Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/16/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees Confirmation Hearing: | |
| HB312 | |
| HB319 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 16, 2010
1:36 p.m.
1:36:40 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault; Carlton R. Smith; Laraine L.
Derr; Laura Achee, Director of Communications, Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mary Jane Michael;
SUMMARY
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
Confirmation Hearing:
Laraine L. Derr, Mary Jane Michael, and Carlton R.
Smith were confirmed.
HB 312 ADVISORY VOTE ON IN-STATE GAS PIPELINE
HB 312 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 319 FIREARMS
CSHB 319 (JUD), 26-LS1273\S, was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
a new zero fiscal note by the Department of Public
Safety and a previously published fiscal impact
note: FN1 (LAW).
1:37:47 PM
^Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
Confirmation Hearing:
1:37:49 PM
CARLTON R. SMITH, presented the committee with an overview
of his qualifications for the position. He shared that he
was from Haines, Alaska, and had spent the last 25 years
working in commercial real estate, primarily in Anchorage
and Juneau. He served on the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs for four years and worked as the CEO and
director of two native corporations.
Co-Chair Hawker asked what had attracted him to the
position. Mr. Smith replied that one of his immediate family
members had been a beneficiary of the trust. He declared
that he had admired the organization and its initiatives. He
thought that he could contribute to the bright and
collaborative organizational model of the trust.
Vice-Chair Thomas wondered about the proposed land swap of
old growth timber in the Tongass National Forest. He worried
that, because the timber industry was struggling, the issue
could agitate mental health issues. He asked if Mr. Smith
would support a land exchange that put the old growth back
into wilderness and pursued second growth timber. Mr. Smith
replied that he had not studied the dynamics of the proposed
exchange. He said that his background with timber was
limited to his experience as an officer of Sealaska Timber.
He said he would examine the issue, but his role as a
trustee would not involve managing the Tongass. Vice-Chair
Thomas expressed concern for the limited amount of timber
left in the state and discouraged going into a land
exchange.
1:42:00 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas recommended Mr. Smith's confirmation.
Representative Fairclough wondered if a conflict of interest
existed due to Mr. Smith's work with other groups in the
past. Mr. Smith replied that anyone who had done any
worthwhile work in the state would have potential conflicts
of interest; on any board. He felt that any potential
conflicts could be managed.
1:45:02 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze introduced Laraine L. Derr as the next
applicant.
1:45:09 PM
Representative Fairclough advocated for the confirmation of
Mary Jane Michael.
1:46:02 PM
Co-Chair Hawker added that Ms. Derr and Ms. Michael were
both current Mental Health Trustee Board members and that
these were reappointments. Ms. Derr had been Vice-Chair and
Finance Chair of the trust. He offered the endorsement of
both candidates.
1:46:33 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze echoed the endorsement.
Representative Gara thought that a technical problem with
the teleconference was keeping the candidates from
communication with the committee.
Representative Kelly spoke in favor of the confirmation of
Ms. Derr.
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED that the committee forward the
following three names for confirmation to the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees:
Laraine L. Derr
Mary Jane Michael
Carlton R. Smith
There being no OBJECTION it was so ordered.
1:48:50 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 312
"An Act authorizing an advisory vote on use of Alaska
permanent fund earnings for an in-state natural gas
pipeline; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, discussed the intention of the
legislation. The bill would put up for an advisory vote from
the public the question of using the permanent fund
earnings, after dividends were paid and the fund was fully
inflation proof, to offset the cost of an in-state natural
gas pipeline. Holding an advisory vote would be informative
for the creation of a financing plan for state participation
in an in-state line. He felt that the issue was timely and
that the legislature should be exploring energy options. He
believed that using the permanent fund earnings was a viable
option. The bill was drafted to ensure that dividends would
be paid out and that the permanent fund continued to be
inflation proof, prior to using the earnings.
1:51:20 PM
Representative Chenault believed that it was important that
state be directly involved in the construction of a gas
pipeline. He asserted that the gasline would create jobs,
provide a long term source of energy, and create economic
opportunity.
Co-Chair Hawker communicated that existing statute stated
that the payout of dividends may not exceed more than half
of the earnings reserve. He expressed concern that, by using
the other half of the reserve to fund the gasline, the state
would not have enough to pay out dividends the following
year. He thought that the consequences of using the reserve
should be made clear to the public.
1:55:01 PM
Representative Chenault admitted that he was not familiar
with the methodology used to calculate the dividend amount.
He maintained that the question needed to be addressed and
that the conversation concerning using the reserve to fund
the pipeline was necessary. He thought that a well crafted
question should be put the people. Alternatively, a bond
could be an option.
1:56:11 PM
Co-Chair Hawker understood that the intent was to gage the
receptivity of the public. He thought the question should
state: In addition to permanent fund dividends and inflation
proofing; should a portion of the permanent fund earnings be
used for the development of an in-state gas pipeline.
1:57:36 PM
Representative Chenault agreed that the question should be
crafted skillfully, in order to convey to the public the
intention that the funds would be used to support a gasline.
He strongly believed that the state has been idle concerning
the issue and should be ready to be proactive in creating
energy generating projects across the state. He related that
an in-state gasline would create jobs and create an economic
future for Alaska. He hoped the committee would assist in
drafting language of the question that needed to be
presented.
1:59:33 PM
Co-Chair Hawker thought that it would be a good diagnostic
question to ask the public, and that a statewide vote would
be informational. He relayed that a similar question could
be found in his spring 2009 legislative district survey.
Representative Fairclough wondered if the state would help
to maintain gasline running into Canada, or only line
running from Alaska to the Canadian border.
2:02:19 PM
Representative Chenault replied that the plan had been to
build an in-state gas pipeline to tidewater. He considered
the state's fiduciary involvement in the construction of the
gasline an investment. If a line were to be built through
Canada, the funds could be used to lower tariffs for in-
state gas usage.
2:03:19 PM
Representative Fairclough though that the public should be
aware of the flexibility in the language of the bill that
allowed the legislature to make the decision about the
state's level of involvement. She believed that the project
would ultimately be driven by the private sector, but that
the state may need to offer incentives in order to move the
gasline forward.
Representative Salmon pondered where the money would come
from. He wondered if the formula that calculated the
permanent fund would need to change. Representative Chenault
replied that occasionally, excess earnings were available
from the earnings reserve, and those funds would be
available to fund the project. Representative Salmon
wondered if the funds taken from the earnings reserve would
be deposited immediately into an account for the sole
purpose of the funding the project. Representative Chenault
replied that that would be the next step, if the public
majority approves. He emphasized that the bill was an
option, similar to other plausible bonding options, if the
project was to move forward, and a capital need was created,
the state could chose then whether or not to invest.
2:06:55 PM
Representative Austerman thought that ambiguity as to where
the gasline was going to go in the state would be removed by
including "tidewater" in the language. He addressed the
$178,000 million the state had spent on pipeline studies. He
felt that the state should have a voice in the process to
assure a return on the investment. He questioned the use of
the earnings reserve. He thought that the permanent fund
could be used as an asset that covered a bonding issue, and
allowed the state to build the gasline independently. A
tariff could be charged, which would reimburse state
expenditures back into the permanent fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze informed the committee that during the HB
44 floor debate of 2009, a floor amendment by Representative
Doogan removed the reference to authorize the permanent fund
to make in-state energy investments. Concerns had been
discussed about the legislature directing investment policy.
2:10:05 PM
Representative Chenault believed the $178,000 was the total
amount spent over several years on all gas projects, the
majority of which went to the Canadian pipeline project.
2:10:46 PM
Representative Austerman requested documentation of the
amount spent to date on the gasline. He recalled the way
members of the committee had voted on HB 44, but thought
that public perspective could provide a different
perspective.
Representative Gara asked if a representative from the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) would be available
to provide an analysis of the potential impact on the fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied yes. Representative Gara wondered
if the formula used to determine the dividend incorporated
the amount in the earnings reserve. Representative Chenault
responded that the dividend could be affected.
