Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/01/1994 08:00 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 1, 1994
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Al Vezey, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice-Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Fran Ulmer
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HCR 27: Relating to support for the National Rifle
Association's gun safety program for children.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 404: "An Act relating to the authority of the
commissioner of natural resources to reconvey, or
relinquish an interest in, land to the United
States if that land or interest being reconveyed
or relinquished is identified in an amended
application for a land allotment under federal law
and the original claim for an allotment described
land that is now within, or managed as a unit of,
the state park system."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 128: "An Act relating to legislative audits."
CSSB 128(STA) HEARD AND HELD OVER
*HB 407: "An Act relating to issuance of commemorative gold
rush motor vehicle license plates."
HEARD AND HELD OVER
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 27
ROGER McKOWAN, Staff
Representative Lyman Hoffman
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4453
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of HB 404 for
prime sponsor
TOM HAWKINS, Senior V.P. & CEO
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
P.O. Box 100220
Anchorage, AK 99510
Phone: 278-3602
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 404
(Spoke via offnet)
SHELBY STASTNY, Director
Office of Management and Budget
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
Phone: 465-3568
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 128
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
P.O. Box 113300
Juneau, AK 99811-3300
Phone: 465-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 128
DUGAN NIELSON, Realty Officer
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 310
Dillingham, AK 99576
Phone: 842-2743
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in favor of HB 404
PERRY AHSOGEAK, Realty Director
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Ave., Suite 600
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-8251, ext. 3239
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via offnet in favor
of HB 404
PETE PANARESE
Chief of Field Operations
Alaska State Parks Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107001
Anchorage, AK 99510
Phone: 762-2603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference
in favor of HB 404
LARRY LABOLLE, Staff
Representative Richard Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 410
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-3789
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement from HB 407
JUANITA HENSLEY
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-2650
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 407
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 27
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT NRA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/94 2096 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/18/94 2096 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/22/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 404
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE ALLOTMENTS IN STATE PARKS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOFFMAN,Foster,Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/94 2155 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/26/94 2155 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 128
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE AUDITS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/22/93 440 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/22/93 440 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/10/93 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/10/93 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/93 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/17/93 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/93 845 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 3NR
SAME TITLE
03/18/93 846 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS
(S.STA/GOV)
04/12/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
ROOM 518
04/12/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/14/93 1353 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR (STA)CS
04/14/93 1354 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (S.STA/GOV)
04/14/93 1353 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN
REPORT
04/13/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/14/93 (S) FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE
FINANCE 518
04/14/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/14/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/17/93 (S) MINUTE(SSA)
04/23/93 1693 (S) RULES 3 CAL 1NR 4/23/93
04/23/93 1694 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/23/93 1694 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/23/93 1695 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING
FAILED Y12 N8
04/23/93 1695 (S) THIRD READING 4/24 CALENDAR
04/24/93 1741 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 128(STA)
04/24/93 1741 (S) (S) ADOPTED FIN LETTER OF
INTENT
04/24/93 1741 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/24/93 1746 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/27/93 1552 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/27/93 1552 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/29/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/15/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 407
SHORT TITLE: COMMEMORATIVE GOLD RUSH LICENSE PLATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/94 2166 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/27/94 2166 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/31/94 2207 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 328
SHORT TITLE: BIENNIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,BARNES,Phillips,B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/94 2013 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2013 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2013 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/13/94 2054 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B. DAVIS
01/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/22/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/29/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 438
SHORT TITLE: DOG MUSHING VANITY PLATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2256 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2256 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/11/94 2359 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-18, SIDE A
Number 000
HCR 27 - SUPPORT NRA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM
CHAIR AL VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
Members present were REPRESENTATIVEs KOTT, SANDERS and
OLBERG.
CHAIR VEZEY opened HCR 27 for discussion and asked
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE for his presentation. He
distributed an assortment of books to the committee to look
over while they watched a video.
(REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS joined the committee at 8:01 a.m.)
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Prime Sponsor of HCR 27, thanked
CHAIR VEZEY for rehearing HCR 27 and gave a brief overview
of the HCR 27 video and the materials distributed to the
committee. He stated the materials were a sample of
teaching aids available to the schools. The safety
information is presented in a coloring book and comic book
fashion, of which the video is used in conjunction with. He
noted all of the materials are free to school districts who
choose to use them.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made the observation that the
Representative (Fran Ulmer) who requested the additional
information about HCR 27 was not present. He wanted to move
HCR 27 out of committee without seeing the video tape
because he had already seen it.
Number 056
CHAIR VEZEY preferred to view the tape, stating it would
only take seven minutes.
Number 058
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated CHAIR VEZEY was correct.
CHAIR VEZEY paused the meeting to watch the EDDIE EAGLE
PROGRAM video tape at 8:03 a.m.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER joined the meeting at 8:07 a.m.)
Number 062
CHAIR VEZEY resumed the meeting at 8:09 a.m. The Eddie
Eagle video tape had been watched and the additional
literature had been reviewed and discussed. He asked the
committee if there was a motion.
Number 074
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that HCR 27 be passed from
committee with individual recommendations, asking unanimous
consent.
Number 081
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the motion. The committee secretary
called the roll, and HCR 27 passed unanimously with
individual recommendations from the House State Affairs
Committee.
CHAIR VEZEY announced REPRESENTATIVE ULMER had arrived.
HB 404 - NATIVE ALLOTMENTS IN STATE PARKS
Number 106
CHAIR VEZEY opened HB 404 for discussion. He announced the
Sponsor for HB 404 was REPRESENTATIVE LYMAN HOFFMAN, and Co-
Sponsors were REPRESENTATIVES FOSTER and WILLIAMS.
Number 124
ROGER McKOWAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LYMAN HOFFMAN, gave an
overview of HB 404. He said the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and a number of Native allotment holders in
state parks have recently focused on changes to Title 38.
Title 38 has a technical change which would allow the state
of Alaska to reconvey land back to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), in the hopes to expedite the relocation of
allotments in state parks. The Bristol Bay Native
Corporation and the Bristol Bay Native Association notified
REPRESENTATIVE HOFFMAN that efforts to rectify the transfer
situation have halted. More than a hundred applications
have been waiting for transfer for 20 years and without HB
404 they may wait much longer.
MR. McKOWAN stated, for technical questions, that TOM
HAWKINS, SENIOR V.P. & CEO of BRISTOL BAY NATIVE
CORPORATION; CHARLIE BUNCH, ASSISTANT AREA DIRECTOR for
TRUST LANDS DIVISION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; and DUGAN
NIELSON, REALTY OFFICER of BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION,
were available to testify.
Number 160
CHAIR VEZEY asked if anyone was present from DNR who could
familiarize the committee with Title 38.
Number 165
MR. McKOWAN stated he was under the impression there would
be someone present; however, TOM HAWKINS may be able to
answer the committee's questions about Title 38.
Number 170
CHAIR VEZEY stated there had been problems with the offnet
teleconference connections.
Number 185
TOM HAWKINS, SENIOR V.P. & CEO BRISTOL BAY NATIVE
CORPORATION, testified in favor of HB 404. He said HB 404
would be an important tool for state land managers. By
allowing them to reconvey allotments, which have been
relocated to avoid public interest conflicts, litigation
could be avoided, the state will save money, and it will
speed up the transfer of land to private ownership. He
stated the Department of the Interior projects it will be 40
years before the adjudication survey and final patents of
these lands will be completed. The technical change to
Title 38 allows the allottee, the state, and the federal
government, if in agreement, to relocate the Native
allotment and move it over to avoid public interest
conflicts. He stated AS 38.05.035(b)9 then allows the
commissioner to reconvey land back to the BLM, if
erroneously conveyed to the state by the BLM and if the
Native allotment has been validly filed. In 1991, Congress
gave the BLM the flexibility to make this change, but
current law inhibits the state from exercising this
flexibility. He pointed out that HB 515 from the DNR has
similar language as an overall Title 38 update, although it
has several provisions and committee referrals. He urged
the committee to support HB 404.
Number 243
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated page 1, line 10, suggests the
commissioner may establish "reasonable" procedures and adopt
"reasonable" regulations. He asked MR. HAWKINS to define
"reasonable," believing the word could have different
meanings to different people.
Number 251
CHAIR VEZEY reminded REPRESENTATIVE KOTT that page 1, line
10, was existing statute. He said the amendment regards the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT thought it might be a good time to clear
up the language.
Number 259
MR. HAWKINS responded that the commissioner of DNR, upon
request of the BLM, has to determine that it is in the best
interest of the state to reconvey land to the federal
government. "Reasonable" is focused toward accomplishing
this best interest claim and making sure the public and
affected parties has reviewed the decision before the
commissioner determines the best interest. He felt the
legislation, which sets up the decision making process, was
satisfactory and the term "reasonable" was not a point of
controversy.
Number 281
CHAIR VEZEY reiterated "reasonable" is the most litigated
word in the American court system.
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned the list of possible of
conveyances, referencing a December 9, 1993, memo faxed from
Mr. Hawkins to Mr. Ron Swanson (on file). She asked if he
was familiar with it.
Number 297
MR. HAWKINS did not have the document.
Number 299
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated it listed the number of possible
allotment applications in each of the park systems. She
asked, of the total 150 possible applications, how many
would be authorized again and become effective?
Number 312
MR. HAWKINS replied it would be too difficult to make a
judgement on unadjudicated claims and he would not do it.
The ability to relocate and avoid conflict may not be an
appropriate choice in all cases. He expected about 25
percent of the applicants would avail themselves to
relocation to work with the state and federal government.
He noted this was a "very ball park estimate."
CHAIR VEZEY placed the teleconference sites on listen only.
SHELBY STASTNY arrived to testify on CSSB 128, therefore
CHAIR VEZEY paused discussion on HB 404 and opened CSSB 128
for discussion.
SB 128 - LEGISLATIVE AUDITS
Number 340
SHELBY STASTNY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
(OMB), offered his concerns on CSSB 128. He said CSSB 128
requires the Division of Audit and Management Services
(AMS), OMB, to follow up legislative audit reports. He felt
this should be done, however, in a cooperative manor between
the AMS and the Division of Legislative Audits (DLA) to
agree which audits should be followed up on.
MR. STASTNY said statutorily requiring a follow up will
completely redirect the efforts of the AMS. The AMS has
only eight to ten auditors, whereas the DLA has nearly 30
working year round. He felt the appropriate function of the
AMS was to work primarily on audits under the executive
branch and redirecting the AMS to the DLA would not be
proper. The executive branch does, however, feel the DLA
audits should be followed up.
MR. STASTNY stated the function of the auditors is to sell
their recommendations to the agencies. The subject matter
is very familiar to those who did the audit, and the OMB
feels those people ought to be working on the acceptability
and implementation of the recommendations. Another entity
added to the process would require them to be duly informed
of the recommendations, of which it would require an
overview of almost the entire audit. He felt this would be
an inefficient process to use the AMS. If the
recommendation is not good enough for the agency to follow,
even the executive branch would have the same difficulty as
the DLA in convincing an agency.
MR. STASTNY noted the DLA has an Anchorage office where many
of the audits are performed. The OMB sends people to
Anchorage sometimes, but requiring follow up on these
reports may result in significant amounts of travel.
MR. STASTNY said the OMB is concerned that, with the
additional work load, they would have to hire more
employees. He felt three people would be required to carry
out the current work load and distribute the additional work
load. The AMS currently regularly follows up their reports
after six months to determine whether or not the agencies
have accepted their recommendations. He felt this was a
good idea for the DLA also. He noted the AMS would be
willing to work with recommendations where the governor's
office, for example, agrees there is a good idea which an
agency is reticent to follow.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS left the meeting at 8:30 a.m.)
Number 424
CHAIR VEZEY stated he had difficulty interpreting the
wording.
CHAIR VEZEY asked MR. STASTNY to clarify if he was implying
that on page 2 the OMB will be at the direction of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A)? He commented
that he did not interpret page 2 in this way.
Number 435
MR. STASTNY responded that the words do not say it, but they
believe it will be the result. The words say the OMB shall
monitor the implementation and recommendations made by the
LB&A. He stated Mr. Welker wrote a letter to Senator Steve
Frank basically saying through some administrative
procedures they would be able to take care of some of the
OMB's concerns. He believed the letter also mentioned the
legislative auditor will work in concert with OMB to balance
the resources reasonably available; the legislative auditor
will prioritize items according to significance; and
basically the legislative auditor and OMB will work with the
resources available.
Number 453
CHAIR VEZEY asked if MR. STASTNY stated that the LB&A
currently has 30 auditors working.
Number 454
MR. STASTNY replied around 30.
Number 455
CHAIR VEZEY thought they only had two to three. He asked
how many auditors the AMS had.
Number 459
MR. STASTNY answered the AMS has eight to ten.
Number 461
CHAIR VEZEY clarified the AMS would have to add
approximately four people to keep up the work load.
Number 462
MR. STASTNY corrected that their fiscal note stated three.
Number 466
CHAIR VEZEY noted CSSB 128 mandates additional work will be
done; however, there is a question as to whether additional
people are required. This was of concern to him considering
the current budget pressures. He wondered how much work
could be created with two agencies cyclicly deriving work
for each other to keep checking on.
Number 480
MR. STASTNY agreed with CHAIR VEZEY. He stated the DLA
operates at the direction of the legislature on larger tasks
and the AMS primarily works at the request of the governor's
office or an agency if a department has asked for an audit
of their procedures.
Number 497
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if MR. STASTNY had an alternative
recommendation. She believed the Senate State Affairs
Committee meant for LB&A, after an audit, analysis and
recommendation, to see action because LB&A and the
legislature cannot really enforce the recommendation. She
stated the LB&A has the option of withholding funds to an
agency.
CHAIR VEZEY asked if withholding funds would be the
"ultimate hammer."
Number 505
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said yes, but the "ultimate hammer" may
also hurt the LB&A, as well as the agency. The legislature
often chooses between not giving the agency money, even
though they want them to do the work. She believed CSSB 128
would involve the AMS in the work while being one step short
of withholding all funds. The executive branch could
implement the agency in direction. She said CSSB 128 states
that recommendations will be directed to the AMS to either
implement or respond why they would rather not.
Number 520
MR. STASTNY stated the recommendations of the LB&A are
heard; however, they are not always agreed with. He said
the OMB would like to work with LB&A to find things they
agree on. He felt the AMS should not be put in the middle
of the auditor and the audited agency. He felt if the
agencies were not on task they should be dealt with through
the budget or legislative process. Procedural detail is up
to the executive branch and there may be differences of
opinion as to how policy is carried out.
Number 545
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the LB&A and the legislature has been
frustrated with this problem in the past.
Number 548
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded that the chair of the Senate
State Affairs Committee introduced a bill to deal with
frustrations he or the LB&A feels. She said SENATOR
PHILLIPS, Chair of LB&A, would have to answer why the bill
was introduced. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said generally the
executive branch responds positively to the recommendations
of LB&A. Sometimes an audit uncovers a practice which
frustrates the will, then if the people get mad enough, they
turn to the budget process and try to take away funding.
Number 573
MR. STASTNY replied the alternative proposal would be to
possibly meet on a regular basis to discuss concerns not
currently voiced. He said the OMB values the efficient
management of their departments and prefers an informal form
of action.
Number 587
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if MR. STASTNY ever meets with
RANDY WELKER.
Number 588
MR. STASTNY did not know how regularly, but thought GARY
ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF OMB AUDIT DIVISION, meets with MR.
WELKER.
Number 589
CHAIR VEZEY asked REPRESENTATIVE ULMER, member of LB&A, why
she had not introduced this type of legislation.
Number 591
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER did not feel it was a big problem. She
said the agencies had generally been responsive in terms of
responding to the initial audit and in implementing
reasonable requests. She stated Senator Phillips may be
aware of something she was not.
Number 598
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the demand on services would influence
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's decision. A zero fiscal note from
Senate Rules and the House State Affairs Committee was
before the committee, as was a modest fiscal note from OMB
of about $206,000 a year, escalating every year of three
people. He stated auditors create a lot of work and, with
the offices working together, there could be a lot of jobs
created. These jobs would have to be funded.
Number 610
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER felt it would be appropriate to ask
RANDY WELKER how many times there has been a problem, and if
CSSB 128 was necessary.
Number 614
CHAIR VEZEY stated zero fiscal note bills have been known to
show impacts. He asked how much work would be driven by
CSSB 128.
Number 622
MR. STASTNY responded that the submitted fiscal note was
prepared by the AMS, which indicated possibly 20 percent of
the recommendations of LB&A would be followed up. This
would amount to about 3,600 hours for the AMS, which would
take three auditors.
Number 633
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned how many audited agencies
agree with the recommendations of the LB&A. He noted, if
the audited agency agrees with the recommendation, the AMS
will be responsible for monitoring the implementation. He
wondered what it would take to follow up the implementation.
Number 640
MR. STASTNY said he did not know, but he could possibly find
out from RANDY WELKER.
Number 642
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there were a lot of
disagreements.
Number 645
MR. STASTNY said not really; LB&A does good work and the
agencies generally agree with their work.
Number 647
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that 80-90 percent could
perhaps be in agreement with recommendations by LB&A,
therefore, the AMS would have to implement these
recommendations.
MR. STASTNY said the AMS would have to become familiar with
the implementation, and this is why he felt the DLA would be
better to do the implementation because they prepared the
audit.
Number 658
CHAIR VEZEY stated there does not seem to be any recourse,
and the LB&A would be free to request services from another
branch of government's budget without restraint. He said
government would drive government in cost. He asked for a
recommendation to temper this effect, perhaps a set number
of auditors who would respond to the LB&A requests. The
legislature could choose whether or not to fund those
auditors.
Number 671
MR. STASTNY recommended there be monthly meetings with DLA,
as an informal method, and not statutory requirements.
Number 676
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if "monitoring" was an
auditing term with specific meaning.
Number 679
MR. STASTNY believed "monitoring" was used just in general
English language.
Number 681
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS stated CSSB 128 directed the AMS to
"monitor," and it could have different meanings to different
people.
Number 685
MR. STASTNY replied that "monitor" does not have special
meaning.
Number 686
CHAIR VEZEY introduced RANDY WELKER as the next person to
testify.
Number 692
RANDY WELKER, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
DIVISION, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, answered questions on
CSSB 128. He addressed CHAIR VEZEY and said there is not an
urgent need for CSSB 128, but SENATOR PHILLIPS was primarily
interested because there could be a better success rate on
LB&A recommendations.
TAPE 94-18, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. WELKER believed SENATOR PHILLIPS was looking for a long
term mechanism to not only improve implementation rate, but
also keep significant recommendations before the LB&A. He
said a formal mechanism provides a systematic review.
MR. WELKER addressed REPRESENTATIVE KOTT and said he did not
know the specific number of agreements because it was
constantly changing. The DLA has a high success rate in
getting agencies to agree with recommendations, but their
follow up in implementation does not always match. The
agencies may have a matter of priority within their shop or
they may not have the resources to implement the
recommendations. He suspected some agencies may even agree
with the recommendation to have the audit come to a smooth
end. Some agencies simply disagree. He stated CSSB 128 is
designed to involve the OMB and the recommendations the LB&A
thinks are important for policy matters. To create
continuity, the LB&A would like the perspective of the
governor's office on recommendations it decides to forward
to the OMB.
Number 077
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked what sort of responses from
the OMB does the DLA get.
Number 097
MR. WELKER responded that the current DLA involvement with
the OMB implementations is limited. A copy of all DLA audit
reports is supplied to the OMB for their files. Currently,
the DLA and the AMS are working on different things;
however, they do communicate to make sure work is not
duplicated.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked MR. WELKER's reaction to MR.
STASTNY's recommendation to have informal meetings.
Number 107
MR. WELKER thought MR. STASTNY's idea would eliminate a
formal mechanism to bring recommendations before the LB&A.
With a concern for administration changes, CSSB 128 would
assure a continued program.
Number 128
CHAIR VEZEY asked MR. WELKER to comment on the fiscal notes,
feeling CSSB 128 obviously has the potential of creating
more work. He asked, Would the administration have to hire
more people and appropriate money to allow for this, or
would the legislature address it as though, since extra
money was not appropriated, they do not expect the OMB to
respond to the bill this year?
Number 144
MR. WELKER responded that Senate State Affairs discussed
this issue and resolved it with a zero fiscal note. He
stated the current fiscal note is similar to the 1993
version and Senate State Affairs felt there would be
flexibility in dealing with the resource limitations. He
thought three people, present or additional, were not
necessary. He said AMS would have to adjust and communicate
with the DLA on the amount of work they receive. Since the
majority of the recommendations received will have the
affected agencies in agreement, he felt the agencies would
have to be monitored, not intensely reaudited. The agencies
need to know they are not going to slide through without
changes, he said.
CHAIR VEZEY asked what the penalty would be for violating
this statute if CSSB 128 were to pass.
Number 184
MR. WELKER answered, not criminal penalties, but the LB&A
may bring on pressure through the budget processes. He said
CSSB 128 does not include specific penalties.
Number 194
CHAIR VEZEY asked why CSSB 128 should be put into statute if
it did not have a means of enforcement. He asked if the
legislative "hammer" was increasing and the administrative
"hammer" was decreasing. He asked what CSSB 128 is
improving.
Number 208
MR. WELKER replied the intent is not to change the balance
of power, but further a goal that both the legislature and
administration share to improve state government.
Number 214
CHAIR VEZEY asked what the "tool" would be in CSSB 128 to
enforce the statute.
Number 218
MR. WELKER answered there are several laws without specific
penalties, but their formal expression of policy by the
legislature gives them recognition so as agencies will
follow them. He said CSSB 128 would not be an ineffective
law.
Number 229
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if MR. WELKER gets frustrated
with the OMB when he has to relate to them.
Number 234
MR. WELKER replied that over the years there have been
shifts in implementation and the DLA has no specific concern
with the current OMB. He said CSSB 128 is an accumulation
of frustration by some LB&A members and also the frequent
sight of good recommendations not taken advantage of. He
stated the DLA should take care of implementation, and he
did not strongly disagree, but implementation of
recommendations is ultimately the responsibility of the
administration.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER left the meeting at 9:05 a.m.)
Number 257
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about current audits on agencies
and implementation followed up by the DLA.
Number 262
MR. WELKER stated the DLA's primary large audit, the State
Single Audit, which is the financial audit of the State of
Alaska in its entirety, averages 70-75 significant
recommendations. The DLA follows up on the recommendations
they made to the state in the previous year. The DLA makes
recommendations on special audits looking at particular
areas of concern requested by the LB&A, but they may not
return to those areas for several years. He said CSSB 128
is focused towards these special audits.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification that the DLA
does not reevaluate if the recommendations have been
implemented. He asked if anyone does.
Number 288
MR. WELKER said there is no formal mechanism and CSSB 128
would help in this area. Noting the sunset process, the DLA
is sometimes asked to revisit agencies several times. In
these cases the DLA has the advantage of file history.
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned why the DLA would not want to
reevaluate agencies to see if the recommendation had been
implemented. Does lack of funding or man power limit the
DLA? He felt the follow up should not be that difficult.
Number 318
MR. WELKER responded that he has no control over his
workload and he probably has 15-20 requested special audits,
which he has not even been able to start yet. He noted that
even if he did follow up on the special audits, he still has
no enforcement mechanism, and he would have to relay the
same recommendation that the agency ought to do it. He
thought pressure from the executive branch would create
pressure and help in quick direct implementation. The
problem is a resource issue, he said.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER rejoined the meeting at 9:24 a.m.)
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked MR. WELKER to comment on the
number of audits he was responsible for in the 18th
Legislature, as compared to the 17th Legislature. He asked
if this was a new problem.
Number 340
MR. WELKER answered no, the DLA has always been busy.
Number 349
Hearing no more questions, CHAIR VEZEY announced CSSB 128
would be held in committee and called for a short recess at
9:12 a.m.
CHAIR VEZEY called the meeting back to order 9:18 a.m. and
reopened HB 404 for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS was
present.
HB 404 - NATIVE ALLOTMENTS IN STATE PARKS
Number 365
DUGAN NIELSON, REALTY DEPARTMENT, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE
ASSOCIATION, testified in favor of HB 404. He stated that
the remaining Native allotment applications are in conflict
with state land selections. He stated resolutions are found
by going before the Interior Board of Land Appeals and tend
to be a great expense to both parties. He said HB 404 will
help avoid years of litigation and great expense. He noted
HB 404 provides a mechanism of resolution in situations of
land ownership uncertainty.
(REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG rejoined the meeting at 9:20 a.m.)
Number 387
CHAIR VEZEY asked why they restrained from making more
changes to Title 38 than they did in HB 404 to really
facilitate the process.
Number 399
MR. NIELSON stated SB 293 had been introduced, which does
take more action than HB 404, and it may expedite the
process even further.
(REPRESENTATIVE KOTT rejoined the meeting at 9:21 a.m.)
Number 404
CHAIR VEZEY understood that the first change in Section 1
establishes the Administrative Procedure Act which will
govern how the commissioner will set regulations.
Number 412
MR. NIELSON agreed.
Number 414
CHAIR VEZEY classified MR. NIELSON as a user of these
services and asked if he endorsed this method of adopting
regulations. He noted there were not many other options.
Number 430
MR. NIELSON said he did not understand the question.
Number 434
CHAIR VEZEY stated there is a process to adopt regulations,
and the commissioner does not have to pay attention to the
public input process, but failure to do so could be grounds
for litigation. He asked if HB 404 was creating another
source of adjudication by incorporating the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Number 444
MR. NIELSON thought the best-interest determination would
preclude the public from expressing too much concern.
Number 447
CHAIR VEZEY asked if MR. NIELSON was comfortable with this
as a user.
Number 448
MR. NIELSON stated he had no other options. If it does not
work, it will need to be fixed again.
Number 455
CHAIR VEZEY moved to the Fairbanks offnet site.
Number 460
PERRY AHSOGEAK, REALTY DIRECTOR, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE
(TCC), testified in favor of HB 404. He said TCC provides
land management services under contract to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) for Native allotment holders within the
TCC region. He related that he has worked on conflict cases
in the past, and resolving land conflicts requires an
extensive amount of time for both the state and the BIA
contractors involved. He said HB 404 would alleviate this
problem by allowing allottees and the state to negotiate the
location of the allotments presently within the park system.
The state benefits from spending less staff time and finally
resolving the conflict. The allottee benefits from
obtaining their title, within their current lifetime, of
lands they are entitled to under the Native Allotment Act.
He said the TCC supports HB 404.
Number 483
CHAIR VEZEY, feeling HB 404 had a very limited scope, asked
ROGER McKOWAN, REPRESENTATIVE LYMAN HOFFMAN'S STAFF, if he
would characterize it the same way.
Number 490
MR. McKOWAN said he would.
Number 491
CHAIR VEZEY clarified that HB 404 only deals with land in a
state park or management system.
Number 492
MR. McKOWAN agreed with CHAIR VEZEY.
Number 493
CHAIR VEZEY understood the problem is that the Native
allotment has a grant from the federal government.
Number 500
MR. McKOWAN clarified the problem is due to AS 38.05.035,
which precludes the state from transferring the alternative
allotment outside the state park back to BLM, who in turn
makes the actual switch. He described an example in which
the original parcel, parcel A, would be inside the park and
an alternative parcel has been selected elsewhere; the
allottee then transfers their ownership from parcel A to the
alternative land. Currently, the state is precluded from
taking the alternative and giving it back to the BLM so they
can make the switch and take the allottee out of the state
park and put them on the alternative land.
Number 518
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if the titles are designed to
be under federal paperwork. He said if the alternative were
on state land, the state could convey the Native allotment,
but the state does not have that authority.
Number 525
MR. McKOWAN believed the BLM has to make the actual
transfer. He stated page 2, paragraph (B),(i), says "the
occurrence of the error or omission," and these Native lands
are not allotted in error, so only those allotted in error
can be reconveyed. Theoretically they cannot be transferred
under the statute.
Number 535
CHAIR VEZEY said he understood MR. McKOWAN'S testimony, but
he did not read the statute the same. He said paragraph 8
states the commissioner may "reconvey or relinquish land, or
an interest in land to the federal government if the land is
described in an amended application for an allotment under
43 U.S.C. 1617 and the land described in the original
application for an allotment is within or otherwise managed,
or subject to management, as a unit of the state park
system;..." He felt the land addressed in paragraph 8, line
25, is not the same as land addressed in line 26 of the
original application.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER felt the explanation was clear. She
showed the committee an analogy on the committee table with
cups. She thought HB 404 should be clear to the committee
and they should take action.
Number 569
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the state would lose land to the
federal government with HB 404.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER left the meeting at 9:34 a.m.)
Number 578
MR. McKOWAN clarified that the land is now federal land
located in state parks.
Number 579
CHAIR VEZEY stated the allotment is a federal land in a
state park system.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG added that the land has been selected
by the state in its entirety.
Number 583
CHAIR VEZEY continued that the federal government was
reluctant to transfer the land to the Native allotment
holder.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated the federal government cannot
give the Native allotment holder the alternative land,
because the state is entitled to it.
Number 588
CHAIR VEZEY asked what is to preclude the federal government
from completing the transfer of the original Native
allotment within the state management unit, and then the
state and allottee could perform the swap?
CHAIR VEZEY called for a brief at-ease at 9:35 a.m. to allow
the teleconference operator to reconnect CHARLIE BUNCH, in
Anchorage, so as he could testify. The meeting resumed at
9:37 a.m. CHAIR VEZEY asked if MR. BUNCH was present to
testify.
Number 602
MR. HAWKINS replied MR. BUNCH was absent.
Number 616
PETE PANARESE, CHIEF OF FIELD OPERATIONS, ALASKA STATE PARKS
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, testified in
favor of HB 404 from Anchorage. He said allowing applicants
to relocate the state land outside the state parks will
reduce public impact and speed finalization of applications.
He noted some applications have been pending for over 30
years. He clarified that the current Native allotments are
on state land. He said DNR received "temporary, or T.A., to
the land, with the state, then the allotment applications
were filed on top of that." They want to provide a
mechanism for the commissioner to move these allotments to
state lands located outside the state parks.
Number 637
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the state received a conveyance of the
land before the allotment was granted.
Number 639
MR. PANARESE responded yes, before the land was applied for.
Number 641
CHAIR VEZEY felt it was not good legal sense, since the
state received conveyance of the land from the federal
government, then under the federal Native Allotment Act, the
allotment was applied for.
Number 644
MR. PANARESE replied the allotments was under the premise
that their use existed prior to the establishment of the
park, and prior to the state receiving the land from BLM.
Number 646
CHAIR VEZEY clarified the actual application occurred after
the state received conveyance.
Number 647
MR. PANARESE confirmed that CHAIR VEZEY was correct.
Number 648
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated the applicant felt he/she had
an interest prior to the state and applied on the off-chance
they might get the land. He said HB 404 would provide a way
to get them other land because the land does not fall under
"errors and omissions."
Number 651
CHAIR VEZEY commented that he liked REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG's
description. CHAIR VEZEY asked the committee's pleasure.
Number 656
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG moved that HB 404 be passed from
committee with individual recommendations, a zero fiscal
note, and unanimous consent.
Number 659
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the motion. The committee secretary
called the roll. HB 404 passed unanimously from the House
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVES ULMER, B. DAVIS and SANDERS were absent.
(REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG left the meeting at 9:45 a.m.)
CHAIR VEZEY decided to move over HB 328, and opened HB 407
for discussion.
HB 407 - COMMEMORATIVE GOLD RUSH LICENSE PLATES
Number 679
LARRY LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER, Prime
Sponsor of HB 407, presented the sponsor statement. He said
HB 407 would establish a commemorative plate in recognition
of the gold rush centennial currently being planned across
Alaska. He said REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER offered a committee
substitute for HB 407 to suit the desires of the Division of
Motor Vehicles and better accomplish the Centennial Plate.
Number 687
CHAIR VEZEY confirmed a committee substitute had been
presented. He moved that CSHB 407 be adopted, stating that
the Uniform Rules would allow the CS to be adopted with only
three committee members present. Hearing no objection, CSHB
407 was adopted.
Number 697
MR. LABOLLE stated that CSHB 407 would make the issuance of
the commemorative plate the standard issue for license
plates from 1996-2000.
TAPE 94-19, SIDE A
Number 012
CHAIR VEZEY asked for a clarification of the CSHB 407 time
frame.
MR. LABOLLE stated that page 2, Section 3, says "Section 2
of this act takes effect on January 1, 2000," which would be
the end of the period. Except for a provision of Section 3,
which says "takes effect January 1, 1996," this would be the
date CSHB 407 would become effective.
Number 031
JUANITA HENSLEY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV),
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, answered questions on CSHB 407.
She said the original HB 407 was adding a special plate
without setting provisions in the statute that would allow
the DMV to charge anything other than the normal
registration fee for that plate. She said making the design
would have been very costly to the state and the DMV would
have to add an additional plate to its inventory.
MS. HENSLEY, working with MR. LABOLLE to make changes,
understood the time limit of gold rush plates to be from
January 1, 1996, to December 31, 1999, during which a
special design plate would be made to take the place of the
existing blue and gold plates. She said the existing design
of the blue and gold plate is currently set in statute and
HB 407 would allow anyone applying for or changing their
registration plate to receive a special plate. In the year
2000, the statute would revert back to the mandated Alaska
flag, the traditional blue and gold color.
MS. HENSLEY said she had not prepared a fiscal note for CSHB
407 because it was not adopted and the DMV wanted to
continue working with the sponsor, REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER.
She felt CSHB 407 would be more cost effective. She
explained that the approximate cost to the state for yearly
license plate orders is $313,000 for replacement or new
plates, and CSHB 407 would add approximately 25 percent, or
$78,000, to this cost. The DMV would base the addition over
a period of time. She expected more people would apply for
the special plates, needing personnel services; however,
additional positions would not be needed. She noted that
time expenses would be a factor.
Number 102
CHAIR VEZEY understood there would only be one license plate
during the four year period, but he thought MS. HENSLEY
stated it would be optional.
Number 110
MS. HENSLEY clarified that the commemorative gold rush plate
would be the only plate, aside from the other optional
plates which are already available. The original HB 407
would have made an additional optional plate available, and
this would be costly to the state.
Number 119
CHAIR VEZEY asked how long the current license plate design
had been in effect.
Number 121
MR. HENSLEY believed the design had been in effect since
1978.
Number 123
CHAIR VEZEY thought it began in the 1980's. He thought
there was currently a design selection process underway to
select a new license plate for Alaska.
Number 129
MS. HENSLEY replied that the only plates the DMV would be
able to redesign, without a statute change, would be
personalized or vanity plates. The statute prohibits the
DMV from redesigning a license plate, with the exception of
specialty plates offered.
Number 136
CHAIR VEZEY asked about the votes taken in Fairbanks during
the summer on license plate designs.
Number 140
MS. HENSLEY answered there was a proposal to change the
license plate in 1993, but it was voted down on the House
floor.
Number 144
CHAIR VEZEY asked about the fiscal note.
Number 146
MS. HENSLEY expected 25 percent of the people who presently
have license plates to reapply for the new plate. She
stated that CSHB 407 will also bring in revenue for the
state. She did not have the exact numbers.
Number 154
CHAIR VEZEY clarified that all new plates issued would be
the new design. He asked how the old plates would still be
valid.
Number 157
MS. HENSLEY said it was optional whether or not a person
would want to change their plates. Traditional plates would
revert back on January 1, 2000.
Number 161
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the fiscal note would increase or
decrease if the time limit was extended or even made the
plates indefinite.
Number 165
MS. HENSLEY answered it would be CHAIR VEZEY's prerogative.
The statute would have to be changed to redesign the plate.
She said she has seen plates with expiration stickers
throughout the state. Some plates even have the stickers
all over, whereby the plate cannot be read.
Number 179
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS stated that CSHB 407 would be an
opportunity to change the plates completely for everyone.
He then asked how this would affect the fiscal note.
Number 185
MS. HENSLEY replied that the DMV would then probably want to
phase people into the change, which would be less costly to
the state.
CHAIR VEZEY referred to the $78,000 a year MS. HENSLEY had
mentioned in the fiscal note.
Number 197
MS. HENSLEY clarified that $78,000 was the additional cost
to the normal plate order cost. She said there will be a
small amount of personnel services costs mainly due to
overtime. If the new plate was mandated for everyone there
would be additional cost.
Number 204
CHAIR VEZEY asked if CSHB 407 was amended to phase the new
design in and left the new design in statute, until changed
by the legislature, the fiscal would be less than the
currently assumed in CSHB 407.
Number 209
MS. HENSLEY said no, currently replacement plates are being
ordered for people who lose their plates or are just coming
into the state. She said last year's order was $312,000.
Number 218
CHAIR VEZEY asked if last year's order was for approximately
60,000 plates.
Number 219
MS. HENSLEY said she did not know the exact number, but each
plate roughly cost $6.50 a set. The order would have to
increase with the phase-in because everyone would have to
replace their license plates, as opposed to only 25 percent.
She commented that the costs for the phase-in could be
spread over a two year period, FY 96 and FY 97. If the
whole design of the license plate was changed and mandated
for everyone, the existing order for the new plates reissued
every year would be added to the 606,000 vehicles already
registered, she said.
Number 248
CHAIR VEZEY felt CSHB 407 could be amended by deleting
Section 3, in which case only new plates issued would be of
the new design and the Alaska flag plates would no longer be
inventoried. People could keep the plates for ten years if
they wanted. He asked if this scenario would provide a
lesser fiscal note than the existing assumption of CSHB 407.
Number 256
MS. HENSLEY responded yes; the DMV would not have to
continue ordering the Alaska flag plates and the Alaska
commemorative gold rush plates, beginning January 1, 1996,
could be continued. The fiscal note would be less; however,
the additional 25 percent to reapply for the new plates
would probably still exist. She noted in 1993 the proposal
was amended, and when they tried to delete Section 3 it was
voted down.
CHAIR VEZEY asked how long the current inventory of plates
would last.
MS. HENSLEY said the DMV orders plates every year at a cost
of $312,000.
Number 279
CHAIR VEZEY clarified that the DMV would now be ordering
plates for FY 95.
Number 281
MS. HENSLEY felt it was good that CSHB 407 did not take
effect until January 1, 1996.
Number 283
CHAIR VEZEY thought the DMV would still have to make another
order of the Alaska flag plates to last until 1996.
Number 285
MS. HENSLEY commented they would last through January 1,
1996. She stated a full year's order would not have to be
made, only the required amount.
Number 291
CHAIR VEZEY stated that a fiscal note would not be requested
immediately and the committee would work on a committee
substitute. He said a subcommittee would be appointed with
CHAIR VEZEY and REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER to discuss the
recommendations of the committee.
Number 299
MS. HENSLEY stated there is a gold rush centennial committee
who has sent JAY DULANY, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, designs as suggestions of what might be used. She
said the DMV could try to get 3M Corporation, who creates
the designs and does the coverings, to make up sample plates
with the designs to show the committees.
Number 309
CHAIR VEZEY adjourned the House State Affairs Committee at
10:03 a.m.
BILLS NOT HEARD TODAY:
HB 328 - BIENNIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION
*HB 438 - DOG MUSHING VANITY PLATES
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|