Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/30/1995 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1995
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Ivan
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 1: "An Act relating to state implementation of federal
statutes."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 267: "An Act relating to review and expiration of regulations;
and providing for an effective date.
HEARD AND HELD
SB 92: "An Act requiring that, in addition to its operating
budget, all activities of the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation are subject to the Executive Budget Act.
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 269: "An Act relating to credits against certain taxes for
contributions to certain public educational radio and
television networks and stations and to endowments for
public educational radio and television networks; and
providing for an effective date.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 5: "An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of voting
booths employed in elections and the color of ballots
used in state primary elections.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 270: "An Act relating to retirement incentive programs for the
public employees' retirement system and the teachers'
retirement system; relating to separation incentives for
certain state employees; and providing for an effective
date."
BILL POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 1
CHARLES MCKEE
P. O. Box 143452
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
Telephone: None
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 1
DELORES FIELDS, Member
Alaska Independence Party
2050 Resolution Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: 322-2720
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 1 and HB 267
ART GRISWOLD, Member
Alaska Independence Party
873 Runamuck Ave
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: 488-7805
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 1 and HB 267
DALE ANDERSON, Representative
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
BOB BARTHOLEMEW, Deputy Director
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0420
Telephone: 276-5364
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
WILLIS F. KIRKPATRICK, Director
Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110807
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: 465-2521
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
SHARON BARTON, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110208
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: 465-2277
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: None
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 267
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Assistant
Representative Martin
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 92
TOM WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant
Senator Frank
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 92
MICHAEL CHEVALIER, Housing Director
Anchorage Neighborhood Housing
3700 Woodland Drive No. 500
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: 243-1558
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 92
CYNTHIA PARKER, Executive Director
Anchorage Neighborhood Housing
3700 Woodland Drive #500
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: 243-1558
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
ROBIN HARRISON, Executive Director
Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority
Barrow, Alaska
Telephone: 852-0290
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
BOB MAXWELL
126 Boaters Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: 479-0592
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
DAN FAUSKE, Corporate Executive Officer
Alaska Housing and Finance Corporation
P.O. Box 101020
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: 564-9326
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
JAN SIEBERTS, Senior Vice President
National Bank of Alaska
P.O. Box 100600
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: 265-2991
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
SUE BENEDETTI, President
Alaska Mortgage Bankers Association
P.O. Box 100720
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: 273-5637
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
JOHN EGAN, Volunteer President
Housing First
231 Gastineau Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 463-3303
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
TAMARA ROWCROFT, General Manager
Alaska Housing Development Corporation
1800 Northwood Ave
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 780-4533
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
Representative Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 269
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 1
SHORT TITLE: REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Kelly,Halford,Sharp
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 12 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 13 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/07/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/07/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/95 204 (S) STA RPT 2DP 2NR
02/08/95 204 (S) FN(S):DOT #9,REV #13,DPS #14
LAW #15
02/08/95 204 (S) DHSS #16, F&G #17, DCRA #18
02/08/95 204 (S) ZERO FN(S): (DNR #1, DMVA #2,
DOE #3,#4,
02/08/95 204 (S) CORR #5,DCED #6,ADM #7,GOV #8,LABOR
02/08/95 204 (S) #10, F&G #11, DEC #12)
02/08/95 209 (S) JUD REFERRAL WAIVED
02/08/95 209 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/02/95 454 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 3NR
03/02/95 454 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.FIN/ALL
DEPTS #19)
03/02/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 520
03/03/95 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/03/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/08/95 537 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/8/95
03/08/95 539 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/08/95 539 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING MOTION
WITHDRAWN
03/08/95 539 (S) THIRD READING 3/9 CALENDAR
03/09/95 559 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 1
03/09/95 559 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
03/09/95 565 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/10/95 696 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/10/95 696 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/15/95 755 (H) WTR REFERRAL ADDED
03/22/95 868 (H) WTR REFERRAL WAIVED
03/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 779 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 779 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/20/95 825 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 92
SHORT TITLE: AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/95 349 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/95 349 (S) STA, FIN
02/28/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/28/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/95 436 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/01/95 436 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV #1)
03/15/95 617 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR
03/15/95 617 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (REV #1)
03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/16/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/17/95 664 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/17/95
03/17/95 666 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/17/95 666 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/17/95 666 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 92
03/17/95 666 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/17/95 679 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/95 802 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 802 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE: TAX CREDIT: GIFTS TO PUBLIC BROADCASTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN,Bunde,Foster,Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/20/95 813 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 813 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/24/95 920 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
03/29/95 987 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 5
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION BALLOTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY,Salo
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 14 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 14 (S) STA, FIN
02/14/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/14/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/16/95 315 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/16/95 315 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV #1)
03/02/95 454 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR (STA)CS
03/02/95 454 (S) ZERO FN (GOV #1)
03/02/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 520
03/03/95 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/03/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/14/95 600 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/14/95
03/14/95 603 (S) HELD TO 3/15 CAL FOR 2ND RDG
03/15/95 619 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/15/95 619 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/15/95 619 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/15/95 619 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 5(STA)
03/15/95 619 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/15/95 635 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/17/95 764 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 765 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 270
SHORT TITLE: RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/20/95 813 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 814 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/20/95 814 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
03/20/95 814 (H) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS)
03/20/95 814 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-38, SIDE A
Number 000
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:06 a.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ogan,
Green and Porter. Representatives Ivan, Willis and Robinson
arrived later.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES stated there was a quorum present and
announced the first bill on the agenda was SB 1. She called
Senator Robin Taylor, as the bill sponsor, to testify.
SB 1 - REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR introduced himself and commented about an
airline whose brakes failed with him as a passenger in Petersburg.
He said he introduced SB 1 as a companion bill to his Tenth
Amendment resolution, SJR 7. He stated this resolution demands
that the U.S. Congress stop passing legislation which exceeds its
authority under the Tenth Amendment of our Constitution. SB 1, he
said, is an attempt to identify federal mandates, both statutory
and regulatory, to see which of these conflict with the policies of
our state and the limits of our state Constitution. He commented
he thought the agencies would be doing this already, but received
all sorts of strange fiscal notes, indicating how much expense this
would be the implement. He said, hopefully, this would provide
them with a vehicle to focus their attention on those mandates
worth reviewing. He stated SB 1 would require an annual review by
the Executive Branch of each program mandated by Congress and audit
by the Governor. The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee would
adopt conclusions and make recommendations for changes in the
federal law to make a program more consistent with state policy or
more cost-effective. At the same time, a determination could also
be made with the Department of Law, to see if the mandate exceeds
federal authority under the Tenth amendment. He stated Section 1
of the bill finds there is an urgent need for this review and the
bill also allows for legislative review of federal mandates and the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee would be charged with making
those recommendations. He thought SB 1 would add credence to the
legislatures passage of SJR 7. He pointed out the Senate Finance
Committee zeroed out the various fiscal notes submitted by the
different agencies of state government. They felt the information
for conducting this review were already available to the agencies,
and so there was no need for additional staff. On March 9, the
Senate passed SB 1 by vote of 11 to 8. He urged quick passage of
the bill from committee and expressed appreciation to Chair
Jeannette James for hearing the bill.
Number 075
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions from the committee
for Senator Taylor. She asked if anyone else wished to testify on
the bill.
CHARLES MCKEE testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying
he approved of this bill as it could relieve the impact of federal
intrusion on many different entities, from the permanent fund to
the oil industry. He thought this bill made a slight attempt to
redress his fiscal difficulties and would help the legislature in
dealing with the state budget.
Number 141
DELORES FIELDS, Member, Alaska Independence Party stated she was a
proud member of the Alaska Independence Party and supported SB 1,
because federal mandates needed to be reviewed before being
implemented by the state. She thought the mandates coming from the
federal government did not always comply with the policies of the
state.
Number 170
CHAIR JAMES recognized the arrival of Representatives Willis and
Ivan at 8:11 a. m. She asked if there was anyone else wishing to
testify on teleconference.
ART GRISWOLD, Member, Alaska Independence Party, said he also
wanted to testify in favor of SB 1. He mentioned he was speaking
on behalf of the Interior Region of the Alaska Independence Party,
who found the provisions of this bill would help protect states
rights and those of the citizens of this state from those unfunded
mandates of the federal government that do not pertain to the needs
of Alaska. He pledged the support of the Alaska Independence Party
in getting passage of SB 1 through the legislature.
Number 188
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Senator Taylor if he thought it
might be better to conduct this review of federal mandates over a
four year period, instead of annually. He recognized the bill had
a zero fiscal note, but thought many of the mandates would not
change annually, and so would not be in need of review.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he had considered this, but was fearful that
should they allow a review over four years, some administrations
might not start the review until the fourth year. He added he did
not trust a Republican majority in Congress any more than he had
trusted a Democrat majority in Congress. He thought Republicans
were just as likely to force silly legislation on Alaska, just as
much as the Democrats did. He thought the danger of losing our
civil liberties was always in jeopardy whenever you convene a
congress or state legislature. He quoted Benjamin Franklin, who
said Men are plowing quietly in the fields and women weeping
silently in the kitchens of this land, for the legislature is in
session and no mans life or property is safe.
CHAIR JAMES verified there was no further questions from the
committee and asked for a motion to pass SB 1 out of committee.
Number 244
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he would be privileged and honored to
move to pass SB 1 out of committee with zero fiscal note and
individual recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections from the committee.
Hearing none, the bill passed out of committee.
HB 267 - REGULATION REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
Number 265
CHAIR JAMES announced the next bill on the agenda was HB 267. She
called this a simple bill that would provide for all regulations to
expire on June 30, unless extended by act of the legislature.
This, she said, would provide a mechanism of oversight by the
legislature and a means of eliminating those regulations not
meeting the intent of the legislature. She said she had many
conversations with the Administration on this bill and planned to
just take testimony at that meeting. She would then take the
suggestions from testimony and draft a proposed committee
substitute for consideration by the committee at the next meeting.
