Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/02/1996 09:15 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 2, 1996
9:15 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #63, Sides 1 and 2
SFC-96, #64, Side 1 (000-046)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Steve Frank, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:15 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairman Frank, Senators Donley, Phillips,
Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff were present. Co-chairman
Halford arrived soon after the meeting began.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Duncan; Beth Kerttula, Assistant
Attorney General, Natural Resource Section, Dept. of Law;
Annie Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Dept. of Law; Jeff Bush, Deputy Commissioner,
Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development; Jane Angvik,
Director, Division of Land, Dept. of Natural Resources; Eddy
Jeans, Project Assistant, School Foundation, School Finance,
Dept. of Education; Gene Dau, American Association of
Retired Persons and the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Kathy
Tibbles, Division of Family and Youth Services, Dept. of
Health and Social Services; Carl Rose, Executive Director,
Alaska Association of School Boards; Chris Christensen,
Staff Counsel, Alaska Court System; Kelly Huber, aide to
Senator Halford; and aides to committee members and other
members of the legislature.
ALSO PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE: Mary Hughes,
Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage; Wayne Woods,
Dan Montgomery, and Loren Karro, MatSu.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 244 - CALCULATION OF STATE AID TO EDUCATION
Discussion was had with Eddy Jeans of the Dept. of
Education and Carl Rose of the Alaska Association
of School Boards. Senator Frank listed areas of
consensus to be incorporated within a draft
Finance Committee Substitute. The bill was then
held in committee pending preparation of the
draft.
SB 253 - INSURANCE FOR PROSTATE CANCER TESTING
Amendment No. 2, incorporating coverage of
cervical cancer screening within the bill, was
adopted. CSSB 253 (Fin) was then REPORTED OUT of
committee with a zero fiscal note from the Dept.
of Commerce and Economic Development and a zero
note from the Dept. of Administration (for all
agencies), containing updated analysis language.
SB 270 - JUVENILE OFFENDER PROCEEDINGS & RECORDS
Discussion was had with Kathy Tibbles of the Dept.
of Health & Social Services, Kelly Huber of
Senator Halford's staff, and via teleconference
with Mary Hughes of the Municipality of Anchorage.
The bill was held in committee pending preparation
of fiscal notes evidencing department
restructuring.
HB 335 - BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
Draft SCS CSHB 3355 (Fin) dated 3/37/96 was
distributed. Wayne Woods advised of proposed
changes via teleconference from MatSu. Comments
were also presented by Jeff Bush of the Dept. of
Commerce and Economic Development, Jane Angvik of
the Dept. of Natural Resources, and Assistant
Attorney General, Beth Kerttula. The bill was
subsequently held in committee for additional
review.
SENATE BILL NO. 253
An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of
prostate cancer detection.
Co-chairman Frank directed that SB 253 be brought on for
discussion, noted adoption of Amendment No. 1 when the bill
was previously before committee, and referenced Amendment
No. 2. Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 2
and requested unanimous consent. Co-chairman Frank objected
for the purpose of an explanation. Senator Rieger attested
to committee consensus to investigate and add coverage for
annual pap smear cancer screening to provide symmetry to
legislation covering prostate cancer detection. Information
obtained from the American Cancer Society provided the
recommended age bracket included in the amendment. The
prime sponsor is supportive.
Senator Sharp inquired concerning the fiscal impact of the
addition. Senator Rieger said he suspected the approach to
the addition would be similar to that for the original bill.
The up-front cost of testing is well known, but the benefits
of prevention are difficult to quantify. The theory is
that, overall, there is a cost savings.
Senator Sharp attested to need for glaucoma testing as well
and suggested that it would result in a better return on
funding.
Co-chairman Frank called for objections to adoption of
Amendment No. 2. No objection having been raised, Amendment
No. 2 was ADOPTED. Senator Zharoff MOVED for passage of
CSSB 253 (Finance) with individual recommendations. No
objection having been raised, CSSB 253 (Finance) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a unanimous "do pass"
recommendation and zero fiscal notes from the Dept. of
Commerce and Economic Development and the Dept. of
Administration.
SENATE BILL NO. 244
An Act relating to state foundation aid and
supplementary state aid for education; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-chairman Frank directed that SB 244 be brought on for
discussion, advised that it was previously heard, and
explained that he had been working on a committee substitute
which would include:
1. An attempt to make the bill revenue neutral by
increasing the deduct from 95 to 96 percent.
2. Making the bill effective during 1996 to offset
supplemental funding.
3. An FY 96 hold harmless for districts that would
lose more than they gain in this fiscal year.
4. Removal of the single site addition with the
recognition that it would be dealt with in any
future foundation formula change.
The Co-chairman voiced his hope that members would find the
foregoing acceptable as a compromise. He remarked that a
draft furnished to him prior to the meeting was incorrect
and returned for revisions. Co-chairman Frank suggested
that general discussion and feedback from the department and
committee members proceed.
[Co-chairman Halford arrived at the meeting at this time.]
EDDY JEANS, Project Assistant, School Foundation, School
Finance, Dept. of Education, came before committee and
advised that the foregoing proposal would be acceptable to
the department.
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the idea behind
not "going to a 100 percent deduct was that there had to be
some small residual in order to induce a school district to
apply for PL 874 moneys." If the formula results in an
entitlement, PL 874 moneys are deducted from the
entitlement. He then questioned whether the residual
inducement was necessary. With a 100 percent deduct, a
compelling inducement to apply for PL 874 moneys remains
because those funds are needed to bring districts to full
entitlement. Mr. Jeans explained that the state cannot
require school districts to apply for impact-aid funds. The
foundation program utilizes impact-aid moneys to determine
the state allocation. If school districts do not apply and
receive these funds, there is nothing to deduct to "adjust
state aid by." Senator Rieger voiced his understanding of
the foregoing to mean that the formula does not deduct the
entitlement but actual receipt of the funds. Mr. Jeans
concurred.
In response to a further question from Senator Rieger, Mr.
Jeans explained that school districts that apply for impact-
aid funds are entitled to a greater amount than they
currently receive. Funding is based on an annual
appropriation from Congress. That appropriation has been
less than entitlement. The foundation statute also clearly
states that it is based on funds received in response to the
application rather than the entitlement.
Senator Zharoff raised a question regarding removal of
single site schools. He attested to support for the
original legislation on behalf of the state board of
education, school board administrators, and NEA and
suggested that removal of single site provisions represents
a "step backwards." He expressed disappointment with the
proposed compromise. Co-chairman Frank acknowledged the
concern, but voiced his expectation that single site
language would be included in the budget.
Senator Zharoff next distributed an amendment (copy on file
in the original Senate Finance Committee file for SB 244)
and explained that he had been asked to provide it for
consideration on behalf of another member of the Senate.
The amendment relates to funds identified for preschool
children. Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Jeans explained
that impact-aid law was amended in 1994 to allow school
districts to claim preschool children for impact-aid funds.
The proposed amendment would have the state "back those
funds out before it considers the impact aid." The
arrangement would be similar to the special education add-on
and the Indian lands' add-on. The impact-aid program does
not currently address preschool funds as incremental funds
the state cannot consider. The foundation program does not
provide funds for preschool children. That is the reason
for the amendment.
Co-chairman Frank voiced his understanding that amendment
provisions would reduce the state deduct in districts with
preschool programs that qualify for federal funds. Mr.
Jeans concurred. He added that impact-aid funds are
currently paid at a hold harmless level--a percentage of the
'94 year. Even though districts could claim these students,
they are not receiving funding for them at this time. The
department is aware of the issue and will be working with
the U.S. Department of Education on how to properly address
it.
Discussion of proper terminology for former PL 874 moneys
followed. Mr. Jeans advised that it is now referred to as
"Title 8" moneys.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, came before committee. He noted that he was on
record in support of SB 244 but expressed concern regarding
the proposed compromise and removal of single site
provisions. Many small districts depend on single site
funds for 10 to 15 percent of their overall budgets. If
this funding remains outside the foundation, "Any kind of a
decrease could affect them twice": once through the
foundation and a second time due to the possibility of not
receiving additional supplemental funding.
Mr. Rose voiced need for clarification of the impact from
increase of the deduct from 95 to 96 percent. Co-chairman
Frank reiterated that it attempts to render the legislation
revenue neutral.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 244 be held in
committee pending receipt of the compromise committee
substitute.
SENATE BILL NO. 270
An Act relating to juveniles; relating to the
jurisdiction of juvenile courts; relating to the
release of juveniles; and relating to records
concerning juveniles.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 270 be brought on for
discussion. He then explained that the original bill
contains changes in procedures dealing with minors and
changes in confidentiality of minors' records. CSSB 270
(Judiciary) removes confidentiality provisions which were
the subject of much debate and discussion regarding impact
of the change and possible loss of federal funding. Senator
Randy Phillips questioned whether changes in state law
should be either driven or precluded by receipt or loss of
federal moneys. Co-chairman Frank concurred. He
acknowledged need to better understand the federal
situation. He said he asked the department to determine
whether it is possible to meet state objectives and retain
federal funds. Co-chairman Halford voiced his hope that
changes at the Congressional level would ease the situation.
Senator Sharp attested to constituent concern regarding
confidentiality. Residents want to know if criminals are
living in their neighborhoods. Senator Randy Phillips
voiced lack of support for Senate Judiciary removal of the
confidentiality change.
KELLY HUBER, aide to Co-chairman Halford, came before
committee to speak to accompanying fiscal notes. She
explained that the cost shown on the Dept. of Health and
Social Services note for the original bill totals $7,625.9.
Senate Judiciary Committee did not wish to become involved
in potential loss of federal funds and deleted all language
relating to juvenile records in its version.
To a comment by Senator Phillips that the Judiciary
substitute essentially "guts the bill," Co-chairman Halford
noted that the new version contains provisions that help, in
terms of what courts may consider, and allows application of
municipal offenses. Removal of confidentiality from
juvenile records would have the most immediate impact and
the least cost if federal funds were not involved.
KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services, Dept.
of Health and Social Services, came before committee.
Speaking to federal funding, she said the department has
repeatedly been told that if information relating to
juveniles is made public "on a blanket basis--full
disclosure," Alaska will be ineligible to apply for federal
funds through Titles 4(b) and (e). That amounts to "roughly
$7.6 million." Most states publish juvenile records. That
publication is allowed because juvenile delinquents are not
in the same agency as children in need of aid--for which the
foregoing federal titles were established.
While the division was originally told it would suffer
financial penalties if it disclosed information, it has
since been indicated that it would be possible for the
division to restructure organizationally. While that would
incur some cost, administratively, it would not "be the same
kind of loss of $7.6 million." The division is examining a
restructuring that would meet federal approval and allow
disclosure of "some degree of information with regard to
juvenile delinquents." The division recognizes concerns at
both the community and legislative level. The Governor's
conference on juvenile justice is discussing the issue this
week. Ms. Tibbles asked that the division be given an
opportunity to attempt to restructure and reach an agreement
with the federal government that will not jeopardize
funding.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the structural break between
delinquents and child-in-need-of-aid provisions is statutory
or within the department. Ms. Tibbles responded, "It's
within the department."
In response to a question from Senator Rieger, Ms. Tibbles
explained that waiver of a juvenile to adult court removes
all constraints. The minor is treated as an adult.
Senator Sharp asked that information from the federal
government on potential loss of funds be provided to
members. Ms. Tibbles agreed to do so.
Co-chairman Halford asked if constraints are applied to
release of juvenile delinquency records if they are not
contained within child-in-need-of-aid provisions. Ms.
Tibbles responded, "Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that
there are." The concern is that a section of the state out-
of-home-care population would not be eligible for
reimbursement for foster or residential care expenditures
from the federal government. That is one reason Alaska has
continued to try to mesh the two, so that the state could
maximize federal receipts in foster and residential care by
including juvenile delinquents. That places the state in
the position of not being able to release the records.
Ms. Tibbles cited difficulties associated with sorting out
funding within the single BRU. She added that a good share
of the federal receipts not only apply to reimbursement for
foster care costs but to administrative costs associated
with serving minors (social workers and probation officers).
It is difficult to determine how much would be lost.
Co-chairman Halford asked if it would be possible to develop
a fiscal note that reflects the cost of separation of child-
in-need-of-aid activities as well as the incidental loss of
federal funds resulting from removal of juvenile records.
Ms. Tibbles said she would not guarantee it would be
forthcoming before the end of the week. Co-chairman Halford
suggested it would be worth waiting for the information and
further suggested that the bill be held in committee pending
receipt.
MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage,
next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. She expressed
support for the original bill which she said incorporates
some of the municipal partnership plan.
Addressing discussion of potential loss of federal funding,
Ms. Hughes said the municipality made inquiries at the
federal level and was told that division reorganization
would solve the problem. Laws dealing with delinquents have
different rules and regulations than these involving
children in need of aid.
Ms. Hughes advised that the legislation also deals with
jurisdictional questions and would provide municipal
jurisdiction over "minor civil juvenile infractions." It
also enumerates dispositional considerations that must be
made by the court in terms of what is in the best interest
of the child and what is in the best interest of the public.
It mirrors conditions of bail in adult criminal provisions.
Ms. Hughes concurred in Co-chairman Halford's decision to
await receipt of fiscal note information regarding division
restructuring. She voiced support for "some type of release
of information."
In response to a question from Senator Phillips, Ms. Hughes
directed attention to page 4, line 1 through 18, of the
original bill and explained that under current law, the
juvenile's interests take priority over the interest of the
public. Provisions enumerated at page 4 protect the public.
Senator Randy Phillips asked if the department
philosophically supports release of the names of juvenile
offenders. Ms. Tibbles responded, "To some extent." She
expressed concern about a piecemeal approach that would
release the names of all young people alleged to have
committed a delinquent act in the absence of ability to
later clear the juvenile's name if he or she was
subsequently acquitted. Ms. Tibbles further attested to
levels of delinquent acts. She noted that a large number of
young people, in the process of growing up, make stupid
mistakes, learn from the mistake, and do not reoffend. The
department is not convinced that release of those names
would serve a valid interest for either the juvenile or the
public. However, the department agrees that some
information should be released for both a deterrent effect
and protection of the public.
Senator Rieger suggested that the value of deterrence rests
in sanctions it might impose on those considering commission
of a crime. He then expressed discomfort with the wording
in subsection (5) on page 4 of the original bill. He
questioned the wisdom of making an example of one person
beyond the gravity of the crime, to have an effect on
others.
Discussion followed between Senator Zharoff and Co-chairman
Halford regarding language within subsection (7) of the
original bill and facilities for detention of minors.
END: SFC-96, #63, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #63, Side 2
Further discussion followed between Senator Zharoff and Ms.
Tibbles concerning where the line on disclosure of a
juvenile crime should be drawn. Ms. Tibbles cited juvenile
sex offenders as an example.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 335(RES)(title am)
An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; eliminating the requirement
for a commercial use permit and for payment of
commercial use permit fees; amending the membership of
the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to the
qualifications for an assistant guide-outfitter
license; eliminating the requirement for testing of
assistant guide-outfitters; providing for additional
licensing requirements for transporters; eliminating
the requirement for prior approval to enter or remain
on state and federal land; eliminating the requirement
to register base camps; amending the definition of 'big
game commercial services'; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 335 (Res)(title am)
be brought on for discussion and distributed a work draft
Senate Finance Committee Substitute (9-LS1156\N, Utermohle,
3/27/96) for review by members. He explained that the draft
was reviewed by the sponsor, the Dept. of Public Safety,
Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Dept. of Labor,
and Dept. of Natural Resources. There is agreement on most
of the provisions, but there are areas in which the
constituency to be regulated is not happy. One group would
like to have more regulation and more protection from
competition. The other group seeks the opposite. Criminal
provisions within the bill are "probably stronger than
virtually any other profession" in the size of the fines and
ability to consider some conduct a felony.
Entry into the profession is primarily the same as under old
guide laws. The profession is aligned with registered and
master guides. A master guide is merely a senior registered
guide. There are also assistant guides, class-A assistant
guides, and transporters. The regulatory structure is
similar to existing law.
Provisions relating to powers and duties are transferred
from the previous board to the department, with some
exceptions.
Penalties for violations can be as high as $30.0. That
stems from existing law. Many objections have been raised
by the profession over penalties that high. Questions also
surround administrative sanctions and possible limiting of
sanctions to those imposed by the courts.
Co-chairman Halford acknowledged that the Dept. of Labor is
not in favor of the 60-day exemption from wage and hour
provisions for assistant guides in remote locations. This
exemption is far less than existing exemptions set forth in
law.
Another provision for which there is department opposition
but industry support relates to permission to use land.
Under old law, permission must be obtained from federal,
state, or private entities. The proposed bill continues to
require that permission be obtained. However, since hunting
areas are now simply registration areas through the
Department of Public Safety, enforcement provisions must be
carried out by the agency.
JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, Dept. of Natural
Resources, came before committee. She voiced concern over
elimination of the requirement that guides furnish proof of
prior authorization to use state lands. Based on past
experience, if this requirement does not continue,
commercial guides will most likely not seek state land use
permits. While Title 38 provides the division with
authority to require permits for all commercial uses, it
does not provide an incentive for individuals to secure
permits nor does it provide the division with enforcement
capabilities. The only recourse against those who do not
secure permits is through the civil courts. The division
has no authority to issue citations resulting in financial
penalties as does the Dept. of Fish and Game or the division
of parks.
The most significant management issue is need to identify
those who leave garbage and solid waste on state lands. Ms.
Angvik distributed photographs of debris left behind by
camps.
Ms. Angvik stressed need for proof of permission to use
federal, state, or private lands (at the time of licensing)
as an incentive to obtain permission. She asked that the
bill be amended to require that proof. Since regulations
became effective in 1993, there has been a 75 percent
increase in those who came to the department to secure
permission to use state lands. The division processes an
average of 350 licenses at $350.00 each and has raised
$132.0 through regulatory provisions. A decline is expected
if provisions within the proposed bill remain as now
drafted.
Co-chairman Halford pointed to requirements that a guide
notify the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development of the
guide unit within which he or she will be operating. The
Dept. of Natural Resources can pursue guides who do not
clean up camp areas. Proof of prior approval for use of a
specific location proved to be a "bureaucratic nightmare"
that applied only to guides. It was felt that application
to this commercial entity alone was unfair since competitors
such as fishing guides, ecotourism, etc. do not have to do
the same.
Co-chairman Halford stressed that the registration
requirement in the proposed bill is an enforcement tool
rather than an economic regulation tool. A guide must
notify the department, 30 days in advance, of where the
guide will be operating. That notification lasts through
that particular year. This is a compromise between prior
guide-use areas and the majority of the profession which
would prefer not to have established areas. The Chairman
stressed that the permit within the Dept. of Natural
Resources, that applies to all commercial users of state
land, is only being enforced against guides. Senator
Phillips asked why it was not enforced against all users,
and Ms. Angvik explained that the requirement was, in the
past, directly connected to the guide license. The
department does not have "that kind of a carrot" for other
commercial users.
Co-chairman Halford next noted teleconference participation
in discussion of the bill.
WAYNE WOODS, a guide from MatSu, next spoke via
teleconference and presented the following list of
recommended changes:
Page 4, line 10:
Delete current language in (a) and replace with:
A major violation of a state hunting,
guiding, or transportation services
statute or regulation within the last
five years.
Page 6, line 16:
Delete "18" and insert "21"
Page 6, lines 22 and 23:
Delete: In the management unit for which the license
is sought.
Page 6, line 27:
Delete all of section (B)
Page 10, line 11:
After "$100,000," insert:
In the case of registered guides, proof
of financial responsibility shall only
be required when applying for a guide-
use area.
Page 10, lines 23, 24, and 25:
Delete Secs. (2) and (3)
Page 11, line 31:
Add a new section to read:
(1) the department shall act on
disciplinary matters in a timely manner,
and the department may only impose
disciplinary actions that are no greater
than those imposed by a court of
competent jurisdiction, nor may the
department impose any disciplinary
action that extends beyond the limits of
a judgment of conviction imposed by a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Page 12, line 2:
Delete "20" and insert "30"
Page 15, line 2:
Replace "is" with "may be held"
Page 15, line 4:
After "guide" insert:
if there is a demonstrable complicity
shown
Page 15, line 8
After "transporter" insert:
if there is demonstrable complicity
shown
Page 16, add to definition section:
'guide-use area' means a game management
unit or sub-unit as defined by the board
of game
'major violation' means:
(1) hunting the same day as airborne
(2) wanton waste
(3) hunting in a closed area
(4) taking game during a closed season
Mr. Woods advised that with incorporation of the foregoing
changes, he felt he could work well "within this set of
regulations."
Senator Zharoff raised a question regarding the meaning of
"demonstrable complicity." Co-chairman Halford explained
that it relates to guide responsibility for the actions of
his or her employees. Current law imposes a high standard.
The proposed language requires that complicity be shown.
JEFF BUSH, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development, came before committee in response to
the question. He said he did not know if there is a legal
standard known as "demonstrable complicity." All criminal
provisions within the bill require knowledge. He then
voiced his assumption that "knowledge" would constitute
"demonstrable complicity." He suggested the following as
alternative language:
Page 15, lines 4 and 8:
If the registered guide knew or should
have known of the violation.
In response to a question from Co-chairman Halford, Mr. Bush
noted that the department is on record in support of the
bill. He concurred in concerns raised by other departments
but said he felt comfortable with the legislation.
Senator Phillips advised of the following notes on behalf of
Senator Rieger who had previously left the meeting:
Page 4, lines 9 through 15:
Concern that language represents an all-or-nothing
proposition.
Page 15, line 8
Change "for" to "of"
Page 16, between lines 30 and 31:
Add a new sec. (e) containing double
fees for non-residents.
Co-chairman Halford said he had no objection to doubling
fees. He then asked for the department's position. Mr.
Bush referenced discussion of the issue with the Dept. of
Law. The position from a policy perspective is one of
support for the concept. The position from the Dept. of Law
perspective is that it would probably be unconstitutional.
Co-chairman Halford asked why the increased cost would not
apply to guide licenses since it applies to fishing
licenses. Mr. Bush noted that the courts have allowed an
agency to charge the "full cost of a licensed activity to a
non-resident" and essentially subsidize residents. In this
case the entire cost is paid by licensees. There is no
state subsidy. Co-chairman Halford suggested that
enforcement and DNR management of lands are part of the
costs associated with the common property resource. The
license fee covers only the direct cost of the license. Mr.
Bush advised that he was not an expert and deferred further
comment to staff from the Dept. of Law. The Co-chairman
noted that out-of-state hunters pay more for licenses.
Senator Zharoff noted that Legislative Research conducted a
brief survey of ten western states and determined that six
states, including Alaska, charge the same licenses fee for
both resident and non-resident guides. Utah and Washington
do not license big game guides. Arizona charges $100.00 for
a resident and $500.00 for a non-resident. Oregon requires
registration rather than a license for outfitters and
guides. Residents pay $50.00, and non-residents pay
according to similar fees in their own states. Co-chairman
Halford expressed concurrence in the higher fee, saying he
would insert "whatever the Dept. of Law will tell us works."
Mr. Bush said the department would have no problem adjusting
its fees for non-residents and residents. He cautioned,
however, that since fees pay for administration of the
license program, the department would need supplemental
funding should the issue be litigated and refunds to non-
residents be ordered by the courts.
BETH KERTTULA, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resource
Section, Dept. of Law, next came before committee. She
referenced ongoing litigation over the three-to-one fee
differential in the limited entry commercial fishery. The
question is whether the state incurs costs for non-residents
that it does not incur for residents. Ms. Kerttula urged
that those costs be quantified.
END: SFC-96, #63, Side 2
BEGIN: SFC-96, #64, Side 1
Mr. Bush cautioned that there is both a legal risk, in terms
of justification, and a financial risk--the higher the
differential, the more potential money is at stake in a
lawsuit.
Co-chairman Halford queried members concerning the ratio to
incorporate within the proposed bill. Senator Sharp
suggested 2 to 1. Senator Zharoff expressed a preference
for 3 to 1 but concurred in the suggestion by Senator Sharp.
ADJOURNMENT
Due to need to attend the Senate Floor Session, the meeting
was adjourned at approximately 10:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|