Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 08:50 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
28 March 1996
8:50 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-96, #57, Sides 1 & 2
SFC-96, #58, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 8:50 A.M.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairman Halford, co-chairman Frank,
Senators Phillips, Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were
present when the meeting was convened.
Also Attending: Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Administration; Allison Gordon, aide to
Senator Steve Frank; Diane Worley, Director, Division of
Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social
Services; Senator Jim Duncan; Carole Edwards, R.N., B.S.N.,
O.C.N.; Gene Dau, AARP and VFW; Janet Parker, Retirement &
Benefits Manager, Division of Retirement and Benefits,
Department of Administration; Bill Chisham; Brad Pierce,
Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Senator John Torgerson; and aides to
committee members.
D. Rebecca Snow, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Child
Support Enforcement Section, Civil Division Fairbanks,
Department of Law testified via teleconference.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
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 HELD bill in committee pending
preparation of new CS.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(HES)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective date."
Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration testified on behalf of the bill and further
answered questions by committee members regarding the fiscal
note. Co-chairman Halford asked her to submit a new zero
fiscal note. Senator Frank moved technical amendment page 1
line 5 the year "2000" be changed to "2003" and by a vote of
4 - 3 it was adopted. Senator Sharp MOVED CSSB 259(FIN) and
without objection it was REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal note
from Department of Administration and individual
recommendations.
SENATE BILL NO. 289
"An Act relating to runaway minors and their families or
legal custodians."
Senator Steve Frank spoke briefly on behalf of the bill.
Allison Gordon, aide to Senator Frank also testified on
behalf of the bill. Senator Frank moved amendment #1 and
without objection it was adopted. Senator Rieger moved
amendments to amendment #2 and without objection it was
adopted. Senator Frank moved amendment #2 as amended and
without objection it was adopted. D. Rebecca Snow,
Assistant Attorney General, Fairbanks and Diane Worley,
Director Family and Youth Services testified regarding the
bill and both agreed to work with Senator Frank as the bill
moves through its processes. Senator Frank MOVED CSSB
289(FIN) and without objection it was REPORTED OUT with
individual recommendations. Department of Health and Social
Services will submit new fiscal note.
SENATE BILL NO. 253
"An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of prostate
cancer detection."
Senator Jim Duncan testified briefly on behalf of the bill
and explained his amendment #1 as supported by the American
Cancer Society. He has no objection to Pap smear
examinations being added. Carole Edwards, Gene Dau and Bill
Chisham testified briefly on behalf of the bill. Janet
Parker, Division of Retirement and Benefits testified
briefly regarding the fiscal note and answered questions by
committee members. Senator Sharp moved amendment #1 and
without objection it was adopted. Co-chairman Halford HELD
bill in committee. Senator Rieger will check cancer
screening.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the budget reserve fund.
Senator Rieger briefly explained SJR 30. Brad Pierce,
Office of Budget and Management testified in support of the
bill. Senator Rieger MOVED SJR 30 and without objection it
was REPORTED OUT with $2.2 fiscal note from the Officer of
the Governor and individual recommendations.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 198(RES)
"An Act establishing the Homer Airport Critical Habitat
Area."
Senator John Torgerson testified on behalf of the bill.
Senator Donley moved amendment #1 and without objection it
was adopted. Senator Sharp MOVED CSSB 198(FIN) and without
objection it was REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal notes and
individual recommendations.
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 introduced SB 152 and asked that a new
CS be prepared. He said there is about $900,000 in the
fiscal note out of about $1.2 million.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(HES)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective
date."
Alison Elgee, Department of Administration was invited to
join the committee. She indicated service on the Alaska
Commission on Aging. This commission has been in existence
since about 1981. It was formerly known as the Older
Alaskans Commission. Legislative Audit conducted a sunset
review this year and for the second time recommended this
commission be removed from the sunset review provisions or
if that was unacceptable the sunset date be set at the year
2003. The Governor introduced the legislation to remove the
commission from the sunset review. When Senate H&SS took it
up they were uncomfortable with the complete removal and
adopted the committee substitute now before this committee.
She said she did not believe they understood the audit was
actually recommending a date further out. She said they
would prefer to have the commission removed as Legislative
Audit had recommended because of the work required in
conducting a sunset review. There were two auditors for
most of two months. There is a better utilization of those
resources. Co-chairman Halford indicated that he supported
the existence of the commission. Auditors should be able to
decide to what extent they go into audits on things they do
not find anything initially and do not get requests to spend
a lot of time on. Senator Frank felt this may not lie with
their professional practices. They are certified public
accounts and they have rules and regulations they have to go
by even if they feel it is not necessary under the
circumstances. Perhaps the law should be modified. Co-
chairman Halford said they could be exempted from the audit
requirement without exempting them from the sunset law.
Senator Frank concurred.
Senator Sharp asked about the fiscal notes since the costs
are already in the budget. Co-chairman Frank asked Ms.
Elgee about the positive fiscal note since it is already in
the budget. She said the feeling of Tam Cook was that the
fiscal note should represent the amount of money to be taken
out of the budget should it actually be chosen to sunset the
commission. It is footnoted to show that those monies are
contained in the Governor's budget. Co-chairman Halford
asked if this was really a zero fiscal note and she said
that as long as the commission was continued it would be
zero. If the commission is eliminated the money would be
deleted represented in the fiscal note. Co-chairman Halford
said he wanted a new fiscal note reflecting the way the law
read and she said a new zero one would be submitted.
Senator Frank said maybe the sunset date should be extended
and rather than get into what types of audits should be used
good judgment should be used about which things need closer
and more periodic review and which things need to be
reviewed less often. Senator Phillips said the auditor's
recommendation was the year 2003.
Senator Frank moved technical amendment to change the year
"2000" to "2003" and the objection of Senator Rieger was
duly noted. He said no commission should have more than a
four year sunset. It is a useful, subtle control on what
goes on in various commissions even if the sunset process is
not exercised. It is not wise to have sunsets that are
longer than four years. Senator Rieger said there is not
enough energy, time and money for the auditors to look at
certain things and so it is a tradeoff. Senator Rieger said
extensive audits do not have to be required and the budget
and audit committee should decide which sunset programs
require an audit and which ones do not. It could be a
routine question brought to members of the commission as to
which sunset audits should be done and the rest would just
be a bill passing without the backup of an audit. Co-
chairman Halford concurred. Budget and Audit should make a
conscious decision rather than a blanket decision that says
anything coming up for sunset gets a full audit. Senator
Phillips said if the auditors were present the matter could
be fixed internally. Senator Zharoff said this was not a
runaway commission and the reports indicate a good track
record. It seems that an audit can be requested at any time
if any discrepancies or problems are heard of. He asked if
a sunset is not automatically up for review. He concurs
with the proposal of Senator Frank.
The committee voted on Senator Frank's motion to change
"2000" to "2003" and by a vote of 4 - 3 the motion was
adopted. Senator Sharp moved CSSB 259(FIN) and without
objection it was reported out with zero fiscal note from
Department of Administration and individual recommendations.
SENATE BILL NO. 289
"An Act relating to runaway minors and their families
or legal custodians."
Senator Frank spoke briefly on behalf of the bill. He said
they had heard from constituents regarding what happened
when a juvenile ran away from a shelter. This bill
currently has a provision in it allowing an officer to pick
the child up, take them into custody and get them before a
judge within 48 hours so the judge can decide if the child
is in need of aid or a delinquent minor. At any time during
that time the child's parents can pick them up. It has a
temporary detention feature. It is overwhelming the lack of
a solution to the existing problem. There is no loss of
real liberty in a constitutional sense. There is a
constitutional question with the severability clause in the
statutes. If this is stuck down through a Court case there
will still be the remaining parts of the bill and it is not
the intent to deny juveniles of their liberty. There is a
huge problem in a small part of the population. It is
incumbent upon us to formulate a way that is reasonable that
gets attention to the problem. A new findings and purposes
section has been submitted as amendment #1.
Allison Gordon, staff aide to Senator Frank was invited to
join the committee. She advised that the correct amendment
without objection it was adopted. Ms. Gordon further
explained amendment #M.3. It will create a new subsection
(g) under AS 47.10.141 which makes it a violation for a
runaway who has been taken by a police officer to a semi-
secure facility to leave that place without the permission
of the minor's legal custodian or from an appropriate
employee of the semi-secure facility. If a minor violates
this statute then the shelter must immediately notify the
department, the nearest law enforcement agency and the
parents of the minor's absence. Law enforcement will then
be allowed to pick up a runaway that has left the semi-
secure facility and temporarily detain the runaway pending a
detention hearing within 48 hours. If there are no reasons
for detaining the minor, such as child-in-need-of-aid or
delinquency petitions, based on violating other laws, the
minor would be released to the legal custodian at the
detention hearing. At any time during the proceedings the
minor, barring abuse cases, has the option to go home.
Senator Frank explained that amendment M.4 was the findings
and purposes section and M.3 was the substantiative
amendment. Senator Halford indicated that M.4 was amendment
Becky Snow, Department of Law, Fairbanks testified via
teleconference. The department was concerned with the
proposed amendment because there was no language that
provides the child that the child could get out of detention
by deciding to go home. With regards to the statement of
Senator Frank that the period of detention provided for by
the amendment is very limited on page 2, line 8 and 9, that
is an amendment to what is now the temporary detention
statute that now applies only to juveniles arrested or
detained for committing delinquent behaviour. It provides
right now that if the Court finds probable cause the Court
can determine to detain the minor based on certain
additional findings. This amendment provides that if the
Court finds probable cause at the temporary detention
hearing the runaway minor could be detained pending the
hearing on the delinquency or child-in-need-of-aid petition.
That can be a substantial period of time. Even it if is a
child-in-need-of-aid petition, particularly the larger
jurisdictions like Anchorage, months before the petition for
adjudication is brought on for the adjudication trial. That
was a matter of considerable concern, especially if no
criminal conduct is being alleged. Usually criminal conduct
is the only constitutional basis for depriving a person of
their freedom to move about. The other concern is tacking
the remedy for the very frustrating pattern of runaway
behaviour on to the delinquency statute creating an
inconsistency in the way each runaway will be treated as
compared to runaways handled AS 47.10.141, where a police
officer may take a minor into emergency, protective custody
under AS 47.10.141 when certain conditions have been met,
and then have to bring the minor before the court within 24
hours. There may well be an equal protection problem
created by this inconsistency in the handling of runaways.
None of them are being charged with any criminal conduct.
Co-chairman Halford inquired of Ms. Gordon if there was a
citation that showed where the minor could go home and she
advised it was on page 2, line 26 of the amendment. Ms.
Snow said that it was not a reference to a detention
facility and once a minor was taken to a detention facility
they were no longer in charge of getting out. The operators
of the facility make that determination. The use of
"facility" is a facility for housing runaway children and it
does not automatically include detention facility. The
language on page 22, line 26 is meant to give the minor
control over whether they get out of the detention facility
and that raises an ambiguity as to the meaning of "facility"
in the bill itself.
Senator Frank explained that he wanted the parents or legal
guardian of the child to be able to pick up the child so
that it was not up to the child as much as it was up to the
parents to come and retrieve the child. Ms. Snow said that
the bill would amend AS 47.10.141 to give the power to the
parents or legal custodian to determine whether the minor is
brought back to the legal custodian's residence or where the
minor is taken. That would be consistent. Senator Frank
said that was what he had intended. There should not be a
situation where the juvenile is in the detention center for
several hours and the parents cannot go and pick them up.
If they are ready to reconcile and the child is ready to go
home it seems that the parents should be able to go pick the
child up and take them home.
Senator Rieger said he felt the amendment was exactly what
needed to be accomplished and the objections raised were
incorrect. He referred to page 3 of amendment #2 and it
explained that one cannot leave a semi-secure facility
except with permission of the minor's legal custodian or if
one leaves without permission but goes straight home. It is
only required at the bottom of page 2 that the minor be
advised of the rules. There are two types of runaways; an
abusive situation at home and they are going to stay because
what they want is a safe place; and runaways because they
want to be runaways. Those are the ones that can be picked
up if they leave that safe place. The amendment is exactly
what we want to achieve.
Becky Snow advised that she had no further testimony and
there were no further questions by committee members.
Senator Frank did request that she write down her concerns.
He also requested suggestions to make this amendment work
within the parameters of the constitution. He stated that
it was understood that an individual was not to be deprived
of their liberty without due process or having committed a
crime.
Diane Worley, Director Division of Family and Youth Services
was invited to join the committee. She said the Division
supported the first version of the bill and did have some
concerns with amendment #2. The big issues that they were
faced with included the state detention facilities that were
extremely overburdened at the time. It is overwhelming to
think of adding juveniles to the system now. As an example
she stated the Johnson Youth Center had a capacity for 8
beds but was running between 15 and 16 children per day.
That is double capacity. The other major concern was
mandatory detainment. There are detention standards once a
youth has been picked up but no mandatory detainment at this
point. With the current overcrowding this would mean
releasing other delinquents that are not mandatorily
detained in order to have space to detain the runaways.
Another issue was the majority of runaways were not
criminals and should they be housed in detention facilities
with the juvenile delinquents who are in for rape, drugs,
weapons and assault. What will be done with a mandatory
detainment in communities where there is no detention
facility? A child-in-need-of-aid should not be put in a
locked facility. The child needs protection, not locking
up. It was feared that in this situation the secured
facility would become a revolving door. The juveniles would
be in an out, back at home, and back in again to the
overcrowded facilities. The last point made was that
currently there was a zero fiscal note, but this amendment
would constitute a considerable fiscal note. By detaining
runaways who are not delinquents and in particular those who
are children-in-need-of-aid the department would lose their
federal funding which is approximately $600,000. This would
cause the elimination of about 30 statewide programs being
funded with this money.
Senator Frank said that the situation was frustrating.
Those running away from a legitimate abuse situation would
not be likely to run away from a semi-secured facility and
they would not be the revolving door situation. Those that
do run away from the secured shelter are the only ones that
would be placed in the detention facility. If more
immediate action could be taken the escalation into criminal
behaviour could be eliminated. There is some offsetting
benefits from a prevention or early intervention standpoint.
There is always the potential of running into overcrowding
but it would be a very small sub-set of the larger runaway
class. He hoped that this could be restructured to meet
federal standards so that this funding would not be lost.
The problem is substantial enough that this federal funding
should not be driving the entire policy. These are real
families with real problems and real children with real
needs for focus on their problems. With more intervention
earlier more children and families could be helped.
Co-chairman Halford said that the same federal funds are
saying that nothing can be done to help parents deal with
the problems. The system is upside down and the federal
funds are not worth it. Parents are not empowered to do
anything and then there is only a response after the
children are criminals and then they are not treated in
adult courts.
Senator Rieger asked what the trigger for the ineligibility
for the federal funds was. Ms. Worley explained that
according to Federal law youth who are not delinquent may
not be detained in a locked up facility. Running away is
not considered a criminal offense. Senator Phillips
inquired whether it could be made a criminal offense. But
Ms. Worley said even if it was made a state crime it would
not be covered by federal funding. Senator Rieger said
perhaps the word "shall" could be changed to "may" on page
1, line 11 of amendment #2 and that would allow for some
flexibility. Senator Frank concurred if this would help
comply with federal regulations. Senator Rieger said there
is some argument in general about giving discretion to the
officer. However, this could be explored to see how far one
could go with regards to the federal funding. Ms. Worley
said she would have to investigate this matter, but it still
comes back to the matter of locking up a youth who is just a
runaway, has not committed a crime and is not a delinquent,
the department would be in jeopardy of the federal funding.
There may be some ways this matter could be worked with.
Alaska is not the only state dealing with this issue. It is
felt there are other ways in dealing with runaways such as
prevention and early intervention. Senator Frank said he
would like to focus on some real counselling and
professional help in dealing with these issues. However it
is difficult to bring the services to bear when the child is
running. Detention may help to bring this into focus.
There will be those who will respond to this intervention
but it is not a cure-all.
Senator Phillips asked what is the philosophy of the
department in dealing with this problem. Ms. Worley said
they want to assist families as early as possible, provide
more community based help and programs. The issues need to
be worked on as families. The department wants to provide
whatever support necessary to see successful families. She
said runaways were an ongoing problem. If child abuse is
claimed that is an issue that has to be dealt with as
mandated. If a situation is investigated and no abuse is
substantiated the family would be referred for services to
help deal with this. The runaway issue is probably the most
difficult one to be dealt with. Unless we are committed to
locking children up until they are eighteen there are some
children that we will never be able to keep at home. Co-
chairman Halford said state and federal governments have
taken away from parents the ability to enforce the word
"no". It has been replaced with social gibberish that has
done no good for the last two or three decades. Senator
Phillips concurred saying that this is the message they are
getting from their constituents.
Senator Frank said there are the children who will not
respond, but greater focus needs to be placed on those who
will. At the present there is a policy of non-intervention
and there is help for the family through counselling.
Perhaps children will respond to a little more authority.
Ms. Worley agreed that all concerned should continue to work
together.
Senator Sharp asked if there were statistics available on
how many of the children at the detention center were
runaways. Ms. Worley said that there was nothing to show
this information presently. Senator Sharp voiced concern of
adults providing overnight shelter for runaways based on
their own pleasure. He felt that the best deterrent was to
spend one night in jail. Now we are only providing a
revolving door convenience for safety. A runaway must know
that they are making the choice to runaway and spend the
night in prison. This may wake them up to realize that home
is not that bad. The child must know that there are choices
to be made and one of them is if you run away from home and
not abused there are some responsibilities and some
deterrents. He supported the bill.
Senator Zharoff voiced concern about not all runaways are
criminals nor did all criminals start off as runaways. This
is a problem in urban areas as well as rural. Perhaps this
is something that should be worked on piece by piece until
solution is found. It would be good to find out how many
runaways there are. In a large number of communities there
are no detention facilities and it would be necessary to
ship a village runaway to Anchorage to the detention
facility. He felt as Senator Rieger in changing the "shall"
to "may" would help correct this problem.
Co-chairman Halford referred to Senator Rieger's amendment
detention center and that was his reason for submitting this
amendment. Ms. Worley said the department would agree to
the change of "shall" to "may". However, according to
federal regulations, a secured facility is still locking up
a non-delinquent and the department would be in jeopardy of
losing federal funds. It would remedy the situation of
overcrowding and need for additional staff and facilities.
Senator Frank said he did not believe Congress was
interested in preventing states from addressing these
problems. He could appreciate them being concerned about
locking up runaways but asked that a quick research be done
about what is going on in Congress. Perhaps it would allow
an opportunity for this kind of intervention for a limited
time. Ms. Worley in response to a question from Senator
Phillips said the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention regulations are existing regulations. There are
a number of other states dealing with the same issues and
she said Congress is looking at the possibility of making
some changes in those regulations.
Senator Frank said in light of the fact there have been
several hearings on this bill, in order to achieve what the
committee would like to and give the department more
flexibility, he recommended the passage of the two
amendments and continued work with the department as the
bill moved through the process in order to try and save
federal funds.
Senator Rieger moved his amendment to amendment #2 and
without objection it was adopted. Senator Frank moved
amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Senator
Frank moved CSSB 289(FIN) and without objection it was
reported out with individual recommendations. Co-chairman
Halford asked the Department of Health and Social Services
to submit a new fiscal note recognizing a change. Senator
Sharp asked the department provide the federal statute
preventing detention of a juvenile. Co-chairman concurred.
SENATE BILL NO. 253
"An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of
prostate cancer detection."
Senator Jim Duncan was invited to join the committee and
briefly spoke on behalf of the bill.
Carole Edwards, certified oncology nurse, was invited to
join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill.
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death in the
United States for men. Hereditary does play a part in
prostate cancer. Currently, the American Cancer Society
guidelines recommend men over the age of fifty have an
annual digital rectal exam along with a prostate screening
antigen test. This is a simple blood draw costing
approximately $60. However, this is not paid for by the
insurance companies, even high risk men. The American
Cancer Society also recommends doing this test on high risk
men at age forty.
(tape change to SFC-96 #58, Side 1
She said she supported this bill because she would like to
see less of her patients die or undergo extensive therapy.
The sooner this cancer is found the easier it is to cure and
there is a higher success rate. It is also less expensive
to treat an earlier found cancer as opposed to a later found
one. Insurance companies should pay for this test for men.
Senator Rieger said he had information that the same problem
existed for women as far as pap smear test. Ms. Edwards
said as far as she was aware pap smear tests were paid for
by insurance. She further believed that more lives would be
saved if American Cancer Society guidelines were followed
and the PAS test was covered by insurance to make it more
available to all society.
Mr. Gene Dau, AARP, VFW was invited to join the committee
and testified on behalf of the bill. He felt there should
be more encouragement for the screening of this disease and
said it should be part of an annual check-up. He urged the
committee to pass this bill.
Janet Parker, Deputy Director, Division of Retirement &
Benefits was invited to join the committee. She answered
questions for the committee regarding the fiscal notes. In
response to Senator Rieger's question regarding pap smear
exams, she said the active plan covered this exam but the
retiree plan did not. She said that although the PAS exam
would cost the plan money it was believe that the entire
cost would be borne by the employees themselves because this
exam is performed during a routine physical which is only
provided for state employees under SBS option one plan which
the employee pays for. The revised fiscal note can reflect
that.
Senator Sharp asked if this bill would cover PAS under
retirement and Ms. Parker advised that it would because it
would be a state law mandating coverage. Senator Duncan
said that regarding the fiscal note what is missing is what
the long-term savings would be. If cancer is detected early
there is a substantial long-term savings. Senator Frank
asked how the state decided this coverage. Ms. Parker said
there is no financial analysis done. Health benefits are
collectively bargained and whoever is on the bargaining team
and has a preference for a specific type of coverage is how
this is handled. Co-chairman Halford indicated the high
cost of just drugs for one who has been diagnosed with the
disease.
Senator Duncan referred to amendment #1 and said it had a
better definition as to when this test should be covered and
under what circumstances. This is supported by the American
Cancer Society. It defines the specific age group and asked
the committee to consider it as an amendment to the bill.
Mr. Bill Chism was invited to join the committee. His first
two PAS exams were covered by Aetna Insurance but then he
was advised that this was not a proper exam and that they
had made a mistake covering the last two exams. Mr. Chism
said that he felt if his dentist exam was covered then this
exam should be considered to be paid for. It is not an
undue burden on the insurance companies to cover this. He
said he supported this bill.
Senator Duncan referred to the pap smear exam and said he
had not problem with his bill being expanded to also cover
this. Senator Sharp offered amendment #1 and without
objection it was adopted.
Co-chairman Halford held the bill in committee and asked
Senator Rieger to further check cancer screening.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the budget reserve fund.
Senator Rieger offered a brief explanation of SJR 30. He
referred to the statement of support from the voters'
pamphlet. Mr. Brad Pierce, Office of Management and Budget
was invited to join the committee and testified in support
of the bill. He said the Knowles' administration supported
this bill. The repeal of the payback provision makes sense
because it is a debt on the books and difficult to explain
to bond rating agencies. The clarification in the
resolution of when a super majority vote is needed to draw
off from the CBR is more problematic although the
administration is in favour of the way it is written. It is
in keeping with the intent of the voters when they passed
this original amendment. The Department of Law feels that
it is important to leave a very clear legislative trail on
this change to the constitutional amendment in case it
should have to be defended in Court. The concern is that
the issue is not confused by replacing the language
available for appropriation which the Court has defined.
They do not want this issue revisited in a couple of years
and have to go back to the voters because they were not
thinking far enough ahead. The Governor further would like
to see a thorough discussion of this resolution with respect
to exactly how it would work in the context of an overall
fiscal plan.
Senator Rieger moved SJR 30 and without objection it was
reported out with individual recommendations and $2.2 fiscal
note from the Office of the Governor.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 198(RES)
"An Act establishing the Homer Airport Critical Habitat
Area."
Senator John Torgerson was invited to join the committee and
testified in support of the bill. He explained that
amendment #1 would delete two triangles in the lower corner
as depicted on the aerial map presented. The current owner
of the property, Department of Transportation, would be
transfer the property to the Department of Fish and Game and
it would be managed as a critical habitat area for moose.
He has tried to ease the worries of the public that this was
not a bill to enhance bird habitat. However, with the
recent crash of the AWACS plane and other incidents
involving birds he proposed an amendment which would take
out the outholdings depicted on the map. The primary
purpose of this critical habitat area is for the moose
population. Senator Phillips asked the consequences if the
two pieces of property were left in. Senator Torgerson said
that it was a matter of comfort and safety. In respond to
Senator Phillips question there was a lot of concern by many
individuals regarding passengers being killed in aircraft
because they met with bird problems. It is referred to in
the bill that no one may enhance the bird population. He
felt comfortable taking out the two areas of property as
they housed some nests for Aleutian terns. Senator Donley
moved amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted.
Senator Sharp moved CSSB 198(FIN) and without objection it
was reported out with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal notes.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|