Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/09/2000 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2000
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All member present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, to
the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the disposal of state
agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural Resource
Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 116(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 7(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land,
and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional
state land."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 7(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act relating to the migratory game bird conservation tag, to
a nonresident combined sport fishing and hunting license, to the
nonresident military small game and sport fishing license, to
applications for certain licenses, tags, and permits issued by
the Department of Fish and Game, and to duplicate crewmember
licenses."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/26/99 324 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/26/99 324 (H) RES, FIN
3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/14/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/21/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
1/24/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
1/24/00 (H) Heard & Held
1/24/00 (H) MINUTE(RES)
1/31/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
1/31/00 (H) <Bill Postponed>
2/09/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/08/99 14 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99
1/19/99 15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 15 (S) RES, FIN
1/25/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
1/25/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
1/25/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/01/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/01/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
2/01/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/99 (S) MOVED CS OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/05/99 165 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 3NR SAME TITLE
2/05/99 165 (S) DP: MACKIE, TAYLOR, GREEN, PETE KELLY
2/05/99 165 (S) NR: HALFORD, PARNELL, LINCOLN
2/05/99 165 (S) FN TO SB (DNR), FNS TO SB & CS
(UA, F&G)
2/05/99 165 (S) FN TO CS (DNR)
2/25/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/25/99 (S) <BILL POSTPONED>
3/04/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/04/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/04/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/23/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/23/99 (S) MOVED CS(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/23/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/24/99 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/24/99 (S) -- MEETING CANCELLED --
4/26/99 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/26/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/26/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/26/99 1085 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
4/26/99 1086 (S) DP: TORGERSON, WILKEN, LEMAN, DONLEY,
4/26/99 1086 (S) PETE KELLY; NR: PHILLIPS, ADAMS
4/26/99 1086 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (DNR, UA, F&G)
5/03/99 1202 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 5/3/99
5/03/99 1203 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
5/03/99 1203 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1203 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y11 N9
5/03/99 1204 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1204 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1205 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1205 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 7(FIN) AM
5/03/99 1205 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, MACKIE, WARD
5/03/99 1206 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
5/03/99 1206 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
5/04/99 1239 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
5/04/99 1239 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
5/05/99 1175 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/05/99 1175 (H) RES, FIN
5/05/99 1187 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HALCRO
5/12/99 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
5/12/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/12/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
5/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
5/14/99 (H) FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
5/14/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
5/18/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
5/18/99 (H) MEETING CANCELED
2/07/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/07/00 Text (H) Heard & Held
2/07/00 Text (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/09/00 Text (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 116.
PETE FELLMAN, Legislative Aide
for Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the proposed CS for
HB 116.
BILL WARD
Ward Farms
P.O. Box 1087
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed CS for
HB 116.
ROB WELLS, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Division of
Agriculture and the Department on Natural Resources on the
proposed CS for HB 116.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Department of
Natural Resources the proposed CS for HB 116.
SIG RESTAD
HC03 Box 9571
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained concerns and testified in support
of the proposed CS for HB 116.
LORALI MEIER, Staff
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 126
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide for the House Resources
Standing Committee, explained the changes in HCS CSSB 7(RES),
Version V.
JIM POUND, Legislative Aide
for Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefly discussed SB 7 on behalf of the
prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR MASEK called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Cowdery, Harris,
Morgan, Barnes, Whitaker, Joule and Kapsner.
HB 116 - BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
Number 0116
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation, to the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the
disposal of state agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural
Resource Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0162
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 116, reported that some of the concerns that were brought
up in the last meeting had been resolved. She indicated she had
worked with the Division of Agriculture to try to resolve any
disputes. She noted that the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 116 before them is version 1-LS0407\XXX, Cook, 2/9/00.
She explained that the big focus was simply to put in a Board of
Agriculture and Conservation that would consist of people who
have direct knowledge of agricultural interests, and to have them
be in charge of the policies and regulations which they work
under with continuity from administration to administration.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES emphasized the word "conservation" in the
board's name, in order to tell the world that they are not just
users of the land but are also taking care of the land in the
process. She stated that the crux of the whole bill is to be
able to have the Board of Agriculture and Conservation hire the
director of the Division of Agriculture; therefore, there
wouldn't be any break in the continuity of the policies within
administrations.
Number 0378
CO-CHAIR HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
116, version 1-LS0407\XXX, Cook, 2/9/00, as a work draft. There
being no objection, Version XXX was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that there needs to be a nexus
between the Board of Agriculture and Conservation and the
administration, principally the commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR); therefore, they put that back in the
bill. The commissioner of DNR is added as a board member, and
legislative confirmation of the board is not required anymore;
however, the governor can remove a board member only for cause.
The sole authority for the Board of Agriculture and Conservation
to make decisions on Title 38 lands, agricultural lands, has been
removed and left with the Division of Mining, Land and Water;
however, the board must be consulted prior to any such decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY requested clarification on the makeup of
the board and wondered what is meant by, "Four from different
enterprises in commercial production agriculture."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that it would be someone from one
of the agricultural activities. Be it someone who raises carrots
or cows, it would be someone who is familiar with the needed
regulations and policies. She further stated that the board is
going to be making decisions on the Agricultural Revolving Loan
Fund (ARLF) applicants; whether or not the interest rate should
be changed; and those types of decisions. Since they are pulling
from a small pool of possible applicants, it is likely that some
of them already have an ARLF [loan] or have a contract to
purchase land from the state, for example. She pointed out that
it would really reduce the pool of possible applicants if they
eliminated anyone who had those existing obligations, and [would
be] a disadvantage to the bill. This is a compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES drew attention to the sectional analysis.
Under Section 1 it reads:
A person may be appointed to the board even though that
person or an immediate family member has an existing
lease, permit, or loan for which the board is
responsible, but that person may not participate in any
board action that directly affects that lease, permit,
or loan. While serving on the board, and for one year
after leaving that office, a board member or an
immediate family member of a board member may not
obtain a new lease, permit, or loan for which the board
is responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she believes it really closes the
door to the ethics issue in a way that is meaningful and
measurable. She added that the board's authority to hire the
director of the Division of Agriculture is unchanged, and that is
the one remaining dispute with the Administration. The
Administration's recommendation was to have the Board of
Agriculture and Conservation suggest three names for them to
choose from and let them appoint the director of the Division of
Agriculture. She emphasized that it would totally undo the
purpose of HB 116, which is to keep long-term continuity in DNR
between administrations.
Number 0833
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the
sectional analysis. She asked Representative James to explain
how she is amending the existing interest rates on the farm
loans.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that she believes the interest
rate is at 8 percent on the ARLF loans. The purpose is that an
interest rate over time is not necessarily always representative
of the current situation out there in the public; when the
interest is too high, no one borrows any money, and the ARLF does
make money from loaning money. Therefore, the ARLF makes more
money if there is an interest rate that is competitive with other
farm loan entities that give loans.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that in the sectional analysis
under Section 6 it reads, "... amends existing statute, making
the interest rate on farm development, chattel, or irrigation
loans comparable to that charged by other agricultural lending
institutions in the state." She wondered what other agricultural
lending institutions in the state are comparable to the ARLF.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that there is the Farm Service
Agency, an old federal program that is not financed by the
federal government anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stressed that if, in fact, they are
lowering the interest rates, then she is not going to support the
bill, because she is sick of all the money that they have pumped
into the farms. Although she supports farming, a lot of money
has been spent on farming in the state, and if the interest rate
is being changed, then she wants to know it.
Number 1139
PETE FELLMAN, Legislative Aide for Representative John Harris,
Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that the Alaska Rural
Rehabilitation Corporation (ARRC) and the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) are the current lending corporations in Alaska. The AARC
determines its interest rates based on whether the loan is a
short-term or long-term loan. By making the interest rate
comparable to those available through other agricultural lending
institutions, the interest rate may go up.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why, if another lending institution
can give a loan for less money, someone would borrow money from
the ARLF.
MR. FELLMAM replied that it is an option for anyone who wants to
borrow money for a farming operation. He explained that what
they are trying to accomplish is to make the ARLF more
competitive, because the Division of Agriculture is funded solely
by the ARLF.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES reiterated that every dime that is in the
ARLF belongs to Alaska and its people, and to have a board that
is not confirmed by the legislature or appointed by the governor
controlling the money and establishing interest rates is totally
beyond her.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the board is appointed by the
governor on a revolving basis. She said she understands
Representative Barnes' concerns and the trauma that she went
through during that process of spending a lot of money to create
an agricultural situation that was unrealistic. However, as a
result of that, there are farmers now on land that they have
purchased, and they are the survivors. The industry has the
potential to be healthy; there are weeds growing on land that
could be in production if there were a system to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the issue of the Division
of Agriculture's being supported out of the ARLF is - and
Representative Barnes is correct - state money that was put in
there for that purpose; however, it is not now considered to be
general funds, and for the last few years the entire Division of
Agriculture has been funded by the ARLF. If the ARLF can
continue to make money and fund the Division of Agriculture, it
eliminates the ability to take new funds to support the division.
She pointed out that the big fear is that if they did have to
come up with new funds to support the Division the Agriculture,
the division would disappear, and there does need to be a
Division of Agriculture, because there need to be regulatory
policies in order to have successful agricultural occupations in
the state. The whole idea is to extend the ARLF to take care of
the Division of Agriculture so that it is making its own way;
with its being managed by people directly involved in
agriculture, they can support themselves over the long term.
Number 1476
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES reiterated that every dime in the ARLF
comes from general fund dollars. She also said the farmers are
not a new generation of farmers; they are the same farmers that
have been borrowing money since the land was disposed of in Big
Delta. She referred to Senator Lyda Green's bill and said they
had worked on it and tried to iron out the problems so that
farmers could go to the banks and borrow money, and she supported
it. However, she does not support taking state money and making
it any less viable for those farms to get those loans. She
stated that she supports the virus-free potatoes and the exports,
but that there does need to be some control over the loans - and
she believes that all controls are being removed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed that the controls are being
removed. She said that she believes more control and more
options are being given for the ARLF to be a more successful loan
program so that it is competitive. The hope is that they will be
able to sustain the income of the ARLF to continue to support the
Division of Agriculture and not have to come back and beg for any
money.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated she hopes that is the case. She
pointed out the history: when controls and oversight are
removed, and when the money is gone, they are back asking for a
handout.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the money that is used out of
the ARLF still has to be appropriated by the legislature. She
said that she understands that it is specific language that
Representative Barnes is distressed with, because setting an
interest rate in statute has more credibility than having a
floating rate that makes it be competitive with other areas. She
indicated that the only change in the overall picture is going
from a governor-appointed political appointee to determining what
the policies are and having a board whom they believe would be
more conservative and more realistic on the decision-making
process. The debate is over whether the ARLF should be made
competitive or should be left in statute as it is, and whether
that is good or bad for tomorrow. She added that she believes it
should be made competitive.
Number 1755
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what the purpose is of Section 13 of
the sectional analysis, where it reads, "A loan may not be made
without the approval of a majority of the board, except that
emergency loans up to $50,000 may be approved by majority vote of
a committee composed of the board chair, another board member,
and the director."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that there may be emergency
loans necessary. This way, they would not have to call all of
the board members together, with the extra expense and [concerns
about] timing.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Section 14 of the sectional
analysis, where it exempts the new board from a public meeting
requirement. She asked what the thinking is on that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is referring to the notice
requirement for the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that it says "public meeting
requirements." She said that she assumes that could be almost
anything.
Number 1900
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY requested clarification on the interest
rate. He pointed out that farmers are going to want to know the
total cost of the loan, which would be difficult to know if there
were a fluctuating rate. He asked whether he was correct in
thinking that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said they are not advocating for a floating
rate. They are advocating that there be a rate established at
the time the loan is made which is a binding interest rate unless
there is some subsequent reason why it should be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY pointed out that at the time the loan is
made, the interest rate would be whatever the competitive rate is
at the time; it is not actually a fixed rate.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is correct. I would be fixed by
the policy at this time, but it could be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated that he is glad to hear that it
is flexible.
Number 2177
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered if it is a subsidized loan
program that is being considered.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if there was any consideration of
newly allocated state general funds.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered if it is fair to say that
commercial lenders in Alaska would find it difficult to lend to
the agricultural sector.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that in the kind of loans that
they give. the answer is yes, but in real estate loans they can
probably get (indisc.--coughing).
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER replied that it is because these loans
are short-term, special loans.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER pointed out that given that there are few
and limited borrowing alternatives, farmers really do not have a
choice.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that it is a real lifesaver for
the "little person."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER pointed out that since no alternative
exists for the little person and there is no additional cost to
the state, what Representative James is proposing might be
reasonable in that it provides competitive agricultural lending.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she believes it does.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered if that is the basic premise of
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that the basic premise of the bill
is [having] the board of directors manage the money. But in
order for them to have the tools to make intelligent decisions,
they have to have the authority.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER concluded that it seems reasonable.
Number 2314
CO-CHAIR HUDSON wondered how much money is currently available in
the ARLF.
MR. FELLMAN responded that it is $6 million.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON wondered if that is the entire corpus of the fund
or just the interest that is available.
MR. FELLMAN responded that it is the entire corpus of the fund.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON wondered what the interest rate is for other
active institutions that loan money for this purpose.
MR. FELLMAN said it varies and is determined by the type of loan.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON requested clarification that the interest rate is
set in statute now at 8 percent, but that there are other rates
out there, so it should be done on some sort of comparative
[basis], at the determination of the board. He wondered if
anyone else can make that determination, like a quorum of the
board members.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is correct. A quorum of the
board, which includes the commissioner of DNR, can make that
determination.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON requested clarification that the commissioner is
a voting member of the board.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES affirmed that.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON said that presumably the Administration would
have a voice there.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied yes.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked what is being said in Section 23 of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that in Section 23 they are not
changing any law. They are inserting the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation as the advisor to the process.
Number 2539
BILL WARD, Ward Farms, testified via teleconference from Delta
Junction, where he is a farmer. He said he has supported the
bill in the past but has some additional testimony. He informed
the committee that the Administration has been actively involved
in the bill ever since its inception in 1996. He pointed out
that Commissioner John Shively and the director of the Division
of Agriculture have been involved in this ever since the
beginning, and they have had the opportunity to look at it.
MR. WARD said that with regard to having the board hire the
director of the [Division] of Agriculture, he believes that there
should be some continuity with the director from administration
to administration. He explained that one of the reasons this
legislation came forward is that the people involved in
agriculture have been given the message from the legislature that
the general fund will not be available to run the division; the
only funds available are those appropriated from the ARLF
account, and when those funds run out, the division may expire.
MR. WARD pointed out that the other message they have been given
is from the Administration: they will not actively pursue
general funding for the Division of Agriculture unless the
legislature gives it to them, which they've said they will not.
He said that they are left looking at a dwindling corpus of the
fund; therefore, they will be able to do an adequate job
protecting the ARLF, because they know that it is the last pot of
money from which to draw. He added that he supports the proposed
CS for HB 116 and still feels that it is a good bill, even though
it has been watered down, picked at, and pulled apart.
Number 2905
ROB WELLS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from Palmer. He
said that Representative James did a good job of pointing out the
concerns that the Administration has with the bill.
TAPE 00-8, SIDE B
Number 2915
MR. WELLS offered to answer questions, noting that cash reserves
of $6,700,000 are available for lending at this point. Total
value of the fund is at $28 million, which includes outstanding
loans and assets in possession, such as farms that they have
received back through foreclosures.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON remarked that he finds it refreshing to see the
amount and the diversity of agricultural activity that is going
on in the state. He said he supports anything that will elevate
agriculture and in-state production. He wondered if there is any
diminishment in the bill of the state's loan management
activities.
MR. WELLS responded that a legislative audit done on the ARLF was
released, and it pointed out a few areas of improvement. He
indicated that the audit reflects that the ARLF is being managed
conservatively by the existing board members and director. He
confirmed that there is concern in the industry with the lack of
general funding, and once they run out of the assets that they
can sell to keep the fund balance where it is, it is possible
that the fund's cash reserves will be gone and the Division of
Agriculture will not be able to operate anymore.
MR. WELLS said they don't necessarily have any problems with
letting the interest rate not be fixed at 8 percent. He pointed
out their "good borrower credit," which allows the director, on
an annual basis, to give up to a 2 percent interest rate
reduction; however, whenever issuing a new loan, they want it to
be at a fixed rate so that they don't have to hire additional
staff to manage moveable-rate loans. He explained that the real
issues that they have concerns about .... [Testimony was cut off
due to a teleconference malfunction.]
Number 2630
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Division of Support Services, Department
of Natural Resources, stated that they have been working with
Representative James to try to come to an agreement; however,
they are still in a disagreement on the function of the board in
hiring the director and what kind of relationship the department
would have with that. She indicated DNR does not support the
construction of the board. Commissioner John Shively has been
interested in the development of the board, and the department
has played a part in the development of the bill. Ms. Carroll
pointed out that when they saw the last rendition of the bill,
they thought perhaps they could get involved, because it looked
like they may be able to come to some agreement that would be
good for agriculture in the state. [Part of her testimony was
lost due to teleconference malfunction.]
Number 2482
CO-CHAIR HUDSON pointed out that somewhere along the line, they
have to trust the people who have a vested interest in the state.
He said that he believes it is a constructive bill, and he does
not think that it is trying to shut the Administration out of the
policy-making process.
MS. CARROLL responded that it isn't that they don't trust people;
it is the ability for an Administration to have some sort of
discretion over policy. She pointed out that Commissioner John
Shively was not averse to having the board act like the Board of
Forestry, which interviews candidates for the job and makes
"picks" for the commissioner, who then chooses from that pool of
candidates.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON stressed the need to let the industry have a
stronger say regarding how they will rehabilitate the industry.
Number 2299
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS agreed with Representative Hudson. He
pointed out that part of what the agricultural community is
calling for is a continuity over the years from administration to
administration. He pointed out that the intent of the board is
to provide some of that, and he does not understand why the DNR
is so concerned with losing some control.
MS. CARROLL replied that she understands his point, but that the
department does not think, philosophically, that it will work.
Number 2125
SIG RESTAD testified via teleconference from Palmer. He said
that he is affiliated with the grange. He stated that he has no
objection to the way the bill is written at the present time.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony.
Number 2012
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move CSHB 116, version 1-
LS0407\XXX, Cook, 2/9/00, out of committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no
objection, CSHB 116(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
SB 7 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
Number 1955
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 7(FIN) am, "An Act relating to the
University of Alaska and university land, and authorizing the
University of Alaska to select additional state land."
Number 1933
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt proposed HCS for
CSSB 7(RES), version 1-LS0072\V, for discussion. There being no
objection, it was so ordered and Version V was before the
committee.
LORALI MEIER, Staff to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State
Legislature, serving as committee aide for the House Resources
Standing Committee, explained that Version V incorporates
Representative Masek's amendment offered in the meeting of
February 7, 2000. The new language is on page 4, and two other
changes simply make the rest of the bill conform to the changes
made on page 4. On page 4, line 26, it read:
A list of selections submitted may not be considered
approved for conveyance to the University of Alaska
unless the legislature acts to approve the list during
the legislative session during which the list was
submitted.
MS. MEIER noted that the cleanup language appears on page 8. On
line 13, "of the later" was removed. On line 14, "or the
adjournment of the legislative session during which the list
containing the land was not disapproved by the legislature" was
removed. On line 19, "of the later" was removed. And on lines
20-22, the language was removed that read "or the adjournment of
the legislative session during which the list containing the land
was not disapproved by the legislature."
Number 1562
JIM POUND, Legislative Aide for Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, testified briefly on behalf of Senate Taylor,
the prime sponsor. He indicated Senator Taylor will work with
both sides on the matter to achieve a university land bill that
everyone can be proud of. He explained that the goals are to
transfer the selection process of state land for the University
of Alaska and to show good faith to Congress. He urged members
to move HCS CSSB 7(RES), Version V, from committee.
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HCS CSSB 7(RES),
version 1-LS0072\V, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected and stated that he has some
concerns with the bill as it relates to the other boroughs
involved.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Whitaker, Harris,
Cowdery, Hudson and Masek voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representatives Morgan, Barnes, Joule and Kapsner voted against
it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 7(RES) moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-4.
Number 1264
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that she believes in the disposal
of state lands, but that in the disposal of state lands they have
to be careful in how they are disposing of it so that the returns
come to the state. She added that she has always had concerns
with the bill. [HCS CSSB 7(RES) was moved from committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1172
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK adjourned the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|