Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/29/1994 08:00 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                         March 29, 1994                                        
                            8:00 a.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Al Vezey, Chairman                                            
  Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman                                      
  Representative Bettye Davis                                                  
  Representative Gary Davis                                                    
  Representative Harley Olberg                                                 
  Representative Jerry Sanders                                                 
  Representative Fran Ulmer                                                    
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  HB 393:        "An Act relating to the unincorporated                        
                 community capital project matching grant                      
                 program; and providing for an effective                       
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  *HB 531:       "An Act relating to the existence and                         
                 functions of certain multimember state                        
                 bodies, including boards, councils,                           
                 commissions, associations, or authorities;                    
                 and providing for an effective date."                         
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  *HB 530:       "An Act relating to certain study,                            
                 publication, and reporting requirements by                    
                 and to state agencies; relating to certain                    
                 fees for reports; and providing for an                        
                 effective date."                                              
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  (* First public hearing)                                                     
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  KAREN BRAND, Staff                                                           
  Representative Carl Moses                                                    
  Alaska State Capitol, Room 204                                               
  Juneau, AK  99811-0460                                                       
  Phone:  465-4451                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 393 for Representative Carl                 
                      Moses, Sponsor                                           
  LAMAR COTTEN                                                                 
  Lake & Peninsula Borough                                                     
  P.O. Box 103733                                                              
  Anchorage, AK  99510                                                         
  Phone:  258-7153                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on CSHB 393                                   
  MICHAEL CUSHING, Research Analyst                                            
  Department of Community and Regional Affairs                                 
  P.O. Box 112100                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811-0200                                                       
  Phone:  465-4751                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on CSHB 393                          
  KRISTIE LEAF, Director                                                       
  Boards & Commissions                                                         
  Office of the Governor                                                       
  P.O. Box 110001                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811-0001                                                       
  Phone:  465-3500                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 531 for the Office of the                   
                      Governor, Sponsor                                        
  GEORGE SMITH, Deputy Director                                                
  Libraries, Archives & Museums                                                
  Department of Education                                                      
  P.O. Box 110571                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811-0571                                                       
  Phone:  465-2910                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 531                            
  BRUCE KATO, Chief Curator                                                    
  Libraries, Archives & Museums                                                
  Department of Education                                                      
  395 Whittier St.                                                             
  Juneau, AK  99801-1746                                                       
  Phone:  465-4866                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 531                            
  JAN DEYOUNG                                                                  
  Alaska Labor Relations Agency                                                
  P.O. Box 107026                                                              
  Anchorage, AK  99510                                                         
  Phone:  269-4895                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Addressed Section 10 of HB 531                          
  STEVE SORENSON                                                               
  Museum Collection Advisor Committee                                          
  One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 301                                                
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  Not given.                                                           
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on HB 531                                     
  BEA SHEPARD, Member                                                          
  Board of Museums Alaska                                                      
  Friends of the Alaska State Museums                                          
  P.O. Box 20272                                                               
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  Not given.                                                           
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed parts of HB 531                                 
  KENNETH DEROUX                                                               
  Museum Collection Advisor Committee                                          
  P.O. Box 21066                                                               
  Juneau, AK  99802                                                            
  Phone:  Not given.                                                           
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on HB 531                                     
  LINDA REXWINKEL, Program Budget Analyst                                      
  Office of Management & Budget                                                
  Office of the Governor                                                       
  P.O. Box 110020                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811-0020                                                       
  Phone:  465-4694                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 530 for the Office of the                   
                      Governor, Sponsor                                        
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 393                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES                                          
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/21/94      2125    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/21/94      2125    (H)   CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                      
  02/08/94              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                      
  02/08/94              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                      
  02/22/94              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                      
  02/28/94      2545    (H)   CRA RPT  CS(CRA) 3DP 2NR 1AM                     
  02/28/94      2545    (H)   DP:  BUNDE, TOOHEY, OLBERG                       
  02/28/94      2545    (H)   NR:  WILLIS, WILLIAMS                            
  02/28/94      2545    (H)   AM:  DAVIES                                      
  02/28/94      2545    (H)   LETTER OF INTENT WITH CRA                        
  02/28/94      2546    (H)   -4 ZERO FNS (DCRA,ADM,LAW,DOT)                   
  02/28/94      2546    (H)   REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS                        
  03/29/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 531                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                    
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   -7 ZERO FNS (DCRA,2-DCED,CORR,                   
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   DNR) 3/11/94                                     
  03/11/94      2729    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  03/29/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 530                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/11/94      2727    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/11/94      2727    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                           
  03/11/94      2727    (H)   -16 ZERO FNS (5-ADM, 2-DCED,                     
                              2-DOE, DEC,                                      
  03/11/94      2727    (H)   DNR, DMVA, 2-DPS, REV, DOT)                      
  03/11/94      2727    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  03/29/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-39, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.                      
  Members present were REPRESENTATIVES KOTT, SANDERS, OLBERG                   
  and ULMER.  CHAIRMAN VEZEY announced there was a quorum                      
  present.  He noted the meeting was on teleconference with                    
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened CSHB 393 for discussion.                               
  Number 025                                                                   
  KAREN BRAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, gave a brief                  
  overview of CSHB 393.                                                        
  (REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS joined the meeting at 8:03 a.m.)                    
  MS. BRAND stated CSHB 393 amends Alaska Statute Chapter 37,                  
  which is eligibility requirements to participate in                          
  unincorporated community capital matching grants program.                    
  Currently, only unincorporated communities that exist                        
  outside of boroughs can participate directly in the program.                 
  Those located within boroughs participate indirectly by                      
  obtaining a small share of municipal moneys the borough has                  
  received, if the borough sees fit.                                           
  MS. BRAND stated CSHB 393 levels the playing field.  Those                   
  unincorporated communities within boroughs, with 25 or more                  
  permanent residents, will be able to participate directly in                 
  the program administered by Department of Community &                        
  Regional Affairs (DCRA).  She noted CSHB 393 would become                    
  effective July 1, 1994.                                                      
  MS. BRAND commented when the language for the program was                    
  drafted, there was an oversight in recognizing the Mat-Su                    
  Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Lake & Peninsula                    
  Borough, which have respectively 3, 5 and 11, unincorporated                 
  communities within them.                                                     
  MS. BRAND examined the two amendments adopted by the                         
  Community & Regional Affairs Committee.  On page 2, the                      
  amendment allows borough oversight of the projects the                       
  unincorporated communities choose to fund.  The second                       
  amendment eliminated a qualifier the sponsor had attached to                 
  require the community to be outside of the normal road                       
  system.  She noted CSHB 393 now allowed unincorporated                       
  communities with 25 or more residents to become eligible to                  
  participate directly in the program.                                         
  (REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS joined the meeting at 8:05 a.m.)                    
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS's arrival.                      
  Number 089                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER inquired why the number 25 was                     
  chosen for the minimum number of residents, how many                         
  communities of this size could afford to meet the local                      
  match requirements and if the program would be justified.                    
  MS. BRAND responded that in consulting with the drafter, 25                  
  residents was consistent with the Department of Community &                  
  Regional Affairs (DCRA) community population base.                           
  Number 113                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the statutes in Chapter 37 which                    
  CSHB 393 amends, were just passed in 1993.  He reiterated                    
  MS. BRANDS comments.  He noted if the $25,000 funding unit                   
  was maintained, CSHB 393 would add $1.5 million to the                       
  appropriation.   The addition of nearly 60 communities to                    
  the program by CSHB 393 may also substantially reduce the                    
  funds received by the communities brought into the program                   
  in 1993.  He stated CSHB 393 may produce `winners' and                       
  `losers.'  He questioned what was being corrected.  How                      
  would the list be different.                                                 
  Number 149                                                                   
  MS. BRAND responded a total of 25 different communities were                 
  affected by an oversight of certain boroughs.  She noted the                 
  Northwest Arctic Borough and the Denali Borough as                           
  additional examples.  She emphasized the Lake & Peninsula                    
  Borough with 11 communities receiving a little over $3,000,                  
  was the hardest hit.  Other communities usually receive                      
  approximately $25,000.                                                       
  MS. BRAND commented the Governor's 1994 capital budget                       
  funded the program again for $20 million.  She agreed with                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY's $1.5 million impact; however, they had                      
  intended the capital funds would be broken up - half from                    
  the municipal and half from the unincorporated section.  The                 
  breakup of the funds would bring down the $25,000 cap to                     
  possibly $23,000-$24,000.  The municipal section would also                  
  reduce slightly.                                                             
  MS. BRAND addressed CHAIRMAN VEZEY's estimation of 60                        
  communities which would be eligible.  She commented 60                       
  communities was a maximum quote and there would not be a                     
  final determination until later.  DCRA would have to judge                   
  which communities would be eligible in some cases.  She                      
  believed the number of communities would range from 40-60.                   
  Number 202                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned 12 communities in the Fairbanks                     
  North Star Borough he believed might apply to CSHB 393.  He                  
  felt the number of eligible communities would grow.                          
  MS. BRAND replied it was their intent to focus on more                       
  rural, isolated communities.                                                 
  Number 219                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if CSHB 393 did that.                                   
  MS. BRAND affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY.  The Community & Regional                 
  Affairs Committee (CRA) had discussed the issue and decided                  
  not to narrow the eligibility in CSHB 393 as much as the                     
  original HB 393 had proposed.  The road system requirement                   
  was thereby eliminated.                                                      
  Number 230                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred back to AS 29.60.140, which implies                  
  if a community was eligible, it still is, and vice versa.                    
  He questioned if the wording was actually leveling the                       
  playing field.                                                               
  Number 238                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG clarified the intent of CRA was                 
  to treat all communities equally that were similarly                         
  situated, regardless of whether they were on or off the road                 
  Number 243                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out the statute stated the community                  
  had to be eligible, not that they had to receive aid.  He                    
  believed Salcha, Ester, Fox, Chatanika, Six Mile Village and                 
  Badger Village fit into the description of an unincorporated                 
  community under CSHB 393.                                                    
  Number 264                                                                   
  MS. BRAND replied DCRA had provided a list of all potential                  
  candidates that might be eligible under CSHB 393.  She noted                 
  if CSHB 393 were to pass, DCRA would have the authority to                   
  make judgments and imply the intent of the legislation.                      
  Number 276                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he was troubled with the authority                     
  given to the DCRA to determine the eligibility of                            
  communities.  He asked why Moose Creek would not be                          
  eligible, and if it was not because of a DCRA decision, he                   
  believed CSHB 393 was "loose legislation."  He understood                    
  the intent of CSHB 393; that being to make communities                       
  within boroughs eligible for the community capital matching                  
  grant program.                                                               
  MS. BRAND agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY on the intent of CSHB
  Number 290                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified those communities within unified                    
  municipalities had been eliminated.  He noted Anchorage and                  
  MS. BRAND affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY.  She stated that                          
  qualifier eliminated questionable places such as Douglas,                    
  which would technically apply.  She noted for several pieces                 
  of passed legislation, it is DCRA's job to apply the                         
  particular program.                                                          
  Number 306                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated when a population statistic which is                   
  not published by the United States Census Bureau (USCB) is                   
  deviated from, the potential chance for litigation arises.                   
  He noted the USCB is the only database to withstand all                      
  court challenges on the federal level.  He questioned if it                  
  was good practice to deviate from the USCB statistics.                       
  Number 325                                                                   
  MS. BRAND responded when CRA brought up the same issue they                  
  found the USCB in very rural parts of Alaska did not have                    
  the most reliable population data.  Therefore, CSHB 393                      
  leaves DCRA to decide if there is a more accurate form of                    
  population data.                                                             
  Number 335                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he had received testimony from the                     
  Department of Labor which states the 1990 census was the                     
  most accurate database ever.  He asked if MS. BRAND had                      
  heard contrary.                                                              
  Number 340                                                                   
  MS. BRAND answered no, she had not heard that testimony.                     
  She commented if DCRA finds the USCB the most reliable                       
  source, they will choose it as their source of population                    
  Number 349                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned how the DCRA could prove that they                 
  put more effort into establishing a database.                                
  Number 361                                                                   
  LAMAR COTTEN, LAKE & PENINSULA (L&P) BOROUGH, commented on                   
  CSHB 393.  He stated the L&P borough had 17 communities, of                  
  which only five are incorporated.  He noted the 11 eligible                  
  communities are similar to the five incorporated communities                 
  in terms of services and powers.  He conveyed they should                    
  all be treated equally.                                                      
  MR. COTTEN referred to the CRA discussion of whether the                     
  borough would have oversight of the moneys in the                            
  unincorporated communities.  He stated L&P does oversee the                  
  moneys and it also has its own capital matching program.  To                 
  promote economic development, the L&P provides small                         
  unincorporated communities with grants; thereby they can                     
  seek a larger capital matching grant package.                                
  MR. COTTEN stated some individuals suggest CSHB 393 is a                     
  disincentive for people to organize their cities, believing                  
  the program is a "carrot" for small communities in rural                     
  Alaska to organize.  He rebutted in many of the communities,                 
  however, there is no basis to have a city.   Some                            
  communities already have an existing entity, such as an IRA                  
  council or a nonprofit group, that provides basic services.                  
  He commented CSHB 393 is a disincentive to large borough                     
  areas to organize as boroughs.  He noted a series of                         
  unorganized communities which, if organized into a borough,                  
  would be ineligible for the program.  CSHB 393 would be a                    
  policy question for L&P.                                                     
  Number 403                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER related to the differentiation between                  
  communities.  She then compared the legislature providing                    
  money for unincorporated communities in unorganized boroughs                 
  to organized boroughs providing money to their own                           
  unincorporated communities.  She understood communities from                 
  unorganized boroughs are worried their communities would                     
  have to sacrifice something or have less resources.  She                     
  inquired which communities have these concerns.  She was                     
  concerned that incorporated communities will choose to                       
  become unincorpoated if additional benefits were offered to                  
  unincorporated communities.  She emphasized CSHB 393 might                   
  be expediting this process.                                                  
  Number 432                                                                   
  MR. COTTEN responded he did not know which communities were                  
  considering dissolving their city governments.  He noted                     
  each community is unique; however, they each probably have                   
  other governments (e.g., IRA council, nonprofit                              
  organization) which provide the basic services they expect.                  
  There is too much emphasis on state subpolitical units as                    
  the only legitimate group that can provide the minimal level                 
  of services.  He agreed that boroughs to provide a broader                   
  possible source of funding and they are a positive step.                     
  L&P has a raw fish tax, basically an income tax, on the                      
  gross ex-vessel value of the fish sold.                                      
  Number 460                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented CSHB 393 impacts a lot of                     
  public policy associated with the way development occurs in                  
  rural Alaska.  She agreed the legislative structure of                       
  government was not the only way that makes sense.  She                       
  questioned the level of responsibility the state should have                 
  to fund those communities.  She reiterated her concern about                 
  the 25 resident quota, believing the smaller the number, the                 
  more the state may be acting as an incentive for                             
  unsustainable projects.                                                      
  Number 472                                                                   
  MR. COTTEN agreed with REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's point made                     
  about the 25 resident quota.  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's                         
  statement applied more to unincorporated communities in                      
  unorganized boroughs.  He noted the regional planning powers                 
  in organized boroughs which cannot be transferred to                         
  unincorporated communities, thereby forcing them to                          
  participate.  Technical assistance and matching grants are                   
  assured from an organized borough.  He pointed out CSHB 393                  
  would be a disincentive for 10 unincorporated communities                    
  receiving grants to organize a borough because they would no                 
  longer be eligible for the program.                                          
  Number 491                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked why Salcha or Moose Creek in the                        
  Fairbanks North Star Borough would not be eligible for a                     
  grant with CSHB 393.                                                         
  Number 494                                                                   
  MR. COTTEN answered they may be eligible.  He did not                        
  believe DCRA was trying to "push them away" because they are                 
  not traditional rural communities.  They may be included                     
  because of the new road system provision from CRA.                           
  Number 505                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what would happen if the threshold of                   
  25 was raised to 100 with respect to L&P.                                    
  MR. COTTEN responded that in L&P, of the 11 eligible, 4-5                    
  would then be ineligible.  He referred back to CHAIRMAN                      
  VEZEY's comments about the USCB database from 1990 and noted                 
  the effective date of the program was 1995 whereby the                       
  database may still show a community as being under 100 in                    
  population even if it was not.  He stated, boroughs to be in                 
  compliance with revenue sharing and municipal assistance do                  
  a survey of communities.  In the past, communities were                      
  mapped out and individuals were identified by name and                       
  location.  He believed this system was accurate and it cut                   
  down on exaggeration.                                                        
  Number 536                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted billions of dollars are based on                        
  population census.  He stated the USCB census has always                     
  been upheld in court.  He expressed concern over future                      
  litigation which may arise from DCRA decisions and noted the                 
  communities would be public interest litigants, whereby the                  
  state would have to pay for it.                                              
  Number 555                                                                   
  REGIONAL AFFAIRS, answered questions on CSHB 393.  He                        
  referred back to CHAIRMAN VEZEY's previous questions about                   
  Moose Creek and other areas, and stated the communities he                   
  had mentioned were included in the list of 60 communities                    
  DCRA had proposed.  The Fairbanks North Star Borough                         
  included Fox, Moose Creek, Pleasant Valley, Salcha and Two                   
  Rivers.  He noted the DCRA list of 60 communities was the                    
  upper limit they believed would be in the program.  DCRA                     
  assumed the list would be based on their current operating                   
  regulations for the revenue sharing program.  He mentioned a                 
  social unit test.                                                            
  Number 577                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked for a description of a social unit                      
  Number 578                                                                   
  MR. CUSHING explained statutes set communities with 25 or                    
  more residents as a social unit.  A social unit is defined                   
  by DCRA in regulations in some detail.  The communities                      
  cannot be transient or a work place (e.g., logging camp).                    
  He stated there are certain tests to establish there is a                    
  contiguous social unit that exists for a community, in                       
  perpetuity.  He noted a community with strict rules as to                    
  who could live in the community (e.g., a religious commune)                  
  would not meet the social unit test according to DCRA                        
  regulations.  An autonomous community with basic services                    
  would be looked for.  He pointed out they sometimes must                     
  make calls when dealing with competing entities.  He                         
  understood there were gray areas in judgment calls; however,                 
  it is DCRA's job to establish precedents and the rules.  He                  
  stated after DCRA works with the 60 communities on the list,                 
  he expected 40-50 would ultimately satisfy the social unit                   
  test, presuming the social unit test applied to CSHB 393.                    
  MR. CUSHING referred to the USCB census as a reliable                        
  source, but noted the major problem is that it is only done                  
  every 10 years.  Alaska grows too rapidly to use a number                    
  from 1990.  The DCRA has set the census as a floor, then the                 
  state demographer in the Department of Labor using a                         
  permanent fund analysis, works from there.  The new numbers                  
  are provided to the communities and they are given the                       
  opportunity to appeal them.  If the communities find the                     
  demographer incorrect, the onus is on them to prove through                  
  a local survey that they have grown faster than estimated                    
  and their number is larger.  He noted in the time he has                     
  been with the program they have never been litigated.  When                  
  communities reach the alternative low levels around 25                       
  residents, which could consist of 4-5 families, regional                     
  offices notify DCRA and they dispatch to work with the                       
  community and resolve its actual population.                                 
  Number 653                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER mentioned communities of 25 composed of                 
  four families, and asked as a matter of public policy,  what                 
  it meant when the state offered them $25,000 in matching                     
  grants.  Could the very small communities sustain the                        
  operating and maintenance costs of the facilities.                           
  Number 661                                                                   
  MR. CUSHING responded the communities on their list are                      
  higher in population  - 87, 746, 589, 144, 157, 60, 519,                     
  105.  He emphasized the communities they are focusing on are                 
  within the 100-500 range.  There had been concerns with the                  
  original HB 393 because of its narrow restriction to smaller                 
  communities; however, CSHB 393 reduces this concern.  He                     
  proposed some smaller communities may want to build bridges                  
  to access more resources or sheds to cover a piece of                        
  equipment, thereby better accommodating their area.                          
  Inspection is necessary.                                                     
  TAPE 94-39, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG commented they should not be too hard                  
  on small communities because he could think of a "community                  
  of 600,000 that bought a bunch of stuff it can't afford."                    
  Number 016                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred back to census data and stated every                 
  Alaskan community increases in the summer and decreases in                   
  the winter.  USCB data is by law April 1st.  He asked if                     
  DCRA did a statistical adjustment for the time of year the                   
  census is taken.  How many resources is DCRA putting into                    
  building a database.  He recalled the Department of Labor                    
  population estimate for Alaska was six-seven percent higher                  
  than the USCB results in 1990.                                               
  Number 041                                                                   
  MR. CUSHING responded USCB admits there is a three-four                      
  percent under count in their numbers which they assume is                    
  across the playing field.  DCRA does not maintain an active                  
  database.  DCRA places the onus for resources for the                        
  demonstration of populations on the communities.  He noted                   
  larger communities spend thousands of dollars to develop a                   
  population figure for planning purposes and the program.                     
  DCRA provides guidelines, then monitors their survey and                     
  results.  In August, DCRA sends out a population                             
  determination, on which they have opportunity until November                 
  to appeal against.  He stated the DCRA has two analysts plus                 
  himself, who throughout the fall work with the communities                   
  on their census formulas.  If they are not satisfied with                    
  the communities demonstration, the communities have to send                  
  in various certified documentation for verification.                         
  Number 096                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if CSHB 393 was working for or against                  
  the state's overall intended direction; being less involved                  
  in the unincorporated borough.  He was concerned that CSHB
  393 might be encouraging communities to break off from                       
  organized boroughs.                                                          
  Number 118                                                                   
  MR. CUSHING responded CSHB 393 is a disincentive to regional                 
  government incorporation.                                                    
  Number 123                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated CSHB 393 was a disincentive to                         
  regional incorporations.                                                     
  Number 124                                                                   
  MR. CUSHING corrected CSHB 393 was a disincentive to borough                 
  incorporations.  Communities tend to lose substantial funds                  
  when they join into a borough, whereby the borough only                      
  receives a blanket amount.                                                   
  Number 156                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no more testimony, stated he would                   
  like to further examine information from DCRA before action                  
  was taken on CSHB 393.  CSHB was held in committee.                          
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if the everyone in the committee had                    
  received the new fiscal note.                                                
  MS. BRAND commented on the fiscal note.  She stated all of                   
  the original fiscal notes received on CSHB 393 were zero.                    
  She pointed out the analysis for the new fiscal note and                     
  explained DCRA had been unclear as to the planned action of                  
  House and Senate Finance Committees, whether or not the                      
  grants administrators were to be cut back.  If they were cut                 
  back, DCRA would need to restore one of the positions.                       
  Current staff, however, can handle the additional workload                   
  made by CSHB 393.  She noted House Finance has already                       
  closed out DCRA and they did not cut any grants                              
  administrators, therefore the new fiscal note would not                      
  apply.  Senate Finance is still closing out the DCRA                         
  operating budget.  She stated, upon speaking with Senate                     
  Finance staff, they do not intend to cut back the grants                     
  Number 213                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified DCRA would request the additional                   
  staff to administer grants.                                                  
  Number 215                                                                   
  MS. BRAND added if the grant administrators were cut back on                 
  their present staff by either finance committee.  She noted                  
  neither committee had done so yet.  She was hesitant to                      
  order a new fiscal note because the Senate was not yet done                  
  with their DCRA budget.                                                      
  HB 531 - ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER BODIES                             
  Number 220                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 531 for discussion.                                 
  (REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG left the meeting at 9:00 a.m.)                        
  Number 234                                                                   
  GOVERNOR, addressed HB 531.  She said HB 531 is a                            
  governmental efficiency bill.  HB 531 updates statutes for                   
  about nine state boards which are not funded, appointed or                   
  meeting.  She noted some of the boards have been dormant                     
  between 10-20 years.  These boards should be taken off the                   
  books because they have no constituencies or members.                        
  MS. LEAF stated HB 531 streamlines procedures associated                     
  with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency and the Board of                      
  Parole.  HB 531 eliminates the statutory Alaska School                       
  Activities Association because there is now a nonprofit                      
  organization, Alaska School Activities Association, Inc.                     
  The state would be removed from any liability for the                        
  private nonprofit organization.                                              
  MS. LEAF stated HB 531 transfers the duties of the Museum                    
  Collections Advisory Committee to the Department of                          
  Education, and eliminates the committee.  She noted the                      
  committee is very costly and redundant for a very modest                     
  MS. LEAF mentioned HB 531 has zero fiscal notes from all                     
  affected agencies.  She directed the committees to the                       
  sectional analysis in their packets.                                         
  Number 261                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned the action regarding the                     
  Museum Collection Advisory Committee (MCAC).  She noted the                  
  MCAC was still very active in protecting the $24 million in                  
  investments the state has made in acquisitions.  If                          
  volunteers were not doing it, the state would have to hire                   
  other people to do it.  Why was the elimination of the MCAC                  
  included in HB 531 when it is an efficiency.                                 
  MS. LEAF answered the MCAC currently costs about $25,000 in                  
  direct and indirect costs.  Their acquisition budget is                      
  about $50,000.  Safeguards were not set up for the MCAC                      
  procedures when it began.  Currently, the museum department                  
  has an internal review process for acquisitions and                          
  deaccessions from the museum collections.  Therefore, the                    
  MCAC is a redundant function.  She noted the museum                          
  department has proposed an additional procedure as to how                    
  the functions of the MCAC will be handled.                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 531 proposed eliminating the Milk                   
  MS. LEAF affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY.                                            
  Number 293                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired why the state was regulating milk.                   
  MS. LEAF replied she could not.  The Milk Board currently                    
  exists in statute with its functions.  The intent of HB 531                  
  is to alleviate a board which has not met in 15 years.  The                  
  board's functions would be transferred to the Director of                    
  Agriculture.  The Milk Board's duty had been to advise the                   
  director in forming policy for the market program, receive                   
  complaints, report to the director and assist him in data                    
  Number 311                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned the Parole Board, and stated they                   
  believe HB 531 codifies their current procedure for                          
  conducting business.  The Parole Board had expressed to him                  
  a different procedure would require a full-time Parole                       
  MS. LEAF replied that was correct.                                           
  Number 317                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted a house cleaning measure on the                         
  Railroad Labor Relations Agency.  Current statute provides                   
  in a binding arbitration action, the arbitrator be the same                  
  person as the mediator, which is contrary to federal                         
  regulations.  HB 531 would bring Alaska statutes in line.                    
  Number 329                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referred back to the MCAC and asked                     
  what the breakdown was of their direct and indirect costs.                   
  She noted the availability of teleconferences which would                    
  cut down on travel expenses.  She emphasized her concern                     
  about only having an internal review process in purchasing                   
  acquisitions.  She noted the potential for lack of expertise                 
  without the MCAC.  The external public participation process                 
  could guarantee no "insider trading."                                        
  MS. LEAF deferred the answer to REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's                       
  comments to GEORGE SMITH.                                                    
  Number 361                                                                   
  ARCHIVES & MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, answered                        
  questions on HB 531.  The MCAC was organized in the early                    
  1970s because there were virtually no controls over the                      
  actions of the museum.  Acquisitions were then made by                       
  trading off artifacts out of the museum.  He emphasized this                 
  was no longer appropriate.  MCAC was enacted to provide                      
  oversight for acquisitions, as well as deaccessioning                        
  materials out of the museum collection.                                      
  MR. SMITH stated currently, the museum staff expertise is                    
  very high.  Very strong internal controls now exist for how                  
  materials are accessioned.  First, the curator of                            
  collections makes a recommendation for purchase.  A                          
  committee of five, whose expertise is quite varied, review                   
  the recommendation for what it will do for the collection,                   
  as well as appropriateness.  If the recommendation is chosen                 
  to be purchased it goes to the chief curator of the museum.                  
  If the purchase is under $1,000, it may be approved by the                   
  chief curator and then purchased.  If it is over $1,000, the                 
  MCAC review is required.  He recollected the MCAC has never                  
  opposed a recommendation.  The recommendation is then signed                 
  off and purchased.  He estimated the museum purchases 5-10                   
  items in a year out of its $50,000 acquisitions budget.                      
  MR. SMITH stated, because of their wide expertise and                        
  perspectives, the internal controls should be able to                        
  takeover the MCAC.  He noted the likelihood of collusion was                 
  extremely remote.  He advised after the recommendation was                   
  to proceed through the same internal procedures, when signed                 
  off by the chief curator, it would have to be signed off by                  
  the director of the division, as well as the commissioner.                   
  (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS left the meeting at 9:09 a.m.)                       
  MR. SMITH commented deaccessioning is "almost a mute point."                 
  The commissioner of the Department of Administration must                    
  approve all deaccessioning which involves the museum.  He                    
  noted the MCAC does not have oversight of the $25 million                    
  collection, automated internal auditing does.                                
  MR. SMITH explained most of the MCAC meetings are by                         
  teleconference; however, 1-2 times a year they meet in                       
  person.  He noted the overwhelming cost was the                              
  administrative cost of the museum staff.                                     
  Number 454                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked about the approval of gifts.  He                        
  expressed concern because a lot of money is spent on storing                 
  MR. SMITH deferred the answer to BRUCE KATO, CHIEF CURATOR.                  
  He noted the museum does have the right to reject gifts, and                 
  it does.  They use the same criteria for choosing a gift as                  
  they do when examining a purchase.  The internal committee                   
  questions if it fits into the collection, if it is                           
  appropriate and if it is conservable.                                        
  Number 478                                                                   
  BRUCE KATO, CHIEF CURATOR, ALASKA STATE MUSEUMS, answered                    
  questions on HB 531.  He stated he is responsible for the                    
  state museum programs and the Alaska State Museum, Juneau,                   
  and the Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka.  He explained HB 531                  
  would streamline the acquisition process.  He stated the                     
  change was driven by costs for the implementation of the                     
  MCAC.  Their budget allows $13,000 in travel expenditures,                   
  of which $7,000 is expended for MCAC travel.  He noted the                   
  MCAC is out of compliance because current statute requires                   
  two face to face visits a year.  They had substituted one of                 
  the meetings with a teleconference.  He questioned the use                   
  of having MCAC members from around the state, as opposed to                  
  local members, to avoid the cost.                                            
  MR. KATO expressed for the amount of money they make                         
  acquisitions with, the MCAC is not justifiable.  They have                   
  enough internal controls to oversee the process.  He                         
  compared the cost of the MCAC with how much they currently                   
  pay for their insurance policy.  They carry a $40,000 policy                 
  in the event there is some damage to their collections.                      
  With a $25 million almost irreplaceable collection, the                      
  $40,000 is essentially "thrown away."                                        
  Number 524                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if the insurance the museum is                       
  buying is $40,000 in coverage, or is the insurance premium                   
  Number 526                                                                   
  MR. KATO answered $40,000 is the premium they pay for $25                    
  million in coverage.  He stated many museums do not carry                    
  insurance because if there was a substantial loss it would                   
  already be irreplaceable.                                                    
  MR. KATO referred to CHAIRMAN VEZEY's question about                         
  donations.  Their controls have been successful in purging                   
  items, by auction for example, which are not appropriate for                 
  their collection.  He gave the example of a Navajo blanket.                  
  The money then goes back into their collections funds for                    
  (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS rejoined the meeting at 9:20 a.m.)                   
  Number 544                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what they received for the Navajo                       
  Number 545                                                                   
  MR. KATO answered a spruce root basket.                                      
  Number 547                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented she did not mean to suggest                   
  she distrusted the staff, but she had to consider future                     
  Administrations which may have to work without the MCAC.                     
  MCAC works as a safeguard to ensure proper evaluation.  She                  
  noted  evaluation in the museum is heavily based on                          
  judgment.  She concluded a diverse informed group outside of                 
  the museum was a nice protection feature.  She mentioned                     
  only having one teleconference per year, whereby the                         
  description materials could be sent out prior to the                         
  Number 579                                                                   
  MR. KATO related to the value of the MCAC as insurance; was                  
  it worth the amount they apply towards it.  He likened the                   
  situation to their premium paid through risk management; was                 
  it worth the cost for the protection.  He noted current                      
  staff has not had a problem with collusion.                                  
