments is not needed,
and it also creates problems if the custodial parent
later receives public assistance benefits and the child
support agency has to go back and collect financial
support. This legislation would solve both problems by
allowing the agency to set up a medical support order
only -- if that is what both parents want.
This bill also amends the medical support statutes to
provide that either parent, not simply the non-
custodial parent, may be required to provide health
care coverage. This allows the court or the child
support agency to consider which parent has the better
or more cost-effective health care coverage available
for the child.
The bill also amends state law to clarify that a
medical support order shall be issued regardless
whether CSED knows at the time if health care coverage
is available to either parent. That provision, however,
would not take effect unless one or both of the parents
has health insurance available at a reasonable cost.
This allows more efficient enforcement of medical
support for children.
In a survey of other states, most have separate
provisions for medical and financial orders as proposed
in SB 207. This change in Alaska statutes is allowed
under federal law and regulations.
Representative J. Davies questioned if the legislation
allows for the possibility that both parents be required to
provide medical insurance.
DIANE WENDLANDT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW testified via teleconference. She affirmed that the
legislation allows for the possibility that both parents be
required to provide medical insurance. She noted that courts
could require both parents to provide coverage. One parent's
coverage may not cover everything that the other parent has.
Representative Foster MOVED to report SB 207 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 207 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department
of Revenue, published 1/20/00.
RECESSED
The meeting was recessed at 4:10 p.m.
RECONVENED
The meeting reconvened at 4:50 p.m.
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act providing for the issuance of general
obligation bonds in the amount of $665,000,000 for the
purposes of paying the cost of design, construction,
and renovation of public elementary and secondary
schools, renovation of state buildings, capital
improvements at the University of Alaska, and capital
improvements to state harbors; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair Mulder provided members with a proposed committee
substitute 1-LS1201\T, 4/19/00 (copy on file).
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT 1-LS1201\T, 4/19/00. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that there was a questioned concerning
dedicated revenue in relation to the securitization of the
tobacco bonds.
JOHN BITNEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE provided members with a
letter from the AHFC's bond counsel (copy on file). He
concluded that the bond counsel had no concerns regarding
the dedication of the revenue. The bill is an authorization
of the tobacco settlement, as a sale of an asset of the
state to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) or a
subsidiary.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that the bond counsel stated that
they do not believe that the legislation would create a
dedicated fund problem under Article IX, section 7 of the
Alaska Constitution.
Co-Chair Mulder reviewed the committee substitute. He noted
that the first change was in title, lines 5 and 6. The new
language clarifies that the legislation relates "to the
deposit of certain anticipated revenue from a certain
tobacco litigation settlement".
Page 2, lines 6 - 9 and clarifies what happens if there is
excess revenues:
It is also the intent of the legislature that tobacco
settlement revenues that are determined by the
commissioner of revenue to be in excess of those needed
to pay planned debt service on tobacco bonds be
deposited into the general fund.
"Annually" and a definition of "investment grade rates" were
added in section 3: In this subsection, "investment grade
rates" means a Moody's Investor Service rating of Baa3 or
better or a Standard and Poors and Fitch IBCA rating of BBB-
or better.
Deferred maintenance, renewal and replacement, and code
compliance projects for the University of Alaska were added
on page 5.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that exemptions from certain school
construction requirements were deleted (sections 5, 6 and
7).
Co-Chair Mulder explained that language was included on page
7, stipulating that funds be received by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
(1) the port or harbor facility is located in a
municipality in which the port or harbor facility is
owned and operated by the municipality;
(2) ownership of the port or harbor facility that is
being funded has been transferred from the state to the
municipality by a transfer agreement under AS
35.10.120; and
(3) the state completes a bill of sale transferring the
port or harbor facility from the state to the
municipality.
In response to a question by Representative Williams, Co-
Chair Mulder noted that the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities desired flexibility. Allocations for each
project were based on estimates by the department.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the proposal runs on
the Department of Education and Early Development priority
list. The first five projects are included. He questioned
the process of including projects that were not in sequence
on the list.
