Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/17/1996 01:50 PM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                                                                               
                     HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                         April 17, 1996                                        
                            1:50 P.M.                                          
                                                                               
  TAPE HFC 96-125, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-125, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-126, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-126, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Mark  Hanley called  the  House  Finance Committee                 
  meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.                                                
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley               Representative Martin                          
  Co-Chair Foster               Representative Mulder                          
  Representative Brown          Representative Navarre                         
  Representative Grussendorf    Representative Parnell                         
  Representative Kelly          Representative Therriault                      
  Representative Kohring                                                       
                                                                               
  ALSO PRESENT                                                                 
                                                                               
  Jayne  Andreen,  Council  on  Domestic Violence  and  Sexual                 
  Assault; Annette Smith, Department of Corrections; Lt. Chris                 
  Stockard,  Department  of  Public Safety;  Susan  Flensburg,                 
  Bristol  Bay  Costal  RSA;  Sean  McGuire,  Fairbanks;  Erik                 
  Holland, Fairbanks;  Dave  Lacey,  Fairbanks;  Jane  Angvik,                 
  Director,   Division  of   Lands,   Department  of   Natural                 
  Resources;  Anne  Carpeneti,  Assistant   Attorney  General,                 
  Criminal Division, Department  of Law; Tom Williams,  Staff,                 
  Senator Frank; Wendy Redman,  Vice President, University  of                 
  Alaska;                                                                      
                                                                               
  SUMMARY                                                                      
                                                                               
  HB 529    An Act giving  notice of  and approving the  entry                 
            into,   and  the   issuance  of   certificates  of                 
            participation in, a lease-purchase agreement for a                 
            centralized public health laboratory.                              
                                                                               
            HB 529 was  reported out of  Committee with a  "do                 
            pass" recommendation and with three fiscal  impact                 
            notes   by  the  Department  of  Health  &  Social                 
            Services,  the  Department    of Revenue  and  the                 
            Department of Administration, dated 3/29/96.                       
  HB 551    An  Act  relating  to   the  lapse  of  unexpended                 
                                                                               
                                1                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
            balances of one-year appropriations; and providing                 
            for an effective date.                                             
                                                                               
            HB 551 was rescheduled to another time.                            
  SB 232    An Act relating to permanent fund dividend program                 
            notice  requirements,  to  the  ineligibility  for                 
            dividends of individuals convicted of felonies  or                 
            incarcerated   for   misdemeanors,   and  to   the                 
            determination  of  the  number   and  identity  of                 
            certain ineligible individuals; and  providing for                 
            an effective date.                                                 
                                                                               
            HCS CSSB 232  (FIN) was reported out  of Committee                 
            with  a "do  pass"  recommendation  and  with  six                 
            fiscal impact  notes;  two by  the  Department  of                 
            Revenue, dated  3/8/96; one  by the  Department of                 
            Corrections, dated 3/8/96; three by the Department                 
            of Public Safety,  dated 3/8/96;  and with a  zero                 
            fiscal  note  by  the  Department  of  Law,  dated                 
            3/8/96.                                                            
                                                                               
  SB 250    An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to                 
            assets  of the  University of  Alaska; authorizing                 
            the  University  of  Alaska  to select  additional                 
            state public domain land, designating that land as                 
            `university  trust  land,'   and  describing   the                 
            principles  applicable  to the  land's management;                 
            and defining the net income from the University of                 
            Alaska's  endowment  trust  fund   as  `university                 
            receipts'    subject    to    prior    legislative                 
            appropriation.                                                     
                                                                               
            HCS CSSB 250  (FIN) was reported out  of Committee                 
            with "no  recommendation"  and  with  four  fiscal                 
            impact  notes  by  the University  of  Alaska, the                 
            Department of Natural Resources, the Department of                 
            Revenue, and the Department of  Fish and Game, all                 
            dated 2/15/96.                                                     
  SENATE BILL NO. 232                                                          
                                                                               
       "An  Act relating  to permanent  fund  dividend program                 
       notice requirements, to the ineligibility for dividends                 
       of  individuals convicted  of felonies  or incarcerated                 
       for  misdemeanors,  and  to  the  determination  of the                 
       number and identity of certain ineligible  individuals;                 
       and providing for an effective date."                                   
                                                                               
  TOM WILLIAMS, STAFF,  SENATOR FRANK testified in  support of                 
  SB 232.  He noted that the legislation expands both the pool                 
  of  criminals  who  are  ineligible  for  a  permanent  fund                 
                                                                               
