Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1996 02:05 PM 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
3 April 1996
2:05 P.M.
TAPES
SFC-96, #66, Side 2
SFC-96, #67, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 2:05 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-chairman Halford along with co-chairman Frank, Senators
Phillips and Rieger were present when the meeting convened.
Senator Donley arrived later.
Also Attending: Senator John Torgerson; Deb Davidson, aide
to Senator Torgerson; Lamar Cotten, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Community and Regional Affairs; Senator Robin
Taylor; Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Fish & Game; Kevin Brooks,
Director, Administrative Services, Department of Fish &
Game; Sara Hannan, Alaska Environmental Lobby; Senator Mike
Miller; Anthony Crupi, Alaska Environmental Lobby; Daniella
Loper, aide to Representative Brian Porter; Chris
Christensen, Staff Counsel, Alaska Court System; Jeff Bush,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development; Deborah Behr, Legislation and Regulations
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law; Virginia
Stonkus, Fiscal Analyst, Division of Legislative Finance;
and aides to committee members.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 280(CRA)
"An Act relating to the mandatory incorporation of certain
boroughs in the unorganized borough."
Continued testimony was given by Senator John Torgerson and
his aide Deb Davidson. Senator Rieger testified to his
amendment #2. Lamar Cotten, Community & Regional Affairs
explained difference between detachment and section 2 of
bill. Senator Torgerson asked that bill be held until
tomorrow pending further consideration of amendment #2. Co-
chairman Halford held the bill in committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 247
"An Act relating to the fish and game fund; amending Rules
79(b) and 82(b)(2), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
Senator Robin Taylor, sponsor, testified on behalf of SB
247. Geron Bruce and Kevin Brooks from Department of Fish
and Game testified before the committee. Sarah Hannan,
Alaska Environmental Lobby testified in opposition to the
bill. Senator Frank moved work draft CSSB 247() and it was
adopted for work purposes. Senator Frank moved CSSB
247(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note from
Department of Public Safety; zero fiscal notes with fund
source changes from Department of Fish and Game,
Administrative Services, Wildlife Conservation and Sport
Fish divisions.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 262(RES)
"An Act relating to management of game populations for
maximum sustained yield for human harvest and providing for
the replacement of areas closed to consumptive uses of game;
relating to management of fish and game areas; and amending
Rules 79(b) and 82(b)(2), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
Senator Mike Miller, sponsor, testified on behalf of SB 262.
Geron Bruce, Department of Fish and Game said the department
opposes this legislation. Anthony Crupi, Alaska
Environmental Lobby stated their opposition to the bill.
Senator Frank moved CSSB 262(RES) and without objection it
was reported out with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal note with fund source change from the Department of
Fish and Game, Wildlife Division.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 158(JUD)
"An Act relating to civil actions; amending Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure 49, 68, and 95; amending Alaska Rule of
Evidence 702; and providing for an effective date."
Daniella Loper, aide to Representative Brian Porter
summarized this bill. Chris Christensen, Alaska Court
System said that under section 12, mandatory arbitration
would also apply to small claims and they should consider
the substantial cost of arbitration. Jeff Bush, Commerce &
Economic Development testified that there was a problem with
the statute of repose under section 9. Deborah Behr,
Department of Law answered questions of committee members.
Co-chairman Halford continued this matter until tomorrow
9:00 A.M.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 280(CRA)
"An Act relating to the mandatory incorporation of
certain boroughs in the unorganized borough."
Co-chairman Halford continued SB 280. Senator Torgerson was
invited to join the committee. He referred to section
29.05.031 there is a prohibition against starting third-
class boroughs. This amendment would basically delete that
out of the statutes so the statute and SB 280 would not be
contradictory. Senator Phillips moved amendment #3 and
without objection it was adopted. Senator Rieger moved his
re-drafted amendment #2 and said the changes were to change
"3%" to "5%" and delete "250 residents or". He referred to
proposed borough number three and said they were not part of
the municipality of Ketchikan. If they were they would have
to have a larger threshold. Co-chairman Halford said this
posed a problem. Senator Rieger said a large enough
percentage was wanted so the detachment petitions are not a
dime a dozen; on the other hand it should be small enough to
allow self-determination. He said eventually there would be
a vote. Of the area that constituted the 5%+ at least 15%
of the people within that area who voted in the last
election must sign a petition to put it on the next ballot.
Then residents of the area proposed for detachment were
eligible to vote. Senator Torgerson said Senator Zharoff
would have been better off with the 250 standard than in the
3% in his example. As Senator Rieger pointed out,
annexation is not before the committee. Senator Frank felt
the amendment was not germane to the issue. Getting into
the detachment issue would cause a need for the committee to
gather more information. That would need another bill and
more discussion not just an attachment or amendment to this
bill. He said he would support the bill as it came into the
committee but that he was uncomfortable with the detachment
issues. Senator Rieger explained why he thought the issue
was germane. If mandatory corporations are going to be
proposed they have to be balanced with self-determination
abilities. Co-chairman Halford concurred. Senator Frank
said he knew the issue was germane legally but did not feel
it was germane from a political point of view. Senator
Phillips concurred with Senator Rieger. He asked about the
Lake Louise detachment.
Lamar Cotten, Department of Community and Regional Affairs
was invited to join the committee. He said the permanent
residents of Lake Louise filed a petition to detach. They
were not allowed to vote. He said that the LBC staff had
not really gone through this but the commission does have
broad authority. Senator Halford said in would require
another education process to understand the detachment
question. He asked what would happen if the detachment
process in Senator Rieger's amendment were to be
implemented. Mr. Cotten said this matter had not really
been investigated. He explained there was a series of nine
standards the LBC looked at when it comes to detachment in
order to make a decision. There have been eleven petitions
to detach that have been accepted. Six have actually been
accepted. Co-chairman Halford asked if they could guarantee
access by petition that would result in a vote based on some
threshold. He referred to Eagle River and Anchorage in that
they had been continuously turned down by the local boundary
commission. The legislature passed, by a significant
margin, legislation to specifically let the community
separate. After the separation and after there was no vote
available on the unification charter, the community was
reunited by Court order because the legislation was special
legislation and the Court said the boundary commission could
have done this. That, in terms of population, was probably
the biggest boundary issue since statehood. Mr. Cotten
said that he and his staff would be willing to meet with
committee members and go through this matter.
Senator Rieger commented and said LBC could consider all
petitions that are submitted and use their own judgment on
what they allow or do not allow. A municipality may
initiate a detachment on their own but that is through
action of the local governing body which oftentimes is the
problem. Mr. Cotten felt further review of the matter was
necessary. Senator Torgerson said it would be better to
hold the bill until tomorrow pending his further
investigation.
Co-chairman Halford said he would hold the bill in committee
until tomorrow pending further investigation and receipt of
new draft CS.
SENATE BILL NO. 247
"An Act relating to the fish and game fund; amending
Rules 79(b) and 82(b)(2), Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
Senator Robin Taylor was invited to join the committee and
testified on behalf of the bill. He referred to CSSB 247()
work draft and explained the amendments that it contained.
He said these were significant changes but had assurances
from Department of Fish and Game they would not oppose these
amendments. Senator Frank asked that Senator Taylor
reiterate his advocation of the "preservation" feature.
Senator Taylor commented on his visit to the 4-H program
being put on in conjunction with the local gun club to
receive training and instruction on how to handle a firearm,
clean it, how to walk with it and carry it. Over seventy
youngsters showed up from the community with their families.
They had commented on the difficulties of getting a rifle or
pistol range constructed and then to make sure it was
protected in the future. He said the drafters had suggested
the use of the term "preservation".
Senator Rieger referred to another phrase used by the
sponsor "manipulation of habitat" and asked that it be
described for the committee. Senator Taylor said the best
example was the AWACS crash at Elmendorf. Because the
Department of Fish and Game and the Anchorage Airport
Authority failed to do anything about a significant known
risk of geese to aircraft, and had refused to do any habitat
manipulation at the end of the runway which had been
recommended over fifteen years before by both FAA and
pilots, when that flock of geese took off all those people
were killed. Habitat manipulation could very easily have
changed the make-up of that area immediately off the end of
the runway by making it an area not preferred by water fowl.
Habitat manipulation can be helpful for human beings and
also the animals.
Mr. Geron Bruce, Department of Fish and Game was invited to
join the committee. He said it was important to understand
the effect of this bill on wildlife in a whole. The Federal
Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act, passed in 1937 formed the
basis for all modern scientific fish and wildlife
management that the states conduct. It is a federal program
that collects money at the national level and then sends it
back to the states on a formula basis. As a requirement for
receiving that money the states have to dedicate their
revenues from their hunting and fishing licenses. The
primary motivation for this act was the wildlife in the
country was in a very depressed state due to unregulated
hunting and major habitat degradation. Therefore, the state
dedication of the license fees had to go to support a
management fish and wildlife agency. Two basic ideas behind
this legislation were to provide a stable and continuous
source of funding for fish and wildlife management, and to
put fish and wildlife management on a scientific basis by
setting up state agencies that were staffed by professionals
in the field. This has had a major impact resulting in
wildlife populations and sport fish populations that were
depressed at the time. This bill would have a major impact
on the way this act works. At this time budgets are built
based on scientific training and programs which are in turn
based on a multiple year goal. Each item would be a
separate appropriation with constituents and legislators
from different parts of the state competing for the
particular programs they wanted to see funded out of the
available monies. This would present many difficulties for
maintaining any consistent long term program that was trying
to achieve specific goals over a number of years. This also
causes a concern with the consequence of the budgeting
process. In addition there are major concerns about the
particular fiscal impacts to this legislation. He referred
briefly to the testimony presented before the House
Resources committee.
Kevin Brooks, Department of Fish and Game was invited to
join the committee. He said he was testifying particularly
on the impact to his division. It would seriously affect
the ability to provide centralized services for personnel,
accounting, budgeting and procurement. Another major item
would be administering the licensing program. This
legislation would not allow for the cost of administering
the licensing program. There is approximately $1.3 million
in fish and game funds of which over $700,000. is paid
directly to the vendors for selling licenses. Since FY 92
the division's entire budget was general funds. Presently
the division is one third fish and game funds, one third
federal funds and one third general funds. The licensing
program has been the most heavily affected. Rates for
administrative costs of running the programs, getting people
paid and paying the vendors are negotiated with the federal
government. There are a number of federal programs and
grants the division is involved with which are required by
statute. He said these were indirect by nature and would be
prohibited as the bill is currently written. The net effect
would be just under $1 million in lost federal receipts that
is collected and $1.3 million in lost fish and game funds.
Senator Taylor asked which form of the bill was being
referred to and Mr. Brooks advised it was the CS. Co-
chairman Halford advised Senator Taylor to be thinking of
either amendments that could be presented or possible
conceptual amendments.
Sarah Hannan, Alaska Environmental Lobby was invited to
join the committee and testified in opposition to the bill.
She said she was not opposed to hunting and fishing but
asked that one should consider what is implied in the bill.
A hunting or fishing license is not a user fee. It is a
regulatory permission to harvest a resource that is
collectively owned and belongs to all. There needs to be a
more comprehensive measure for equitable distribution,
including a series of user fees for non-consumptive users.
The majority of Alaskans that appreciate fish and wildlife
are not licensed sport fish/hunters. She said the sole
reason for this bill was because the sponsor did not agree
with management decisions made by the department of fish and
game and therefore wanted to intimidate them. This is
manipulative, short-sighted management that is bad public
policy. The issue of wolf management and predator control
comes in a variety of legislation this year and in all cases
this is strongly opposed. Fish and game management should
be based on science. She said this bill would only further
increase animosity between the legislature and the
department and encouraged the committee to not pass this
bill out.
Senator Taylor advised he would work with the department on
an amendment if one is necessary and would present it on the
floor. Senator Frank moved work draft CSSB 247() and it was
adopted for work purposes. He then moved CSSB 247(FIN) and
without objection it was reported out with individual
recommendations and zero fiscal note from the Department of
Public Safety, zero fiscal notes with fund sources changes
from the Department of Fish and Game, Administrative
Services, Wildlife Conservation and Sport Fish divisions.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 262(RES)
"An Act relating to management of game populations for
maximum sustained yield for human harvest and providing
for the replacement of areas closed to consumptive uses of
game; relating to management of fish and game areas; and
amending Rules 79(b) and 82(b)(2), Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure."
Senator Mike Miller was invited to join the committee. He
explained SB 262 and said the RES version was a combination
of many concerned parties. The main thrust of the bill was
to guarantee that the game populations in the state will be
managed for maximum sustained yield for consumptive uses.
The bill would require any areas closed to hunting for
consumptive uses, with the exception of biological
emergencies, a new area three times the size to be opened up
in the state for those species that was closed in those
particular areas. The state has set up a public trust for
fish and game management areas. The monies used are
generated through taxes, license fees and other fees paid by
sportsmen. This trust would be breached if there was a
restriction of public access into those areas where those
monies are used, if there is a restriction of fishing,
hunting and trapping activities in those areas and if those
revenues generated from taxes, license fees and other fees
paid by sportsmen, or federal funds from the sports fish or
wildlife restoration fund in areas where consumptive uses
would not be permitted or for management of non-game
species. Another important aspect of the bill is the Senate
RES version is a compromise put together by several
consumptive user groups and the Tanana Chiefs Association in
Fairbanks. It has been worked on by a wide range of groups
and the Tanana Chiefs Association does support this
particular bill.
Geron Bruce, Department of Fish and Game was invited to join
the committee. He said the department opposed the bill.
Biologists do not believe specific levels of harvest can be
sustained. The department uses the majority of the revenue
generated through the Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration
Program and from the Fish and Game Fund for activities
related to hunting. The federal aid authority is quite
broad and it would be consistent to spend all license fees
on other uses and not on hunting. In this state it is
recognized that hunting is a very important activity however
it is important to support a balanced program. The
department felt the net effect of this bill would be to
prevent closure of areas to consumptive uses, which would
remove an important tool used by the Board of Game and the
department for maintaining wildlife populations. He said
this was a serious issue causing their concern with this
legislation.
Anthony Crupi, Alaska Environmental Lobby was invited to
join the committee and testified in opposition to the bill.
He said this bill was managing Alaska's game population
solely on a biological basis and that consumptive use of
game is the highest and best use of game. If Alaska's game
population is being managed on a biological basis, why does
this bill attempt to manage our game on an acreage an solely
consumptive basis? This bill would not take into
consideration the overall status of the eco-system in which
these uses are imposed. Only a healthy eco-system can
adequately sustain both consumptive and non-consumptive
uses. He said the finance committee's responsibility should
be to realize the magnitude of revenue that potentially
would be lost. He said Alaskans and Alaskan resources
deserve more thoughtful governing than SB 262.
Senator Frank moved CSSB 262(RES) and without objection it
was reported out with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal note with fund source change from the Department of
Fish and Game, Wildlife Division.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 158(JUD)
"An Act relating to civil actions; amending Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure 49, 68, and 95; amending Alaska
Rule of Evidence 702; and providing for an effective
date."
Daniella Loper, aide to Representative Brian Porter was
invited to join the committee and summarized the bill. She
clarified statutory limitations and said there was a limited
cap for certain specified injuries. She further said this
bill would ask for an eight to ten year statute of repose.
They have re-iterated the State of Alaska Supreme Court
regarding the definition of punitive damages and a formula
for making awards. The Court could also require posting of
security on payments for mandatory insurance. Fault should
be allocated to all parties. Any offer of judgement made
within 5% of the judgment that is rendered the party
declining the offer will have to pay the other parties'
attorney fees and actual costs. A provision for civil
liability for hospitals for non-employees has been included.
Another provision has been included to help guard against
lawsuits. She referred to a mandatory arbitration section
and a mandatory insurance rate if the bill should pass.
Co-chairman Halford posed a question on section 9 as it
applied to the breakout of liabilities by percentages. No
percentage could be allocated to any party or to the problem
that is prohibited or protected by the statute of repose.
He related a hypothetical case. Senator Frank said he would
assume that portion that could not be assigned under the
statute of repose would just go unassigned.
(Miscellaneous conversation between committee members and
Ms. Loper regarding hypothetical cases.) She said that
Representative Porter does not support section 9 because it
deletes a portion of the fault. But this was what the
voters voted for. She further said if section 9 is
implemented it would not change much to current law.
Chris Christensen was invited to join the committee. He
said the Court System did not support section 12, mandatory
arbitration. He said the state will also have to pay for
arbitration if the plaintiff is indigent.
Jeff Bush, Commerce & Economic Development was invited to
join the committee. He said there was a problem with the
statute of repose under section 9.
Deborah Behr, Department of Law was also invited to join the
committee and testified regarding allocation of fault. She
explained that in 1994 a Supreme Court ruling there was an
apportionment of fault among all defendants. "All
defendants" means "all persons joined in a legal action".
If they are not joined, fault to that particular person
cannot be allocated. Co-chairman Halford continued this
matter until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-chairman Halford adjourned the meeting at approximately
3:45 P.M. until tomorrow morning.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|