Co-Chair Mulder responded that the top five schools were
taken first. Other projects were included in an attempt to
provide a balance of statewide projects.
Representative Grussendorf suggested that the top ten
schools on the Department of Education and Early
Development's list be included with deferred maintenance
projects. Other funding sources could be considered for
ports, harbors, and university capital projects. He added
that if the legislation were to be the vehicle to fund
harbors and the money was to be given to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities that Sitka should be on
the list.
Co-Chair Mulder explained that the reason that they did not
go straight down the list was due to the question of some
district's ability to participate on the list. He noted that
Anchorage only participates on the school construction list
in a minor fashion. There are a number of school districts
in the railbelt that do not participate on the department's
list.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 128, SIDE 2)
Representative Grussendorf questioned why the Sitka harbor
was not on the list. Co-Chair Mulder responded that the
scarcity of dollars did not allow the inclusion of Sitka
harbor project. Representative Grussendorf stated his intent
to included Sitka to be worked within the money that is
allocated for harbors.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR provided information. She
observed that the changes made in section 3 are agreeable to
the Administration. She hoped to have intent language
clarifying that if the revenue stream exceeds projections
that at least 1.6 percent of the excess would be considered
for increasing tobacco cessation efforts. She observed that
the suspension of the Department of Education and Early
Development priority list needs to be removed since it is
not a three-year plan. The Administration still has concerns
about the projects. There are more school construction and
major maintenance projects that should be funded now.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned what would happen if the money
were not received as projected. Ms. McConnell responded that
the debt service would be longer than projected.
DEVON MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL BOND
BANK AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE provided information
on the legislation. He explained that the debt service would
be a percentage of the expected revenue projected for the
tobacco settlement monies overtime that would allow investor
confidence. A threshold would be established to reach a
revenue stream projection. There would be a residual above
this line, which would be available for other purposes if
the revenue stream were beyond the projection.
Mr. Mitchell explained that AHFC is confident that they
could reach the proceeds as being structured.
JOE DUBLER, SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION (AHFC), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE provided
information on the issuance. He observed that if there were
not $269 million dollars at issuance that the rest of the
state's GO could be utilized to make up the deficit. Other
financing methods could be employed. The residual after the
planned debt service could impact the amount of bonds
issued. He noted that some underwriters feel that
bondholders are getting skittish.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if lines 7 - 9 should be deleted
from the legislation
Mr. Mitchell clarified that the sale will do what is
required to achieve the target. The language provides
flexibility. Mr. Dubler added that the language is needed
in the case of a windfall.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that the anticipated yield is $269
million dollars. The legislation allocates $269,795,987
dollars.
Mr. Dubler stated that the allocation amount is not a
concern. Mr. McConnell suggested the numbers should be the
same.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Mr.
Bitney explained that they would set up an administrative
process for the projects. The appropriation would be the
mechanism to receive funds. Funds would be available as the
projects come on line.
Representative G. Davis questioned if the project was
delayed and not ready in 5 years, would the money be
available.
Mr. Bitney explained that the appropriation is the mechanism
that transfers the funds and that the same rules apply as
for other state capital projects. They would have to receive
a reappropriation or lapse extension if the money is not
spent. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the structure
doesn't allow as much flexibility as before.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how much elasticity is in the amount.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not know how much
elasticity would be in the bond amount until they go out
into the market.
HB 281 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
RECESSED
The meeting was recessed at 5:25 p.m.
RECONVENED
The meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m.
HOUSE BILL NO. 287
"An Act making and amending capital appropriations and
reappropriations and capitalizing funds; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that HB 287 only takes effect if
HB 281 or something similar is passed.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if there is language that
restricts authorization of projects if HB 281 passes but the
bonds are not sold.
Mr. Bitney explained that the authorizations are in the same
manner as authorization for federal appropriations. They
would be based on receipt of the proceeds of the sale.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the language would require
that bonds be issued by AHFC.
Mr. Dubler suggested the language be clarified by adding
"bonds issued under HB 281".
Representative J. Davies pointed out that section 3
identifies bonds. Mr. Bitney noted that the legislation
refers to bonds authorized under the act in section 3.
Representative J. Davies noted that clarification would be
needed on page 1, line 7 and page 3, line 13 and 31.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the language should be added
to the effect that the "proceeds of the bonds issued by AFHC
are those bonds authorized under section 3", so that AHFC
would not be required to issue bonds if the tobacco bond
issuance failed.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY
pointed out that section 3 does not authorize the issuance
of any bonds.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the "bonds referenced in
section 3" be added. Mr. Utermohle agreed with Co-Chair
Therriault's suggestion.
Mr. Utemohle explained that section 3 provides that the bill
does not take effect if the contingency is not met. Section
4 provides that if the contingency is met that the
legislation takes effects July 1, 2000. If the contingency
were met after July 1, 2000 then the effective date would be
immediate.
Co-Chair Therriault reiterated his concerns. He suggested
the addition of "proceeds of the bonds referenced in section
3 of this act."
Mr. Utemohle agreed that the suggested language would tie
the appropriations to the bonds issued by AHFC and described
in section 3.
Co-Chair Mulder provided members with a proposed committee
substitute 1-GH2043|G, 4/19/00 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT 1-GH2043|G, 4/19/00.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 add
"referenced by section 3 of this act" after "proceeds of the
bonds." There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 287 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act providing for the issuance of general
obligation bonds in the amount of $665,000,000 for the
purposes of paying the cost of design, construction,
and renovation of public elementary and secondary
schools, renovation of state buildings, capital
improvements at the University of Alaska, and capital
improvements to state harbors; and providing for an
effective date."
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
Amendment 1 would authorize the first 10 projects on the
Department of Education and Early Development list for
$153,914.5 million dollars and major maintenance of
$64,881.3 million dollars. This would cover the entire major
maintenance list except for projects covered under school
debt reimbursement for a 70/30 bond authorization. The
amendment would also fund $50.9 million dollars for the
University of Alaska.
Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED. He pointed out that it is
necessary to balance the capital program. He maintained that
Amendment 1 would shift the balance in favor of rural
Alaska.
Representative J. Davies acknowledged that the amendment
would not provide a balance in relation to legislative
districts but argued that it would be fair. The amendment
would take the top priorities as determined by the
department and major maintenance projects. He pointed out
that major maintenance would become construction projects if
it were not addressed.
Representative J. Davies suggested that there are other
vehicles to achieve balance and fund ports, harbors and
school debt reimbursement. He stressed that important
projects fall by the wayside.
Co-Chair Mulder noted his appreciation for the amendment,
but stressed that he is bound by constraints of balance. He
pointed out that Fairbanks would only receive $8 million
dollars under the amendment.
Representative Grussendorf stated that he would prefer that
the money be in one category: education. He spoke in support
of the amendment and the importance of funding the top 10
schools for construction on the department's list and as
much maintenance as possible.
Co-Chair Therriault spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Fairbanks has projects that are not on the list because they
discontinued submitting the paper work for inclusion.
Vice Chair Bunde spoke in opposition.
Representative J. Davies agreed that Fairbanks has a need
for new schools and school maintenance projects.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 129, SIDE 1)
Representative J. Davies noted that there are a huge number
of urban schools that are on the list that have to go for
voter approval. He suggested that these projects stick with
the 70/30 plan.
Representative Grussendorf noted that he has statewide
concerns. He pointed out that the courts have recognized
that there is problem with how money is being spent.
Representative G. Davis opposed the amendment. He stressed
that it is better to have something instead of nothing.
Representative Williams spoke against the amendment.
Representative J. Davies observed that this was the first
chance for amendments.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses
OPPOSED: Austerman, Bunde, Davis, Foster, Kohring,
Williams, Therriault, Mulder
The MOTION FAILED (4-8).
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 281 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 281 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a "do pass" recommendation and
with a new fiscal impact note by the Department of Revenue.
HOUSE BILL NO. 287
"An Act making and amending capital appropriations and
reappropriations and capitalizing funds; and providing
for an effective date."
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 287 (FIN) out of
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 287 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
House Finance Committee 25
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|