Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/06/2000 01:50 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 6, 2000
1:50 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 105, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 105, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 00 - 107, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 107, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 00 - 108, Side 1.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:50 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative Bunde Representative Phillips
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative G. Davis
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson; Representative Lisa Murkowski;
Representative Norman Rokeberg; Peter Torkelson, Staff,
Representative Fred Dyson; Amy Erickson, Staff,
Representative Lisa Murkowski; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; John
Bitney, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), Anchorage; Dave Stewart, Personnel
Manager, Department of Administration; Wendy Lindskoog,
Director of External Affairs, Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC), Anchorage; Mark Hamilton, President, Statewide
Programs and Services, University of Alaska, Fairbanks;
Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development;
Bob Condon, President, Alaska Federation of Teachers for
Community Colleges; Dave Lewis, Operations Manager, Alaska
Fiberstar, Eagle.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Phyllis Johnson, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Anchorage;
Sherry Buretta, Chairman of the Board, Chugach Alaska
Corporation, Chugach; Ron Johnson, Real Estate Commission,
Kenai; Deave Feeken, Alaskan Association of Realtors, Kenai;
Bruno Rehbein, Mat-Su; Bill Bruu, Mat-Su; David Owens, Owens
Inspection Services, Mat-Su; Blair McCune, Deputy Director,
Alaska Public Defenders Agency, Department of
Administration, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 207 An Act relating to the registration of persons who
perform home inspections; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 207 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 317 An Act relating to recruitment, selection,
appointment, and promotion of state employees and
the duties of the Department of Administration
concerning those and other related functions; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 317 was POSTPONDED for consideration to a
latter date.
HB 320 An Act approving the application for and
acceptance of a grant of certain federal land by
the Alaska Railroad Corporation; approving the
conveyance of the entire interest in the Whittier
DeLong Dock and associated uplands, tidelands, and
submerged lands by the Alaska Railroad
Corporation; relating to use and disposition of
the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated land; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 320 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" consideration and with a zero fiscal
note by the House Transportation Committee dated
3/29/00.
HB 362 An Act authorizing the exchange of land between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc.,
between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the
United States Department of the Army and the
United States Department of the Air Force, between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Chugach Alaska
Corporation, and between the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 362 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal
noted by the Department of Community & Economic
Development dated 3/3/00.
HB 368 An Act relating to release of persons before trial
and before sentencing or service of sentence;
relating to custodians of persons released, to
security posted on behalf of persons released, and
to the offense of violation of conditions of
release; amending Rule 41(f), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective
date.
CS HB 368 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the
Department of Corrections dated 2/11/00, the
Department of Administration dated 2/11/00 and a
zero note by the Department of Law dated 2/11/00.
HB 372 An Act relating to criminal sentencing and
restitution.
CS HB 372 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by Department of Corrections dated 3/30/00.
HB 426 An Act relating to transfers of public land or
grants or conveyances of interest in public land
among the Alaska Railroad Corporation, the
Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, and the Department of Natural
Resources to relocate or widen the Seward Highway,
to relocate railroad facilities, and to relocate
adjacent utility facilities; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 426 was POSTPONED for hearing at a latter date.
HB 441 An Act making appropriations for the operating
expenses of the University of Alaska; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17c,
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing
for an effective date.
HB 441 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
consideration at a latter date.
HOUSE BILL NO. 372
An Act relating to criminal sentencing and restitution.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on
File]. The amendment would provide oversight to the Court
System and would exempt out arson if a person had been put
at risk. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that with current language,
the Court would be able to define what "community" is.
Representative J. Davies noted that he wanted to preclude
any argument over that concern by including a definition.
He reiterated that it is important that it is clarified.
Representative J. Davies MOVED a change to Page 1, Line 13,
adding, "In this section, community should be defined by the
Court."
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON agreed that the Court would be
able to define who is a "community" which would allow both
sides, the perpetrator and the victim, the opportunity for
input regarding the definition of community. That action
would place the Court in the approving role.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if there would be an expense
incurred with the inclusion of "approved". Representative
J. Davies acknowledged that both sides would have to agree
to the process in order to move forward.
Discussion followed among Committee members regarding the
definition of what "community". there being NO further
OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 372 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 372 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by Department of
Corrections dated 3/30/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 362
An Act authorizing the exchange of land between the
Alaska Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc., between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the United States
Department of the Army and the United States Department
of the Air Force, between the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and Chugach Alaska Corporation, and between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Municipality of
Anchorage; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that the committee substitute, 1-
LS1455\H, Utermohle, 4/3/00, would combine HB 320, HB 362
and HB 426. [Copy on File]. He pointed out that
Representative Bunde had submitted an amendment to HB 320
bill which would address the Whittier DeLong Dock and the
Alaska Railroad Corporation. [Copy on File].
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT the version (H) committee
substitute as the document before the Committee.
Representative Phillips OBJECTED.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the (H) version
without the Whittier DeLong Dock. Representative Phillips
OBJECTED. She stated that she did not oppose combining the
three bills, however, noted that there is opposition from
the Railroad on putting the DeLong Dock concept into the
legislation. She stated that she had spoken with Senator
Leman and that he had expressed his concern no to include
the DeLong Dock.
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI stated that the intent is to
guarantee that the straightening of the tracks between
Anchorage and Wasilla is accomplished with legislation this
year. She emphasized that it is very important that this is
not held up and that nothing jeopardizes the success of the
legislation.
WENDY LINDSKOOG, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ALASKA
RAILROAD CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE, echoed sentiments expressed
by Representative Murkowski. She noted that if the bills
were combined in the proposed fashion, there could be a
possibility that all three could die and that the track
alignment bill would not go forward. She stated for the
record that the Alaska Railroad does support the DeLong Dock
bill passing this session.
Representative Phillips requested that Ms. Lindskoog restate
the Railroad's intention in regard to the DeLong Dock. Ms.
Lindskoog clarified that the Alaska Railroad is "completely"
in support of the DeLong Dock bill. Passage of that bill
would help economic development in Whittier.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to delete the
DeLong Dock portion.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Moses, Phillips, Williams,
Austerman, J. Davies, G. Davis
OPPOSED: Foster, Bunde, Therriault, Mulder
The MOTION PASSED (7-4).
There being NO OBJECTION, the (H) version was adopted as
amended.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that Representative Bunde would
not be offering his amendment to the committee substitute.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 362 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
CS HB 362 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by Department of
Community & Economic Development dated 3/3/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 320
An Act approving the application for and acceptance of
a grant of certain federal land by the Alaska Railroad
Corporation; approving the conveyance of the entire
interest in the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated
uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands by the Alaska
Railroad Corporation; relating to use and disposition
of the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated land; and
providing for an effective date.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, which would
insert language indicating that neither the corporation nor
the City of Whittier may grant any special rights to a third
party to provide management services at the dock. [Copy on
File]. Representative J. Davies OJBECTED. He asked how
that would affect Page 2, Line 18. He understood that
language would instruct it to go into effect. He questioned
how the amendment would relate.
WENDY LINDSKOOG, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE,
replied that the amendment would supercede the management
term agreement. Representative J. Davies questioned if
there should be a reference to that document. Ms. Lindskoog
explained that it would supercede the part that mentions the
Chugach Alaska Corporation. All other aspects of that
document would be pertaining to how the City of Whittier and
the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) would set up a
management or operating agreement.
Vice Chair Bunde stated that the amendment would only affect
a portion of the management agreement that addresses the
first right of refusal. He recommended that the remainder
of the agreement not be changed.
Representative Williams pointed out that Chugach is in favor
of the way the language currently is written in the bill.
He asked if that was part of the negotiated settlement or
the right of refusal. Ms. Lindskoog responded that all
parties had been attempted to be included in the bill. She
noted that reference to the terms in the bill is how
management relates. She pointed out that it would directly
conflict with AARC procurement codes. To make the bill
legal, that reference should be deleted.
Representative Williams asked if that had been negotiated.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that it was part of an
negotiation that went on with Chugach and ARRC. He added
that they did not have the power to negotiate on behalf of
the Legislature to make a sole source contract.
Representative Williams suggested that their code allowed
them the right to do that. Co-Chair Therriault noted that
since the Railroad operates under their own procurement
code, there is some question if they can go to a sole source
contract without violating the rule procedures.
Representative Phillips pointed out that previous testimony
indicates that it would be in violation of their procurement
codes. Representative Williams voiced concern that if it
had already been negotiated with Chugach, how would the
change work affect them. Ms. Lindskoog reiterated that the
bill would be following the procurement codes. She stated
that ARRC would have to negotiate separately with Chugach.
Representative Williams understood that the Railroad had
already negotiated with Chugach the intent of the proposal.
Representative G. Davis asked about the management terms of
the DeLong Dock. He inquired if Chugach had signed on to
it. Ms. Lindskoog stated that they had not and that there
had been negotiations but no signatures. At this time, the
signatures included on that document are the City of
Whittier and the ARRC.
Representative J. Davies advised that in that document, it
does grant Chugach Corporation first refusal on the
management plan. Ms. Lindskoog acknowledged that was
correct. However, she added that option goes directly
against the procurement rules.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that there was a legal opinion
from Terry Bannister, Legal Services, indicating that the
first right of refusal in not consistent with the
procurement code.
Representative J. Davies proposed another amendment to the
one proposed by Representative Bunde. He believed that the
inconsistency could be fixed.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to WITHDREW Amendment #1.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT an amendment to Page
2, Line 18, deleting "consistent" and inserting "to the
extent possible". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. [Previously
adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned language on Page 2, Line 15,
"not with standing". Representative J. Davies explained
that portion explains the terms of what occurs if it does
not go into effect.
SHERRY BURETTA, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD, CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION, CHUGACH, commented
that the negotiations that had taken place between Chugach
and the ARRC. The negotiations were consistent with their
right to utilize that dock. The negotiation and agreement
which was arrived at, allowed Chugach to have their interest
addressed. She stated that this was a "slap in the face" as
far as Chugach's willingness to withdraw their attempt at
securing the property due to the federal acquisition
process.
Ms. Buretta added that the language is inconsistent with
other issues that have passed through the Legislature. She
reiterated that she was opposed to the language as it
stands. Co-Chair Therriault agreed that the Legislature
does have that power, however, the Legislature will not
exercise that power on this piece of legislation.
Representative J. Davies stated that the language of the
bill indicates that the Legislature expects the Railroad and
the City of Whittier to execute that management agreement to
the fullest extent possible. He understood that both of
these entities would try to honor whatever previous
understandings they had with Chugach.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 320 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 320 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
House Transportation Committee dated 3/29/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
An Act relating to release of persons before trial and
before sentencing or service of sentence; relating to
custodians of persons released, to security posted on
behalf of persons released, and to the offense of
violation of conditions of release; amending Rule
41(f), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date.
ANNE CARPENETI. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRINIMAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that the proposed
legislation would address four areas:
Establishes the crime of violating conditions of
release;
Authorizes courts to order performance bonds;
Charges contempt of court for third-party custodian's
failure to report condition violations; and
Authorizes delayed reporting date for jail time.
Ms. Carpeneti continued:
Violation and Conditions of Release. In criminal cases, an
accused has a constitutional right to be released on bail
before trial. Persons who have been found guilty may be
released before sentence is imposed or before ordered to
serve a sentence. When releasing a person, the court may
impose both general conditions, such as requiring that the
accused violate no laws, and conditions specific to the
particular case or defendant, such as forbidding an accused
in a domestic violence case from contacting the victim. The
safety of the victim often depends on the enforcement of
release conditions. Currently, although it is a crime to
willfully fail to appear as ordered by the court, there are
few options for violation of other release conditions except
for incarcerating the person. The legislation provides that
it is a Class A misdemeanor for a person to violate release
conditions if the person is charged with a felony and a
Class B misdemeanor to violate conditions for a person
charged with a misdemeanor.
Performance Bonds. The bill clarifies the law by
specifically authorizing the court to order the accused to
post a performance bond, and requires that the court forfeit
the security if the person violates a condition of no
contact with the victim or witness in a proceeding. The
court may forfeit the security if the accused violates other
conditions. The standard for forfeiture of security in Rule
41(f), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, is amended to
require that security be forfeited unless the defendant
could not comply due to circumstances beyond the control of
the defendant. An example of such circumstances includes
weather conditions that prevent airplane transportation, if
there is no alternative way to travel to court.
Third Party Custodians. Courts often release a defendant to
the custody of a third party either an individual or an
organization. Custodians are required to report to the court
or the police if the defendant violates release conditions,
but often do not. The bill provides that a third-party
custodian can be found in contempt for failing to report
immediately a defendant's violations of conditions of
release ordered by the court, and requires the court to
inform the custodian of the possible consequences of
ignoring the duty to report.
Delayed Reporting Date. The bill specifically gives the
court the authority to order a person sentenced to a period
of incarceration to begin serving the sentence at a date
sometime after it was imposed. With overcrowded correctional
facilities, this is useful to help avoid "bottlenecks" in
admissions b proper scheduling.
Representative Austerman asked the amount of discussion the
bill had had on the third party provision. Ms. Carpeneti
advised that if the person did not know that a violation had
occurred, they would not be responsible to report it. Most
custodians take their responsibly seriously. If the court
takes the risk to release someone and they are not to
contact the victim, that would require the custodian to
notify the police if the defendant does contact the victim.
It is important that they take that responsibility
seriously.
Representative Austerman asked if forfeiture of security
would be a separate bond for being released. Ms. Carpeneti
explained that there would be two types of security if the
bill were passed: there would be the performance bond and
the appearance bonds. The appearance bonds are similar to
the traditional bail bonds.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that bail bond people
are concerned with how much they would need to charge to
provide the "insurance" and the collateral requirements. He
noted that Ms. Carpeneti had indicated that these would be
discretionary. He asked how the legislation would impact a
person's ability to get a bond.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that it would be discretionary to
lose the bond. She added that the bail bondsman could write
appearance bonds or performance bonds. A bondsman could
post a bond for a person who failed to appear. Ms. Carpeneti
stated that judges could tailor the amount of the
performance bond to an amount that a person could personally
come up with. That would give the individual incentive to
abide to the conditions of release.
Representative J. Davies asked if there was a
distinguishment between the mandatory and discretionary
amounts. Representative J. Davies noted that he was more
interested in the "no contact" portion of the legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that the bill provides that if a
convicted person does contact the victim in violation of a
performance bond, then the security would be forfeited.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 105, Side 2)
Co-Chair Mulder noted that currently, when person signs on
as a third party custodian, they assume some
responsibilities. Under the proposed legislation, the only
penalties placed upon a third party would be in the event
that the party disappears. They are then required to report
it. Ms. Carpeneti noted that the bill stipulates that they
must report it immediately.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if the only change from current
practice was that there would be enforcement. Ms. Carpeneti
agreed and added that they could be found in contempt of
court. Co-Chair Mulder wanted to guarantee that this would
not be a "discouragement" to parties contemplating becoming
the third party custodians.
BLAIR MCCUNE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBIC DEFENDERS AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, ANCHORAGE, commented that the Public
Defender's agency is concerned with the legislation. He
stated that prisoner overcrowding is a big problem in
Alaska. If the number of prisoners increases, there will be
serious consequences for overcrowding.
Mr. McCune noted that the main concern is with performance
bonds and the added offense of violation of prison release.
He disagreed with Ms. Carpeneti's statement that there would
not be any additional consequences for someone who had
violated their conditions of release. Mr. McCune emphasized
that there would be consequences and that those persons
would not be considered for probation. He added that going
back to jail would be a major consequence.
Mr. McCune advised that there are bondsmen that write
appearance bonds in many other areas of the State outside of
Juneau, especially in Anchorage. The bondsmen write these
because they are fairly predictable. Bondsmen have "ways of
persuading" these folks to come to court quickly. He did
not see the private bondsmen writing any of the performance
bonds which would be a business risk. Mr. McCune
acknowledged that the Public Defenders Agency is concerned
that performance bonds would be prevalent and would add
additional work and barriers to having people released. He
reminded members that people in jail and facing bail are not
in a good arguing position.
Mr. McCune pointed out that there are so many conditions of
release. He added that the bonding issue would place
hardships on families that can not afford it. Another
consequence is the violation and conditions of release.
These consequences are real and the agency is concerned that
these would become a plea bargaining tool, making it a Class
A misdemeanor.
Mr. McCune stressed that the current system is a fair
system. People are being released from the jails, whereas,
within the proposed law, unwarranted difficulties will
continue to surface.
Representative Phillips asked if the Public Defenders Agency
supports penalties when there has been a violation of their
conditions of release. Mr. McCune interjected that they do
not support Section #3, the new law which makes it a
misdemeanor to violate conditions. Mr. McCune added that
these people generally do not go unpenalized. If it is a
minor violation, they might not be penalized. If it were a
serious violation, they would be put back in jail. If they
were found guilty, they would have to go before the same
judge that sentenced them and he would again determine the
probation conditions. Mr. McCune emphasized that these are
consequences when you are in jail.
Ms. Carpeneti clarified that there would be no additional
consequences outside of what there is on the original
charge. She countered statements made by Mr. McCune. She
noted that the bill provides that if a person is charged
with a felony and conditions of release are violated, and
then convicted, that would then be considered a Class A
misdemeanor. However, if the person is charged with the
underlying charge, and they violate the conditions of
release and are convicted of that violation, it would then
become a Class B misdemeanor.
Representative J. Davies asked if there would be an
additional consequence if the bond procedure were
established. Ms. Carpeneti explained that the legislation
would encourage people to provide for the conditions of
release in two ways, which are the possibility of being
charged for another crime and monetary consequences if
conditions are violated.
Representative J. Davies asked why the Department would need
both civil penalties. Ms. Carpeneti replied that it is
important for public safety that people released, abide by
the conditions of their release.
Representative G. Davis asked if there were statistics
regarding the economic status of a person and how bonding
would be determined for that person. He asked about the
conditions for the very poorest of people. Ms. Carpeneti
responded that judges are capable of looking at a person's
resources and then making the bond appropriate.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVE to report CS HB 368 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 368 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal note by Department of
Corrections dated 2/11/00, the Department of Administration
dated 2/11/00 and a zero note by the Department of Law dated
2/11/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 441
An Act making appropriations for the operating expenses
of the University of Alaska; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17c, Constitution of the State of
Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date.
MARK HAMILTON, PRESIDENT, STATEWIDE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS, stated that House Bill 441
invests a one-time, state funded $34,000,000 appropriation
to the University of Alaska with a two-year lapse date. In
total, it would invest $532,654,800 in operations to the
University of Alaska.
The bill responds to the University's Board of Regents
request to help the University by making a significant and
multi-year commitment to a new direction.
President Hamilton pointed out that House Bill 441, in an
innovative fashion, would address the needs of the
University of Alaska. The bill invests a total of
$532,654,800 for operation of the University of Alaska. That
would include $66,284,700 ($34,000,000 in state funds) with
a two-year lapse date so the University could retool to meet
Alaska's changing needs.
President Hamilton noted that HB 441 would provide
$466,370,100 (including $172,143,300 in state funds) as
basic funding for FY 01.
Funds 6/30/01 Lapse 6/30/O2 Lapse
State Funds 172,143,300 34,000,000
Other funds 294,226,800 32,284,700
Total funds 466,370,100 66,284,700
The separate, two-year allocation to the University budget
would allow the Board of Regents stability in funding for
new programs and additional flexibility in meeting the
evolving needs of the students and the State. The
University would be able to begin programs with the
assurance that second year funding would be available. The
two year time span would allow new and modified programs to
begin functioning so that they can be reasonably measured as
the FY 03 budget is being considered.
President Hamilton stated that HB 441 would establish goals
for the University to meet, including providing more Alaska
trained teachers, helping diversify our economy, providing
education and training for jobs and professions that are
developing in Alaska. The Legislature expects the
University to offer quality education to its students and
retain students through graduation. It also expects the
University forge partnerships with the private sector. To
accomplish these goals, the University will need to review
all its programs and facilities and eliminate or revamp
those not contributing to these new goals.
President Hamilton urged a change to the existing document.
He stated that it was his intent, to pay from that same sum,
the salary increase agreed to through the contracts. He
noted that the faculty deserves those raises and that it
would not require extra dollars. He reiterated that the
legislation is innovative and enlightened.
Co-Chair Mulder asked for more information regarding the new
programs which would be coming on line. President Hamilton
explained that there would be programs in some direct
service areas, addressing long-term existing requirements
for the production of quality teachers in the State.
Additionally, there would be a two-year nursing graduate
program, several allied health fields, heavy equipment
operator program, additional opportunities in logistics as
well as informatics, and a degree in financing.
Co-Chair Mulder asked for further discussion on the
continuation of the four-year program and how that would
"fit" with the five-year program system. President Hamilton
noted that a State University is directed to do a four-year
program. He stated that the University was faced with a
dilemma three years ago which was either to do "quality" or
"quantity". The quality piece tried to get in consort with
the Alaska quality schools initiative. At that time, it was
assumed that the University would produce another year of
graduate level participation. He hoped that there was a
potential to merge those two programs and save a couple
faculty positions.
President Hamilton stated that the University would now
offer a four-year program and wanted to keep the five-year
program.
Representative Williams questioned investment of teacher
qualifications and expertise of the faculty and training of
the students. President Hamilton responded that the system
is improving and the programs are being revamped.
Representative Williams advised that "something is currently
broken" in the University system as it now exists.
President Hamilton assured members that many changes need to
happen which the University is now attempting. Funding this
legislation will enable these things to be addressed.
President Hamilton stated that there has been a significant
loss of confidence from loosing the accreditation by the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks. He believed that there was
great failure on the part of the University not to have
dealt with that publicly. The report that removed the
accreditation, at the same time, praised the quality of the
faculty and the quality of the students. He emphasized that
a university needs to produce the majority of the teachers
in that state. That is fundamental to the long-term support
of the community in terms of recruitment.
President Hamilton pointed out that only 15% of the faculty
of the Alaska school system come from residents within the
State. Most other states have 40% of their teachers having
been trained in their state. He reiterated that this is not
a broken system, however, it does have a bad reputation.
Co-Chair Mulder asked about the logistics program and the
vision for that program in the future. President Hamilton
advised that logistics at large has an enormous potential in
the State of Alaska. He noted that Anchorage is #2 in the
global exchange with the airport and that Fairbanks is #9.
It appears that the free market believes that this is a good
place (Alaska) to undertake this "stuff". He added that
many industries within the State have indicated their
commitment by donating approximately $1 million dollars to
the University to expand that program.
President Hamilton noted that through discussions with the
military installations, there is a great deal of interest in
the possibility of out-sourcing the logistics schools.
President Hamilton stressed that the State would be hard
pressed to understand the impact this.
Representative Williams questioned what the extra funding
would be used for. President Hamilton offered to outline
prioritized programs.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 105, Side 1). **Tape out of place**
Co-Chair Mulder spoke to the contracts and recognized
President Hamilton's desire to treat all his employees
equally. Co-Chair Mulder commented that the Legislature is
trying to treat all the contracts consistently. President
Hamilton stated that was fair. He added that it is his
intent to construct a "contract continuation" which would
not change the financial terms of the previous contract.
This was constructed in time so that it could be considered
along with everything else. He indicated that this is not a
small point and urged that be reconsidered.
Representative G. Davis asked if the amount of the new
contract was known.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 107, Side 1).
DAVE LEWIS, OPERATIONS MANAGER, ALASKA FIBERSTAR, EAGLE
RIVER, ALASKA, spoke on behalf and in support of greater
funding for the University of Alaska. He stressed that the
State needs the University for the State's economy. He
advised that it is difficult to hire from within the State
when all the children of the State move out of state for
training. Ultimately, they end up living where they
graduate from college.
BOB CONDON, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FOR
COMMUNITY COLLEGES, testified in support of HB 441. He
noted that their union was not included on the list proposed
by the University. He emphasized that the amount of money
needed would not change regardless of whether they were on
the list or not. Mr. Condon provided a history of their
contract. He urged that they be placed on the list.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned how many people were in that
union. Mr. Condon replied that he represented about 260
employees. There are 1,000 or more of non-represented
members and 1,000 with the United Academics.
In response to a question by Vice Chair Bunde, Mr. Condon
pointed out that their union has historically led the fight
for better working conditions and salaries.
Representative Bunde MOVED a conceptual amendment. Co-Chair
Mulder interjected that it was his intention to hold the
bill until tomorrow to discuss these issues. Representative
Bunde WITHDREW the conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Mulder commented that it was his intent to treat
all new contracts as a "separate package". Mr. Condon
recognized that the legislation appears to have a two-year
prohibition.
HB 441 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
An Act relating to the registration of persons who
perform home inspections; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG stated that HB 207 would
protect consumers and the home inspection industry by
licensing home inspectors in Alaska.
He noted that consumers deserve assurance that the home
inspector that they hire is competent and that they have
recourse against inspectors that are not. HB 207 would
accomplish that by establishing licensing qualifications
such as registration, insurance, and proof of competency via
a written and practical examination. Home inspectors will
also be required to provide consumers with an inspection
report, using a standardized checklist comprised of elements
deemed necessary by the industry for a thorough home
inspection.
Representative Rokeberg commented that a faulty inspection
could have serious consequences for consumers, particularly
when they are buying or selling a home. Common sense
dictates that home inspectors must be held accountable for
their work. The legislation would limit legal actions
against a licensed and registered home inspector to a
written home inspection report not more than one year old
and/or lawfully disclosed. Also, the penalty the court may
impose is not more than $500 for each violation.
Co-Chair Mulder noted the language shifts between the
various committee substitutes. He questioned why the State
should create another board. Representative Rokeberg
responded that there would be more enforcement while
protecting the consumer. Additionally, it was not the
intent, to write the regulations into the statute. He
believed that to draft the regulations is warranted, as it
would specify an examination. He stated that they would
have failed in the effort to provide the sounding board
without a board.
Representative Austerman voiced concern with the
qualifications outlined for the inspectors. Representative
Rokeberg replied that the home inspectors would not be
inspecting the new homes. Additionally, those home
inspectors should be providing nothing more than a "visual
inspection" of the home. He noted that there would be a
liability associated with the inspection.
Representative Austerman asked if the liability would be
terminated after a one-year inspection. Representative
Austerman disagreed with that concept. Representative
Rokeberg replied that it would not be shifted.
Representative Austerman questioned how much liability would
need to be purchased. Representative Rokeberg replied.
(Testimony inaudible).
Representative G. Davis questioned the reason for the
legislation. Representative Rokeberg spoke about the
reporting fee. (Testimony inaudible). He noted that there
could be a limitation to that damage. He added that people
are reluctant to break their word by signing an agreement.
Representative Rokeberg commented on the typical routine of
an inspection. The State disclosure law "kicks" in and then
it is bargained; however, he acknowledged that there are
instances, when there are errors made in the report. He
expounded that the idea of the bill was to relieve the
liability of the real estate inspector. (Testimony
inaudible).
Co-Chair Mulder voiced concern when determining the home
inspection business. Representative Rokeberg stated that in
the statute, there are requirements for the examination. He
stated that there would be a "flushing out". Co-Chair
Mulder asked the amount of experience required.
Representative Rokeberg responded that list was included in
the legislation on Page 3, Line 11.
Co-Chair Mulder voiced concern that this would create a
"good old boy club" and would be very difficult for a new
person to break into. He advised that he was reluctant to
make rules that contain admission and exclusion. Home
inspection is a very important function and qualified home
inspectors are necessary. Representative Rokeberg replied
that there are specific provisions listed on Page 2. Co-
Chair Mulder argued that those provisions specify what is
needed to become an associate inspector is that the person
must work under an existing inspector. He reiterated that
it would be difficult for a new person to get in. He
emphasized that there would have to be an existing entity
who would be willing to take you on.
Co-Chair Mulder agreed that there would be too much power in
the hands of the board. Representative G. Davis pointed out
that engineers are also home inspectors. Those people could
get out from under the "thumb" of the proposed board.
Representative Rokeberg interjected that State law currently
indicates that a person has to work two years as an
engineer's assistant before they can take the examination.
He suggested that any kind of professional license could be
classified as a professional "guild".
Co-Chair Mulder acknowledged that home inspection is not
"rocket science". He noted that he would create a Letter of
Intent to accompany the bill, to clarify that this should
remain an open profession.
Representative J. Davies asked if there was a sunset clause.
Representative Austerman voiced his support of a sunset
clause.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 107, Side 2).
Representative Austerman inquired the types of liability a
realtor had which would be given up to the inspector.
Representative Rokeberg spoke to the shifting around of the
responsibility and the liability for a realtor. He noted
that the standards are based on what you "should have known"
given a reasonable basis. He added that most real estate
brokers are not trained in inspecting.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned language on Page 6, Line 5,
"alleging & proving".
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LISCENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, explained
that language was a quote from the contractor's statute.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the exemptions listed on Page
7. He asked if all those persons would be excluded.
Representative Rokeberg explained that was correct.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out the amendment proposed by
Representative Rokeberg. [Copy on File]. Representative J.
Davies commented that it "did not make sense" the way it was
drafted.
RON JOHNSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), REAL ESTATE
COMMISSION, KENAI, addressed a concern on Page 4, the
identification requirements. He asked the reason for using
the license number. He stated that appraisers are not now
required to use their license numbers for advertising.
He asked about using the title "license home inspector" even
if the person was an engineer. Mr. Johnson noted that the
major concern rests on Page 5, listing the types of
insurance. He pointed out that there is no consumer
protection in that language and he urged that section be
removed from the bill. Mr. Johnson listed additional
concerns with the proposed legislation.
Mr. Johnson concluded, stating that in the fiscal note, most
of money would be used for developing education material.
He pointed out that there already exists a "wealth" of
education material available on line. He recommended that
inclusion should be reconsidered.
In response to Mr. Johnson, Representative Rokeberg stated
that the bill would not address his liability, but rather
the one-year life of the report.
DEAVE FEEKEN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKAN
ASSOCIATION OF REALATORS, KENAI, observed that the concept
for this legislation originated from complaints of buyers
and sellers in the real estate industry from the home
inspectors being used. He echoed concerns voiced by Mr.
Johnson.
BRUNO REHBEIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MAT-SU,
stated that most of his concerns had been previously
addressed. He observed that the legislation is going to
cover new and pre-existing homes and that the costs would go
up. He asked why the homebuilder was not being represented
on the board. Mr. Rehbein inquired who was being protected
through the legislation.
BILL BRUU, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MAT-SU, commented
that the purpose of the amendment is to assure that the home
inspector's liability would not go on forever.
Representative J. Davies questioned why the home inspector
would have to give himself permission to do the repairs.
Mr. Bruu responded that there is no other place in statute
that addressees that concern. The home inspector needs to
have control over the report and to be covered for long term
liability.
Representative J. Davies asked if it was the intent that the
information received from the inspection be used without the
written consent from the person who ordered it. Mr. Bruu
explained that the intent was not to release it to anyone,
subsequent other than those listed in Sections (A) & (B).
The problem which has arisen, is that once the report is
released by the home inspector to the buyer, a number of
party's call for an interpretation of that document. He
observed that they could receive as many as 6 to 8 calls
with requests for information. He stressed the liability
attached to the reports.
DAVID OWENS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), OWENS
INSPECTION SERVICES, PALMER, testified in opposition to the
legislation. He added that the Mat-Su Homebuilders
Association also opposes the legislation and that they would
forward a letter stating their views on the concern.
Ms. Reardon stated that the original version was modeled
after the Construction Contractor statute, AS 08.18.151.
She added that public liability insurance could have come
from the Construction Contractor statute.
Ms. Reardon referred to the fiscal note. She observed that
the original note has $25 thousand dollars included for an
examination. The current note removes the exam money.
There continues to be a fiscal note that estimates an $800
dollar fee if there are 100 inspectors. She observed that
it would be less if there were more inspectors. Ms. Reardon
noted that there is a sunset date of 2004, established in
Section #3, Page 9.
JOHN BITNEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION (AHFC), ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the
legislation. The current practice for AHFC would be changed
under Sections 4 and 5. Currently, in all new construction,
there is a standard for qualification of purchase with a
home mortgage with AHFC. He pointed out that there is a
five-step process that has to be signed off on. The bill
would guarantee that these people are able to certify homes
to qualify for purchase by AHFC. During the transition
period, International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO) would be eliminated and only state home inspectors,
on behalf of AHFC, would be recognized.
Mr. Bitney continued that there are a number of
circumstances where people have purchased homes. They have
been told that the home had been inspected. In Alaska, that
can mean different things depending on the individual sale.
When something goes wrong with the home, the case is that
the homebuyer is out a substantial investment and they want
to sue everyone. He observed that AHFC has been called on
for assistance and is concerned over the liability
associated with that. The legislation would create a "level
playing field" and would establish a more identifiable State
standard.
Representative J. Davies asked if the legislation would
apply to energy raters. Mr. Bitney responded that it would
not apply to energy raters. He noted that further on in the
AHFC statutes, the energy efficiency standards are
established. The bill does not address that statute.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that HB 207 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
An Act relating to recruitment, selection, appointment,
and promotion of state employees and the duties of the
Department of Administration concerning those and other
related functions; and providing for an effective date.
DAVE STEWART, PERSONNEL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, stated that HB 317 would refresh Title 39
with respect to improvement and hiring State employees in
order to make the process more streamline.
Representative J. Davies asked if the legislation would get
rid of the register system. Mr. Stewart replied that it
would. Representative J. Davies believed that would be
good.
Representative Phillips asked if people would still have the
ability to go to the local job centers to obtain the
information if they do not have home computers. Mr. Stewart
replied that they would. Representative J. Davies pointed
out that computers are also available at all the job
centers.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 317 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 108, Side 1)
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 317 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Administration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
H.F.C. 23 4/06/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|