Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/05/2006 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB387 | |
| HB307 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 387 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 5, 2006
9:16 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 9:16:39 AM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bill Thomas; Representative Eric Croft; Sarah
Gilbertson, Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game; John Cramer, Director,
Administration Services Division, Military and Veterans
Affairs.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Charlotte Sartor, Matsu; Brit Lively, Butte Area Civic
Organization.
SUMMARY
HB 307 An Act creating the Knik River Public Use Area.
CS HB 307 (RES) was HEARD and HELD in the
Committee for further consideration.
HB 387 An Act providing for a partial tuition waiver for
families of members of the Alaska National Guard;
and directing the executive director of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education to seek
additional funding to support tuition waivers.
HB 387 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 387
An Act providing for a partial tuition waiver for
families of members of the Alaska National Guard; and
directing the executive director of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education to seek
additional funding to support tuition waivers.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 24-
LS1323\S, Mischel, 3/28/06. There being NO OBJECTION, the
Committee Substitute was ADOPTED by unanimous consent.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS, SPONSOR discussed the bill. He
explained that his office had worked on the hunting and
fishing permit portion of the legislation. He stated that
350 National Guard personnel had been deployed to Iraq, with
700 more scheduled to depart in the future. He cited his
personal experience as a military veteran serving in
Vietnam, and noted the helpful nature of hunting and fishing
activities upon his return from duty. He proposed that
hunting and fishing licenses would be a helpful service for
departing military personnel, and a good will demonstration
of appreciation for their service.
9:21:07 AM
Representative Thomas stressed that his office had worked
with Representative Croft's office in crafting the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, SPONSOR spoke to the desire of
Alaskans to show appreciation for National Guard Personnel
serving in Iraq. He explained the reason for the combined
bill was that multiple legislators shared similar goals,
which they decided to combine into one bill. He referred to
the bill as "Alaska's little G.I. bill", providing free
tuition to returning service men and women. He noted that
due to the manner in which the federal bill was funded,
sometimes Alaskans were not able to take advantage of the
benefit, causing a supplemental need. He proposed that the
bill would guarantee that the benefit would always be
available, having been paid to the University, an obligation
that would be retained by the State. He also noted the
fifty percent educational benefit added for spouses. He
discussed how difficult the absence of Guard personnel was
on spouses, and expressed that the benefit was meant to
offset this burden for them.
9:24:36 AM
Representative Thomas noted that the Committee Substitute
eliminated an educational benefit for children of Guard
personnel contained in the original bill. He stated that
the benefit was more essential to spouses of absent Guard
personnel.
9:25:39 AM
SARAH GILBERTSON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME testified regarding the bill.
She expressed concerns about the bill, recognizing its good
intensions, but focused on the fiscal note. She pointed out
that the bill gave complimentary hunting and fishing
licenses to all active Alaska National Guard troops. She
noted that the Governor had introduced a bill (HB 451) that
gave the benefit only to those troops returning from combat.
She noted that the new bill then created a much greater cost
to the Fish and Game budget, $65.7 thousand annual loss as
opposed to $5.5 thousand. She stated that the budget of her
department was already in some jeopardy.
9:27:57 AM
Ms. Gilbertson proposed that the bill provided incentive for
Alaskans to join the National Guard, whereas the Governor's
bill merely provided an expression of thanks to those
returning from combat. She pointed out that HB 387 did not
provide an option for the Commissioner of the Department to
decide on whether to give the benefit. She also noted that
there was no timeline, costing the Department $65 thousand
every year, as opposed to the Governor's bill which was only
in effect during times of active combat.
9:29:23 AM
Ms. Gilbertson requested financial relief for her Department
if the bill were passed, since she proposed it would in
effect produce an unfunded mandate.
9:29:57 AM
Representative Thomas explained that the reason they offered
the benefit prior to combat was that many returned from
combat with physical disabilities. He proposed that
financial concerns should not deter this benefit, and cited
permits from commercial fisheries as providing resources
needed to support it. He expressed strong personal support
of the program in relieving National Guard personnel. He
again cited personal combat experience, and proposed that
the bill would provide a healthy outlet for returning
personnel in dealing with stress.
9:32:05 AM
Representative Joule commented that many Alaskans join other
branches of the military, and asked if the bill pertained
only to Alaskan residents who joined the Guard.
Representative Thomas noted that one must be an Alaskan
resident to receive the benefit, but noted that anyone could
join the Guard. He pointed out that currently anyone
joining the National Guard faced a likelihood of combat
duty.
9:33:07 AM
Co-Chair Chenault asked whether the bill actually
represented an incentive to join the service.
Representative Thomas concurred that, although the
educational benefit did provide some incentive, this was not
the bill's primary objective. Co-Chair Chenault observed
that the bill presented merely a reward for those who served
in military. Representative Thomas commented that it
provided much needed peace for those in active service.
9:34:41 AM
Co-Chair Meyer referred to the supplemental appropriation
referred to on Page 1, line 13, and expressed concern that
this might result in a supplemental request every year. He
also pointed out the zero fiscal note from the University,
and proposed that there might be a cost to that Department.
9:35:57 AM
Representative Croft responded that the bill represented a
closed, known quantity of beneficiaries. He suggested that
the Department of Fish and Game might be underestimating the
number of combat Guard personnel in combat in the near
future. He proposed that there was an implied cap to the
benefit. He stated that by setting a cap it might make the
benefit become unavailable if the number of eligible combat
personnel exceeded the estimate. He concluded that the
costs of the benefit would not become exorbitant.
9:38:07 AM
Representative Kelly inquired how many National Guard
personnel requested the bill after not receiving the
educational benefit.
Representative Croft noted that last year, 25 Guards members
were not able to obtain the benefit since it had been
depleted. He added that the spousal benefit was an attempt
to do more for Guard members, a desire shared by a number of
Alaskan legislators. He noted that the situation in Iraq
brought the issue of family sacrifice into focus, not in
terms of individual requests but rather the overall problem.
9:40:11 AM
Representative Thomas noted his experience of receiving a
two week "early out" from service in Vietnam, but explained
that with no debriefing it put him at a disadvantage. He
noted the need to inform Guard personnel of the educational
benefit available to them.
9:41:08 AM
Representative Holm expressed concern with the zero fiscal
note from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
He also asked about potentially missing costs in the
University fiscal note.
9:42:14 AM
Representative Croft emphasized that there would be some
cost to the benefit. He explained that the intention was
for the state to incur cost to provide a benefit to Guard
personnel. He proposed that the fiscal note should be
indeterminate for the Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs. He went on to propose that there would not be
additional cost for the University. He noted historical
research into both the University and governmental
accounting systems and concluded that the costs for these
types of benefits were absorbed in a variety of ways over
time.
9:43:56 AM
Representative Holm commented that tuitions do not pay all
education costs for the University, and surmised that a
tuition waiver would not then take money away from
operations. He proposed, however, that they would be adding
burden to the University, and that the fiscal note for that
department should also be indeterminate.
9:44:53 AM
Representative Croft asserted that the personnel would be
taking courses that they would have normally taken anyway,
and that the bill merely changed the source of the tuition
payment. He proposed that the bill meant that the State
would be paying for the tuition, and therefore the
University was not incurring a loss.
9:45:54 AM
JOHN CRAMER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DIVISION,
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS testified in support of the
bill. He stated that there was an increment in the
operating budget to make up for the shortfall in tuition
waiver funding, and reiterated that the benefit ran out last
year. He explained that since the University had increased
tuitions, they were not able to meet the demand for the
educational benefit and incurred an operational financial
increase for FY 07. He noted the uptrend in deployment,
predicting more than 800 personnel going into combat this
year.
9:47:46 AM
Mr. Cramer explained that the primary reason for National
Guard personnel seeking to improve their education was to
improve their movement in rank inside the military system,
which then affected their family's livelihood. He noted the
active recruitment program, and their desire to continue the
benefit. He stated that a new, likely indeterminate fiscal
note was forthcoming, and estimated an actual cost of $83
thousand. He estimated that roughly 25 percent of spouses
would likely utilize the education benefit.
Co-Chair Meyer stated the desire to HOLD the bill until
future fiscal notes could be prepared.
9:49:40 AM
Representative Holm asked why the Department withheld the
benefit, rather than simply granting all eligible tuition
waivers and submitting a supplemental request.
Mr. Cramer explained that the University operated year
round, and that they did not know exactly how many Guard
members would apply during a given year. He noted that the
National Guard did not bring the shortfall to their
attention until recently, when an increment of $25 thousand
was added to the operating budget of FY 07. He noted that
although fewer people applied this year, due to the ten
percent increase in tuition, they experienced a shortfall.
9:51:16 AM
Representative Joule asked about whether all Guard personnel
were Alaskan. Mr. Cramer confirmed that a few Guardsmen in
Alaska were not Alaskan residents, but emphasized that the
vast majority were living in Alaska.
HB 387 was HEARD and HELD for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
An Act creating the Knik River Public Use Area.
Representative Bill Stoltze, Sponsor commented briefly on
the bill. He noted that his district experienced problems
with land mismanagement and misuse. He pointed out the
public meetings held to discuss this issue and noted changes
made in the bill to reflect concerns expressed by the
department and constituents. He expressed his intention to
develop a multiuse management plan, maintaining current
values of use.
9:55:38 AM
CHARLOTTE SARTOR, MATSU, testified via teleconference in
support of the bill. She thanked Representative Stoltze for
improvements to the bill. She explained problems of land
misuse, and proposed that good enforcement was key to
addressing problems. She also suggested changes to line 13,
and discussed the network of trail routes. She suggested
adding a citizen's advisory board, and pointed out the need
to safeguard wildlife. She urged funding for the bill.
9:57:46 AM
BRIT LIVELY, CO-FOUNDER, BUTTE AREA CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS,
testified via teleconference in support of the bill. She
thanked the Sponsor for providing more troopers for the
area. She applauded changes made by the House Resources
Committee, but suggested that more changes were needed. She
stated that dangerous activities in the area were still a
concern, and urged funding for adequate oversight. She
noted that they had not seen the fiscal note, but proposed
an estimate of $250 thousand for the first year to make the
area usable for families. She also noted the need for
public restrooms, as well as for enforcement to prevent
vandalism. She also suggested that a recreational area
designation would help to protect the area, and that
visitors would therefore pay a small fee for upkeep for the
area. She urged support of this Alaskan resource.
10:02:16 AM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony for the day, but
expressed his intention to continue on the following day.
HB 307 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|