She asked if there was any questions or comments from the committee
before they heard the testimony. Hearing none, she heard from
those testifying on teleconference.
Number 305
DELORES FIELDS, member of Alaska Independence Party, supported HB
267. She thought there were too many regulations, some of which
were in conflict with the Constitution, and that they needed to be
reviewed by the legislature.
ART GRISWOLD, member of the Alaska Independence Party, thought HB
267 would allow for a regular evaluation of the regulatory process,
without extra hassle by the legislature to try and repeal a
regulation it disagrees with. He thought this bill would allow the
legislature some oversight of regulations and grant the Governor
the chance to veto, if they choose. He thought this bill had been
developed with considerable thought and hoped it passed through
committee without difficulty. He said this bill had the support of
the Interior Region organization of the Alaska Independence Party.
Number 342
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone else on teleconference wished to
testify on HB 267. Hearing none, she asked who wished to testify
from the audience.
DALE ANDERSON, Representative of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission, said the commission had been created twenty years
ago, to help bring stability to the fishing industry. He thought
HB 267 would be devastating to the agency, as the stability they
were striving for would cease to exist. He could not see why
anyone would invest in a permit, which may expire the next year
along with the agencys regulations. He doubted the state loan
agency could justify its investment of over $84 million in permits
and fishing vessels under such a system. He said the commission
could understand the need for checks and balances and regulatory
reform, but thought such a broad bill was too much. He said a
quasi-judicial commission such as theirs, demands permanence in
order to safeguard the adjudicatory process in which they are
involved. Thus, they asked for an exemption to their commission
from the effects of HB 267, to help maintain the integrity and
stability found in the limited entry system.
BOB BARTHOLEMEW, Deputy Director for the Income and Excise Tax
Division in the Department of Revenue, thought the greatest impact
to their agency would be in sections 5, 6, and 8 of HB 267. He
said currently, the agency has four programs with significant
regulations, the Oil and Gas Tax Division, Corporate Income and
Excise Tax Division, Permanent Fund Dividend Program, and the
Charitable Gaming Division. He said the regulations for those
programs had been established with considerable effort and should
those regulations go away, they felt the revenue laws would not
function and the state would experience a loss of revenue. He
cited the production tax on North Slope Oil as an example. He
thought it was necessary to either have the regulations in place,
or move them into statute. Finally, he thought this would possibly
create instability in the business climate of the state. He urged
the committee to consider a way of allowing the legislature to be
involved in the drafting process, before they are signed into law.
He said the Department of Revenue would like to find a way of
working within the current process, rather than having all
regulations expire annually.
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Bartholemew for his comments on having the
legislature get involved in the drafting of regulations. She said
this was part of the concept behind HB 105, her comprehensive
overall regulation reform bill. She explained the motivation
behind HB 267 was that the legislature currently has no authority
to change regulations. They can only make suggestions. She said
there were two ways to change this, HB 267 and HJR 1, which would
give the legislature the ability to annul regulations by concurrent
resolution. She did not feel the legislature would expire those
regulations having to due with the tax program. She pointed out,
that in those states with this type of law, there was more of an
attitude of cooperation between the legislature and the agencies in
developing regulations that were more user friendly to the public.
She asked if Mr. Bartholemew would feel better if there was a
provision in the bill that would set a deadline as to when the bill
had to pass the legislature.
MR. BARTHOLEMEW thought the biggest concern of the Department of
Revenue was the possibility of all regulations expiring annually.
He thought there would be considerable discussion on the bill as it
went through the committee process and debate as to which
regulation should be included and which one left out. Thus, the
agency would still be concerned about the possibility of all
regulations expiring.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned there were other states doing this already
and it was working fine. She said that with regards to whether
this would be a deterrent to industry, this had not been the case
in Colorado and Utah, who had this law. She said in discussions
with officials in Utah, they viewed this law as a business
incentive. She pointed out that Salt Lake City and Denver were
thriving business hubs of the West Coast. Thus, she did not see
this bill as a deterrent to business.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, said he would not take
much time testifying, as he had testified before the committee on
earlier regulation reform bills and their concerns on this bill
were largely the same. He stated their biggest concern was that
the department participated in many federal programs and federally
funded programs, and should their regulations expire, the
department would face the risk of losing these funds. Another area
of concern was there licensing programs, which would possibly be
problematic if they could not readopt these regulations in
substantially the same form. He felt an underlying theme of this
bill was that the majority of regulations are bad and in need of
review. He thought this was not the case, that it was only a very
few. He suggested there be an exemption to regulations mandated by
the federal government.
Number 579
CHAIR JAMES said she thought he had made her point, in that many of
the regulations were not problematic and would not be expired by
the legislature. She thought he was in error in suggesting the
legislature would not be as sensitive as the Administration in
their oversight of regulations. She thought they would be more
sensitive, in that they were responsible for lawmaking and the
budget of the state. Thus, she did not feel it was a fair estimate
to think the legislature was incompetent to deal with these issues.
She pointed out the other option was HJR 1, allowing the
legislature to annul regulations by resolution, which passed the 34
to 4 on the House floor. She felt there could only be meaningful
oversight of regulations by the legislature if they had some form
of a hammer to hold over the agencies. HB 267 was meant to provide
a hammer for the legislature to allow for meaningful oversight of
the regulatory process. She thought there had to be a system set
up to allow for the legislature, agencies, and public to have
meaningful input into the regulatory process.
Number 594
WILLIS KIRKPATRICK, Director, Division of Banking, Securities, and
Corporations, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said
his testimony would reflect the regulatory process and concerns of
all of the agencies of the department. He mentioned the department
decided, two years ago, that it was time to recodify the banking
regulations of the state. During this process, it became quite
evident, that banking is a rapidly changing industry. Thus, they
decided to forego the legislative process in writing statutes and
incorporate most of the changes in regulation. As an example, the
legal investment list of where banks may invest funds is constantly
changing and these changes are incorporated into regulations. As
he became aware of HB 267, he also became aware that other states
already had this law. One of these was Utah, which like Alaska has
a system of state chartered banks and a bank holding company,
Keycorp. This system requires state chartered banks to be
consistent and uniform in their procedures. Being concerned about
his regulations expiring annually, he called banking officials in
Utah to see how the system worked for them. He said it was their
understanding that the legislature introduced a bill specifying
those regulations scheduled to sunset. This would relieve his
concern about all of his regulations being up for possible sunset.
He cited examples of how the Department of Commerce measures which
state is the easiest state to do business in. He said their
findings were that states with a consistent business climate are
easier to do business in those that are constantly changing. Thus,
he was concerned we could be hurting our business climate with this
bill. He was also concerned about the provision of the bill that
allows an agency to readopt a regulation, but not in substantially
the same form.
TAPE 95-38, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES responded the law in Utah extended all regulations
except those listed for sunset. She did not feel the banking and
commerce laws were ever likely to be on the sunset list. She added
that Utah had a further provision, that allowed the Governor to
extend the life of a regulation the agency has scheduled for
sunset, should the agencies justify the need for this regulation to
them. She thought the legislature having the ability to do this,
would lead to an environment of increased cooperation between the
agencies and the legislature and most of these problems would be
fixed before a regulation was scheduled for sunset by the
legislature. She said this bill just provided the legislature with
some oversight of the regulatory process they have delegated to the
Administration. She saw this bill as a slight deviation from
current process to give the legislature some meaningful input into
the regulatory process. She pointed out that most of the
regulations Mr. Kirkpatrick was referring to were already supported
by statutory authority of the legislature. She said this bill was
not meant to be a picking of individual philosophy, as much as it
was meant to allow the legislature to verify regulations were
meeting the intent of the legislature. Thus, she felt there would
be very few regulations being sunsetted by the legislature under
this criteria.
Number 074
DEBORAH BEHR, Regulations Attorney, Department of Law, said she was
pleased to offer comments on HB 267. She urged the committee to
hold this bill over until the interim. She said her first concern
about this bill was the number of regulations there were in state
law. She mentioned there were about 10,000 pages of regulations in
law currently. She was not sure how much work the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee could accomplish over the interim in
reviewing regulations. She said she had been told by by the
sponsor that the committee would be reviewing those problematic
regulations brought to its attention. If this was the case, she
wondered why put a cloud over all regulations to deal with the few.
After receiving this bill, she did some research on which of the
states currently had this law in effect. She found there were four
states, Colorado, Utah, Tennessee and Ohio. She was curious of the
staffing this bill required to implement and said she found the
state of Colorado told her they had 15 attorneys on staff who
worked on this part-time. Utah had two full-time attorneys on
staff to deal with regulations. She thought there would also be
some additional costs to the Administration. One area of concern
to her was Section 8 of the bill, that required the agencies to
submit certain documentation to the committee after adopting,
repealing, or amending a regulation. She thought this was
unnecessary paperwork, which would add cost to the administration.
On page 4, lines 25-27, there was a requirement that the agency
identify persons who opposed or supported the regulation. She
thought this was sometimes unable to be determined. She offered an
example from her review of the regulations on abortion. She was
also concerned about page 4, lines 28-30 require the identification
of any Attorney Generals opinion or judicial decisions relevant to
the regulation change. She thought again, the amount of paperwork
for this requirement could be overwhelming and a cost to the
Administration. She also saw a potential cost in the possibility
of boards and commissions having to meet to provide information to
the committee or to redraft a regulation that has been sunsetted.
She was also concerned about the legal issues involved with this
bill. She mentioned she had called the four states with this law
to see if any of them had had a court challenge and none of them
had. She was also concerned about whether doing an omnibus bill
would violate the single-subject rule of legislation. She was
aware of the fact that legislative legal counsel did not see a
problem, but thought this was still an area of uncertainty. She
thought this could create an unstable regulatory climate for
business. She thought this bill could also violate the ALIVE v.
Alaska case of 1980, in that she thought it removed the veto
authority of the Governor. She thought, at best, these legal
issues were unresolved. She thought there was a better method,
where the Administrative Regulation Review Committee could review
regulations and draft a statute to repeal those individual
regulations. She thought the Governor would be unlikely to veto
such a bill. She claimed this could give the legislature a more
active oversight of regulations. She also expressed concern about
the date of June 30 for the annual sunset of regulations. She
offered to work with the committee over the interim on regulation
reform. She also was concerned about the language in the bill,
that prohibited the agency from readopting a regulation in
substantially the same form. She offered to answer any questions
of the committee.
Number 316
CHAIR JAMES commented she did not see those kinds of disaster
situations happening that Ms. Behr described, as she had more
confidence in the legislatures ability to make decisions. She
thought they would be just as prudent as the Administration if not
more so. She said her past experience had been the legislature
does not make those kinds of decisions that cause the kinds of
disasters described.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER thought there was a valid concern over
the legislatures sunset of regulations without the Governors
ability to veto. He thought there was a possible answer in
borrowing Utahs provision of allowing the Governor to extend a
regulation the legislature has scheduled for sunset, or by a
provision that would sunset a regulation with a date set by the
legislature for its expiration.
MS. BEHR thought there was some merit in the idea of sunsetting a
regulation on a date determined by the legislature, as done with
various commissions, but said she could only address the bill as it
was currently written. She was concerned about the provision of
Utah, allowing the governor some input, that there was some legal
problems with allowing the Governor to extend a sunset without
having to go through the same committee hearing process the
legislature has to do. She also failed to understand why, if this
were a good idea, only four states have adopted similar laws to
this.
Number 361
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if any of the four states with this
law had similar constitutional problems to ours with this bill.
MS. BEHR said she asked them and was told there had never been a
court challenge. She said she specifically addressed the
single-subject rule and got mixed results. Some Attorney Generals
didnt think there was a legal problem and others were unsure.
None of them had experienced a legal challenge to the laws in their
states. Ms. Behr thought this was an open legal question and that
there would be legal opinions on both sides.
CHAIR JAMES agreed and stated there was a memo in the committee
packets from Legislative Legal Services, who did not feel there was
a legal problem with the single-subject rule. They felt this was
no different than any of the omnibus bills that extend commissions
or the Administrative Procedures Act itself.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN still wondered if the reason the other states
did not experience legal challenge on this law was because they had
constitutions that granted differing authority to the legislature
than ours.
MS. BEHR stated her research had indicated that three of the states
did not think there was a legal issue and the fourth thought it was
an unresolved legal issue. She said she could not say what the
decision of Alaska courts would be on this issue.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Behr.
She called for Sharon Barton to testify.
SHARON BARTON, Director of Administrative Services, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Administration, said she
could add very little to the comments of her fellow colleagues in
the administration. She wanted to echo their general concerns.
She concurred the additional information required in Section 8 was
going to be costly and thought a better method would be to make
this information available on request of the committee. She also
thought there would be greater monitoring of the legislation by the
agencies leading to greater costs. She also did not think the
agencies would have the information available to provide the
committee regarding the judicial decisions on a particular
regulation, and so would experience an increase in cost. She
thought maybe regulation reform would be something to spend more
money on, but would want assurances the benefit was going to
warrant the additional cost.
Number 435
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director of the Alaska Trucking
Association, supported HB 267. He said the trucking industry is
regulated by a variety of regulations, both state and federal. He
claimed over the last decade, regulations had gotten out of sync
with reality. He offered an example to illustrate his point. He
discussed the requirement of the state that all employers have an
employee bulletin board, listing pertinent and necessary
information to the employee. This should be pretty
straight-forward and easy to comply with. He said the problem was
that the information required to be on this board was distributed
by approximately nine different agencies and consisted of about 50
items that should be listed on the board. He spoke of a letter
from the prior Governors Administration that ended with a
statement to not consider the letter as a definitive answer to his
questions, as they did not know for sure what was required to be on
those bulletin boards. He thought this was pretty symptomatic of
the entire regulatory system and was greatful for Chair James
introduction of this and other regulatory reform bills. He
recognized this could be a terrifying prospect to those in the
agencies, but felt that many if not most of the regulations no
longer accomplish their stated purpose or legislative intent. He
also argued that the main purpose for writing regulations, in his
experience with the agencies, was job security. He thought
regulations were supposed to be written to protect the public, but
when they get so confusing to private industry, many businesses
give up trying to comply. He hoped that with the review of
regulations proposed by HB 267, it would be possible to weed out
bad regulations and write new ones that would be better and easier
to comply with. He wanted to reiterate his support for HB 267.
Number 479
MR. MCKEE said he supported the concept of the bill, but felt there
could be an amendment on page two, line 20 and line 23, which
references common law of the state. He thought this should be
changed to common law of the individual. He thought this would
better address his earlier references to property rights.
Number 507
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was anyone else from the public wishing
to testify. She said her intention was to send this to a quick
subcommittee for some amendments and then recalendar it for the
next meeting. She said it would be open to any of the committee
members who wished to work with her and the administration on a
proposed committee substitute for this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS expressed his interest in participating on
the subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER also expressed his interest.
Representative Robinson arrived at 9:25 a. m.
CHAIR JAMES stated the next bill on the agenda SB 92 by House Rules
at the request of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
SB 92 - AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Assistant, Representative Terry Martin,
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, said SB 92 was sponsored by
the Legislative Rules Committee at the request of the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee. He stated SB 92 was introduced at the
unanimous request of LB&A. The concerns about the Alaska Housing
and Finance Corporation were initially raised by Senator Steve
Frank, who introduced the bill to the committee. He said Senator
Frank did have a staff member present, who would like to read the
sponsor statement. Thus, he would like to defer to him. He said
he would be available to answer any questions of the committee.
Number 548
TOM WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant, Senator Frank, reiterated SB
92 was introduced by the Legislative Rules Committee at the
unanimous request of LB&A. He said this bill would bring all of
the activities of the Alaska Housing Finance Committee under the
review procedures of the Executive Budget Act. Under this Act, an
agencys budget programs and services are established through both
the executive and legislative processes for the annual general
appropriation act. He stated currently the AHFC statutes bring
four listed areas under this act: 1) Operating budget of the
corporation, 2) the assets of the corporation used for grants or
grant programs, 3) interest rates, subsidies, and building
subsidies as determined by the corporation, and 4) activities of
the corporation related to the former Alaska State Housing
Authority program. All other activities of the AHFC are exempt
from the Executive Budget Act. He provided an example of the type
of programs of AHFC exempted from the Executive Budget Act as the
approximately 110 million in funds used for the recent 5 percent
housing loan program. SB 92 would bring this operation under
legislative review as part of the operating budget. The LB&A
feels this and all housing subsidy programs of the AHFC are
significant state fiscal policy matters that should fall under the
review process of both the Legislative and Executive branches.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions from the committee
for Mr. Williams. She decided to hear the testimony from those
people on teleconference. She called for Michael Chevalier to
testify.
Number 570
MICHAEL CHEVALIER, Housing Director for Anchorage Neighborhood
Housing Services, wanted to inform the committee of his opposition
to SB 92. He felt there was considerable demand in Alaska for
affordable housing. He said that typically there are about eight
different sources of finance for a housing project and the
developer is forced to try to bring all of those pieces together.
Thus, he thought the AHFC should be allowed to work within its
existing parameters. He thought they had adequately met the needs
of the various affordable housing developers. He stated his second
point, was he did not feel the AHFC was a runaway renegade
organization. He felt they understood the legislatures desire for
stability in its operations, but thought stability was the result
of continuity in leadership. He argued an environment should be
created to enhance the corporations continuity and longevity of
board members and executive directors.
CYNTHIA PARKER, Executive Director of Anchorage Neighborhood
Housing Services, stated her opposition to SB 92. She wanted to
state for the record that Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services
had been involved in the housing industry for the last 12 years and
had worked closely with the AHFC. She mentioned she was formerly
the Chair of the Alaska Housing Market Council, which made a number
of recommendations to the legislature regarding Alaskan housing.
She said part of that recommendation was to bring the AHFC under
the Executive Budget Act to make it responsive to the legislature.
She thought one of the problems with SB 92, was that it did not get
to the specific problems the legislature was concerned about. She
stated she had heard mention earlier, about the recent 5 percent
housing loan program, but felt this bill would not address this
issue. She argued the AHFC needed to be flexible in its loan
programs to be flexible in the marketplace. She stated the funds
used in the 5 percent loan program were exempted under this bill,
as they are really U. S. federal funds. She urged the legislature
to support the Governors plan to request the AHFC to come up with
a five year long range fiscal plan and also come up with some goals
and objectives they would like to offer to the state, but not to
require them to get approval from the legislature for each
transaction.
ROBIN HARRISON, Executive Director for the Tagiugmullu Nunamiullu
Housing Authority, said last year they participated in the AHFCs
loan and sponsor program and so were able to develop a mortgage
loan product tailored to meet the needs of their low income
families in the most remote areas of the North Slope. She argued
these families were out of reach of more conventional loan
programs, due to their low income level and their remote location.
She pointed out several barriers to getting loans from other
sources in these remote locations. Thus, the AHFC was about their
only option for housing loans. The AHFCs programs allowed 7
communities and 53 families to find homes on the North Slope 2 days
before Christmas. These families had zero hope of moving into a
home or owning one without this program. She felt certain that
should this bill have been in place last year, these families would
still be looking for homes. They would have to wait for a decision
from the legislature and then another 18 months for the loan
programs to be put in place and the construction to take place.
Since 1987, with an increase in how to use the AHFC loan program,
rural communities in northern Alaska has managed to increase the
loans granted to these communities from 2-5 loans per year to 15-20
loans per year. She argued SB 92 would mean for the AHFC to
respond in an increase of 30-45 percent demand for housing, they
would have to guess correctly at the activity level of their
corporation that can change dramatically over 12 months. Should
they guess wrong, a year is lost as they wait for the next
legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Ms. Robinson had any idea of the
success ratio for repayment of loans from the rural areas as
compared to that of the urban areas.
TAPE 95-39, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. ROBINSON claimed rural residents tend to not skip, because they
are rooted in their community.
