Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/30/2002 04:43 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
April 30, 2002
4:43 PM
TAPES
SFC-02 # 82, Side A
SFC 02 # 82, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Pete Kelly convened the meeting at approximately 4:43 PM.
PRESENT
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice-Chair
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Gary Wilken
Also Attending: REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL; REPRESENTATIVE DREW
SCALZI; SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT; MARY MCDOWELL, Commissioner,
Division of Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Department of
Fish and Game; DENNY DEWITT, Staff to Representative Eldon Mulder;
PHIL CUTLER, staff to Co-Chair Donley
Attending via Teleconference: From Cordova: SUE ASPELUND, Executive
Director, Cordova District Fishermen United; Offnet: DON JOHNSON
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 160-REPORTING OF ABORTIONS
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, adopted a fiscal
note for the Department of Health and Social Services, and reported
the bill from Committee.
HB 504-WAGES FOR WORKERS IN FISHERIES
The bill was reported from Committee.
HB 288-LIMITED ENTRY BUY-BACK PROGRAM/ASSESSMENT
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Department of
Fish and Game, and took public testimony. The bill was reported
from Committee.
HB 515-OPERATING BUDGET MISSIONS AND MEASURES
The Committee heard from the sponsor, considered and adopted three
amendments, and reported the bill from Committee.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 160(JUD)
"An Act requiring the reporting of induced terminations of
pregnancies."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of the bill, informed the
Committee this legislation would require physicians to report a
termination of a pregnancy to the State's Bureau of Vital
Statistics within 30 days and require the Bureau to publish an
annual report of the findings. He stated this data is valuable for
numerous reasons including: policy decisions based on abortion
data, related health policy decisions, and teen pregnancy issues.
Representative Coghill explained that Section 1 of the legislation
establishes the procedures for the reporting. He conveyed that
these procedures are fashioned after similar legislation in place
in many other states.
Representative Coghill stated subsection (d) of Section 1 defines
the information that would be included in the annual statistic
report produced by the Bureau of Vital Statistics. He noted that
the names of the physician, the facility where the abortion
occurred, and the name of the community the woman resided in would
not be included in the report. He specified that the aggregate
statistical information would be reported according to federally
defined standards regarding induced termination of pregnancies.
Representative Coghill informed the Committee that Sections 3 and 4
of this legislation authorize the Bureau of Vital Statistics to
report specified information regarding induced termination of
pregnancies.
Representative Coghill commented that Section 8 of the bill
contains a new paragraph addressing the difference in reporting of
a stillborn or miscarriage pregnancy and an induced abortion.
Representative Coghill conveyed that the State's House of
Representatives supports this legislation.
Co-Chair Kelly asked, "how broad is this information": specifically
whether it would contain demographic information.
Representative Coghill responded there is a model reporting form
included in the members' packets [copy on file] that reflects the
types of information the report would include such as: "the
education level, the race, the gestational period." He stated the
report would supply a limited, but not regional, demographic
profile.
Co-Chair Donley asked the vote tally of the House of
Representatives in passing this bill.
Representative Coghill replied it passed unanimously.
Senator Leman asked if information specifying the reason for the
abortion would be available as that type of medical information
"could be helpful to future lawmakers" in "establishing social
policy in this State."
Representative Coghill stated that "just the type of pregnancy, the
gestational period that it's in, and those types of things" would
be identified according to public policy. He continued that he is
not sure if asking "the motive" behind a termination of a pregnancy
would be allowed or would need to be worded in such a manner that
the resulting information would be too broad as to not be useful.
Senator Leman responded this information exists on a nationwide
level, and suggested this legislation could require this
information specifically for Alaska.
Representative Coghill stated that Alaska is included in the
averages of the national reports, and stated this legislation would
provide similar information for the State.
Co-Chair Donley asked if the sponsor supports the Department of
Health and Social Services $90,000 fiscal note accompanying this
bill as, he opined, it is one of the largest fiscal notes to come
before the Committee this year.
Representative Coghill replied "it could be zeroed out" as the
Center for Disease Control (CDC) "does have funding available for
information gathering in these circumstances." He furthered that
the Department indicates it would need to hire an additional
"quarter person per quarter" to fulfill the additional duties this
legislation would incur; however, he opined, other funding could be
sought.
Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to replace the Department of
Health and Social Services' $89,400 fiscal note with a Finance
Committee zero fiscal note.
Senator Leman noted the Department has demonstrated the ability to
secure funding for projects that the Legislature has not supported;
therefore, he agrees the Department "would have the ability to
absorb" the expenses this legislation might incur.
Senator Hoffman objected and stated that contrary to the
Department's FY 02 budget, the FY 03 budget might not allow for
this absorption.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Austerman, Senator Leman, Senator Olson, Co-Chair
Donley, Co-Chair Kelly
OPPOSED: Senator Hoffman
ABSENT: Senator Wilken, Senator Green, Senator Ward
The motion PASSED (5-1-3)
The motion to allow a zero fiscal note to accompany the bill was
ADOPTED.
Senator Leman "moved to report HB #160 from Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying adjusted fiscal
note."
There being no objections, CS HB #160(JUD) was REPORTED from
Committee with a zero fiscal note, dated 5/01/02 from the
Department of Health and Social Services.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 504(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the wages of people working in the
fisheries business."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Senator Austerman offered a motion to report the bill from
Committee.
Co-Chair Donley objected, stating this legislation should be held
until separate minimum wage legislation currently under discussion
in the Legislature is determined.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Olson, Senator Austerman, Senator Hoffman,
Senator Leman, Co-Chair Kelly
OPPOSED: Co-Chair Donley
ABSENT: Senator Ward, Senator Wilken, Senator Green
The motion PASSED (5-1-3)
CS HB #504(FIN)am was REPORTED from Committee with a previous zero
fiscal note, dated 4/16/02 from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development.
AT EASE 5:01 PM / 5:02 PM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 288(FIN) am
"An Act relating to commercial fishing limited entry permit
buy-back programs, to a permit buy-back assessment, and to
voluntary relinquishment of commercial fishing permits; and
defining 'optimum number.'"
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW SCALZI informed the Committee this legislation
addresses repurchasing commercial fishing permits. He stated that
current State statutes allow this buy-back provision; however, it
has been problematic and never implemented because "an optimum
number study has to be conducted in order to establish what the
economic level is that would support the fishery, but yet not go
below a certain level to not make it too exclusive." He continued
that once the optimum number study is completed, current statute
"mandates that there be a buy-back." He stated that similar optimum
number studies have been considered by different fisheries
throughout the State, but not implemented because of concerns
regarding the requirement to purchase the permits, coupled with the
inability to predict when the permits would become available. He
furthered that the current statute specifies that, in addition to
purchasing the commercial fishing permit, the fishing industry is
also required to purchase the vessels and gear.
Representative Scalzi informed the Committee that this bill would
allow for the purchase of the permit without the obligation to
purchase the vessel and the gear. He stressed that the bill would
additionally allow the buy-back to be studied "voluntarily" without
mandating a buy-back.
Co-Chair Kelly asked what funding source would be available for the
buy-back program.
Representative Scalzi responded that the State's Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission envisioned creating a loan program to be
funded by a tax of up to seven percent assessed on the fishing
industry. He stated the tax would be collected by the Department of
Revenue.
MARY MCDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Department of Fish and Game, stated the funding mechanism currently
in place for the buy-back program law is unconstitutional because
it mandates a dedicated fund to be funded by an assessment on
fishermen. She qualified that another problem with the current law
is that the Entry Commission would be responsible for collecting
the money assessed on the fishing industry for the dedicated buy-
back fund; however, the Commission does not have taxing authority.
Ms. McDowell elaborated that this proposed legislation would allow
the fund to operate similar to the operation of the Aquaculture
Assessment by Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI). She
continued that the new process would entail the Entry Commission
undertaking an optimum number of permits study to determine whether
a buy-back program should be undertaken. Ms. McDowell continued
that if an optimum number study determined there were too many
permits in a fishery, a buy-back program would be established, and
the Commission would work with the industry to develop an action
plan to establish a tax levy for the fishermen. She stated this tax
would be assessed on the "fish tickets," a common practice for
levying taxes in the fishing industry by the Department of Revenue.
She stated the Commission would request the Legislature to
appropriate funds to the buy-back program; thereby, enabling the
fund to be a constitutionally approved funding mechanism.
Ms. McDowell continued that language currently under discussion in
HB 286 would create a mechanism whereby the industry could
establish its own program to buy-back permits, would allow the
Entry Commission the leeway to discuss options for the buy-back
funding source mechanism, and would allow for the establishment of
the assessment level. She remarked this process would essentially
tax the remaining fishermen who would be "making a better living"
because with fewer fishermen in the fishery, the remaining fleet
would, "hopefully, earn more revenue."
Senator Hoffman voiced concern that if a buy-back price for permits
is not determined, a reduction of the number of permits in a
fishery could result in the remaining permits becoming too
expensive.
Representative Scalzi replied this could occur; however, if a buy-
back plan were established, the individual fishermen could decide
if they wished to sell or purchase at the established price.
Senator Green asked for clarification whether individual fishermen
or a fishing industry group could participate in the buy-back plan.
Ms. McDowell explained that the State would establish a buy-back
plan and notify the industry that a pool of money would be
available to purchase permits. She noted that permit holders would
decide whether to sell their permits at the price established in
the plan, and that the number of permits bought back would be
determined by the amount of money in the pool.
Representative Scalzi stated the optimum number study is "the key"
to the program. He hypothesized that if 100 permits existed and the
study determined "30 to be the optimum number that could be bought-
back without making it an exclusive fishery," the industry could
decide to only buy-back and be assessed for 20 permits. He stated
"it is up to the fishermen remaining in the industry to control
their own destiny on how much they would want to pay." He reminded
the Committee that the current law gives the fishermen no choice,
little flexibility, and is not conducive for development of a plan.
Co-Chair Donley, referring to an Alaska Supreme Court case
regarding a limited entry program constitutional amendment, voiced
his understanding that there is a requirement for a buy-back
program whenever a fishery is endangered, and that the funding for
the buy-back program would be the responsibility of the people in
the industry. He asked if this legislation is consistent with that
ruling.
Ms. McDowell responded that the Court and the law have been
consistent in supporting the State Constitution regarding
protection from allowing a fishery from becoming too exclusive. She
stated that more harm would result from the fishery being too
exclusive than from having too many fishermen in the fishery. She
stressed that the study would assist in determining the optimal
number of permits, which is the constitutional concern. She stated
the limited entry program is constitutional as "long as it is no
more exclusive than necessary for the resource and the economics of
the fishery." She stressed that the study is crucial in this
determination.
Co-Chair Donley asked how the funding mechanism in this legislation
conforms to the Supreme Court ruling specifying that funds be from
the fishermen.
Ms. McDowell voiced uncertainty that the Court has established a
funding source; however, she noted the Court has determined that
the funding mechanism currently in place "doesn't work because of
the dedicated fund problem." She stated the proposed legislation
corrects this problem.
Senator Hoffman asked what factors are included in the
determination of the optimum number of permits.
Ms. McDowell informed the Committee that the optimum number study
could be a lengthy process and involves a full analysis of
biological and economic factors including such things as: the
average fish price; the average overhead including crew costs,
average earnings, average food costs and debt load. She continued
that the study takes into consideration net earnings, net costs and
biological factors.
Ms. McDowell stated that the definition of the term "optimum
number" is one of the most valuable components of this bill. She
explained this term "as being a range" instead of the current "one"
number; thereby allowing the number to vary based on a variety of
pertinent factors.
Co-Chair Donley asked if, in addition to the determination of the
optimum number, whether the number of permits considered for a
"threatened" fishery would affect the buy-back program.
Ms. McDowell stated that conservation is a primary consideration of
the buy back program, the other being to avoid economic distress of
the fishing industry. She stated "it is a balancing act" and the
optimum number takes these factors into consideration.
Co-Chair Donley asked how a threatened fishery affects the buy-back
equation under this legislation.
Ms. McDowell stated that "the balancing act" of conserving the
resource and ensuring a viable economic industry are taken into
consideration. She informed the Committee that there is also a
provision in this bill that allows individual permit holders to
relinquish their permits at any time.
Senator Hoffman asked, when talking about the fishery resource, if
the optimum number factors in subsistence fishing and the sport
fishing industry.
Ms. McDowell stated that the optimum number is based on what is
allocated to that specific fishery and whether "someone can make a
living and the resource can be conserved" within that fishery.
Senator Hoffman asked if the number is determined on a seasonal
basis.
Ms. McDowell qualified that this number does not vary year to year,
but rather is determined over time. She stated that if a fishery
experiences a considerable change, then another optimum number
study might be conducted.
Senator Hoffman asked who makes the determination that another
study is needed.
Ms. McDowell responded, "there is not a specific mechanism in
place" for determining what would trigger an optimum number study;
and, at this point, usually it would be a determination that "a
fishery is getting too exclusive or overloaded." She stated that
conducting an optimum number study "is a big undertaking" and would
require staff to "put other work aside."
Representative Scalzi stated this bill, along with HB 286, which
addresses Fishing Permits, Associations and Assessments, "are
viewed as tools by the industry to help them help themselves." He
stated there is no fiscal note accompanying this bill.
Representative Scalzi, referring to Co-Chair Donley's questions
regarding conservation of a fishery, noted this issue is addressed
in "the North Pacific Management Council under the Magnuson Act
which does have a buy-back provision for conservation purposes." He
stated the Magnuson Act also includes language specifying, "there
could be no re-allocation of the resource to another user group as
the resource has to be dedicated to pay that buy-back back." He
stated this is the only conservation buy-back proposal he is aware
of.
Senator Leman asked if this fund could include money from sources
other than the fishing permit holders as this process could affect
other groups.
Representative Scalzi stated the legislation does provide for this
option. He stated, "if he was going to be involved in a buy-back
program, he would want those checks and balances in to make sure we
are going to have enough of the wherewithal to pay it back." He
stressed this is the reason it is so important for the program to
be voluntary.
Senator Leman asked if the Department of Revenue recommendations
included in their March 5, 2002 fiscal note analysis were
incorporated in the bill.
Ms McDowell responded that those recommendations were adopted and
included in the CS for HB #288(FIN)am.
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United
which represents fishermen and their families in the Cooper River
and Prince William Sound regions, testified via teleconference from
Cordova and voiced support for this bill. She stressed it includes
important changes to the existing buy-back program and is
appropriate to the changing needs of Alaska's fishing industry. She
urged the Committee to support the bill.
DON JOHNSON, testified offnet from Soldotna in support of the bill;
however, he voiced concern about the lack of a defined mechanism to
trigger a new optimum number study to be conducted, and asked for a
"more precise mechanism" to be determined. He then pointed out that
the legal definition for the optimum number of permits established
for a particular area, as defined under AS 16.43.290, is determined
by the economic health of the commercial industry, maintenance of
biological health of the fishery, and the economical hardship of
the industry. He voiced concern that the optimum number does not
factor in the public's viewpoint, and he suggested this also be a
consideration as subsistence needs and economic hardship of the
public is important. He continued this would also need to be
addressed in AS 16.43.300. He reiterated that the needs and desires
of the public should be a factor in the determination of the
optimal number of permits. He contended this is a good bill, but it
needs some "fine-tuning."
Ms. McDowell responded that once the Limited Entry Commission has
made its determination on what the optimum number should be, a
public comment period is required which would allow the public to
participate in the process.
Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to "move the CS for House Bill
288(FIN) amended from Committee with individual recommendations and
three accompanying fiscal notes."
There being no objections, CS HB 288(FIN)am was REPORTED from
Committee with a zero fiscal note, dated 2/01/02, from the
Department of Fish and Game; a zero fiscal note, dated 3/05/02,
from the Treasury Division, Department of Revenue; and an
indeterminate fiscal note, dated 3/05/02, from the Division of Tax,
Department of Revenue.
AT EASE 5:28 PM / 5:30 PM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 515(FIN) am
"An Act relating to missions and measures to be applied to
certain expenditures by the executive branch of state
government and the University of Alaska and by the judicial
branch of state government from the state operating budget for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
DENNY DEWITT, Staff to Representative Eldon Mulder, explained to
the Committee that this is a missions and measures bill, which is a
component of the FY 03 budget. He stated this bill is a continuing
process, established approximately six years earlier, to review the
accomplishments of and to monitor the State's agencies. He stated
that subcommittees of both the State's House of Representatives and
the Senate have focused on attempting to keep data as uniform as
possible to generate information that could be used as a
performance gauge from year to year. He stated the missions and
measures' goal is not to be too issue-specific, but rather to keep
performance goals general at the policy issue level. He stressed
this is a continuing process and discussions are becoming more
focused on accomplishing the specified measurements and the return
the State is receiving from investing its resources in each of the
agencies.
SFC 02 # 82, Side B 05:34 PM
Amendment #2: This amendment inserts new language to Section 66,
the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill
Prevention and Response on page 25, following line 30, to read as
follows.
(8) average time to approve oil spill prevention contingency
plans as compared to the prior year.
Senator Leman moved for adoption of Amendment #2 and explained this
amendment would insert a new measure into the bill to address the
average time of approving an oil spill prevention contingency plan.
There being no objection, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
Amendment #3: This amendment inserts new language to Section 3, the
Department of Administration, on page 2, line 6, to read as
follows.
(2) reasonable but not excessive legal and advocacy
services for indigent Alaskans.
This amendment also inserts in Section 4, Administration, Office of
the Commissioner, on page 2, following line 16, new paragraphs to
read as follows.
(3) number of work initiatives implemented that resulted
in more efficient ways to perform the department's mission
compared to the prior year.
(4) innovative ways the department uses to improve the
state's compliance with the merit system requirement while
reducing costs.
Additionally this amendment inserts a new paragraph into Section 8,
Administration, Division of Personnel, on page 3, following line
30, to read as follows.
(5) number of workers given merit increases for truly
meritorious performance compared to the number of workers
denied merit increases.
This amendment also inserts into Section 18, Administration, Public
Defender Agency, on page 7, following line 2, a new paragraph to
read as follows.
(4) wins and losses of appeals compared with the private
sector.
This amendment also inserts into Section 31, Department of
Community and Economic Development, Rural Energy Programs, on page
11, following line 21, a new paragraph to read as follows.
(5) number of communities that have become self-reliant
in fully maintaining their power systems.
Additionally this amendment inserts new language into Section 32,
Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska Science
and Technology Foundation, on page 11, lines 27 - 30, subsection
(b). The amended language reads as follows:
(1) the number of new jobs created in the state from
technology projects;
(2) project diversity;
(3) the new revenue to the state from technology
projects;
(4) the percentage of technology project grantees in
business in the state because of ASTF grants;
This amendment additionally deletes and inserts new language into
Section 33, Department of Community and Economic Development,
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, on page 12, lines 9 and 10 to
read as follows.
(a)(3) accomplish these marketing efforts while
maximizing ASMI staff who are Alaska residents and under ASMI
employment in Alaska.
This amendment also inserts language into Section 33, subsection
(b)(3) on page 12, line 15, following "Alaska." The amended
language reads as follows.
(3) percentage of ASMI staff that resides in Alaska and
average salaries of Alaska staff compared to out-of-state
staff.
This amendment also inserts a new paragraph into Section 39,
Department of Corrections, Office of the Commissioner, on page 14,
following line 16 to read as follows.
(5) compliance with statutory requirements for
facilities, including the Alaska No Frills Prison Act."
Additionally on page 14, line 28 in Section 40, Department of
Corrections, Division of Administrative Services, the amendment
deletes "audit exemptions" and inserts "audits" so that the amended
language reads as follows.
(5) number of outstanding audit exceptions divided by the
audits during the fiscal year.
In Section 80, Department of Health and Social Services, Division
of Juvenile Justice, on page 31, following line 28, this amendment
inserts a new paragraph to read as follows.
(5) satisfaction of the victims of juvenile crime with
the juvenile justice system.
Additionally under Section 144, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, Division of Statewide Design and Engineering
Services, on page 54 following line 13; this amendment inserts a
new paragraph to read as follows.
(7) number of miles of roads that have a level of service
rating of E or F compared to the prior year.
This amendment also inserts language into Section 151, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, Marine Highway System,
page 56, line 24, following "system" to read as follows.
Sec. 151. DOT/PF - Marine Highway System. (a) The mission of
the Alaska Marine Highway System is to assist in meeting the
transportation needs of the traveling public and the
communities served by the system while prioritizing and
maximizing access to service by Alaska residents."
In conclusion, this amendment inserts a new paragraph into Section
151, on page 57, line 3 to read as follows.
(6) development of a reservation and pricing system that
prioritizes use by Alaska residents.
Co-Chair Donley moved for adoption of Amendment #3.
Co-Chair Donley read the amendment language to the Committee. He
explained that this amendment contains both substantive and
technical changes.
Senator Leman, referring to Amendment #3 language concerning
Section 8, Administration, Division of Personnel, on page 3,
following line 30 about the "number of workers given merit
increases for truly meritorious performance compared to the number
of workers denied merit increases," questioned if "it would make
more sense" to compare the number of workers given merit increases
for truly meritorious performance compared to "the total number of
workers." He voiced concern "that many workers are just being
advanced and given merit increases just for being there."
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the wording of this amendment would
provide a percentage of the total. He continued that the
information this amendment language provides would show whether the
merit system truly reflects deserving work or just masks "an
automatic advance system."
Senator Leman reasoned that if this language would provide
pertinent data it is acceptable.
Co-Chair Donley continued that within the past few years "there
have been serious allegations that the Public Defenders Agency had
a reputation for appealing cases that did not have merit." He
commented that this amendment would compare the number of Public
Defenders Agency wins and losses of appeals with those of the
private sector as a measure from which to draw a conclusion as to
whether the allegations have merit.
Co-Chair Donley continued explaining the provisions of the
amendment.
Senator Ward informed the Committee of a program proposed by the
Commissioner of the Department of Corrections that would allow for
the early release of felons. He voiced his opposition to this
program and inquired if this could be addressed in this bill by
requiring that "the Commissioner should enforce the sentences of
the Legislature and the judges and juries concerning felons." He
stated the understanding that the Department's intent of this early
release program is to alleviate overcrowding in the prisons. He
noted the intent is that the early release felons would be
electronically monitored.
Mr. Dewitt stated he is familiar with this program, and expected it
to be addressed in a Conference Committee.
Senator Austerman voiced a point-of-order as there is an amendment
on the table.
Senator Ward stated his desire to have the early release of felons
program concern addressed as an amendment to the amendment as he
thought this would be the appropriate place to address the matter.
He continued that he has received multiple communications from
individuals voicing concern that the Commissioner is making release
decisions contrary to those of the Legislature and judges and
juries.
Co-Chair Kelly interjected this would lean toward being a change in
Alaska Statutes rather than an amendment in the missions and
measures bill before the Committee.
Senator Ward reiterated his concern.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Ward to submit his amendment in
written form.
Senator Ward agreed to do so.
Senator Leman, referring to language in the Amendment concerning
how victims of juvenile crime rate the success of the Juvenile
Justice System, asked how a response would be solicited from the
victims.
Co-Chair Donley replied that the Department of Health and Social
Services reports they have established a rapport with victims and
would therefore talk with them to solicit feedback.
PHIL CUTLER, Staff to Co-Chair Dave Donley, informed the Committee
that one of the missions and measures proposed in this amendment
for the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
addresses highway congestion. He explained there is a term labeled
"level of service" which provides a rating of "A" to "F" based on
what percentage of time a major highway is congested and inhibiting
the free movement of traffic. He stated the rating of "E and F"
indicates that a highway is congested more than 90 percent of the
time. Mr. Cutler continued that the amendment language would
measure how well the Department addresses improving those highly
congested roads "which costs businesses and people time and money."
Co-Chair Donley clarified that the measure of the Department's
success would be whether progress had been made from the prior year
reflected by a better rating.
Co-Chair Donley concluded his reading of the amendment details.
There being no objection, Amendment #3 was ADOPTED.
AT EASE 5:51 PM / 6:00 PM
Amendment #4: This amendment inserts language to Section 82, page
32, line 23 as follows.
(7) number of juvenile clients who return for treatment within
6 and 12 months of being discharged from a residential alcohol
or drug abuse treatment program.
Co-Chair Donley moved for adoption of Amendment #4.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, explained that this amendment contains
language to assist in gauging the affects of the State's juvenile
treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse. He noted the State
pays for some residential treatment programs in which youth are
heavily monitored and isolated in what is commonly referred to as a
"Spin-Dry" program; however, the concern is there is no counseling
provided to the youth to "address the underlying behavioral
problem." He furthered that, upon release, the youth often fall
back into their "addictive pattern." He stated this amendment would
assist in providing data to determine the success of the programs.
There being no objection, Amendment #4 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Donley moved to report "CS for House Bill #515 as amended
by this Committee from Committee with individual recommendations
and accompanying zero fiscal note."
There being no objections, SCS CS HB #515(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with a zero fiscal note for all Departments, dated
4/16/02, from the House Finance Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Pete Kelly adjourned the meeting at 06:04 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|