Representative Gara said that Harry Noah, In-state Gasline
Project Manager, had told the committee that the cheapest
gas would come from a big pipeline. Likewise, a smaller in-
state line would deliver more expensive gas. He thought that
the state should opt for the gasline that produced cheaper
gas.
2:13:35 PM
Representative Chenault agreed that a bigger line, pushing a
bigger volume, would be less expensive than a small line
pushing a small volume. He felt that the crux of the issue
was; was it going to take communities along the rail belt
losing the energy to heat their homes before the state
decided that the wait for in-state gas was over.
Representative Gara requested information from experts on
the gasline issue before the legislation moved out of
committee. Co-Chair Stoltze thought that gasline experts had
been informed of the meeting. Representative Gara felt that
the issue was of great cost to the state. He felt the
experts should be present when the decision was made. Co-
Chair Stoltze opined that there were no representatives from
the Department of Administration present at the meeting.
Representative Gara expressed concern that gas prices would
be higher while the state waited for the big line to be
built, and consumers may end up being locked in to high gas
prices for the next 20 years, all before determining that
gas could possibly come from a lower priced project.
2:16:47 PM
Representative Chenault replied that there were many
unknowns. He added that for years legislators had worked on
incentives for a Cook Inlet gasline. The Department of
Natural Resources study reported 1.8 trillion cubic feet of
gas left. He believed that the majority of the easy gas was
gone from Cook Inlet. An issue out of the control of the
state was the critical habitat for the Beluga Whale. Bonding
authority was being written into legislation and discussed,
tax credits had been worked on and passed, and storage
issues had been addressed to ensure that the rail belt had a
supply of gas. All energy opportunities needed to be
examined in order to decide which project would go forward.
He reiterated that the goal was economic development and
long term sustainability.
2:20:41 PM
Co-Chair Hawker reminded that the legislation called for an
advisory vote in order to gauge the public climate. He
warned that it had had become a question of more expensive
gas or no gas, and that the urgency was growing.
Representative Kelly said that the state could have 10
billion in the bank by the end of 2010. A choice that needed
to be made was where to spend the money. He asserted that
the money should not be used to expand the state operating
budget.
2:23:47 PM
Representative Kelly continued that the state had located
the gas and now the line should be built. He stated that the
funds should be used to build an in-state gasline while
simultaneously taking care of infrastructure needs
throughout the state.
Representative Fairclough supported that process of asking
the questions, but thought that ultimately, the ability to
negotiate contracts could be reduced by the competition in
the free market.
2:27:42 PM
Representative Chenault voiced his support for the free
market. He communicated his hope that a private company
would approach the state to build and pay for the gasline.
The state would be responsible in the end to pay the tariff
costs to ship the gas. The big line could be the state's
best opportunity. He did not think that examining in-state
gas needs had an effect on a big line. The big line was
already guaranteed to provide off-takes for in-state gas
usage. If the state chose to build a bigger line it runs the
risk of incurring treble damages in the AGIA process. He
did not think that it would be prudent to slow the big line
process down, but that the residents of Alaska needed to be
aware of other options for natural gas should the big line
project shut down. An advisory vote was the necessary
informative step needed to inform the legislature of the
will of the people. He emphasized that the State of Alaska
should provide the permits and the right of ways, and then
get out of the way, and let the private sector build the
gasline.
2:31:17 PM
Representative Gara thought that initially investing in a
big line could be an option.
Representative Chenault agreed that many options were
available to the state. Perhaps, if the state invested in 20
percent of the project, it would become more feasible.
2:34:09 PM
Representative Gara agreed that the state should not make a
financial commitment yet. He felt that more would be
revealed within the next few years that would aid the state
making the decision. Representative Chenault maintained that
the state needed to be ready to move on the issue when
necessary.
Vice-Chair Thomas felt that voters outside of the rail belt
would need incentive to vote "yes" on the project. He feared
a divide between urban and rural communities.
