Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB8 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB150 | |
| HB141 | |
| HB140 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2011
1:40 p.m.
1:40:13 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Sponsor; James Armstrong, Staff,
Representative Bill Stoltze; Richard Rogers, Natural
Resources Specialist, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources; Ron Wolfe, Manager, Natural Resources
Manager, Sealaska; Shelly Wright, Executive Director,
Southeast Conference; John Sandor, Self, Juneau; Duane
Mayes, Director, Division of Senior and Disability
Services, Department of Health and Social Services; Pat
Luby, Advocacy Director, American Association for Retired
Persons; Representative Alan Austerman, Sponsor; Steve
Ricci, Staff, Representative Alan Austerman; Wanetta Ayers,
Director, Division of Economic Development, Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Stuart Thompson, Self, Mat-Su; Scott Sterling, Supervisory
Attorney, Office of Public Advocacy, Department of
Administration; Beth Russo, Supervisory Attorney, Public
Guardian Section, Office of Public Advocacy, Department of
Administration; Scott Sterling, Supervisory Attorney,
Office of Elder Fraud and Assistance, Office of Public
Advocacy, Department of Administration; Brenda Mahlatini,
Program Manager, Office of Adult Protective Services,
Division of Senior and Disabilities Services, Department of
Health and Social Services; Kathy Monfreda, Chief and
Criminal Justice Information System Officer (CJIS),
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau, Department of
Public Safety.
SUMMARY
HB 8 FEDERAL REGULATIONS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS
CS HB 8(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with new zero impact
fiscal note by the Department of Law.
HB 10 NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE
HB 10 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 64 PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
HB 64 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 103 POWER PROJECT; ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
HB 103 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 104 ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS
HB 104 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 105 SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST
HB 105 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal note: FN1 (DNR).
HB 120 AIDEA: NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
HB 120 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 121 LOAN FUNDS: CHARTERS/MARICULTURE/MICROLOAN
HB 121 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 125 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
HB 125 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 141 LOANS TO COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITIES/PERMITS
HB 141 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 140 APPROP: COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITY LOAN FUND
HB 140 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 150 PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS/MINORS
HB 150 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 164 INSURANCE: HEALTH CARE & OTHER
HB 164 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
1:40:22 PM
JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
discussed the future committee meeting schedule.
1:45:56 PM
Mr. Armstrong continued to discuss the schedule for the
following week.
Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that his staff Joe Michel
would be the point person on bills.
HOUSE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to certain federal regulations and
presidential executive orders; relating to the duties
of the attorney general; and providing for an
effective date."
1:48:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, discussed HB 8. He
opined that the Sedition Act of 1798 was historically one
of the most unconstitutional congressional acts, which had
prompted the passage of numerous "reactionary" resolutions.
He quoted Thomas Jefferson's words from the Kentucky
Resolutions:
Resolved, states composing, the United States of
America, are not united on the principle of unlimited
submission to their federal government, but reserve
each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to
their own self-government; and whensoever the general
or federal government assumes undelegated powers, its
acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force...each
party or each state has an equal right to judge for
itself, and the mode and measure of redress belongs to
the state [sic].
Representative Keller communicated that the legislation
incorporated the principle from the Kentucky Resolutions.
He read from page 2, lines 14-16: "A federal statute,
regulation, presidential executive order, or secretarial
order that is unconstitutional or was not properly adopted
in accordance with federal statutory authority many not be
considered to preempt a state law." He relayed that the
bill required the attorney general to notify the
appropriate judiciary committee chairs if the attorney
general found that a federal statute, regulation,
presidential executive order, or secretarial order was
unconstitutional or was not properly adopted (page 2, line
26). The "method, mode, or measure of the redress" was left
up to the legislature. He asked the committee to adopt the
committee substitute.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft CSHB 8(FIN)
(27-LS0052\B, Bullock, 3/14/11) as a working document
before the committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Keller explained that the CS added the words
"secretarial order" and "federal statute" throughout the
bill. He had initially thought that the attorney general's
office would review all regulations and provide a report on
any items that were potentially unconstitutional; however,
that was not logistically possible for the Department of
Law (DOL). He had received positive feedback on the bill.
He reiterated that DOL would notify the legislature if it
became aware of any federal statute, secretarial order,
regulation, or presidential executive order that was
potentially unconstitutional.
There being NO further OBJECTION the CS was ADOPTED.
1:53:15 PM
Representative Doogan wondered who would decide whether a
federal statute, regulation, presidential executive order,
or secretarial order was unconstitutional.
Representative Keller responded that the decision was
outside the scope of the legislation. He added that the
decision could be made by the U.S. Supreme Court,
individuals, and legislators who had the responsibility of
interpreting and understanding the U.S. Constitution.
Representative Doogan asked for verification that under the
legislation, something would not be considered state law,
if it fit the definition in the bill and was determined to
be unconstitutional.
Representative Keller replied that the attorney general
would make the determination and would notify the
appropriate legislative chairs if an item was determined to
be unconstitutional.
Representative Doogan understood the specific point. He did
not understand the comment that individuals would be able
to decide for themselves whether an item was
unconstitutional.
Representative Keller responded that he did not believe the
ability for a person to decide an item was unconstitutional
was in the scope of the bill.
Representative Doogan thought it was clear that the bill
did allow the specific ability for a person to determine
whether an item was unconstitutional. He was happy to offer
an amendment to remove the appropriate language.
Representative Keller asked about the precise language
Representative Doogan was referring to.
Representative Doogan cited page 2, lines 12-16 as the
specific language.
Representative Keller responded that the language was a
principle and did not specify who was making a
determination that a federal statute, regulation,
presidential executive order, or secretarial order was
unconstitutional. He explained the unconstitutionality of
an item could be determined in a variety of ways, and in
such cases the law was deemed to be invalid.
1:57:10 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the origin of the
language in Section 2, page 2, article 5.
Representative Keller asked for clarification on the
question.
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the specific
source of the language in Section 2.
Representative Keller responded that the wording of the
bill had come from Legislative Legal Services. He had
drafted the bill and had quoted the words of Thomas
Jefferson during earlier testimony; however, he did not
know the specific origin of the language.
Representative Guttenberg thought it appeared that the bill
put federal statute into state law. He wondered whether the
goal was to preempt federal law or to put it into Alaska
statute.
Representative Keller replied that under the bill a federal
law that was unconstitutional could not preempt state law.
The bill did not dictate what would be done after an item
was determined to be unconstitutional. He emphasized that
the bill did not attempt to insert federal law into state
statute.
Representative Guttenberg was concerned that the bill
attempted to decide whether a law was unconstitutional
prior to a U.S. Supreme Court case or decision.
Representative Keller responded that it was the
responsibility and right of the country's citizens to
police the Constitution.
Representative Guttenberg discussed that it was possible to
challenge the constitutionality of a law by taking it to
court or through an act of civil disobedience; however,
ultimately it was the U.S. Supreme Court that determined
whether a law was unconstitutional.
2:01:00 PM
Representative Keller replied that there had been a number
of cases where federal law had been deemed unconstitutional
and invalid. He cited the California "Compassionate Use
Act," which had legalized medical marijuana. He explained
that U.S. Supreme Court had determined that the law was
unconstitutional; however, the federal government had left
the matter in the hands of the state and did not attempt to
police noncompliance in each of the 14 states with similar
laws.
Representative Guttenberg agreed with comment regarding
rights of the states. He expressed uncertainty about other
aspects of the bill.
Representative Wilson asked whether the state had adopted
numerous federal regulations that were represented by a
number and were not written in statute, meaning that the
state did not always see the changes made to the
regulations.
Representative Keller believed that the state had too many
references to federal regulations, but he did not know
whether the references were automatically altered when
changes to the regulations occurred.
Representative Wilson asked whether the bill required the
state to review any changes that were made to federal
regulations that it had previously adopted.
Representative Keller answered in the negative. He
clarified that the bill asked the attorney general to
notify the legislature in the event that an item violated
the state or federal Constitutions.
STUART THOMPSON, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference),
described himself as a "sovereign citizen" and discussed
his support of HB 8. He believed the legislation
represented a clear support and defense of the 9th and 10th
Amendments of the United States. He asked that the
committee read the written testimony that he had provided
to the House Judiciary Committee. He stated that the
legislative oath of office read "I do solemnly swear or
affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of
Alaska and that I will faithfully discharge my duties to
the best of my ability." He wondered whether legislators
had specifically supported or defended the U.S.
Constitution against opposition during the current
legislative session. He believed that the passage of state
law to acquire rights for federal money did not defend the
Constitution; it used "infrastructure and tradition to
follow a path of least resistance to gratify constituents."
He believed that fighting for state funds for legislators'
districts did not support or defend the constitution, but
worked to secure legislators' bids for reelection. He
discussed other items that did not support or defend the
constitution. He opined that the bill was "probably the
most ethically substantial bill ever presented to the
Alaska legislature." He urged the passage of the bill.
Representative Guttenberg asked Mr. Thompson for his
definition of "sovereign citizen."
Mr. Thompson responded with a reference to the Declaration
of Independence. He believed that people had the right and
obligation to implement change if they did not believe the
government was working to assist in the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2:08:19 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Edgmon asked whether the goal of the bill
was to give Alaska better capability to respond to items
such as the recent federal health care legislation that may
or may not have been constitutional.
Representative Keller replied in the negative. He clarified
that the bill asked the attorney general to notify the
legislature if a problem was found.
Vice-chair Fairclough spoke in favor of the legislation.
She was interested in a discussion about how Alaskans
advocated for their rights. She discussed that when she had
been the executive director of Standing Together Against
Rape (STAR) there were federal laws that were inconsistent
with State of Alaska Constitution. She cited the Adam Walsh
law or other that worked to implement a retroactivity
clause for the state's sex offender list. The agency had
tried to determine how to bring the state into compliance
with the law; however, the law was essentially in violation
of Alaska's constitution. She wondered whether the state
should defend its constitution or align the constitution
with the federal government. She thought that it was
important to address the points of contention as a
legislative body. She discussed her allegiance to the
United States, the U.S. Constitution, and to Alaska's
constitution. She questioned what should be done in the
event that the Constitutions of the United States and
Alaska conflicted with each other. She asked whether the
state should make changes to its constitution when the
federal government changed a law that the state had no
input in. She acknowledged that the state's Congressional
leaders could argue on its behalf, but she thought the
state should also have a voice. She supported the bill
because it helped to address Alaskans' right to challenge
items that were not in the state's best interest and were
in violation with the state's constitution.
2:13:01 PM
Representative Doogan believed that the goal was to get the
attorney general to let legislators know when a federal
action was potentially unconstitutional or would preempt
state law. He thought that amending the bill to include
only Section 4 would achieve the sponsor's goal; it would
also eliminate other concerns about a person's ability to
assert authority that they did not have. He thought the
amendment would do everything in a practical sense that the
legislation sought out to do.
Representative Doogan offered a conceptual Amendment 1 that
maintained only Sections 4 and 5 of the CS.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for verification that the amendment
would delete the findings and Sections 1 through 3.
Representative Doogan answered in the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough OBJECTED.
Vice-chair Fairclough did not understand the purpose of the
amendment. She asked why the findings and Sections 1
through 3 of the bill were objectionable.
Representative Doogan did not understand the particular
sections. He believed that the sections did not have an
impact on anything that the bill aimed to accomplish. He
thought the language represented a philosophical statement;
the committee was not in the habit of passing philosophical
statements with the exception of resolutions. He did not
know why the legislature would put something into law that
did not have an impact on the law. He communicated that he
did not feel comfortable with the inclusion of the language
if it did impact the law, given that he did not know what
the impact was.
Representative Wes Keller was not in favor of the
conceptual amendment. He would have been "shocked" if the
bill had included language specifying that a federal law
would preempt state law even when it was found to be
unconstitutional. He explained that the language was a
statement of "what is." He thought the federal government
had recently overstepped or potentially overstepped a
number of times. He thought the inclusion of the language
was important for the context of the bill.
Representative Doogan believed that the problematic portion
of the bill made statements that were not attributed to
anybody. He cited language in Section 2 that referred to a
federal statute or other that was unconstitutional. He
wondered how to judge what was unconstitutional. He
surmised that the specific language was referring to a
violation of the federal Constitution. He was not
comfortable asserting that violations of the federal
Constitution were happening or with a law that allowed a
person to determine an item was unconstitutional and
therefore invalid. He did not support the language.
Co-Chair Stoltze opposed the conceptual amendment. He
thought the bill started a committee process when the
attorney general notified the legislature that a problem
existed.
2:21:27 PM
Representative Hawker requested that the conceptual
amendment be clearly restated.
Representative Doogan explained that the conceptual
Amendment 1 began on page 1, line 5 and would delete
Sections 1, 2, and 3. The sections would be renumbered
accordingly and the title would be changed as necessary.
Representative Costello surmised that the bill provided an
avenue for DOL to communicate with the legislature when an
unconstitutional federal item occurred. She had heard about
departmental budget increases that had happened in response
to some of the items. She wondered what the next step would
be after the attorney general brought an unconstitutional
item to the attention of the legislature. She discussed
that if the item was egregious enough that the executive
branch of the State of Alaska would sue the federal
government.
