Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearings | |
| SB194 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 13, 2014
9:11 a.m.
9:11:40 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:11 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire; Bill Pedlar, Chair, Government
Relations Committee, Alaska Travel Industry Association;
Robbie Graham, Assistant Commissioner, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Chris Peloso,
Attorney, Department of Law, Juneau; Christine Marasigan,
Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer; Amanda Ryder, Fiscal Analyst,
Legislative Finance Division; Senator John Coghill; Leslie
Huston, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Bernard Washington, Anchorage, State Assessment Review
Board; Hilary Martin, Legislative Legal Services, Juneau.
SUMMARY
SB 64 OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
CS SB 64 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN:8(ADM),
FN:9(ADM), FN:10(ADM), FN:11(LAW), FN:12(GOV);
three new fiscal impact notes from the Senate
Finance Committee; new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Corrections; new fiscal impact
note from the Alaska Court System; and new zero
fiscal note from the Alaska Court System.
SB 194 TOURISM MARKETING BOARD
SB 194 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
^CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
9:14:10 AM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that Mr. Dennis Mandell withdrew his
confirmation.
BERNARD WASHINGTON, ANCHORAGE, STATE ASSESSMENT REVIEW
BOARD (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair Meyer asked Mr. Washington to elaborate on his
request for confirmation. Mr. Washington explained that he
submitted his name, because he believed that Alaskans must
participate in the process. He felt that his expertise
would be important for the board.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if this was a nonpaid position. Mr.
Washington replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if Mr. Washington was currently
employed by the media, in public radio and television. Mr.
Washington responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if served on the Assessment Review
Board. Mr. Washington replied that there were efforts to
ensure that there were no overt conflicts.
Senator Olson wondered what qualifications that Mr.
Washington would bring to the position. Mr. Washington
explained that he spent 35 years in the oil industry. The
last 15 years of his career, he served in the pipeline
area. He was responsible for the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS) evaluation, tariffs, and cost analysis of
reconfiguration projects. He was involved in the Alpine and
Kuparuk Pipelines, and conducted evaluation and tariff
analysis for those pipelines.
Senator Olson queried Mr. Washington's position on Judge
Gleeson's decision regarding the controversy on the
pipeline project evaluation. Mr. Washington responded that
there the uncertainties increased as the life of an asset
like TAPS went beyond 15 years. One of the biggest
uncertainties was related to where the crude would
originate that would, hopefully, fill the line. If the
crude was off-shore, and the environmental considerations
like the warming of the Arctic Ocean presented themselves,
opportunities for moving crude would become available. He
felt that assessments must be made regarding potential
transportation opportunities with respect to the value of
TAPS.
Senator Olson queried Mr. Washington's experience with
natural gas, and his thoughts on the current Alaska Liquid
Natural Gas (AK LNG) proposed project. Mr. Washington
replied that there should be a focus on how the AK LNG
project would compete in the global market. He stressed
that Alaska had a higher cost overall, because the pipeline
was going to be very long in order to reach tide water.
Other places in the world had more readily accessible
transportation systems. He stressed that Alaska must pick
the right time slot to bring the gas to market.
9:19:25 AM
Senator Olson asked if Mr. Washington had lived anywhere
else in Alaska, besides Anchorage. Mr. Washington stated
that he had lived in Anchorage since 1962, and has not
lived elsewhere since.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that he knew Mr. Washington
personally, and stressed that he was not a typical "oil
executive." He felt that the candidate was experienced, and
remarked that he was also very active in the community. He
wondered what boards and commissions Mr. Washington had
served. Mr. Washington replied that he was the treasurer
for the Board for Beans; the treasurer for the Alaska
Community Foundation; the chair of the Public Facilities
Commission in the Municipality of Anchorage; the chair of
the Health and Human Services Commission in the
Municipality of Anchorage; and the treasurer of the Foraker
Group. He felt that one must serve the public for the
greater good of society.
Senator Hoffman noticed that the candidate had listed the
Alaska Permanent Corporation and the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska (RCA) as other board interests. Mr. Washington
responded that he would be interested in the opportunity,
if it presented itself. He stressed that he enjoyed the
analysis of funding and financing in the oil and gas
industry.
Co-Chair Kelly commented that there was not a high level of
scrutiny about considering and confirming the governor
appointees. He remarked that judges were not appointed by
the people, so he would like the people to elect judges.
9:26:03 AM
Senator Bishop wondered if Mr. Washington had worked on
TAPS. Mr. Washington replied in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Washington had worked on the
strategic reconfiguration of TAPS. Mr. Washington replied
in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop asked if the strategic reconfiguration plan
of TAPS added value to TAPS. Mr. Washington replied that
the work gave TAPS the ability to handle varying crude
amounts. The old pumps were a specific speed, and the
variation in crude supply was more difficult to handle. He
stated that the electric pumps were installed to deal with
a wider range of variation and throughput.
9:27:43 AM
AT EASE
9:29:00 AM
RECONVENED
9:29:07 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED ADVANCE the NAME of Bernard
Washington to appointment to the State Assessment Review
Board. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the signing of the report did
not reflect the individual member's approval or disapproval
of the appointees, and the nominations were forwarded to
the full legislature for confirmation or rejection,
according to Uniform Rule 46.
9:30:01 AM
AT EASE
9:31:46 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 194
"An Act creating the Alaska Tourism Marketing Board
and relating to tourism marketing."
9:32:22 AM
SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, explained SB 194. She referred to
the Sponsor Statement (copy on file).
SB 194 creates a structure for marketing by the State
of Alaska and develops a funding intent formula that
can be supported by the legislature, the
administration, and the private sector, so that
tourism marketing is professionally led and managed.
The Alaska tourism board would be created in statute
and comprised of a minimum of twenty one members.
Eighteen of those would be recommended by ATIA, one
member of the board from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development, one member would
be appointed from the House, and one member appointed
from the Senate.
Tourism continues to be a growing, renewable industry
that is the second largest employer in the state. Over
1.9 million visitors came to Alaska from October 2012-
September 2013 spending over 1.8 billion dollars. This
bill is an important step in continuing the growth of
one of our most important industries.
Senator McGuire noted that tourism in Alaska was a
statewide issue. The marketing for a tourist across the
state varied area to area, and there were different
categories for each tourist.
Senator McGuire noted that there was a zero fiscal note,
because there was money that was already allocated to cover
the cost of tourism marketing in the state.
Senator McGuire outlined the sections of the bill. Section
1 addressed the purposes of the board, which stated that
expansion and growth of the state's visitor industry will
benefit all of Alaska. She stated that the TAPS revenue was
declining, and the benefits for increasing new development
were still unknown. She stressed that Alaska must continue
to diversify its economy. She shared that the board would
help to increase the number of job opportunities and
training for Alaskans. Section 2 formalized the
relationship between Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED) and the board. She stated that
there were different governors with different emphases over
the years. The section's intent was to ensure that the
board would stay intact through perpetuity. Section 3 set
up the board. There would be at least three nominees
submitted by Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA),
because there was an effort to not politicize the board.
The board's focus would be tourism marketing for Alaska.
The board would meet at least twice a year. She looked at
page 4, which addressed the rotation of terms to reflect
some institutional knowledge. There would be six members
who would serve three terms; six members serving two terms;
and six members serving for one term.
9:39:34 AM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the committee was apprehensive
about creating new boards and commissions. He felt that
this board seemed to be different, and that the tourism
industry should be exploited. He wondered if the sponsor
would be amenable for a sunset date and allow the board to
be audited. Senator McGuire replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer looked at page 4, and noted there were 21
members, and wondered what would happen to the other three.
Senator McGuire explained that those three members would
follow their appointment.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that he was unsure about the
commissioner appointments. Senator McGuire stated that the
DCCED commissioner or their designee should be a constant
presence on the board.
Co-Chair Meyer queried the effective date. Senator McGuire
responded that the effective date would be based on whether
the industry would want an immediate effective date.
Co-Chair Kelly looked at Section 3, and appreciated the
value of elected individuals in choosing appointed
individuals.
9:44:28 AM
Senator Olson felt that a large board would result in a
cumbersome work, and work may be slowed down because of so
many personalities. Senator McGuire replied that there was
often an exclusion of one region or a type of tourism
operator. She felt that including all aspects of the
industry was essential to the functioning of the board.
Senator Hoffman looked at page 2, line 31, and noted that
18 members would represent different regions of the state.
He wondered if there could be an additional language that
specifies, "including, but not limited to, the Arctic, the
Interior, the Southcentral, Southeast, and Southwest."
Senator McGuire replied that she would love to include that
specification.
Senator Bishop would like some assurance that the 18
members held some smaller operators as well. Senator
McGuire replied that the intent was to include some smaller
businesses, and many letters of support indicated similar
requests for inclusion on the board.
9:49:10 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at page 3, line 16, and noted
the requirement for a quorum. She wondered if that would
create a challenge depending on travel. She felt that the
quorum may be hard to reach, because of the large number of
members and possible conflicts or constraints. Senator
McGuire replied that she was open to the change in language
related to quorum requirements.
Senator McGuire explained that travel and per diem were
only paid for the two legislative members and the
commissioner.
BILL PEDLAR, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, ALASKA
TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, introduced himself. He
testified in support of SB 194, and remarked that diversity
in the travel industry made the industry very strong. He
felt that the marketing board should represent that
diversity. He stressed that the industry was careful to not
get too specific. He remarked that achieving a quorum had
never been a problem. He felt that the size of the board
allowed for a wide range of inputs and values related to
Alaska tourism.
Senator Olson queried the Mr. Pedlar's opinion on inserting
a sunset into the legislation. Mr. Pedlar responded that
that it was good business to include a sunset date, because
everything deserves to be reviewed.
9:55:43 AM
Senator Olson queried a fair number of years to determine
the effectiveness of the board. Mr. Pedlar replied that a
five or six year window would be prudent. He stated that
marketing had a cumulative effect.
Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that there was sometimes
hesitation in setting the sunset date too far ahead
initially, in order to prevent bad habits. She wanted to
ensure public participation, meeting notification, and
handling the investment properly. She supported a sooner
sunset date of the board. She furthered that there were
different ways of establishing quorums on boards, and
remarked that legislative members may need to address state
business of greater priority. She wondered if a quorum may
be met by requiring at least one member of each region
attending the meeting, rather than basing a quorum on a
majority of participants. Mr. Pedlar replied that nine
voting members attending would be fine for a quorum. He
furthered that he had been involved in cooperative
marketing in his career, and had never had an issue in
establishing a quorum. He stressed that the industry
members would pay their own way to attend the meetings,
which indicated a high level of commitment.
10:00:32 AM
ROBBIE GRAHAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,(DCCED)
stressed that it was important to recognize the
collaboration with the state and the travel industry. She
shared that there was a recent, formal collaboration
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed
in FY 12 and reiterated in FY 13. She felt that she and the
DCCED commissioner were uniquely qualified to implement the
program based on their experiences in the tourism industry.
She stated that the tourism marketing program was in the
Division of Economic Development, and she pointed out the
expertise of the leaders of those programs.
Ms. Graham highlighted some of the accomplishments of the
tourism industry marketing program. She stated that summer
visitation had reached similar numbers to 2007 and 2008 at
1.96 million visitors. The annual conversion rate was 12
percent, and pointed out that over a four year period there
was 30 percent conversion rate. The state had generated 16
million through the public relations program and Alaska
tourism promotions were recently published in the New York
Times and other broadcast and social media. She stated that
there was a cultural tourism program, and focused on
Northwest Alaska. There was a movement to take the program
statewide in the next years. There were international
efforts that were enacted to enhance the 2014 season.
CHRIS PELOSO, ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUNEAU,
explained some technical problems with the bill. He looked
at page 2, line 30, which read, "four members from ATIA."
He stated that traditionally bills did not highlight a
specific organization. He looked at language in AS
43.98.040 which involved a similar organization. That
statute stated that "the members be nominated from the
leading nonprofit trade association." He felt that
specifying a specific organization runs the risk of
invalidating the statute, if the organization is dissolved
at any time. He also looked at page 3, line 9, Section 3
which gave power to appoint members of the board to a
private organization and only gave the governor a form a
veto of the recommendations. He felt that it was an
unconstitutional limitation of the governor's authority.
Under the Alaska Constitution, the governor was the only
appointing authority, unless expressly addressed in the
constitution itself. The legislature could no more provide
to the governor to share power with an agency created by it
than it can share the power itself. He suggested that the
ability to appoint members solely rested with the governor.
10:08:21 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested amended language. Mr.
Wilson suggested that the language read, "have the governor
appoint members."
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if Ms. Martin agreed with the
perspective of Mr. Peloso.
HILARY MARTIN, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), replied that naming the organization was a
decision that the legislature should make. She understood
the concern regarding changing the statute, if ATIA were
dissolved. She felt that there was no clear answer
regarding submitting a list of requested individuals for
the governor to choose from.
Senator Dunleavy asked if boards existed with the similar
processes outlined in the legislation. Ms. Martin asked for
clarity of the question.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the governor traditionally
appointed individuals based on a list of recommendations.
Ms. Martin replied that she believed that there were other
boards that submitted lists, but she could not name those
boards.
Co-Chair Meyer encouraged the sponsor to work with the
Department of Law to ensure the constitutionality of the
legislation. Senator McGuire replied that she was unaware
of the opinion of the Department of Law. She announced that
Legislative Legal had approved the draft, and was willing
to amend the language to the leading nonprofit in the
industry. Regarding to the appointments, she was willing to
say that the list was recommendations. She stressed that
the recommendations must be submitted by the public to
ensure transparency.
SB 194 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:16:05 AM
AT EASE
10:17:28 AM
RECONVENED
10:17:48 AM
RECESS
5:14:52 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act establishing the Alaska Sentencing Commission;
relating to jail-time credit for offenders in court-
ordered treatment programs; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court-
ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving while under the influence or refusing to
submit to a chemical test; relating to court
termination of a revocation of a person's driver's
license; relating to limitation of drivers' licenses;
relating to conditions of probation and parole; and
providing for an effective date."
5:15:31 PM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CS SB 64 (FIN), Work Draft 28-LS0116\L
(Gardner, 3/12/14). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, STAFF, SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, remarked
that the most substantial change was in the CS was adding
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission as it was in the
original version. She pointed out that the commission was
increased from 10 to 12 members. In the original 12 members
there were two legislators from each body, this was reduced
by two, so there was only one legislator from the senate
and one legislator from the house.
Co-Chair Meyer surmised that the membership was reduced
from 12 to 10. Ms. Marasigan agreed.
Ms. Marasigan shared that the second significant date was a
sunset date in 2018, which was contingent on an audit,
which was the third change in the CS. The only other
changes were small editorial changes that were addressed
while waiting for the fiscal changes.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there were conversations with
the sponsor's office regarding the changes. Ms. Marasigan
replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the sponsor was present. He
asked for explanation of the new fiscal notes. He wondered
if there were any questions from committee members.
Senator Olson stated that he had some questions regarding
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
Ms. Marasigan explained the fiscal notes.
5:20:14 PM
AT EASE
5:23:37 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Marasigan referred to a comparison sheet that outlined
the differences between the old fiscal notes and new fiscal
notes (copy on file).
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the fiscal note for 2015 had
been reduced from $6.9 million to $3.2 million. Ms.
Marasigan replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer surmised that the fiscal note for 2016 had
been reduced from $7.4 million to $3.8 million. Ms.
Marasigan agreed.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the number of positions was
reduced from 23 through 34 to 17 through 28. Ms. Marasigan
agreed.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered how those reductions affected the
program. He assumed the program was still intact, but the
numbers were moved from Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) and Department of Corrections (DOC). Ms.
Marasigan agreed. She explained that the DHSS had more
infrastructures to deal with the grant recidivism fund,
wish programs in place to absorb some of those costs.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered how the $4 million in
program receipts were affected by the legislation. Ms.
Marasigan deferred to Ms. Ryder.
5:28:25 PM
AMANDA RYDER, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
(LFD) explained that the program receipt funds were
possibly over-inflated. The fiscal notes were a more
accurate reflection of the program.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if the inter-agency receipts on
the fiscal note were intended for the health position. Ms.
Marasigan replied in the affirmative. She stated that there
was an existing program for testing that would be
contracted out for services.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if there was enough capacity
inside the budget to spend the extra money without
additional appropriation power. Ms. Marasigan replied that
the current program was in three different communities, and
the program would be phased in. She remarked that the
purpose of the program was to reduce recidivism.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the sponsor was supportive of the
changes in the legislation.
5:33:18 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, responded that he was in support of
the legislation. He shared that he would continue to work
on the licensing provisions, but could not be included in
the current version of the legislation.
Senator Olson queried the reason why a task force or audit
capability could not take the place of the commission,
rather than another financial burden. Senator Coghill
understood that concern. He felt that a group must be
organized to represent the best in the industry including
superior and supreme court justices; public defenders;
prosecutors; and individuals in the Alaska Native
population to ensure that the best efforts were practiced
under the rigid sentencing laws. He felt that the
commission must be highly professional in order to deliver
the most informed recommendations related to ensuring
public safety and examining some flexibility in the current
laws.
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at the combined total of new
travel of over $50,000. She asked for explanation of the
ongoing travel funding. Ms. Marasigan deferred to Ms.
Huston.
LESLIE HUSTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, assumed the question was related to the
$23,000 in travel in association with the implementation of
PACE for probation and parole statewide. The funds were
necessary for the response for the swift, certain, and
short-term offenders.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stressed that there was an addition
of $50,000 worth of new travel. Ms. Huston only saw $23,000
in travel.
Vice-chair Fairclough remarked that the new travel costs
included more departments than just DOC.
5:41:55 PM
AT EASE
5:43:03 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT CS SB 64 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 64 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN:8(ADM), FN:9(ADM), FN:10(ADM), FN:11(LAW),
FN:12(GOV); three new fiscal impact notes from the Senate
Finance Committee; new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections; new fiscal impact note from the
Alaska Court System; and new zero fiscal note from the
Alaska Court System.
ADJOURNMENT
5:46:51 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB194 sponsor statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 194 |
| Assessment Review - Mandell.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Assessment Review - Washington.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SB194-DCCED-DED-3-12-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 194 |
| CS SB64 Explaination of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| CS SB64 Fiscal Note Comparison Version L&D.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| CS SB64 work draft version L.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| FN - SB 64 - AJC - 3-13-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(FIN)-ACS-TRC-03-10-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(FIN)-DHSS-ASAP-03-12-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(FIN)-DHSS-ASAP-03-13-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(FIN)-DHSS-ASS-03-11-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(FIN)-DHSS-ASS-03-13-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(FIN)-DOC-OC-03-12-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064CS(JUD)-ACS-TRC-02-17-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| FN - SB 64 - AJC - 3-13-14 (2).pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |