Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1998 08:25 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
11 March, 1998
8:25 a.m.
TAPES
SFC 98 #76
#77, Sides A and B
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 8:25 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Donley,
Torgerson, Adams and Phillips were present when the meeting
was convened. Senator Parnell arrived shortly thereafter.
Also Attending: Senator RICK HALFORD; JANE ANGVIK,
Director, Division of Lands, Department of Natural
Resources; NANCY JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue; CATHERINE REARDON,
Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development; PAM LA BOLLE, President,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce; MIKE GREANY, Director,
Division of Legislative Finance and aides to committee
members and other members of the Legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
[Note: There was a presentation on the Key Campaign
Presentation, which was not transcribed; audio is available
on Tape #76, available at the Legislative Reference
Library.]
SENATE BILL NO. 235
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers."
Co-Chair Sharp pointed out a Legislative Budget and Audit
report on this bill that, in his opinion, gave a favorable
recommendation for the extension. He noted the zero fiscal
note attached to the legislation and that the board was set
to sunset from the year 1998 to 2002. He opened the floor
to comments or questions.
Senator Pearce noted the auditors' request to further
extend the sunset date to 2004. The reason they gave was
that there had been no problems with the operation of this
board. The division would thus be spared from doing
another audit in two years. She said the report also
pointed out the lawmaker's ability to pass legislation to
change the sunset date back to the year 2002 if it became
necessary.
She then moved to amend page 1, line 6; replace "2002" with
"2004" as per the recommendation of the Legislative
Auditors. There was no objection, and the amendment was
adopted.
Senator Pearce moved Senate Finance Committee Substitute
for SB 234 with accompanying zero fiscal note and
individual recommendations, out of committee. There was no
objection and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 180(RES)
"An Act relating to state rights-of-way."
BRETT HUBER, staff to Senator Halford, the prime sponsor of
the bill, came to the table to testify. He explained the
RS2744 rights-of-way had been a long-standing issue and was
complex. He offered to address his comments to first, give
a brief history of the issue then give a brief overview of
previous action and then address the bill before the
committee.
Mr. Huber said, "RS2477 was a right granted to the states
by the US Congress with the passage of the Mining Act of
1866. The purpose of the law was to provide for and to
guarantee the public's right to establish access across
federal land. Subsequent congressional action and more
that 100 years of case law recognize the state's authority
to determine and define RS2477 rights-of-way. Although
Congress repealed RS2477 in 1976 when they adopted the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, they specifically
acknowledged the legal existence of previous RS2477 rights-
of-way that were established prior to the repeal. Current
federal regulation explicitly provides that any rights
conferred by the RS2477 grant shall not be diminished."
He continued, "Mr. Chairman as you are aware, this
important state's rights issue has received legislative
attention in the past. Beginning with appropriations in
1992 and 1993, which funded the research and compilation of
the historical information regarding the rights-of way.
The Legislature has taken the lead in moving the issue
forward. In undertaking the legislatively designated
projects, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed
some 117 potential RS2477 routes. The review resulted in
them coming up with 582 routes they believed were accepted
prior to the extinguishment of RS2477 grant process and
that they have enough research and documentation to
support."
"Last year the Legislature passed SJR 13. That was a
resolution that reiterated the position regarding RS2477,
and it made clear the objection of the Department of the
Interior's proposed policy last year. Basically changing
the entire playing field on how RS2477's are defined. You
should have a copy of the policy memo from Secretary
Babbitt in your packet. Information that came forward
during that process and also during the joint oversight
hearing last year with the House and Senate Resource
Committees resulted in SB 180."
"SB 180 codifies 582 documented rights-of-way, requires
them to be recorded, and provides a process for, and
limitations on their vacation as well as setting out
liability limitation for the state. While the RS2477
rights-of-way codifies in this bill have already been
accepted by public use and deemed supportable by the state,
it is likely the federal government will dispute the
state's ownership on some or perhaps all of these routes."
"Although the current federal administration is attempting
to limit the state's rights regarding RS2477, over 100
years of case-law on point recognizes stated law as
controlling on the issue. We feel that by codifying these
routes in statutes will strengthen the state's position for
possible subsequent court action and provide the affected
landowners and general public clear notification that these
RS2477 rights-of-way are out there and available for use."
"Mr. Chairman RS2477 rights-of-way are an existing state
right. This bill doesn't make any new rights, it just
asserts those rights statutorily."
This concluded Mr. Huber's presentation on the bill.
Senator Phillips referred to the numbers assigned to the
trails. He noticed they were not in sequence and wondered
if there was a reason for that. Where there other trails
that were not considered for this legislation, he asked.
Mr. Huber explained the numbers were the RST numbers from
the Historic Trails Atlas. DNR actually started with about
1800 routes as possibly qualifying. They brought 582
forward that were included in the bill. The reason all the
RST numbers were not listed; was because they didn't all
qualify for designation under RS2477, he said.
Senator Phillips looked for the Iditarod Trail on the list.
Mr. Huber conceded that he had not memorized all the trails
included, but guessed that the Iditarod Trail was included.
Senator Adams had a question about easements. He wanted to
know what size of easement was proposed in the bill. He
said that many of the trails in his area were very small
dog trails in nature. Mr. Huber said he and Senator
Halford shared that concern and had decided to address the
whole scope and management aspect in this legislation and
not address the easement portion at this time. He
explained that the department had a regulatory process that
could be applied later. DNR, when it had been accepting an
RS2477, had been asserting them at a 100-foot easement
width, he noted. This bill did nothing to require a
specific easement width, a specific scope or a specific
use. The sponsor believed that individual trails would
probably need individual decisions. He gave examples,
saying that, some of the trails were dog sled routes, some
trails led to burial grounds located one hill away from the
village.
Senator Adams clarified that the decision would be left up
to the department to make the width determinations. Mr.
Huber affirmed that. He suggested there would be another
possibility where a court would make a specific width
determination if there were subsequent court action.
Senator Adams told the committee had an amendment to offer
and he spoke to that amendment. He said he felt that
basically the Legislature needed to require the department
to survey the rights-of-ways before they were recorded. He
asked the sponsor's opinion of the amendment. Mr. Huber
responded, thanking the senator for prior notification of
the amendment. In his opinion however, of the 588 trails
listed in the bill, not all had potential conflicts. Some
crossed state lands only, some crossed federal lands only;
some crossed a mix of state, federal, Native corporations'
lands. To go out and survey all 582 trails would be a
tremendous project. It would be difficult to prioritize.
He anticipated the priority to be set when an affected
landowner had a dispute. The bill included a process the
landowner could follow to work with the department to
vacate a portion of the route if an alternate was
established. The other option the landowner had would be
to take the case to court and have the judge make a clear
determination. Mr. Huber summarized that when a conflict
came up; DNR would do a survey.
Senator Adams asked if there was a timeline for
implementation of this legislation. Mr. Huber replied the
only time limit in the bill required the recording of these
routes no later than January 1, 1999. He continued saying
it was important to note that the routes listed in the bill
were not the only RS2477 that existed. Others could be
added, and the bill also directed DNR to continue its
efforts to identify new routes.
The committee then invited JANE ANGVIK to testify on behalf
of DNR. She showed the committee a map showing the routes
referred to in this legislation. She noted that the RS2477
routes were identified on the map. She spoke of the
research the department did in determining which routes
qualified.
She spoke to a problem the department had with this bill.
She said, that while the map had lines depicting the
trails, the department did not know exactly where the
trails were on the ground. While the department completely
supported the effort of the sponsor to assert ownership of
the trails, she felt that if DNR recorded the trail
locations today, they would unduly cast shadows on title.
The problem was not with determining ownership on state or
federal lands, the question would be with private lands,
she warned.
Senator Phillips asked for a copy of the map. Ms. Angvik
gave him the map she had and told the committee she would
provide additional copies for each member.
Ms. Angvik said the map was a product of the capital
improvement project the Legislature funded three years ago,
which provided the department with the funding to actually
do the research and do the historical identification.
There were over 1000 routes that were originally proposed.
This legislation represented those ...(tape unintelligible
due to paper-shuffling of the map in question.)
Ms. Angvik explained the steps the department had taken to
certify the routes. She mentioned public participation.
She said they had only done the certification process on 11
of the trails in question, and of that they had taken one
to court with respect to ownership of the federal
government. She spoke to the importance of letting the
public know of the trails' existence.
She said DNR had concerns about actually recording the
routes before their location had been actually identified
on the land. Therefore, she said the department supported
Senator Adam's amendment requiring the trails be surveyed
before they were actually recorded. That would give proof
positive of the location. The downside, she admitted would
be the expense and the fiscal note would be large. She
gave the committee an estimate of the cost to survey just
the 11 trails that had already been certified. (This
amount was in written form, and not stated on the audio
record.)
Senator Parnell speculated there were a lot of private
property owners who would love to have the state pay for
surveys. If the title was already clouded by assertion of
the rights, and if someone wanted to transfer or use
property, whether the trails were recorded or not, the
individual would have to file an "Action to Quiet Title" or
pay for a survey. Therefore, he agreed with Mr. Huber and
felt that to require a survey before recording would not
accomplish anything.
Ms. Angvik agreed that they believed that the right-of-way
existed and was out there somewhere. What DNR was
concerned about was asserting that ownership without
knowing exactly where it was. She would not anticipate
doing surveys strictly for private interests. What they
would be doing would be finding a centerline of the state's
own easements. She used a possible example, "There's a
road going through your land, and we would like to let you
know exactly where it is. Right now we don't know exactly
where it is. What that does is make if difficult for
people to know. They can say, 'OK, I've got an encumbrance
on my land, but you can't even tell me if it goes through
the middle of my house or not.'"
Senator Parnell said that would take years and suggested it
would be better to put them on notice now and then start
working the survey process. Ms. Angvik responded that
there was no question that the state should tell the public
if there was an easement on their land. However, generally
speaking, the RS2477 question was cast as the federal
government versus the State Of Alaska. It was the State Of
Alaska trying to provide access the conservation districts
that were created as a result of ANILCA. The big fight was
with the federal government.
Senator Phillips referred to the identification of historic
trails, which he surmised this legislation was all about,
and asked how the identification was arrived. He noted
that during the Gold Rush there had been another trail
north of Yakutat that miners used that was not marked on
the map. He saw the trail marked on the Canadian side of
the border.
Ms. Angvik responded that the original design of the RS2477
law was to allow people to get from point A to point B, on
their way to someplace else. The requirement for the trial
designation was that some government somewhere needed to
have stated that the trail was real. In the case of
Alaska, the government entity was often the Territorial
Highways. There may be many trails that exist, but there
was never a time when a government indicated such for that
trail, she said. When the division reviewed the historical
records, they looked at not only if the trail had been
used, but also whether there was any government
acknowledgement of the trail.
Mr. Huber interjected that his understanding that no
government action was required to create an RD2477 route.
They could be accepted by public use so long as that use
pre-dated the extinguishment of the act in 1976. Pre-dated
public use constituted acceptance. He noted there was a
lot of case law to support that.
Senator Pearce asked why a route such as the Copper River
Railroad did not appear as a historic transportation route.
Co-Chair Sharp answered that was because the route was
already an existing right-of-way that has been established.
Ms. Angvik added that many routes are actively managed by a
government or, as in the case of the railroad, by the
railroad entity.
Senator Pearce pointed out many other trails the government
manages that were in fact included in the designation. Ms.
Angvik responded the trails included a historical record
that indicated they could be provable, with respect that
they exist and there are entities that recognize that they
exist. Senator Pearce asked if the railroad didn't exist.
Senator Phillips commented (undecipherable).
Senator Phillips questioned how the division arrived at
"historical trails". Ms. Angvik replied that the
definition was established both in the federal law and in
regulations that had been adopted. One way to demonstrate
qualification, is by going through records of government
use and individual use that had been provided. In cases
such as the Copper River Railroad, the route had been
established but is not an RS2477 under the terms of this
law. It exists as a separate easement that already exists.
Mr. Huber pointed out that it was important to remember
that this exercise of establishing these rights-of-way was
not to show all state rights-of way, but to identify these
historic rights-of-ways that were accepted by public use
that aren't already a part of the state's right-of-way or
transportation system.
Co-Chair Sharp invited Senator Halford to join the
committee at the table if he so desired.
Senator Pearce said the reason she asked the question, was
because there was some dispute over the Copper River right-
of-way and who owned part of it. The original railway bed
is gone because it was over a glacier and the land it now
occupies belongs to one of the Native corporations, not to
the State Of Alaska. Mr. Huber told her that while he
didn't have a specific answer on this right-of-way, it was
certainly possible that is would apply under the portion of
the law that reads, "lands that are not already reserved."
If there was a federal reservation of that right-of-way
initially, that was not previous to public use, then it
would not be acceptable by public use because it was
already reserved ground. He qualified by saying that was a
possibility, but he didn't know the particulars on the
Copper River corridor.
Senator Parnell wanted to know if there was any more public
testimony to be heard on this bill. Co-Chair Sharp said
there was one more person signed up. Senator Adams
indicated that he needed to leave for another meeting and
requested the committee take up his amendment first. Co-
Chair Sharp granted the request stating that the public
testimony left to be heard probably wouldn't be affected by
the passage or failure of the amendment.
Senator Adams moved to adopt Amendment #2. Senator
Torgerson objected. Senator Adams spoke to the amendment.
He acknowledged the enormous cost of implementing the
provision of the amendment, which would require all of the
surveys done prior to recording. He still felt it was a
necessary issue. Co-Chair Sharp asked for roll call on the
amendment. The amendment failed 1-5 (Senator Adams, yea.)
Senator Torgerson moved to adopt Amendment #1, a technical
amendment. Mr. Huber spoke to the amendment, which would
add 20 additional routes to the original 182 routes listed
in the Resources Committee version of the bill. Those
routes had been supplied to the sponsor by DNR as routes
researched and documented to a level the department was
comfortable with their validity.
Senator Torgerson had a question on Page 22 Line 13;
changing the word "shall" to "may" and asked for
explanation. Mr. Huber responded that the change was
purely a drafter recommendation. It would not change what
the bill was trying to do. There was some discussion as to
the meanings of "shall" and "may".
There were no objections and Amendment #2 was adopted.
Co-Chair Sharp called PAM LA BOLLE to testify. The Alaska
State Chamber of Commerce supported the research and
mapping of RS2477 rights-of-way on federal lands and the
state's assertion of those rights on federal lands, she
told the committee. However, they had concerns about the
private property issue and urged the committee give careful
consideration. Another concern dealt with liability. She
said her group supported the state's efforts to assert its
rights and do the mapping.
There were no questions by committee members. There was no
other public testimony. Senator Halford was asked if he
had anything more to offer.
Co-Chair Sharp had one more question of Ms. Angvik about
the fiscal note. He wondered if the documents' existence
on magnetic form might excellorate the process at a lower
cost that the fiscal note quoted. He pointed out the 3200
man-hours needed for copying paper files. Ms. Angvik
replied that unfortunately the Recorder's Office had no
capacity to receive electronic files. DNR would happily
give them a disk, but the process of recording had
stringent requirements. Paper size must be exact. The
department is even facing challenges of how to submit the
maps themselves since they cannot be larger than legal
size.
Co-Chair Sharp voiced his opinion that the state should at
least assert its rights over routes that had been
documented and proven. He felt that to do any less would
do more harm to private citizens that might be purchasing
or acquiring land. Those people should be put on notice
that there may be an RS2477 right-of-way on their land.
Without that information on file, it would be nearly
impossible for them to be aware of the encumbrance. If
surveying needs to be done later, then that could be a
focus.
Senator Pearce moved Senate Finance Committee Substitute
for SB 180 with individual recommendations and appropriate
fiscal note. There were no objections and the bill moved
out of committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 254(JUD)
"An Act relating to the exemption from levy,
execution, garnishment, attachment, or other remedy
for the collection of debt as applied to a permanent
fund dividend."
MIKE PAULEY, staff to Senator Leman, addressed this
legislation. His testimony was as follows:
"This bill would significantly enhance the ability of
Alaskan businesses and other private parties to collect
from debtors who are in a state of default in their
financial obligations. Existing state law provides that
45% of a person's annual Permanent Fund Dividend check is
exempt from collection to pay an outstanding debt. In
other words, even though a person may have a court
judgement stipulating that they owe a certain amount of
money, almost half of their dividend check is exempt from
collection at least when its a private party that seeking
to collect the debt. There are some exceptions to this
general rule. Child support obligations, defaulted student
loans and any debts to an agency of the state are not
covered by the 45% exemption. So on those cases; the state
can garnish 100% of a dividend check in order to satisfy
its financial obligation. But small businesses and other
private parties do not enjoy that ability to collect 100%
of the check."
"When businesses are not able to collect funds from those
in default, it increases the cost of doing business.
Ironically, those costs are passed on to honest consumers
in the form of higher costs for goods and services. So, in
a very real sense, the majority of Alaskan consumers are
paying for the financial irresponsibility of a small
minority."
"As originally introduced, SB 254 proposed to completely
eliminate the 45% exemption. However, and amendment
adopted in committee, restored the exemption but lowered it
from the current 45% to 30%. This means that the
percentage of a dividend available for garnishment by
private parties would increase from 55% to 70% as the bill
currently stands. State agencies would continue to collect
at a rate of 100%."
As currently structured, SB 254 significantly narrows the
gap between what private parties and the State are able to
collect."
That concluded Mr. Pauley's prepared statement.
Senator Donley agreed that while he felt the 100%
garnishment would work because people would not have the
incentive to actually file for their PFD, he did think the
higher percentage was appropriate here. He said he would
like to see it around 25% or less so people would still
have the incentive to file, but still benefit anyone who
went through the effort to get a court judgement.
Co-Chair Sharp's comment was that he wanted to keep the
incentive and leave enough to pay the taxes on the
dividend. There was further discussion by Co-Chair Sharp
and Senator Donley about the taxes and the efforts the
debtor makes in obtaining a judgement.
Co-Chair Sharp requested the sponsor's view of the
Judiciary version. Mr. Pauley qualified that he must be
careful in speaking his office's opinion. The Labor and
Commerce Committee, who he was here representing, voted to
restore, but lower, the exemption, which the original bill
eliminated. Therefore, he felt he could not comment.
Co-Chair Sharp noted the L&C version added a fee schedule
based on five-percent of the dividend rather that five-
percent of the amount collected. Mr. Pauley explained the
L&C change from imposing a $2 fee to a fee of five-percent
of the total value of the PFD. This was because the
existing $2 fee was not covering the division's expenses.
The Judiciary committee then voted to remove the five-
percent fee, which eliminated the actions of the L&C
Committee. He recalled the Permanent Fund Division
testified that they were opposed to the five-percent fee.
Co-Chair Sharp noted that the division had a representative
present at this meeting to answer questions. He
anticipated the committee would have a few questions.
Senator Torgerson was under the impression that court-
ordered restitution was already at 100%. He gave an
example: "If I did a small claims action, and took it
through the court process, and the case was found in favor
of my claim, I would now have a court order for re-payment
of that amount of money as long as it was under $5000.
What you're saying is that under current law, I could only
collect 55% of that even though it was under court order?"
Apparently, he said, he had a different explanation of what
court-ordered restitution means.
Mr. Pauley shared that to his understanding that language
did not apply to private debtors. He spoke of a car
dealership with a customer who defaulted on their car loan.
Even if the dealership had the court statement saying they
were entitled to that money, that didn't entitle them to
100% of the PFD.
Senator Donley interjected; pointing out that "restitution"
usually applied to criminal situations. Senator Torgerson
said he thought part of this legislation dealt with
criminal actions. Senator Donley explained how the court
usually assigns restitution to be paid by the criminal to
the victim of the crime.
Senator Torgerson asked what form the garnishment would
come to the PFD. Did the collection agency submit a copy
of the credit card statement showing the balance owed and
substantial documentation, or was a court order necessary,
he asked. Mr. Pauley told him there was a process that
must be followed. He deferred to NANCY JONES of the
division who had more knowledge of the mechanics.
Co-Chair Sharp called Ms. Jones to come to the committee to
testify. She started by answering Senator Torgerson's last
question. The court must certify all claims, she stated.
The division would not accept any private claims. The
garnishment request would come to PFD through a court order
that states this was a legal dept.
Co-Chair Sharp restated the earlier question concerning the
$2 fee and whether that was adequate to cover processing
costs. Ms. Jones told of the division's the collection
staff, which also does data processing. April 1 would be
the first time they would be accepting any claims. They
would accept claims from April 1 through the payment period
in October. Of a staff of four, one person worked 100% on
processing these claims. Other staff worked varying parts
of the process. Including data entry time and computer use
charges, the total cost of processing the claims was a
little more that $154,000. The $2 fee adequately reflected
the cost, summarized Ms. Jones. She spoke about the
allocation of those funds by the Legislature, which
required the charges be collected before the money could be
spent. Therefore, she said, if the division did not
receive the anticipated number of collections, they could
not spend the $154,000 operating appropriation. Because of
this, they had kept the projections conservative.
Co-Chair Sharp asked about the record of federal government
agencies, namely the Internal Revenue Service, as far as
paying the processing fee. He wanted to know if the
division had gotten any static from the IRS attempting to
have the fees waived. Ms. Jones recounted that prior to
her tenure with the division, there had been some battles
fought over this matter. The IRS did not allow any other
institutions to collect a processing fee before dispersing
funds. They had come to an agreement that said if at any
time the IRS could collect up to $21 million from the PFD
fund, they shouldn't quibble about the meager $2 fee. She
said the division was working together with the IRS
regional directors.
Senator Donley wanted to know if the $2 fee was currently
set in statutes. Ms. Jones responded, no. The statutes
just provided the authority for the division to charge a
fee. The amount was set in regulation.
Senator Phillips and Ms. Jones had further discussion about
the fee and whether it was adequate at covering the
processing costs.
Senator Torgerson asked to make it clear that if the
department's costs started to exceed that, which was
covered by the $2, that the fees would be increased. Ms.
Jones assured him that when the overhead exceeded the
collected amount the fees would be raises. She said it was
difficult to breakdown and to determine the exact cost to
process each claim. Senator Torgerson said he just wanted
reassurance that the division had the ability to raise the
fee if needed to cover the costs.
Co-Chair Sharp brought up the issue of the different
versions of the bill and asked the committee which they
would like to address.
Senator Donley suggested the simplest bill version to work
from would be the Judiciary version. Co-Chair Sharp
agreed.
Senator Donley considered changing the current 30% to 20 or
25%. Senator Adams responded by asking how low the
percentage retained could drop and still maintain the
incentive for the individual to file. He wondered if the
current 30% was determined to be that amount. Senator
Donley spoke to the logic of a desire to pay off one's dept
to be the incentive needed. He felt that if the court told
an individual they owed a debt, they ought to have the
moral fortitude to pay off that debt. By using the PFD,
they are getting the advantage of having the dividend pay
toward that debt. He acknowledged there should remain a
percentage to allow the incentive to file.
Senator Donley made a motion to change Page 1 Line 5 from
30% to 20%. Co-Chair Sharp objected for discussion
purposes. Senator Phillips wanted to know the sponsor's
opinion on the amendment.
Mr. Pauley spoke saying they had heard an enormous amount
of testimony on this issue as to what the right percentage
should be to still give an incentive to apply. He made an
observation, if there was a concern that garnishing 100%
would be a disincentive for people to apply, then the
argument should be made to take the state agencies current
100% and lower it to whatever percentage was set for
private party collection. The question was posed to the
Administration asking if they had data showing that
individuals were not applying because they knew that 100%
of their dividend would go toward their child support or
student loan obligation. The response was anecdotally,
they had heard of cases where this was the case, but it was
extremely difficult to quantify.
He continued, saying that the current stipulation allowing
for 55% of the dividend to be collected was determined at a
time when the dividend was a significantly lower amount.
He predicted that if next year's check was $1500, and
Senator Donley's amendment was adopted, Mr. Pauley's guess
would be the recipient would still receive $300. Speaking
for himself, he would still apply for the "free" $300.
That was a lot of money to him, and he felt it would be a
lot of money to most people.
Co-Chair Sharp removed his objection and Senator Adams
maintained the objection. Roll call was taken, with the
vote tally 4-2 (Senator Adams and Senator Phillips nay).
The motion passed.
Public testimony was heard from Ms. LaBolle. Her
organization supported the legislation and the change in
the percentage from the Judiciary version. She added their
desire to keep the amount of the processing fee to remain
set in regulation rather than statutes.
Senator Donley referred to language deleted in lines eight
through eleven and asked for an explanation. Mr. Pauley
spoke to the change in Workdraft F as a technical
correction suggested by the Department of Law. The change
gives a definition of "after" in relation to the amount of
the exemption taken.
Senator Donley moved the Senate Finance Committee
Substitute for SB 254 from committee with a new, zero
fiscal note and individual recommendations. There were no
objections and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 255(STA)
"An Act establishing the Joint Committee on Military
Bases in Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
TIM BENINTENDI, staff to Senator Tim Kelly, spoke to this
bill. His statement was as follows:
"SB 255 would establish a joint House, Senate and citizen
committee to take up issues strictly dealing with military
base closures in Alaska. It would focus upon, but not be
limited to, activities of the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, the so-called BRAC Commission, which is a
federal entity that periodically reviews all military
facilities in the United States. The attention by BRAC
given to Alaskan bases in the past presents a considerable
challenge and necessitates a strong and vigilant response
from the Legislature. As it now stands, a formal BRAC
reactivation is being debated in Washington DC. However,
Defense Department officials have said that they would
perform a base review and closure exercise even if BRAC
isn't reinstituted later in the year."
"The military establishment in Alaska accounts for
approximately $1.7 billion annually throughout our economy.
In addition, the base closures experienced to date, that is
Adak Naval Air Facility and Fort Greely have shown that the
process requires considerable amount of attention on the
part of state government to monitor the economic impact and
reuse potential of such base closures. This joint
committee would provide that critical focus."
"We have included public members in this joint committee to
draw the participation of individuals from the state's
primary military base localities, Anchorage and Fairbanks.
We have invited participation from the state's Commissioner
of Military and Veteran's Affairs department."
"The bill before you reflects a correction made in the
Senate State Affairs Committee to more clearly indicate the
inclusion of three public, non-legislative members of the
committee.
"The amendment you also have would change the indicated
amount of value the military presence hold for Alaska from
$2.7 billion to $1.7 billion. This revision comes from
Institution for Social and Economic Research, which updated
that value for us. It modifies the higher number, which
was previously used by our congressional delegation. The
revised figure reflects past troop reductions and previous
base closures and does not include the value of retired
military personal."
"We ask your support for that amendment. I understand the
teleconference won't take place, so Mr. Chris Nelson, who's
had experience with this in the past, won't be joining us,
but I would be happy to take any questions or discuss the
fiscal note."
Senator Adams noted the fiscal note added another
Legislative assistant. Senators Hoffman and Adams had
volunteered their staff for this. Senator Adams felt it
would be more objective to have representation coming from
a rural area rather than hiring a new staff member. He
said this would save $73,600, by eliminating the personal
services.
Senator Pearce said her intention had been to zero out the
fiscal note with the exception of the travel and per diem
for the public members, which she felt they did have to
pay. She thanked Senator Adams for the offer his staff
support.
She added that she had been supportive of earlier efforts
on BRAC commissions. She noted they had tried this before
and enjoyed success. Alaska occupies a unique position on
the globe that makes it a top priority for the Department
of Defense, she observed. She still felt the need for
concern about losses perhaps of some of their armed forces,
particularly in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
She was troubled, because she felt it was time for others
to step forward. It shouldn't always have to be the
Legislature that brings forward the support and the effort
to stop these closures. She would have expected some sort
of commitment from the Governor and from the local
communities. She didn't see any money contributed from the
local communities who would be affected. She did see where
they were recommending people to serve on the task force,
but thought they should also contribute money.
She felt the approach should be broader than just a small
Legislative committee. She also thought there was plenty
of staff available during the interim to support the group
and that no new positions should be funded. She stated
that she casts a dim view of staff travel as a general rule
and particularly to staff traveling to Washington DC to
represent the Legislature of the State Of Alaska. She felt
that only Legislatures could do an adequate job of meeting
with the appropriate people and making that effort count.
She then moved to adopt a Senate Finance Fiscal Note that
would not fund staff especially for this task force. It
also would not fund travel for the legislators or staff.
It would fund travel and per diem for the members of the
public who would serve on the task force. She added they
could look at contracting supplies, but would need funding
for advertising.
She asked that the bill be held until the afternoon
meeting, while the new fiscal note was prepared. She said
this would only hold up the bill one day, and there were
adequate votes to pass the legislation.
Senator Adams asked about the Legislator travel costs for
this task force. Would the funds come from the Leadership
funds for each body, House and Senate, he asked. Senator
Pearce affirmed that. He then asked about the sunset of
the task force and if it would be a three-year committee.
Mr. Benintendi told the committee they had no problem
removing the provision for new staff. The intent had been
just to show what the cost would be if the Legislature
decided to add a special position.
There was further discussion about different military sites
in the state.
Senator Phillips moved Amendment #1, which updates the
economic value to the state, deleting $2.7 billion and
inserting $1.7 billion. The sponsor concurred with the
amendment. There was no objection and the amendment was
adopted.
There was no further discussion on the bill at this time.
Co-Chair Sharp ordered the bill held in committee until
4:30pm when a new fiscal note would be presented.
He announced the committee would re-convene at 4:30 to
address SB 255 and the Results Based Budget Worksession on
the Alaska State Troopers.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Sharp recessed the meeting at approximately
10:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|