Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/03/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB305 | |
| SB125 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 3, 2014
8:33 a.m.
8:33:51 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:33 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Les Gara
Representative Steve Thompson
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault; Dan Stickel, Assistant Chief
Economist, Tax Division, Department of Revenue; Christine
Marasigan, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer; Nancy Sutch, Deputy
Director, Division of Personnel and Labor Relations,
Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
HB 305 JUNK DEALER & METAL SCRAPPER LICENSING
HB 305 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 125 REJECT RECOMMENDATION OF COMP. COMMISSION
SB 125 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 305
"An Act repealing the requirement that a junk dealer
or metal scrapper obtain a license."
8:34:26 AM
AT EASE
8:34:48 AM
RECONVENED
8:35:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, introduced HB 305 and related
that it was a small piece of legislation that helped clean
up the books. He explained that the bill removed the
statute AS 08.60.010, which required the Department of
Revenue (DOR) to issue an annual license for persons
engaged in the business of junk dealer or metal scrapper.
He explained that prior to statehood, all the duties that
were associated with the issuance of junk dealers' licenses
had resided in the territorial Department of Finance and
relayed that the duties had later been resumed by DOR. He
pointed out that Legislative Research Services had stated
that under Section 10 of the State Organization Act of
1959, the authority and functions performed by the
Department of Taxation, the commissioner of the Department
of Taxation, the Department of Finance, the director of the
Department of Finance, and the treasurer of the Department
of Finance had all been transferred to DOR; however, in
Section 14 of the same act, the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) was given the
responsibility to issue licenses for businesses not covered
or otherwise provided in the act. He related that according
to Legislative Research Services, the duty for licensing
junk dealers and metal scrappers was performed by DCCED
even though it was not assigned to the department because
of the collection of fees or because it was overlooked. He
stated that there was a report from Legislative Research
Services that provided the history and other information
that related to the licensing of junk dealers and metal
scrappers within DOR (copy on file). He stated that the
legislation helped clean up the state's statutes and
believed that it had no fiscal impact because the licensing
was currently being conducted under DCCED.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if Representative Chenault
foresaw any harmful impacts on the health, welfare, or
commerce of the state as a result of the bill.
Representative Chenault replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he would like the department to
comment on the record regarding its position on the current
statute.
Representative Edgmon agreed with the bill, but had a
question regarding what was included under the definition
of metal scrapper. He inquired if the definition of metal
scrapper under the legislation included people who were
dealing with copper. Representative Chenault believed that
copper was included in the definition.
8:39:01 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze indicated that the bill would be held in
committee because of potential issues and a desire to take
public testimony.
DAN STICKEL, ASSISTANT CHIEF ECONOMIST, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated that DOR had looked at its
records back to 1970 and related that the department had
not found an instance of it collecting any revenue from
licenses for junk dealers and metal scrappers; furthermore,
no one in the department was aware of having collected the
licenses. He added that DOR was not opposed to the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if there were people out of
compliance because of the issue and noted that there were
people selling scrap. Mr. Stickel replied that the licenses
were collected by DCCED and that it appeared that the
statute was an extraneous one that could be "scrapped."
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there was interest in adding an
amendment to the bill and pointed out that it would be
incorporated as a CS. He wanted to involve all of the
committee members with the proposal and give people a
chance to look at it.
8:41:09 AM
HB 305 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
8:41:17 AM
AT EASE
8:41:36 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 125
"An Act disapproving all recommendations of the State
Officers Compensation Commission relating to the
salaries of state officers; and providing for an
effective date."
8:41:52 AM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, STAFF, SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, introduced
SB 125 and related that it would reject the State Officers
Compensation Commission's recommendations (copy on file).
She pointed out that according AS 39.23.540(d), the
legislature had 60 days to accept or reject the
recommendation once a final report from the State Officers
Compensation Commission was received. She stated that the
legislature had received the final report on January 30th
of the current year, which gave the legislature until March
31 to accept or reject the recommendations. She observed
that the fiscal note was zero, but that the Office of
Management and Budget had calculated that the
recommendations by the commission for salary increases for
the governor, lieutenant governor, and commissioners would
add approximately $227,515 in costs for FY15; if the
legislature did not reject the recommendations, the
increases would come into effect at the beginning of the
fiscal year in July. She offered that the timing of the
report to increase salaries was unfortunate and believed
that Rick Halford was online to answer questions.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Mr. Halford was not signed up
to testify online.
Representative Wilson referenced the State Officers
Compensation Commission's recommendations. She noted the
line for $146,142.67 and inquired if commissioners would be
set back at that point. She stated that the bill would
reject the recommendations and inquired if they had been
rejected in the past. She further queried where the
commissioners were on the schedule in the findings and
recommendations of the commission. Ms. Marasigan deferred
the question to the administration.
NANCY SUTCH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL AND
LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, responded
that the governor's current salary was $145,000, the
lieutenant governor's salary was $115,000, and that
commissioners were paid $136,350.
Representative Wilson noted that commissioners were getting
paid $136,350 and inquired when the last time they had
received a pay raise was. Ms. Sutch replied that the last
salary increase for the governor and lieutenant governor
was on July 1, 2011; however, the commissioners had
received a 1 percent increase that was effective in July 1
2013 through SB 95.
Co-Chair Stoltze mentioned that SB 95 had also taken care
of the judges.
Representative Edgmon assumed that the justification for
the bill would be proffered at some point and inquired if
there was anyone who was in opposition to the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze suspected that the State Officers
Compensation Commission had determined the decision in good
faith and noted that no one could be compelled to appear
before the committee. He did not want to begrudge the
decisions of the commission other than the policy decision
of the committee that might be different. He stated that
the commission had made their recommendation and that he
did not know if the committee needed to compel volunteers
to testify. He added that the commission's report was
available for the committee to look at.
8:47:24 AM
Representative Edgmon stated that his question was offered
because it appeared that the bill had widespread support.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought that the governor had come out
against his own salary increase and that the commissioners
had publicly fallen in line.
Representative Guttenberg queried if there would be any
changes to the current salary schedule if the
recommendations of the commission were rejected; he
inquired if there were any cost of living increases or pay
differentials in place currently. Ms. Sutch replied that
the commissioners would receive a 1 percent salary increase
effective July 1 of the current year, as well as a 2.5
percent increase in July of 2015.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired if the commissioners' increases
would occur if the recommendations were rejected. Ms. Such
replied in the affirmative and added that the increases for
commissioners would be given through statutory provisions;
however, the lieutenant governor and governor would not
receive any increases absent of the recommendations.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he was looking at an amendment
that might sunset the State Officers Compensation
Commission. He noted that the amendment would not abolish
the commission, but would give the legislature some time to
see if it should be in existence. He noted that he was not
an advocate of abolishing the commission, but that the idea
would be thrown around; he thought that the issue had
become political. He observed that he wanted to hold the
bill to properly draft an amendment. He reiterated that he
did not want to eliminate the commission with the
amendment, but that he wanted to give some deliberation
regarding whether it should continue to exist.
Representative Guttenberg inquired if Mr. Halford would be
online for testimony when the committee worked on the
amendment. Co-Chair Stoltze responded that the committee
could invite Mr. Halford, but that he was a volunteer and
might have other things to do in his workday.
8:50:18 AM
Co-Chair Austerman thought that rather than sunset the
commission, the committee could consider changing the
timeline of the commission's report from every two years to
every five years. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the
committee could deliberate on the issue further; however,
given the timeline with the bill, he wanted to pass it out
of committee in the current week. He thought that the
committee had enough time to be deliberative on the bill
and opined that there was a lot of support to pass the
legislation as it was written. He wanted to make sure that
citizens were out there doing this work, but wondered if
the commission was something that needed to continue to
exist in the current environment.
Representative Holmes liked Co-Chair Austerman's idea that
it might not be necessary to have the State Officers
Compensation Commission report every two years and that
perhaps the work could be done every five years.
8:51:52 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that both SB 125 and HB 305 could
have easily passed committee, but thought that there were
other issues that should be addressed on the both pieces of
legislation. He noted that the both of the bills would be
brought back before the committee in the very near future.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony on SB 125.
Representative Holmes inquired if Mr. Halford had been
online for questions only. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that he
had not been online and that it had been speculation that
he was.
SB 125 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Austerman discussed the following meeting's
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
8:53:17 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 125 ADN article.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 125 |
| SB 125 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 125 |
| HB 305 Dept. of Revenue Research.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| Sponsor Statement-HB 305.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB 305 Junk Car Statute.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB 305 Leg Research-Junk Dealers.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| Findings and Recommendations 2014.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 125 |