Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/26/1995 09:35 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 1995
9:35 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-95, #57, Side 1 (000-end)
SFC-95, #59, Side 1 (000-528)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:35 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairmen Halford and Frank, Senators
Phillips, Sharp, and Zharoff were present. Senators Rieger
and Donley arrived soon after the meeting began.
ALSO ATTENDING: Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of
Administration; Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison, Dept. of
Fish and Game; Gregg McDonald, Public Safety Employees
Association; Susan Taylor, fiscal analyst, Legislative
Finance Division; and aides to committee members and other
members of the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 77 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
Discussion was had with Geron Bruce of the Dept.
of Fish and Game. An amendment by Senator Rieger
changing "has occurred" to "exists" at page 2,
line 30 was adopted. CSSB 77 (Fin) was then
REPORTED OUT of committee with a $10.0 fiscal note
from the Dept. of Fish and Game.
SB 152 - GEOGRAPHIC PAY DIFFERENTIALS
Discussion was had with Alison Elgee of the Dept.
of Administration. An amendment by Senator Donley
changing the differential for state employees in
Seattle from "0" to "-10" was adopted. Senator
Rieger noted need for the drafter to adjust
percentage language at page 2, line 26, to include
both "above" and "below" in accordance with the
foregoing amendment. Senator Donley moved for
passage of the bill, but Co-chairman Frank advised
it would be held in committee for further review.
SENATE BILL NO. 77
An Act relating to intensive management of identified
big game prey populations.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 77 be brought on for
discussion. Senator Sharp, sponsor of the legislation, said
that the bill contains cleanup provisions for last year's SB
77. New legislation was introduced because several factions
are having difficulty understanding the mandate of the
previous legislation. He then commenced the following
sectional review:
Sec. 1. Contains findings already set forth in statute.
Sec. 2. Adds item (4) at page 2, and states that the
Commissioner
shall cooperate with and assist the board of
fisheries and the board of game by implementing
regulations requested by either board. This
provision was added because of recent court
decisions ruling that the Commissioner cannot void
quotas set by the board. It thus places in
statute the recent court ruling.
Sec. 3. Removes old language mandating that state fish and
game
divisions cooperate with and assist the federal
government in enforcement of federal fish and
wildlife laws and regulations. At this point in
time, that mandate is onerous. New language
mandates that the department cooperate with the
state board of fisheries and board of game.
Sec. 4. Deletes the Commissioner's option of establishing
a
division of game within the Dept. of Fish and
Game.
Sec. 5. States that the division shall be the division of
game
and sets forth the duties. This returns to the
status quo prior to six or seven years ago when
nomenclature for the division was changed to the
division of wildlife conservation.
Sec. 6. Clarifies language adopted by the Eighteenth
Legislature. Department personnel are having
difficulty understanding what the
statute says. It addresses the point at
which depletion is calculated and
establishes the benchmark as "historic
high levels." Anything below that
represents depletion.
Sec. 7. Clarifies that intensive management does not
include
management of people. The department appears to
have a difficult time with that concept. Intensive
management refers to management of game.
Sec. 8. Adds paragraphs relating to harvestable surplus
and
defines the meaning. Senator Sharp noted
difficulties at recent board meetings in matching
individual personal philosophies with what the
statutes say. Subsection (4) defines the term
"high level of human harvest" to a quantifying
element (1/3 or more) that is easily
understandable.
Sec. 9. Adds a new section which strengthens legislative
intent
in statutes by establish a quantitative target to
better focus management goals at the 50/50 level.
That is the high level. Nothing mandates that it
be achieved. It says that once parameters "get
down to a third of the harvestable surplus taken
by human harvest, they should consider
implementing intensive management, if it appears
feasible and achievable by scientific studies, and
try to work up toward the 50/50 replacement." The
allocation at this time is 87/3. That is out of
balance "between four legged critters and two
legged critters." That has resulted from years of
passive management and no intensive management to
control the element currently taking the 87%.
At the December meeting, the assistant attorney general had
no problem understanding and articulating what previous SB
77 meant. The issue is still not understandable to
department personnel. Personnel should move forward to
aggressively manage game as outlined by the attorney
general's recommendation.
Senator Sharp stressed that the resource belongs to the
people of Alaska. It is a valuable resource if managed
correctly. An abundance creates greater accessibility and
availability to utilize the resource.
Senator Randy Phillips referenced the last two sentences of
the legislation. They indicate that in instances of
disagreement between the commissioner and the board, the
decision of the governor is final. He then commented that
since the commissioner is appointed by the governor, the two
are likely to be of the same opinion. Co-chairman Halford
advised that the governor is ultimately in control.
Language in the bill places the authority and responsibility
"clearly where it really is . . . ." Senator Phillips
voiced his belief that the final decision should rest with
the board of game since that entity is charged with
responsibility for managing the resource. Decisions
concerning the resource should be based on data rather than
politics.
Senator Rieger referenced the chart indicating current
harvest levels of 87/3, in terms of predator and human
takings. Language within the bill speaks to one-third
harvest by humans--a ten fold increase in human harvest of
game. He then asked if that number should realistically be
set in statute. Senator Sharp referenced escape hatches set
forth in Sec. 6 and noted, specific, avoidance in all areas
North of the Yukon River. Senator Rieger questioned
whether, because of the radical change, the board would rely
on escape provisions, and management would not achieve the
goals of the legislation. He suggested a more moderate
enhancement of human harvest might be more easily triggered.
Senator Sharp advised that on the vast majority of state
land where the law will be applicable, where one-third or
less harvest of the harvestable surplus is taken by humans,
the department must evaluate the situation. Further
discussion of effective management of certain areas
followed.
Senator Zharoff asked if the department had developed
regulations and implemented last year's legislation.
Senator Sharp indicated that the board commenced a
familiarization review last November and December.
Extensive further discussion was had at the March meeting,
and implementation of intensive management was designated
for two areas where residents have been concerned about low
population levels.
Discussion of the term "harvestable surplus" followed
between Senator Zharoff and Senator Sharp.
Senator Zharoff questioned the advisability of managing via
legislation, indicating that it removes much flexibility for
making mid-season adjustments, etc. He suggested that
ability to correct problems as the season progresses is much
better under the current system. Ability to pull the board
together to make emergency decisions, if necessary, will be
difficult to attain.
Senator Sharp attested to difficulties associated with
attempts to implement predator control programs. He further
suggested that Senator Zharoff was viewing wildlife
management from the viewpoint of commercial fishing which
has been "very successful in managing for abundance."
Management of game has been dismal. It is time for the
state to either save its money and let nature take her
course or commence game management for abundance. Senator
Zharoff advised that every time the department develops a
predator control program, the methods are not acceptable,
and the program draws both in-state and national opposition.
Senator Rieger directed attention to page 2, line 30, and
MOVED to change "has occurred" to "exists." He noted that
"has occurred" references something that may have occurred
in the past but may no longer exist. "Exists" indicates
that that is the situation at the time the board is
considering depletion from historic levels. The sponsor
said he had no problem with the change. No objection having
been raised, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game, came before committee. He attested to need for in-
season flexibility compared to a pre-season goal. The
department is concerned by definitions which place specific
numerical goals in statute. That reduces department ability
to respond to variations.
Referencing prior comparison of commercial fishery
management with that of game, Mr. Bruce stressed that the
success of fishery management has hinged on flexibility to
make in-season adjustments based on observations of
abundance and other factors as they occur. That contrasts
with the federal system which set pre-season goals and
locked managers into those goals regardless of what was
actually observed in season. The more flexible route has
been the approach taken since statehood in management of all
state fisheries. That has produced tremendous success.
Speaking to allocations, Mr. Bruce reminded members that
even in times of great fishery abundance, there are "raging
fisheries allocation conflicts." That highlights the fact
that the state cannot achieve a level of production in fish
and wildlife that will eliminate or reduce allocation
conflicts. There will be disputes among individuals about
what is the highest and best use of resources.
Co-chairman Halford pointed out that there is no commercial
harvest of game. That is a major component. As use of game
became an issue across the nation, market hunting was the
first thing to go. There is thus a significant difference
between fish and game resources. Conflicts will continue to
exist.
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that under amended
language within the bill a reduction in stock of a certain
game triggers intensive management. Once historic high
levels are again achieved, the state can lift itself out of
intensive management. It does not have to go all the way to
the one-third human harvest level. The numerical quota may
never be fully achieved.
Mr. Bruce voiced department concern that figures for
historic high yields reflect numbers from a time during
which the department does not have the same level of
confidence as it does for current numbers. Those levels
were achieved after extensive predator control involving the
use of poison. It may be difficult to re-create that
effort. Mr. Bruce advised of department support for
predator control and attempts to conduct predator control
where prey populations were in "the predator pit." Those
efforts met with "tremendous opposition" and were
subsequently discontinued. The department remains committed
to predator control and recognizes that it is one of the
valid tools for use in wildlife management. During recent
meetings, the board of game identified 35,000 square miles
in the interior in which predator control would be
appropriate. These are areas of major human harvest along
the roadside where major problems exist. Mr. Bruce stressed
that members keep in mind the state's population growth and
how it has impacted hunting opportunities, particularly
along the road system.
Co-chairman Halford noted that the most effective form of
wolf control is pack elimination. That involves helicopters
and biologists and elimination of the entire pack so there
are no remaining reproducing pairs. That approach is
totally unacceptable to both the environmental community and
"all of our friends with Super Cubs who want to go out and
wolf hunt." They cannot stand the thought of state
employees participating in predator control "when they can't
do it." The department is thus stuck with alternatives that
do not work very well. Senator Sharp concurred that
predator control is not effective when the size of the pack
is reduced rather than eliminated. The pack is generally
back to full or greater strength within three years or
fragmentation has occurred and several packs have formed.
Senator Sharp referenced earlier comparison of management of
the commercial fishery to that of game. He suggested that
it is much easier to keep people happy when management has
produced an abundance rather than when there is nothing to
allocate. Co-chairman Halford noted that the reverse is
true for other states that are overpopulated but where game
is managed for maximum production. He said that the state
of Pennsylvania provides more pounds of big game for human
harvest than Alaska.
Senator Sharp spoke to need to zero the fiscal note for the
bill, saying that there is sufficient money in the
department's $900.0 budget to cover the cost. Geron Bruce
asked that the note not be eliminated. He explained that
the purpose of the note is to identify costs associated with
the new program and new initiative. If the note does not
accompany the bill, the only way the department could move
ahead with the program would be to discontinue some other
function and reprogram the funds.
End: SFC-95, #57, Side 1
Begin: SFC-95, #59, Side 1
In further discussion of the fiscal note, Senator Sharp
advised that he would not delete the negligible note at this
time. He stressed need to ensure that the note does not set
a pattern for future budget additions until results are
known.
Senator Rieger asked if the underlying issue behind the bill
is that the department has utilized bag limits, harvest
seasons, and human consumption limits as the method of game
management to the exclusion of management forms. He then
asked if the bill could be simplified to require that
management of a game stock must not reduce human harvest by
a greater percentage than the reduction of predator harvest.
All consumptive uses other than natural causes would thus be
on equal ground and share in the burden. That would
eliminate discriminatory treatment of one form of
consumption over another. Senator Sharp said he would have
no problem with that approach were the human harvest at a
recognizable point. Since human harvest is only 2.5 or 3%
and other takings total 87%, there is no equity. Passive
management over the last twenty years has resulted in a
reallocation of resources away from humans to predators.
Without predator control, that is what happens. The Senator
questioned who game resources are being managed for.
Discussion followed between Senator Phillips and Mr. Bruce
regarding the transplant of Canadian wolves into Yellowstone
National Park. Mr. Bruce advised that while Alaska offered
to provide wolves for the transplant, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service wanted stock that was genetically closer to
what was native to the area. The department does not
believe there is a significant difference between Canadian
and Alaskan wolves. The offer to provide transplant stock
remains open. Senator Sharp noted that department
biologists are acknowledged worldwide as experts on what
should be done to control wolves. Of the 35 or 36 wolves
captured in British Columbia, 31 or 32 were captured by
Alaskan biologists.
In response to a question from Senator Phillips regarding
the possibility of transplants to other states, Mr. Bruce
noted that as attractive as export is, it is not a realistic
option in achieving a balance between predators and prey.
It will not solve the existing problem.
Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 77 (Fin) with
individual recommendations and the accompanying $10.0 fiscal
note. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. CSSB 77 (Fin) was REPORTED
OUT of committee on a show of hands evidencing five in
support of passage, one no vote, and one abstention. The
$10.0 fiscal note from the Dept. of Fish and Game
accompanied the bill. Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and
Senators Donley and Sharp signed the committee report with a
"do pass" recommendation. Senators Phillips, Rieger, and
Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
SENATE BILL NO. 152
An Act relating to geographic differentials for the
salaries of certain state employees who are not members
of a collective bargaining unit; relating to periodic
salary surveys and preparation of an annual pay
schedule regarding certain state employees; relating to
certain state aid calculations based on geographic
differentials for state employee salaries; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 152 be brought on for
discussion. ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Director, Dept. of
Administration, came before committee to speak to the bill.
She explained that the legislation was introduced to amend
the statutory geographic differential that covers non-
covered employees of the executive branch and the
legislature. The existing differential has been in statute
since 1972. The majority of the state's union contracts
contain differentials amended on the basis of a 1985 study.
However, differentials for non-covered employees were not
brought current.
The proposed bill also establishes $30.0 as the limit of
total compensation to which the differential would apply.
That threshold would be annualized throughout the year
rather than applied to the first few months of the year and
then shut off.
The legislation also amends current requirements for annual
salary and cost of living surveys to require the conduct of
a cost of living survey every five years, subject to
appropriation. These surveys are extraordinarily expensive
if conducted in the same manner as the 1985 study. That
survey cost $375.0. No funding has been provided to conduct
a comparable survey since that time.
The proposal for transition of employees from the old index
to the new involves a twelve-month freeze for current
salaries.
Portions of the proposed bill relate to other statutory
sections such as revenue sharing which has traditionally
been tied to the old geographic differential. Bill
provisions maintain the historical tie for those programs.
Amendments contained within the legislation would thus not
impact anything but the employee salary base.
Ms. Elgee directed attention to a spread sheet (copy
attached to these minutes) and explained that the column
entitled "1972 index" shows the current differential applied
to non-covered employees. The next column displays the
union differential in place since 1986. The column entitled
"Runzheimer" evidences the result of a study conducted by
the Dept. of Administration last fall. There was limited
funding for the review and results "look a little weird."
The department has thus not relied on the study in
establishing the proposal in pending legislation, except to
the degree that it demonstrates that the cost of living in
Alaska has come down significantly.
The proposal in SB 150 represents a broad-band approach that
looks at geographic similarities, the type of transportation
available to areas, and, in a few cases, other cost of
living information. As an example, Ms. Elgee noted that
because of its size, Fairbanks is showing up on national
studies. Those studies indicate a cost of living in
Fairbanks similar to that in Anchorage.
Ms. Elgee acknowledged questions concerning applicability of
the legislation to the university and the court system. The
university has already eliminated the differential for
Fairbanks, effective in January. At the time that was done,
the university indicated interest in revising the
differential for other parts of the state but was awaiting
the administration's proposal for those areas. The court
system has traditionally followed the statutory
differential.
Referencing the spread sheet, Senator Zharoff noted an
increase from 0.791 to 1.0 for employees stationed in
Seattle. Ms. Elgee explained that national surveys indicate
that the cost of living in Seattle is comparable to
Anchorage. Senator Phillips suggested that lack of sales
tax in Anchorage and a sizable tax in Washington causes the
cost of living to appear similar. Senator Sharp voiced his
understanding that the legislation proposes to increase the
pay for Seattle-based employees by 21% on the first $30.0.
Ms. Elgee responded that it would bring them up to the same
base as Anchorage employees. The state presently has six
employees in Seattle. Senator Donley asked how the bill
might be modified so that Seattle employees maintain the
status quo. Ms. Elgee recommended that if the committee
modifies pay for Seattle employees, it "go to the union
differential which is currently 0.870% of the base. The
1972 index is 0.791%.
Senator Donley referenced page 3, line 1, and MOVED to
maintain Seattle employees at their present level. In
response to an inquiry from Co-chairman Halford, Ms. Elgee
explained that in order to retain current levels of pay for
employees in Seattle, the bill would have to reflect a
percentage below the basic salary schedule. Senator Donley
then MOVED to change the zero for Washington State to -10 at
page 3, line 1. No objection having been raised, the motion
CARRIED and the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED. Co-chairman Halford
also noted need to conform percentage language at page 2,
line 26, to conform to the minus number. He suggested that
language read "Percentage Above or Below" rather than merely
"Percentage Above." No objection having been raised, the
CONFORMING AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.
Senator Zharoff asked how the proposed bill would impact
Alaska's foreign offices. Ms. Elgee advised that the bill
makes no change for Alaska employees in foreign countries.
She noted that the director of personnel would be
establishing salaries for Alaska employees outside the State
of Washington. Problems have arisen concerning Alaska
employees in Washington, D.C., which has a substantially
different cost of living. The administration thus suggests
that these employees be treated similar to those in foreign
offices.
Discussion of the Runzheimer study followed between Senator
Phillips and Ms. Elgee.
Senator Zharoff asked what impact the proposed bill would
have in terms of getting people to serve in rural Alaska.
Ms. Elgee acknowledged that the department anticipates a
combination of effects. She attested to past criticism
regarding "very high differentials in rural Alaska" that
make service in rural areas so attractive that people are
recruited from Anchorage and Fairbanks when jobs could be
made available to local residents. At the same time, there
sometimes are no local residents to fill specific
professional qualifications. The administration will have
to explore other options (advanced step placement) to
encourage individuals to accept jobs in rural Alaska. The
department does not feel the geographic differential should
be utilized to solve recruitment difficulties.
As an example of operation of the proposed legislation,
Senator Sharp cited a road grader operator in Fairbanks
making $40.0 a year and asked if the new index would reduce
his pay by $6.0. Ms. Elgee explained that the salary
schedule is set as a base salary schedule. It is then
adjusted relative to recognition of an area cost of living
differential. All road grader operators throughout the
state start with the same basic level of pay. She then
acknowledged that the operator in Fairbanks would experience
the above-noted reduction. That impact, however, would be
implemented one year from the effective date of the
legislation to give employees adequate notice of the change.
Senator Sharp remarked that the reduction would require
considerable adjustment for someone with mortgage payments
and other financial obligations.
Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that the bill
addresses two issues:
1. The first limits the geographic pay differential
to the first $30.0.
2. The second adjusts the schedule.
He then suggested the changes would entail a less
significant adjustment for individuals at lower pay scales
if the existing schedule remains in place for a couple of
years, the $30.0 threshold is held harmless for three years,
and the schedule change is thereafter adopted. Ms. Elgee
advised that Sec. 8 of the bill contains the twelve-month
transition period. Should the committee wish a longer
period to mitigate impact on employees, that is the section
that should be amended. Co-chairman Halford suggested that
changing July 1, 1996, to July 1, 1997, would extend the
period one year.
In response to a question from Co-chairman Frank, Ms. Elgee
advised that the legislation proposes that the differential
apply only to that portion ($30.0) of the salary that
actually "goes to cost of living instead of to the entire
salary of the individual as in the past."
Co-chairman Frank questioned the fact that the current
differential for Valdez is greater than for interior
villages and suggested that the two do not deserve the same
differential. Ms. Elgee concurred. She added that if the
committee is interested in splitting election districts,
that could be done at page 2. line 30, by excepting Valdez
and Cordova from the listing of districts 34, 35, and 36.
Valdez and Cordova could then be included within districts
at line 29. Past geographic differential schedules have
been written in that fashion. Co-chairman Frank voiced
reluctance to do so without review of supporting data for
both existing and suggested differentials. Senator Sharp
noted a similar problem for Delta. In response to further
concerns, Ms. Elgee advised that rural state employees are
primarily located in regional centers.
In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, Ms. Elgee
explained that the legislation impacts non-covered employees
in the executive branch including the Dept. of Law, Office
of the Governor, Public Defender, Office of Public Advocacy,
Pioneer Home Administrators, and AHFC rural housing offices.
Senator Phillips asked if there was a difference between
union coverage and that proposed for non-union employees.
Ms. Elgee responded affirmatively. She added that the
recent ASEA agreement contains a reopener clause that would
be triggered by passage of the legislation. Senator
Phillips voiced a preference for treating all employees the
same. In response to a further question, Ms. Elgee advised
that at the present time non-covered employees are higher in
most districts than union employees. That has been the case
for the past ten years. The proposal would make the
majority of the districts lower, but there are a couple of
exceptions. Senator Donley commented that most of the non-
covered employees are top level, management positions which
benefit from larger salaries.
In response to comments regarding potential cost savings,
Ms. Elgee advised of savings of $1.2 million, when fully
implemented.
Senator Donley MOVED for passage of CSSB 152 (Fin) with
individual recommendations.
GREGG McDONALD, representing Public Safety Employee's
Association (PSEA), came before committee. He acknowledged
that the bill would not directly effect PSEA employees but
advised of several concerns. The first is that it
establishes various classes of employees working in the same
area. Further, it sets the cap at $30.0 gross. Mr.
McDonald noted that while it would not presently impact PSEA
employees, it would become a factor in future negotiations.
Prior studies upon which the differential was based were
scientific. There is no such evidence to support the
current proposal. Mr. McDonald expressed a preference for
maintaining the current differential based on its
accountability.
Co-chairman Frank voiced need to further review possible
impacts of the proposed legislation. The bill was thus held
in committee for additional consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|