Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/09/1993 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MARCH 9, 1993
1:35 P.M.
TAPE HFC 93 - 41, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93 - 41, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93 - 42, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93 - 42, Side 2, #000 - #286.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Ron Larson called the meeting of the House Finance
Committee to order at 1:35 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Brown
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Foster
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Grussendorf
Representative Hoffman Representative Martin
Representative Navarre Representative Parnell
Representative Therriault
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Carl Moses; Representative Fran Ulmer;
Representative Gary Davis; Representative Irene Nicholia;
Representative Con Bunde; Representative Ed Willis;
Representative Cynthia Toohey; Molly McCammon, Aid to
Representative Carl Moses; Paul Dick, Juneau Operations,
Income & Excise Audit Division, Department of Revenue; Bruce
Geraghty, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs; Rupe Andrews, Capital City Task Force
American Citizens, American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP), Juneau, Alaska; Amos Wallace, Juneau, Alaska;
Crystal Smith, Alaska Municipal League, Juneau, Alaska;
Margo Knuth, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Marcia
McKenzie, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault,
(CDVSA), Juneau, Alaska; Sam Trivette, Director of Community
Corrections, Department of Corrections.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 55 An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 56 An Act making appropriations for operating
expenses for certain programs for which the costs
are derived from mandated formulas or criteria,
1
and for expenses for certain leases and contracts
for state services and operations; and providing
for an effective date.
Incorporated subcommittee recommendations for the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of
Law.
HB 64 An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the
first and second degrees and providing penalties
for their violation; providing a peace officer
with the authority to arrest without a warrant a
person the peace officer has reasonable cause to
believe has committed stalking; relating to the
release before trial of a person accused of
stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of
imposition of sentence of a person convicted of
stalking.
HB 64 was held in Committee for further
discussion.
HB 133 An Act amending the definition of `value' for
purposes of administration of fisheries taxes; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 133 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and a fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue dated 2/17/93.
HB 66 An Act relating to municipal property tax
exemptions for certain residences and to property
tax equivalency payments for certain residents;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 66 was held in Committee for further
discussion. It was placed in subcommittee with
Representative MacLean as Chair and with members
Representative Martin and Representative
Grussendorf.
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
The Department of Law House Finance Subcommittee was Chaired
by Representative Larson with members Representative Porter,
Representative Olberg, Representative Davidson,
Representative Navarre and Representative Barnes.
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with handouts.
[Attachment #1 & #3]. He stated that the target reduction
for the Subcommittee was $610,900 thousand dollars. The
Subcommittee used the Governor's 1994 proposed budget from
2
which to base the increment/decrements. Co-Chair Larson
referenced "The Transaction Summary for the Governor to the
House" [Attachment #1].
The Subcommittee made four changes to the Governor's
proposed budget.
* Prosecution - reduction - $47.4 thousand
dollar
* Legal Services - Operations Divisions
The Governor proposed an increase of twelve
attorneys to work on natural resource issues. The
proposed increment to the Governor's budget would
be $1.998 million dollars. The Subcommittee
reduced that increment by $549.9 thousand dollars.
* Exxon Valdez Litigation - reduction: $3.462
million dollars. With the completion of the
Alyeska settlement, the Department of Law stated
they could reduce the request by $1.433 million
dollars. The Subcommittee recommends a reduction
of $1.5 million dollars.
Co-Chair Larson noted the proposed decrement to the
Department of Law budget would be $2.473 million dollars
general funds, adding back the $50 thousand dollar increment
for the position in Barrow. This would make the total
proposed reduction - $1.197 million dollars in general funds
for the FY 94 budget.
The Law Subcommittee addressed the supplemental bill HB 135.
The Department of Law addresses five sections.
* Section 8 increases the supplemental request for
$400 thousand dollars for prosecution costs.
* Section 9 is a request for $6.600 million dollars
in general funds and $2.200 million dollars in
Permanent Fund Corporation receipts for oil and
gas litigation. [Attachment #2].
* Section 10 requests $280 thousand dollars for
outside counsel to the Department of Law in joint
proceedings with the Federal Communications
Commission and the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission.
* Section 11 is a request for $35 thousand dollars
for implementing the 1992 Subsistence Law.
3
* Section 12 is a request for $1.087 million dollars
in judgement claims.
Co-Chair Larson explained that the Governor has requested an
increase of $220.4 thousand dollars in "other fund"
increments. These would be interagency receipts obtained
from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation for the Department
of Law to provide legal support. Co-Chair Larson
recommended the increment be zeroed out.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the $549.8 thousand
dollar decrement to natural resource PCN's. Co-Chair Larson
replied, the Governor's budget requested twelve full time
positions at a cost of $1.998 million dollars. The
Subcommittee reduced the recommendation by half.