Representative Chenault agreed that that was a concern. But,
in the long term, what projects were out there that would
provide for the Alaskan economy. What could a pipeline do///
He spoke of things provided to rural Alaska. Rural Alaska
would benefit from an in-state gasline.
2:37:26 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas wondered what would happen when the gas
runs out.
Representative Kelly stated that where there's a will
there's a way. He said the Anchorage to Fairbanks line was
obvious. The determination need to be made as to which way
to go after that. TransCanada had laid out options. He hoped
that the committee could restate the question. Where does
the money come from. If the right questions are not asked
the answers are meaningless.
2:40:40 PM
Representative Chenault said he was open to options and
discussion concerning re-crafting the question. He
maintained that he was concerned for providing a future of
economic and resource security in the state.
2:42:01 PM
Representative Fairclough felt that the $10 billion thought
to be in savings was actually owed to the retirement system.
2:44:33 PM
LAURA ACHEE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, ALASKA PERMANENT
FUND CORPORATION, testified that the calculation of the
dividend would not be affected. The most immediate effect
would be the 50 percent test that limited the dividend
payment to no more that 50 percent of the balance of the
earnings reserve. Paying out in one year from the earning
reserve could limit a future dividend payment. She stated
that anytime the use of earnings outside of the dividend was
discussed there would be a small impact on the dividend.
Representative Austerman wondered if using the PFD to build
the pipeline, and reimbursing the fund through the charging
of a tariff, was plausible. Ms. Achee replied that the board
of trustees was free to invest the PFD in anything that met
the requirements for risk return and diversification.
Funding the entire pipeline could compromise the statutory
requirement of maintaining a diverse portfolio.
Representative Austerman asked if an answer in reference to
investing in the pipeline could be obtained. Ms. Achee
replied that as with any project, before the board of
trustees would need to see a comprehensive project plan.
2:47:52 PM
Representative Fairclough asked about the recent asset
losses due to the weak economy. She asked how the losses
would affect individual PFDs. Ms. Achee said that FY09 was
the first time there had been more losses than gains.
Representative Fairclough asked how the proposal to invest
in a pipeline would affect the state's ability to pay out
dividends. Ms. Achee replied that if the fund experienced
statutory net losses due to legislature choosing to spend
earning from the earning reserve for the pipeline, there was
a possibility that dividends might not be paid out. She
stressed that in any year, anything could happen. In 2003
the earnings reserve was taken, by legislative action, down
to $100 million, and everything else was swept into
principal. The next year the corporation paid the dividend
and inflation proofed, and still had $800 million in the
earnings reserve. She concluded that it was difficult to
tell what would happen from year-to-year, but it could be
said with certainty that if the balance was zero there would
be no way to pay out anything at all.
2:51:17 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about public corporation failures
that have been linked to legislative activity. He wondered
if the board was concerned about bringing the legislature
into investment decisions.
Ms. Achee replied that the legislature set the statue by
which the board invests and the board would do as the
legislature wished.
Co-Chair Hawker noted that in recent history the board has
let their opinion be known as to what legislation should be
passed. Ms. Achee agreed that the board had been active in
the past to that end.
Representative Gara understood only 50 percent of the
earnings reserve could be used to pay out dividends. He
asked how much would need to be in the earnings reserve to
pay out a $1500 dividend. Ms. Achee said she would need time
crunch the numbers. She said that a $1200 dividend was
anticipated in 2010.
Representative Gara believed that if a substantial amount of
money from the earnings reserve was spent for the pipeline
dividend payout would be affected.
Ms. Achee noted that in the 1980s the fund was significantly
smaller than it was now. In 1989 the fund was only at $10
billion, yielding dividend of $200-$300 per person. She did
not feel that the ending reserve balances of the 1980s were
comparable to present day balances. She reiterated that any
time money was taken out of the earnings reserve the nest
year's dividend was potentially at risk.
2:56:22 PM
Ms. Achee said that the dividend was calculated off of the
entire earnings of the corpus and the earnings reserve.
Statutory net income was used and not the rate of return.
Statutory net income consisted of; the cash received from
rent on the properties the fund owned, dividends from the
stocks owned by the fund, interest from bond, and any net
gains from the sale of assets.
Representative Gara asked if the amount of money in the
earnings reserve were reduced, would that impact the amount
of money used to calculate the 5 year average for the
dividend. Ms. Achee said yes. Earnings in the earnings
reserve contribute toward the dividend calculation, but the
earnings that go into the dividend are not the same as the
performance earnings that go into the fund.
2:59:14 PM
Representative Austerman asked to be involved in further
examination of the bill outside of committee.
~Merrick Peirce, Self, spoke in opposition of HB 312. He
expressed concern that the project proposed for funding was
nebulous. He stated that in 2002 the voters voted for the
all Alaska gasline from the North Slope to Valdez. He felt
that if the legislature had funded the law passed by the
voters the state would now have a gasline. He felt that the
voice of the voters had not been represented in the
discussion.
3:04:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze appointed Representative Kelly,
Representative Hawker, and Representative Foster to craft
potential language for discussion by the committee.
Representative Kelly hoped that a resource would be provided
to aid in the drafting of the language. Co-Chair Stoltze
said that the needs of the drafters would be answered.
HB 312 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
3:05:47 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to firearms."
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, began his testimony. He
said that the bill contained some clarification to existing
concealed carry laws. Several years ago the state adopted
the Vermont carry system, which stated that an individual
was not required to have a state issued permit on order to
carry a concealed firearm. However, the concealed carry
permit statutes were retained so that people who chose to
procure a concealed carry permit could do so. The advantage
was that the concealed carry permits were valid from state-
to state.
3:09:05 PM
Co-Chair Hawker cited Section 1, Sub-section (e), which
stated:
The department shall mail the permittee a notice of
expiration by first class mail at least 90 days before
expiration of the permit.
Co-Chair Hawker added that the permits were valid for 5
years when issued. The next change could be found in Section
2, Sub-section (4):
represent or display an expired permit as if the permit were
valid, unless the holder has submitted a complete, timely
renewal from under AS 18.65.725 and the renewal process has
been delayed due to circumstances not under the control of
the applicant; this paragraph does not require a holder to
return or surrender a permit upon its expiration, nor may
the department require a holder to return or surrender a
permit upon its expiration.
Co-Chair Hawker continued to the third change, which speaks
to the issue of invalidating a permit because the person has
left the states jurisdiction. He felt that once the permit
had been authorized it should remain valid even if the
permittee leaves the state.
3:13:39 PM
Representative Austerman pointed out to the committee that
the language in Section 1 Sub-section (f) stated that the
permittee does not become ineligible to hold a permit when
"ceasing" to be a resident of the state. He wondered if
there were other states that accepted Alaskan gun permits,
and would an individual be able to use it in another state.
Co-Chair Hawker replied that the reciprocity was and would
remain recognized by other states regardless of where one
resides, provided that permit was valid.
3:16:44 PM
Co-Chair Hawker stated that Section 3 proposed a duty upon
local law enforcement agencies across the state. The duty
was to execute a request, an application that a citizen
brings forward, to receive and take possession of a firearm
that was registered under National Firearms Act of 1934.
This was how an individual was able to legally possess; a
short barreled shot gun, a short barreled rifle, and fully
automatic firearms. The firearms were legal in most states
and prevalent in Alaska. Due the dangerous nature of the
firearms, the federal government had a restrictive process
regarding who may possess them. In order to possess the
particular firearms an individual must go through the
process for applying to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms and Explosives on Form 4, "The Application for a
Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm"(copy on
file). The form required identification of the individual,
description of the firearm and who was transferring the
item, as well as local law enforcement certification. The
form must be accompanied by 2 sets of the applicant's
fingerprints and 2 photographs, which are used to expedite a
complete background check by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
3:19:48 PM
Co-Chair Hawker shared that one of the requirements of the
application process exists in federal regulation. One of the
requirements that had been added to the application process
was that the individual who wishes to take possession of a
firearm must first go to the local chief law enforcement
officer, who will sign the certification as part of the
application process. The certification was "negative
assurance" from the chief law enforcement officer, which
translates into; "I have no information that the transferee
will use the firearm or device described on this application
for other than lawful purposes. Or that possession would
place the transferee in violation of state or local law."
3:22:28 PM
Co-Chair Hawker opined that historically, the state's local
law enforcement had been fickle concerning the willingness
to sign the forms. It had been seen that chief law
enforcement officers would not sign the forms for unknown
reasons. The bill would allow the public the full respect of
the 2nd amendment as far as the legislature could provide
the assurances.
3:25:22 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze affirmed that in 1994, a constitutional
amendment vote by the public had shown support for the
position that the bill maintained; that the right to bear
arms was an individual right, and should not be preempted by
political jurisdiction.
Representative Foster voiced support for the legislation.
}SUE STANCLIFF, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY{, commented on
the 90 day notice in the bill. She stated that House Bill
201 made the expiration date on the permits the same as the
birthday of the permittee, with the hope that this would
help the permittee remember to renew. Currently, the
department's support services were going through an absent
redesign, which would be online in two years. The changes
could be incorporated during that time. She added that the
department supported making gun permit retention easier for
residents. She warned of unintended consequences and
judgment from other states; Kansas and Colorado were
specifically cited.
3:31:24 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the concern was for the permittee
or the state. Ms. Stancliff replied that it was the state's
concern. When other states review our laws they could
withdraw their reciprocity agreement with Alaska.
Co-Chair Hawker agreed that the issue should been discussed
and would be revisited as necessary as the process moved
forward. He added that Utah and Florida do not require
residency to receive a permit.
3:33:33 PM
Representative Kelly supported the legislation. He thought
that the residency question should be examined for the sake
of maintaining the reciprocity relationship with other
states.
~DAVID SCHADE, DIRECTOR OF STATEWIDE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY{, testified that he was available for
questioning.
Co-Chair Hawker hoped that, with the committee's previously
demonstrated commitment to 2nd Amendment rights, that the
consideration of the bill could be expedited.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Representative Kelly recalled having a concern over the
expired concealed carry permit recertification process. Co-
Chair Hawker replied that that had been considered. He
explained that The Department of Public Safety, through
regulatory authority, allowed a 90 day grace period for
permit recertification. The combination of the 90 day notice
before and after the expiration date gives the permittee
approximately 6 months to renew. He felt that this was an
adequate timeframe for the permittee to work within.
3:37:26 PM
Representative Doogan asked how many of the 90 day before
expiration notices were sent out annually. Ms. Stancliff
replied that there were 7,000 permits holders in the state.
3:38:48 PM
Ms. Stancliff furthered that, according to the fiscal note,
the department anticipated sending out 1500 notices. She
added that specific numbers could be given by Mr. Schade.
Mr. Schade stated that there were currently 7600 active
permits, 14,000 was the high.
Representative Doogan asked how many 90 day notices would be
issues in an average month. Mr. Schade said that it would
depend on when the permit had been issued. Some years are
high volume and some are not. Representative Doogan asked if
the department was confident that it could fulfill the
function with a zero fiscal note. Mr. Schade replied that
that was the expectation.
3:41:39 PM
Co-Chair Hawker addressed the fiscal note. He relayed that
when the bill came into committee it was accompanied by a
fiscal note for an aggregate of $38,800. The support
services of the department had projected that it would take
370 of programming, at $100 per hour, to automate the
function. The ongoing rewrite of the system would include
the necessary programming when completed. If the effective
date of the clause were to be extended 2 years, there would
be no additional expense.
3:45:17 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1:
ADD an effective date of July 1, 2012 for section 1 (e).
(Page 1, live 4-5)
INTENT: To require the Department of Public Safety to mail a
90 day notice of expiration to permit holders starting July
1, 2012.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Hawker informed the committee that the amendment
would allow for the zero fiscal note by changing the
effective date.
Co-Chair Stoltze removed his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 26-LS1273\S.1,
Luckhaupt, 2/15/10:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 18.65.700(a) is amended to read:
(a) The department shall issue a permit to carry
a concealed handgun to a person who
(1) applies in person at an office of the
Alaska State Troopers;
(2) qualifies under AS 18.65.705;
(3) submits on an [A COMPLETED] application
[ON A] form approved [PROVIDED] by the department [,
THAT PROVIDES] the information required under
AS 18.65.705 and 18.65.710; [WITH EACH APPLICATION FORM
PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT,] the department shall post
on the department's website [PROVIDE A COPY OF] the
state laws and regulations relating to concealed
handguns, which must include a concise summary of
where, when, and by whom a handgun can be carried under
state and federal law and shall, on request, mail a
copy of the regulations and summary to an applicant or
permittee;
(4) submits one complete set of fingerprints
in the format approved by the department that is of
sufficient quality so that the fingerprints may be
processed; the fingerprints must be taken by a person,
group, or agency approved by the department; the
department shall maintain a list of persons, groups, or
agencies approved to take fingerprints and shall
provide the list to the public upon request; the
fingerprints shall be used to obtain a report of
criminal justice information under AS 12.62 and a
national criminal history record check under
AS 12.62.400;
(5) submits evidence of successful
completion of a handgun course as provided in
AS 18.65.715;
(6) provides one frontal view color
photograph of the person taken within the preceding 30
days that includes the head and shoulders of the person
and is of a size specified by the department;
(7) shows a valid Alaska driver's license or
identification card at the time of application;
(8) does not suffer a physical infirmity
that prevents the safe handling of a handgun; and
(9) pays the application fee required by
AS 18.65.720.
* Sec. 2. AS 18.65.725(a) is amended to read:
(a) A permittee shall apply for renewal of a
permit to carry a concealed handgun within 90 days
before the expiration of the permit, on a [AND SHALL
PRESENT A COMPLETE] renewal form approved [PROVIDED] by
the department. The renewal form must include
(1) any change in the information originally
submitted under AS 18.65.710;
(2) a statement that the person remains
qualified to receive and hold a permit to carry a
concealed handgun under AS 18.65.705;
(3) one frontal view photograph of the
person taken within the preceding 30 days that includes
the head and shoulders of the person and is of a size
specified by the department;
(4) the renewal fee required under
AS 18.65.720; and
(5) the warning listed in
AS 18.65.710(a)(6)."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Ms. Stancliff explained that the amendment would give the
department authorization to post the concealed handgun
applications and other documents online, which would
streamline the process. Co-Chair Hawker added that the
amendment recognized the existence of emerging technology.
3:47:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze removed his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed fiscal note 2. Due to the action
of Amendment 1, a zero fiscal note was reported out,
replacing the previous fiscal note 2.
3:48:39 PM
Ms. Stancliff pointed out to the committee that the
department would still have licensing and mail out costs,
under $2,000, which would be absorbed by the department.
Representative Austerman wondered if statutory language was
necessary to allow the department to post applications on
the website. Ms. Stancliff replied that statutory language
should not be necessary when the approved forms were used.
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 319 (JUD), 26-
LS1273\S, as AMENDED, out of Committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
CSHB 319 (JUD), 26-LS1273\S, was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal
note by the Department of Public Safety and a previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (LAW).
3:51:16 PM
Co-Chair Hawker discussed housekeeping.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:51 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 312 ERA balance.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB312-OOG-DOE-2-3-10NEW Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB312APF Historical Fund Value.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB319 Sponsor Statement (2).pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Summary of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Background.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| Laraine Derr 2010 Confirmation Hearing.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Mary Jane Michael 2010 Confirmation Hearing.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Carlton Smith 2010 Confirmation Hearing.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB319 Hawker Amendment.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB312 Sponsor Statement (2).pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB 319 Hawker Amendment #2.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 319 |