  Number 596                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY called for a recess at 9:25 a.m.  The meeting                 
  resumed at 9:32 a.m.  Members present were REPRESENTATIVES                   
  KOTT, OLBERG and G. DAVIS.                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Anchorage teleconference site.                   
  Number 603                                                                   
  addressed Section 10 of HB 531.  She began railroad                          
  employees are "strike eligible," whereby if they impasse in                  
  negotiations they must seek a mediator to work with them and                 
  the Railroad Corporation to reach an agreement.  If using a                  
  mediator fails, the employees are entitled to take a vote,                   
  then they may strike.  The Railroad Corporation can enjoin                   
  the strike through the court if it threatens or interferes                   
  with public safety and welfare.  Presently, if the court                     
  enjoins the strike, it can order the parties to binding                      
  interest arbitration.  An arbitrator would then review both                  
  sides and issue a contract stating the terms and conditions                  
  of employment.                                                               
  MS. DEYOUNG explained present statute requires that the                      
  person who served as the mediator pre-strike, later serve as                 
  the interest arbitrator.  She emphasized the mediators are                   
  well educated, trained, and free as they are federally                       
  provided; however, the Federal Mediation & Conciliation                      
  Service (FMCS) Charter will not allow mediators to serve as                  
  interest arbitrators.  Therefore, there is the possibility                   
  that in the future, FMCS may refuse to refer a mediator to                   
  assist in an impasse pre-strike.                                             
  MS. DEYOUNG stated if a mediator was not federally                           
  furnished, the Railroad Corporation would have to seek other                 
  mediation services.  This would cost them money, as well as                  
  the Labor Relations Agency (LRA).  She noted the LRA                         
  additional cost would be from having to set up a mediator                    
  referral service.  HB 531 seeks to remove the requirement                    
  that the person who serves as a mediator, also must serve as                 
  the interest arbitrator.                                                     
  (REPRESENTATIVE ULMER and B. DAVIS returned at 9:35 a.m.)                    
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out that HB 531 is trying to comply                   
  with federal regulations.  He stated a mediator should not                   
  serve as an interest arbitrator because it is contrary to                    
  the purpose of mediation.                                                    
  Number 652                                                                   
  commented on HB 531.  He noted the MCAC is composed of                       
  members with expertise in archeology, anthropology,                          
  ethnology, and art.  MCAC acts as a balance with the staff                   
  acquisition committee.  He stated in his four years with the                 
  MCAC, they have turned down objects for acquisition because                  
  the purchase price was too high for the value received, the                  
  object did not fit in the collection, or the object was not                  
  of sufficient quality.  He noted without the MCAC, those                     
  objects submitted for approval but turned down, might have                   
  been acquired by the museum.                                                 
  (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS returned to the meeting at 9:38                      
  MR. SORENSON commented deaccessioning had not been very                      
  important in the past; however, with the National                            
  Repatriation Act recently passed by the federal government                   
  it would now be more readily used.  Museums will now be                      
  involved in repatriating the object requests of various                      
  Native interests which they believe they have ownership or                   
  cultural interest in.  Those deaccessions would also go                      
  before the MCAC.  He mentioned the Alaska State Museum, in                   
  order to comply with the repatriation law, has devised that                  
  the artifact or object would remain in the possession of the                 
  museum, but the ownership would be transferred to the Native                 
  entity.  He noted the museum would be the most likely to be                  
  able to preserve the artifacts or objects.                                   
  MR. SORENSON questioned the cost figures given to the                        
  committee for the MCAC.                                                      
  TAPE 94-40, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MR. SORENSON explained there is no cost for the review                       
  materials needed by the committee, other than the cost of                    
  duplication.  He stated additional material is not developed                 
  unless the MCAC requests for additional research to be done.                 
  This is not often; however, it happens when the staff                        
  acquisition committee has not done the proper background                     
  work they should have.  Most meetings are now done by                        
  teleconference.  He felt the mandatory requirement that the                  
  MCAC meet in person should be removed.  Sending out                          
  materials in advance and teleconferencing still facilitates                  
  good discussions and interaction.  He noted although gifts                   
  undergo the same process, most are accepted.  Some gifts are                 
  not accepted because they do not meet the criteria.  Cost                    
  could be reduced by requiring meetings by teleconference.                    
  MCAC meets once every two months by teleconference.  MCAC                    
  services are requested when offer deadlines to the museum                    
  must be met.  He believed the process was efficient and cost                 
  saving.  Because of the protection and additional expertise                  
  provided by the MCAC, he stated, it should not be                            
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified MCAC stood for the Museum                           
  Collection Advisory Committee.  He returned to Juneau for                    
  Number 089                                                                   
  ALASKA STATE MUSEUMS, opposed the elimination of the MCAC.                   
  She felt the MCAC was invaluable.  She believed the costs                    
  presented to the committee were inaccurate and exaggerated.                  
  MCAC is a form of perfection not only for the museum, but                    
  also for the personnel.  An advisory committee is                            
  knowledgeable about the needs and qualities of a collection,                 
  therefore when it makes the decisions it protects the                        
  members of the staff.                                                        
  MS. SHEPARD inquired how much it cost the staff to prepare                   
  for the committee.  With HB 531 the staff would go through                   
  the same process internally, therefore she could not see how                 
  presenting the information to the MCAC was much more                         
  expensive.  Research work is already being done by the                       
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred back to MR. SORENSON's                          
  testimony and asked if MS. SHEPARD felt it would be                          
  appropriate to eliminate the requirement for two face to                     
  face meetings every year.                                                    
  Number 154                                                                   
  MS. SHEPARD answered at least one meeting was valuable, but                  
  the rest could be done by teleconference.                                    
  Number 159                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many members were on the MCAC                  
  and how often they met.                                                      
  Number 160                                                                   
  MS. SHEPARD replied five usually, but there are currently                    
  two vacancies.  Nominees have been made and they are going                   
  to presently meet in Juneau.                                                 
  Number 168                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the membership comes from                      
  around the state.  He asked if the meetings were generally                   
  in Juneau.                                                                   
  Number 169                                                                   
  MS. SHEPARD answered yes, but the meetings are held in other                 
  areas as well as Juneau.  Teleconferencing is common.                        
  Number 172                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he was trying to determine the                    
  cost of the meetings.  Three to five members meet twice a                    
  year around the state.  Actual cost versus the benefit.                      