Representative Grussendorf noted his concern with inadequate
protection of the State fishery resources placing the State
at a disadvantage in treaty negotiations.
Representative Hoffman pointed out that the Department of
Law has received an increase of thirty positions since 1992.
Co-Chair Larson MOVED incorporating the Department of Law
Subcommittee recommendations including the amendment
reduction of $220.4 thousand dollars into HB 55. There
being NO OBJECTIONS, it was incorporated.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
The Department of Fish and Game Subcommittee was Chaired by
Representative Hanley with members Representative Moses,
Representative Hudson, Representative Bunde, Representative
Gail Phillips, Representative Hoffman, Representative
Davidson, Representative Nicholia and Representative
Grussendorf.
Representative Hanley provided the Committee with handouts
of the Department of Fish and Game Subcommittee proposed
budget closeouts. [Attachments #4 & #5].
He stated, the FY 93 authorized general fund amount was
$46.889 million dollars. The FY 93 supplemental added an
additional $584.3 thousand dollars. The Governor's proposed
FY 93 is $44.256 million dollars. The Subcommittee was able
to reach a two percent reduction beyond that proposed by the
Governor. The Subcommittee did not have any increments,
although there were switches within the Department.
Representative Hanley pointed out that in FY 92, the
Department of Fish and Game began reducing funds that
provided economic development to the commercial fisheries.
4
The goal of the Subcommittee was to increase commercial fish
harvest opportunities.
Representative Hanley referenced Attachment #5, "The
Transaction Summary for the Governor to the House".
* Commercial Fisheries total component increase of
$333.2 thousand dollars increasing the harvest
opportunities by $333.2 thousand dollars.
* Special Projects decrement of $20.4 thousand
dollars.
* Sport Fisheries decrement of $488.7 thousand
dollars.
* F.R.E.D. increment of $297.4 thousand dollars. He
pointed out that four hatcheries had been zeroed
out last year. This increment would allow the
Department more time for the closure transition of
those hatcheries. Funds had been added back to
Deer Mountain Hatchery and Crooker Creek Hatchery.
* Wildlife Conservation decrement for $318.9
thousand dollars. Fees have been switched from
this component.
* Administration and Support decrement for $131.0
thousand dollars.
* Boards of Fisheries and Game decrement for $21.9
thousand dollars.
* Advisory Committee/Regional Council reduction for
$240.5 thousand dollars including a reduction of
regional coordinators.
* Habitat decrement of $50.0 thousand dollars.
* Special Projects reduction from the 470 Funds from
the Department of Environmental Conservation for
$25.2 thousand dollars.
* Subsistence reduction for $63.9 thousand dollars.
Representative Hanley reiterated, the Fish and Game
Subcommittee's recommended closeout would be two percent
below the Governor's proposed budget and five percent below
last year.
5
Co-Chair MacLean asked if there were any duplication of
projects requested in the capital budget and the
subcommittee proposals. Representative Hanley stated there
was not.
Co-Chair MacLean noted for the record that the Department of
Fish and Game recommended the closure of the Kotzebuque
Office asking that it be transferred to Fairbanks. She
advised that subsistence offices should be located at the
regional areas and should not be moved to the urban centers.
Representative Hoffman stressed his concern in spending less
money on the management of renewable resources. He felt the
State could benefit in the long run from better resource
management.
Representative Hanley MOVED incorporating the Subcommittee
recommendations into HB 55. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was incorporated.
(Tape Change HFC 93-41, Side 2).
HOUSE BILL 133
"An Act amending the definition of `value' for purposes
of administration of fisheries taxes; and providing for
an effective date."
MOLLY MCCAMMON, AID TO REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, stated
that HB 133 is substantially similar to existing law but
restructures the definition of "value" used in administering
fisheries taxes in order to enhance clarity.
The bill is identical to Resources CSHB 448, introduced by
Representative Gail Phillips last session, with some further
clarification recommended by the Division of Legal Services.
The legislation has not received any known opposition.
She pointed out, in the past processors and fishermen have
disputed the definition of "value" in paying the raw
fisheries tax and salmon enhancement tax. The argument is
that bonuses and delivery costs are not part of the actual
amount paid fishermen for their fish. The interpretation
leaves an opening for processors to pay lower prices for
fish, and make up for this low price by giving bonuses for
services such as delivery or handling. HB 133 clarifies
exactly what services and forms of payment are subject to
these taxes.
PAUL DICK, JUNEAU OPERATIONS, INCOME & EXCISE AUDIT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, noted that the Department
of Revenue supports the proposed legislation and added that
6
it would enhance State revenues.
Representative Hoffman questioned if the Department of
Revenue thought that processors were currently complying
with the law. Mr. Dick thought the processors at large were
reporting to the Department. He pointed out that the
legislation would most directly affect the mid-size and
smaller processors. Representative Hoffman asked where
those increased funds would originate. Mr. Dick replied,
the fiscal note represents the amount derived from the
increased value on fish. The difference would be delivery
costs and other charges currently subtracted from the value
of the fish.
