Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/28/1997 02:10 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
APRIL 28, 1997
2:10 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97 - 114, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 114, Side 2, #000 - #082.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kelly
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representatives Grussendorf, Hanley and Kohring were not
present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp; Brett Huber, Staff, Senator Rick
Halford; Jane Angvik, (Testified via teleconference),
Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources;
Robert Nauheim, (Testified via teleconference), Department
of Natural Resources.
SUMMARY
HB 109 An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain
remote parcel and homestead entry land purchase
contracts and patents; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 109 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by the Department of Natural Resources dated
4/23/97.
SB 67 An Act relating to the imposition of criminal
sentences; and amending Rule 32.2, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
CS SB 67 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by
the Department of Law dated 3/5/97, two by
the Department of Public Safety dated 3/5/97,
the Senate Finance Committee dated 3/13/97
1
and a zero fiscal note by the Alaska Court
System.
SB 161 An Act relating to management of certain municipal
assets by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.
CS SB 161 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by the Department of Revenue 4/15/97.
HOUSE BILL 109
"An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain remote
parcel and homestead entry land purchase contracts and
patents; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault explained that HB 109 is a housekeeping
measure intended primarily to clarify certain Title 38
statutes governing the Department of Natural Resources'
(DNR) management of State land and resources. The bill is
intended to bring greater efficiency to the management of
state lands by simplifying programs and reducing costs to
DNR.
Co-Chair Therriault noted the highlights of the legislation:
* Rewrite of the "remote cabin permit program"
to a program that would allow for either the
sale or lease for a remote cabin site. The
permit program was never implemented because
of the associated administrative costs with
only a minimal return to the State.
* Clarifies that the sale of state land does
not obligate the State to provide additional
services.
* Simplifies the methods to receive a homestead
parcel title by requiring that within five
years, a parcel must be lived on for 25
months or purchased at fair market value.
JANE ANGVIK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF LANDS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
commented that the Department supports HB 109 as it would
clean-up Title 38, resulting in the Division of Lands being
operated more efficiently. She added that the Department
also supports the amendments distributed to Committee
members. She spoke to the shore fisheries issue and the
Supreme Court ruling regarding that concern. Co-Chair
Therriault noted that section had been dropped from the
2
proposed legislation.
Representative J. Davies questioned why it would be
difficult for the Division of Lands to follow the rules of
the Supreme Court. Ms. Angvik replied that the Kachemak Bay
Watch case challenged DNR to authorize aquatic water sites
on State lands, a decision which called for significant
aquatic planning efforts. The Court recommended that the
Department participate in a land use plan identifying areas
where mari-culture could occur and which was to be done
after an accumulative evaluation of all events that could
occur over time. If the Division of Lands had to comply
with the Court ruling, it would take seven employees to
perform an area wide plan for all of the coastal regions of
the State.
Representative J. Davies inquired if the Court required the
Division to address the entire State for permit operations.
Ms. Angvik replied that the Court indicated that the
Division had failed in Southeast Alaska and Southcentral
Alaska, so they ruled that the entire State must be
undertaken.
Representative J. Davies asked if the Department was planing
to return to the Legislature with statutes which make sense.
Ms. Angvik explained that the Division is doing a thorough
job with each mari-culture location evaluation, although,
the Court requested a higher standard. Discussion followed
between Representative Davies and Ms. Angvik regarding land
use planning.
Representative Martin voiced concern for the shoreline
tidelands and the coastal communities in Southeast Alaska.
Ms. Angvik stated that the proposed amendment was designed
to allow up-line owners to obtain a non competitive lease
for dock sites. In a tideland area, a user can get a long-
term lease to be able to operate a dock. The amendment
would allow the tideland applicant to apply for a similar
application for fresh water lakes and rivers.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the terms of a lease for fresh
water shore land. Ms. Angvik replied that the terms would
probably be a 20 year lease for facility on a carbo
operation, instead of a year by year competitive auction.
The issue of value would be negotiated between the lessee
and the State through an appraisal. The amendments do not
address the negotiation process.
ROBERT NAUHEIM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, offered to answer questions regarding
litigation which lead to the language of the bill.
3
Representative J. Davies noted that the litigation had
indicated that the process used was not adequate. The bill
has been accompanied by an amendment appropriate to that
concern. He asked how a facility could be created in the
future.
Mr. Nauheim explained that the legislation was written to
rescue several classes of aquatic farming operations which
are in a difficult legal position. The Alaska Supreme Court
stipulated that the application process was invalid. The
Court upheld that the identification method used by the
Department was faulty. The Department understood that,
initially, the identification process was to be informal so
as to aid the application process. The Supreme Court
interpreted the straight forward language to require a very
detailed formal planning process that would result in the
identification of districts where specific sites would be
identified for issuance of permits. That decision was
determined invalid. The new legislation coupled with the
newest amendments will call for the repeal of the old
system.
Representative J. Davies questioned if the regulations would
create a new process for permitting of the facilities. Mr.
Nauheim advised that the new language would command that the
commission adopt new regulations and establish criteria for
approving or denying the applications. Regulations will be
similar to the current ones.
Representative J. Davies asked if Amendment #3 was adopted,
would a permit applicant be applying for a finite period of
time. Ms. Angvik responded they would need to apply within
90 days.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on
file]. Representative Martin questioned if the
shoreline/tideline concerns in Southeast Alaska had been
adequately addressed. Ms. Angvik offered to work with
Representative Martin regarding his concerns. There being
NO OBJECTION to Amendment #1, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to report CS HB 109 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
4
CS HB 109 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources dated 4/23/97.
SENATE BILL 67
"An Act relating to the imposition of criminal
sentences; and amending Rule 32.2, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure."
BRETT HUBER, STAFF, SENATOR RICK HALFORD, noted that when a
felon is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the public
often receives a false sense of security by believing the
criminal will actually be incarcerated for the stated
sentence. As a result of "good time", as well as mandatory
and discretional parole provisions, the actual sentence
served is virtually guaranteed to be less than that which is
imposed by the judge.
If enacted, SB 67 would require that a victim of a crime,
their family, as well as the public, be provided with an
accurate statement of the minimum period of time which must
be served before the criminal is released. At the very
least, the victim and their families, as well the public,
deserve an honest and accurate assessment of the amount of
time a criminal will actually be incarcerated. SB 67
requires that the judge provide this information.
Mr. Huber continued, the enactment of SB 67 would also allow
the Department of Corrections to receive up to $650 thousand
dollars in federal funds which are available to states which
meet federal "truth in sentencing" guidelines.
Representative Mulder asked how the legislation would help
the State qualify for receiving truth in sentencing grants.
Mr. Huber noted that Section #2 of the bill added language
by the Department of Law. The federal truth in sentencing
grant had initially required states to have a minimum of 85%
of the sentence actually served by those convicted. Since
that time, the federal government revamped the program.
Section #2 does not change any of the sentencing or
mandatory parole procedures that the State is in, although,
it does provide language which the Department of Law is
comfortable will allow Alaska to qualify for the federal aid
dollars.
Mr. Huber noted that the fiscal note accompanying the bill
was prepared by the Senate Finance Committee and indicates
estimated federal receipts including the estimated 10%
general fund match.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS SB 67 (JUD) out of
5
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Mulder OBJECTED.
He noted that he was considering an amendment which would
address the surcharges on criminal offense fines. The
convicts who are able to pay for criminal offenses should be
assessed those fees. He believed the State lagged behind
the federal assessment allowance. An amendment would allow
the State to recoup funds and money to go back for the
victims.
Representative Mulder WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS SB 67 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska
Court System, two by the Department of Public Safety dated
3/5/97, the Department of Law dated 3/5/97 and the Senate
Finance Committee dated 3/13/97. #SB161
SENATE BILL 161
"An Act relating to management of certain municipal
assets by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation."
SENATOR BERT SHARP stated that the legislation would
authorize the Permanent Fund Corporation to manage the
assets of a municipal savings or investment account.
The parameter of a management agreement starts on Page 1,
Line 9, through the remainder of the bill. These were
established by the corporation as conditions to accommodate
without compromising their mission. The legislation would
offer municipalities the option of investing management
services within Alaska. The management costs would be
totally reimbursable to the Permanent Fund Corporation by
the municipalities.
Representative Martin asked the advantage to the local
municipalities. Senator Sharp pointed out that local
governments had sold the utilities. Co-Chair Therriault
commented that the University's trust and assets were
managed by the Department of Revenue.
Representative J. Davies asked if the appropriation account
would be a general fund expenditure. Senator Sharp
explained that the Permanent Fund Corporation had voiced
concern that the money not be deposited into the general
fund, instead, it be returned to the Permanent Fund
Corporation through the Earnings Reserve Account, confirmed
by the Legislature. Representative Davies agreed, although,
noted that the Earnings Reserve Account is an appropriation
account and appropriations from that account do not appear
as general funds.
6
Senator Sharp stated that the fiscal note indicates that the
funds appear as corporate receipts to the Permanent Fund.
The fiscal note indicates that there was a reimbursement of
the Permanent Fund earnings account for those expenses. Co-
Chair Therriault stated that budgeting for the corporation
come from corporate receipts from the earnings reserve. The
money which comes for the management of the fund would be
tracked in a similar fashion.
Representative J. Davies asked if the reserve earnings would
remain in the municipal account. Senator Sharp responded
that any earnings not drawn by the municipality on an annual
basis would stay and increase the assets on the
municipalities account.
(Tape Change HFC 97-114, Side 2).
Representative G. Davis pointed out that the Alaska
Municipal League has initiated and is operating a Municipal
Investment Pool. He suggested that if members were curious
as to how much money each municipality has to invest, they
could track those area pools.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS SB 161 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 161 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with the a fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue dated 4/15/97.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 P.M.
7
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|