Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/02/1996 09:15 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                          April 2, 1996                                        
                            9:15 a.m.                                          
  SFC-96, #63, Sides 1 and 2                                                   
  SFC-96, #64, Side 1 (000-046)                                                
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
  Senator  Steve Frank,  Co-chairman, convened the  meeting at                 
  approximately 9:15 a.m.                                                      
  In addition to Co-chairman Frank, Senators Donley, Phillips,                 
  Rieger,  Sharp,  and  Zharoff  were  present.    Co-chairman                 
  Halford arrived soon after the meeting began.                                
  ALSO ATTENDING:   Senator  Duncan; Beth Kerttula,  Assistant                 
  Attorney  General, Natural Resource  Section, Dept.  of Law;                 
  Annie  Carpeneti,  Assistant   Attorney  General,   Criminal                 
  Division,  Dept. of  Law;  Jeff Bush,  Deputy  Commissioner,                 
  Dept.  of Commerce  and Economic  Development; Jane  Angvik,                 
  Director, Division of Land, Dept. of Natural Resources; Eddy                 
  Jeans, Project Assistant, School Foundation, School Finance,                 
  Dept.  of  Education;  Gene  Dau,  American  Association  of                 
  Retired  Persons  and the  Veterans  of Foreign  Wars; Kathy                 
  Tibbles, Division  of Family  and Youth  Services, Dept.  of                 
  Health and  Social Services; Carl  Rose, Executive Director,                 
  Alaska  Association  of  School Boards;  Chris  Christensen,                 
  Staff Counsel,  Alaska Court  System; Kelly  Huber, aide  to                 
  Senator Halford; and  aides to  committee members and  other                 
  members of the legislature.                                                  
  ALSO  PARTICIPATING   VIA  TELECONFERENCE:     Mary  Hughes,                 
  Municipal Attorney, Municipality  of Anchorage; Wayne Woods,                 
  Dan Montgomery, and Loren Karro, MatSu.                                      
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
  SB 244 -  CALCULATION OF STATE AID TO EDUCATION                              
            Discussion was had with Eddy Jeans of the Dept. of                 
            Education and Carl Rose  of the Alaska Association                 
            of School Boards.   Senator Frank listed  areas of                 
            consensus  to  be  incorporated   within  a  draft                 
            Finance Committee Substitute.   The bill was  then                 
            held  in  committee  pending  preparation  of  the                 
  SB 253 -  INSURANCE FOR PROSTATE CANCER TESTING                              
            Amendment   No.   2,  incorporating   coverage  of                 
            cervical  cancer screening  within  the bill,  was                 
            adopted.  CSSB 253 (Fin) was then REPORTED OUT  of                 
            committee with a  zero fiscal note from  the Dept.                 
            of  Commerce and  Economic Development and  a zero                 
            note  from  the Dept.  of Administration  (for all                 
            agencies), containing updated analysis language.                   
  SB 270 -  JUVENILE OFFENDER PROCEEDINGS & RECORDS                            
            Discussion was had with Kathy Tibbles of the Dept.                 
            of  Health  &  Social  Services,  Kelly  Huber  of                 
            Senator  Halford's  staff, and  via teleconference                 
            with Mary Hughes of the Municipality of Anchorage.                 
            The bill was held in committee pending preparation                 
            of    fiscal    notes     evidencing    department                 
  HB 335 -  BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD                                 
            Draft  SCS  CSHB  3355  (Fin)  dated  3/37/96  was                 
            distributed.   Wayne  Woods  advised  of  proposed                 
            changes via  teleconference from MatSu.   Comments                 
            were also presented by  Jeff Bush of the  Dept. of                 
            Commerce and Economic Development, Jane Angvik  of                 
            the  Dept.  of  Natural Resources,  and  Assistant                 
            Attorney  General,  Beth Kerttula.   The  bill was                 
            subsequently  held  in  committee  for  additional                 
  SENATE BILL NO. 253                                                          
       An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of                      
       prostate cancer detection.                                              
  Co-chairman  Frank directed that  SB 253  be brought  on for                 
  discussion, noted adoption of Amendment No. 1 when the  bill                 
  was previously  before committee,  and referenced  Amendment                 
  No. 2.  Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 2                 
  and requested unanimous consent.  Co-chairman Frank objected                 
  for the purpose of an explanation.  Senator  Rieger attested                 
  to committee consensus  to investigate and add  coverage for                 
  annual pap  smear cancer  screening to  provide symmetry  to                 
  legislation covering prostate cancer detection.  Information                 
  obtained from  the  American  Cancer  Society  provided  the                 
  recommended  age  bracket included  in  the amendment.   The                 
  prime sponsor is supportive.                                                 
  Senator Sharp inquired  concerning the fiscal impact  of the                 
  addition.  Senator Rieger said he suspected the  approach to                 
  the addition would be similar to that for the original bill.                 