Representative Martin asked if revenue would be shared on a
50\50 percentage. Mr. Dick stated it would.
Co-Chair MacLean inquired which processors would be impacted
by the legislation. Mr. Dick replied that all processors
would be affected.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HB 133 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 133 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendations and with a fiscal noted by the Department of
Revenue dated 2/17/93.
HOUSE BILL 66
"An Act relating to municipal property tax exemptions
for certain residences and to property tax equivalency
payments for certain residents; and providing for an
effective date."
BRUCE GERAGHTY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, stated that the Legislature created
the mandatory tax exemption program in 1973. However, since
1985 the Legislature has failed to fully refund to
communities the total cost of this mandated exemption. The
renters rebate program was established in 1976 as a means of
providing the same benefit to seniors and disabled veterans
that rent their residences. The estimated cost of the
property tax program in FY 94 would be $15.4 million
dollars. The Departments proposed FY 94 budget does not
fund either program.
The Department strongly supports making the senior
citizens\disabled veterans property tax exemption available
to municipalities as an optional local tax exemption
7
program. Mr. Geraghty added, in the Department's
preliminary research, the deferral concept appears to
benefit municipalities in the long run through payment of
property taxes at the time of sale. Deferred taxes would be
accounted for as a current year receivable, the same as
taxes paid, even through the moneys might not be paid for
several years.
He stated the work draft provided four options for the
municipality to exercise.
* Implement an exemption for senior citizens and/or
disabled veterans.
* Implement a deferral for seniors and/or disabled
veterans.
* Implement a combination of the two above
mentioned.
* Municipalities can decide not to do either. Both
groups would then be taxed.
Mr. Geraghty stated that the renter's rebate program is
being repealed with the proposed legislation.
Representative Brown asked if the disabled veterans benefit
would be repealed with the proposed legislation. Mr.
Geraghty stated those programs would become a option for the
local municipalities to adopt. Representative Brown
questioned the options chosen by DCRA. Mr. Geraghty stated
the Department felt there were only two options available:
Fully funding them or to have the local municipalities
tailor a programs addressing their senior and veteran
populations.
Representative Brown advised changing the option to a
"needs" based program. She pointed out that currently
thirty-six states have a "needs" based program. There are
over ten thousand persons taking advantage of receiving
benefit from the tax exemption and another thousand persons
who are receiving benefit from the renter's rebate program.
She added, for each person who is not able to maintain
independently, large costs will accrue to society.
Mr. Geraghty advised that the renter's rebate program was
instituted in the early 1980's to parallel the property tax
exemption. It was to provide the same type of benefit to
seniors and disabled veterans who rented which was being
received by those who owned their own property.
Representative Brown asked if municipalities would be
covering that cost. Mr. Geraghty thought the program would
8
disappear with the passage of the legislation.
Representative Grussendorf proposed that the Legislature
offer the municipalities the option to exercise the proposed
programs with a twenty-five percent legislative subsidy.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated in 1973, the total cost of
the property tax exemption program was $197.5 thousand
dollars. The program was fully funded for the last time in
1985. The number of applicants has doubled over the years
and the growth in the exemption program from FY 92 to FY 93
increased by fourteen percent. The current value of an
exemption is $1,374 thousand dollars.
Representative Bunde added, the non-exempt taxpayers in
Alaska's municipalities are required to pay an additional
$10 million dollars in property taxes for FY 93, seventy-
eight percent of the cost of the program.
Representative Bunde noted A.S. 29.45.030(e) requires
municipalities to exempt from local property tax the real
property owned and occupied as the primary residence and
permanent place of abode by:
1. Resident 65 years or older;
2. Disabled veteran;
3. Resident at least 60 years old who is the widow or
widower of a person qualified for such an
exemption, up to an assessed value of $150,000.
The exemption is currently mandatory.
The HESS Committee Substitute is written broadly enough to
give the municipalities the ability to limit the time on the
deferral, or exemption if they so desire.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-42, Side 1).
Representative Bunde concluded, the Governor's Committee
Substitute cuts out what they feel is restrictive language
from A.S. 29.45.030(e), the assessed value up to $150
thousand dollars, and would also take widows and widowers
who were currently on the exemption program and make them
ineligible for any program.
Representative Martin asked the limitations on deferral for
tax rebate. Representative Bunde stated there would be none
as the municipalities funding does not have any limitations
on services provided.
Representative Navarre interjected that the senior citizens
9
on fixed incomes would be the ones most significantly
harmed.
RUPE ANDREWS, CAPITOL CITY TASK FORCE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF RETIRED PERSONS (AARP), JUNEAU, ALASKA, testified in
opposition to HB 66. He stressed the importance of senior
spending in Alaska from pensions, annuities, investments,
social security which exceeds $1.2 million dollars per year.
He felt that seniors should be encouraged to remain in
Alaska
HB 66 will have a negative impact on seniors in Alaska. To
date, Alaska has been considered unique in it's policies to
assist seniors in having a quality life. The Pioneer Homes
are often shown to visitors with pride by Alaskans.
Additionally, seniors have always been a desireable social
resource. State policy until now has recognized the elder
resource.
Mr. Andrews stated, HB 66 would remove the mandatory
objections of municipalities to forgive personal property
taxes and make property exemption a local decision and
places a lien against that property until the owners die or
move. The problem is that the State has failed to fully
fund the tax forgiveness program thus forcing the cities
into some financial burdens.
AARP requests that the Legislature hold public meetings and
develop a comprehensive policy.
Representative Martin pointed out that currently the State
pays $178 million dollars per year on senior programs. Mr.
Andrews noted that last year, the seniors brought to Alaska
$1.2 million dollars from various programs. He stated that
the cost benefit ratio has been exceeded.
Representative Parnell asked if there is a state which has a
comprehensive policy toward seniors. Mr. Andrews offered to
provide that information to the Committee.
AMOS WALLACE, SENIOR CITIZEN, JUNEAU, ALASKA, testified in
opposition of the proposed legislation and expressed his
concern with loosing his property. Representative Bunde
responded there will be a deferral option which would allow
no taxes to be paid until the owner was deceased or moved.
He noted that twenty-seven other states offer their seniors
a deferral option.
CRYSTAL SMITH, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (AML), JUNEAU,
ALASKA, testified that the proposed legislation would
economically impact senior citizens and disabled veterans.
This impact has extensively affected the local
10
municipalities for many years. The program has grown over
twenty percent in the last year. AML wants to address the
concern.
1. AML's first choice would be that the Legislature
fully fund the mandate. She added, since 1985
this has not occurred.
2. AML encourages a State rebate program. Whatever
amount the Legislature would commit to the program
would go directly to the seniors.
3. An ordinance presented to the voters for approval.
She felt the voters would opt to vote for some
type of "needs" based exemption.
Co-Chair Larson placed HB 66 in Subcommittee with Chair
Representative MacLean and with members Representative
Martin and Representative Grussendorf. HB 66 was HELD in
Committee for further discussion.
HOUSE BILL 64
"An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first
and second degrees and providing penalties for their
violation; providing a peace officer with the authority
to arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer
has reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking;
relating to the release before trial of a person
accused of stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of
imposition of sentence of a person convicted of
stalking."
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY testified that FBI reports
thirty percent of female murder victims in 1990 were slain
by husbands or boyfriends. Following a stalking death of an
actress, California reacted by passing the first "anti
stalking" law. Thirty-one other states have followed suit.
These laws are the result of stalking victims' frustrations
with the current inability of law enforcement officials to
intervene prior to a victim being physically attacked. One
in twenty adults will be stalked in their lifetime,
researchers say.
HB 64 was modeled after the Michigan Law which was passed in
1992. It is supported by the Department of Law, the Council
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the Department of
Public Safety, the Homer and Anchorage Police Departments
and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police.
Representative Navarre asked if violation of a temporary
restraining order would result in a felony charge of
11
stalking.
MARGO KNUTH, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified
violation of a restraining order would meet the element of
stalking.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-42, Side 2).
Ms. Knuth stated the elements of the stalking offense is
"knowingly engaging in a course of conduct, recklessly
placing another person in fear of death or physical injury".
The course of conduct is based upon repeated non-consensual
contact.
Representative Martin asked the approximate number of cases
per year would be filed. Ms. Knuth expected that statewide,
twelve cases per year would be filed and of those none would
most likely go to trial. Representative Martin asked how
many of the twelve cases would be convicted. Ms. Knuth
thought over half would be convicted. Representative Martin
noted his concern with added probation costs that the bill
would incur.
MARCIA MCKENZIE, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT, (CDVSA) JUNEAU, ALASKA testified in support of HB
64 and urged quick and prompt passage of the legislation.
Representative Brown pointed out there would be fiscal
impact by the Department of Corrections. Ms. Knuth replied
probation revocation is based on a new offense. She added
the convicted person would be spending the same amount of
time in jail. From the prosecutors point of view, it is
easier to put someone back in jail on a probation
revocation.
SAM TRIVETTE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, stated the Department of Corrections
provided a zero fiscal note because of experience based upon
previous probations matters, judges can currently place
those convicted on probation for five years. Nearly all
violations occur in the first five year period.
Representative Brown disagreed and reiterated her argument
that there would be fiscal impact to that Department.
Co-Chair Larson stated HB 64 would be HELD in Committee for
further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 P.M.
12
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MARCH 9, 1993
1:35 P.M.
TAPE HFC 93 - 41, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93 - 41, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93 - 42, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93 - 42, Side 2, #000 - #286.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Ron Larson called the meeting of the House Finance
Committee to order at 1:35 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Brown
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Foster
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Grussendorf
Representative Hoffman Representative Martin
Representative Navarre Representative Parnell
Representative Therriault
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Carl Moses; Representative Fran Ulmer;
Representative Gary Davis; Representative Irene Nicholia;
Representative Con Bunde; Representative Ed Willis;
Representative Cynthia Toohey; Molly McCammon, Aid to
Representative Carl Moses; Paul Dick, Juneau Operations,
Income & Excise Audit Division, Department of Revenue; Bruce
Geraghty, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs; Rupe Andrews, Capital City Task Force
American Citizens, American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP), Juneau, Alaska; Amos Wallace, Juneau, Alaska;
Crystal Smith, Alaska Municipal League, Juneau, Alaska;
Margo Knuth, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Marcia
McKenzie, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault,
(CDVSA), Juneau, Alaska; Sam Trivette, Director of Community
Corrections, Department of Corrections.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 55 An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date.
13
HB 56 An Act making appropriations for operating
expenses for certain programs for which the costs
are derived from mandated formulas or criteria,
and for expenses for certain leases and contracts
for state services and operations; and providing
for an effective date.
Incorporated subcommittee recommendations for the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of
Law.
HB 64 An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the
first and second degrees and providing penalties
for their violation; providing a peace officer
with the authority to arrest without a warrant a
person the peace officer has reasonable cause to
believe has committed stalking; relating to the
release before trial of a person accused of
stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of
imposition of sentence of a person convicted of
stalking.
HB 64 was held in Committee for further
discussion.
HB 133 An Act amending the definition of `value' for
purposes of administration of fisheries taxes; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 133 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and a fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue dated 2/17/93.
HB 66 An Act relating to municipal property tax
exemptions for certain residences and to property
tax equivalency payments for certain residents;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 66 was held in Committee for further
discussion. It was placed in subcommittee with
Representative MacLean as Chair and with members
Representative Martin and Representative
Grussendorf.
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
The Department of Law House Finance Subcommittee was Chaired
by Representative Larson with members Representative Porter,
Representative Olberg, Representative Davidson,
Representative Navarre and Representative Barnes.
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with handouts.
14
[Attachment #1 & #3]. He stated that the target reduction
for the Subcommittee was $610,900 thousand dollars. The
Subcommittee used the Governor's 1994 proposed budget from
which to base the increment/decrements. Co-Chair Larson
referenced "The Transaction Summary for the Governor to the
House" [Attachment #1].
The Subcommittee made four changes to the Governor's
proposed budget.
* Prosecution - reduction - $47.4 thousand
dollar
* Legal Services - Operations Divisions
The Governor proposed an increase of twelve
attorneys to work on natural resource issues. The
proposed increment to the Governor's budget would
be $1.998 million dollars. The Subcommittee
reduced that increment by $549.9 thousand dollars.
* Exxon Valdez Litigation - reduction: $3.462
million dollars. With the completion of the
Alyeska settlement, the Department of Law stated
they could reduce the request by $1.433 million
dollars. The Subcommittee recommends a reduction
of $1.5 million dollars.
Co-Chair Larson noted the proposed decrement to the
Department of Law budget would be $2.473 million dollars
general funds, adding back the $50 thousand dollar increment
for the position in Barrow. This would make the total
proposed reduction - $1.197 million dollars in general funds
for the FY 94 budget.
The Law Subcommittee addressed the supplemental bill HB 135.
The Department of Law addresses five sections.
* Section 8 increases the supplemental request for
$400 thousand dollars for prosecution costs.
* Section 9 is a request for $6.600 million dollars
in general funds and $2.200 million dollars in
Permanent Fund Corporation receipts for oil and
gas litigation. [Attachment #2].
* Section 10 requests $280 thousand dollars for
outside counsel to the Department of Law in joint
proceedings with the Federal Communications
Commission and the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission.
15
* Section 11 is a request for $35 thousand dollars
for implementing the 1992 Subsistence Law.
* Section 12 is a request for $1.087 million dollars
in judgement claims.
Co-Chair Larson explained that the Governor has requested an
increase of $220.4 thousand dollars in "other fund"
increments. These would be interagency receipts obtained
from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation for the Department
of Law to provide legal support. Co-Chair Larson
recommended the increment be zeroed out.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the $549.8 thousand
dollar decrement to natural resource PCN's. Co-Chair Larson
replied, the Governor's budget requested twelve full time
positions at a cost of $1.998 million dollars. The
Subcommittee reduced the recommendation by half.
Representative Grussendorf noted his concern with inadequate
protection of the State fishery resources placing the State
at a disadvantage in treaty negotiations.
Representative Hoffman pointed out that the Department of
Law has received an increase of thirty positions since 1992.
Co-Chair Larson MOVED incorporating the Department of Law
Subcommittee recommendations including the amendment
reduction of $220.4 thousand dollars into HB 55. There
being NO OBJECTIONS, it was incorporated.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
The Department of Fish and Game Subcommittee was Chaired by
Representative Hanley with members Representative Moses,
Representative Hudson, Representative Bunde, Representative
Gail Phillips, Representative Hoffman, Representative
Davidson, Representative Nicholia and Representative
Grussendorf.
Representative Hanley provided the Committee with handouts
of the Department of Fish and Game Subcommittee proposed
budget closeouts. [Attachments #4 & #5].
He stated, the FY 93 authorized general fund amount was
$46.889 million dollars. The FY 93 supplemental added an
additional $584.3 thousand dollars. The Governor's proposed
FY 93 is $44.256 million dollars. The Subcommittee was able
to reach a two percent reduction beyond that proposed by the
Governor. The Subcommittee did not have any increments,
although there were switches within the Department.
16
Representative Hanley pointed out that in FY 92, the
Department of Fish and Game began reducing funds that
provided economic development to the commercial fisheries.
The goal of the Subcommittee was to increase commercial fish
harvest opportunities.
Representative Hanley referenced Attachment #5, "The
Transaction Summary for the Governor to the House".
* Commercial Fisheries total component increase of
$333.2 thousand dollars increasing the harvest
opportunities by $333.2 thousand dollars.
* Special Projects decrement of $20.4 thousand
dollars.
* Sport Fisheries decrement of $488.7 thousand
dollars.
* F.R.E.D. increment of $297.4 thousand dollars. He
pointed out that four hatcheries had been zeroed
out last year. This increment would allow the
Department more time for the closure transition of
those hatcheries. Funds had been added back to
Deer Mountain Hatchery and Crooker Creek Hatchery.
* Wildlife Conservation decrement for $318.9
thousand dollars. Fees have been switched from
this component.
* Administration and Support decrement for $131.0
thousand dollars.
* Boards of Fisheries and Game decrement for $21.9
thousand dollars.
* Advisory Committee/Regional Council reduction for
$240.5 thousand dollars including a reduction of
regional coordinators.
* Habitat decrement of $50.0 thousand dollars.
* Special Projects reduction from the 470 Funds from
the Department of Environmental Conservation for
$25.2 thousand dollars.
* Subsistence reduction for $63.9 thousand dollars.
Representative Hanley reiterated, the Fish and Game
Subcommittee's recommended closeout would be two percent
17
below the Governor's proposed budget and five percent below
last year.
Co-Chair MacLean asked if there were any duplication of
projects requested in the capital budget and the
subcommittee proposals. Representative Hanley stated there
was not.
Co-Chair MacLean noted for the record that the Department of
Fish and Game recommended the closure of the Kotzebuque
Office asking that it be transferred to Fairbanks. She
advised that subsistence offices should be located at the
regional areas and should not be moved to the urban centers.
Representative Hoffman stressed his concern in spending less
money on the management of renewable resources. He felt the
State could benefit in the long run from better resource
management.
Representative Hanley MOVED incorporating the Subcommittee
recommendations into HB 55. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was incorporated.
(Tape Change HFC 93-41, Side 2).
HOUSE BILL 133
"An Act amending the definition of `value' for purposes
of administration of fisheries taxes; and providing for
an effective date."
MOLLY MCCAMMON, AID TO REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, stated
that HB 133 is substantially similar to existing law but
restructures the definition of "value" used in administering
fisheries taxes in order to enhance clarity.
The bill is identical to Resources CSHB 448, introduced by
Representative Gail Phillips last session, with some further
clarification recommended by the Division of Legal Services.
The legislation has not received any known opposition.
She pointed out, in the past processors and fishermen have
disputed the definition of "value" in paying the raw
fisheries tax and salmon enhancement tax. The argument is
that bonuses and delivery costs are not part of the actual
amount paid fishermen for their fish. The interpretation
leaves an opening for processors to pay lower prices for
fish, and make up for this low price by giving bonuses for
services such as delivery or handling. HB 133 clarifies
exactly what services and forms of payment are subject to
these taxes.
18
PAUL DICK, JUNEAU OPERATIONS, INCOME & EXCISE AUDIT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, noted that the Department
of Revenue supports the proposed legislation and added that
it would enhance State revenues.
Representative Hoffman questioned if the Department of
Revenue thought that processors were currently complying
with the law. Mr. Dick thought the processors at large were
reporting to the Department. He pointed out that the
legislation would most directly affect the mid-size and
smaller processors. Representative Hoffman asked where
those increased funds would originate. Mr. Dick replied,
the fiscal note represents the amount derived from the
increased value on fish. The difference would be delivery
costs and other charges currently subtracted from the value
of the fish.
Representative Martin asked if revenue would be shared on a
50\50 percentage. Mr. Dick stated it would.
Co-Chair MacLean inquired which processors would be impacted
by the legislation. Mr. Dick replied that all processors
would be affected.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HB 133 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 133 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendations and with a fiscal noted by the Department of
Revenue dated 2/17/93.
HOUSE BILL 66
"An Act relating to municipal property tax exemptions
for certain residences and to property tax equivalency
payments for certain residents; and providing for an
effective date."
BRUCE GERAGHTY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, stated that the Legislature created
the mandatory tax exemption program in 1973. However, since
1985 the Legislature has failed to fully refund to
communities the total cost of this mandated exemption. The
renters rebate program was established in 1976 as a means of
providing the same benefit to seniors and disabled veterans
that rent their residences. The estimated cost of the
property tax program in FY 94 would be $15.4 million
dollars. The Departments proposed FY 94 budget does not
fund either program.
19
The Department strongly supports making the senior
citizens\disabled veterans property tax exemption available
to municipalities as an optional local tax exemption
program. Mr. Geraghty added, in the Department's
preliminary research, the deferral concept appears to
benefit municipalities in the long run through payment of
property taxes at the time of sale. Deferred taxes would be
accounted for as a current year receivable, the same as
taxes paid, even through the moneys might not be paid for
several years.
He stated the work draft provided four options for the
municipality to exercise.
* Implement an exemption for senior citizens and/or
disabled veterans.
* Implement a deferral for seniors and/or disabled
veterans.
* Implement a combination of the two above
mentioned.
* Municipalities can decide not to do either. Both
groups would then be taxed.
Mr. Geraghty stated that the renter's rebate program is
being repealed with the proposed legislation.
Representative Brown asked if the disabled veterans benefit
would be repealed with the proposed legislation. Mr.
Geraghty stated those programs would become a option for the
local municipalities to adopt. Representative Brown
questioned the options chosen by DCRA. Mr. Geraghty stated
the Department felt there were only two options available:
Fully funding them or to have the local municipalities
tailor a programs addressing their senior and veteran
populations.
Representative Brown advised changing the option to a
"needs" based program. She pointed out that currently
thirty-six states have a "needs" based program. There are
over ten thousand persons taking advantage of receiving
benefit from the tax exemption and another thousand persons
who are receiving benefit from the renter's rebate program.
She added, for each person who is not able to maintain
independently, large costs will accrue to society.
Mr. Geraghty advised that the renter's rebate program was
instituted in the early 1980's to parallel the property tax
exemption. It was to provide the same type of benefit to
seniors and disabled veterans who rented which was being
20
received by those who owned their own property.
Representative Brown asked if municipalities would be
covering that cost. Mr. Geraghty thought the program would
disappear with the passage of the legislation.
Representative Grussendorf proposed that the Legislature
offer the municipalities the option to exercise the proposed
programs with a twenty-five percent legislative subsidy.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated in 1973, the total cost of
the property tax exemption program was $197.5 thousand
dollars. The program was fully funded for the last time in
1985. The number of applicants has doubled over the years
and the growth in the exemption program from FY 92 to FY 93
increased by fourteen percent. The current value of an
exemption is $1,374 thousand dollars.
Representative Bunde added, the non-exempt taxpayers in
Alaska's municipalities are required to pay an additional
$10 million dollars in property taxes for FY 93, seventy-
eight percent of the cost of the program.
Representative Bunde noted A.S. 29.45.030(e) requires
municipalities to exempt from local property tax the real
property owned and occupied as the primary residence and
permanent place of abode by:
1. Resident 65 years or older;
2. Disabled veteran;
3. Resident at least 60 years old who is the widow or
widower of a person qualified for such an
exemption, up to an assessed value of $150,000.
The exemption is currently mandatory.
The HESS Committee Substitute is written broadly enough to
give the municipalities the ability to limit the time on the
deferral, or exemption if they so desire.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-42, Side 1).
Representative Bunde concluded, the Governor's Committee
Substitute cuts out what they feel is restrictive language
from A.S. 29.45.030(e), the assessed value up to $150
thousand dollars, and would also take widows and widowers
who were currently on the exemption program and make them
ineligible for any program.
Representative Martin asked the limitations on deferral for
tax rebate. Representative Bunde stated there would be none
as the municipalities funding does not have any limitations
21
on services provided.
Representative Navarre interjected that the senior citizens
on fixed incomes would be the ones most significantly
harmed.
RUPE ANDREWS, CAPITOL CITY TASK FORCE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF RETIRED PERSONS (AARP), JUNEAU, ALASKA, testified in
opposition to HB 66. He stressed the importance of senior
spending in Alaska from pensions, annuities, investments,
social security which exceeds $1.2 million dollars per year.
He felt that seniors should be encouraged to remain in
Alaska
HB 66 will have a negative impact on seniors in Alaska. To
date, Alaska has been considered unique in it's policies to
assist seniors in having a quality life. The Pioneer Homes
are often shown to visitors with pride by Alaskans.
Additionally, seniors have always been a desireable social
resource. State policy until now has recognized the elder
resource.
Mr. Andrews stated, HB 66 would remove the mandatory
objections of municipalities to forgive personal property
taxes and make property exemption a local decision and
places a lien against that property until the owners die or
move. The problem is that the State has failed to fully
fund the tax forgiveness program thus forcing the cities
into some financial burdens.
AARP requests that the Legislature hold public meetings and
develop a comprehensive policy.
Representative Martin pointed out that currently the State
pays $178 million dollars per year on senior programs. Mr.
Andrews noted that last year, the seniors brought to Alaska
$1.2 million dollars from various programs. He stated that
the cost benefit ratio has been exceeded.
Representative Parnell asked if there is a state which has a
comprehensive policy toward seniors. Mr. Andrews offered to
provide that information to the Committee.
AMOS WALLACE, SENIOR CITIZEN, JUNEAU, ALASKA, testified in
opposition of the proposed legislation and expressed his
concern with loosing his property. Representative Bunde
responded there will be a deferral option which would allow
no taxes to be paid until the owner was deceased or moved.
He noted that twenty-seven other states offer their seniors
a deferral option.
CRYSTAL SMITH, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (AML), JUNEAU,
22
ALASKA, testified that the proposed legislation would
economically impact senior citizens and disabled veterans.
This impact has extensively affected the local
municipalities for many years. The program has grown over
twenty percent in the last year. AML wants to address the
concern.
1. AML's first choice would be that the Legislature
fully fund the mandate. She added, since 1985
this has not occurred.
2. AML encourages a State rebate program. Whatever
amount the Legislature would commit to the program
would go directly to the seniors.
3. An ordinance presented to the voters for approval.
She felt the voters would opt to vote for some
type of "needs" based exemption.
Co-Chair Larson placed HB 66 in Subcommittee with Chair
Representative MacLean and with members Representative
Martin and Representative Grussendorf. HB 66 was HELD in
Committee for further discussion.
HOUSE BILL 64
"An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first
and second degrees and providing penalties for their
violation; providing a peace officer with the authority
to arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer
has reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking;
relating to the release before trial of a person
accused of stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of
imposition of sentence of a person convicted of
stalking."
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY testified that FBI reports
thirty percent of female murder victims in 1990 were slain
by husbands or boyfriends. Following a stalking death of an
actress, California reacted by passing the first "anti
stalking" law. Thirty-one other states have followed suit.
These laws are the result of stalking victims' frustrations
with the current inability of law enforcement officials to
intervene prior to a victim being physically attacked. One
in twenty adults will be stalked in their lifetime,
researchers say.
HB 64 was modeled after the Michigan Law which was passed in
1992. It is supported by the Department of Law, the Council
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the Department of
Public Safety, the Homer and Anchorage Police Departments
and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police.
23
Representative Navarre asked if violation of a temporary
restraining order would result in a felony charge of
stalking.
MARGO KNUTH, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified
violation of a restraining order would meet the element of
stalking.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-42, Side 2).
Ms. Knuth stated the elements of the stalking offense is
"knowingly engaging in a course of conduct, recklessly
placing another person in fear of death or physical injury".
The course of conduct is based upon repeated non-consensual
contact.
Representative Martin asked the approximate number of cases
per year would be filed. Ms. Knuth expected that statewide,
twelve cases per year would be filed and of those none would
most likely go to trial. Representative Martin asked how
many of the twelve cases would be convicted. Ms. Knuth
thought over half would be convicted. Representative Martin
noted his concern with added probation costs that the bill
would incur.
MARCIA MCKENZIE, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT, (CDVSA) JUNEAU, ALASKA testified in support of HB
64 and urged quick and prompt passage of the legislation.
Representative Brown pointed out there would be fiscal
impact by the Department of Corrections. Ms. Knuth replied
probation revocation is based on a new offense. She added
the convicted person would be spending the same amount of
time in jail. From the prosecutors point of view, it is
easier to put someone back in jail on a probation
revocation.
SAM TRIVETTE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, stated the Department of Corrections
provided a zero fiscal note because of experience based upon
previous probations matters, judges can currently place
those convicted on probation for five years. Nearly all
violations occur in the first five year period.
Representative Brown disagreed and reiterated her argument
that there would be fiscal impact to that Department.
Co-Chair Larson stated HB 64 would be HELD in Committee for
further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
24
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 P.M.
25
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|