Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/22/2005 02:48 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB275 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB12 | |
| HB7 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 22, 2005
2:48 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 2:48:43 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Max Gruenberg; Representative Harry Crawford;
Pete Ecklund, Staff, Representative Kevin Meyer; Devon
Mitchell, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority, Department of Revenue; Rynnieva Moss, Staff,
Representative John Coghill; Tammy Sandoval, Acting
Director, Offices of Children's Services, Department of
Health & Social Services; Stacy Kraly, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law; Heather Beaty, Staff,
Representative Harry Crawford; Bill Kramer, Chief,
Unemployment Insurance, Division of Employment Security,
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development; Pat
Shier, Employment Security Tax, Division of Employment
Security, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General,
Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department
of Law; Kelly Huber, Self, Juneau; Heather Nobrega, Staff,
Representative Norm Rokeberg; Wayne Stevens, President,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Michael Barton, Commissioner, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, Anchorage; Dick Cattanach, Executive
Director, Associated General Contractors of Alaska,
Anchorage; Pat Luby, Alaska Association of Retired Persons
(AARP), Anchorage; Tami Elder, Network Coordinator,
Volunteers of America (VOA), Anchorage; Scott Calder,
Fairbanks
SUMMARY
HB 7 An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
unemployment compensation benefits; and providing
for an effective date.
CS HB 7 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a new note by
the Department of Administration, a new zero note
by the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
and fiscal note #2 by the Department of
Administration.
HB 12 An Act relating to televisions and monitors in
motor vehicles.
HB 12 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 53 An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid
proceedings; amending the construction of statutes
pertaining to children in need of aid; relating to
a duty and standard of care for services to
children and families; amending court hearing
procedures to allow public attendance at child-in-
need-of-aid proceedings; establishing a right to a
trial by jury in termination of parental rights
proceedings; reestablishing and relating to state
and local citizens' review panels for certain
child custody matters; amending the duty to
disclose information pertaining to a child in need
of aid; establishing a distribution age for
permanent fund dividends held in trust for a child
committed to the custody of the Department of
Health and Social Services; mandating reporting of
the medication of children in state custody;
prescribing the rights of grandparents related to
child-in- need-of-aid cases and establishing a
grandparent priority for adoption in certain
child- in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption
and placement procedures in certain child-in-
need-of-aid cases; amending treatment service
requirements for parents involved in child-in-
need-of-aid proceedings; amending Rules 3 and 18,
Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 101 An Act relating to sex trafficking and tourism.
CS HB 101 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note #1
by the Department of Administration, zero note #2
by the Department of Corrections, zero note #3 by
the Alaska Court System, zero note #4 by the
Department of Law and zero note #5 by the
Department of Public Safety.
HB 275 An Act authorizing financing for certain public
transportation projects; giving notice of and
approving the entry into, and the issuance of
revenue obligations that provide participation in,
lease-financing agreements for those
transportation projects; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 275 was HEARD and HELD for further
consideration.
2:51:15 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
An Act authorizing financing for certain public
transportation projects; giving notice of and approving
the entry into, and the issuance of revenue obligations
that provide participation in, lease-financing
agreements for those transportation projects; and
providing for an effective date.
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, explained
that HB 275 would fund $115 million of highway projects
around the State, using Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle
(GARVEE) bonds.
Since 1998, eighteen states have leveraged federal highway
money by using GARVEE bonds. Those transactions accounted
for more than $12 billion dollars par value. As a result,
the GARVEE approach is now an accepted method of financing
needed transportation infrastructure projects.
To be eligible for inclusion in a GARVEE bond package,
projects must qualify for federal highway aid and appear on
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
All of the projects listed in HB 275 qualify for federal
highway aid.
Future federal highway funds would be used to repay the
bonds. The interest earnings on the bonds would be used to
pay for the federal highway match, saving the State
approximately $15 million in general fund match.
Mr. Ecklund highlighted the factors taken into consideration
when placing a project into GARVEE consideration.
· A large project that might take more years to do,
could save the inflation costs over time. The
average cost for heavy construction projects has
risen 15% per year. Before that, rises were between
2-3% per year.
· Other states that have GARVEEs have received
authorization for 3x coverage, which gives them
authorization to pledge up to 33% of there federal
highway aid for the repayment of that debt. The
current program is at $300 million dollars per year
and the State is paying back $13 million per year on
current GARVEE. The State has been conservation up
to this time and has not leveraged a very large
portion of the GARVEE program.
2:56:47 PM
Co-Chair Meyer requested an explanation of the fiscal note.
Mr. Ecklund explained that if the State bonded for $150
million dollars worth of projects, it would create a payment
schedule for 15 years with an interest rate of 5.4%. There
are four states recently doing GARVEE issuance. They
received a AA rating by pledging their federal highway
receipts for repayment. At current rates, a GARVEE could be
issued at a 4% rate per day; 5.4% used in preparing the note
is high. In order to issue $116 million dollars worth of
bonds, the State would be paying back about $11.4 million
dollars at the 5.4% interest. Inserting the current 4%
interest rate, the annual payment drops by $1 million
dollars per year.
DEVON MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEBT MANAGER, ALASKA
MUNICIPAL BOND BANK AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
acknowledged that the Department did use the high-end
interest rate when preparing the note.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the fiscal note would be adjusted or
if the Department anticipated interest rates to increase.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the note is an estimate and when
the Department prepares a note, they address the worst-case
scenario under which they are borrowing. There is
uncertainty regarding interest rates and he was reluctant to
revise the note.
3:00:15 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked the last time the State sold GARVEE
bonds. Mr. Ecklund replied 2002. Mr. Mitchell clarified
that they had been authorized in 2002, but sold in 2003.
Mr. Ecklund added, the principle amount was $102 million
dollars.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the roads included in the
list, were ones included in the Governor's funding request
proposal from the Amerada Hess monies.
Representative Kelly asked the anticipated longest term.
Mr. Ecklund explained it would make most sense to use the 6-
year increments, following similar terms of the federal
reauthorization bills. At present time, Alaska is a year
and a half into that deal. There are four and half years
left on the current reauthorization. Given two more-six
year periods, would provide around 16 years. The bill is
written for a 15-year repayment.
3:02:23 PM
Representative Joule referenced the number of projects
transferred from the Amerada Hess component, pointing out
that the numbers were different. Co-Chair Meyer interjected
that a couple of the projects would not fit into the
program. Mr. Ecklund added that the project amounts
different from those in the Amerada Hess. If the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities used the Amerada Hess
or other State funds, it would cost less for the entire
package and would not go through the federal process. Under
the GARVEE bond bill, all projects have to fall within
federal guidelines. Each has a different requirement, which
adds time and cost.
Mr. Ecklund anticipated discussion regarding whether or not
the GARVEE bonds would affect the State's credit rating.
The under-writers believe it could be structured so that it
would not be affected.
3:05:32 PM
Representative Hawker referenced comments from the sponsor
statement indicating that interest earnings on the bonds
could be used to pay the federal highway match. He
understood that bonds are a debt obligation and that the
State would have expense on bonds, not interest earnings.
Mr. Ecklund stated that it would result from investing the
bond proceeds.
Representative Hawker explained what really would be
happening is that the State would be investing the unused
portion of the bond proceeds and use that interest to off-
set the cost of the bonds and pay the highway match. Mr.
Mitchell replied that the Federal Highway Administration
(FHA) allows the State to use all investment earnings on the
construction fund as a State match. The projects would not
be completed quickly. All the earnings would accrue to the
benefit of the State. Historically, low short-term interest
rates have resulted.
Representative Hawker asked the possibility of the State
saving money on the match. Mr. Mitchell did not know. He
expected that with those assumptions, the State could
possibly achieve around $13 million dollars.
3:08:46 PM
MICHAEL BARTON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC
FACILITIES, ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to using
GARVEE bonds. He pointed out that the State has identified
over $10 billion dollars in transportation needs, provided
by the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
He stated that GARVEE could have a negative impact on future
programs and that the GARVEE debt service would need to be
subtracted from the annual STIP.
GARVEE bonds are federal funds and must follow a federal
process, which adds time and dollars. The project time
could be extended 1 to 3 years with the project costs
increasing 10-30%.
Commissioner Barton pointed out that federal funding is not
clear at this time given the U.S. Senate reauthorization.
It needs to be considered what Alaska can expect to receive
from that program in future years. There has been
discussion in Washington D.C. regarding continued funding.
Future reauthorizations will need to be achieved without the
benefit of Congressmen Young and Stevens chairing their
respective committees.
Commissioner Barton pointed out that the Governor had
proposed using the Amerada Hess match for the federal aid
program. GARVEEs cannot be used for that. He reiterated
his serious concerns with using GARVEE and urged that the
Committee look elsewhere for a funding source.
3:13:14 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the roads already chosen for
the GARVEE bond funding are ones currently being recommended
by the Governor. Commissioner Barton did not oppose the
roads chosen but the vehicle used to fund that construction.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if using the GARVEE's could create
delays on other projects on the STIP list. Commissioner
Barton said yes. The roads listed are all part of the need
and those Governor's package deals with getting
transportation infrastructure needs addressed. The goal is
to have everything in place for the structure of the
pipeline by 2009. Currently, there is an effort to expand
the transportation needs throughout the State.
3:14:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the GARVEE proposal was a back up
if the Amerada Hess was not possible or did not make it
through the Legislative process. Commissioner Barton
disagreed with the statement that the roads would never get
addressed and acknowledged that it would take longer and
require the State to move the timeline further out.
3:15:31 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if Commissioner Barton's position
was a "political preference" and requested clarification
about the funding source.
Commissioner Barton advised that the first priority is not
GARVEE bonding and that Amerada Hess would be the logical
choice.
· The GARVEE bonds would extend the project time from
1 to 3 years.
· It would increase the project costs 10-30%.
· It would impact the STIP and projects currently on
the STIP would be delayed.
· The State does not know how much money there will be
in the future against which the GARVEE debt payment
would be based.
3:17:58 PM
In response to comments by Commissioner Barton regarding
"anything except GARVEE" for the funding of the projects,
Co-Chair Meyer asked if that would include using the general
fund. Commissioner Barton replied it does.
DICK CATTANACH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE, testified against the use of GARVEE bonds.
GARVEE bonds are not the way to go if building Alaska
infrastructure. GARVEE bonds do not increase the number of
dollars going into the hiring fund. They will only change
the timing. Future projects would be accelerated and there
would be fewer. If inflation were under control, there
would be fewer projects because interest would need to be
paid. It is important to recognize that Alaska currently
gets $5.37 for every dollar that they send into the Highway
Trust Fund.
Mr. Cattanach continued, when our U.S. Congressmen Young and
Stevens leave, the likelihood of continued funding at the
current level will be greatly diminished. The amount
referenced when combined with current GARVEE payments, would
indicate that 15% to 20% is used to payoff GARVEE bonds. He
recommended that the State look at alternative ways to
increase the highway program. That was what initially
enticed the State's builders about the Governor's
recommendation, using Amerada Hess funds for adding to the
highway program.
3:22:04 PM
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged that the Legislature is looking
for alternatives for getting the roads built. Mr. Cattanach
responded that GARVEE bonds represent $9 dollars of federal
money for each dollar the State puts in. That does not add
to the road funds because the State would get those same
dollars anyway. Considering the needs of the State as
addressed by Commissioner Barton with $10 billion dollars
worth of projects, would take more than 25 years and does
not consider maintenance.
Mr. Cattanach stressed that Alaska is the only State without
a State road program. Alaska's State road program is
entirely supported by the federal government. Every other
state supports their roads.
3:24:00 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed, however, commented that it is
difficult to compare Alaska to other states when including
aspects as the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Representative Hawker reaffirmed that Alaska is the
wealthiest State in the Nation. Co-Chair Meyer echoed those
sentiments, recommending that Alaska come up with a road
funding system. Mr. Cattanach concurred that the State does
need a program to address infrastructure concerns and that
the State can no longer wait for the federal government.
3:25:55 PM
AT EASE: 3:27:04 PM
RECONVENE: 3:28:18 PM
Co-Chair Meyer indicated a new committee substitute would be
forthcoming and that HB 275 would be HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
3:29:42 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
amending the construction of statutes pertaining to
children in need of aid; relating to a duty and
standard of care for services to children and families;
amending court hearing procedures to allow public
attendance at child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
establishing a right to a trial by jury in termination
of parental rights proceedings; reestablishing and
relating to state and local citizens' review panels for
certain child custody matters; amending the duty to
disclose information pertaining to a child in need of
aid; establishing a distribution age for permanent fund
dividends held in trust for a child committed to the
custody of the Department of Health and Social
Services; mandating reporting of the medication of
children in state custody; prescribing the rights of
grandparents related to child-in- need-of-aid cases and
establishing a grandparent priority for adoption in
certain child- in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption
and placement procedures in certain child-in- need-of-
aid cases; amending treatment service requirements for
parents involved in child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
amending Rules 3 and 18, Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective
date.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-LS0251\N,
Mischel, 4/21/05, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
3:30:19 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, stated
that the bill is a "family's right act". The proposed bill
would open child-in-need-of-aid (CHINA) proceedings to the
public. HB 53 provides placement and adoption preference to
relatives. It establishes in statute a grievance procedure,
a citizen's review panel and that school interviews are done
discretely. The legislation encourages the use of child
advocacy centers and the use of videotaping. Current
language is mandatory; Representative Coghill has agreed to
an amendment making it permissive. HB 53 eliminates
language in AS 47.10.960, which states there is no duty or
standard of care for children in State custody.
Ms. Moss noted that HB 17 was rolled into HB 53 with regard
to the confidential information. It will extend the
relationship with Office of Child's Service (OCS) beyond the
termination of parental rights. The legislation gives
preference to adoption by a family member who has cared for
the child during the previous 12 months.
3:36:16 PM
Representative Weyhrauch referred to an abuse situation in
Wasilla and asked if provisions in the bill addressed that
specific case.
3:37:10 PM
HEATHER NOBREGA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG,
related that portions of the bill resulted from that case
and relate to adult family members of the children that have
been adopted. She pointed out that their office had worked
to help assert their rights into the process.
Representative Weyhrauch questioned if provisions in the
bill could have prevented the situation. Ms. Nobrega
explained that the abuse happened after the kids were
adopted. She added that family members had contacted the
Office of Child Services before they had been adopted. The
bill attempts to help adult family members early on to get
more active in placement of children in adoption.
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented the bill could offer relief to
the appropriate family members.
3:39:15 PM
Ms. Moss opined that the bill could not have prevented that
situation and that no legislator was contacted until after
the abuse had occurred. There was no way to prevent it.
Representative Croft thought that it could have been avoided
if the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) had been
given more consideration during placement of the children.
If preference had been given to an adult relative, it could
have possibly been addressed.
3:40:57 PM
Representative Croft requested information about the fiscal
note. Ms. Moss explained that changes in the committee
substitute impacted the fiscal note. Representative Croft
wondered if some of the problems in the fiscal note were
caused by biological preference.
STACY KRALY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
replied that the federal government required that OCS only
disclose confidential information with a parent. There was
a previous version in the bill that allowed a broader
exposure. If the bill were passed as previously amended, it
could have meant about a $30 million dollar federal loss.
Representative Croft questioned if that had been addressed
in the proposed version. Ms. Kraly replied it had and that
there no longer was a problem with preference with respect
to placement, but the issue of disclosure of confidential
information remains.
3:43:40 PM
Representative Holm remembered a case in which grandparents
wanted custody of their grandchildren; he asked if that was
one of the current cases. Ms. Moss provided details about
that case and noted that one of the provisions included in
the bill resulted from that case. The State has a right to
stay involved as long as the child is in State custody.
3:46:35 PM
TAMMY SANDOVAL, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICES OF
CHILDREN'S SERVICES (OCS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL
SERVICES, related that HB 53 addresses changes in the child-
in-need-of-aid statutes. The bill focuses on accountability
for professionals involved in those cases. It should
improve practice and allow for detecting transparency in the
children's system. HB 53 incorporates identical language
from the Governor's bills, HB 113 and HB 114. The
Department supports passage of HB 53 with recommendation of
a few small changes.
Representative Kelly inquired if the attached four
amendments addressed Ms. Sandoval's concerns. Ms. Sandoval
replied they did.
3:49:08 PM
PAT LUBY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR, ALASKA
ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PEOPLE (AARP), ANCHORAGE, testified
in support of HB 53. He pointed out that AARP is an
organization of grandparents. Unfortunately, there are
situations that put a parent's right at risk. HB 53 puts
other family members, including grandparents as the priority
order for guardianship and adoption rights. Often times,
placement with a grandparent would be in the best interest
of a minor child. AARP encourages the Committee to pass HB
53.
3:49:58 PM
TAMI ELDER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), NETWORK
COORDINATOR, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA (VOA), ANCHORAGE, shared
stories of the importance of being raised by grandparents.
Grandparents usually attempt to keep their families in tact
and provide a safe and loving home for their grandchildren.
Most families in those situations have not had involvement
with OCS. Ms. Elder spoke in favor of HB 53.
3:54:35 PM
SCOTT CALDER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
expressed disappointment that certain sections had not been
included in the bill:
· Chapter 117, SLA 19.90 language, which established
the citizen review panel for planning, an act never
permitted to be implemented on the duty of the
standard of care language;
· Construction language regarding the fact that
parents possesses inherent individual right to
direct and control the education of their child.
Mr. Calder acknowledged that grandparents needed greater
recognition in the system, as do the parents. He added that
the Department would control all the information that people
have on a child, which worried him. Mr. Calder highlighted
concerns regarding the review panel and spoke in opposition
to the legislation.
4:03:50 PM
KELLY HUBER, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the bill.
She noted that she was a Court appointed special advocate
and worked as a volunteer for the State for children-in-
need-of-aid cases and from children removed from their
homes. She encouraged members to consider the needs of
these children.
The bill helps young children in Alaska. Child protective
services are "under a microscope right now". She pointed
out that the bill would open up court hearings and requested
that the Committee consider the ramifications that would
have on the child.
Ms. Huber addressed the generational abuse that some
children experience. She urged that the best interest of
the child always be considered. She added her support that
notification is given to living relatives if parental rights
are terminated. In a traditional-type family setting that
could be wonderful, however, many of these children do not
live in that type environment, compounded with alcohol and
drug abuse. She hesitated that all living relatives should
be notified and recommended sidebars be given for some of
the requirements.
Ms. Huber pointed out that foster homes had been left out of
the preference list on Page 20. She reiterated that
consideration of the child be the highest priority and that
sidebars be added for the protection of those children.
4:09:21 PM
Representative Kelly inquired if Ms. Huber had spoken with
the sponsor regarding her concerns. Ms. Huber noted that
she had been working with the sponsor. She hoped that
Representative Hawker would also help address the concerns,
reiterating the importance of "open hearings". Ms. Huber
reminded members that these kids are fragile; they have had
a rough life.
4:10:41 PM
Representative Kelly requested further information on the
amendments.
Representative Holm inquired if there had been training
involved representing the children. Ms. Huber replied that
there is a training program provided by the court, with an
additional 12 hours per year continued education. She
pointed out that it is the only volunteer service within
that system. Ms. Huber stated that she reports directly to
the guardian ad liam, who works for Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA).
Representative Holm inquired if they were certificated to be
advocates for children. Ms. Huber did not think they were
certificated.
4:12:22 PM
HB 53 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
4:13:30 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
An Act relating to televisions and monitors in motor
vehicles.
*REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, noted that the
purpose of the bill is to prevent operators of motor
vehicles from watching television, video, and any other
programming, making it a crime. Furthermore, the bill would
make it a crime to install a device capable of being viewed
while the vehicle was in operation.
Representative Gruenberg provided a sectional analysis:
· Section 1 amends AS 28.35, adds a new section.
· Paragraph (a) sets forth the general rule that a
person shall not drive a motor vehicle while
watching television or video. The elements of the
crime of "driving with a screen operating" are
enumerated.
· Paragraph (b) prohibits installing or altering a
video display in a motor vehicle that can be viewed
by the driver while the vehicle is moving. The
paragraph goes on to provide for specified means of
disabling the equipment lawfully.
· Paragraph (c) provides specific exemptions to the
general rule including cell phones and equipment
that are in the nature of aides to navigation or
operation.
· Paragraph (d) makes it clear that the bill is not
intended to cover equipment installed in an
emergency vehicle or motor vehicle providing
emergency service or roadside assistance.
· Paragraph (e) establishes an affirmative defense so
long as proper equipment is installed.
· Paragraph (f) prescribes the types of crimes that a
person who is in violation of the law will face
under various circumstances including injury and
death of another.
· A person who violates the law is guilty of -
(1) Class A misdemeanor;
(2) Class C felony if as a result of that violation
another person suffers a physical injury;
(3) Class B felony if as a result of that violation
another person suffers a serious physical injury;
(4) Class A felony if as a result of that violation
another person suffers death.
· Paragraph (g) prescribes the crime and punishment of
a person who installs equipment in violation of the
law.
· Section 2 of the bill sets forth an effective date
of September 1, 2005.
Representative Gruenberg offered to answer questions of the
Committee.
4:15:50 PM
Representative Kelly worried about the future of utility
trucks using screens in their vehicles. He cautioned that
the legislation could be too restrictive. He anticipated
that future cabs, police cars and utility trucks could have
"stuff" blocked by the legislation.
Representative Gruenberg pointed out that those types of
concern would be exempted in language on Page 2, Lines 5-13,
and was language specifically added at the request of the
industry. Navigational and vehicle equipment must be legal.
Representative Gruenberg emphasized that a lot of time had
been taken to address those concerns adequately.
4:18:38 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze mentioned police "ride-a-longs" in cars
with digital screens and computers, and was concerned that
the legislation would affect that. Representative Gruenberg
stated that there was nothing included regarding police
and/or emergency printouts.
Representative Croft thought that language on Page 2,
Subsection (D), Lines 14-16, equipment installed in
"authorized emergency vehicles" would address Vice Chair
Stoltze concerns.
4:20:33 PM
Representative Gruenberg offered new language for authorizing
specific vehicle exemptions.
Representative Kelly was worried about all the "common sense"
being excluded through language in the bill.
Representative Hawker agreed that the legislation could lead
the State down a "dangerous road by restricting some common
sense language". He asked if the prohibition makes it a
crime to drive with a screen or "visible display", and about
hand held devices.
Representative Gruenberg responded that it would be any
device installed and visible to the driver while operating.
Representative Hawker thought a more dangerous device could
be a handheld one.
4:24:16 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze indicated his concerned with the impact of
the legislation on hand held devices.
Representative Kelly asked if there was something in the bill
that could address "basic speed".
4:25:48 PM
Representative Gruenberg responded that the original bill
would have made it illegal to watch a screen while driving,
which would be difficult to prove. In the current version,
it would be illegal to drive while on and in a position to be
viewed. That could be negligent driving. The penalties
recommended track the ones cited for traffic homicides. He
hoped the legislation would save lives.
4:27:18 PM
Co-Chair Chenault understood the intent. He referenced
Section 1 (3), "monitor or visual display operating while a
person is driving". He asked about driving maps located on
car dashboards. Representative Gruenberg pointed out the
exempted items listed on Page 2, which include navigation
equipment. The legislation was based on model law drafted by
the industry. Co-Chair Chenault thought the legislation
would single out a small amount of equipment and as
technology increases, there would be more accidents.
Representative Kelly mentioned cameras for blind spots on
huge trucks. He warned that the bill attempts to be modern,
but submitted that because of the technological movement, it
could be outdated soon.
4:32:25 PM
Representative Gruenberg commented there would only be a few
cases prosecuted under the proposed law. The situation could
be difficult to prove, however, the legislation attempts to
clarify that if proven, there is punishment.
Representative Croft thought that the area mentioned by
Representative Kelly was Section (E), Page 2, exceptions for
providing visual information. He concurred with the question
if the legislation was the correct approach and questioned if
it was right to categorically define negligence with the use
of equipment. He said that is what juries are for, to hear
and listen to those concerns. He supported making it illegal
to attach TVs in cars.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
acknowledged it was difficult to write the legislation. She
interpreted a police vehicle as an emergency vehicle. The
Department of Law does support the legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti pointed out that the penalties track various
ones already existing within the judicial system. She
acknowledged that proof would be difficult and offered to
answer questions.
4:38:15 PM
Representative Kelly inquired what law currently covers
these concerns. Ms. Carpeneti explained that the case in
Kenai was prosecuted as manslaughter, which is any death
caused intentionally or recklessly that amounts to murder.
Representative Croft voiced concerned with categorizing
recklessness. The device was installed and operating. If
the driving caused the death of another, he asked the causal
link between the conduct of concern and that which lead to
the injury or death.
4:40:47 PM
Representative Gruenberg noted that there could be unusual
circumstances and if there were, he doubted that the person
would be prosecuted. It would be impossible to prove the
"watching".
4:42:06 PM
Representative Holm asked about "altering the vehicle".
Representative Gruenberg replied that would be indicated in
Subsection (B), Page 1, Line 14, which is not currently a
crime. Representative Holm commented on good common sense,
pointing out how reckless endangerment and driving are
already covered in law.
4:44:16 PM
Representative Gruenberg agreed that the State could
eliminate all laws except for the basic speed limit;
however, the reason that there are other laws is to provide
basic certainty. Not everyone has good common sense.
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if the Department of Law would
have taken the approach proposed in the legislation. Ms.
Carpeneti pointed out that Paragraph 2, Lines 9-11, does not
close the door to similar means. It is difficult to specify
different types of technology and that the proposed
legislation includes other means of creating a visible
display. She summarized that the Department would have
crafted and does support the legislation.
4:46:54 PM
HB 12 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
4:47:35 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
unemployment compensation benefits; and providing for
an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, SPONSOR, stated that HB 7
would increase the maximum weekly benefit available through
unemployment insurance from $248 to $336.
Alaska's current benefits fall short in helping families
cover living expenses during periods of unemployment.
Alaska's maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit of
$248 is the fourth lowest in the nation. Increasing the
maximum weekly benefit is not only overdue, it is essential
in alleviating skill shortages by ensuring Alaskan workers
and their families survive periods of unemployment.
Representative Crawford added that the average weekly
benefit amount of $248 dollars is only 35% of Alaska's
average weekly wage, the third lowest percentage in the
country. Other western states provide a much higher
percentage of average weekly earnings in their maximum
weekly benefit amount: Washington-67%; Hawaii-66%; Oregon-
63%; and Idaho-59%. Retaining a well-trained Alaskan
workforce is essential for a strong economy. Providing an
overdue increase in the weekly benefit amount is necessary
to keep Alaska's workers in Alaska. Linking the method for
future benefit calculations to average weekly earnings will
ensure any changes are in concert with Alaska's economy.
4:53:35 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if Alaska had a provision for
family members. Representative Crawford replied the State
does and that it is in the amount of $24 dollars per week
per dependant up to three dependants. That has been in
structure since the beginning of Alaska employment law here.
4:54:36 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the statistical size of an
average family had been factored into that number and
compared to the other states. Representative Crawford
replied there were higher wages paid in Alaska, however,
that has been ameliorated over the years.
4:56:27 PM
Representative Holm referred to the costs to the employers
at $64 dollars per employee per year. Representative
Crawford explained that it would be spread over five years
and would amount to an increment of $10 for five years.
Those calculations were based on numbers from the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development; a determination needed
to keep the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund intact.
4:58:36 PM
WAYNE STEVENS, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
stated that the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce understands
the need to raise the benefits paid through the unemployment
insurance program. The State Chamber understands that the
Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit payments are second to
the lowest in the nation. However, the additional cost to
business, combined with the rapidly rising costs of Workers
Compensation Insurance and the ever escalating costs of
health care insurance for employees, together make it
extremely difficult for businesses to survive without making
dramatic cuts to employee costs. After a cursory review of
the UI program, it appears that the costs of providing the
new level of benefits envisioned in HB 7 is estimated to be
$12.4 million dollars annually. In calendar year 2004,
Alaska paid a total of $135.7 million dollars in
Unemployment Insurance benefits.
Mr. Stevens suggested that business could support the
increase in UI benefits if there were adjustments made in
other areas of the program that would make the cost of the
increases, revenue neutral to business. Alaska is one of
very few states that allow a worker to separate from
employment without good cause and then after a six-week
disqualification period, is able to collect unemployment
insurance. Alaska is also one of a few states, to pay
dependent benefits. Currently, a claimant may claim
dependants' allowance of $24 per child up to 3 children per
week in addition to the base benefit. The dependants'
allowance cost the program, totaled $12.8 million dollars in
2004. To neutralize the increased cost to business, the
State Chamber encourages extending the separation-waiting
period to 12 weeks. Another option would be to delete the
dependent benefit. The changes would pay for the increased
UI benefits without adding to the already escalating
insurance and workers compensation cost affecting business.
5:02:14 PM
BILL KRAMER, CHIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, DIVISION OF
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, responded to queries by Vice Chair
Stoltze regarding the child benefit. If the State takes the
$12.8 million dollars paid in dependence allowance in 2004
and divided it equally amongst all weeks paid, it would
increase the average weekly payment by $18.73. The maximum
benefit amount without the allowance factored in shows
th
Alaska ranking 48 compared to the other states. Including
nd
the dependence allowance places Alaska at 42.
Representative Holm asked if it was intended to change the
percentage paid amount.
PATRICK SHIER, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
TAX, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, noted that the federal rate
was in excess of 6% percent against which Alaskan employers
enjoy a credit of almost 100%. The average employer rate is
around 3% percent. In 2006, the average rate for the
employer portion moved to 2.08%; in Alaska, employees
contribute ½ of 1%. The State would be looking at an
increase of slightly over 10% over six years. Some
employers will see their rate staying lower. An employer
that has fluctuations in their payroll might see their rate
increase beyond that percentage.
5:09:27 PM
Representative Holm worried about the adverse effect for
those employers with seasonal employees.
Mr. Shier advised that the employers with a lowest level
would see less of a rate increase that those at the higher
end. The decline of payroll from one quarter to the next
drives the higher rate from one quarter to the next. For
those employers that do not have that experience, their
increase would be real from 1% percent to 1.05% percent in
the out years up until 2012.
5:10:57 PM
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. (Copy on
File). Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Mr. Stevens spoke to the amendment. He explained that the
cost of the program portion that allows people to quit for
no reason or be fired with cause, waiting period be changed
from 6 to 12 weeks. He emphasized that might balance the
cost of the program.
5:13:14 PM
Representative Crawford spoke against the amendment. He
explained that the average amount of time for a person to be
unemployed in the State of Alaska is 11 weeks. He concluded
that the average person would never collect a check.
Workers would be squeezed to the point where they would not
remain in the State. He believed that Alaska business has
been given a break over the past years, since the
unemployment rates have not increased. The average weekly
benefit paid out with the dependents is $194.04, placing
th
Alaska in 49 position nationwide. He maintained that the
amendment would create incentives for firing employees when
work becomes slack. He spoke against the amendment.
5:17:07 PM
Mr. Shier clarified that the affect of the amendment would
increase the period from 6 weeks to 12 weeks. The
Department of Labor and Workforce Development would support
the bill with the amendment as it would reduce the cost of
unemployment insurance for employers and would raise the
dollar amount of the weekly benefit to help employees.
5:19:14 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if "discharged for misconduct"
meant more than being fired. Mr. Kramer advised that the
language of the amendment duplicates current statute in
regard to that provision.
Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered if the legislation would
encourage firing employees, asking if legal protections were
in place to prevent such action.
5:21:25 PM
Mr. Shier responded that there have been many discussions
regarding that issue. There is a process to allow employees
to challenge a decision on their employment status. Mr.
Shier noted that the Appeal Tribunal would render a decision
based on the facts.
5:23:36 PM
Representative Croft stated that the amendment undermines
the purpose of the program. There are many reasons to leave
a job.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Holm, Kelly, Moses, Chenault
OPPOSED: Croft, Joule, Stoltze
Representatives Foster, Hawker, Meyer were absent from the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-3).
5:26:38 PM
Representative Kelly requested to amend Amendment #2. (Copy
on File). The change would be to Page 6, Line 23, insert
"$33,250" and delete "$33,000".
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the amended Amendment
#2. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Kelly explained that the amendment would
adjust the bill to reflect a weekly ceiling to $300 dollars
rather than the proposed $336 dollars.
Representative Croft questioned if additional changes were
needed. Mr. Shier indicated that Amendment #2 would place
th
Alaska 35 nationally.
5:31:44 PM
Representative Crawford stated his intent was to increase
the amount of unemployment received as much as possible.
Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTIONS, Amendment #2 was adopted.
Representative Hawker MOVED to REPORT CSHB 7 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying revised fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 7 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new note by the Department of
Administration, a new zero note by the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development and fiscal note #2 by the Department
of Administration.
5:34:36 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
An Act relating to sex trafficking and tourism.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, SPONSOR, pointed out that in his
address to the United Nations General Assembly in September
2003, President George W. Bush called the sex trafficking of
people "a special kind of evil in the abuse and exploitation
of the most innocent and vulnerable." HB 101 attacks that
problem at two fundamental economic stages.
· It targets those who traffic people for the purposes
of forcing them into commercial sex acts; and
· It targets the industries that create the demand for
the horrible acts by offering "sex tours" and other
promises of sex to Alaskan clients.
Because much of the illegal sex trafficking and sex tour
activity happens overseas, the most direct way for Alaska to
help eradicate the black market industry is to limit the
demand for such despicable acts. HB 101 addresses those
that promote, organize or otherwise market commercial sex
tours and travel services by making the activities
punishable to the same degree as sex trafficking itself.
Representative Croft continued, recent studies by the
University of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of State
on the prevalence of sex trafficking and sex tours both
nationally and globally, shows an astounding number of
children each year fall victim to this heinous industry. It
is important to do our part to end that abuse and
exploitation of our world's most vulnerable children.
HB 101 would make Alaska part of the solution and not part
of the problem.
5:37:43 PM
Representative Holm asked if this type activity was
happening in the United States.
Representative Croft referenced a study from the University
of Pennsylvania on commercial and sexual exploitation. It
is a growing problem happening around the world. He pointed
out that the numbers of occurrences indicates that there is
advertising. He wanted to make sure that advertising
agencies know they cannot respond to requests for
information regarding sex trafficking.
5:40:42 PM
In response to comments by Representative Kelly,
Representative Croft agreed that advertising is not
currently happening in Alaska, but that Alaskans do travel
for such purposes.
Representative Kelly remembered sexual practices during the
height of the pipeline construction and questioned if the
legislation could address issues now with the gas line
coming forth.
5:42:26 PM
Representative Croft stated the legislation addresses the
advertisement of prostitution.
Representative Hawker asked how the legislation would affect
out-of-state Internet advertising, and if the bill would
hold harmless the infrastructure providers. Representative
Croft explained that the House Judiciary Committee inserted
the phrase "for the purpose of".
5:45:35 PM
Representative Croft noted that the infrastructure of he
Internet is not liable for pornography sites.
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Stoltze,
Representative Croft explained that it would prohibit a
flyer advertising activities where prostitution was legal.
Since it is illegal in Alaska, it should be illegal to
advertise in Alaska.
5:48:30 PM
Representative Hawker asked if there could be interstate
commerce concerns. Representative Croft concluded that it
would be criminal conduct in Alaska. He acknowledged that
there could be legal challenges, but emphasized that the
State's actions should not be held to the lowest moral
calendar. He maintained that it is not clearly or even
likely to be unconstitutional and felt that a constitutional
case would be won by the State.
5:50:56 PM
Representative Croft stressed that the use of younger
persons are the worst cases. He noted that there has been
discussion on penalty levels and felt it should be
classified as a Class C felony.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there could be a higher
threshold for those acts directed toward children.
5:53:35 PM
Representative Holm spoke in support of the legislation. He
noted that Americans are traveling to other countries for
these purposes, but there is no indication that the
practices are occurring stateside. He questioned how
Alaskan law could affect situations here.
Representative Croft explained that the viewer would not be
selling the service. The individual would have to be
providing a service.
Representative Croft observed that prostitution does occur
in America, noting concerns with child pornography.
5:58:43 PM
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Stoltze,
Representative Croft referred to brothel tours and how they
would be covered through the proposed legislation.
Traveling for commercial sex acts would be included.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CSHB 101 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 101 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department
of Administration, zero note #2 by the Department of
Corrections, zero note #3 by the Alaska Court System, zero
note #4 by the Department of Law and zero note #5 by the
Department of Public Safety.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:01 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|