  The up-front cost of testing is well known, but the benefits                 
  of  prevention are  difficult to  quantify.   The theory  is                 
  that, overall, there is a cost savings.                                      
  Senator Sharp  attested to need for glaucoma testing as well                 
  and suggested that  it would  result in a  better return  on                 
  Co-chairman  Frank  called  for  objections  to adoption  of                 
  Amendment No. 2.  No objection having been raised, Amendment                 
  No. 2 was  ADOPTED.   Senator Zharoff MOVED  for passage  of                 
  CSSB  253 (Finance)  with  individual  recommendations.   No                 
  objection   having  been  raised,  CSSB  253  (Finance)  was                 
  REPORTED  OUT  of  committee  with  a  unanimous  "do  pass"                 
  recommendation  and  zero  fiscal notes  from  the  Dept. of                 
  Commerce   and  Economic  Development   and  the   Dept.  of                 
  SENATE BILL NO. 244                                                          
       An  Act  relating  to  state  foundation  aid  and                      
       supplementary   state   aid  for   education;  and                      
       providing for an effective date.                                        
  Co-chairman Frank  directed that  SB 244 be  brought on  for                 
  discussion,  advised  that  it  was  previously  heard,  and                 
  explained that he had been working on a committee substitute                 
  which would include:                                                         
       1.   An attempt  to make  the bill  revenue neutral  by                 
  increasing          the deduct from 95 to 96 percent.                        
       2.   Making the bill  effective during  1996 to  offset                 
            supplemental funding.                                              
       3.   An FY 96  hold harmless  for districts that  would                 
  lose more           than they gain in this fiscal year.                      
       4.   Removal of  the  single  site  addition  with  the                 
  recognition         that  it  would  be  dealt with  in  any                 
                      future foundation formula change.                        
  The  Co-chairman voiced his hope that members would find the                 
  foregoing acceptable as  a compromise.   He remarked that  a                 
  draft furnished  to him prior  to the meeting  was incorrect                 
  and returned  for revisions.    Co-chairman Frank  suggested                 
  that general discussion and feedback from the department and                 
  committee members proceed.                                                   
  [Co-chairman Halford arrived at the meeting at this time.]                   
  EDDY  JEANS, Project  Assistant,  School Foundation,  School                 
  Finance,  Dept. of  Education,  came  before  committee  and                 
  advised that the  foregoing proposal would be  acceptable to                 
  the department.                                                              
  Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the idea behind                 
  not "going to a 100 percent deduct was that there had  to be                 
  some small residual in order to  induce a school district to                 
  apply  for PL  874 moneys."   If the  formula results  in an                 
  entitlement,  PL   874   moneys  are   deducted   from   the                 
  entitlement.    He  then  questioned  whether  the  residual                 
  inducement  was necessary.   With  a 100  percent deduct,  a                 
  compelling inducement  to apply  for PL  874 moneys  remains                 
  because those funds  are needed to  bring districts to  full                 
  entitlement.    Mr. Jeans  explained  that the  state cannot                 
  require school districts to apply for impact-aid funds.  The                 
  foundation program utilizes  impact-aid moneys to  determine                 
  the state allocation.  If school  districts do not apply and                 
  receive these funds,  there is nothing to deduct  to "adjust                 
  state  aid by."  Senator  Rieger voiced his understanding of                 
  the foregoing to mean  that the formula does not  deduct the                 
  entitlement but  actual  receipt of  the funds.   Mr.  Jeans                 
  In response to  a further question from  Senator Rieger, Mr.                 
  Jeans explained that school districts that apply for impact-                 
  aid  funds  are  entitled  to  a  greater  amount than  they                 
  currently  receive.     Funding  is   based  on  an   annual                 
  appropriation from Congress.   That  appropriation has  been                 
  less than entitlement.  The  foundation statute also clearly                 
  states that it is based on funds received in response to the                 
  application rather than the entitlement.                                     