                                2                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  dividend  (PFD) check  and  the  specific  criminal  justice                 
  system  agencies  eligible to  use  the dividends  denied to                 
  those criminals.   He  noted that  SB 232  resembles SB  135                 
  which was vetoed by the Governor in June 1995.  He explained                 
  that SB 232 does  not contain the timing provision  to which                 
  the Governor objected.  It  also clarifies and restricts the                 
  purposes  for  which  denied  dividends  can be  used.    It                 
  requires the Department of Revenue to print on  the dividend                 
  stub  public  notice  of the  criteria  and  the legislative                 
  purpose for denying permanent fund dividends to individuals,                 
  and the total  amount that was  appropriated to each of  the                 
  agencies eligible to receive funds.  He observed that SB 232                 
  will make  PFD's of  another 2,000  criminals available  for                 
  appropriation to  the criminal  justice system  in FY  2000.                 
  The effective date is 1/1/97.                                                
                                                                               
  Mr. William provided  members with  two amendments (copy  on                 
  file).    Amendment 1,  9-LS1455\K.1.   The  House Judiciary                 
  Committee added  a provision  that would  count misdemeanors                 
  and similar  crimes that  occurred  in other  jurisdictions.                 
  This created problems with the  Department of Public Safety.                 
  Amendment  1  would  provide that  only  in-state  crimes be                 
  counted.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Amendment 2, 9-LS1455K.3 would make a technical  correction.                 
  It clarifies  that any two  prior convictions would  make an                 
  individual   ineligible   upon    the   third    misdemeanor                 
  convictions.  This  would make  an individual ineligible  if                 
  either of their previous convictions was for a felony.                       
                                                                               
  Mr.  Williams observed  that the  House Judiciary  Committee                 
  made it allowable to  count offenses that occurred prior  to                 
  the effective  date of the  legislation.  The  Department of                 
  Law would like to see a five  year limit.  The Department of                 
  Corrections  estimates  that  the  amendment  by  the  House                 
  Judiciary Committee  would increase the number of ineligible                 
  individuals.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown expressed concern with the displacement                 
  of  funding  from child  support,  court ordered  fines, and                 
  alcohol rehabilitation.  She asked how many of the estimated                 
  2,000 applicants that  would be denied currently  have their                 
  PFD's garnished.  She spoke  against transferring funds from                 
  families and victims to the bureaucracy in order to displace                 
  general funds.                                                               
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams  did not know  how many individuals  would have                 
  their  PFD's garnished.   He stated that  of new ineligibles                 
  approximately 46 of  2,000 would be  impacted.  He  stressed                 
  that this would  be mitigated because under  the legislation                 
  the collection  would only  be delayed.   He  explained that                 
  individuals convicted  would lose  their PFD's  in the  year                 
                                                                               
                                3                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  that they are  convicted of a  felony or incarcerated for  a                 
  misdemeanor.  He maintained that the largest impact would be                 
  if incarceration crossed two calendar years.  He pointed out                 
  that   100  percent   of   each  garnished   dividend  would                 
  necessarily be  collected under current  law.  Under  SB 232                 
  one hundred percent of the dividends are collected.                          
                                                                               
  Representative Brown disagreed  that only 46 PFD's  would be                 
  garnished.  She estimated that 105 PFD's would be garnished.                 
  She  maintained that all 211  Aid to Families with Dependent                 
  Children (AFDC) cases will be affected.                                      
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams explained  that the analysis he  quoted related                 
  to involuntary payments  of the garnishment of  dividends to                 
  make AFDC payments.   He  acknowledged that potentially  211                 
  individuals will not have the funds.                                         
                                                                               
  Representative Brown referred  to a memorandum by  the Child                 
  Support Enforcement Division  to Nanci  Jones, dated May  5,                 
  1995 (copy on file).  She stated that the Division estimates                 
  at least  twice as  many families  would be  affected.   Mr.                 
  Williams noted that  Ms. Vogt indicated  that there were  no                 
  problems with the estimations used by the sponsor.                           
                                                                               
  In response  to a  question by  Representative Parnell,  Mr.                 
  Williams noted that an  attempt to use funds for  a specific                 
  purpose would violate an equal protection provision.                         
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown questioned  how  many dividends  would                 
  have been garnished  under court  ordered restitution.   Mr.                 
  Williams had  no specific  information in  regards to  court                 
  ordered restitution or fines.                                                
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  observed that  many  of the  criminals                 
  would be reliant on their PFD's to make restitution to their                 
  victim.   She  maintained that  money  would be  taken  from                 
  victims and spent on state government.  Mr. Williams replied                 
  that the legislation was introduced  to assure that money is                 
  put back into the criminal justice system.  He stressed that                 
  the intent is to obtain 100 percent of these dollars.                        
                                                                               
  In response to  a question by Co-Chair  Hanley, Mr. Williams                 
  explained  that  incarcerated  felons  are currently  denied                 
  dividends.    Dividends  of  felons  are not  available  for                 
  restitution or child support.                                                
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown noted  that  there  was an  accounting                 
  shortfall for FY  96 due to  the over estimation of  felons'                 
  PFDs to be garnished.   She asked how the  legislation would                 
  account for  garnished PFDs.   Mr. Williams stated  that the                 
  Department of Corrections has a fiscal note accompanying the                 
  legislation  to  improve  their accounting  ability  and  to                 
                                                                               
                                4                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  better coordinate with the Department of Public Safety.                      
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Mr.                 
  Williams explained that  felons lose their dividends  in the                 
  year  of  conviction  and  during   incarceration.    If  an                 
  individual did not go to jail their eligibility would resume                 
  the following year.   Eligibility is regained  after release                 
  from incarceration.  Individuals on  probation or parole are                 
  eligible.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Representative   Brown  asked   how   individuals  will   be                 
  accounted.   Mr. Williams  stated that  information will  be                 
  coordinated   by  the   Department  of  Corrections.     The                 
  Department of Corrections will receive  information from the                 
  Department of Public  Safety, the Department of  Law and the                 
  Alaska Court System.                                                         
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams reiterated  that funding will not  be available                 
  until FY 2000.   Representative  Mulder noted that  revenues                 
  will be spent  immediately.  Mr. Williams  stated that there                 
  will be some reporting and coordination costs.   He stressed                 
  that returns will be upwards of $2.0 million dollars  annual                 
  from the year 2000.                                                          
                                                                               
  In  response  to a  question  by Representative  Mulder, Mr.                 
  Williams noted  that the  Department of  Corrections' fiscal                 
  note was zero  in the previous  session.  The Department  of                 
  Corrections'  fiscal  note was  increased to  $68.7 thousand                 
  dollars.  Mr. Williams pointed  out that the legislation did                 
  not changed.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  noted that potential  revenues are not                 
  included in  the fiscal notes.   Mr. Williams  stressed that                 
  there is not a specific amount that would be appropriated to                 
  any particular department.  He  observed that the Department                 
  of Public Safety  recognizes that they would be  eligible to                 
  receive funds.   He  explained that  the estimation of  $2.0                 
  million  dollars  is  based  on  2,000 dividends  of  $1,000                 
  dollars each.                                                                
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown  asked  why  the  legislation  expands                 
  eligible agencies to include the Department of Public Safety                 
  and the Department  of Law.   Mr. Williams  stated that  the                 
  intent  is  to establish  clear  linkage between  denying an                 
  increased  number of PFDs and the criminal justice system as                 
  required by  the  court  decision.   He  observed  that  the                 
  language  does   require  legislative  appropriation.     He                 
  maintained  that  it is  not the  intent  of the  sponsor to                 
  redirect  existing  funding.    It  is  the  intention  that                 
  additional funds would be available to the other agencies.                   
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown noted  that  funds  are inadequate  to                 
                                                                               
                                5                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  cover existing programs.   She spoke in support of retaining                 
  the current  recipients.   She asked  if the  court requires                 
  that the other agencies  be added.  Mr. Williams  noted that                 
  the Anthony decision does not require additional agencies.                   
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley noted that it would be up to the legislature                 
  to appropriate funds.  Representative  Brown maintained that                 
  the  clear linkage  is  there and  would remain  whether the                 
  other  agencies are added  or not.   Mr. Williams maintained                 
  that the legislation would strengthen the State's position.                  
                                                                               
  Representative Brown asked  if all new ineligibles  would be                 
  incarcerated.   Mr. Williams explained that individuals that                 
  are  convicted of  a felon  but not incarcerated  would lose                 
  their dividend in the year they  were convicted.  Third time                 
  incarcerations of a misdemeanor would also be included.                      
                                                                               
  Representative  Parnell  referred  to the  equal  protection                 
  issue.   Mr. Williams explained  that public funds cannot be                 
  used for  a private purpose.   Funds cannot  be paid to  the                 
  Child  Support  Enforcement Division  to  satisfy  a private                 
  obligation.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Representative  Parnell  noted  that private  judgement  are                 
  subject to priorities of garnishment.   He questioned if the                 
  same   system  is   possible   for   convicted  felons   and                 
  misdemeanant.   Mr. Williams clarified that the State is not                 
  appropriating  a  specific  felon's  funds.   The  State  is                 
  appropriating money that was denied  to the felon.  Co-Chair                 
  Hanley observed that felons are not  required to apply for a                 
  dividend.                                                                    
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Mr.                 
  Williams  clarified that  the Alaska Supreme  Court decision                 
  Anthony vs. State was issued in April 1991.                                  
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder  MOVED  to adopt  Amendment  1.   Mr.                 
  Williams noted that Amendment 1 restricts convictions to in-                 
  state  convictions for  consideration.   The  amendment will                 
  allay concerns by  the Department of  Public Safety and  the                 
  Department of  Law in regards to the release of out-of-state                 
  records.  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                       
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder  MOVED  to adopt  Amendment  2.   Mr.                 
  Williams                                                                     
  explained  that  Amendment  2 clarifies  that  upon  a third                 
  incarceration for a misdemeanor an individual with two prior                 
  crimes, felonies or misdemeanors, would  be ineligible for a                 
  PFD.    He   noted  that  "crimes"   is  defined  under   AS                 
  11.91.900(9).                                                                
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley  noted that  under  the current  language a                 
                                                                               
                                6                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  person who  was  convicted  of two  felonies  and  then  was                 
  convicted for a  misdemeanor would  not have their  dividend                 
  withheld.  Someone with three  misdemeanors would lose their                 
  dividend.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Representative Brown noted that a misdemeanor is not a crime                 
  if it does not involve imprisonment  under the definition of                 
  "crime".    She  questioned  the  effect  on  a  misdemeanor                 
  conviction without  incarceration.  Co-Chair  Hanley pointed                 
  out that a  misdemeanor carries up  to a year  imprisonment.                 
  Incarceration  does   not  have  to   follow  a  misdemeanor                 
  conviction.  Mr. Williams noted that imprisonment  can be up                 
  to one year under a misdemeanor.                                             
                                                                               
  ANNE  CARPENETI, ASSISTANT  ATTORNEY GENERAL,  DEPARTMENT OF                 
  LAW testified that most misdemeanors have the possibility of                 
  jail time.  She  observed that under AS 11.81  a misdemeanor                 
  is defined as an offense for which prison is authorized.                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown expressed concern that "misdemeanor" is                 
  contained in other places in the legislation.   Mr. Williams                 
  suggested  that "crimes"  be amended to  "two or  more prior                 
  misdemeanors or felonies."   He noted  that page 2, line  17                 
  refers to noticing requirements.                                             
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-125, Side 2)                                            
                                                                               
  Representative Brown noted that "misdemeanor" is not tied to                 
  the definition of crimes in  other areas of the legislation.                 
  She expressed concern  that there are misdemeanors  that are                 
  not a criminal offense.  She questioned if an individual has                 
  two  crimes  and  is  convicted  of a  non-criminal  offense                 
  misdemeanor would they lose their dividend.  Co-Chair Hanley                 
  stated that misdemeanors that do not authorize incarceration                 
  would  not  count  as one  of  the  three  convictions.   He                 
  observed the definition of "crimes" under AS 11.81.900(9).                   
                                                                               
  Ms. Carpeneti referred  to page  2, line 15.   She  observed                 
  that the legislation states that "immediately preceding that                 
  dividend year, the  individual was incarcerated as  a result                 
  of... a  conviction of  a felony  or a  third or  subsequent                 
  conviction of  a misdemeanor."   The conviction itself  of a                 
  misdemeanor   would  not   evoke   the   provision.      The                 
  incarceration for a conviction of a misdemeanor would result                 
  in the loss of the dividend.                                                 
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams agreed that it is the incarceration for a third                 
  conviction which happens to be  a misdemeanor that activates                 
  the section.   He reiterated that "crimes"  could be amended                 
  to "two or more prior misdemeanors or felonies."                             
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley felt  that the Committee was  satisfied with                 
                                                                               
                                7                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  "crimes".   Representative  Brown stated  that  the language                 
  should be tied  to imprisonment.   Ms. Carpeneti  reiterated                 
  that the legislation ties misdemeanors to incarceration.                     
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown  argued  that  AS  11.81.900(9)   only                 
  addresses the  definition of  crime, not  the definition  of                 
  misdemeanor.    Ms.   Carpeneti  suggested   that  all   the                 
  definitions in AS 11.81.900 could be referenced.                             
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder maintained that it is appropriate that                 
  those people that  cost the  system defer a  portion of  the                 
  cost.   Representative Brown agreed that  forfeitures should                 
  be tied to incarceration.  She  added that the definition of                 
  "misdemeanor"  in   AS  11.81.900   should  be   referenced.                 
  Representative  Mulder  recommended  that the  reference  to                 
  "(9)" be deleted.                                                            
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 by deleting                 
  "(9)" on line  17, page 2.   Mr. Williams expressed  concern                 
  that the proposed amendment to  Amendment 1 would complicate                 
  the process in regards to identifying ineligible individuals                 
  and increase  the fiscal cost.   He stated that it  would be                 
  simpler  to delete  "crimes" and  insert "two or  more prior                 
  misdemeanors or felonies".  There  being NO OBJECTION, "(9)"                 
  was deleted.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 3 (copy                 
  on file).  She  explained that Amendment 3 would  delete the                 
  new insertion for operation of safe houses and shelters, the                 
  Department of  Public  Safety and  Department of  Law.   She                 
  stated  that  the  amount  of  dividends collected  are  not                 
  sufficient to  fund the  current activities.   She  observed                 
  that  the Crime  Victim Compensation  Fund is  significantly                 
  under-funded in the  current budget.  She  expressed concern                 
  that broadening the base of agencies eligible for  the funds                 
  would result in the  loss of the  main focus of the  current                 
  law.                                                                         
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley  questioned  why funds  to  the  Council of                 
  Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault  would be restricted to                 
  the operations  of safe houses  and shelters.   Mr. Williams                 
  replied that the  intent is  that funds be  directed to  the                 
  function  and  not  the   administrative  overhead  of   the                 
  agencies.  He added  that the sponsor wanted to  improve the                 
  linkage  from  the denial  of dividends  to  the use  of the                 
  dividends.   Co-Chair  Hanley  pointed out  that  operations                 
  would include administrative overhead.                                       
                                                                               
  JAYNE  ANDREEN,  EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,  COUNCIL  ON  DOMESTIC                 
  VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL  ASSAULT testified that the  Council did                 
  not anticipate a significant impact  from the language.  She                 
  observed that all  PFD money received  has been used in  the                 
                                                                               
                                8                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  grant line.  She  stressed that the operation of  safe homes                 
  and shelters  includes crisis  intervention services,  child                 
  services and the  administrative cost of the  local program.                 
  She  questioned the  intent in the  level of  tracking funds                 
  that would be expected.                                                      
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams noted  that the intent  is that funding not  be                 
  for state administrative  costs.  He  did not object to  the                 
  use of funds  for administrative  costs relating to  grants.                 
  The intent is that the money be used for the grant program.                  
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  expressed concern that the  small pool                 
  of  money is  being  spread  over  more participants.    She                 
  observed that there  was a $600.0 thousand  dollar shortfall                 
  in PFD projections.                                                          
                                                                               
  Ms.  Andreen  expressed concern  about  the number  of state                 
  agencies that would receive the funds.  She noted that there                 
  is a shift in  public policy.  She stressed that  two of the                 
  three entities  that currently  receive funds  are the  ones                 
  that provide direct services to victims.  She emphasized the                 
  shift  from victim  assistance  to  basic  state  government                 
  support.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Martin maintained that the legislation may be                 
  too restrictive.  He noted that  criminals may be paying for                 
  domestic  violence  assistance  when  their  crime  was  for                 
  another reason.                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown clarified  that the  amendment deletes                 
  the  expansion to  the Department of  Law and  Department of                 
  Public  Safety.     She  observed  that  the   Crime  Victim                 
  Compensation  Fund, the  Council  on  Domestic Violence  and                 
  Sexual Assault and  the Department  of Corrections would  be                 
  still receive the funds.  She  emphasized that there are not                 
  sufficient funds for the three existing entities.                            
                                                                               
  Representative Brown MOVED  to AMEND  Amendment 3 to  delete                 
  "operation  of safe houses  and shelters."   There  being NO                 
  OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                
                                                                               
  Representative Parnell spoke in support  of Amendment 3.  He                 
  echoed  remarks by  Representative Brown.    Co-Chair Hanley                 
  spoke  against Amendment 3.  He  stressed that the amendment                 
  would restrict the legislature's flexibility.                                
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt  Amendment                 
  3.                                                                           
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Therriault, Parnell                   
  OPPOSED:  Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Foster, Hanley                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                9                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (5-6).                                                     
                                                                               
  Ms. Carpeneti  recommended that  Amendment 2  be amended  on                 
  line 17 to  insert "within the  previous five year  period."                 
  She stressed that a  limit is needed.  She observed that DWI                 
  laws allow convictions in the previous five years to be used                 
  in constituting a felony.                                                    
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Ms.                 
  Carpeneti clarified that  the third  crime must occur  after                 
  the effective date of the legislation.                                       
                                                                               
  Representative   Grussendorf   questioned   how    time   in                 
  incarceration  would  be counted.   Ms.  Carpeneti explained                 
  that for purposes of presumptive sentencing, the legislation                 
  allows  the  ten  previous years  that  the  person was  not                 
  serving time in prison, or was  on parole or probation to be                 
  counted.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Mr.  Williams  stated  that  he  would prefer  the  original                 
  version which would  count all  crimes effective January  1,                 
  1997.  Co-Chair  Hanley pointed out  that 30 years from  the                 
  effective date the crimes would go back 30 years.                            
                                                                               
  Representative  Martin  asked  if  time  would be  based  on                 
  calendar years  or the date  of conviction.   Ms.  Carpeneti                 
  stressed that either could be used.                                          
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley stated that there would be fewer individuals                 
  affected if a five year limit is adopted.                                    
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams  stressed that  the sponsor  would prefer  that                 
  section 6 of CSSB  232 (FIN) be substituted for  the similar                 
  provision  contained  in HCS  CSSB  232 (JUD).    This would                 
  provide a January 1, 1997 effective  date.  Crimes from that                 
  point would be counted.                                                      
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder MOVED  to delete section 6  and insert                 
  CSSB 232 (FIN), section 6.                                                   
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-126, Side 1)                                            
                                                                               
  Representative  Martin OBJECTED  to  the  motion  to  delete                 
  section   6   and  insert   CSSB   232  (FIN),   section  6.                 
  Representative  Mulder  stressed  that the  amendment  would                 
  allow a reduction  in the Department of  Corrections' fiscal                 
  note.  He emphasized that it  would be difficult to research                 
  records to find two convictions.  Representative Brown spoke                 
  in  support  of  the  amendment.    She  observed  that  the                 
  Department of Corrections' accounting system is accurate.                    
                                                                               
  Representative Martin MOVED to AMEND  the Amendment to begin                 
                                                                               
                               10                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  the  counting  as of  January  1,  1988.    Co-Chair  Hanley                 
  OBJECTED.   He  clarified that  "January 1,  1997" would  be                 
  changed to "January 1, 1988."                                                
                                                                               
  ANNETTE  SMITH, DEPARTMENT  OF  CORRECTIONS  noted that  the                 
  Department cannot determine the number  of convictions.  The                 
  Department can determine the number  of incarcerations.  The                 
  Department of Corrections would  have to obtain  information                 
  from  the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Law                 
  or   the  Alaska  Court  System   on  the  number  of  prior                 
  convictions.  She acknowledged that the Department of Public                 
  Safety maintains  the information  on an  automatize system.                 
  The  Department of  Public Safety would  have to  supply the                 
  information.                                                                 
                                                                               
  DEL SMITH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF  PUBLIC SAFETY                 
  noted  that the  Department  could  provide the  information                 
  received from the Alaska Court System.  He observed that the                 
  Department of Corrections  is a  criminal system agency  and                 
  would have full access to  the information on the Department                 
  of Public Safety data system.                                                
                                                                               
  CHRIS STOCKARD, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS stressed  that the                 
  Department  would  not  know  if  an  individual  had  prior                 
  convictions  without  doing  a  manual  record check.    She                 
  explained  that  the mandate  to  look at  prior convictions                 
  requires the  Department to  obtain  information from  other                 
  agencies.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder referred  to the  presentence report.                 
  Ms.  Smith noted  that  pre-sentencing  reports are  tracked                 
  manually.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  asked the  cause of  the shortfall  in                 
  accounting  for 1996 PFD.  Ms.  Smith discussed changes that                 
  resulted in a reduction of individuals being reported.                       
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                    
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Kohring, Martin, Therriault                                        
  OPPOSED:  Brown,   Grussendorf,   Navarre,   Kelly,  Mulder,                 
  Hanley,        Foster                                                        
                                                                               
  Representative Parnell was absent from the vote.                             
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (3-7).                                                     
                                                                               
  There being NO OBJECTION, section 6 was deleted and CSSB 232                 
  (FIN), section 6 was inserted.                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder suggested that  the fiscal note could                 
  be  reduced.    He  noted  that the  Department  is  already                 
                                                                               
                               11                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  tracking  prior   felony  convictions  in  relation  to  the                 
  presentence reports.                                                         
                                                                               
  Ms. Smith noted that the evaluation is not used in reporting                 
  to the Permanent  Fund Dividend Division because  the system                 
  is not automated.   She added that the current  statute only                 
  requires  that  incarcerated   felons  be  reported.     The                 
  Department reports based on incarceration.                                   
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 232 (FIN) out                 
  of Committee  with individual recommendations  and with  the                 
  accompanying fiscal note.  Representative Brown OBJECTED for                 
  purposes  of discussion.   She stressed  that money  will be                 
  displaced from treatment agencies, child support and victims                 
  of  crimes.   She maintained  that most  of the  individuals                 
  affected are low income or indigent.                                         
                                                                               
  A roll call  vote was taken on  the MOTION to move  HCS CSSB
  232 (FIN) from Committee.                                                    
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Grussendorf,  Kelly,   Martin,  Mulder,   Navarre,                 
  Therriault,         Foster, Hanley                                           
  OPPOSED:  Kohring, Brown                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Parnell was absent from the vote.                             
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (2-8).                                                     
                                                                               
  HCS CSSB 232 (FIN) was reported out of  Committee with a "do                 
  pass" recommendation and  with six fiscal impact  notes; two                 
  by  the  Department of  Revenue,  dated 3/8/96;  one  by the                 
  Department  of  Corrections,  dated  3/8/96;  three  by  the                 
  Department of Public  Safety, dated 3/8/96; and  with a zero                 
  fiscal note by the Department of Law, dated 3/8/96.                          
  HOUSE BILL NO. 529                                                           
                                                                               
       "An Act giving notice of  and approving the entry into,                 
       and the issuance of certificates of participation in, a                 
       lease-purchase  agreement  for  a   centralized  public                 
       health laboratory."                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder  MOVED  to  rescind  the  Committee's                 
  action in  failing to  move HB  529 from  Committee.   There                 
  being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                       
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to pass HB 529 from                 
  Committee.                                                                   
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Brown,  Grussendorf,  Navarre,   Kohring,  Martin,                 
  Mulder,        Parnell, Foster, Hanley                                       
  OPPOSED:  Kelly, Therriault                                                  
                                                                               
                               12                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (9-2).                                                     
                                                                               
  HB  529  was reported  out  of  Committee with  a  "do pass"                 
  recommendation and  with three  fiscal impact  notes by  the                 
  Department of Health  & Social  Services, the Department  of                 
  Revenue and the Department of Administration, dated 3/29/96.                 
  SENATE BILL NO. 250                                                          
                                                                               
       "An Act  relating to  the University  of Alaska  and to                 
       assets  of the  University of  Alaska; authorizing  the                 
       University  of Alaska to select additional state public                 
       domain land, designating that land as `university trust                 
       land,' and  describing the principles applicable to the                 
       land's management; and defining the net income from the                 
       University  of   Alaska's  endowment   trust  fund   as                 
       `university  receipts'  subject  to  prior  legislative                 
       appropriation."                                                         
                                                                               
  SUSAN  FLENSBURG,  PROGRAM  DIRECTOR,  BRISTOL  BAY  COASTAL                 
  RESOURCE SERVICE AREA  MANAGEMENT PROGRAM expressed  concern                 
  with the  lack of public  process in determining  lands that                 
  are suitable for selection.  She  stressed that there is not                 
  a  best  interest  determination.    She observed  that  the                 
  legislation will effect new borough formation.                               
                                                                               
  SEAN  MCGUIRE,  FAIRBANKS testified  via  the teleconference                 
  network.  He  spoke in  opposition to the  legislation.   He                 
  emphasized that the  legislation will created conflict.   He                 
  noted that a diversity of groups object to the  legislation.                 
  He objected to the opening of the whole State for University                 
  selection.    He  observed  that   the  legislation  is  not                 
  supported by students.  He noted  that the legislation would                 
  represent less than one percent of the University's budget.                  
                                                                               
  ERIK  HOLLAND,  FAIRBANKS testified  via  the teleconference                 
  network.   He spoke in opposition to  SB 250.  He emphasized                 
  that  the  land in  question  is  in public  ownership.   He                 
  maintained that  it would be cheaper to  fund the University                 
  and retain state management of the  land.  He  asserted that                 
  it  is  not the  time to  weaken  the public's  control over                 
  public land.                                                                 
                                                                               
  DAVID  LACEY,  FAIRBANKS  testified via  the  teleconference                 
  network.  He  spoke in  opposition to the  legislation.   He                 
  maintained that the public is being  cut out of public land.                 
  He acknowledged that  public education needs to  be properly                 
  funded.    He  suggested that  oil  fields  or  part of  the                 
  Permanent Fund could be transferred to the University.                       
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder asked  if selections  by the Lake  and                 
                                                                               
                               13                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Peninsula Borough  would occur  prior to  selections by  the                 
  University.                                                                  
                                                                               
  JANE  ANGVIK, DIRECTOR,  DIVISION  OF LANDS,  DEPARTMENT  OF                 
  NATURAL RESOURCES explained that  lands selected by boroughs                 
  are  in line  ahead of  lands that  can be  selected by  the                 
  University.    She  observed  that  the Lake  and  Peninsula                 
  Borough has  not identified land  for selection.   She noted                 
  that   1.3   million  acres   of   land  are   committed  to                 
  municipalities.  Only 650 thousand  acres have actually been                 
  conveyed.   Land not identified  by a borough  are available                 
  for selection by the University.                                             
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault WITHDREW Amendment 1.  He provided                 
  members with new Amendment 1, 9-LS1394\R.3, 4/15/96 (copy on                 
  file).                                                                       
                                                                               
  WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA explained                 
  that  new  Amendment 1  clarifies  the terms  "selected" and                 
  "conveyed".  The amendment also deals with the issue of over                 
  selection.  She  acknowledged concerns  that the  University                 
  could  make  over  selections.   The  amendment  limits over                 
  selection  to  no more  than 20  percent  of the  total land                 
  selection.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Representative  Navarre referred  to  page 7,  line 28.   He                 
  questioned  if the  language is  an  expansion.   Ms. Redman                 
  clarified that the  University and the  State must agree  on                 
  every  acre  that  comes  to  the  legislature.    Then  the                 
  legislature must agree on the list.                                          
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-126, Side 2)                                            
                                                                               
  Representative   Navarre  referred  to  section  8(a).    He                 
  questioned if the land would be approved if  the legislature                 
  does not take action.  Ms. Redman noted that the legislature                 
  has to take  affirmative action.   She pointed out that  the                 
  legislation   authorizations  up   to   350,000  acres   for                 
  selection.    The legislation  does  not guarantee  the land                 
  selection.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Representative Navarre maintained  that the legislation does                 
  not protect traditional and customary use  of the land.  Ms.                 
  Redman  replied  that  the  University  has an  interest  in                 
  allowing people to  hunt and fish  on university land.   She                 
  acknowledged that if  the University sells or moves the land                 
  to a major lease hold the protections would not apply.   She                 
  noted that the legislation provides some tort immunity.  The                 
  University does not currently have tort protection.                          
                                                                               
  Ms. Redman stated that the University will allow trees to be                 
  cut on university land  but is concerned that timber  is not                 
                                                                               
                               14                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  harvested for resale under traditional and customary use.                    
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault  MOVED to  adopt new  Amendment 1.                 
  In response  to a  question by  Representative Navarre,  Ms.                 
  Redman agreed that  the University  will develop a  priority                 
  order  for  the  land  selection   to  be  followed  by  the                 
  Department of Natural Resources.                                             
                                                                               
  Ms. Angvik stressed that the Department of Natural Resources                 
  is  concerned with the legislation.   She emphasized that it                 
  will  be  difficult to  find  the  land.   She  acknowledged                 
  cooperation  by  the  University.     She  stated  that  the                 
  Department would like time to work out conflicts among  user                 
  groups.    She  explained  that  new  Amendment  1  provides                 
  clarification in regards to over selection.                                  
                                                                               
  Representative Navarre asked if  the State should prioritize                 
  the  land for  selection.   Ms.  Redman emphasized  that the                 
  Department of Natural Resources must approve all the land on                 
  the list.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Representative  Navarre  asked  if  the University  supports                 
  local  government approval of  land selections  within their                 
  jurisdiction.  Mr.  Redman stated that the  University would                 
  not support local government  approval.  She added  that all                 
  land development projects are submitted to local governments                 
  and  that they  follow the  public  process required  by the                 
  boroughs.   She maintained  that the  University works  with                 
  local governments with every project that is developed.                      
                                                                               
  There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.                           
                                                                               
  Representative Kelly asked if  the legislation would protect                 
  lease  holders from  interference in developing  their lease                 
  land.  Representative  Navarre noted that the  bill provides                 
  that the customary and traditional  uses are protected until                 
  the right  is given to someone else through a lease or sale.                 
  Once the land is leased the protections are off.                             
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault MOVED to report HCS CSSB 250 (FIN)                 
  out  of Committee  with individual recommendations  and with                 
  the  accompanying  fiscal   note.    Representative  Navarre                 
  OBJECTED.  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                         
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Martin, Hanley                 
  OPPOSED:  Navarre, Foster                                                    
                                                                               
  Representatives Brown, Grussendorf,  and Kohring were absent                 
  from the vote.                                                               
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (6-2).                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
                               15                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  HCS CSSB 250  (FIN) was reported  out of Committee with  "no                 
  recommendation" and  with four  fiscal impact  notes by  the                 
  University of  Alaska, the Department of  Natural Resources,                 
  the Department of  Revenue, and the  Department of Fish  and                 
  Game, all dated 2/15/96.                                                     
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
                               16                                              

Document Name Date/Time Subjects