Representative Keller replied that he had thought
significantly about the next step; however, there was no
way to outline it in statute due to the wide scope of
potential responses. The language that allowed the
legislature to consider information it received from DOL
would be deleted in the proposed conceptual amendment. He
believed that rights of the state were one step away from
rights of the individual and there was a responsibility to
protect their sovereignty. He stressed that the legislature
needed to work with the administrative branch, given that a
law suit initiated by the administrative branch would be
funded by the legislature. He thought the bill helped all
branches of state government to be informed and a part of
the process. He opined that the alignment may have helped
the state in the process related to the current federal
health care bill.
Representative Costello asked whether Sections 1 through 3
that would be deleted by the amendment, were necessary to
lead up to and explain the core of the bill in Section 4.
Representative Keller answered that the without Sections 1
through 3 there was no context to understand the
legislative intent of the bill. He did not believe that
there was anything fundamentally wrong with including the
language. He noted that there would not be much left in the
bill if language that read "may be done" was deleted.
Vice-chair Fairclough had looked at all of the statutes
that the bill would impact. Section 2 inserted AS 44.23.020
after the statehood act (Section 1 of the statute) and
asked the legislature to look at the laws. Section 3 of the
bill (AS 24.05.188), was inserted under Article 5 as
legislative space. Section 4 of the bill was inserted under
DOL related to the duties and powers of the attorney
general's office. She explained that the three sections
supported AS 44.23.020 and did not change other law.
2:28:50 PM
Representative Edgmon referenced language in the bill that
read "the attorney general shall report the findings to the
chairs of the house and senate committees having
jurisdiction over judicial matters." He wondered whether
the language compromised the options that the attorney
general may have if he or she wanted to pursue a legal
remedy.
Representative Keller replied that DOL had not brought the
concern forward.
Representative Joule discussed that the bill mandated the
attorney general (who worked for the governor) to take a
specific action. He opined that individuals may have
problems with the current federal administration, but in 10
or 20 years the shoe would be on the other foot. He felt
neutral about the bill, but cautioned that it was important
for a person to be careful about what they asked for
because it may come to fruition.
Representative Keller believed that regardless of a
person's political affiliation, he would welcome their
concern about a bill that was potentially unconstitutional.
Representative Hawker was opposed to the conceptual
amendment. He voiced that historically he had opposed the
inclusion of findings in statute because they were either
irrelevant or did not provide the appropriate contextual
framework. He communicated that he felt differently about
the current legislation and believed that the conceptual
amendment would remove findings that represented an
important factual basis for the context of the statute
change. He opined that removing the findings would have led
to greater ambiguity. He believed that Section 2, which
affirmed the state's sovereignty, was the "heart and soul"
of the bill. He advised that the language in Section 2
related to the unconstitutionality of an item, stated a
fact, and was based on the opinion of the attorney general
or another person. The implementation of the findings
occurred under Sections 3 and 4. He believed that the
legislation went as far as possible in an effective and
responsible manner.
2:34:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg observed that the sections of the
Alaska constitution that had been adopted by the convention
were very succinct. He felt that amendments to the
constitution and statute could get convoluted. He believed
that Section 4 of the bill included many of the same items
from Sections 1, 2, and 3; Section 4 outlined the action
that would take place if the attorney general found an item
to be unconstitutional. He discussed that the attorney
general did not need legislative approval to challenge
federal law, which was evident in current actions by the
governor. He believed that Sections 1 through 3 were
redundant and contained the same points that were depicted
in Section 4; the sections were not as focused and did not
provide a specific action. He supported the idea that
legislative committees would receive reports about items
that were potentially unconstitutional.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the sponsor had
asked the offices of the attorney general or the governor
about their opinion on the importance of Sections 1 through
3 of the bill.
Representative Keller replied that they had heard from the
offices at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the
legislation. There had been concern that the original bill
required the attorney general's office to catch all of the
unconstitutional regulations, which was a larger job than
the office was prepared to handle. He had spoken with the
attorney general and had received no negative response.
Representative Wilson asked whether in the absence of the
legislation, it would not be a priority for the attorney
general's office to look for the potential unconstitutional
items. She wanted the office to catch any federal items
that were potentially unconstitutional and that conflicted
with the state's constitution; she believed that the
attorney general and the legislature were mandated to do
so. She wondered whether the sponsor believed the bill was
necessary to ensure that the desired outcome was met.
Representative Keller responded in the affirmative. He
explained that the attorney general's office currently may
not realize that the legislature should be officially
notified when it came across a potentially unconstitutional
item.
Representative Doogan wrapped up his conceptual Amendment
1. He believed that the language in Sections 1 through 3
was not necessary if it did not do anything; however, if it
did do something, he believed that the active portion
related to a person's view that an item in violation of
federal statute or the Constitution would not be state law
(page 2, lines 15-16). He felt that the language was
"nullification language" and he was not in favor of
supporting a bill that would allow the legislature to
nullify the U.S. Constitution or federal law. The
legislature could dispute federal law and he had generally
supported the action. He believed HB 8 was something more
than a dispute and allowed anyone who opposed something the
federal government did to decide that it was
unconstitutional or a violation of federal law. He did not
support the aspect of the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the amendment would delete
all but Sections 4 and 5 of the legislation.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt the
conceptual Amendment 1.
IN FAVOR: Doogan, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Costello, Edgmon, Fairclough, Joule, Hawker,
Wilson, Stoltze, Thomas
The MOTION FAILED (8/2).
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed to the zero fiscal note by the
Department of Law.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 8(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson relayed that the fiscal note was
indeterminate.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the fiscal note had changed
from indeterminate to zero.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Doogan MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to report CS HB
8(FIN) from committee.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Fairclough, Joule,
Hawker, Thomas, Stoltze, Gara
OPPOSED: Doogan, Guttenberg
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION
it was so ordered.
CSHB 8(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with new zero impact fiscal note by the
Department of Law.
2:47:47 PM
AT EASE
2:48:22 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the Southeast State Forest; and
providing for an effective date."
2:48:47 PM
RICHARD ROGERS, NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), spoke in
support of HB 105. He detailed that the bill was part of
the state's effort to ensure that local timber processing
continued to be a part of the Southeast Alaska economy. The
majority of timber in southern Southeast Alaska was on
federal land, but federal timber sales had drastically
declined. Local sawmills heavily depended on state timber
for survival. He relayed that the Southeast timber demand
for energy had been increasing, which heightened the
importance of a secure timber base for the region. The wood
pellet boiler that had recently been installed in the
Sealaska Corporation's Juneau building illustrated an
increased movement towards the commercial usage of wood for
energy. A 25,291 acre Southeast State Forest had been
established in June 2010 as a result of the passage of SCS
HB 162(RES). An additional 23,181 acres of state lands
available for timber harvest would be added the Southeast
State Forest if HB 105 became law. Consequently, the
Division of Forestry would be able to manage the combined
48,472 acres for a long-term timber supply and would retain
the lands in state ownership for multiple uses. The lands
would be managed as an integrated unit according to a state
forest management plan that would be developed through a
public process during the following two years. The state
forest designation would ensure that the productive forest
lands would remain in state ownership and would contribute
to the long-term viability of the timber based economy in
Southeast.
Mr. Rogers discussed that in 2009 the prior forest
inventory for the lands had been updated by DNR to include
forest management intent language per the region's area
plans. The data provided the required supporting
information regarding timber volume, acreage, and allowable
harvest. The allowable harvest for the lands was
approximately 8.3 million board feet per year. The
department managed over 150,000 acres of uplands in
southern Southeast Alaska; the state actively managed one-
third of the land and supplied wood to local processors.
The remaining land was designated for other uses including
land sales, recreation, water resources, and fish and
wildlife habitat that included over 65,000 acres of
legislatively designated state marine parks and critical
habitat areas. He voiced that adding lands to the state
forest would ensure that the state's more suitable lands in
Southeast remained available for contribution to the
state's ongoing timber sale program. A significant portion
of the state-owned timberland in Southeast Alaska was
inherited from the U.S. Forest Service and was comprised of
young, second-growth stands. Compared to unmanaged second-
growth stands, actively managed second-growth stands
provided more timber volume per acre on shorter rotations
and could result in improved "deer browse." A thinning of
state lands would increase timber yield and timber supply.
He elaborated that thinning was a long-term investment and
was only justified if the land continued to be available
for forest management. Timber sales from the lands would be
a mix of domestic and round log export based on economic
conditions and locations. A 1984 U.S. Supreme Court Case of
South-Central Timber Development vs. the former DNR
commissioner Esther Wunnicke, established that the state
could not restrict round log export due to interpretation
of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2:53:06 PM
Mr. Rogers furthered that the division had done a good job
encouraging local manufacturing of logs from state timber
sales in spite of the legal constraints. He stated that 87
percent of the timber sold from state lands in southern
Southeast over the past six years had been processed by
Alaska manufacturers. The proposed additions to the state
forest included 23 parcels that were outlined in a handout
(copy on file). Approximately 21 percent of the lands were
from 5 parcels that had been previously reserved pending a
prior legislative attempt to transfer the lands to the
University of Alaska. The legislation had not passed and
the lands were freed for the long-term forest management in
the state forest. The bill included general use lands on
the Islands of Prince of Wales, Tuxekan, Gravina,
Kosciusko, Revillagigedo, Wrangell, Suemez, Mitkof, Kuiu,
Dall, and Zarembo. Six of the parcels were adjacent or near
existing state forest parcels.
Mr. Rogers communicated that the Division of Forestry had
worked with the Division of Mining, Land, and Water to
identify and exclude lands that were priorities for the
state land disposal program. Additionally, a consultation
had been initiated with the University of Alaska Statewide
Office of Land Management and university officials. He
explained that an important difference between the state
forest designation and a transfer of lands related to the
long-term public ownership of the lands compared to other
development uses, as had been contemplated under prior
university legislation. Through a consultation with the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the division had ensured
that there was internal alignment on the list of parcels.
Several other parcels had been considered in the division's
due diligence; however, they had not been included because
of known concerns or the potential for high controversy.
Mr. Rogers continued to discuss reasons behind the
division's support of the legislation. He relayed that fish
habitat and water quality were key components of the Forest
Resources and Practices Act, which included a series of
regulations that would apply to the management of the
parcels. Stream buffers had a no-cut 100 foot minimum width
on anadromous and high-value resident fish streams; the
next 100 foot to 300 foot zone could allow timber harvest,
but consistent activity was necessary for the maintenance
of important fish and wildlife habitat. He discussed that
area plans provided for coastal buffers of 300 feet to 500
feet and had additional recommendations for specific
parcels. During the development of the management plan, a
significant consideration for the Neets Bay parcel would be
the maintenance of water quality and quantity for the fish
hatchery operation at the head of the bay. He relayed that
there had been an ongoing dialog about the bill with the
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association.
Mr. Rogers discussed that the Southeast State Forest would
be managed as a part of the state forest system under AS
41.17.200 through AS 41.17.230. He read from subsection (a)
of AS 41.17.200:
The primary purpose in the establishment of state
forests is timber management that provides for the
production, utilization, and replenishment of timber
resources while allowing other beneficial uses of
public land and resources.
Mr. Rogers detailed that in addition to timber management
that state forests were open to multiple uses including,
wildlife habitat and harvest, mineral exploration and
development, transportation, recreation, and tourism. State
forest lands would be managed consistent with the
management intent under the current Prince of Wales Island
and Central Southeast area plans. He expounded that changes
to management intent would require public and interagency
review through the adoption of a State Forest Management
Plan under AS 41.17.230.
Mr. Rogers highlighted that one of the other demands on
state land in southern Southeast was to fulfill land
entitlements for new municipalities. In order to avoid
conflict with the Wrangell borough entitlement, HB 105
specified that the new Wrangell borough may select state
forest land within the borough boundary. The boundary
encompassed three parcels in the existing state forest
(Crittenden Creek and Bradfield Canal East and West) and
four parcels in the bill's proposed additions (Eastern
Passage, Pat Creek, Pat Creek uplands, and Earl West Cove).
Lands that were vacant, unappropriated, or unreserved prior
to the establishment of the state forest would be included
in the calculation of the municipal entitlement acreage
(but may not be selected), if additional municipalities
were incorporated before June 30, 2019.
2:57:32 PM
Mr. Rogers noted that DNR had briefed many statewide groups
and entities across Southeast Alaska on the proposal,
including the Board of Forestry, SE Conference, local
governments, and the various groups that were participating
in the Tongass Futures Roundtable. Letters of support had
been received from the following entities: the City of
Coffman Cove, Resource Development Council, Alaska Forest
Association, Alaska Chapter of the Society of American
Foresters, Southeast Conference, Juneau Chamber of
Commerce, and George Woodbury (Wrangell resident and
forestry consultant).
Representative Gara asked whether any sport, commercial, or
other fishing organizations had taken a position on HB 105.
Mr. Rogers did not believe that any fishing organization
had taken a position on the bill.
Representative Gara wondered there would be stream buffers
in addition to the no-logging buffer zone of 300 feet to
500 feet that would exist along some coastal areas. He
asked whether only the forestry act rules would apply or if
there would be special rules on stream buffers.
Mr. Rogers responded that the Forest Resources and
Practices Act rules required a 100 foot no-cut buffer on
each side of both anadromous and high-value resident fish
streams. There was an additional 100 foot to 300 foot area
of special consideration where trees could be harvested if
it could be demonstrated that there would be no adverse
impact to the resources.