  Senator  Zharoff  raised  a question  regarding  removal  of                 
  single  site  schools.    He  attested to  support  for  the                 
  original  legislation  on  behalf  of  the  state  board  of                 
  education,   school  board   administrators,  and   NEA  and                 
  suggested that removal of single site  provisions represents                 
  a "step backwards."   He  expressed disappointment with  the                 
  proposed  compromise.   Co-chairman  Frank acknowledged  the                 
  concern,  but  voiced  his   expectation  that  single  site                 
  language would be included in the budget.                                    
  Senator Zharoff next distributed an  amendment (copy on file                 
  in the  original Senate Finance  Committee file for  SB 244)                 
  and  explained  that he  had been  asked  to provide  it for                 
  consideration on  behalf of  another member  of the  Senate.                 
  The  amendment relates  to  funds  identified for  preschool                 
  children.  Speaking  to the  amendment, Mr. Jeans  explained                 
  that impact-aid  law was  amended  in 1994  to allow  school                 
  districts to  claim preschool children for impact-aid funds.                 
  The  proposed  amendment would  have  the state  "back those                 
  funds  out  before  it  considers  the  impact  aid."    The                 
  arrangement would be similar to the special education add-on                 
  and the Indian  lands' add-on.  The impact-aid  program does                 
  not currently address preschool  funds as incremental  funds                 
  the state cannot consider.   The foundation program does not                 
  provide  funds for preschool  children.  That  is the reason                 
  for the amendment.                                                           
  Co-chairman  Frank voiced  his understanding  that amendment                 
  provisions would reduce  the state deduct in  districts with                 
  preschool  programs  that qualify  for  federal funds.   Mr.                 
  Jeans  concurred.    He  added  that  impact-aid  funds  are                 
  currently paid at a hold harmless level--a percentage of the                 
  '94 year.  Even though districts could claim these students,                 
  they are not receiving  funding for them at this time.   The                 
  department is aware  of the issue  and will be working  with                 
  the U.S.  Department of Education on how to properly address                 
  Discussion of proper  terminology for  former PL 874  moneys                 
  followed.  Mr. Jeans advised  that it is now referred to  as                 
  "Title 8" moneys.                                                            
  CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association  of Alaska School                 
  Boards, came  before committee.   He  noted that  he was  on                 
  record in  support of SB 244 but expressed concern regarding                 
  the  proposed   compromise  and   removal  of   single  site                 
  provisions.    Many small  districts  depend on  single site                 
  funds  for 10  to 15 percent  of their overall  budgets.  If                 
  this  funding remains outside the foundation, "Any kind of a                 
  decrease  could  affect   them  twice":  once  through   the                 
  foundation and a second  time due to the possibility  of not                 
  receiving additional supplemental funding.                                   
  Mr. Rose  voiced need for  clarification of the  impact from                 
  increase of the deduct  from 95 to 96 percent.   Co-chairman                 
  Frank reiterated that it attempts  to render the legislation                 
  revenue neutral.                                                             
  Co-chairman  Halford  directed  that  SB   244  be  held  in                 
  committee  pending  receipt  of  the  compromise   committee                 
  SENATE BILL NO. 270                                                          
       An  Act relating  to  juveniles;  relating to  the                      
       jurisdiction of juvenile  courts; relating to  the                      
       release of  juveniles;  and  relating  to  records                      
       concerning juveniles.                                                   
  Co-chairman Halford directed that  SB 270 be brought on  for                 
  discussion.    He  then  explained  that the  original  bill                 
  contains    changes in  procedures  dealing with  minors and                 
  changes in  confidentiality of  minors' records.   CSSB  270                 
  (Judiciary)  removes  confidentiality provisions  which were                 
  the subject of  much debate and discussion  regarding impact                 
  of the change and possible loss of federal funding.  Senator                 
  Randy  Phillips  questioned  whether changes  in  state  law                 
  should be either driven  or precluded by receipt or  loss of                 
  federal   moneys.     Co-chairman  Frank   concurred.     He                 
  acknowledged   need  to   better   understand  the   federal                 
  situation.  He  said he  asked the  department to  determine                 
  whether  it is possible to meet  state objectives and retain                 
  federal funds.   Co-chairman  Halford voiced  his hope  that                 
  changes at the Congressional level would ease the situation.                 
  Senator Sharp  attested  to  constituent  concern  regarding                 
  confidentiality.  Residents  want to  know if criminals  are                 
  living in  their  neighborhoods.    Senator  Randy  Phillips                 
  voiced lack of support  for Senate Judiciary removal of  the                 
  confidentiality change.                                                      
  KELLY  HUBER,  aide  to  Co-chairman  Halford,  came  before                 
  committee  to  speak  to  accompanying  fiscal notes.    She                 
  explained that the  cost shown  on the Dept.  of Health  and                 
  Social Services note for the  original bill totals $7,625.9.                 
  Senate Judiciary Committee  did not wish to  become involved                 
  in potential loss of federal funds and deleted all  language                 
  relating to juvenile records in its version.                                 
  To  a  comment  by  Senator   Phillips  that  the  Judiciary                 
  substitute essentially "guts the bill," Co-chairman  Halford                 
  noted that the new version contains provisions that help, in                 
  terms of what courts may consider, and allows application of                 
  municipal  offenses.     Removal  of   confidentiality  from                 
  juvenile records would  have the  most immediate impact  and                 
  the least cost if federal funds were not involved.                           
  KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family  and Youth Services, Dept.                 
  of  Health  and  Social  Services,  came  before  committee.                 
  Speaking to  federal funding,  she said  the department  has                 
  repeatedly  been   told  that  if  information  relating  to                 
  juveniles   is  made  public   "on  a   blanket  basis--full                 
  disclosure," Alaska will be ineligible  to apply for federal                 
  funds through Titles 4(b) and (e).  That amounts to "roughly                 
  $7.6 million."  Most states publish juvenile records.   That                 
  publication  is allowed because juvenile delinquents are not                 
  in the same agency as children in need of aid--for which the                 
  foregoing federal titles were established.                                   
  While  the  division  was originally  told  it  would suffer                 
  financial  penalties if  it  disclosed information,  it  has                 
  since  been indicated  that  it would  be  possible for  the                 
  division  to restructure organizationally.  While that would                 
  incur some cost, administratively, it would not "be the same                 
  kind of loss of $7.6 million."   The division is examining a                 
  restructuring that  would  meet federal  approval and  allow                 
  disclosure of  "some degree  of information  with regard  to                 
  juvenile delinquents."  The division recognizes concerns  at                 
  both the community  and legislative  level.  The  Governor's                 
  conference on juvenile justice is  discussing the issue this                 
  week.    Ms. Tibbles  asked that  the  division be  given an                 
  opportunity to attempt to restructure and reach an agreement                 
  with  the  federal  government  that  will  not   jeopardize                 
  Co-chairman Halford asked  if the  structural break  between                 
  delinquents and child-in-need-of-aid provisions is statutory                 
  or  within  the department.    Ms. Tibbles  responded, "It's                 
  within the department."                                                      
  In response to a question  from Senator Rieger, Ms.  Tibbles                 
  explained that  waiver of a juvenile to  adult court removes                 
  all constraints.  The minor is treated as an adult.                          
  Senator  Sharp  asked  that  information  from  the  federal                 
  government  on  potential  loss  of  funds  be  provided  to                 
  members.  Ms. Tibbles agreed to do so.                                       
  Co-chairman  Halford  asked if  constraints  are applied  to                 
  release  of  juvenile delinquency  records  if they  are not                 
  contained  within  child-in-need-of-aid  provisions.     Ms.                 
  Tibbles  responded,  "Mr. Chairman,  I  do not  believe that                 
  there are."  The concern is that a section of the state out-                 
  of-home-care   population   would   not   be  eligible   for                 
  reimbursement for  foster or  residential care  expenditures                 
  from the federal government.  That  is one reason Alaska has                 
  continued to  try to mesh the  two, so that the  state could                 
  maximize federal receipts in foster  and residential care by                 
  including juvenile delinquents.   That  places the state  in                 
  the position of not being able to release the records.                       
  Ms. Tibbles  cited difficulties associated with  sorting out                 
  funding within the single BRU.  She  added that a good share                 
  of the federal receipts not only apply to  reimbursement for                 
  foster  care costs  but to  administrative  costs associated                 
  with serving minors (social workers and probation officers).                 
  It is difficult to determine how much would be lost.                         
  Co-chairman Halford asked if it would be possible to develop                 
  a fiscal note that reflects the cost of separation of child-                 
  in-need-of-aid activities as well as  the incidental loss of                 
  federal funds  resulting from  removal of juvenile  records.                 
  Ms.  Tibbles  said  she  would  not  guarantee  it would  be                 
  forthcoming before the end of the week.  Co-chairman Halford                 
  suggested it would  be worth waiting for the information and                 
  further suggested that the bill be held in committee pending                 
  MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of  Anchorage,                 
  next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage.  She expressed                 
  support for the  original bill  which she said  incorporates                 
  some of the municipal partnership plan.                                      
  Addressing discussion  of potential loss of federal funding,                 
  Ms.  Hughes  said  the municipality  made  inquiries  at the                 
  federal  level and  was  told  that division  reorganization                 
  would solve the problem.  Laws dealing with delinquents have                 
  different  rules   and  regulations  than   these  involving                 
  children in need of aid.                                                     
  Ms.  Hughes  advised that  the  legislation also  deals with                 
  jurisdictional   questions   and  would   provide  municipal                 
  jurisdiction over  "minor civil  juvenile infractions."   It                 
  also enumerates  dispositional considerations  that must  be                 
  made by  the court in terms of what  is in the best interest                 
  of the child and what is in the best interest of the public.                 
  It mirrors conditions of bail  in adult criminal provisions.                 
  Ms. Hughes  concurred in  Co-chairman Halford's  decision to                 
  await receipt of fiscal note information regarding  division                 
  restructuring.  She voiced support for "some type of release                 
  of information."                                                             
  In response to a question from Senator Phillips, Ms.  Hughes                 
  directed attention  to page  4, line  1 through  18, of  the                 
  original  bill  and explained  that  under current  law, the                 
  juvenile's interests take priority over  the interest of the                 
  public.  Provisions enumerated at page 4 protect the public.                 
  Senator   Randy    Phillips   asked   if    the   department                 
  philosophically  supports release of  the names  of juvenile                 
  offenders.  Ms.  Tibbles responded, "To  some extent."   She                 
  expressed  concern about  a  piecemeal approach  that  would                 
  release  the  names of  all  young  people alleged  to  have                 
  committed  a  delinquent act  in the  absence of  ability to                 
  later  clear   the  juvenile's  name   if  he  or   she  was                 
  subsequently  acquitted.   Ms. Tibbles  further  attested to                 
  levels of delinquent acts.  She noted that a large number of                 
  young  people, in  the process  of growing  up, make  stupid                 
  mistakes, learn from the mistake, and  do not reoffend.  The                 
  department  is  not convinced  that  release of  those names                 
  would serve a valid interest for  either the juvenile or the                 
  public.      However,  the   department  agrees   that  some                 
  information should be  released for both a  deterrent effect                 
  and protection of the public.                                                
  Senator Rieger suggested that the  value of deterrence rests                 
  in sanctions it might impose on those considering commission                 
  of a crime.   He then expressed discomfort with  the wording                 
  in  subsection  (5) on  page 4  of  the original  bill.   He                 
  questioned  the wisdom  of making  an example of  one person                 
  beyond  the  gravity of  the  crime,  to have  an  effect on                 
  Discussion followed between  Senator Zharoff and Co-chairman                 
  Halford  regarding  language  within subsection  (7)  of the                 
  original bill and facilities for detention of minors.                        
  END:      SFC-96, #63, Side 1                                                
  BEGIN:    SFC-96, #63, Side 2                                                
  Further discussion followed between Senator  Zharoff and Ms.                 
  Tibbles  concerning  where  the  line  on  disclosure  of  a                 
  juvenile  crime should be drawn.  Ms. Tibbles cited juvenile                 
  sex offenders as an example.                                                 
  CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 335(RES)(title am)                                     
       An Act extending the  termination date of the  Big Game                 
       Commercial Services Board; eliminating  the requirement                 
       for  a  commercial  use  permit   and  for  payment  of                 
       commercial use permit fees;  amending the membership of                 
       the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to the                 
       qualifications   for   an   assistant   guide-outfitter                 
       license;  eliminating  the requirement  for  testing of                 
       assistant  guide-outfitters;  providing  for additional                 
       licensing  requirements  for  transporters; eliminating                 
       the requirement for  prior approval to enter  or remain                 
       on state and federal  land; eliminating the requirement                 
       to register base camps; amending the definition of 'big                 
       game  commercial  services';   and  providing  for   an                 
       effective date.                                                         
  Co-chairman Halford  directed that CSHB 335  (Res)(title am)                 
  be brought  on for discussion  and distributed a  work draft                 
  Senate Finance Committee Substitute  (9-LS1156\N, Utermohle,                 
  3/27/96) for review by members.  He explained that the draft                 
  was reviewed  by the sponsor,  the Dept.  of Public  Safety,                 
  Dept. of Commerce and Economic  Development, Dept. of Labor,                 
  and Dept. of Natural Resources.   There is agreement on most                 
  of  the  provisions,  but  there  are  areas  in  which  the                 
  constituency to be regulated is not happy.  One group  would                 
  like  to  have  more  regulation  and more  protection  from                 
  competition.   The other group seeks the opposite.  Criminal                 
  provisions  within  the  bill  are "probably  stronger  than                 
  virtually any other profession" in the size of the fines and                 
  ability to consider some conduct a felony.                                   
  Entry into the profession is primarily the same as under old                 
  guide laws.   The profession is aligned  with registered and                 
  master guides.  A master guide is merely a senior registered                 
  guide.  There  are also assistant guides,  class-A assistant                 
  guides,  and transporters.    The  regulatory  structure  is                 
  similar to existing law.                                                     
  Provisions  relating to  powers  and duties  are transferred                 
  from  the  previous  board  to  the  department,  with  some                 
  Penalties for  violations can  be as  high as  $30.0.   That                 
  stems from  existing law.  Many objections  have been raised                 
  by the  profession over penalties that high.  Questions also                 
  surround administrative  sanctions and possible  limiting of                 
  sanctions to those imposed by the courts.                                    
  Co-chairman Halford acknowledged that the  Dept. of Labor is                 
  not in  favor of  the 60-day  exemption from  wage and  hour                 
  provisions for assistant  guides in remote locations.   This                 
  exemption is far less than existing exemptions  set forth in                 
  Another provision for which  there is department  opposition                 
  but  industry  support relates  to  permission to  use land.                 
  Under old  law, permission  must be  obtained from  federal,                 
  state,  or private entities.  The proposed bill continues to                 
  require that permission be obtained.  However, since hunting                 
  areas  are  now   simply  registration  areas   through  the                 
  Department of Public Safety, enforcement  provisions must be                 
  carried out by the agency.                                                   
  JANE ANGVIK, Director,  Division of  Land, Dept. of  Natural                 
  Resources, came before  committee.  She voiced  concern over                 
  elimination of the requirement that  guides furnish proof of                 
  prior authorization  to  use state  lands.   Based  on  past                 
  experience,   if   this  requirement   does   not  continue,                 
  commercial guides will  most likely not seek  state land use                 
  permits.    While  Title  38   provides  the  division  with                 
  authority to  require permits  for all  commercial uses,  it                 
  does  not  provide an  incentive  for individuals  to secure                 
  permits nor does  it provide  the division with  enforcement                 
  capabilities.  The  only recourse against  those who do  not                 
  secure permits  is through the  civil courts.   The division                 
  has no authority  to issue citations resulting  in financial                 
  penalties as does the Dept. of Fish and Game or the division                 
  of parks.                                                                    
  The most significant  management issue  is need to  identify                 
  those who leave garbage and solid waste on state lands.  Ms.                 
  Angvik   distributed photographs  of debris  left behind  by                 
  Ms.  Angvik stressed  need for  proof  of permission  to use                 
  federal, state, or  private lands (at the time of licensing)                 
  as an incentive  to obtain permission.   She asked that  the                 
  bill  be amended to  require that proof.   Since regulations                 
  became  effective in  1993,  there  has  been a  75  percent                 
  increase  in those  who  came to  the  department to  secure                 
  permission to  use state lands.   The division  processes an                 
  average  of  350 licenses  at  $350.00 each  and  has raised                 
  $132.0 through regulatory provisions.  A decline is expected                 
  if  provisions  within  the  proposed  bill  remain  as  now                 
  Co-chairman  Halford pointed  to requirements  that a  guide                 
  notify the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development of the                 
  guide unit within which  he or she will  be operating.   The                 
  Dept.  of Natural  Resources can  pursue guides  who do  not                 
  clean up camp areas.   Proof of prior approval for  use of a                 
  specific location  proved to  be a "bureaucratic  nightmare"                 
  that applied only to  guides.  It was felt  that application                 
  to this commercial entity alone was unfair since competitors                 
  such as fishing guides,  ecotourism, etc. do not have  to do                 
  the same.                                                                    
  Co-chairman   Halford   stressed   that   the   registration                 
  requirement  in  the proposed  bill  is an  enforcement tool                 
  rather  than  an economic  regulation  tool.   A  guide must                 
  notify  the department,  30  days in  advance, of  where the                 
  guide will be  operating.   That notification lasts  through                 
  that particular year.   This is  a compromise between  prior                 
  guide-use areas  and the  majority of  the profession  which                 
  would  prefer not to  have established areas.   The Chairman                 
  stressed  that  the  permit  within  the  Dept.  of  Natural                 
  Resources, that  applies to  all commercial  users of  state                 
  land,  is  only  being  enforced  against guides.    Senator                 
  Phillips asked why  it was not  enforced against all  users,                 
  and Ms.  Angvik explained that  the requirement was,  in the                 
  past,  directly  connected  to  the   guide  license.    The                 
  department does not have  "that kind of a carrot"  for other                 
  commercial users.                                                            
  Co-chairman Halford next noted  teleconference participation                 
  in discussion of the bill.                                                   
  WAYNE   WOODS,   a  guide   from   MatSu,  next   spoke  via                 
  teleconference   and  presented   the   following  list   of                 
  recommended changes:                                                         
  Page 4, line 10:                                                             
       Delete current language in (a) and replace with:                        
            A  major violation  of a  state hunting,                           
            guiding,   or   transportation  services                           
            statute  or  regulation within  the last                           
            five years.                                                        
  Page 6, line 16:                                                             
       Delete "18" and insert "21"                                             
  Page 6, lines 22 and 23:                                                     
       Delete:   In the management unit  for which the license                 
       is        sought.                                                       
  Page 6, line 27:                                                             
       Delete all of section (B)                                               
  Page 10, line 11:                                                            
       After "$100,000," insert:                                               
            In the case of  registered guides, proof                           
            of financial  responsibility shall  only                           
            be required  when applying for  a guide-                           
            use area.                                                          
  Page 10, lines 23, 24, and 25:                                               
       Delete Secs. (2) and (3)                                                
  Page 11, line 31:                                                            
       Add a new section to read:                                              
            (1)   the   department   shall  act   on                           
            disciplinary matters in a timely manner,                           
            and  the  department  may   only  impose                           
            disciplinary actions that are no greater                           
            than  those   imposed  by  a   court  of                           
            competent  jurisdiction,  nor   may  the                           
            department   impose   any   disciplinary                           
            action that extends beyond the limits of                           
            a judgment  of conviction  imposed by  a                           
            court of competent jurisdiction.                                   
  Page 12, line 2:                                                             
       Delete "20" and insert "30"                                             
  Page 15, line 2:                                                             
       Replace "is" with "may be held"                                         
  Page 15, line 4:                                                             
       After "guide" insert:                                                   
            if  there  is a  demonstrable complicity                           
  Page 15, line 8                                                              
       After "transporter" insert:                                             
            if  there  is   demonstrable  complicity                           
  Page 16, add to definition section:                                          
            'guide-use area' means a game management                           
            unit or sub-unit as defined by the board                           
            of game                                                            
            'major violation' means:                                           
                 (1) hunting the same day as airborne                          
                 (2) wanton waste                                              
                 (3) hunting in a closed area                                  
                 (4) taking game during a closed season                        
  Mr. Woods advised  that with incorporation of  the foregoing                 
  changes, he  felt he  could work  well "within  this set  of                 
  Senator Zharoff raised  a question regarding the  meaning of                 
  "demonstrable  complicity."   Co-chairman  Halford explained                 
  that it relates to guide  responsibility for the actions  of                 
  his or her employees.  Current  law imposes a high standard.                 
  The proposed  language  requires that  complicity be  shown.                 
  JEFF  BUSH,  Deputy  Commissioner,  Dept.  of  Commerce  and                 
  Economic Development,  came before committee  in response to                 
  the question.  He said he did  not know if there is a  legal                 
  standard known as  "demonstrable complicity."   All criminal                 
  provisions  within  the  bill require  knowledge.    He then                 
  voiced his  assumption  that  "knowledge"  would  constitute                 
  "demonstrable  complicity."  He  suggested the  following as                 
  alternative language:                                                        
       Page 15, lines 4 and 8:                                                 
            If the  registered guide knew  or should                           
            have known of the violation.                                       
  In response to a question from Co-chairman Halford, Mr. Bush                 
  noted that the  department is  on record in  support of  the                 
  bill.  He concurred in concerns raised by other  departments                 
  but said he felt comfortable with the legislation.                           
  Senator Phillips advised of the following notes on behalf of                 
  Senator Rieger who had previously left the meeting:                          
       Page 4, lines 9 through 15:                                             
            Concern that language represents an all-or-nothing                 
       Page 15, line 8                                                         
            Change "for" to "of"                                               
       Page 16, between lines 30 and 31:                                       
            Add  a new  sec.  (e) containing  double                           
            fees for non-residents.                                            
  Co-chairman Halford  said he  had no  objection to  doubling                 
  fees.  He  then asked  for the department's  position.   Mr.                 
  Bush referenced  discussion of the  issue with the  Dept. of                 
  Law.    The position  from a  policy  perspective is  one of                 
  support for the concept.  The position from the Dept. of Law                 
  perspective is  that it would  probably be unconstitutional.                 
  Co-chairman Halford asked  why the increased cost  would not                 
  apply  to  guide  licenses  since   it  applies  to  fishing                 
  licenses.  Mr.  Bush noted that  the courts have allowed  an                 
  agency to  charge the "full cost of a licensed activity to a                 
  non-resident" and essentially subsidize residents.   In this                 
  case the  entire cost  is paid  by licensees.   There  is no                 
  state   subsidy.     Co-chairman   Halford  suggested   that                 
  enforcement  and DNR  management of  lands are  part  of the                 
  costs associated  with the  common property  resource.   The                 
  license fee covers only the direct cost of the license.  Mr.                 
  Bush advised that he was not  an expert and deferred further                 
  comment to staff  from the  Dept. of Law.   The  Co-chairman                 
  noted that out-of-state hunters pay more for licenses.                       
  Senator Zharoff noted that  Legislative Research conducted a                 
  brief survey of  ten western states and determined  that six                 
  states, including Alaska,  charge the same licenses  fee for                 
  both resident and non-resident guides.   Utah and Washington                 
  do not license big game guides.  Arizona charges $100.00 for                 
  a resident and $500.00 for a non-resident.  Oregon  requires                 
  registration  rather  than  a  license  for  outfitters  and                 
  guides.    Residents  pay   $50.00,  and  non-residents  pay                 
  according to similar fees in their  own states.  Co-chairman                 
  Halford expressed concurrence  in the higher fee,  saying he                 
  would insert "whatever the Dept. of Law will tell us works."                 
  Mr. Bush said the department would have no problem adjusting                 
  its fees  for non-residents  and residents.   He  cautioned,                 
  however,  that  since  fees pay  for  administration  of the                 
  license program,  the  department  would  need  supplemental                 
  funding should  the issue be  litigated and refunds  to non-                 
  residents be ordered by the courts.                                          
  BETH KERTTULA, Assistant  Attorney General, Natural Resource                 
  Section,  Dept. of  Law, next  came before  committee.   She                 
  referenced ongoing  litigation  over  the  three-to-one  fee                 
  differential in the  limited entry commercial fishery.   The                 
  question is whether the state incurs costs for non-residents                 
  that it does  not incur for  residents.  Ms. Kerttula  urged                 
  that those costs be quantified.                                              
  END:      SFC-96, #63, Side 2                                                
  BEGIN:    SFC-96, #64, Side 1                                                
  Mr. Bush cautioned that there is both a legal risk, in terms                 
  of  justification,  and  a financial  risk--the  higher  the                 
  differential, the  more potential  money  is at  stake in  a                 
  Co-chairman Halford queried members concerning  the ratio to                 
  incorporate  within   the  proposed  bill.    Senator  Sharp                 
  suggested  2 to 1.   Senator Zharoff  expressed a preference                 
  for 3 to 1 but concurred in the suggestion by Senator Sharp.                 
  Due to need to attend the  Senate Floor Session, the meeting                 
  was adjourned at approximately 10:50 a.m.                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects