Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/06/1994 08:25 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                             MINUTES                                           
                    SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                          April 6, 1994                                        
                            8:25 a.m.                                          
                                                                               
  TAPES                                                                        
                                                                               
  SFC-94, #59, Side 1 (250-end)                                                
  SFC-94, #59, Side 2 (end-000)                                                
  SFC-94, #61, Side 1 (000-end)                                                
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Senator  Steve  Frank,  Co-chair,  convened the  meeting  at                 
  approximately 8:25 a.m.                                                      
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  In  addition  to  Co-chair Frank,  Senators  Jacko,  Rieger,                 
  Sharp, Kelly, and  Kerttula were  present.  Co-chair  Pearce                 
  did not attend the meeting.                                                  
                                                                               
  ALSO ATTENDING:  Jon Sherwood,  and Kevin Henderson, Medical                 
  Assistance Administrators, Division  of Medical  Assistance,                 
  Department of Health  & Social  Services; Nancy Bear  Usera,                 
  Commissioner,  Department  of  Administration;  Tim  Wilson,                 
  Executive Director, Alaska State Council  on the Arts; Loren                 
  Rasmussen, Chief, Design, Construction Standards, Department                 
  of Transportation &  Public Facilities;  Josh Fink, aide  to                 
  Senator Kelly; Sherry Goll, Lobbyist, Alaska  Women's Lobby;                 
  Mary  Gay,  Director,  Child  Support Enforcement  Division,                 
  Department of  Revenue;  Judith  DeSpain,  Deputy  Executive                 
  Director, Alaska Housing  Finance Corporation, Department of                 
  Revenue;  Susan  Miller, Manager,  Special  Projects, Alaska                 
  Court System; Donna Page, Senior Hearing Officer, Department                 
  of  Revenue;  David  Skidmore,  aide  to Senator  Frank;  Jo                 
  Fenety,   aide  to  Senator   Pearce;  Fred   Fisher,  Jetta                 
  Whittaker,   Dana  LaTour,   and   Mike  Greany,   Director,                 
  Legislative Finance Division; aides to committee members and                 
  other members of the legislature.                                            
                                                                               
  TELECONFERENCE:  Mike  Hostina, Deputy Ombudsman, Fairbanks;                 
  David Rose, financial advisor to the Alaska Municipal League                 
  Investment  Pool  and former  chair  of the  Permanent Fund,                 
  Anchorage; and Kit Duke, Facilities Manager, Administration,                 
  Alaska Court System, Anchorage.                                              
                                                                               
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
                                                                               
  CSSB 190(JUD): An  Act relating  to  income withholding  and                 
                 other methods  of enforcement  for orders  of                 
                 support; and providing for an effective date.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
                 The  committee  ADOPTED  CSSB  190(FIN)  work                 
                 draft "U" which incorporated amendments 1 and                 
                 2 ADOPTED in  a previous meeting.   Mary Gay,                 
                 Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,                 
                 Department  of Revenue;  Josh  Fink, aide  to                 
                 Senator   Kelly;    Mike   Hostina,    Deputy                 
                 Ombudsman,   via   teleconference  Fairbanks;                 
                 Sherry Goll, Lobbyist, Alaska  Women's Lobby;                 
                 Susan  Miller,  Manager,   Special  Projects,                 
                 Alaska Court System;  and Donna Page,  Senior                 
                 Hearing Officer, Department  of Revenue,  all                 
                 testified on the bill.   On page 11, line  5,                 
                 the word  "intentionally" was  added to  work                 
                 draft "U", and amendments  3, 4, 5, 6, and  a                 
                 letter  of intent  were also  ADOPTED.   CSSB
                 190(FIN) was REPORTED  OUT of committee  with                 
                 individual  recommendations,  and  new fiscal                 
                 notes for the Department of Revenue - $109.0,                 
                 and the Alaska Court System - $33.7.                          
                                                                               
  SB 359:        An  Act  relating  to  investment  pools  for                 
                 public   entities;   and  providing   for  an                 
                 effective date.                                               
                                                                               
                 SB  359  was  HELD in  committee.    (HB 450,                 
                 companion bill to SB 359, was REPORTED OUT of                 
                 committee.)                                                   
                                                                               
  SB 363:        An  Act  making  appropriations  for  capital                 
                 project matching grant funds and for  capital                 
                 projects;  and  providing  for  an  effective                 
                 date.                                                         
                                                                               
                 Scheduled  but not  heard.   Rescheduled  for                 
                 Saturday, April 12, 1994.                                     
                                                                               
  SB 366:        An  Act  relating  to   medical  support  for                 
                 children; allowing a member of the  teachers'                 
                 retirement  system  or the  public employees'                 
                 retirement    system    to   assign    to   a                 
                 Medicaid-qualifying trust the  member's right                 
                 to  receive  a   monetary  benefit  from  the                 
                 system;   relating   to  the   effect   of  a                 
                 Medicaid-qualifying trust on  the eligibility                 
                 of a  person for  Medicaid;  relating to  the                 
                 recovery  of  certain Medicaid  payments from                 
                 estates  and  trusts;  requiring persons  who                 
                 receive  Medicaid services  to be  liable for                 
                 sharing in the cost of  those services to the                 
                 extent   allowed   under   federal  law   and                 
                 regulations; and providing  for an  effective                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
                 date.                                                         
                                                                               
                 David Skidmore, aide  to Senator Frank, spoke                 
                 to   the   bill.     Jon   Sherwood,  Medical                 
                 Assistance   Adminis-trator,    Division   of                 
                 Medical  Assistance,  Department of  Health &                 
                 Social Services, answered questions regarding                 
                 the  bill.    Amendments  1  and 2  had  been                 
                 ADOPTED in a previous meeting.  Amendments 5,                 
                 6, 7, and  a letter  of intent were  ADOPTED.                 
                 SB  366 was  REPORTED  OUT of  committee with                 
                 individual recommendations  and three  fiscal                 
                 notes  for  the  Department  Health &  Social                 
                 Services:   Claims   Processing   -   $130.0,                 
                 Medicaid  Facility  - $(550.0),  and Medicaid                 
                 Non-Facility - $(799.1).                                      
                                                                               
  SB 369:        An Act relating to the maintenance of and art                 
                 requirements for certain public buildings and                 
                 facilities and to  the art  in public  places                 
                 fund; and providing for an effective date.                    
                                                                               
                 Jo Fenety, aide to Senator Pearce; Nancy Bear                 
                 Usera,     Commissioner,     Department    of                 
                 Administration; and  Loren Rasmussen,  Chief,                 
                 Design, Construction Standards, Department of                 
                 Transportation & Public Facilities, testified                 
                 in support of  SB 369.  Kit  Duke, Facilities                 
                 Manager, Administration, Alaska Court System,                 
                 testified via  teleconference from  Anchorage                 
                 regarding  the  Court System's  art projects.                 
                 Tim Wilson, Executive Director,  Alaska State                 
                 Council on  the  Arts,  was  opposed  to  the                 
                 section in SB 369 that repealed the 1 percent                 
                 for  arts.    Extensive  discussion  was  had                 
                 regarding the building  maintenance fund  and                 
                 how   moneys   would   be  appropriated   and                 
                 designated for departments/ agencies.  SB 369                 
                 was HELD in committee for further discussion.                 
                                                                               
  HB 450:        An  Act  relating  to  investment  pools  for                 
                 public   entities;   and  providing   for  an                 
                 effective date.                                               
                                                                               
                 Dave Rose,  financial advisor  to the  Alaska                 
                 Municipal League Investment  Pool and  former                 
                 chair of  the Permanent  Fund, testified  via                 
                 teleconference from  Anchorage.   HB 450  was                 
                 REPORTED  OUT of committee  with a "due pass"                 
                 and  a zero  fiscal  note  for Department  of                 
                 Commerce & Regional Affairs.  (Companion bill                 
                 SB 359 was held in committee.)                                
                                                                               
                                                                               
  CSSJR 36(JUD): Proposing amendments to  the Constitution  of                 
                 the  State  of  Alaska   requiring  a  runoff                 
                 election when the candidates for governor and                 
                 lieutenant  governor  obtaining  the greatest                 
                 number of votes  at the  general election  do                 
                 not receive more than 40 percent of the votes                 
                 cast, and changing the term  of office of the                 
                 governor and the lieutenant governor.                         
                                                                               
                 Scheduled but not heard.                                      
                                                                               
  SENATE BILL NO. 359:                                                         
                                                                               
       An  Act   relating  to  investment  pools   for  public                 
       entities; and providing for an effective date.                          
                                                                               
  SB 359 was HELD in committee.  (HB 450, companion bill to SB
  359, was REPORTED OUT of committee.)                                         
                                                                               
  HOUSE BILL NO. 450:                                                          
                                                                               
       An  Act   relating  to  investment  pools   for  public                 
       entities; and providing for an effective date.                          
                                                                               
  CO-CHAIR FRANK announced that SB 359 and its companion bill,                 
  HB 450 were before the committee.  He invited David  Rose to                 
  testify via teleconference.                                                  
                                                                               
  DAVID ROSE, financial advisor to the Alaska Municipal League                 
  Investment Pool,  and former  chair of  the Permanent  Fund,                 
  testified via teleconference  from Anchorage.  He  said that                 
  AS 37.23 empowered  cities and boroughs within Alaska  to be                 
  able to pool their  money and co-invest.  Some  reasons were                 
  to preserve principle, enhance yield, provide liquidity, and                 
  secure some professional funds management.  Currently, there                 
  was one pool in existence and  that was the Alaska Municipal                 
  League Investment Pool.   Currently  28 cities and  boroughs                 
  belong  to  the  pool  and 19  have  money  currently  under                 
  investment, with a  balance of approximately  $32M.  SB  359                 
  and HB 450 attempted to make some technical changes in order                 
  to enhance the  yield for cities  and boroughs.  He  assured                 
  the committee it would  not involve the state nor  any funds                 
  via a fiscal note.                                                           
                                                                               
  Mr.  Rose went  on to  say that  the bill  had  three active                 
  sections.   Section 1 qualified  AS 37.23.020 to  permit the                 
  purchase of floating  rate securities provided there  was an                 
  annual rate  reset.   These floating  rate securities  would                 
  allow the pool  to earn  additional money.   Section 1  also                 
  qualified language which permitted  the purchase of "Yankee"                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  securities,  or  purchases  from unrated  branches  of rated                 
  banks.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Section 2 was  a new section  and explicitly authorized  the                 
  lending of securities provided that collateral was received.                 
  There had been  a request that the  legislation specifically                 
  authorize this although  it seemed to  be covered under  the                 
  prudent investor rule.                                                       
                                                                               
  Section  3 removed a restriction  that limited the amount of                 
  bank paper that may be held at the 30 percent level.  The 30                 
  percent  restriction  severely   restricted  the  pool  when                 
  investing in banks.                                                          
                                                                               
  Mr. Rose felt the amendments  were technical but allowed the                 
  pool to increase earnings on its money.                                      
                                                                               
  In  answer  to Senator  Kerttula,  Mr.  Rose  said that  the                 
  existing legislation was  created about three years  ago and                 
  the restrictions were based more on  a mutual fund basis and                 
  needed to be adjusted for the existing market.                               
                                                                               
  In answer to Co-chair Frank, Mr. Rose confirmed that on page                 
  3,  line 11, those items would  not be contained in the pool                 
  portfolio.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Senator Kelly  MOVED for  passage of HB  450 from  committee                 
  with individual recommendations.  No  objection being heard,                 
  it  was REPORTED OUT  of committee with  a "do  pass," and a                 
  zero fiscal note for the  Department of Commerce &  Regional                 
  Affairs.   Co-chair  Frank,  Senators  Sharp, Jacko,  Kelly,                 
  Rieger and Kerttula signed "do pass."                                        
                                                                               
  SENATE BILL NO. 366:                                                         
                                                                               
       An  Act  relating  to  medical  support  for  children;                 
       allowing a member of the teachers' retirement system or                 
       the public employees' retirement system  to assign to a                 
       Medicaid-qualifying trust the member's right to receive                 
       a monetary  benefit from  the system;  relating to  the                 
       effect   of   a   Medicaid-qualifying  trust   on   the                 
       eligibility of a  person for Medicaid; relating  to the                 
       recovery of certain Medicaid payments from  estates and                 
       trusts; requiring persons who receive Medicaid services                 
       to be liable for sharing in  the cost of those services                 
       to   the  extent   allowed   under   federal  law   and                 
       regulations; and providing for an effective date.                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank  announced  that  SB   366  was  before  the                 
  committee.  He noted that amendments  1 and 2 had previously                 
  been ADOPTED in a prior meeting.  He invited David Skidmore,                 
  his aide, to speak to the bill and several new amendments.                   
                                                                               
                                                                               
  DAVID  SKIDMORE said that amendment  5 created a new section                 
  imposing  a co-payment  requirement  for inpatient  hospital                 
  services  of $50 a  day, up to  a maximum of  $200.  He said                 
  that was the  same co-payment policy under  Alaska's general                 
  relief medical program.                                                      
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp MOVED amendment 5.   No objection being heard,                 
  it was ADOPTED.                                                              
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger said he would like to propose amendment 6 but                 
  felt it  did not exactly  mirror the  letter of intent.   In                 
  answer  to  Co-chair  Frank,   Senator  Rieger  said  intent                 
  language read "to  the maximum extent allowed  under federal                 
  law."   Co-chair Frank supported  the amendment and  felt it                 
  was not inconsistent with the intent language.                               
                                                                               
  JON SHERWOOD, Medical Assistance Administrator, Division  of                 
  Medical Assistance, Department of Health & Social  Services,                 
  said  that  seeking  a  waiver  would be  permissible  under                 
  federal  law.   He  felt  the  department would  not  have a                 
  problem with either the letter of intent or amendment 6.  He                 
  said he would let  the committee know this afternoon  if the                 
  department had received any waivers.                                         
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger MOVED amendment 6.   Co-chair Frank suggested                 
  that  language   be  added   requiring  a   report  to   the                 
  legislature.   Senator  Rieger said  it  was his  intent  to                 
  reduce reports to the legislature.   Co-chair Frank withdrew                 
  his proposed language.   No  further objection being  heard,                 
  amendment 6 was ADOPTED.                                                     
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger said that there was a need on the part of the                 
  department to use discretion in regard  to waivers.  He felt                 
  the intent language would be important.                                      
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger MOVED  amendment 7.  He said  the utilization                 
  review  the department used needed  to be evaluated and this                 
  amendment  authorized that.   It  also gave  a case  manager                 
  authorization to approve optional services without following                 
  the  priority  listing  in  order  to  design  a  more  cost                 
  effective program.                                                           
                                                                               
  Mr. Sherwood said that presently  case management ideas were                 
  being considered and  evaluated.  Any case  management would                 
  require case managers.   Senator Rieger felt that  the state                 
  would be far ahead if it put  $1M of general funds into fund                 
  case management  and, in turn,  received $3M from  the feds.                 
  Mr.  Sherwood  agreed  there  was a  75  percent  match when                 
  professional case management was used.                                       
                                                                               
  End SFC-93 #59, Side 1                                                       
  Begin SFC-93 #59, Side 2                                                     
                                                                               
  Discussion was had  by Senators Sharp, Rieger,  and Co-chair                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Frank regarding pre-authorization, the  priority listing and                 
  optional  services.  Senator  Rieger informed  the committee                 
  that the legislature did not  determine which items were  on                 
  the priority  list, but was decided by  the department after                 
  budget funding.   In answer to Senator Sharp, Senator Rieger                 
  doubted there  was any  integrity to  the priority  list and                 
  money  could  be  saved  by  being  able to  choose  a  less                 
  expensive service that appeared lower on the priority list.                  
                                                                               
  Hearing no objection, amendment 7 was ADOPTED.                               
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp  MOVED the  letter of  intent adding  language                 
  that said  "a report shall  be made to include  a listing of                 
  waivers sought from the federal government and an indication                 
  of those granted."  No objection  being heard, the letter of                 
  intent as amended was ADOPTED.                                               
                                                                               
  Senator  Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 366(FIN) as amended                 
  from  committee   with  individual   recommendations.     No                 
  objection being heard, it was REPORTED OUT of committee with                 
  individual  recommendations,  a  zero  fiscal note  for  the                 
  Department of  Commerce &  Economic Development, and  fiscal                 
  notes for  the Department  of Health  &  Social Services  as                 
  follows:  Claims  Processing-$130.0,   Medicaid  Facilities-                 
  $(550.0),  and  Medicaid Non-facilities-$(799.1).   Co-chair                 
  Frank and Senator Rieger signed "do pass."   Senators Sharp,                 
  Jacko, Kelly and Kerttula signed "no recommendation."                        
                                                                               
  SENATE BILL NO. 369:                                                         
                                                                               
       An  Act  relating   to  the  maintenance  of   and  art                 
       requirements   for   certain   public   buildings   and                 
       facilities and to  the art in  public places fund;  and                 
       providing for an effective date.                                        
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank invited  Jo Fenety, aide to  Co-chair Pearce,                 
  to speak to the  bill.  JO FENETY  announced that Kit  Duke,                 
  Facilities  Manager,  Administration,  Alaska Court  System,                 
  would be testifying via teleconference from Anchorage.                       
                                                                               
  In answer to  Co-chair Frank, Ms. Fenety  explained that the                 
  only change made  in CSSB 369(FIN)  was the addition of  two                 
  non-voting members to the review committee.                                  
                                                                               
  Ms. Fenety explained SB 369 as a plan to get a handle on the                 
  huge  problem   of  deferred   maintenance  of   state-owned                 
  buildings.   She said the word  "huge" was used  not only to                 
  get the  committee's attention but to impress  upon them the                 
  consequences  of the  continued failure  to act.   The state                 
  owns  1,717  buildings,  valued at  $2.3  billion  and their                 
  average age is  20.7 years.   For comparison, she added  the                 
  buildings' value  was equal  to one-fifth  of the  permanent                 
  fund.                                                                        
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Through the years, and  for a variety of reasons,  the state                 
  had chosen to put off the inevitable when it came to  taking                 
  care of the buildings owned.  Budgetary restraints or  other                 
  priorities had  forced operating appropriations  for routine                 
  maintenance to the  bottom of the  list and, in some  cases,                 
  off the list  entirely.  Today,  the state had a  documented                 
  maintenance  backlog of about $251 million,  or more than 10                 
  percent  of the assessed value.  Through the state's failure                 
  to perform scheduled routine maintenance, small problems had                 
  become large  problems.   The leaking  roof that  could have                 
  been fixed for a few thousand dollars in an operating budget                 
  had  become  a roof  replacement  project costing  a million                 
  dollars or more in the capital budget.                                       
                                                                               
  She went on to  say that Co-chair Pearce believed it was the                 
  state's duty to preserve and protect the state's assets, and                 
  in this case, with this bill, it was  public buildings.  She                 
  pointed out that  SB 369 did  not ask for  the $251  million                 
  estimated to  fix the whole  problem, nor did  it ask for  a                 
  large bureaucracy.  Instead, it asked  for the first step in                 
  a  systematic   plan  by   creating  the  Facilities   Major                 
  Maintenance Fund.  Into that fund would  go 1 percent of all                 
  construction  costs on  a one-time  basis.   This bill  also                 
  repealed  the  statutes  effecting  the  1 percent  for  art                 
  program.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Ms.  Fenety  justified  this rationale  by  saying  when the                 
  buildings were in need of repair, the state could not afford                 
  the luxury  of art.  It was better  to fix the leaking roof.                 
  She noted that  SB 369  was the vehicle  to accept  proceeds                 
  from general  obligation and  revenue bonds  that were  also                 
  slated  to go  into this  fund.   Federal funds,  additional                 
  appropriations, if available,  interest on the fund,  and an                 
  annual maintenance assessment  fee would  also go into  this                 
  fund.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Ms.  Fenety  went  on  to  explain  the  annual  maintenance                 
  assessment fee  would  be an  amount  charged to  all  state                 
  agencies that occupy state-owned buildings.  This assessment                 
  fee established annually  by the  committee would help  link                 
  the perceived need for  space by a state agency  to the real                 
  cost for occupying  that space.   The  University of  Alaska                 
  buildings were included in the provisions of this  bill, but                 
  all  provisions  were parallel  and  separate.   Schools and                 
  international airport  facilities were not  included in this                 
  bill.                                                                        
                                                                               
  She pointed out that  SB 369 had to  do with buildings,  not                 
  roads,  ports,  or  docks.    She  felt  that  the  concepts                 
  presented in  the bill  were no  more complicated  than what                 
  would be  done to  protect   family-owned assets.   It  made                 
  sense to forego a luxury in order to preserve a family home,                 
  and even though  everything could  not be fixed  at once,  a                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  plan would be created to incorporate repairs.  That idea was                 
  the substance of SB 369.                                                     
                                                                               
  In  answer  to  Senator  Kelly,  Ms.  Fenety  said  that the                 
  University's  Major   Maintenance  Fund  would   be  totally                 
  separate from the  state's Major Maintenance Fund  and would                 
  not receive any  assessed money from  state buildings.   She                 
  went on to say that the University wanted to be  included in                 
  SB 369 but requested a separate system within the bill.                      
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank   confirmed  that   at  the   time  of   new                 
  construction, one percent of construction costs would be put                 
  into the fund.   He then asked how the  appropriations would                 
  come out of the  fund.  Ms.  Fenety said a review  committee                 
  would   prioritize   and  recommend   annually,  maintenance                 
  projects to be funded.   She referred the committee  to Sec.                 
  35.50.040  that   explained   the   State   Building   Major                 
  Maintenance  Review Committee  would  be established  in the                 
  Department of  Administration and  the Commissioner  of that                 
  department  would be  the chair.   The  Commissioner of  the                 
  Department  of Transportation  & Public  Facilities (DOT&PF)                 
  would be  a permanent  member  of the  Committee, and  three                 
  other department  heads,  appointed by  the Governor,  would                 
  serve two-year rotating terms.  CSSB 369(FIN) added two non-                 
  voting members,  the administrative director  of the  Alaska                 
  Court System, and the executive  director of the Legislative                 
  Affairs Agency.                                                              
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank then  confirmed that  the  Major Maintenance                 
  assessment fee  would be  determined by  the committee  each                 
  year by the  square feet occupied.   Ms. Fenety agreed  that                 
  the rate would be established by  the committee which was in                 
  addition to the 1 percent of cost at time of construction.                   
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank  asked  how  that  compared  with  what  was                 
  happening  now.     Ms.  Fenety  asked  Nancy   Bear  Usera,                 
  Commissioner, Department  of Administration,  and Kit  Duke,                 
  Facilities Manager, Administration, Alaska Court System, via                 
  teleconference from  Anchorage, to speak  to that  question.                 
  She also referred the committee to a worksheet dated  4/5/94                 
  (Attachment A, copy on file) showing the 1995 Capital budget                 
  and  agency  requests  as best  determined  compared  to the                 
  Governor's request.   Using the Department  of Safety as  an                 
  example,  it  had estimated  $10M  for capital  request even                 
  though  nothing had showed  up in their  budget, and records                 
  showed an  additional $59M of  deferred maintenance backlog.                 
  Her  point  was   that  while  there  were   known  building                 
  maintenance needs, they were not being  taken care of in the                 
  budget.                                                                      
                                                                               
  In answer to a  prior request by Co-chair Frank,  Ms. Fenety                 
  referred to a memo from the Department of Military & Veteran                 
  Affairs dated  March 30, 1994  (Attachment B, copy  on file)                 
  showing operating shortfalls of $399,300  over the past four                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  years.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Again,  Co-chair  Frank  asked  how SB  369  related  to the                 
  present process of maintenance on state buildings.  He asked                 
  if DOT&PF was charged with the responsibility of maintenance                 
  except for the University of Alaska.  Ms. Fenety agreed that                 
  DOT&PF was charged  with the responsibility of  maintenance,                 
  but in reality,  each department  or agency was  responsible                 
  for budgeting its own maintenance.                                           
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank  invited  Loren  Rasmussen,  Chief,  Design,                 
  Construction Standards, DOT&PF, to join the committee at the                 
  table.                                                                       
                                                                               
  LOREN RASMUSSEN  explained there  was no integrated  process                 
  for maintaining buildings.  Most of the money obtained to do                 
  major repairs  came through budgets of  individual agencies.                 
  There   was  always   a   contest  between   operating   and                 
  maintenance, and maintenance  seemed to take the  back seat.                 
  If an agency  needed a  program funded, generally  speaking,                 
  maintenance would be  deferred.  These deferred  maintenance                 
  items  accumulated  so  that  at  some  point,  they  become                 
  critical  or the  buildings were  unusable.  At  that point,                 
  large amounts needed  to be funded through  the CIP process.                 
  He also pointed  out that it was a  budgetary problem.  Some                 
  agencies were better  than others  at getting their  budgets                 
  approved.  He felt SB 369 was a good first step  in creating                 
  a new process to begin maintenance on state buildings.                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank asked how  much of the  maintenance money in                 
  DOT&PF was  allotted for building maintenance  not including                 
  operational expenses like  heat and  lights.  Mr.  Rasmussen                 
  said he  did not know  that amount.   Co-chair Frank  felt a                 
  clear  picture  of  what  the  state was  now  spending  was                 
  necessary in order to  compare the old process with  the new                 
  one created  in SB  369.  He  wanted to  know what  existing                 
  revenues could be  redirected to this fund for the important                 
  purpose of  maintenance.   He requested  that Mr.  Rasmussen                 
  report to the  committee with  at least an  estimate of  the                 
  amount currently being  spent on  building maintenance.   He                 
  asked if there was any money elsewhere within the individual                 
  agencies in the operating budget available for maintenance.                  
                                                                               
  Mr. Rasmussen said that Co-chair Frank had keyed into one of                 
  the major problems  of building maintenance.   Some agencies                 
  or departments do  very well at maintaining  their buildings                 
  and  others  (because  of the  buildings,  their  budget, or                 
  location in outlying areas) found it very difficult.                         
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger  asked if  the agencies/departments that  had                 
  taken  good  care of  their  buildings would  feel resentful                 
  about  paying  an  assessment that  might  bail  out another                 
  department that had  done poorly.   He felt there should  be                 
  some kind of  incentive for those departments that  had done                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  well.  Mr. Rasmussen agreed and said this legislation should                 
  provide a way to gear the  assessment in relationship to how                 
  the building was being maintained.  He also noted that there                 
  would never be a completely level playing field.  There also                 
  could be  different rates  set for  warehouses, courthouses,                 
  etc. but details had not been worked out as yet.                             
                                                                               
  Senator  Rieger  blamed  the  legislature  in  part  because                 
  deferred maintenance was  a way to make certain  budgets fit                 
  and he could predict that happening  to this fund also.   He                 
  felt  the  legislature was  trying  to resolve  a management                 
  issue by revising statutes.  He  felt DOT&PF or the Governor                 
  should  enforce  management   responsibility  for   building                 
  maintenance rather than passing new legislation.                             
                                                                               
  Mr. Rasmussen said  that there were  state models to  follow                 
  such as  the state equipment  fleet and  it had been  put in                 
  statute.    Senator  Sharp  noted   that  the  Governor  had                 
  attempted  an executive order to  set up a separate building                 
  group  last  year  and  it  did  not pass.    Mr.  Rasmussen                 
  reiterated that SB  369 was a good first step even though he                 
  agreed that  it would not happen instantaneously.   The fund                 
  also could  be funded  by GO  bonds beside  the one  percent                 
  construction assessment.                                                     
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank  voiced his  preference  for taking  care of                 
  existing   buildings    by   using   existing    levels   of                 
  appropriation.  His concern was that the committee would ask                 
  for x-number of dollars  to take care of buildings  from the                 
  budget  and that  amount of money  would not  be there.   He                 
  wanted to  know how the bill language  could be strengthened                 
  so  moneys  could  be  allocated  from  existing  levels  of                 
  appropriation.                                                               
                                                                               
  Mr. Rasmussen cited  the process that was  being implemented                 
  with the Americans with a Disabilities  Act as an example of                 
  the  fund  in this  bill.   He  said it  was a  very complex                 
  process  and  the  state  needed  to  get  buildings  up  to                 
  accessibility levels, etc.  A  fund, an oversight committee,                 
  and a  prioritizing system  was  in place  to inventory  and                 
  prioritize the buildings that needed work.  This process had                 
  not been  completely successful but  it was a  start towards                 
  addressing the problem and matching  moneys available to the                 
  program.   He reiterated that  money was  not available  for                 
  complete ADA compliance but it was  a good first step toward                 
  compliance.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Senator  Rieger  observed that  the  agencies that  took the                 
  worst care of their buildings would be rewarded because they                 
  would be placed  higher on the priority list.   He said that                 
  happened  when  schools  buildings  were  prioritized.   Mr.                 
  Rasmussen felt the opposite was true.   He said the agencies                 
  leasing from the equipment fleet that  had not taken care of                 
  their   vehicles  were   charged  higher   rates  to   cover                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  maintenance costs.                                                           
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank  asked if  a rate  per square  foot had  been                 
  proposed.   Ms. Fenety said there was no fiscal note and the                 
  committee would have  a year to  come up with such  figures.                 
  Co-chair Frank thought he had heard  2 percent of a building                 
  cost would be  needed to cover  maintenance costs.  He  also                 
  asked   why   this   was  put   under   the   Department  of                 
  Administration.                                                              
                                                                               
  Ms. Fenety answered  that the reason the  responsibility was                 
  placed under  the Department  of Administration  was because                 
  there  was  a  "handshake"   relationship  between  building                 
  occupancy in general  and leasing  operations, and this  was                 
  more of a  management function than maintenance.   In answer                 
  to Co-chair Frank, Ms. Usera said that DOT&PF would still be                 
  contracted to do  the work.  She explained that  there was a                 
  desire to  model a  centralized policy  development and  the                 
  responsibility of  the Department  of Administration  was to                 
  provide  government services  with  a centralized  approach.                 
  Two years ago  there had been much work done to accomplish a                 
  building maintenance program.   It was apparent  that having                 
  the  separation   of   responsibilities   of   leasing   and                 
  maintenance functions and  no centralized  policy made it  a                 
  very  haphazard  process.   She  envisioned a  process where                 
  there was  an inventory  of work  needed, and  a line  drawn                 
  depending  on what funding was available.  At present, every                 
  department dealt with deferred maintenance differently.  She                 
  reiterated that  the Department of Administration would form                 
  a committee to inventory, prioritize, and then direct DOT&PF                 
  to do the work depending upon funding available.                             
                                                                               
  In answer to  Senator Sharp,  Ms. Usera said  the extent  of                 
  maintenance by the  state depended  upon the  nature of  the                 
  lease.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank asked if this would be handled with a charge-                 
  back  system  as  was used  for  computers,  highway working                 
  capital, etc.   Ms. Usera  said it would  be a  contribution                 
  based  on  square  footage  that  would be  associated  with                 
  certain departments.  This process would make the department                 
  conscious of the space  it was using since there  would be a                 
  cost  associated  with  it.    Anytime  there  was  built-in                 
  management accountability, it was helpful.   She agreed that                 
  the money would go  into the fund and would  not necessarily                 
  be  a  direct  pay-back for  services.    It  would also  be                 
  possible that some departments could benefit more than their                 
  assessment if their needs were greater.                                      
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank asked  how money would  be pulled out of  all                 
  the budgets  already allocated  for maintenance  and put  in                 
  this fund.  Ms.  Usera said there were two ways  to fund it,                 
  maintenance money associated with the operating budget,  and                 
  deferred maintenance as  a capital appropriation.   What she                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  envisioned  was that  the  money  appropriated  through  the                 
  capital process  for deferred  maintenance would  be put  in                 
  this fund.  There would be no  individual appropriations for                 
  the Pioneer Homes or for a particular pet project.  It would                 
  be the Administration's decision to  fund the most important                 
  projects.  Co-chair  Frank said  he must have  misunderstood                 
  the  bill.  He  thought each agency would  have a per square                 
  foot charge within their operating budget that would be paid                 
  into the  fund.   Ms. Usera  said it  was her  understanding                 
  there  were three ways money  could be appropriated into the                 
  fund.  One of the funding  mechanisms would be an assessment                 
  fee.  The other  two options would be bonding,  and deferral                 
  of the one percent from new construction.                                    
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank asked Ms. Usera where the money comes from at                 
  present.    Ms.   Usera  suggested  that  the   money  being                 
  appropriated for the Pioneer Homed deferred maintenance, for                 
  example, instead of a lump sum based on  a list of projects,                 
  would be converted  into a  formula that would  go into  the                 
  fund.  Co-chair Frank affirmed then that the only purpose of                 
  the assessment would be to determine the amount of money the                 
  legislature  would  appropriate  either  by  bonding  or  by                 
  another mechanism into the maintenance fund.                                 
                                                                               
  End SFC-93 #59, Side 2                                                       
  Begin SFC-93 #61, Side 1                                                     
                                                                               
  Ms. Usera  went on to explain  that the fiscal note  for the                 
  Department  of  Administration  would  cover  assessment  of                 
  buildings  and  those  projects  would  be prioritized.    A                 
  determination of  the optimal formula after  this evaluation                 
  would  be  submitted to  the  legislature.   The legislature                 
  would make the decision as to the appropriate funding level.                 
  For example, if  $2.25 square foot  assessment was too  high                 
  for the budget and  it approved $.75 a square  foot instead,                 
  then that amount  would go into the fund  and would be spent                 
  on the top priority projects.                                                
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank said he was not opposed to the idea of a fund                 
  but did not see the mechanism that would be used to pull the                 
  money  out of  the  budget  when  money  was  already  being                 
  allocated for maintenance in the budget.                                     
                                                                               
  Ms.  Fenety said that currently the  allocation of money for                 
  building maintenance did  exist.   In the operating  budget,                 
  beside the normal  dump the trash  maintenance, there was  a                 
  maintenance item for trying to keep up the building, such as                 
  fixing the leaks, etc.  That money would come into the fund.                 
  She  said  maintenance  was  also  allotted in  the  capital                 
  budget.   Co-chair Frank  asked her  what  mechanism in  the                 
  budgetary process would be used  to pull out the maintenance                 
  item from individual  departments and the large  amount from                 
  the Department of  Transportation & Public Facilities.   Ms.                 
  Fenety said that  she envisioned the same mechanism  as used                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  in the highway  working capital  fund.  Various  departments                 
  previously owned their  own vehicles.  Now  an assessed rate                 
  was  put  in  individual   department  budgets  for  leasing                 
  vehicles.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank said that was exactly  his question - how was                 
  the money going  to be taken  out budgetarily and placed  in                 
  the  fund?  He said he did not  see any mechanism in SB 369.                 
  Ms.  Usera  said  that if  this  bill  passed,  it would  be                 
  instructional to the  Office of Management & Budget to build                 
  their  budget  or the  governor's  budget differently  so it                 
  could  scoop  up that  deferred  maintenance money  that was                 
  currently in  various places in the budget.   Co-chair Frank                 
  asked where that provision was in the bill.  Ms. Usera  said                 
  this bill would establish the  building maintenance fund and                 
  the appropriation process would be used  to finance it.  She                 
  said the bill  did not specifically  mandate this but as  in                 
  the  charge-back  system,  if  there  was a  mechanism,  the                 
  budgets would be built on that system.                                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank requested the Department of Administration or                 
  Co-chair  Pearce's office  to  create  language  that  would                 
  require the Governor's budget to pull out that money for the                 
  fund.   Ms.  Usera  agreed to  do  that but  she wanted  the                 
  committee to  understand the  power of  appropriation.   She                 
  said  if  the  deferred maintenance  fund  was  established,                 
  priorities   would   be   set,   and   the   Department   of                 
  Administration would  pay for  deferred maintenance.   If  a                 
  department was low  on the priority  list and there was  not                 
  enough money, for  example, to  fund a need  in the  Pioneer                 
  Home  in  Fairbanks,  and that  request  was  put  in as  an                 
  appropriation specific  to that project, she did not see how                 
  the  Governor or  DOA  could do  anything  to prohibit  that                 
  request  short  of vetoing  it.    She saw  this  bill  as a                 
  partnership between  the executive and  legislature branches                 
  for  a   make-sense  management  approach  on  how  deferred                 
  maintenance  was performed and  the process  associated with                 
  the appropriations and the funds.                                            
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank  wanted to confirm that the  money already in                 
  the budget could be  identified rather than just pulling  an                 
  amount out of DOT&PF's budget.   Ms. Usera agreed to provide                 
  figures to  Co-chair Frank  regarding deferred  maintenance,                 
  annual maintenance, heat & lights, etc.                                      
                                                                               
  KIT DUKE, Facilities  Manager, Administration, Alaska  Court                 
  System, via teleconference from Anchorage, said that some of                 
  the  information Co-chair Frank was requesting was available                 
  in the FY93 budget because of research done for that budget.                 
  She said an the executive branch budget had been broken down                 
  into the operating  portion and  annual maintenance, and  it                 
  showed  how  much  was  spent  on major  maintenance.    She                 
  asserted  that this  money  needed to  be  collected over  a                 
  period of  time so  that the life  of major components  of a                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  building could be  lengthened, such as a roof, or electrical                 
  system.   One of the  mechanisms that would exist  if SB 359                 
  was passed was the  non-lapsing feature of the fund.   Every                 
  year, an  assessment of so many cents a square foot would go                 
  into that  fund so when major maintenance projects needed to                 
  be done,  the funds would be  available.  She felt  this was                 
  the important component  in preventing deferred  maintenance                 
  in the  future.   The fourth  component looked  at how  much                 
  money  was in  the capital  budget  every year  which varied                 
  widely and went to many different agencies.  She thought she                 
  could provide a  good picture of where the money  was in the                 
  budget.  Every agency did not get sufficient money to do all                 
  four  of  those things.    Co-chair Frank  agreed  with that                 
  statement.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Frank  asked  Mike   Greany,  Legislative  Finance                 
  Division, to work with DOA &  DOT&PF to provide real numbers                 
  in those areas discussed.                                                    
                                                                               
  Ms. Duke  asked to speak  to Senator Rieger's  concern about                 
  how agencies were going  to feel about being assessed.   She                 
  agreed  that  rates should  be  set  based on  how  well the                 
  departments maintained their  buildings in the past,  so the                 
  rate structure  would reward people  that took good  care of                 
  their buildings.   She felt  it was important  to take  that                 
  into consideration.  Co-chair Frank asked if anything in the                 
  bill  addressed  that  situation.     Ms.  Fenety  said  the                 
  committee would be  responsible for  the assessed rate  each                 
  year.  The bill did not define how the rate was established.                 
  Co-chair Frank asked  for language  that would consider  the                 
  department's maintenance record.                                             
                                                                               
  Senator Kerttula warned about a trap  that could happen.  If                 
  an assessed fee was set too  high, the department could rent                 
  more  reasonably in the private sector  than from the state.                 
  He said it was already happening  with vehicle rentals.  Co-                 
  chair Frank appreciated  the insight  and looked forward  to                 
  hearing from the departments.                                                
                                                                               
  TIM WILSON, Executive Director, Alaska  State Council on the                 
  Arts, said he  was not opposed to SB 359 in its entirety but                 
  to  Sections 4  and 5  that appealed the  1 percent  for art                 
  program.  He  said he was sympathetic to the enormous job of                 
  maintaining state  buildings, but  he felt  repealing the  1                 
  percent  for  arts would  not be  a big  help.   Last year's                 
  capital  budget   generated  less  than   $300,000  for  art                 
  projects, all of which  were in public schools and  would be                 
  exempt from  this bill.   He  could speak at  length to  the                 
  importance of art and  would not categorize public art  as a                 
  luxury.   He defined public art as a symbolic representation                 
  of who we were as Alaskans and that  it helped us understand                 
  our place in the world in which we live, work and study.  In                 
  recent years, the  vast majority of  public art had been  in                 
  schools.    Currently,  the state  was  not  building public                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  buildings.  The Arts Council believed  the 1 percent for art                 
  was a fiscally  responsible program.   When the state had  a                 
  robust  budget and could  afford to build  buildings, then a                 
  modest portion of construction costs was given to developing                 
  public  art.   When  the  state  could not  afford  to build                 
  buildings,  no  money  was  put into  the  percent  for  art                 
  program.  Art  would become and  remain a permanent part  of                 
  the legacy of  that building.   He felt it was  an important                 
  program and would hate to see it repealed.                                   
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank asked  if there was a move to  change the one                 
  percent to  one-half  percent.   Mr.  Wilson said  in  rural                 
  schools the percent  was one-half and  one percent in  urban                 
  areas.  He said HB 311 would repeal the one percent for arts                 
  but it had remained in House Finance.  In answer to Co-chair                 
  Frank,  Mr.  Wilson said  that under  current law  any major                 
  renovation project more than $250,000  would be eligible for                 
  the 1 percent for art  program.  Co-chair Frank asked for  a                 
  report on total money spent on public art over the  last few                 
  years.  Mr.  Wilson said he  did not have that  information.                 
  Ms. Fenety said that she had  access to that information for                 
  Co-chair Frank.                                                              
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp  asked if  $450,000 had  been allotted  to art                 
  from the Anchorage Court building project.   Mr. Wilson said                 
  that it was  one percent  of the construction  costs but  he                 
  thought the court system was exempt from the art program.                    
                                                                               
  Kit Duke,  Facilities Manager, Administration,  Alaska Court                 
  System, via teleconference from Anchorage, said  even though                 
  the Courts had  not gone  through the State  Council on  the                 
  Arts, one percent of  the construction value of the  project                 
  had been set aside for public  art and that equated to about                 
  $350,000.  In answer to Senator Sharp,  she said she did not                 
  know if  it was true  that the Court System  was exempt from                 
  the 1 percent  for arts program.   She understood that  when                 
  the Court  System did  a project  one percent  would be  set                 
  aside.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank  asked Ms.  Fenety to  provide the  committee                 
  with information about where the 1 percent for art applied.                  
                                                                               
  Senator Kelly asked  if the purpose of  SB 369 was  to shift                 
  the  1 percent  currently  spent on  art to  the maintenance                 
  budget.   He  suggested instead  that  the arts  program  be                 
  suspended  until  the  state caught  up  on  its maintenance                 
  program.  Some  members of the committee  commented it would                 
  take many years for that to happen.                                          
                                                                               
  Ms. Fenety said Legislative Finance  reported $1.5M had been                 
  spent on public art since the inception of the program.  The                 
  committee suggested that  some public  art was budgeted  and                 
  paid for under special projects.                                             
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank  announced  that  SB 369  would  be  HELD  in                 
  committee.  Senator Kelly asked the bill sponsor to consider                 
  suspending  the  public art  project  for x-number  of years                 
  rather than repealing it.                                                    
                                                                               
  At this time  the committee took a  short recess.  Due  to a                 
  recording machine malfunction, the next  part of the meeting                 
  was not  recorded and the  following minutes were  done with                 
  notes.                                                                       
                                                                               
  CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 190(JUD):                                             
                                                                               
       An Act relating to income withholding and other methods                 
       of enforcement for orders of support; and providing for                 
       an effective date.                                                      
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank announced  that CSSB 190(FIN) work  draft "U"                 
  was  before  the  committee  which  incorporated  previously                 
  ADOPTED in the March 30, 1994 meeting.                                       
                                                                               
  Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly, spoke to amendment 3 which                 
  imposed a $5  fee instead of  $1.   Senator Kelly MOVED  for                 
  adoption of amendment  3.  No objection  having been raised,                 
  the amendment was ADOPTED for  incorporation within a Senate                 
  Finance Committee Substitute for the bill.                                   
                                                                               
  Mr.  Fink,  spoke to  amendment  4 which  would  require the                 
  agency to  immediately return overpayments to the obligator,                 
  and the obligee would be liable to the state for  any amount                 
  overpaid.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MARY  GAY,  Director,  Child Support  Enforcement  Division,                 
  Department of Revenue,  came before the committee  and asked                 
  that on  page 4,  line 25,  the words  "within five  working                 
  days" be changed to "within fifteen working days."  She felt                 
  that five  days was not an  adequate amount of  time for the                 
  agency to respond.  The committee agreed to change "five" to                 
  "fifteen."  Senator Kelly MOVED for adoption  of amendment 4                 
  as amended.  No objection having been raised, amendment 4 as                 
  amended  was  ADOPTED  for  incorporation  within  a  Senate                 
  Finance Committee Substitute for the bill.                                   
                                                                               
  Mr.  Fink  spoke to  amendment 5  which  gave credit  to the                 
  obligor for  medical and  dental insurance,  and educational                 
  payments towards child support payments.  He also noted that                 
  prior to  January 1992, adjustments  were not made  in child                 
  support court orders for those payments.                                     
                                                                               
  MIKE    HOSTINA,    Deputy    Ombudsman,   testified,    via                 
  teleconference  from   Fairbanks,  that  their   office  had                 
  received various complaints regarding this issue, especially                 
  when  health insurance  payments  were increased  and  court                 
  orders had not made provisions for any adjustment.                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SHERRY  GOLL, Lobbyist, Alaska  Women's Lobby,  testified in                 
  opposition to  Amendment  5.   She said  that child  support                 
  orders were reviewed fairly frequently and she did not agree                 
  that  the  provisions  regarding the  court  in  amendment 5                 
  should be in state statutes.                                                 
                                                                               
  SUSAN  MILLER,  Manager,  Special  Projects,  Alaska   Court                 
  System, said  that as  early as  tomorrow there  could be  a                 
  court decision that would effect  provisions in Amendment 5.                 
  She was also opposed to the provisions in the amendment that                 
  applied to the court.  Discussion was had by Senators Kelly,                 
  Sharp,  Ms.  Miller,  Mr. Hostina,  and  Donna  Page, Senior                 
  Hearing Officer, Department of Revenue,  regarding the court                 
  and agency responsibilities as outlined in amendment 5.                      
                                                                               
  The committee  agreed to amend  amendment 5 by  removing all                 
  reference  to the courts.   The words  "and consistent with"                 
  were added to Section 23 in amendment 5.  (These  words were                 
  found  to  be  redundant  as   legal  services  advised  the                 
  committee that the words "to the extent of" already found in                 
  the amendment took care of the concern that the credit would                 
  be consistent with the  percent of the credit as  allowed in                 
  the child support order.)                                                    
                                                                               
  Senator Kelly MOVED for adoption of amendment 5  as amended.                 
  No  objection having been raised, amendment 5 as amended was                 
  ADOPTED for incorporation within a  Senate Finance Committee                 
  Substitute for the bill.                                                     
                                                                               
  DONNA PAGE,  Senior Hearing Officer, Department  of Revenue,                 
  said the  Child Support Enforcement  Division had  requested                 
  amendment  6 because  there were  situations where  children                 
  were  given  a  monthly  stipend  because  the  obligor  was                 
  disabled  and  then his  social  security payments  might be                 
  attached  for child support.   When the  child support order                 
  was  computed, it was not  taken into consideration that the                 
  children were  already being taken  care, for example,  by a                 
  social security payment.   This amendment would  require the                 
  agency  to  take  into  consideration   the  fact  that  the                 
  child(ren) was already being  taken care of and the  obligor                 
  would not have his/her wages attached.                                       
                                                                               
  Senator  Jacko  MOVED  for  adoption  of  amendment  6.   No                 
  objection having been  raised, amendment  6 was ADOPTED  for                 
  incorporation within a  Senate Finance Committee  Substitute                 
  for the bill.                                                                
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank raised the question regarding Section 26 that                 
  if a person  would fail to honor a child  support order they                 
  would  be liable to  the obligee in  an amount  equal to 100                 
  percent of the  amount ordered withheld.   He felt that  was                 
  excessive  especially  if  it  was  an  unintentional error.                 
  Discussion  was had by Mary Gay, Co-chair Frank, and Senator                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Sharp regarding the  penalty.  The word  "intentionally" was                 
  added  to Section 26 after the  words "of the state that" as                 
  amendment 7.  No objection  having been raised, amendment  7                 
  was  ADOPTED  for  incorporation  within  a  Senate  Finance                 
  Committee Substitute for the bill.                                           
                                                                               
  Ms.  Gay  reiterated her  concern that  this bill  pass this                 
  session because of federal regulations.                                      
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp MOVED  for passage of CSSB 190(FIN) as amended                 
  from  committee   with  individual   recommendations.     No                 
  objections having been raised, CSSB  190(FIN) as amended was                 
  REPORTED OUT of  committee with individual  recommendations,                 
  and a zero fiscal  note for the  Alaska Court System, and  a                 
  fiscal note for the  Department of Revenue in the  amount of                 
  $109.0.  Co-chair Frank  signed "do pass."   Senators Jacko,                 
  Rieger, and Sharp signed "no recommendation."                                
                                                                               
  CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36(JUD):                                  
                                                                               
       Proposing amendments to the  Constitution of the  State                 
       of   Alaska  requiring  a   runoff  election  when  the                 
       candidates   for   governor  and   lieutenant  governor                 
       obtaining the greatest  number of votes at  the general                 
       election do  not receive more  than 40  percent of  the                 
       votes  cast, and  changing the  term  of office  of the                 
       governor and the lieutenant governor.                                   
                                                                               
  Scheduled but not heard.                                                     
                                                                               
  SENATE BILL NO. 363:                                                         
                                                                               
       An  Act  making  appropriations  for  capital   project                 
       matching  grant  funds  and for  capital  projects; and                 
       providing for an effective date.                                        
                                                                               
  Scheduled but not heard.  Rescheduled for April 12, 1994.                    
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:08 a.m.                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects