Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/26/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB298 | |
| HB234 | |
| HB268 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 26, 2014
1:32 p.m.
1:32:16 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Speaker Mike Chenault, Sponsor; Sharon Kelly, Staff,
Speaker Chenault; Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor, Alaska
Division of Legislative Audit; Representative Mike Hawker,
Sponsor; TW Patch, Chairman, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska; Commissioner Norman Rokeberg, Regulatory Commission
of Alaska; Daniel George, Staff, Co-Chair Stoltze.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Grant Lewis, Tanana Valley Sportsman Association,
Fairbanks; Dan Jordan, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Coach, Nanooks Rifle Team; Mike Tinker, Tanana Valley
Sportsman Association, Fairbanks; Mel Bowen, Director,
Advocates of Victims of Violence, Valdez; Darrell
Verfaillie, Director, Parks and Recreation and Cultural
Services, Valdez; Joseph Koss, Tax Auditor, Tax Division
Department of Revenue, Anchorage; Johanna Bales, Deputy
Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 234 EXTEND REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
HB 234 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
HB 268 BIG BULL MOOSE DERBIES
CSHB 268(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a no recommendation and with one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Revenue.
HB 298 CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
HB 298 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal
note from the Alaska Legislature.
HOUSE BILL NO. 298
"An Act relating to confidentiality of performance
review records and reports of the legislature audit
division."
1:32:36 PM
SPEAKER MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR noted the legislation was a
technical fix to a previous bill.
SHARON KELLY, STAFF, SPEAKER CHENAULT, explained that HB
298 was a technical fix to AS 24.20.301(a). The fix
conformed confidentiality language for performance reviews
to the same language for audits. She reminded the committee
that HB 30 [State Agency Performance Audits] was adopted
into law in 2013 and re-established the practice of
departmental performance reviews to assist in informed
budget decision making. She related that Legislative Audit
discovered the discrepancy while undertaking the first
review.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, explained the technical request. The
performance review process began last year and required the
need for Legislative Audit to request a large volume of
information. She discovered a statutory difference between
the confidentiality requirements of audits and performance
review records.
Representative Guttenberg asked how the change affected
audits in progress.
Ms. Curtis noted that the fix would not impact audits, but
rather performance reviews. The division treated the
performance review information the same as audit records
and would continue under HB 298.
Representative Guttenberg asked about ongoing access to the
records. He asked if the nature of the confidentiality was
changed under the law.
Ms. Curtis answered that the legislation clarified that the
performance review records were confidential but
Legislative Audit already treated the records as
confidential.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Costello noted the fiscal note, FN1 (LEG)
with zero fiscal impact.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 298 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 298 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Alaska Legislature.
1:39:49 PM
AT EASE
1:40:57 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 234
"An Act extending the termination date of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
1:41:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, presented HB 234,
which extended the termination date of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA). He explained that the bill
extended the Regulatory Commission of Alaska for a period
of eight years, which was allowable under statute. The
request was consistent with recommendations made by the
state auditor. He noted that the auditor's requirements
were to determine a public need for the continued existence
of the commission and whether it operated in an efficient
and effective manner. The auditors found that the
commission met all of the requirements of the extension. He
pointed out that issues existed in the past but were
resolved. He stressed the difference between the public
disagreeing with a ruling from the RCA versus the
functionality of the commission. He reiterated that the
audit demonstrated that the commission was functioning well
and in accordance with statute.
Representative Hawker pointed to the appendices of the
audit (copy on file) on pages 23 to 30. He detailed that
the audit appendices were a survey of the users of the
agencies. The surveys showed how the agencies were serving
its stake holders and were an integral part of the
reauthorization audits. He understood that the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska was often disliked because individuals
disagreed with its rulings. He noted that the appendices
and details in the summary on page 18 of the audit reported
favorable comments and statistics in their ratings. As many
as 70 percent of the respondents gave a good or very good
rating for the RCA, with only 8 percent issuing unfavorable
ratings. He thought that the 70 percent rating was
remarkable considering that the RCA dealt with
controversial issues. He referenced Appendix C, page 31 of
the audit, which indicated that "the current structure of
regulatory cost charges were sufficient and adequate for
the organization to function." He emphasized that the
commission was operating "in the black" in addition to
meeting its statutory obligations for quality regulation
and protection of the public welfare.
Representative Hawker discussed the two issues noted in the
audit. Item one was a perennial issue that indicated that
the commission needed to undertake better documentation of
its review process. He pointed out that the documentation
process was an internal process within the agency and was
different than issues about the outcome of the commission's
regulatory process. The issue was a matter of "improving
its paperwork handling." He read the recommendation, "RCA's
chair should improve and enforce written procedures to
ensure case management." He summarized that the
recommendation was not a criticism of the commission's work
performance or regulatory activities.
Representative Hawker discussed the second recommendations
which dealt with regulatory dockets. He defined regulatory
dockets as "having a question asked and answered" as part
of the regulatory process. He read from the Second
recommendation: "The legislature should consider clarifying
AS 42.05.175(e) to ensure RCA fulfills legislative intent
when processing regulatory dockets." He maintained that the
RCA believed it was in compliance with the statute and
thought the issue was "a management debate." He alluded to
the historical problems which lead to the creation of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska and described its
beginnings as a "bumpy road."
1:50:40 PM
Representative Hawker acknowledged it was a long road to
develop the commission into what it was today. He asked the
committee to consider the commission as it operated
currently and asked the committee to help the RCA improve
and address the issues identified in the audit. He argued
that the agency had matured and merited the eight year
extension. He believed that the extension enhanced the
stability of the agency instead of operating under the
burden of uncertainty under one year extensions. He
strongly advocated for setting the agency free to function
with trust for the next eight years.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the smaller independent
companies that operated in the Cook Inlet region gaining
access to gaslines and with contractual obligations with
utility companies. He wondered whether some of the issues
were resolved.
Representative Hawker directed the question to the RCA. He
asked the committee members to consider the operations and
functioning of the commission whether or not individuals
agreed or disagreed with a ruling of the commission. He
added that the approval of long term gas supply contracts
in Cook Inlet had been problematic for him in his role as a
legislator. He reminded the committee that the Cook Inlet
Recovery Act [HB 280Natural Gas: Storage/ Tax Credits
Adopted 2010] removed the block that prevented the
commission from approving long term gas supply contracts.
The provision mandated that the RCA not only consider the
least expensive option, but examine how its decision
impacted the community. The cited statute was included in
many contract approvals published by the RCA since the law
was enacted. He believed that the commission played a large
role in the recent success of resource development and gas
supply in Cook Inlet.
Representative Gara viewed the bill as a non-controversial
agency extension issue.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT discussed the RCA sunset audit, dated
July 2013. She concurred that Legislative Audit concluded
that the RCA served the public's interest and recommended
the maximum 8 year extension allowed in statute. She
restated the two audit recommendations. The auditor
discovered high error rates in the commission's data and
recommended improvement. Secondly, Legislative Audit made a
recommendation to the legislature concerning clarification
regarding regulatory dockets. She delineated that RCA
recorded its activity in dockets. Statutes required the RCA
to issue final orders in a rule making docket within 730
days plus one 90 day extension. Statutes prohibited the
commission from "terminating a proceeding in a docket and
opening a proceeding in another docket on substantially the
same matter." The audit discovered instances where the RCA
split the rulemaking proceedings into two dockets:
· One docket considered the need for regulations. Once
public testimony was completed the docket was closed
· The second docket considered the adoption of
regulations. This process allowed the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska to take up to four and one half
years to complete proceedings.
Ms. Curtis added that "RCA management believes that
including clear intent language in a regulatory docket's
initiating order makes the process transparent and complies
with Alaska Statutes." Legislative Audit acknowledged that
the commissions dockets included clear intent language and
was transparent in that regard. She felt that the practice
evaded the statutory timelines and it appeared not to serve
the regulatory community or public's interest. The
legislature should consider clarifying the statute to
ensure RCA fulfills legislative intent when processing
regulatory dockets.
1:59:38 PM
TW PATCH, CHAIRMAN, REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA,
thanked the sponsors for advancing HB 234. He reported that
he was elected Chairman of the commission for 3 terms. He
felt that the agency had earned the legislator's trust and
requested the extension of the 8 year statutory maximum. He
appreciated the auditor and believed the audit was
"rigorous and thorough." He believed the commission earned
the entire 8 year extension. He understood the reason for
the previously shorter extensions. He relayed that the
legislature requested a report by the commission on how to
improve its process. The RCA filed the report on January
16, 2012 which included its goals and had complied with all
of them. In addition, the RCA filed a report on January 21,
2014. The report detailed the commission's completion of
four regulations dockets and how it worked cooperatively
with parties to early identify the complex issues in order
to achieve a shorter timeline for the rulings. The
commission continued to design and develop regulatory
practices that enabled generally shorter timelines but
still allowed "compilation of a sound statistical record."
Mr. Patch continued that the initial report demonstrated
that the utility dockets were managed according to the
statutorily prescribed timelines and completed within
approximately 450 days. He reported that over the last
three years the process was greatly improved and the
current year's utility dockets were completed in 311 days;
a reduction of nearly six months.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if utility dockets were rate
adjustment dockets.
Mr. Patch replied that the utility docket was when "a
revenue requirement was established or a rate design was
established." Utility dockets created the most anxiety
among the commissions "constituency." He related that the
regulated utility companies acknowledged that the process
was greatly improved and appreciated. The company's credit
ratings were enhanced by the shorter timeframe, which
created faster "regulatory and rate of return certainty."
The RCA improved its process without requested additional
funding or staff, enabling legislation, and without adverse
impacts to industry or companies.
Mr. Patch stated that the improvements were aided in part
by the Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy Sections of
the Department of Law and the utility companies. He
applauded the administration's commissioners and the RCA
staff for the majority of the effort. In addition the RCA
routinely assisted the legislature and other state agencies
on a number of important policy matters. Legislators
regularly consulted with the RCA on legislation related to
regulatory issues without addressing the "substance" of the
bills. He indicated that the commission had consulted on HB
280 [Natural Gas: Storage/ Tax Credits Adopted 2010], HB 4
[Alaska Gasline Development Corp; Regulatory Commission of
Alaska Adopted 2013], HB 9 [In-State Gasline Development
Corp 2012], and was currently consulting on SB 196/HB 340
RCA: Railbelt Electric Utility Report.
Mr. Patch listed the agencies the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska routinely assisted: The Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) on capacity development and public
health issues and procured funding from the rural utility
service; Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Oil and Gas
Division, and oversaw the state's pipelines regarding
safety conditions. The RCA assisted the AGDC with the
development of its tariff.
Mr. Patch strongly disagreed with the second recommendation
of the audit that the legislature should clarify the
timeline statute. He referenced a letter he wrote dated
September 4, 2013 stating the reasons he disagreed with the
finding.
2:10:12 PM
Mr. Patch cited docket R-10-002 from a regulatory
proceeding, and recounted that the subject matter
considered the need for regulations involving discovery. In
a subsequent docket, the subject matter was a proposal of
specific discovery regulations. He stressed that the RCA
and Department of Law (DOL) considered the subject matter
"two distinctly different questions." He assured the
committee that the commission had not evaded the
legislature's requirements. Both dockets were resolved in a
timely manner. He explained that the RCA had not developed
a process to gather preliminary information in order to
make a decision. The commission changed the process before
the audit and instituted a new docket called an "I docket"
or "information docket." The information dockets were now
regularly employed for preliminary scoping and decisions
and subsequently preceded to a regulations docket for the
adoption of regulations. He concluded that he disagreed
there was a need for legislative action.
NORMAN ROKEBERG, COMMISSIONER, REGULATORY COMMISSION OF
ALASKA, echoed the testimony of the Chairman Patch and the
sponsor. He believed that the operational progress under
the leadership of the chairman earned the legislature's
confidence in the ability of the commission to carry out
its work. He offered that the commission was able to carry
out its statutory mandates and the policy calls of the
legislature. He urged for adoption of the audits
recommendation to grant the 8 year extension.
Co-Chair Stoltze asserted that he did not always agree with
every decision the RCA made but had much confidence in the
commission's competence and decision making process.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted the mission of the RCA was to
oversee regulation of public utilities and pipeline
carriers. He questioned whether the commission addressed
issues of pipeline access by smaller utility companies.
Mr. Patch replied that access to pipelines was carried out
in a non-discriminatory manner. He assured the committee
that there was no difficulty in terms of accessing
pipelines. He shared that the commission was considering a
matter regarding the consolidation of the ownership,
management, and rate structure of Cook Inlet pipelines. He
did not know of any difficulty with small exploratory
companies accessing pipelines for the use of transporting
its product. He thought that the question asked was about
small producer's access to markets, which was different
than pipeline access. He shared that the RCA received
comments from small producers regarding the access to
markets. In addition, the commission was considering
another open docket in a preliminary stage, with the same
companies that expressed dissatisfaction with lack of
market access. He suggested that the legislators examine
"texts", pronouncements by commissioners on their view of
market access in RCA rulings. He offered to provide a link
for the open docket case to examine public materials. He
was unable to comment further on the open docket cases.
2:20:02 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the relationship with the
Division of Oil and Gas and small companies in Cook Inlet.
He had heard of unfair treatment and wondered whether the
commission was familiar with the issue.
Mr. Patch clarified that he was unaware of complaints
against the RCA or the Division of Oil and Gas.
Mr. Rokeberg followed up on the question related to gas
supply contracts in Cook Inlet. He expounded that the RCA
role was to approve or disapprove of the contracts. The
commission was prohibited to comment on issues related to
an active docket. He offered to provide members with copies
of his concurrence on issues related to tariff filings on
sales of gas by Hilcorp to Enstar, and Chugach Electric,
and a recent docket filing related to the issues of
independent exploration, development, and sales of gas in
Cook Inlet. The concurrence included a 20 year history of
the legislature's involvement to incent Cook Inlet gas
development. He noted the concurrence included multiple
comments regarding open access to the gasline between one
carrier and another. He informed the committee that
Chairman Patch alluded to the outstanding docket on an
Enstar tariff filing that concerned smaller independents
access. He expressed concern over the lack of opportunity
for small gas producers to sell into the market place. He
expressed additional concern about a "floor" for gas prices
to rate payers in Cook Inlet that was part of a recent
contract between a number of utilities and Hilcorp.
Representative Gara wondered whether the commission's
shorter time period for final rulings harmed the interest
of the consumer.
Mr. Patch responded that the primary mandate of the RCA was
rate regulation. The commission considered consumer
interests when determining rates. He explained that a
primary consumer interest was low rates and the other was
dependable, quality utility delivery. He understood that
most people would prefer lower utility bills. He sought a
balance between "a just and reasonable rate." He measured
the needs of the utility company and the needs and quality
of service for the consumer. He thought that the RCA did a
good job with rate regulation.
Representative Gara thanked the RCA commissioners for their
hard work.
2:30:09 PM
Mr. Patch returned the compliment and thanked the members
for their hard work.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about oversight of water utility
regulation. He remarked that often mayors of municipalities
tried to force individual's participation in municipal
water systems. He viewed the RCA as a force for consumer
protection to avoid "being force fed utility
participation." He asked for the commissioner's view on the
issue as a former legislator.
2:32:14 PM
AT EASE
2:32:22 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Rokeberg replied that his former district as well as
Representative Costello's had 3,000 to 5,000 residents
served by water wells or small water systems that were not
part of the municipal utility. The situation was common
throughout the state. He related the difficulty for the RCA
to assist small utilities. He felt that further policy was
needed related to rate regulation of smaller utilities.
Rate regulation by the RCA was burdensome and could be
expensive for a small group. He suggested that the
legislature may want to address the issue and to give the
commission the ability to create a tier system. He detailed
that many small water utilities wanted to qualify for the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act funding, which mandated
regulation by the commission to qualify. The desire to
provide safe drinking water drove the utility into
regulation that they may not want or could afford. He
thought that many of the legislators were familiar with the
situation.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the commission could address
the issue within the commission structure and was not
seeking an "outside solution."
Mr. Patch answered that the commission had adopted some
measures to address smaller water utilities water and
wastewater concerns. The RCA offered a provisional
certification that was available for rural areas. There
were certain things the commission could do, but the
commission lacked the statutory authority to "revise the
state drinking water act or to federal funding." He vowed
to discuss the issue with members of the rural utility
service Division of the United States Department of
Agriculture and DEC.
Co-Chair Stoltze reiterated his belief that the RCA played
a major role in the consumer protection against
consolidation of municipal water utilities.
Representative Guttenberg asked how the RCA came to the IGU
[Interior Gas Utility] ruling.
Mr. Patch suggested that the discussion take place at a
later time in a different forum after both parties read the
RCA's final order.
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed that Talkeetna received federal
funds for safe water and sewer, but struggled with
continued financing for the water and sewer utility. He
wondered what role the commission played in assisting
communities with similar issues.
Mr. Patch restated that consumer protection was one of the
commission's major concern. He was not prepared to address
the issue at present but would respond by letter shortly.
2:43:52 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Costello discussed the fiscal note, FN1
(CED) for the extension of the agency. In FY 15 the
expenditure was $9.430.8 million for 58 full time positions
and 4 temporary positions. In FY 16 the expenditure was
$9294.5 million for 58 full time positions and 3 temporary
positions. The fiscal impact repeated itself for the fiscal
years through 2020.
In response to a question by Representative Gara, Mr. Patch
indicated that the RCA was funded by a regulatory cost
charge, and not by the general fund. He explained that a
small component charge was added to each utility bill
collected by the utilities and forwarded to the Department
of Revenue for the commission's expenditures. In addition,
the commission may charge uncertificated utilities for the
commission's actual time. He stated that the charge was not
placed on the rate payers.
Representative Costello noted that the commission had a
surplus. She questioned whether the surplus funds were
expended by the RCA.
Mr. Patch replied that the surplus was rebated to
ratepayers as part of the RCC calculation for the
subsequent year.
2:50:17 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 234 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 234 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (CED).
2:51:52 PM
AT EASE
2:53:38 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to big bull moose derbies."
2:53:46 PM
Representative Tammy Wilson discussed the bill. She read
from the Sponsor Statement (copy on file).
House Bill 268 would allow the Tanana Valley Sportsmen
Association to raise funds for their organization and
the University of Fairbanks Nanooks Rifle team
equally. The big bull moose derby would be operated
much like other contests already allowed under
statute. This will take place during the annual moose
season, by individuals that have acquired all the
proper documentation already implemented by the State
of Alaska to stay within the legal boundaries of the
moose season. Participants must purchase a derby
ticket prior to the open day of the season…
The Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association (TVSA) is a
nonprofit organization that hosts training and
completion events for the nationally ranked University
of Alaska Nanooks Rifle Team as well as the local high
schools…
House Bill 268 would allow the raising of funds to
further the use of the TVSA club house and support the
efforts of the nationally ranked UAF Nanooks Rifle
team….
Representative Wilson explained that the rifle team had a
fire in its facility several years ago and was trying to
recover. Most of the team's funding was provided through
community support. She wished to provide opportunities for
the team to raise money without having to ask for state
assistance. She noted that HB 268 was changed from the
original version to include the Snow Town Ice Classic,
operated by the Advocates for Victims of Violence (AVV).
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute for HB 268 (FIN), Work Draft 28-
LS085\P (Martin 2/25/14). Representative Guttenberg
OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, CO-CHAIR STOLTZE, discussed the
committee substitute (CS). He explained that the CS
contained changes to Section 4 and Section 6, which
resulted in a title change. He read the addition to the
title on page 1, lines 1 to 2:
"…and relating to permits for games of chance and
contests of skill."
The title change was generated by the changes to Section 4,
page 3, lines 20 through 26:
… (big) bull moose derbies, and king salmon classics,
a permit may not be issued for an activity [MAY NOT BE
LICENSED] under this chapter unless it existed in the
state in substantially the same form and was conducted
in substantially the same manner before January 1,
1959. A permit may not be issued for a snow machine
classic [MAY NOT BE LICENSED] under this chapter
unless it has been in existence for at least five
years before the permit is issued [LICENSING]. A
permit may not be issued for an [AN] animal classic
[MAY NOT BE LICENSED] under this chapter.
Mr. George furthered that references to "permits" replaced
preferences to "licensed." The Department of Revenue (DOR)
advised that the language was more consistent with existing
statute. He noted that in Section 6, page 4, line 16 the
words "for harvesting bull moose" were removed and the word
"moose" prior to the word "antlers" was added.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
2:59:53 PM
GRANT LEWIS, TANANA VALLEY SPORTSMAN ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS
(via teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. He
recounted that the club was founded in 1911. The
association was incorporated as a non-profit in 1937. The
association hosted the local high school team practices and
competitions and had its own youth shooting club with 100
members. The association taught gun safety and
marksmanship. In addition, three other high school and two
middle school shooting clubs used the facility. The money
earned from the derby would be split between the club and
the University to help maintain the facility and to support
the youth programs.
DAN JORDAN, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, COACH, NANOOKS
RIFLE TEAM (via teleconference), testified in favor of the
legislation. He stated that the club won multiple national
championships. He stated that over the years seven team
members had participated in the Olympics. Team members won
medals in the last Olympic Games. He noted that he was
always searching for new ways to find funding for the
program and was working on the derby concept for 9 years.
He thought teaming up with TVSA and the youth in the
community was a "win-win" situation.
Representative Guttenberg expressed congratulations for the
team's national qualification. He asked how the team
planned to operate the derby.
Mr. Jordan replied that team would work in conjunction with
TVSA and use its gaming permit. He hoped to develop a
website and organize the derby in a similar fashion as the
halibut derby in Valdez.
MIKE TINKER, TANANA VALLEY SPORTSMAN ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS
(via teleconference), testified in favor of the
legislation. He was a supporter of the university team. He
noted that TVSA had other gaming permits in the past. The
association diligently prepared for the legislation's
gaming permit. The association enthusiastically supported
the event and was looking forward to the next step. He
appreciated the committee's consideration of HB 268.
Co-Chair Stoltze commended the association's process to
ensure the legislation was properly vetted.
MEL BOWEN, DIRECTOR, ADVOCATES FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE,
VALDEZ (via teleconference), supported the legislation. She
described the program. The Advocates for Victims of
Violence (AVV) was one of twenty programs that provided
services for victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault for 18 communities from Glennallen to Valdez. The
programs costs had risen over $20 thousand within the last
year. State funding was divided between 20 programs in the
state. The program would need an additional $25 thousand
over the current state funding level. She hoped to meet the
projected shortfall with eligibility to receive funding
from the snow classic. She wanted to avoid cuts to program
services or turning away victims.
DARRELL VERFAILLIE, DIRECTOR, PARKS, RECREATION, AND
CULTURAL SERVICES, VALDEZ (via teleconference), voiced that
the City of Valdez would not receive any revenues from the
event. The department would coordinate and assist with the
event on behalf of AVV. The classic would help generate AVV
revenues and bolster the department's winter offerings.
3:11:07 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
JOSEPH KOSS, TAX AUDITOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), discussed the
changes in the CS. He explained that the gaming statute
contained three sections and all three were contained in HB
268, which listed the legal gaming activities in the state.
The first two sections concerned permitting gaming
activities and the third section dealt with licensing. He
delineated that DOR licensed operators who conduct
activities on behalf of permittees and granted permits to
organizations to conduct the gaming activities. The changes
allowed consistency between Section 3 and Sections 1 and 2.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that a description of the gaming
activity was typically described in statute. He asked
whether the description was contained in the bill.
Mr. Koss replied that the Snow Town Ice Classic was
included in the basic ice classic definition in Section 5
of the legislation.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the many different
classics events in the state. He indicated that the moose
derby involved hunting big game. He asked if the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG) was consulted.
Representative Wilson clarified that DFG was consulted. The
derby would take place during the regular moose hunting
season. Participants could guess the spread of the antlers
without hunting. The event was taking advantage of hunting
that was already going on. She mentioned extensive
discussion in the House Resources Committee. The event
could merely be a game of chance based on the data from
hunters after they documented their moose and did not add
additional work for the department.
Representative Guttenberg clarified that his concern was
whether hunting behavior would be changed.
Representative Wilson understood that the hunting patterns
were currently tracked by the department and much
discussion regarding the issue took place in the previous
committee. She surmised that if a hunter was trophy hunting
instead of hunting for food the hunter already was engaged
in that type of behavior. She thought that the event would
not alter hunting behavior.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether guided trophy
hunters would be eligible.
Representative Wilson relayed that only employees of DFG
were ineligible to participate. The operator of the gaming
event had the prerogative to exclude any group.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that the legislature
conventionally included the rules of conduct in statute. He
wished to see a description of the activities in the
legislation. He thought that Alaskans were hesitant about
gaming expansions although non-profit games of chance were
generally accepted.
3:20:05 PM
Representative Gara asked whether DFG would discuss the
potential game population impacts.
Co-Chair Stoltze answered that the premise of the bill was
a function of DOR concerning gaming and games of chance. He
wondered why the legislation was referred to the House
Resources Committee since it did not pertain to resource
management issues.
Representative Wilson addressed the ice classic portion of
the legislation. She pointed out that the event was
described on page 3 of the legislation. She read the
following:
"…ice classic" means a game of chance where a prize of
money is awarded for the closest guess of the time the
ice moves in a body of water or watercourse in the
state and is limited to the Nenana and Chena Ice Pools
in the same…"
Representative Wilson added that the event was very similar
to the Nenana Ice Classic.
Representative Wilson addressed Representative Gara's
question. She detailed that DFG examined the bill due to
the title and found the legislation acceptable. She
restated that the bill would not affect any changes in the
way the department carried out moose hunts nor would it add
any additional permits. She reiterated that most people
hunt for meat and a few might hunt for trophy but she
didn't believe the bill would change any hunting behavior.
She relayed that DFG had not raised any objections.
3:23:16 PM
Representative Gara wondered whether DFG would have
authority to cancel the derby to protect the moose
population in a time of shortage.
Co-Chair Stoltze deduced that DFG managed game and not the
gaming regulation portion of the derby.
Representative Wilson stated that the moose population
would determine the number of permits. The department
routinely provided permits based on the moose population.
She stated that DFG historically had closed areas. She
emphasized that the derby could not increase the amount of
hunters or effort due to the limited number of moose
hunting permits. The department would act in the best
interest of the resource for the state regardless of a
derby.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that the Board of Game set the
allowable harvest within certain regions of the state. The
bill merely allowed community members to enter the derby,
support the organizations, engage in family activities, and
enjoy the outdoors.
Representative Wilson concurred.
JOHANNA BALES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), clarified that
Representative Wilson explained exactly how the legislation
would work. She concurred that the definition of ice
classic was included in the bill and that the derby did not
affect the permitting process with DFG.
3:28:58 PM
Representative Costello noted that the new Department of
Revenue fiscal note showed no fiscal impact.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 268(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note.
CSHB 268(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a no
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue.
ADJOURNMENT
3:30:39 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.