Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2012 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB160 | |
| SCR24 | |
| SB91 | |
| SB19 | |
| SB23 | |
| SB210 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SCR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2012
9:12 a.m.
9:12:14 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
James Armstrong, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Tim
Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Shyan Ely, Intern,
Senator Lesil McGuire; Ben Mulligan, Special Assistant,
Department of Fish and Game; Joe Michel, Staff,
Representative Bill Stoltze; Kristen Peterson, Staff,
Senator Hollis French; Matt Moser, Staff, Senator Johnny
Ellis; Senator Johnny Ellis, Sponsor; Dan Branch, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair Business
Section, Department of Law; Curtis Thayer, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development; Amy Saltzman, Staff, Senator Lesil
McGuire; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal
Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of
Law
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Stephen Haycox, Professor of History, University of Alaska
Anchorage; Terrence Cole, Professor of History, University
of Alaska Fairbanks; Rod Arno-Palmer, Executive Director,
Alaska Outdoor Council; Johanna Bales, Deputy Director, Tax
Division, Department of Revenue
SUMMARY
CSSB 19(FIN)
PASSENGER VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
HCS CSSB 19(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from Department of
Administration and one new fiscal impact note by
the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Revenue.
CSSB 23(FIN)
FILM PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT/AUDITS
HCS CSSB 23(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with two new
fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Revenue and the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development and one new zero note
from the Legislature.
[Note: The committee rescinded its action to
report out HCS CSSB 23(FIN) on 4/14/12 and took
corrective action. See House Finance Committee
minutes dated 4/14/12, 10:25 a.m.]
SCR 24 COMMISSION ON 100TH ANNIV. OF LEGISLATURE
SCR 24 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (LEG).
CSSSSB 25(FIN)
AIDEA: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY/ INTEREST RATE
CSSSSB 25(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 83(EDC)
TEACHER BOARD CERTIFICATION INCENTIVES
CSSB 83(EDC) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 91(FIN)
SPORT FISHING GUIDING SERVICES
HCS CSSB 91(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Fish
and Game.
CSSB 119(L&C)
ATHLETIC TRAINERS
CSSB 119(L&C) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 160(FIN)
BUDGET: CAPITAL
CSSB 160(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 182(EDC)
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
CSSB 182 (EDC) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 210(FIN)
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN/ SUPPORT/CINA
CSSB 210(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
indeterminate fiscal note from Department of
Corrections and four previously published
indeterminate notes: FN1 (DOA), FN2 (DOL), FN4
(DOA), FN5 (CRT); and two previously published
zero notes: FN3 (DPS), FN6 (DOA).
9:12:20 AM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 160(FIN)
"An Act making and amending appropriations, including
capital appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
and other appropriations; making appropriations to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date."
JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained that he was currently working with Legislative
Finance on drafting a committee substitute in the next
couple of hours.
CSSB 160(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:15:07 AM
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Establishing the Alaska Legislative Celebration
Commission to organize events to commemorate the 100th
anniversary of the first convening of the legislative
branch of government in Alaska.
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, presented a
PowerPoint, "SCR 24: The 100-Year Commission Celebrating
the Alaska Legislature" (copy on file). He stated that on
March 3, 1913, the first convening of the first legislature
of Alaska occurred.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 1. The photo was of downtown
Juneau taken in 1905. He remarked that Juneau was densely
crowded, with not much useable land. He stated that in
1911, the United States Congress authorized the funds to
build a capitol building for use by the legislature.
Because of World War I and land shortage, the construction
of the Capitol was stalled for 16 years. For the first
sixteen years, the legislature met in various halls in
downtown Juneau.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 2, and explained that the photo
was taken in September, 1929. The building in the photo was
the former governor's office, and it was torn down to make
room for the new Capitol.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 3. The photo was of the same
site as the former governor's office, facing the Gastineau
Channel. He pointed out the car on the right side of the
photograph, and stated that this photo was from the
beginning of the Capitol construction in 1929.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 4. He explained that
approximately a year and a half after the Capitol
construction began the building was dedicated as the
"Territory and Federal Building."
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 5, and stated that the photo was
of the Alaska House of Representatives from 1913 in the
Juneau Elks Hall. He remarked that the Elks Hall was
originally three floors. It was his understanding that the
Senate met on one floor, and the House of Representatives
met on another floor.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 6, "First House of
Representatives Committee Structure." There were originally
15 standing committees, with 16 members that sat on all of
the committees:
1. Banks and Banking, Corporations (including
Municipal)
2. Committee on Committees
3. Education, Public Health, Quarantine, and Morals
4. Elections, Election Laws, and Mileage
5. Engrossment and Enrollment
6. Fisheries, Fish, Game, and Agriculture
7. Judiciary and Federal Relations
8. Labor, Capital, and Immigration
9. Mining and Manufacturing
10. Printing
11. Roads and Highways
12. Rules
13. Territorial Institutions
14. Transportation, Commerce, and Navigation
15. Ways and Means and Contingent Expenses
Mr. Lamkin stated that he did not believe that there was a
Revenue-type committee at that time, because the
legislature had very limited powers. Every item that the
legislature examined and determined needed to be approved
by congress.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 7, "A Sampling of the Session
Laws of 1913." He explained that the first legislature
passed 84 bills and 111 resolutions in 60 days. He
highlighted some of the laws. He remarked that the
legislature passed a law allowing women the right to vote,
several years before congress. He pointed out five more
notable laws that were passed in the first legislature of
Alaska:
- "An Act to Prevent the Desecration of the Flag of
U.S., and to Provide Punishment For Carrying Flags in
Public Parades or Flying Them From Buildings Under
Certain Conditions"
- "An Act to Require Hotels and Lodging Houses to be
Provided With Fire Escapes, Ropes, and Other
Appliances"
- "An Act to Prevent Employees from Being Oppressed by
Reason of an Employer Compelling Them to Board at a
Particular Boarding House, or to Purchase Goods or
Supplies at a Particular Store."
- "An Act to Establish Juvenile Courts, to Provide For
the Care of Dependent Children, and to Create
Childrens' Guardians in Alaska…"
- "An Act to Prevent the Spread of Contagious Disease
Among Livestock"
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 8, "A Sampling of Session Laws
of 1913." He discussed six more laws of note from the first
legislature of Alaska:
- "An Act to Provide For the Registration of Persons
Employed to Advocate or Oppose Legislative Measures,
and to Regulate the Method of Such Advocacy or
Opposition"
- "An Act to Provide For the Compulsory Education of
the Children of Alaska…"
- "An Act to Fix the Liability of Employers For
Personal Injuries Sustained by Their Employees"
- "An Act Prohibiting the Casting of Sawdust, Planer
Shavings, and Other Lumber Waste Into the Waters of
Alaska..."
- "An Act to Provide Punishment For Pimps or Macques"
- "An Act to Create a Board of Commissioners to
Provide For a Home for Aged Prospectors in Interior
Alaska"
Co-Chair Thomas wondered if the Flag Act had been repealed
since the first Alaska legislature. He remarked that he had
recently visited the Treadwell Ice Arena, and noticed that
the U.S. flag was level with the Canadian flag. He made a
complaint with an employee at the Ice Arena, and was told
that they receive that complaint many times. He told the
employee that veterans would be "very upset" to see the
U.S. flag flying equal to a foreign country's flag. Mr.
Lamkin replied that he assumed that the flag act had been
amended, but was not sure.
Mr. Lamkin looked at slide 9, which was a photo of the
first territorial senate in 1913, in what he assumed was
the second floor of the Elks Hall. Elwood Brunner, pictured
in the front and left-hand side of the photo, was the first
president pro-tem of the Alaska State Senate. He also
served as the Rules Committee Chairman.
9:23:14 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested a description and intent of the
fiscal note attached to the bill. Mr. Lamkin replied that
the purpose of the fiscal note was to allow the legislature
some flexibility in spending on the project. Other
organizations were contacted to determine a reasonable
figure, in order to shape the logistics of bringing
legislators and state officials from around the state
together for the celebration.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that the geographical references
were intended for the purpose of estimated the fiscal note.
Mr. Lamkin agreed.
Co-Chair Stoltze hoped to not spend the amount of money
represented in the fiscal note. He thought it should be a
community based celebration, like the statehood
celebration. Mr. Lamkin agreed.
Representative Doogan felt the focus should really about
the whole history of Alaska, and not just the legislature.
He read part of the bills that passed during the first
Alaska legislature, and related a personal story.
9:29:41 AM
STEPHEN HAYCOX, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of SCR
24. He felt that it was important for education in Alaska.
Before the legislature was held in 1913, Alaska was
effectively ruled by the "federal bureaucracy." James
Wickersham, who supported the formation of a legislature,
was very committed to the idea of "government by the
consent of the governed." He remarked that the formation of
the first legislature was an important step towards Alaska
statehood.
Representative Edgmon stated that Professor Haycox was his
history teacher in 1984.
9:33:35 AM
TERRENCE COLE, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in support of SCR
24. He stated that James Wickersham stopped the territory
from being ruled by Washington D.C. He remarked that this
resolution was not party-based, but merely a narrow focus
on a part of state history education. He felt it is
important to remind Alaskans of this particular aspect of
Alaska history.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Terrence Cole's publications.
Representative Doogan related another personal story.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed the public testimony.
Representative Neuman recalled that there was $25,000 left
over from the Alaska Statehood Celebration. He thought that
that money may have been placed in an endowment. He
wondered if that money could be used toward SCR 24.
Representative Guttenberg hoped that the archives from the
celebration of the 100th anniversary of the first
legislature would be easily accessible for future
generations.
9:40:36 AM
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report SCR 24 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SCR 24 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published fiscal impact
note: FN1 (LEG).
9:41:03 AM
AT EASE
9:45:16 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN)
"An Act amending the termination date of the licensing
of sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides;
and providing for an effective date."
SHYAN ELY, INTERN, SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, explained that SB
91 extended the sunset date of the sport fish guide
licensing and reporting program, and provided an effective
date. Legislation for this program was first passed in
2004, and was proven beneficial to the sport fishing
industry. It required licensing and regulation of sport
fishing operators, guides, and vessels. The program has
provided an average of 1,541 sport fishing business
licenses, and 1,828 sport fishing guide licenses annually.
She stated that 90 percent of licenses were Alaska
residents. The sport fishing guide industry had taken more
than 2.6 million clients fishing from 2005 to 2010 totaling
more than 625,000 guided fishing trips in Alaska. Guided
sport fishing had become an integral part of Alaska's
tourism economy. In 2007, $1.39 billion was spent on
licenses and stamps; trip-related expenditures; fishing
packages; equipment; and real estate used for fishing. This
spending supported more than 15,879 jobs in Alaska, and
provided $545.3 million in income. She explained that SB 91
provided accurate counting for Alaska's harvested
resources. Federal law for guided halibut sport fishing was
tied to the Alaska Sport Fishing log books, and failure to
keep the program in place would likely result in the
development of a federal log book for halibut, therefore
creating duplication of efforts at a later date. Alaska is
exempt from participating in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Saltwater
Angler Registry Program, in part, as a result of the
information collected through the sport fishing guide
licenses and reporting program. She reiterated that SB 91
extended the sunset date of the program.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CS SB 91 (FIN), Work Draft 27-LS0550\M
(Bullard, 3/16/12).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Representative Neuman wondered if the guide log book
calculations were up to date.
BEN MULLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, replied that the log books were up to date.
9:50:09 AM
ROD ARNO-PALMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL
(via teleconference), testified in opposition to SB 91. He
did not believe that the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
had administrated the program well. He stated that he was
in support of the program, but could not support a four-
year extension. He stressed that he was not supportive of
the program taking money from guide-less fishermen.
Mr. Mulligan stated that DFG funds were used for the
program, and the cost program administration was greater
than the set fees. He stressed that a large percentage of
sport fishermen use guides, and the log book data helps DFG
harvest surplus, without being too conservative.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered if DFG had the ability to observe
and record the activities of the average sport fisherman.
Mr. Mulligan replied that DFG conducts creel surveys and an
annual sport fish survey.
9:54:25 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
Amendment 1
On page 1 line 8
Delete "2017" Insert "2015"
Representative Doogan OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that the amendment would extend
the program for 2 years rather than 4 years. He remarked
that he keeping the program extended for a shorter period
of time would cause the legislature to continue to evaluate
the effectiveness of the program.
Representative Doogan wondered if the amendment would cause
a substantive change in the program. Mr. Mulligan replied
that changing the extension from four years to two, would
result in a more relevant evaluation.
Representative Doogan wondered, again, if the amendment
would make a substantive change to the bill. Mr. Mulligan
replied that the amendment would not make a substantive
change to the bill.
Representative Doogan WITHDREW his objection. There being
NO further OBJECTION Amendment 1 was adopted.
Mr. Mulligan spoke to the fiscal note attached to the bill.
He said that the fiscal note reflected the original
proposed extension to January 1, 2017. Now that the
amendment was adopted, the fiscal note will change by
removing FY 16 and FY 17.
9:57:23 AM
Representative Wilson how many people administer the
program. Mr. Mulligan replied that he did not know the
exact number of people who administer the program. The
process is spread out among people who have multiple duties
and responsibilities.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report HCS CSSB 91(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 91(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Fish and Game.
9:58:14 AM
RECESSED
4:37:01 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19(FIN)
"An Act specifying the vehicle rental tax for
motorcycles and motor-driven cycles; and providing for
an effective date."
4:37:37 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 19(FIN), Work Draft 27-LS0157\I
(Luckhaupt, 4/13/12).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained
the changes in the work draft. The 3 percent tax for
motorcycles was removed from the previous version of the
bill. Page 3, line 11, Section H stated that "a motorcycle
or motor-driven cycles as those terms are defined in AS
28.90.990."
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 27-LS0157\I was adopted.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the bill sponsor was pleased
with the changes in the CS.
KRISTEN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, responded
that the bill sponsor and Alaskan motorcyclists were
pleased with the changes.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered if the CS would cause any
changes to the current fiscal notes. Ms. Peterson replied
that there would be a $3400 loss from the DOR fiscal note.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the second page of the DOR
fiscal note, "the state receives approximately $12,000 each
year in vehicle rental tax from the rental of motorcycles
in the state of Alaska." She felt that the accurate
reflection on the fiscal note would be a negative $12,000
on FY 13 to FY 18.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report HCS CSSB 19(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 19(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note
from Department of Administration and one new fiscal impact
note by the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Revenue.
4:41:51 PM
AT EASE
4:43:18 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 23(FIN)
"An Act relating to transferable film production tax
credits and film production tax credit certificates;
requiring the legislative audit division to audit the
Alaska film production incentive program; and
providing for an effective date by amending the
effective dates of secs. 3 and 4, ch. 63, SLA 2008."
4:43:28 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 19(FIN), Work Draft 27-LS0252\XX
(Bullock, 4/13/12).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Representative Costello highlighted the changes in the work
draft. The work draft incentivizes the Alaska Hire program.
The program was separated into two main sections. One
section referred to those in the film industry who were
considered "above the line", which include producers,
directors, writers, and editors; and the other section
referred to workers considered "below the line." The "below
the line" workers referred to electricians, caterers, and
much of the behind the scenes workers on film sets. She
stated that the "below the line" section sustained the base
tax rate at 30 percent overall, extended the program for
ten years, and continued the funding at the current level
at $200 million. The Alaska Hire bonus was doubled from 10
percent to 20 percent. The House Labor and Commerce
incentive for rural Alaskans would be set at 6 percent,
which was higher than the current program. The 2 percent
incentive remained the same for films that were produced in
the off-season.
Co-Chair Thomas clarified that the 6 percent incentive was
"additional" to the current incentive.
Representative Costello stated that the work draft removed
the 44 percent cap on the credits. The first scripted
television show to produce 16 episodes would be
incentivized, because episodic television brought more jobs
over the long term. The "above the line" credit had been
tied to Alaska Hire, and required spending on Alaska
businesses. The base rate for the "above the line" credit
was 5 percent, so companies could earn a higher credit by
hiring Alaskans and patronizing Alaska businesses. Fifty
percent of the amount that is spent on the wages and
benefits to Alaskans and Alaska business, would be credited
in the "above the line" section
4:48:45 PM
Representative Costello stressed that she wanted Alaskans
involved in the film productions that were produced in the
state. The bill aimed to increase the credibility of the
review process by creating the Alaska Film Incentive Review
Commission, housed in DOR. Four commissioners would sit on
the commission, including the commissioners from DOR, DNR,
DOL, and DCCED. A majority of the members of the commission
must approve the script and summary of the pre-qualifying
process.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the commissioners from those
departments were the actual commissioners, or designees.
Representative Costello responded that the commissioners
would be the actual commissioners from those departments.
Representative Costello stated that the administrative
function of the program was put into DOR, because it is a
tax program. The promotion portion of the program would be
kept in DCCED, which is the department that was marketing
Alaska's development. A 75 cents on-the-dollar buy-back
option was included in the work draft to provide some
certainty for some smaller productions that may not be able
to find a corporate tax payer who could buy the credit. The
credit was adjusted to remove competition with the private
sector, but also provide some stability. In addition,
people were no longer allowed to broker the credit. She
looked at page 13, lines 9 through 11, "The commission may
not approve an application for a film production that the
commission finds is contrary to the natural resource
development policy of the state."
4:51:59 PM
Representative Doogan asked for more information regarding
page 13, lines 9 through 11. Representative Costello
explained that currently the program required a review of
the script to ensure that there was nothing in conflict
with Alaska's constitution. That portion of the program
remained the same, but language was changed from "shall" to
"will." By elevating the review board to the commissioner-
level, it added some additional accountability in the
review of the scripts.
Representative Doogan asked for an explanation about why
the script could not be against the natural resource policy
of the State. Representative Costello replied that an
example would be that the film could not include an
overview of fracking and its damage to the environment,
when the state was possibly considering fracking technology
in the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze furthered that it would be anything
produced by Michael Moore.
Representative Doogan wondered if this would be considered
censorship.
4:55:15 PM
Representative Costello replied that the only time that the
issue of censorship was brought to the committee's
attention, was in relation to people who testify in public
hearings. She stated that there was nothing that could
prevent freedom of speech. However, in terms of "censoring
scripts", the State had an interest in reviewing the
scripts for the credit. There were several items in the
bill that the commission would be considering, and happened
to include Alaska's natural resources. Ninety percent of
Alaska's state government was funded from oil production.
The State had an interest in protecting its ability to
develop resources responsibly, without encouraging a public
relations campaign that could be detrimental to that
effort.
Representative Doogan wondered what would happen if a
person provided a script to the commission, and the script
was rejected because it did not "toe the party line", and
therefore the film company sued the State. He wondered if
this would be defensible in court. Representative Costello
deferred to Co-Chair Stoltze.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that he did not believe it was
considered "free speech" if the State was paying for it.
Representative Doogan stressed that he was concerned
whether or not this change was "protected legal ground."
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that he only wanted to pass the
bill if it was considered "protected legal ground."
Representative Gara believed the legislation was important,
and shared the concerns of Representative Doogan. He
referred to a movie entitled, "Salmonberries." Someone
could have made the case that the movie made Kotzebue look
bad, or someone could say that the movie "opened peoples'
eyes" to a different part of the world. He was concerned
about allowing a State bureaucrat to determine whether or
not a movie was in the best interest of the state. He added
that censorship was also an issue in this discussion,
because he felt that the commission would be too partisan.
4:59:13 PM
AT EASE
4:59:37 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Doogan remarked that he did not want to have
a political debate.
4:59:52 PM
AT EASE
4:59:59 PM
RECONVENED
MATT MOSER, STAFF, SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, stressed that the
purpose of the bill was economic development. He remarked
that there was a provision in the bill that did not allow
pornography.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Senator Ellis inserted the
provision on pornography, and Senator Ellis did not believe
that the provision on pornography was not considered
"censorship." Mr. Moser agreed.
Representative Neuman looked at page 4; lines 16 through
19, regarding the total number of tax credits in aggregate
may not exceed $100 million for a qualified production. He
wondered if that was $100 for only one production. Mr.
Moser replied that the intention was that there were $100
million in credits available for the first five years of
the program, and $200 million in credits in the second ten
years of the program.
Representative Neuman wondered if the $100 million was the
total amount of credits the State would provide, or if it
was for one individual production. Mr. Moser replied that
he had not had a chance to look at the draft, but it should
say $200 million for "productions" qualified under AS
44.25.120.
Representative Neuman surmised that it was a cumulative
number. Mr. Moser agreed.
Representative Gara understood that the side effect of the
"best interest of the state" issue would be a side effect
of attracting tourism in the state. Mr. Moser agreed.
Representative Gara commented that there did not have to be
an agreement for every provision of the bill, and accepted
Mr. Moser's response.
Co-Chair Stoltze would hold the bill to get an opinion from
Department of Law on the censorship issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
5:04:50 PM
RECESSED
6:45:14 PM
RECONVENED
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, SPONSOR, addressed most recent
concern with language in the bill. The committee substitute
elevates the script review of television and film
production scripts to the commissioner level, and he
supported that change. He stressed that the Alaska
Constitution requires the development of Alaska resources
for the maximum benefit of the people. So, if there was
ever a film or television project that was antithetical to
the Alaska Constitution and its purpose, the project could
be appropriately prohibited. The Parnell administration and
Alaskans should turn down movies or documentaries that were
not in the best interest of the people.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Senator Ellis.
Representative Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
On page 4 line 16
Delete "a production"
Insert "productions"
On page 4 line 18
Delete "a production"
Insert "productions"
Representative Neuman explained that the amendment
represented the money as a cumulative amount and not per
production.
Senator Ellis approved the amendment.
6:52:19 PM
DAN BRANCH, SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
COMMERCIAL/FAIR BUSINESS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced himself.
Representative Doogan asked the way the bill is drafted in
a way that certain people could make a decision not to fund
a production and wanted to know whether that is legal. Mr.
Branch replied that the language was legal. The reason is
because the bill does not restrict speech but the way the
state decides to spend its money.
Representative Neuman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. There
being NO OBJECTION it was so ordered.
6:55:18 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for clarification pertaining to
the fiscal notes attached to the bill. She pointed out that
the fiscal notes reflected and addition of $100 million;
she understood that the intention was to add $200 million.
Representative Costello replied that page 2 of the
Department of Revenue fiscal note, under the section
"revenues," declared that the bill would increase the total
tax credit from $100 million to $200 million, and was not a
correct reflection of the bill. She explained that the
legislation intended to increase the credit from $100
million to $300 million because of the addition of $200
million over the next ten years. She concluded that the
fiscal note would need to be changed to reflect the
intended fiscal impact of the bill.
Vice-chair Fairclough interjected that the legislation
would affect the DOR's taxation division. She spoke to
fiscal note #3, dated 4/13/2012, 5:45p.m. She purported
that the projected spending from FY14 to FY18 increased
funding to support 4 positions: $460,000 in FY14; $448,400
in FY15 through FY18. She noted that the bill language
referenced in the analysis should be changed to reflect a
$200 million tax credit between 2013 and 2023.
Additionally, the total accumulation should be changed to
$300 million. She pointed out that the revenues section of
the analysis should be changed to reflect increases in the
total tax credits from $100 million to $300 million. She
explained that it would allow for approximately $20 million
in tax credits, per year, over three separate 5 year
periods. She relayed that under expenditures it should be
noted that there were 2 positions that DOR was proposing to
be transferred in, and 2 that were additions.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the NEW fiscal note, which
affected the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED). She shared that the department was
proposed to spend between FY13 and FY 18; $281.200, with 2
full-time positions.
Vice-chair Fairclough stated that the NEW fiscal note,
which was allocated to the Legislative Audit Division,
reflected zero fiscal impact.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if DOR had been assisting DCCED
with tax auditing.
CURTIS THAYER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that DOR was
currently assisting with the tax certification portion of
the program.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested further explanation of the
two additional auditing positions discussed on the DOR
fiscal note under expenditures.
Mr. Thayer responded that the department currently had two
people helping to manage the program that the department
wished to retain. The fiscal note proposed that the two
positions remain within DCCED because the department was
responsible for the promotion, follow-up, coordination, and
the marketing of the film program.
Co-Chair Stoltze maintained confusion as to where the extra
work was being generated that required the two additional
positions.
Mr. Thayer deferred the question to DOR.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the new positions would have been
necessary if the program were handled exclusively by DCCED.
Mr. Thayer responded that the auditing had been done by the
business development specialist. He said that when the
program was originally designed, DCCED handled the pre-
qualifications, the auditing function of going through the
applications, and the final application. He stated that
DCCED had turned those responsibilities over to DOR. He
furthered that DCCED had also been responsible for the
marketing function and the coordination functions, which
had been split up because it was believed that the same
individual should be doing the auditing and handling the
pre-qualifications at the same time.
7:01:57 PM
JOHANNA BALES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE (via teleconference), understood that the bill
created an executive director position to work with the
newly created review commission. Additionally, the bill
required an on-site liaison to consult producers on large
productions, which had necessitated the creation of the
second position.
Representative Costello commented that the intent was not
to have a full-time liaison position.
Co-Chair Stoltze suggested that the fiscal note would need
to be adjusted according to interpretation of the bill.
Representative Costello thought that it would be prudent to
reduce the number of positions, and to keep in
communication with the department as staffing needs were
brought to light.
7:04:32 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough directed attention to the fiscal note
from DOR, which suggested the extraction of two employees
from DCCED; however, the same two positions were also
listed on the fiscal note for DCCED. She stated that from
a legislative perspective, the additional two people had
not been anticipated. She said that she understood why DOR
would want one dedicated person, requested further
explanation of the DCCED request for 2 additional
positions.
Mr. Thayer replied that the purpose of the film production
promotion program was to work with organizations in the
private sector for expansion and development of the film
production industry in the state; to promote Alaska as an
appropriate location of a film production; to provide
production assistance through connecting film directors,
makers, and producers with Alaska location scouts and
contractors, including contractors providing assistance
with permit applications. He stated that those
responsibilities were currently covered by DCCED in
addition to the pre and post application. He understood
that the fiscal note requested 2 positions but that the
department often had 4 or 5 people splitting duties to
handle all of the aforementioned activates. He testified
that as deputy director he had dedicated, at one point, 20
percent of his working day to this program.
Representative Gara understood that the department
currently had liaisons that promote Alaska. He wondered
where the extra work for the department was going to come
from. Mr. Thayer replied that the work would continue with
the existing amount of employees.
Representative Gara thought that that the fiscal notes
could be zeroed because most of positions were being
transferred between agencies. Mr. Thayer reiterated that
the program had the promotional component, the pre
application component and the final application part of the
program. He said that some of the workload was still being
handled by, and would remain in the department by statute.
7:07:52 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough moved to amend the DOR fiscal note;
FY14 through FY18, $230.200 and 2 positions. She believed
that the money would fund one Tax Auditor III (Range 20)
and one Tax Technician ii (Range 12).
Ms. Bales asked about the provision in the bill that
expects an executive director consult the newly formed
commission and to oversee the staff of the Film Office.
Representative Costello interjected that there was
currently an individual within DCCED that was serving in
the position. She stressed that it had not been the intent
of the subcommittee to hire a new executive director.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the handling of the position was
to be left up to the department.
Representative Costello responded that the bill stated that
the departments should work together to determine how the
position was filled.
Representative Doogan understood that the fiscal notes
could be improved by requesting two positions in DOR and
two in DCCED. Vice-chair Fairclough replied that that was
the intent of her motion.
7:10:51 PM
Representative Gara expressed confusion as to why DCCED
needed the two new positions. He felt that DOR needed two
new positions for taxes, and there was obvious
coordination.
Vice-chair Fairclough explained that DOR had not been doing
audits; Legislative Audit had been handling audits from the
legislative side. The effort would now move to DOR; DCCED
would continue to work with DOR, as well as continuing to
promote and interface in a variety of ways to put the Film
Office to work for the state of Alaska. She said that the
request from DCCED had been that the committee would
recognize that if the program was successful DOR would need
to be involved. She added that the functionality could be
revisited in 2013.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked if there was any reason why the
executive director should not reside in the Film Office.
Mr. Bales stated that she saw no reason why the executive
director could not reside in the Film Office. She felt that
DOR would be content with two auditor positions to oversee
the applications.
Vice-chair Fairclough stated that the subcommittee had been
trying to establish a working arrangement that provided
transparency for the film industry and for the credits
being used.
Ms. Bales explained that there was a provision in the
legislation that stated that the executive director must
oversee the staff. She thought that there should be a
separation of duties written into legislation.
7:14:10 PM
Representative Wilson thought that the fiscal note from
DCCED would not add two more positions, but would maintain
an already established full-time development specialist,
and a full-time administrative assistant II; detailed half-
time to the film promotion program. She queried what the
other half-time duties would include. Mr. Thayer responded
that the administrative assistant to the program would
additionally serve as the administrative assistant for
DCCED in Anchorage.
Representative Wilson understood that the two positions
already existed and were not being created. Mr. Thayer
replied that the department remain at the status quo.
7:15:26 PM
AT EASE
7:18:03 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Costello MOVED to report HCS CSSB 23(FIN)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered
HCS CSSB 23(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes
from the Department of Revenue and the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development and one new
zero note from the Legislature. [Note: The committee
rescinded its action to report out HCS CSSB 23(FIN) on
4/14/12 and took corrective action. See House Finance
Committee minutes dated 4/14/12, 10:25 a.m.]
7:19:41 PM
AT EASE
7:23:37 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 210(FIN)
"An Act relating to crimes against children; and
providing for an effective date."
AMY SALTZMAN, STAFF, SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, remarked on
some changes that were made in the House Judiciary
Committee. She highlighted Sections 1 through 4.
Section 1 amends the crime of Assault in the 3rd
Degree under AS 11.41.220(a) (1) (C) and 11.41.220(a)
(3) by changing the age of the victim from under 10 to
under 12 years old. AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(C) currently
prohibits a person (18 years or older) from recklessly
causing physical injury to a child under 10 years of
age that would cause a reasonable person to seek
medical care, or causes physical injury on two or more
occasions. The bill would change the victim's age to
less than 12 years old.
Section 2 amends the definition of "serious physical
injury" in for purposes of the law prohibiting assault
in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degrees and for reckless
endangerment. It does so by expanding the definition
of serious physical injury as it applies to injury to
victims under 12 years old. It adds the following:
Physical injury to a person under 12 years of age that
causes A) Serious disfigurement; B) Serious impairment
of health, by extensive bruising or other injury that
would cause a reasonable person to seek medical
treatment from a health care professional in the form
of diagnosis or treatment; or C) Serious impediment of
blood circulation or breathing. This broadened
definition will allow for increased criminal liability
for crimes committed on children under the age of 12.
This change recognizes a child's faster ability to
heal from serious injuries that may not be included in
the current definition of serious physical injury.
Section 3 amends the crime of endangering the welfare
of a child in the first degree by adding the
prohibition of recklessly failing to provide adequate
amounts of food or liquids to a child, causing
protracted impairment to a child's health. This change
will increase criminal liability for offenders that
harm children by withholding food or liquids.
Section 4 would adopt a class C felony for the crime
of endangering the welfare of a child in the first
degree by recklessly withholding adequate amounts of
food or liquids to a child.
7:28:48 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
looked at Sections 5 through 18.
Sections 5 - 7 amend the law (AS 12.47.040 and
12.47.060) addressing procedures for persons found to
be guilty of a crime but mentally ill, by clarifying
that the decision that the person is guilty but
mentally ill must be made by the jury, by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant waives
this requirement. Under AS 12.47.050(d), a person
incarcerated and found guilty but mentally ill and
still receiving treatment for a mental illness, is not
eligible for parole release or furlough. For this
reason, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
(Blakely) requires the decision relating to whether a
person is guilty but mentally ill to be made by the
jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section 8 amends AS 12.55.025(i), addressing
sentencing procedures, to clarify that while the
burden of proof in sentencing proceedings is generally
by a preponderance of evidence, under AS 12.55 there
are numerous statutes that specify a different burden
of proof.
Section 9 and 10 provides that when a defendant enters
into a plea agreement that calls for a specific term
of probation or a specific term of suspended
incarceration, the court, in a probation revocation
proceeding, cannot unilaterally terminate or reduce
those terms, except by the amount of incarceration
time imposed for the offense that is the basis of the
probation violation.
When a court imposes sentence for a probation
violation in these cases, the court is not obligated
to impose the full amount of remaining suspended time,
but rather must consider the nature of the probation
violation in light of applicable sentencing law and
impose an appropriate sentence, subject to the caveat
that its authority to impose an appropriate sentence
does not include the authority to terminate or reduce
the term of probation or the suspended term of
imprisonment.
7:33:42 PM
Representative Neuman looked at page 4, lines 4 and 5. He
relayed a story about children who were abused by their
grandparents. The children chose to live in a van and in
the yard outside of their house, because they were so
afraid of their grandparents. He wondered if this bill
would "cover" this kind of instance. Ms. Carpeneti replied
that it would depend on the facts of the case. In order to
prove a crime under SB 210, there would need to be proof
that the grandparents consciously disregarded the children,
and ignored the harm that their conduct had inflicted on
the children. It would also depend on their culpable mental
state.
Representative Neuman looked at Section 6, pertaining to
insanity. He felt that people who allowed their
grandchildren to sleep outside should be considered
mentally ill.
7:37:35 PM
Ms. Carpeneti replied that this bill does not address the
affirmative defense of insanity. She stressed that the
facts needed to be evaluated for each individual case. She
stated that many cases had been brought to her attention,
and felt that many of the people involved in the case had
shocking behavior, especially pertaining to children.
Representative Neuman referred to another bill that he was
working on that addressed some of the same issues. He
remarked than some people who abuse children "feel" their
behavior is appropriate, so therefore should be considered
"insane." He wondered how the court determined if someone
was "insane."
Ms. Carpeneti reiterated that insanity was not addressed in
the legislation, but offered to read the Alaska statute
that addressed the insanity issue.
Co-Chair Thomas asked them to speak about the issue after
the meeting. He stressed that the focus should be on the
subjects in SB 210.
Representative Gara was comfortable with most of the bill,
but asked about Section 10. He asked for verification that
the provision only applied to plea agreements. Ms.
Carpeneti responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara surmised that the plea agreement was
one-year time-served in jail and four years of probation.
If the defendant commits a probation violation, the
provision states that the probation period must remain the
same as was agreed during the original plea agreement. The
court could not intervene during the probation violation
hearing to reduce the length of probation below what was
agreed at the initial plea agreement. Ms. Carpeneti agreed.
Representative Gara concluded that the provision did not
grant the court authority to add more probation or
sentencing time, other than the jail time accrued for
violating the probation. Ms. Carpeneti replied in the
affirmative. She elaborated that the provision did not
allow the court reduce the suspended time that was original
agreed upon, except to the extent that the court may
sentence as a result of the probation violation.
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the replacement of
the words "jury" and "court" with the words "fact finder."
He wondered if that change was substantive or technical.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the change was technical,
because the law required that the jury find certain find
factual matters in sentencing. Often, a defendant will
waive the jury determination of a particular fact.
Representative Doogan referred to lines 4 and 5 on page 4.
He stated that there were several elements to the bill: the
behavior must be reckless; and the restriction of food or
liquids should be considered "adequate." He felt that the
pay-off in the section was resulting in protracting
impairment of the child's health; which implies that one
could be reckless with a child and restrict nutrition, but
if that behavior did not result in a protracted impairment
of the child's health the caregiver could not be
prosecuted. Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative. She
stated that there was another law that addressed "failure
to provide support" that was more general. The purpose of
raising the conduct to this level in the occasion where
there was a result in harm to the child was to distinguish
from the current law. There was also a concern regarding
the possible issue of parents sending their children to bed
without dinner, or similar circumstance. She stressed that
it was a class C felony, and therefore "serious behavior."
7:44:16 PM
Representative Doogan asked how long the abuse had to occur
to be considered "protracted impairment of the child's
health." Ms. Carpeneti replied that word "protracted" was
part of the definition of "serious physical injury." It was
not a new term for criminal law, but agreed to provide
further case law that may be instructive.
Representative Doogan assumed it would not be illegal for a
caregiver to send a child to bed without dinner. Ms.
Carpeneti agreed.
Representative Neuman asked whether there were ways to
strengthen the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti replied that
there were many discussions regarding the child protection
provisions. She remarked that the terms "physical serious
injury" and "serious physical injury" had been a part of
Alaska state law since 1978. The Child Protection Task
Force had recommended changes, those suggestions were
carefully considered. There was an issue regarding how
quickly children heal, so sometimes a very serious injury
to a child may not be protracted. She pointed out that the
Department of Law had worked with the bill sponsor and the
House Judiciary Committee, examining the issue with the
public defender and the American Civil Liberties Union. The
vocabulary in the bill was a compromise.
7:47:26 PM
Representative Neuman felt that the issue should be
reexamined in the future.
Co-Chair Thomas made a comparison between someone who is
texting while driving, and the issues in SB 210. Ms.
Carpeneti replied that SB 210 addressed assault issues.
Co-Chair Thomas thought maybe the texting penalties had
been too light. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the texting
law containing graduating penalties, so if someone is
killed as a result of texting, that person is subject to
prosecution for a class A felony.
Ms. Carpeneti discussed Sections 11 through 18.
Sections 11 and 12 amend AS 12.55.125 (sentences of
imprisonment for felony convictions) to clarify that
factual findings (1) that result in a mandatory term
of imprisonment of 99 years for conviction of murder
in the first degree; (2) result in a term that would
preclude a defendant from being awarded good time
under AS 33.20.010(a) - for example, a person
sentenced under the "three strikes" law; or (3) would
increase the presumptive sentencing range - for
example, a person convicted of a class A felony who
possessed a firearm - must be made by a jury by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant waives
this requirement.
Section 13 provides that if one aggravating factor has
been established, either by the court or the jury as
required by law, additional aggravating factors may
then be determined by the court by clear and
convincing evidence rather than by the jury. The
finding of one aggravating factor authorizes the court
to sentence an individual up to the maximum term
provided by law. An additional aggravating factor
cannot increase the maximum term anymore; thus the
Blakely decision does not require that additional
factors to be decided by a jury by proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Sections 14 and 15 make conforming amendments to the
changes described in Sections 9 and 10.
Sections 16 and 17 describe the indirect court rule
changes and the applicability provisions.
Section 18 would adopt a task force to study the
crimes of human trafficking, promoting prostitution
(sex trafficking). It would require that the task
force prepare a report describing the number of these
cases reported to law enforcement in the state since
2007, the number of cases prosecuted under Alaska law,
the number of cases investigated by local and federal
law enforcement agencies, and the services available
to victims of human trafficking.
Ms. Saltzman explained that the task force would consist of
representatives from the Department of Law, the Department
of Public Safety, the Department of Health and Social
Services, and two members appointed by the governor
representing non-governmental health and social service
agencies that provide services to victims of human
trafficking. The task force would report to the legislature
on January 15, 2013, and would provide the following
information: the number of human trafficking cases reported
to the state and local law enforcement agencies since 2007;
the number of human trafficking cases prosecuted under
Alaska state law; the number of human trafficking cases
state and local law enforcement agencies have investigated
in cooperation with the federal law enforcement agencies;
and the services that are currently available in the state
for victims of human trafficking, including services
provided by state agencies, federal agencies, non-
governmental agencies, and other assistance related to safe
housing and legal services. She remarked that there was
separate legislation on human trafficking, and noted that
the addition of the task force in SB 210 was to greatly
inform the legislature in order to help the victims.
Ms. Carpeneti furthered that the House Judiciary Committee
had amended the task force provision to become a "fact
finding" task force, for human trafficking and sex
trafficking.
Vice-chair Fairclough hoped that the task force would work
with the Immigration Project and other agencies to examine
the human trafficking issues. She relayed a story about a
man who had been convicted of sex trafficking.
7:55:16 PM
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes:
Department of Corrections indeterminate, Department of
Administration zero, Court System indeterminate, Department
of Administration indeterminate; Department of Public
Safety zero, Department of Law indeterminate, Department of
Administration indeterminate. She discussed the possibility
of zeroing out the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze was content with the indeterminate fiscal
note.
Representative Doogan wondered if there was financing for
the task force. He did not see the cost anywhere in the
fiscal notes.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the duty was assigned to the
Department of Law. She explained that the task force was
intended for fact gathering. She remarked that a few
thousand dollars were usually used for travel for the
members of the task force.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that travel was probably included
in the Department of Law's budget.
7:59:57 PM
Representative Neuman felt it was appropriate to zero out
the fiscal notes, because the Department of Law should be
creating task forces on their own. He called it "a part of
(their) job."
Vice-chair Fairclough opposed the idea of zeroing out the
fiscal note. She elaborated there were back-up documents to
explain why the fiscal notes were indeterminate.
Representative Edgmon agreed with Vice-chair Fairclough.
Representative Doogan understood why the fiscal notes were
indeterminate. The law was being changed in a way that
should cost more money. He did not believe it was a "blank
check", to continually request indeterminate notes. As long
as the bill did what it was intended, he did not care about
the cost.
Co-Chair Thomas had closed public testimony earlier.
8:05:29 PM
Representative Gara wondered if he could ask a question to
the public defender. Co-Chair Thomas replied that the
public defender was unavailable.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSSB 210(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered
CSSB 210(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal
note from Department of Corrections and four previously
published indeterminate notes: FN1 (DOA), FN2 (DOL), FN4
(DOA), FN5 (CRT); and two previously published zero notes:
FN3 (DPS), FN6 (DOA).
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 25(FIN)
"An Act establishing the sustainable energy
transmission and supply development program in the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority;
relating to the interest rates of the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and
relating to taxes paid on interests in property owned
by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority and to the local contribution for public
education funding related to that property."
CSSSSB 25(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 83(EDC)
"An Act providing for payment and loan incentives to
public school teachers for national board
certification."
CSSB 83(EDC) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(L&C)
"An Act relating to athletic trainers."
CSSB 119(L&C) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 182(EDC)
"An Act amending the amount of state funding provided
to school districts for pupil transportation."
CSSB 182 (EDC) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
8:06:44 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 PM.