  Number 180                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified MS. SHEPARD did not serve on                  
  the MCAC.                                                                    
  MS. SHEPARD replied no, she was on the Board of Museums                      
  Alaska, an organization of all the museums in the state of                   
  Number 187                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified the Board of Museums Alaska                   
  supports the continuation of the MCAC.                                       
  MS. SHEPARD affirmed REPRESENTATIVE ULMER.                                   
  Number 195                                                                   
  COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, commented on HB 531.  As a                    
  museum staff member he found the MCAC to be frustrating,                     
  whereby it often involved unnecessary work with regard to                    
  overseeing acquisitions of $1000.  He stated the $1,000                      
  figure should be higher to reduce the paperwork.                             
  MR. DEROUX commented as a member of the MCAC, he had similar                 
  feelings.   He did, however, find the value of the MCAC as                   
  it served the museum like a board of directors.  The MCAC                    
  provides oversight to the museum staff members in                            
  establishing policies and procedures.  He stated he has                      
  mixed feelings about HB 531 because there is a considerable                  
  amount of staff time spent on MCAC matters which could be                    
  better spent otherwise.                                                      
  MR. DEROUX focused on HB 531 where it allows deaccessioning                  
  of acquired items to be solely in the hands of the                           
  commissioner and director of the department.  He stated this                 
  could be going in the wrong direction.  He noted an example                  
  of directors who misuse their authority to gain money                        
  through deaccessions.  With HB 531 the potential exists.                     
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she was considering proposing an                 
  amendment which would increase the minimum purchase approval                 
  requirement to possibly $5,000 and waive the requirement for                 
  face to face meetings.  She asked his opinion.                               
  MR. DEROUX stated he would be in favor of REPRESENTATIVE                     
  ULMER's suggestions.  He reminded the committee that they                    
  were not dealing with a lot of money.  With a small                          
  acquisitions budget and little travel, he explained it                       
  sometimes was not worth the time spent.  Progress would be                   
  made with a $5,000.  The oversight committee is important;                   
  however, face to face meetings are not necessary.                            
  Number 272                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if MR. DEROUX was in a legislative                 
  position, would he propose the elimination or the                            
  continuation of the MCAC.                                                    
  MR. DEROUX answered he would not propose the elimination                     
  without something to take its place.  An administrative                      
  hierarchy would not work.  He gave the staff credit for                      
  their expertise; however, they do not have enough power to                   
  be influential.  In-house rules and regulations can be                       
  changed easily.                                                              
  Number 299                                                                   
  MR. SMITH clarified the point MR. DEROUX made on the                         
  oversight of deaccessioning.  He had stated concerns about                   
  the oversight of deaccessioning an object from the                           
  collection ending up with the commissioner of Education.                     
  MR. SMITH noted elsewhere in law, the commissioner of                        
  Administration has oversight for all deaccessioning of                       
  materials.  Therefore, even if the commissioner of Education                 
  decided something should be deaccessioned, it would then                     
  have to go to the commissioner of Administration for a final                 
  decision.  Oversight exists in a different part of the law.                  
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he would like to hold HB 531 in                        
  Number 316                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he did have an amendment to HB
  531 if the chair would like to entertain it.                                 
  Amend AS 23.30.005 to read:                                                  
       (a) The Alaska Workers' Compensation Board                              
       consists of a southern panel of three members                           
       sitting for the first judicial district, a                              
       northern panel of three members sitting for the                         
       second and fourth judicial district, three [TWO]                        
       southcentral panels of three members each sitting                       
       for the third judicial district, and one panel of                       
       three members that may sit in any judicial                              
       district.  Each panel must include the                                  
       commissioner, a representative of industry, and a                       
       representative of labor.  The latter two members                        
       of each panel shall be appointed by the Governor                        
       and are subject to confirmation by a majority of                        
       the members of the legislature in joint session.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained the southcentral panels would                  
  be expanded to three.  There would be no cost associated                     
  with the amendment.  He stated presently, there is a delay                   
  in issuing Board D and Os, which are decisions and orders,                   
  and the attorneys of their clients are frustrated by this.                   
  The possibility exists that the state might soon be involved                 
  in a class action suit.  In 1993, there were 350 decisions                   
  and orders issued, of which 44 were beyond the statutory 30-                 
  day limit.  Another panel would be available to select from                  
  without any fiscal impact.                                                   
  Number 342                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned if the majority of the                       
  delayed cases were in the southcentral region.                               
  Number 347                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied he was not sure, but he believed                 
  most of the backlog was in the southcentral region because a                 
  majority of the decisions and orders were issued from there.                 
  Number 351                                                                   
  MS. LEAF answered the Department of Labor feels that if                      
  another panel was added in southcentral, it would alleviate                  
  a substantial amount of the delay.  The majority of the                      
  cases come out of that region.                                               
  Number 362                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt amendment #1.                             
  Number 366                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
                 G. DAVIS, SANDERS, OLBERG.                                    
  MOTION PASSED                                                                
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated a committee substitute would be worked                 
  on and it would be brought back up in a week.                                
  Number 369                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated for purposes of preparing the                    
  committee substitute, she would like to see the changes they                 
  had been discussing regarding the MCAC.  She questioned                      
  whether it might be better to vote now and roll the                          
  amendment into the committee substitute, or if limited CS                    
  should be prepared.  It would save the committee a step if                   
  the vote was taken now and the CS could include it.                          
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated the conceptual amendment would                   
  be to change the $1,000 requirement to $5,000 and it would                   
  remove the requirement that the MCAC meet face to face.                      
  Number 379                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the amendment would have to do more                    
  because if the board is dissolved the amendment is                           
  Number 382                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER explained the portions of HB 531 which                  
  remove the MCAC would be removed.  It would be better to                     
  roll it into the CS they want prepared now, rather than have                 
  to prepare another CS if HB 531 passed.                                      
  Number 390                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented the amendment was not as simple as                  
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER believed it was.  He wanted to wait                     
  until the CS was before the committee in writing.                            
  Number 394                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER pointed out if the changes are done as                  
  an amendment versus a proposed CS, it will be more                           
  complicated because it will required yet another CS to be                    
  Number 399                                                                   
  lot of sections would be deleted from HB 531, therefore it                   
  would be much smaller.  Only a few sections would be                         
  included which relate to museums.                                            
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he wanted to see the proposal in                       
  writing.  A committee substitute could be reviewed next                      
  Number 408                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired if someone from the museum                      
  could be recalled to comment on the conceptual amendment                     
  which would increase the purchase review amount to $5,000.                   
  MR. SMITH stated $5,000 would be acceptable.  He said,                       
  anymore one does not purchase too many things under $5,000.                  
  Major purchases are always more than $5,000.                                 
  Number 420                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the change would not make a                         
  MR. SMITH replied they feel they do have adequate controls                   
  to properly handle museum acquisitions and deaccessioning                    
  without a committee.  He was in favor of both amendments.                    
  Not meeting face to face would reduce cost.                                  
  Number 431                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what the museum's average acquisition                   
  cost is.                                                                     
  Number 432                                                                   
  MR. SMITH answered an average is difficult to establish.                     
  One purchase of two pieces this year is about $25,000.                       
  Other years, there may be a number of pieces bought in the                   
  $2,000-4,000 range.  Purchases vary from year to year                        
  because of what is on the market and what the museum needs.                  
  Number 438                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he understood there was not very much                  
  available in real collectibles under $5,000.                                 
  Number 440                                                                   
  MR. SMITH agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY that for special things                 
  they would like to get his statement was true.  He stated                    
  there are a number of items of historical importance or                      
  smaller ethnographic pieces that are under $5,000.  Nice                     
  pieces are also received as gifts.                                           
  HB 531 was held in committee.                                                
  HB 530 - REQUIRED REPORTS OF STATE AGENCIES                                  
  Number 449                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 530, sponsored by the Office of the                 
  Governor, for discussion.                                                    
  Number 452                                                                   
  addressed HB 530.  She stated HB 530 is the culmination of a                 
  study by the OMB working with departments to identify annual                 
  reports which were either duplicative, unnecessary, or could                 
  be amended to biennial.  She noted HB 530 reflects those                     
  reports the Governor is forwarding to the legislature for                    
  consideration of reporting requirement amendment or repeal.                  
  She noted the sectional analysis.  HB 530 is an efficiency                   
  measure.  Zero fiscal notes were provided by the                             
  MS. REXWINKEL noted AS 43.56.018, subsection (c), a                          
  Department of Revenue report similar to those mentioned in                   
  Sections 16, 17, and 18, was inadvertently omitted from HB
  530 in the drafting process.                                                 
  Number 466                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned what was omitted.                                  
  Number 467                                                                   
  MS. REXWINKEL answered Section 16, 17, and 18, refer to                      
  reports by Department of Revenue which deal with education                   
  tax credits for the various taxes the department collects.                   
  Inadvertently, AS 43.56.018(c) amending the gas property                     
  tax, was omitted from HB 530.  A letter from Department of                   
  Revenue should be in the packet requesting that section be                   
  included in the bill.                                                        
  Number 476                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he did not understand how oil and gas                  
  related to Sections 16, 17, and 18.  Section 16, he                          
  commented, dealt with colleges and universities.                             
  Number 478                                                                   
  MS. REXWINKEL answered Sections 16, 17, and 18, repeal the                   
  annual reporting requirement by Department of Revenue to                     
  Legislative Budget & Audit on the income tax education                       
  credits taken under the Alaska Net Income Tax.  She referred                 
  to page 2.  The gas property tax was inadvertently omitted                   
  from the variety of income tax education credits which are                   
  reported by Department of Revenue.                                           
  MS. REXWINKEL noticed the committee did not have the                         
  Department of Revenue letter and stated she would follow up                  
  on it.                                                                       
  Number 502                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY reiterated the intent of HB 530 and inquired                  
  if it would apply to mining operations.                                      
  Number 506                                                                   
  MS. REXWINKEL replied Section 18, AS 43.65.018(c), is the                    
  statute citation which deals with mining.                                    
  Number 509                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what Section 16 applied to.                             
  MS. REXWINKEL replied Section 16 applies to Alaska Net                       
  Income Tax Act.  Other sections deal with the Alaska Oil &                   
  Gas Properties Production Taxes, Mining License Tax and                      
  Fisheries Tax, all of which have a reporting requirement to                  
  Legislative Budget & Audit from Department of Revenue on the                 
  education credit associated with those taxes.                                
  Number 516                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what the Alaska Net Income Tax Act                      
  (ANITA) was.                                                                 
  MS. REXWINKEL responded she was unable to answer that                        
  question.  She stated there are various taxes and filings                    
  required by businesses and ANITA was probably the corporate                  
  income tax.                                                                  
  Number 524                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked where on the sectional analysis was the                 
  section that had the inadvertent deletion.                                   
  MS. REXWINKEL answered the section was not on the sectional                  
  analysis because the sectional analysis follows the bill.                    
  Another section should be included.                                          
  Number 534                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the sectional analysis had just been                   
  received that morning; therefore, HB 530 would be held in                    
  committee for review until next week.                                        
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked how much of HB 530 was house cleaning                   
  and how much was relaxing reporting requirements.                            
  (REPRESENTATIVE ULMER left the meeting at 10:14 a.m.)                        
  Number 543                                                                   
  MS. REXWINKEL answered HB 530 was meant to be house keeping                  
  measures.  The reports were placed into statute prior to                     
  current budgetary provisions and/or under different                          
  organizational structures.  Therefore, either the committees                 
  or commissions are not functioning, and/or the information                   
  is duplicative.  HB 530 is not intended to relax reporting                   
  requirements.  The Governor thought the information was                      
  fully available.                                                             
  Number 552                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned the opinion of the Legislative                     
  Budget & Audit.                                                              
  MS. REXWINKEL stated she was not aware of it.                                
  Number 563                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the costs in the right column                  
  of the sectional analysis were savings.                                      
  Number 564                                                                   
  MS. REXWINKEL affirmed REPRESENTATIVE KOTT.  She stated                      
  those costs are what the departments current project is the                  
  cost of producing those reports, and the amount of money                     
  they would save if the reports were not done.  She noted the                 
  zero fiscal notes and stated most of the dollars are very                    
  nominal, therefore the departments would not have produced a                 
  fiscal note in the first place to receive additional moneys                  
  to produce those reports.  It is not anticipated the                         
  departments budgets will be reduced by the nominal figures.                  
  Number 572                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented he had seen nothing but zero fiscal                 
  MS. REXWINKEL stated some of the fiscal notes may include in                 
  the analysis section a detailed list of the nominal amounts.                 
  Number 577                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified he was referring to the                        
  sectional analysis.                                                          
  MS. REXWINKEL stated HB 530 is meant to be noncontroversial.                 
  The Governor's Office worked very hard to pick innocuous                     
  reports to eliminate controversy.                                            
  Number 587                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee to review the sectional                   
  analysis before the meeting on Thursday; action on HB 530                    
  might be possible.                                                           
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY adjourned the meeting at 10:19 a.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects