Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/24/2000 01:55 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 24, 2000
1:55 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 82, Side 1
TAPE HFC 00 - 82, Side 2
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:55 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Mulder
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Grussendorf
Representative G. Davis Representative Moses
Representatives J. Davies, Austerman, Williams and Phillips
were absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes; Don Shircel, Director, Family
Services, Tanana Chief's Conference; Janet Seitz, Staff,
Representative Rokeberg; Bob Storer, Executive Director,
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, Department of Revenue;
Jeff, Bush, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community and
Economic Development; Alison Elgee, Revenue Commissioner,
Department of Administration; Jim Nordland, Director,
Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and
Social Services; Joe Balash, Staff, Representative
Therriault.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Mallonee, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue; Diane Wendlandt, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law; Bob Lohr, Division of Insurance
SUMMARY
HB 18 "An Act making a special appropriation from the
earnings reserve account to the principal of the
permanent fund; and providing for an effective
date."
HB 18 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 98 "An Act relating to contracts for the provision of
state public assistance to certain recipients in
the state; providing for regional public
assistance plans and programs in the state;
relating to grants for Alaska tribal family
assistance programs; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 98 (HES) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal
notes: one by the Department of Health and Social
Services, published date 3/3/00; and one by the
Department of Revenue.
HB 290 "An Act relating to stranded gas pipeline carriers
and to the intrastate regulation by the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska of pipelines and pipeline
facilities of stranded gas pipeline carriers."
HB 290 was postponed.
HB 350 "An Act repealing the statutory bars to the State
of Alaska's prosecution of a criminal act that
resulted in a conviction or acquittal by the
United States, another state, or territory."
HB 350 was postponed.
HB 418 "An Act relating to program receipts collected by
the division of insurance and to program receipts
collected by the Department of Community and
Economic Development for occupational licenses;
and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 418 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two fiscal
impact notes: one by the Department of Community
and Economic Development, Occupational Licensing,
published date 3/1/00; and one by the Department
of Community and Economic Development, Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI).
HOUSE BILL NO. 18
"An Act making a special appropriation from the
earnings reserve account to the principal of the
permanent fund; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES noted that she has only offered
two bills in her legislative career. She read from her
sponsor statement:
I am offering House Bill 18 to ensure an alternative
approach is available to the ongoing debate over the
Permanent Fund and the use of its earnings.
As the title suggests, HB 18 would make a special, one-
time appropriation from the Earnings Reserve to the
corpus of the Permanent Fund. The appropriation would
include the existing balance of the Earnings Reserve on
June 30,1999. As the bill's sponsor, I ask the Finance
Committee to amend the effective date in HB 18.
I believe placing the existing balance of the earnings
reserve into the corpus of the Fund would serve the
dual purpose of further protecting the funds and
ensuring the growth of the Permanent Fund.
Representative Barnes added that she received additional
information that needed to be considered by the House
Finance Committee. She observed that if the whole earnings
of the Permanent Fund were put into the corpus of the fund
that it could lead to the reduction or elimination of the
dividend. She asked the Committee to take action to protect
the dividend.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that members were provided with a
proposed committee substitute, work draft, 1-LS0163\D,
Cramer, 3/20/00 (copy on file). The committee substitute
would lower the appropriation to $250 million dollars. He
agreed with Representative Barnes that if there were a
deposit of the unappropriated balance that there is a real
likelihood that there could be insufficient funds remaining
in a protracted downward market to pay the dividend.
BOB STORER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE observed that the
Corporation contracted with Callan Associates Incorporated
for a sophisticated model to evaluate a number of asset
allocations and decisions including the volatility of any
given year. He provided members with a handout titled
"Volatility Model, Move Realized Earnings Reserve to
Principal at the end of FY00" (copy on file).
Mr. Storer reviewed assumptions used in the modeling
provided to the Committee in the handout. Actual investment
results were used through December 31, 1999. He explained
that expected median returns for the next 5 years were
developed in each asset class. The risk associated with each
asset class is also reviewed. The statutory formula for the
dividend and the current limitations of the Earnings Reserve
Account were used. The model was based on the Department of
Revenue's fall 1999 estimates for new income. The model was
based on the transfer of the realized earnings reserve into
the principal at the end of fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Storer reviewed current asset allocation as contained on
page 3 of the handout:
Cash Equivalents 0%
Domestic Bonds 35%
Active Large Cap Domestic Equities 17%
Passive Large Cap Domestic Equities 13%
Small Cap Domestic Equity 7%
International Equity 16%
Real Estate 10%
International Bonds 2%
Mr. Storer reviewed the market assumptions as contained on
page 4 of the handout:
Inflation over the next 5 years - 3.25%
Median expected return - 6.7 %
U.S. Equity market of large companies - 8.9%
U.S. Equity market of small companies - 10.40%
International Equities - 9.75%
Real Estate - 8.3%
International Bonds - 6.5%
Mr. Storer noted that the standard deviation on domestic
bonds would be 5.5%. Two-thirds of the time the median would
be expected at plus or minus 5.5 percent. Returns between
12.2 and 1.2 percent would be expected two-thirds of the
time.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that the expected return could
be twice as much or twice as little. Mr. Storer agreed and
gave further examples of the range of returns.
Mr. Storer reviewed page 5 of the handout: range of ending
market value. At the end of 1999 the Fund was $25.132
billion dollars. The median expected at the end of the year
2000 is $27,216 billion dollars. At the end of the year
2003, the median of $32,453 billion dollars is expected. At
the 75th pecentile in the year 2003, the Fund would be
$27,633. He noted that there is a 10 percent chance that the
Fund would be worth $25,246 billion dollars in the year 2003
if there were a prolonged bear market.
Co-Chair Mulder clarified that the range of ending market
value includes the total fund assets.
Mr. Storer reviewed the range of principle balance. The
median expected return is 8.25 percent with the balance
inflation proofed. If the earnings were not realized there
would be difficulty inflation proofing. The range of
inflation proofing includes the deposit of the realized
earnings reserve into the fund. Under a median case, the
principle balance would be $19,699 billion dollars at the
end of the year 2000. This would increase to $24,551 in the
year 2001.
Vice Chair Bunde clarified that the chart indicates what
would have occurred if HB 18 had been law and the excess
earnings were placed back into the fund.
Mr. Storer discussed page 7: the range of ending realized
earnings reserve balance. Realized earnings drop from $3.9
billion dollars in FY00 to $928 million dollars in FY01.
This reflects the deposit into the principle. Additional
realized income in FY01 would be $928 million dollars. In
the lower case scenario there would be virtually no income
or a probability of negative income. At the 90th percentile
the Earnings Reserve Account would be a negative $953
million dollars by the year 2003. There is a 10 percent
chance that the Account could grow to $6.2 billion dollars.
Vice Chair Bunde clarified that by law the Corporation is
required to use the imprudent investor rule. Mr. Storer
agreed and added that a prudent investor would use the
median base.
Mr. Storer reviewed the range of total distributed income.
The mid case scenario at the end of the year 2000 would be
$1,260 billion dollars of available distributed income. If
the decision were made to put the earnings reserve balance
into the corpus the distributed income for the year 2003
would be $1,390 billion dollars under the median scenario.
He reviewed further scenarios and noted that available
distributed income could range from $190 million dollars to
$1,976 million dollars in the year 2003.
Mr. Storer referred to the range of the per capita dividend.
In 1999 the dividend was $1,770 thousand dollars. By the
year 2003, the dividend would be $2,264 thousand dollars
under the median scenario. The pay out could range from $263
dollars to $3,240 thousand dollars by the year 2003.
Co-Chair Mulder stressed that there is a range of
volatility. In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder,
Mr. Storer clarified that current statute provides that the
determination of the dividend is derived from one half of
the balance in the Earnings Reserve Account if there are not
sufficient funds to make a pay out on the five year rolling
average. Co-Chair Mulder observed that in a protracted bear
market where a deposit of the Earnings Reserve balance were
made into the Permanent Fund there would no longer be funds
available for the default mechanism to kick in with any
strength similar to the current size of the dividend.
Mr. Storer noted that the Earnings Reserve is currently $7.7
billion dollars. Unrealized gains are $3.6 billion dollars.
The balance of $4.1 billion dollars is income realized
through February 29, 2000. This is the amount that would be
available for transfer into the principle of the Fund.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned the affect of the legislation on
the dividend. Mr. Storer stated that the deposit of $250
million dollars would have a nominal affect on dividends.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there would be risk to the
dividend. Mr. Storer stated that the more that is retained
the less the impact on the dividend on the out going years.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that the intent is not to create
risk to dividends, but to make a contribution to the Fund.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned how much the legislature had
deposited into the Fund over the last 10 years. Mr. Storer
did not have an exact number, but stated that the amount has
been significant.
HB 18 was Heard and Held in Committee for Further
deliberation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 418
"An Act relating to program receipts collected by the
division of insurance and to program receipts collected
by the Department of Community and Economic Development
for occupational licenses; and providing for an
effective date."
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to adopt work draft, 1-LS1500\I,
Utermohle, 3/24/00 (copy on file.) There being NO
OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered.
JANET SEITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG spoke in support
of the legislation on behalf of the sponsor. She explained
that the legislation would add two new areas to the program
receipts statute. A correction was made under the Division
of Occupational Licensing to exclude business license
receipts and Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI)
receipts were added. She observed that the sponsor supports
the committee substitute, but is concerned that pioneer home
receipts were excluded.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that individual licensing
groups within the Division of Occupational Licensing would
like to contribute funds that could be used for
participation in national training. He noted that ASMI
receipts are collected specifically for ASMI marketing. He
explained that Co-Chair Mulder expressed the desire to keep
the legislation limited in scope.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that a previous proposed
committee substitute was not offered because it would have
swept in business licenses. Business licenses generate more
than they consume for operation. The excess currently goes
to the General Fund. There was no desire to take these funds
off budget; therefore they were excluded from the
legislation.
JEFF, BUSH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT spoke in support of the legislation. He
expressed concern that the Division of Insurance was deleted
from the legislation. He observed that the Division of
Insurance generates fees in the same manner as the Division
of Occupational Licensing. He made assurances to the
industry that the legislation is not an attempt to raise
insurance fees. Insurance fees currently pay for their
services. He pointed out that the legislation does not take
the fee structure away from legislative oversight. He
maintained that any fears by industry were unfounded.
Mr. Bush referred to section (Y). He pointed out that the
receipts that go to ASMI are tax receipts, which are
collected by the Department of Revenue and appropriated to
ASMI. He suggested that the term "receipts" may not be
appropriate.
Mr. Bush spoke in support of an immediate effective date. He
noted that an immediate effective date could ease pressure
on the supplemental appropriation bill.
Co-Chair Therriault proposed that the bill be held to allow
research regarding subsection (Y). He stated that he
preferred that the legislation be matched to the new fiscal
year. He observed that the title would not prevent the
effective date from being changed later.
Representative Grussendorf asked why pioneer home receipts
were not included.
ALISON ELGEE, REVENUE COMMISSINER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION stated that the department supports the
inclusion of pioneer home receipts and observed that
legislation in the Senate would address pioneer home
receipts. She spoke in support of recognizing resident
revenues as specific to the pioneer home program.
Representative Grussendorf asked why pioneer home receipts
and Division of Insurance receipts were excluded from HB
418. Co-Chair Mulder explained that the intent was to keep
the legislation narrow in order to hurry its advancement. He
stressed that there would be little objection to the two
program receipts in the legislation. He observed that others
could be added later.
HB 418 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
deliberation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to contracts for the provision of
state public assistance to certain recipients in the
state; providing for regional public assistance plans
and programs in the state; relating to grants for
Alaska tribal family assistance programs; and providing
for an effective date."
JIM NORDLAND, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSITANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES spoke
in support of HB 98. He observed that one reason for success
around the nation, has been that the Federal welfare reform
law afforded the states the flexibility to design and run
their own programs. With flexibility caseload has been
reduced and savings realized. This has happened all across
the nation. In exchange for flexibility, the federal
government capped the amount of dollars going to the states
in the form of a fixed block grant.
In this same vein, the federal law allows tribes and Alaska
Native organizations to run their own programs. The belief
is that programs are better run if they are locally
controlled and culturally relevant.
The federal law specifically names the 13 regional Native
non-profit organizations as eligible to run their own
programs. Under current state law (47.27.070), the
Department of Health and Social Services has the authority
to coordinate with these organizations in the development of
their programs.
Federal funding for the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
(ATAP) comes in the form of a block grant. To be eligible,
states are required to participate in funding state programs
through a maintenance of effort. In Alaska, the maintenance
of effort is 80 percent of the amount of funding that the
state provided in 1994 to the proceeding program: Alaska
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). However, federal
law did not require a match for Native run programs. Without
state funding, Native programs would be left to operate with
approximately half the funding that the state program
receives, which would inevitably mean cuts in services.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00-82, SIDE 2)
Mr. Nordland observed that there is a comparability
requirement in the federal law regarding the Native program.
The federal government is not likely to approve a Native
program without state funding because of the failure to meet
the comparability requirement. A Native program cannot be a
comparable program with half of the funding.
House Bill 98 allows the state of Alaska to fund a Native
family assistance program. It is important to note that the
funding is already going to Native clients through the state
program. A portion of the funds that are already going to
Native clients would be transferred to the Native
organization. The Native organization would marry the state
funds with the federal block grant that would be going to
them directly. The bill has a zero fiscal note. Money would
be taken out of the Department of Health and Social
Services' budget and transferred to the Native organization.
The money transferred would be for cash benefits for work
services, childcare, and the kinds of things that are needed
to operate the ATAP program. The Native organization would
be responsible for running the program.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that the same people would be
served. A more direct provider (Native organizations) would
be providing the services as opposed to the department.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to pages 5 and 6. He observed
that the department cannot pay benefits above and beyond
those paid in the state program. He clarified that the
entire population of an area would be served, not just the
Native population.
Mr. Nordland explained that the federal law requires the
state to look at what was spent in 1994 and determine how
much was spent on Native families in a particular service
area. The federal law also requires that once the service
area is set aside that the population within the area can
fluctuate and that it is up to the Native organization to
decide what the service population is.
Co-Chair Therriault asked for assurances that the Native run
operations would be allowed to serve everyone in their
service area. Mr. Nordland observed that section 2 speaks to
regional public assistance programs. This allows the
department to subcontract with the Native organization to
serve the entire region, including non-natives. "In some
cases we will do that, in some cases we won't, depending on
the makeup of the region."
He added that the bill allows funding of a Native run
program. The state currently funds the Tanana Chief's
Conference (TCC) program. To receive state funds, TCC had to
have a program that was substantially the same as the
state's ATAP program. Originally, TCC wanted to do things
somewhat differently from ATAP. The bill would allow Native
run organizations to depart from what is done under ATAP, as
long as the program is still comparable to the state's
program. At present TCC only serves the Native population.
In Fairbanks, the non-natives are still served by the
Department of Health and Social Services. In smaller
villages it would make sense to contract with TCC to serve
non-Native families.
Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the populations are
large enough in Fairbanks to run two separate programs, but
expressed concern that the state not be in the position of
administering to a handful of people when there is a large
Native organization serving the Native population. He
maintained that it makes more sense to serve the entire
regional base. Mr. Nordland estimated that the state would
contract in some areas to serve the entire population.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that 60 percent of rural
Alaskans are non-Natives. Mr. Nordland noted that the region
that TCC serves is 50/50 Native/non-Native. Half of the
families on ATAP in Southeast Alaska are Native. In the
Bethel area there are 800 Native and 10 non-Native families
being served. He observed that the ratio depends on the area
of the state and the definition of rural. Vice Chair Bunde
acknowledged that there can be a difference in the makeup of
the total population and the population being served.
DON SHIRCEL, DIRECTOR, FAMILY SERVICES, TANANA CHIEF'S
CONFERENCE spoke in support of the legislation. He read the
following prepared statement to the committee:
I have been the Director of TCC's Family Services for
the past sixteen-years. I hold a Master of Science
degree in Behavioral Disabilities and administer
approximately $8 million of the total $55 million
dollar TCC annual budget of state and federal health
and social service programs.
As a social service professional and program planner, I
strongly support HB 98. In a state, of our unique size,
it makes a lot of sense to regionally design and
administer temporary assistance programming. HB 98 is
consistent with the same rationale from which state and
federal Welfare Reform emerged. Programs closest to the
people are more responsive, relevant, effective and
efficient than large centrally operated "one size fits
all" programs planned and administered outside the
community.
This January we completed our first year of operating
of a Regional Native Family Assistance pilot program.
While it is still too early to fully access the overall
success of the project, some of the preliminary
statistics indicate that we're headed in the right
direction.
In January of 1999 when the state fully transitioned
the program to TCC there were 440 cases. This January,
a year later, our monthly caseload was 356 families.
Like the state's temporary assistance program our
monthly caseload is the lowest it's been in the past
three years. Villages in the interior feel we're headed
in the right direction. Our preliminary statistics also
indicate that more Native families receiving temporary
assistance - particularly those who live in rural
communities of the interior - are working for the check
they receive. Village leaders feel really good about
that.
Alaska's rural communities through their Regional Non-
profit Corporations have been designing programs to
better fit the needs of their families. Many have also
been developing local and regional infrastructures that
now rival the state's capacity to provide a comparable
level of local service delivery, especially in rural
remote areas.
Villages in the TCC service area feel good about our
partnership with the state on this pilot project - but
they feel that they could do more and get a still
bigger bang out of their buck if they were allowed to
incorporate other regional variations within the
temporary assistance programs administered by the
Regional non-profits. HB 98 would allow Native family
assistance programs the degree a flexibility needed to
do more with the same program dollar.
For example; the state's plan finances One-Stop Centers
with a wide range of services to help people to get off
of welfare. But the state plan finances such centers
only in a handful of Alaska's urban centers.
Over the course of the first six months of the TCC
pilot program we developed a community based service
delivery infrastructure that included 37 existing
community based offices and assigned staff located in
one stop centers in each of the communities of the
service area created through shared funding from state
and federal program funds. These shared staff and
facilities were funded through the combined resources
of other federal programs to minimize administrative
cost and maximize the level of collaboration with other
support services needed by families seeking to enter
the labor market. These small community based service
centers serve as locally accessible, culturally
appropriate single points of entry for families needing
assistance and also as the single points of contact for
a regional service providers and employers seeking to
get information about their services and employment
opportunities to potential clients.
The small size of each of these village one stop
service centers allows for personal attention,
individualized planning, and services tailored to the
needs of each family as well as the accurate, timely
and ongoing monitoring of each client's progress. The
TCC Regional Native Family Assistance program
incorporates a service delivery infrastructure in which
people are working with people.. .not paper! They know
each other and regularly interact as members of the
same community and work together toward a common goal
to move on to work and to be more self-sufficient in
providing for the needs of their family.
Under HB 98 the TCC Native family assistance program
could impose the following standards not permissible
under current state statute. 1) All applicants would be
required to undergo alcohol and substance abuse
evaluations and follow the recommendations of their
evaluation or lose a percentage of their benefit (for
those who comply with the evaluation recommendation
within six months -- their benefits would be restored
and the percentage of their benefit which was withheld
would be returned to them upon successful completion of
their treatment). With the enabling legislation of HB
98 we'd not only be able to provide benefits for an
indigent family, we'd be more able to assertively
approach the problem of alcohol and substance abuse and
even create bonus incentives for parents who comply ...
all on the same dollar.
Under HB 98 TCC's Native Family Assistance Program
could require all parent's receiving benefits to attend
their children's parent teacher conferences and include
their children in regular health screenings and
immunizations made available in their community.
Failure to do so would result in a small but noticeable
reduction in their benefits for that month. With the
enabling legislation of HB 98 we'd be able to promote
better parenting by encouraging increased involvement
in their children's school work and increased vigilance
regarding their children's immunization and general
health ... and once again we'd be doing it all on the
same dollar that we currently receive. Our program
cannot impose such sanctions under current state
statute.
TCC's original Native Family Assistance program plan
included a provision to more assertively approach the
issue of domestic violence. That plan provided that in
two parent households in which domestic violence is a
problem -- the perpetrator would be required to leave
the home and receive counseling -- by court order if
necessary. He/she could receive a portion of the
household benefit only if they continued counseling
outside the home. Such sanctions and incentives (none
of which incur any additional cost to the program) are
not possible without the enabling legislation of HB 98.
In regards to getting people off of welfare and on to
work, there are many different ways to accomplish these
goals. There are many good ideas in Alaska. HB 98
simply allows these two realities to merge and to do so
in each of the diverse regions of the state. "What
works in Alabama doesn't necessarily work in Alaska-and
the way they do it in Anchorage doesn't always make
sense to the people in Angoon. HB 98 is about more
local control and getting a bigger bang for the same
buck.
Villages in the interior continue to support the
recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission
especially those related to local control, decreasing
dependency, encouraging self-sufficiency and developing
jobs and local economies. Our experience to date, we
feel indicates that we're headed in the right
direction. We hope you do too. Thank you for your time
and this opportunity to testify.
Vice Chair Bunde expressed appreciation of TCC's efforts. He
questioned how evaluations of drug and alcohol abuse are
carried out. Mr. Shircel observed that TCC has a general
screening, similar to the state. He stated that they would
like to require that every person that applies for
assistance go through an entire evaluation. The evaluations
would be done locally. The idea is to put real teeth into
what the community desires.
Vice Chair Bunde found it interesting that some rural areas
wish conservative screening.
In response to a question by Vice Chair Bunde, Mr. Shircel
gave a brief overview of his "Behavior Disabilities" degree.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Mr. Shircel
clarified that TCC receives direct federal funding. Half of
the funding that TCC has received for their operation has
come directly from the federal government; the other half
comes through the their two-year agreement with the state of
Alaska, which is about to expire. The legislation would not
change the percentage coming from the federal government.
Direct funding from the federal government comes from the
federal amount calculated based on 1994 state expenditures
to Native families. All regional non-profits and Metlakatla
are eligible to receive direct federal funding. He
emphasized that it requires a great deal of planning and is
a very complex program. Other regional non-profits have been
cautious to assure that any services that they elect to
provide directly are done as well as current programs.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that AS 47.27.070 allows the
department to coordinate with Alaska Native organizations as
designated under federal law.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Mr.
Nordland noted that TCC is currently the only Native
organization that is operating. At least two other
organizations are in the planning stage. He acknowledged
that there is some level of duplication, to the extent, that
there are two administrative entities in some regions.
Mr. Nordland emphasized that the program will not
necessarily lead to better levels of efficiency. He stressed
that the program would be better run at a local level. The
program would provide a greater level of local control
Representative G. Davis questioned if federal law would
prohibit TCC from administering to non-natives. Mr. Nordland
responded that federal law would not preclude Native
organizations from administering to non-Natives.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 98 (HES) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 98 (HES) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes: one by the
Department of Health and Social Services, published date
3/3/00; and one by the Department of Revenue.
HOUSE BILL NO. 418
"An Act relating to program receipts collected by the
division of insurance and to program receipts collected
by the Department of Community and Economic Development
for occupational licenses; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault observed that discussions with the
department clarified that the taxes to the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute (ASMI) come from two sources. The tax
sources need to be identified.
JOE BALASH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT provided
information on HB 418. He explained that the legislative
legal staff confirmed that the previous language would only
apply to the minimal amount of materials and information
brochures sold by ASMI. The taxes did need to be referenced.
The legal counsel recommended adding the following language:
receipts from the seafood marketing assessment (AS
16.51.120), the salmon marketing tax (AS 43.76.110)
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT a conceptional amendment
to replace the language on line 8, page 1 to specifically
reference receipts from the seafood marketing assessment (AS
16.51.120), the salmon marketing tax under (AS 43.76.110)
and other receipts of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 418 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 418 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two fiscal impact notes: one
by the Department of Community and Economic Development,
Occupational Licensing, published date 3/1/00; and one by
the Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
House Finance Committee 15 3/24/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|