BOB MAXWELL urged the committee proceed with caution and
investigate carefully before passing SB 92, to see if this action
would negatively impact the bond rating of the corporation. He
mentioned that AHFC has been able to provide $580 million to the
general fund since 1992. Thus, he felt it was absolutely necessary
to maintain the fiscal integrity of the AHFC so they can continue
to generate income and contribute to the general fund. He
encouraged the legislature to develop a process, whereby all
programs reviewed under the Executive Budget Act be allowed a
public hearing. Currently, those programs of AHFC under this Act
were not allowed public hearings, he said. He felt it was
difficult to do the publics business without public input.
Number 059
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was anyone else on teleconference
wishing to testify and noted the arrival of Representative
Robinson. Hearing none, she called for Dan Fauske, present in the
room, to testify.
DAN FAUSKE, Corporate Executive Officer of AHFC, said the
corporation was created in 1971 to provide Alaskans with low cost
mortgage financing. In legislation enacted in June 1980, the
legislature found the conventional sources of finance for
residential dwellings were inadequate and mandated the AHFC provide
financing without regard to income limits and interest rate subsidy
program for home purchase. In 1992, the legislature merged AHFC,
ASHA, and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs rural
loan and energy programs, in order to create a comprehensive
housing agency for the state. Through this legislation, AHFC was
expanded to include a group of programs beyond its traditional role
as a secondary market investor for home mortgages. This decision
has benefitted thousands of Alaskans. This approach of combining
all housing programs is considered innovative nationally and is
being copied by other states. After reviewing SB 92, he
interpreted that all activities of the AHFC would require budget
submission that would include the current capital and operating
budgets and expand to include all loan programs of the corporation.
He stated there were currently 23 loan programs that fall under 5
major categories. He felt this would mean certain negatives for
the program. Loan programs have historically not been a part of
the AHFCs budget submission. This is because the majority of
their loan programs that provide housing to the citizens throughout
the state, are a result of legislative mandate and direction. They
are funded through bond issues, both taxable and tax exempt.
Allowing the AHFC to function without legislative oversight has
protected the corporations ability to enter the marketplace at
opportune times with respect to rising and falling interest rates.
This allows the corporation to partner with entities such as HUD,
to spearhead new programs, and protect the ability to expeditiously
respond to changing economic situations that affect the housing
market. He did not feel anyone wanted to interfere with AHFCs
ability to enter the marketplace and develop housing programs. He
felt this bill was a result of two specific situations, the 5
percent loan program and the new office building. The office
building was a politically bad move by the corporation, he said.
The loan program was successful in targeting a niche of the states
citizens, that otherwise would be unable to attain home ownership.
He admitted, though, the mechanics of delivering the program were
flawed. He asked that if the majority of their programs were
meeting the intent of the legislature and the needs of the states
citizens, then why consider such broad oversight that could
potentially impede the corporations ability to respond to market
conditions. He wanted to assure the committee the corporation
would be very sensitive to the ripple effect of loan program
development, analyze the positive and negatives of loan programs,
be confident they adhere to legislative mandates and makes economic
sense before implementation, and better target the intended
constituency with each program. He urged the committee to not
restrict the corporations ability to respond to the volatility of
the marketplace by forced legislative oversight. He wanted to
comment he thought oversight was good and suggested forming a work
group to better educate everyone of the functions of the
corporation. Thus, he welcomed oversight and scrutiny from the
legislature, but did not want to see the corporation restricted for
seven months when the legislature was not in session.
Number 187
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Fauskes opinion of an oversight
similar to the one the legislature has over the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority board.
MR. FAUSKE thought this idea could work, but the $10 million cap
was not high enough to be functional with the AHFC. He pointed out
that in 1994, the AHFCs loan portfolio was $864 million. Thus, he
thought the oversight was good, but again suggested a work group to
see how this oversight should be accomplished. Capping the dollar
amount before requiring oversight is conceivable, but the dollar
amount would have to be high enough and have some guidelines of
activities to not prevent the corporation from taking advantage of
opportunities in the marketplace.
Number 225
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed his opposition to SB 92.
Participating in construction the past twenty years, he said he had
seen the stability the AHFC has brought to the market first hand.
He thought this bill was overkill to some specific complaints, that
could be resolved in a more rational manner. He refused to have
his name on a bill that he felt could seriously hurt the
construction industry. He urged the committee and legislature to
consider holding this bill for investigation over the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he could understand the concerns of
LB&A, but heard the testimony that said this corporation was a real
benefit to rural families. He felt it might be better to allow the
corporation to continue as is and thought the bill was too
restrictive without being amended.
CHAIR JAMES asked if it was possible for the committee to stay late
to allow a chance for all of those who came testify to participate.
Number 298
JAN SIEBERTS, Senior Vice President, National Bank of Alaska,
expressed his concern over SB 92. He said NBA was a partner with
with the AHFC in the development of housing projects in Alaska. He
said the NBA was concerned SB 92 would create serious problems for
the AHFC and at a minimum should be modified. In 1994, NBA
participated with the AHFC in urban and remote loans throughout the
state and developed housing for low income and the homeless in
Anchorage and Juneau. They also participated in senior citizen
housing in Fairbanks and Homer, as well as the housing project on
Eielson Air Force Base. Because of the lengthy loan process for
housing construction, the AHFC is a necessary and useful tool. He
felt if the corporation had to come for approval by the legislature
for every project, these projects could be delayed for up to a
year. He thought costs would increase dramatically and
opportunities would be missed. He requested a modification to the
bill to allow AHFC to continue to function and meet the housing
needs of Alaska.
Number 373
SUE BENEDETTI, President, Alaska Mortgage Bankers Association and
Vice President, First National Bank of Anchorage, expressed her
serious concerns about placing the AHFC under the Executive Budget
Act. She said such an action would prevent the corporation from
responding to changing conditions in the economy. This could mean
borrowers missing out on good mortgage rates and the corporations
missing out on programs that would meet the publics needs. She
stated the mortgage industry changes at a rapid rate and markets
can be volatile. Thus, the corporation needs to be able to respond
on a day to day basis to maximize its potential to meet Alaskas
housing needs. The AHFC provides a stable source of funds for
mortgage in good times, but more importantly in bad times when
other investors pull out. They have an excellent working
relationship with banks, mortgage companies, and government
agencies to maximize their ability to provide housing for Alaskans.
These relationships lead to new sources of funding and it is
important the AHFC retain its ability to work on a year round
basis. She said the corporation could pay a sizeable dividend to
the state for years to come. The Alaska Mortgage Bankers
Association believes the focus should be on developing a workable
dividend program and not substantially changing the way the AHFC
operates and thereby jeopardizing its ability to meet the housing
needs of Alaska.
JOHN EGAN, Volunteer President of Housing First, Inc., stated he
was a customer of the AHFCs products. As a president of a small
community based nonprofit corporation, he thought the work they
were doing to meet the housing needs of Juneau would not be
happening without the support of the AHFC. Multi-family housing
projects in general would not be developed without the help of the
AHFC. He claimed there was little private secondary mortgage
investors for multi-family housing units. He said Housing First
could not function without the support of Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation. Because many of the AHFCs programs are tied to those
of the federal government, there is already a significant delay in
processing paperwork in getting a project approved. He felt if SB
92 passed, the AHFC would be cemented into a glacial pace of
operation. Banks and nonprofits will not be able to hold projects
for months, while waiting for legislative approval. He said the
AHFC is now doing the kind of financing the state needs to
stabilize the housing market in Alaska. They are a genuine
community resource, he said, and nonprofit corporations do not have
this resource anywhere else. These community based groups are
unable to gather financing from several different investment
sources without the support of the AHFC. He pleaded with the
committee to not halt an already slow process with passage of SB
92.
Number 442
TAMARA ROWCROFT, General Manager, Alaska Housing Development
Corporation, said her group was formed over twenty years ago to
address the housing needs of Juneau. They operate a 96 unit
housing complex for low to moderate income families. About three
years ago, they decided they needed to try to develop more
affordable housing in Juneau. After seeing what resources were
available, they finally got a financing package to Aid to Families
with Dependent Children after two years effort. She said they were
prompt and granted financing to their project. She said their
organization was interested in continuing to provide housing in
Juneau and were concerned this bill would make it more difficult
and time consuming to get projects started.
TOM WILLIAMS responded SB 92 was not intended to put a damper on
loan programs. He said the intent was to have the legislature
involved in the loan process to allow them some oversight of that
process. Testimony from the Senate Finance indicated there was an
interest in improving communications between the AHFC and the
legislature. They felt this bill would accommodate this effort.
He did not feel this bill would preclude the AHFC from
participating in loan programs when the legislature was not in
session, as the appropriate body to deal with interim activities
was the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. That is why this
committee supported this bill. Thus, they did not feel there would
be a significant impact on the corporation. He felt any agency
would like to be free to do as they pleased and hoped the new
administration of the AHFC would improve communication with the
legislature. He felt this bill would help to insure this happened.
He thought good planning and proper budgeting could provide a
reasonable amount of flexibility, especially with the support of
the LB&A. He reiterated his feelings that this legislation was
necessary and provided a mechanism to insure things did not get out
of hand.
MR. FAUSKE wanted to point out the Executive Budget Act required
the LB&A to finish their review in 45 days. He argued this was a
life time in the world of mortgage financing and could mean many
missed opportunities. He reiterated he welcomed oversight, but was
concerned about the time line and missed opportunities.
CHAIR JAMES said this bill would be rolled to next week for
consideration by the committee. She stated her intentions of
passing out HB 269, before the committee adjourned.
HB 269 - TAX CREDIT: GIFTS TO PUBLIC BROADCASTING
TOM WRIGHT, legislative assistant to bill sponsor, Representative
Ivan, said he would wave his sponsor statement in the interest of
time and be available to answer questions from the committee.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any questions or comments from the
committee.
Number 536
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would move to pass HB 269 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections. Hearing none, the
bill passed out of committee. Chair James adjourned the meeting at
10:19 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|