Representative Gara queried whether any of the areas were
in high value fishing streams.
Mr. Rogers answered that most state, federal, or other
lands in Southeast had high-value fish streams. The
division worked closely with DFG to catalog fish streams
and to identify salmon streams that may not have been
included in the official catalog; the information was used
to design timber sales and to protect fisheries resources.
He discussed that the Neets Bay parcel housed an
aquaculture hatchery. The division had met with the
hatchery staff; it would consider the resources through the
state's forest management planning process and the
individual timber sale process.
3:00:56 PM
Representative Gara wanted to be assured that streams with
important fish habitat had buffer zones that exceeded 100
feet. His biggest concern was that the minimum 100 foot
buffers could blow down in windfall and were sometimes up
to three trees deep.
Mr. Rogers replied that with or without the bill, the lands
inside and outside the state forest were available for
timber harvest and subject to the same forest practices
rule and planning guidelines. Consideration was given to
site specific circumstances and in some cases protections
may have exceeded the statutory requirements. A robust
"effectiveness monitoring" program existed under the forest
practices act and the division had done research on the
effectiveness of stream buffers in conjunction with the
Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental
Protection Agency, Sealaska Corporation, and other land
owners. The protection of fisheries and water quality was
taken very seriously and was factored into the program for
lands inside and outside of the state forest.
Representative Gara wondered why the bill was necessary if
the areas could already be logged and were currently under
the same buffer zones.
Mr. Rogers replied that the bill established that the state
was dedicated to a long-term commitment and tenure for the
(new growth to growth to harvesting) tree cycle. With a
dedicated land base that was not likely to be disposed of,
transferred to a municipal government, or used for another
purpose, foresters would have the ability to take the long-
view, make the necessary investments, maximize the growth
on the lands to maximize yield, and provide the most
economic benefit with the smallest footprint.
Representative Guttenberg wondered what differences existed
between state land and a state forest that operated under a
management plan. He understood that the state lands would
be designated for inclusion in the Southeast State Forest
and because the forest was relatively new there had not
been the opportunity to develop a management plan through a
public process. He thought the management plan process was
effective and would serve multiple segments of the state.
Mr. Rogers responded that a planning process called "area
plans" currently existed for all state land. The lands in
the Prince of Wales and the Central Southeast area plans
were in a "general use" classification that specified
allowable uses, including forestry. For a state forest, the
area plans would be in place until a state forest
management plan was written. The state forest plan would
have similar elements, but would be more focused because
the timeframe would be longer-term and the lands would
emphasize forestry use. He explained that an area plan
typically had a shelf-life of approximately 10 years; it
could be general use for a decade and could change to
something else under a new plan. The state forest
management plans could also be modified, but the primary
forestry emphasis and multiple-use would not be modified.
Co-Chair Thomas believed that Senator Lisa Murkowski had
started the Southeast State Forest to subsidize the loss of
federal timber for the small timber mills that remained. He
noted that the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act
was a result of solicitation to former Representative
Adelheid Herrmann by village and regional corporations.
Representative Herrmann had created a task-force that
passed the Act in a vote of 25 to 23. He added that the
regional and village corporations had requested the Act
because they had been criticized for logging too close to
streams.
3:08:20 PM
RON WOLFE, MANAGER, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER, SEALASKA,
supported HB 105. He discussed that the population in most
of the villages and communities in Southeast had declined
in the past decade. He relayed that populations would
continue to decrease and referred to statistics included in
his written testimony (copy on file). Population declines
adversely impacted property values, the ability of a
community to operate basic items such as schools, fuel and
grocery delivery, transportation, and other essential
services. He emphasized the need for all of the industries
in Southeast for survival and believed that the timber
industry was a "mere shadow of itself." The timber industry
had changed and currently the timber supply came from the
Sealaska Corporation, the Tongass National Forest, the
State of Alaska, and other private landowners. He discussed
that the groups depended on each other to create enough
"critical mass to hang on," and used the same logging
contractors, fuel suppliers, tug operators, and entire
infrastructure to support Southeast Alaska.
Mr. Wolfe relayed that timber sales from state lands
designated as state forest under the bill, would help to
support existing domestic manufacture and potential round
log export. Both markets were important; round log export
could potentially provide higher revenues that would make
timber sales economic and wood designated for the few
remaining domestic sawmills helped their survival. He
recapped that the industry had changed and that those
involved depended on each other. He disputed concerns that
round log exportation exported jobs and referred to a
related McDowell Group report that had been commissioned by
Sealaska Corporation (copy on file). The report had found
that round log export and domestic manufacturing created
the same number of jobs on a per million board foot basis.
Jobs related to round log export came from a different
source and tended to be in villages that did not have
sawmills, which made the employment very important to
communities such as Kake, Hydaburg, and other. In order to
work, individuals had to move to villages with sawmills,
such as Craig and Klawock. Domestic jobs tended to be on
stevedoring, sort-yard manufacture, and other. He
reiterated the corporation's support for HB 105. He
believed that the reasons provided by Mr. Rogers helped to
explain why the commitment of a state forest base allowed
future investment and provided certainty for long-term
planning related to forest management.
Representative Wilson wondered whether it had become easier
or more difficult to log federal grounds for use in
sawmills in Southeast.
Mr. Wolfe replied that the situation in the Tongass
National Forest was not good. He explained that
approximately 87 percent of Southeast Alaska's 23 million
acre land base did not allow development and was designated
as park, roadless, or wilderness lands. Development could
only occur on the remaining area provided that resource
protection was achieved, including the Alaska Forest
Resources and Practices Act, Tongass National Forest
management plan, the Clean Water Act, the Bald Eagle
Protection Act, and more. The remaining 13 percent of the
Southeast acreage supported the timber industry. He opined
that people in Southeast were becoming "conservation
refugees."
3:15:23 PM
Representative Gara asked whether the no-logging buffer
zone along stream banks was different for private lands
than for public lands under the Alaska Forest Resources and
Practices Act. Mr. Wolfe replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara wondered what the buffer zone was on
private lands. Mr. Wolfe responded that the private land
buffer zone started with a 66 foot no-harvest buffer, but
when necessary the act allowed a more stringent standard.
Representative Gara queried whether the more stringent
standard came as a result of negotiation or a requirement.
Mr. Wolfe answered that the stringent standard was
determined through negotiation.
Representative Gara wondered why the corporation would ever
agree if the state proposed a broader buffer zone. Mr.
Wolfe explained that the Act allowed the land manager on
the ground to make decisions with the agencies. He detailed
that a wider zone may have been a segment of a negotiated
process that would allow variation harvest within the 66
foot buffer zone.
Representative Gara asked whether Sealaska would ever agree
to a request from the state that would broaden a buffer
zone to protect a fish stream.
Mr. Wolfe replied that he could not answer the question in
a committee hearing. He described that in relation to
stream protection the Act allowed decisions to be made in
the field with professionals on the ground, which was more
desirable than a cookie cutter approach that prescribed a
minimum buffer zone. He opined that whoever had told
Representative Gara that 100 foot buffers tended to blow
down was incorrect. Sealaska had worked in conjunction with
federal and state agencies and had approximately 20 years
of data based on repeat observations of the same stream
that verified the effectiveness of the Act buffer standards
related to fish habitat protection.
Representative Gara remarked that there was established
peer reviewed literature that indicated the tendency for
small buffer-zones to blow down in high wind areas. He
believed that the shade provided by strong buffer-zones was
important for fry, smolt, and adult fish. Mr. Wolfe
responded that they would respectfully disagree on the
point.
Co-Chair Thomas had been involved as a village corporation
president and explained that compensation was not received
for the loss of timber on any private lands that were given
to the state. He did not think that many people would
devote 66 feet of their land along a lake, river, or
stream. Selective cutting of trees was allowed with a
forest manager or forester and large trees in danger of
blowing down could be worth $60,000.
3:21:13 PM
SHELLY WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE,
spoke in support of HB 105. She quoted a proclamation by
President Roosevelt:
And now, first and foremost you can never forget for a
moment what is the object of our forest policy. That
is not to preserve the forests because they are
beautiful, though that is good in itself, not because
they are refuges for the wild creatures of the
wilderness, though that too is good in of itself; but
the primary object of our forest policy, as the land
policy of the United States, is making of prosperous
homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home
making in our country. Every other consideration comes
as secondary. You yourselves have got to keep this
practical object before your minds; to remember that a
forest which contributes nothing to the wealth,
progress or safety of the country is of no interest to
the government and should be of little interest to the
forester. Your attention must be directed to the
preservation of the forests, not an end in itself, but
as a means of preserving and increasing the prosperity
of the nation.
Ms. Wright read from her personal testimony:
The communities in Southeast Alaska are struggling to
survive. Part of the struggle is a lack of jobs. There
used to be a timber industry in our region that
supported our communities...people had wage earning
jobs and financial support for our schools and
infrastructure. We depended on this for security and
for our future. Now our industry is almost gone...I
have been told the timber industry is a thing of the
past...but recently I read an article in the Juneau
Empire that gave me indications to the
contrary...Seems the State of Alaska's retirement fund
officials are looking at investing in a timber
industry in the lower 48...to make the Alaska State
retirement fund more secure they are investing in
Timber in the Southeastern states from Texas to the
Carolinas...while we sit on 17 million acres of the
Tongass National Forest. That tells me we are missing
the mark here in our region. This state forest will be
a small way to stabilize our investments in the future
of our communities. Allowing the State to have
designated lands to manage for timber harvest will
give our local mills a little more security and
therefore maybe be able to employ a few more folks. We
are down to one medium sized mill on Prince of Wales
Island and 9 or 10 mom and pop mills throughout the
region that rely on the bigger mills to stay in
business. We are encouraged by the progress the state
department of forestry has made with its industry
development and with the partnership they have with
the Federal Government. However these efforts are
almost unfortunately too little too late...our region
is in emergency mode now. We need this forest
designation in order to survive. The existence of a
timber industry in Southeast Alaska depends on
immediate action to provide a supply of economically
viable sales. There has been a concerted effort by the
State working with the Forest Service to improve the
quantity and quality of the Forest Service timber
sales. This effort continues but has not resulted in
the improvement needed. There are 17 million acres in
the Tongass National Forest…this bill will secure
48,472 acres for timber harvest management by the
Division of Forestry.
3:25:08 PM
Ms. Wright continued with her personal testimony:
It is a very small amount of land in the big picture
but it could go a long way in maintaining the
stability of our people in Southeast Alaska. As a
representative of the logging communities in Southeast
Alaska I urge you to support the expansion of the
Alaska State Forest and support the passage of HB 105.
This designation will enable the Department of Natural
Resources Division of Forestry to sustainably manage
the timber, fisheries, wildlife, waters, recreation,
and other multiple benefits that will strengthen the
local economy, provide jobs, and improve quality of
life of all Southeast Alaska communities. And I also
encourage you...as representatives for the State of
Alaska and individually...to continue to look for ways
to assist the Federal Government in implementing the
Tongass Land Management Plan and open the Tongass
National Forest to responsible resource development.
JOHN SANDOR, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in favor of HB 105. He had
been a regional forester for the forest service and had
served as the commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources. The bill would add 23,181 acres of State lands
to the 25,291 acre state forest that had been established
the prior year. He believed that the state forest was not
large but would significantly help the economy in Southeast
Alaska's communities. He recalled that the timber harvest
level had been 420,000 million board feet in 1984 and that
currently it was less than 50,000 million board feet. He
opined that the reinstatement of the 2001 Clinton
Administration's Roadless Rule had the potential to limit
resource development projects on all Tongass National
Forest areas. He expounded that two-thirds of the 27
renewable energy projects that were currently being
reviewed by the forest service would be adversely impacted
by the federal Roadless Rule. The specific requirements of
the Roadless Rule precluded the extension of power lines
over roadless areas and roads that led to renewable energy
projects. He emphasized that the adverse impact on the
communities of Southeast Alaska would be significant. He
relayed that the Alaska-Canada Energy Coalition had asked
the governor and the attorney general to bring legal action
against the Roadless Rule. He discussed that the Alaska
State Forest would meaningfully benefit the remaining
sawmills in Southeast Alaska and would provide communities
with new opportunities to improve their economy and quality
of life.
3:30:35 PM
Co-Chair Thomas thanked Mr. Sandor for his contribution to
the timber industry. He reflected on how the loss of timber
jobs in Southeast Alaska had resulted in a population
decline of 17,000 individuals in the past 10 years. He had
seen how the loss of industry had adversely impacted
population in villages.
Mr. Sandor commented that the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development projected that the population in
Southeast Alaska would decline 14 percent by 2034. He
believed that the bill would help to reduce the decline.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report HB 105 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION it was
so ordered.
HB 105 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (DNR).
3:32:49 PM
AT EASE
3:43:20 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 150
"An Act relating to the protection of property of
persons under disability and minors; relating to the
crime of violating a protective order concerning
certain vulnerable persons; relating to aggravating
factors at sentencing for offenses concerning a victim
65 years or older; relating to the protection of
vulnerable adults; amending Rule 12(h), Alaska Rules
of Criminal Procedure; amending Rule 45(a), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; amending Rule 65, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; amending Rule 17, Alaska
Rules of Probate Procedure; amending Rule 9, Alaska
Rules of Administration; and providing for an
effective date."
3:43:42 PM
DUANE MAYES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SENIOR AND DISABILITY
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
explained that HB 150 related to the protection of
"vulnerable adults," who were identified as Alaskans with
disabilities over the age of 65. The bill specifically
related to the protection of property and the violation of
a protective order. He communicated that financial
exploitation of elder and other vulnerable populations was
increasing along with the growth in Alaska's elderly
population. The Department of Labor and Workforce
Development estimated that there were approximately 50,000
or more adults that were aged 60 and older; the number was
expected to change to approximately 80,000 by 2017. He
delineated that the legislation would strengthen Alaska law
to increase the protection of elders and other vulnerable
adults against fraud and financial exploitation. He
stressed that vulnerable adults needed assistance to stop
the theft of their money.
Mr. Mayes detailed that the bill would address the
difficulty that victims had with accessing the courts and
would help them to obtain prompt and inexpensive relief.
Two frustrations that victims had with the courts would be
solved under the legislation: First, the temporary
conservatorship provisions of HB 150 would help victims of
financial exploitation who may not need a guardian, but who
needed assistance to stop the immediate theft of their
money. The temporary conservatorship procedure would be
similar to the existing temporary guardian procedure; the
victim would retain autonomy while receiving assistance,
which would enhance their ability to stop exploitation or
loss before they suffered irreparable harm. Second, the "ex
parte" relief was similar to the existing domestic violence
protection law and would allow vulnerable adults to
independently obtain straightforward, expedited relief
without an attorney, from any magistrate or judge
throughout Alaska.
Mr. Mayes described that HB 150 would amend the Adult
Protective Services statutes to enhance the investigative
authority of vulnerable adults and would expand the list of
mandatory reporters to include nursing home employees. The
bill included "undue influence" language related to the
mistreatment of a vulnerable adult by a person of trust.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the undue influence
provision was similar to the standard that had been applied
in the Satch Carlson case, which had focused on a teacher's
sexual exploitation of a student in his role as a person of
trust. Mr. Mayes responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Mayes summarized that the bill would enhance penalties
in criminal cases related to the abuse of vulnerable adults
and would provide the State of Alaska with the necessary
tools to combat the growing problem of financial abuse
against the elderly and disabled population.
3:49:52 PM
PAT LUBY, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR
RETIRED PERSONS, vocalized the organization's support of HB
150. He stated that the abuse and exploitation of older
adults was unfortunate and often times the offender was a
family member, trusted advisor, or caregiver. The bill
increased mandated reporters, including lower-level staff
in long-term care facilities. The use of conservators was
expanded and included temporary conservators that were
available on an emergency basis. The fastest growing age
group nationwide was adults over the age of 85 and was the
most likely group to be subjected to some type of abuse. He
voiced that HB 150 would not solve all of the problems, but
that it would be helpful. He pointed out that the title of
the bill included the age of 65 and page 8, line 9 and page
11, lines 8 and 16 used the age 60. He thought the
committee may want to determine whether the two ages were
necessary. He reiterated the organization's support of the
bill that would help vulnerable adults, children, and
individuals with disabilities.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the definition of
"vulnerable adult" was broad enough to cover all of the
necessary circumstances. Mr. Luby replied that the
organization relied on and respected the attorney general's
ability to provide the best definition.
SCOTT STERLING, SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF ELDER FRAUD
AND ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), supported the
legislation. He discussed that the Office of Public
Advocacy had contributed to the provisions related to the
temporary conservatorship and protective orders for
financial exploitation. He noted that Kelly Henriksen with
DOL had been involved in the other provisions of the bill
related to adult protective services and other. The
temporary conservatorship program was intended to be a
mirror of the existing temporary guardianship provision in
AS Title 13; the current provision existed in order to
provide courts with express statutory authority to appoint
temporary conservators to prevent immediate or imminent
financial harm to a vulnerable adult. The court system had
expressed reservations about its authority to issue
temporary conservatorships because they were not currently
allowed in Alaska statute; the proposed legislation would
eliminate the problem.
Mr. Sterling communicated that the financial protection
orders were intended to permit inexpensive and expedited
relief without the need to hire an attorney and were
similar to existing orders that were available to domestic
violence victims. He explained that in his profession it
was generally accepted that fraud and financial
exploitation were a form of domestic violence. The bill
would permit any citizen aggrieved by financial
mistreatment to apply for relief from the exploitation
before a judge or magistrate without the involvement of an
attorney; however, the bill did not prevent citizens from
using an attorney. The goal was to provide people with the
ability to put a stop to exploitation that had become more
prevalent due to the ease in which technology overcame
barriers privacy rights. The purpose of the provision was
to offer statutory remedies and procedures that were
accessible and allowed individuals to protect themselves
from financial abuse.
3:57:54 PM
Representative Costello wondered whether identity theft was
considered under the definition of exploitation. Mr.
Sterling responded in the affirmative. He added that many
of the fraud and financial exploitation cases in the Office
of Elder Fraud Assistance had involved identity theft.
BETH RUSSO, SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY, PUBLIC GUARDIAN SECTION,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
(via teleconference), voiced the agency's support of the
bill. The agency believed the bill would be a significant
aid to its clients and any person subject to a protective
proceeding, and would eliminate the need for the
appointment of a public guardian or conservator.
BRENDA MAHLATINI, PROGRAM MANAGER, OFFICE OF ADULT
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF SENIOR AND DISABILITIES
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), introduced herself and was available for
questions.
KATHY MONFREDA, CHIEF AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION
SYSTEM OFFICER (CJIS), CRIMINAL RECORDS AND IDENTIFICATION
BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),
explained that CJIS was responsible for database
maintenance for files such as protective orders. She was
available to answer questions.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony, but noted that he
would reopen it in a future meeting if necessary.
HB 150 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to loans for the purchase of fishing
quota shares by certain community quota entities; and
providing for an effective date."
4:01:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, SPONSOR, introduced his
staff that would discuss the bill.
STEVE RICCI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN,
discussed that HB 141 established a revolving loan fund for
the Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program. The program was
created in 2004 by the North Pacific Management Council in
response to the significant outmigration of commercial
longline quota from rural villages in the Gulf of Alaska.
The program allowed 21 communities in Southeast and 21
communities in Southcentral to purchase and lease quota to
residents, which would enable communities and fishermen to
be active participants in the fisheries that occurred off
of their shores. Since the inception of the CQE program and
purchase quota, only one of the eligible communities had
been able to utilize the legal authority that the program
provided. The most significant barrier to participation was
the ability to access financing. The bill established an
independent revolving loan fund to assist the communities
in the procurement of quota, which would help to support
the economy of rural, coastal communities; an active
fishing fleet would employ residents, provide tax revenues,
spend income locally, and allow the communities to be
sustainable and self-reliant. He pointed to the success of
a similar program (Community Development Quota (CDQ)
Program) that had been implemented to aid local residents
that did not have significant access to fisheries occurring
off their shores in the Bering Sea as a result of the
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system; residents had been
provided 10 percent of the pollock quota.
4:05:42 PM
Representative Edgmon supported the legislation. He had
worked as the CDQ program manager when the CQE program was
in development. He highlighted the significance of the
economic development and number of jobs that could result
from the program.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered what the loan cap was per
community. He thought that poorer communities may not be
able to leverage as much as others such as Kodiak.
Mr. Ricci responded in two parts: First, Kodiak would not
be an eligible community under the program. Second, there
was a $1 million cap per community, which was approximately
33,000 pounds at current day prices.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered whether similar to the harbor
grant program, the loan fund would not allow revenue
sharing or direct capital grants from the legislature to be
used as matching grants. Mr. Ricci did not know.
Co-Chair Thomas remarked that he had helped to write the
program.
4:08:14 PM
Representative Costello requested that Mr. Ricci's written
comments be provided to the committee. Mr. Ricci responded
that he would provide them.
Representative Doogan asked whether the problem was that
people did not have the money to fish their quota. Mr.
Ricci replied that residents of the communities had seen
quota migrate from their communities to larger communities.
Individuals that had participated in the fishery had either
left or sold the quota and residents had been left with no
access to the fishery. The loan program would help the
communities to purchase quota and would allow individuals
to lease it from the community. The program required the
lessee to be a resident of the community that held the
quota.
Representative Hawker understood that the bill created a
revolving loan fund for the purpose of making loans under
the existing CQE program. He asked the sponsor to determine
whether there were underutilized funds in other revolving
loan programs that could be accessed to pay for the
program, which would eliminate the need for the general
fund appropriation request included in HB 140.
Mr. Ricci responded that he would work with the department
on the request.
Representative Wilson wondered why the state would hire
more employees to administer the program instead of
offering the loan through a financial institution.
Mr. Ricci responded that there would be one additional
person hired in the Division of Investments. He explained
that private banking institutions would not be able to
provide the necessary loan program terms to meet the needs
of the CQE communities. Since the inception of the CQE
program in 2004, private financial institutions had been in
place; however, they had not been able to provide the
financing that was necessary to make the program work
properly.
Representative Edgmon added that recipients could get a
much better interest rate through the loan program that had
been constructed much like the commercial fishing revolving
loan program that had been established in the early 1980s
to help fishermen access lower capital. He noted that the
commercial fishing loan program had been successful and had
contributed money back to the general fund.
Representative Hawker asked the sponsor to contemplate
whether it was possible to achieve the desired outcome
without creating a new revolving loan fund. He wondered
whether it could be structured as a loan guarantee program
or an interest subsidy to facilitate participation in the
commercial fisheries revolving loan funds. He did not want
to grow government or to create new agencies and programs.
He thought it would be more beneficial to capitalize and
take advantage of programs that already existed.
Representative Doogan wondered where the $45 million figure
in the bill came from. Mr. Ricci responded that each of the
42 communities would be eligible for $1 million under the
loan fund.
4:14:38 PM
Co-Chair Thomas noted that only a few entities were able to
use permits and IFQs as collateral for a loan, including
the State of Alaska and a halibut commission.
WANETTA AYERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, agreed that it was problematic for financial
institutions to put a lien against a quota share and was
the reason the division had historically served the
purpose.
Co-Chair Thomas discussed that he had been involved in
fisheries for 35 years. He had watched the number of
employees on larger boats decrease from up to eight people
down to four. Individuals who had fished in the past were
left out of the fishery and were struggling in their
communities. He stressed that permits and IFQ's were
leaving Alaska; the loan program provided a key solution to
problem, given that it required the fishermen and employees
to be residents of the community that owned the CQE.
Communities would rotate who they leased the CQE to, which
provided an opportunity to spread jobs to multiple
residents.
4:18:07 PM
Representative Costello asked whether the program competed
with the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank
(CFAB). Ms. Ayers responded that the question would be best
addressed by CFAB, but she did not believe that a CQE would
meet the CFAB lending standards.
Representative Hawker clarified that the intent of a loan
guarantee program that would access existing programs would
be to make borrowers credit worthy.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony, but noted that he
would reopen it in a future meeting if necessary.
HB 141 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 140
"An Act making a special appropriation to the
community quota entity revolving loan fund; and
providing for an effective date."
4:20:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that HB 140 included a $45
million appropriation. He added that the funding would most
likely be included in another appropriation bill if the
committee decided to provide it.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
HB 140 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 10
"An Act relating to the registration fee for
noncommercial trailers and to the motor vehicle tax
for trailers."
HB 10 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to permanent motor vehicle
registration; and providing for an effective date."
HB 64 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to the procurement of supplies,
services, professional services, and construction for
the Alaska Energy Authority; establishing the Alaska
Railbelt energy fund and relating to the fund;
relating to and repealing the Railbelt energy fund;
relating to the quorum of the board of the Alaska
Energy Authority; relating to the powers of the Alaska
Energy Authority regarding employees and the transfer
of certain employees of the Alaska Industrial
Development Export Authority to the Alaska Energy
Authority; relating to acquiring or constructing
certain projects by the Alaska Energy Authority;
relating to the definition of 'feasibility study' in
the Alaska Energy Authority Act; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 103 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act renaming the Alaska performance scholarship
and relating to the scholarship and tax credits
applicable to contributions to the scholarship;
establishing the Alaska performance scholarship
investment fund and the Alaska performance scholarship
award fund and relating to the funds; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
HB 104 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act creating a new markets tax credit assistance
guarantee and loan program within the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 120 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act establishing the commercial charter fisheries
revolving loan fund, the mariculture revolving loan
fund, and the Alaska microloan revolving loan fund and
relating to those funds and loans from those funds;
and providing for an effective date."
HB 121 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act moving the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development and relating to duties of that department;
and providing for an effective date."
HB 125 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to insurance; relating to health care
insurance, exemption of certain insurers, reporting,
notice, and record-keeping requirements for insurers,
biographical affidavits, qualifications of alien
insurers assuming ceded insurance, risk-based capital
for insurers, insurance holding companies, licensing,
federal requirements for nonadmitted insurers, surplus
lines insurance, insurance fraud, life insurance
policies and annuity contracts, rate filings by health
care insurers, long-term care insurance, automobile
service corporations, guaranty fund deposits of a
title insurer, joint title plants, delinquency
proceedings, fraternal benefit societies, multiple
employer welfare arrangements, hospital and medical
service corporations, and health maintenance
organizations; and providing for an effective date."
HB 164 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
4:21:02 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:21 PM.