Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/09/1996 01:50 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 9, 1996
1:50 p.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #70, Side 1 and 2
SFC-96, #71, Side 1 (000-154)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 1:50 p.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairmen Halford and Frank, Senators
Phillips and Rieger were present. Senators Donley, Sharp,
and Zharoff did not attend.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senate President Drue Pearce; Senator
Torgerson; Chris Christensen, Staff Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Jeff Bush, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Commerce
and Economic Development; Juanita Hensley, Chief, Driver
Services, Dept. of Public Safety; Kevin Ritchie, Executive
Director, Alaska Municipal League; Mark Hickey, representing
the Alaska Railroad; Ted Popely, Senate Majority Staff; Kip
Knudson, aide to Representative Hanley; Daniella Loper, aide
to Representative Porter; and aides to committee members and
other members of the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 64 - CONVERT ALASKA RAILROAD TO PRIVATE CORPORATION
Discussion was had with Senate President Pearce
and Mark Hickey. A draft CSSB 64 ("R" version,
4/8/96) and two amendments were adopted. CSSB 64
(Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a SFC
fiscal note for the Dept. of Commerce and Economic
Development showing $900.0 in Alaska Railroad
receipts.
HB 158 - CIVIL LIABILITY
Review of amendments 7 through 16. Amendments 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were adopted.
Discussion of the Court System fiscal note was had
with Chris Christensen. SCS CSHB 158 (Fin) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with accompanying zero
notes from the Dept. of Law, Dept. of
Administration, and Alaska Court System, as well
as a $0.8 note from the Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development.
HB 272 - MUNICIPAL MOTOR VEHICLE TAX
Discussion was had with Juanita Hensley, Kevin
Ritchie, and Kip Knudson. A conceptual amendment
offered by Senator Rieger was adopted. SCS CSHB
272 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
zero fiscal note from the Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs and a $44.5 note from the Dept.
of Public Safety.
HB 335 - BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
Amendment No. 1 was adopted into SCS CSHB 335
(Fin) ("N" version, 3/27/96). SCS CSHB 335 (Fin)
was then REPORTED OUT of committee with a ($49.6)
fiscal note from the Dept. of Fish and Game,
($1.8) note from the Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development, and zero note from the Dept.
of Public Safety.
SCR 29 - DISAPPROVE SETTLEMENT W/FERRY EMPLOYEES
Testimony was presented by Ted Popely. A draft
CSSCR 29 (Fin) (version "G," 4/9/96) was adopted
and REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero SFC
fiscal note for the Dept. of Law.
SENATE BILL NO. 64
An Act relating to the dissolution of the Alaska
Railroad Corporation and providing for a successor
corporation; and providing for an effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 64 be brought on for
discussion. Senator Rieger noted that a hearing on the
bill, last year, revealed that CSSB 64 (TRA) provided for a
change of ownership of the Alaska Railroad in the form of a
stock corporation. The theory behind that was that if sale
of the railroad could not be achieved as a complete one-time
sale of all assets, perhaps the railroad could be sold by
selling shares of stock, over time, without changing the
underlying corporate structure. Since that time, at a joint
Senate Finance and Senate Transportation meeting, an outside
firm made a presentation indicating it was genuinely
interested in purchasing all of the assets. That increased
the level of confidence that a complete sale at one time
could be achieved. The draft CSSB 64 (9-LS0579\R,
Utermohle, 4/8/96) reflects a modified version of an
amendment proposed in Senate Transportation. It calls for
sale of the railroad and prescribes time tables within which
that is to occur.
Senator Rieger referenced scheduled identification of
railroad assets (both those needed for operation and those
which are not). Concern has been raised that "some of the
real estate which belongs to the railroad should not be part
of the sale." The first phase of identification, scheduled
for August, focuses upon the real estate and will identify
what is necessary for operation and what is surplus.
The second date, in October, is the time by which the
Governor will issue a request for proposals for purchase of
the railroad.
The third deadline, February 15, 1997, is the deadline for
reaching agreement with the maker of the most responsive
offer to the RFP.
Senator Rieger next pointed to Page 2, line 10, of the draft
and noted the requirement that the Governor submit the
agreement to the Legislature to provide an opportunity for
Legislative disapproval. It is unclear exactly when the
Governor is required to make the submission. Senator Rieger
suggested that the following additional language
(underlined) be added to line 10 so that the sentence reads:
Upon entering into an agreement to sell the Alaska
Railroad, the governor shall immediately submit
the agreement to the legislature for review during
the regular session of the legislature.
A second concern relates to preparation of a report of the
fair market value of the railroad and when the document
should be made public. A provision could be added to
require that the report remain confidential until after
proposals are received or an agreement is reached. The
reason for the fair market report is to evaluate proposals.
The third issue is whether the legislative branch would want
or should have input into development of the request for
proposals. Senator Rieger subsequently noted Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee ability to review the
classification of assets necessary for operation of the
railroad.
Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of the draft CSSB 64 dated
4/8/96. No objection having been raised, the "R" version
was ADOPTED as CSSB 64 (Fin).
Senator Rieger voiced his belief that only the first of the
three issues raised requires a clarifying amendment. He
then MOVED for adoption of the above-cited language. No
objection having been raised, Amendment No. 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford referenced accompanying fiscal notes
indicating a cost of $800.0 to $1 million for preparation of
the fair market analysis. Senator Rieger acknowledged that
earlier discussion indicated the cost could be as high as $2
million. He suggested it would be prudent for the committee
to accept a fiscal note from the department or railroad or,
in the alternative, write a committee note to provide
funding for the effort.
SENATE PRESIDENT DRUE PEARCE noted that an update provided
last week indicated $2 million would be high.
MARK HICKEY, representing the Alaska Railroad, advised that
the actual figure for the 1983 valuation, conducted by the
United States Railway Association when the state purchased
the railroad, was $863.0. That represented a full valuation
including an appraisal of the real property as well as a
"going concern" assessment with a ten-year window for
operation. That is where the $22 million was derived.
While some baseline data may be usable, the valuation is
twelve or thirteen years old. It is unknown how much data
would be useful to the new valuation. Co-chairman Halford
asked if $900.0 in corporate receipts would be adequate.
Mr. Hickey responded that it should be adequate for the
appraisal. He also noted expenses associated with "running
a process." Senator Rieger expressed concurrence in the
$900.0, saying that conferees could later amend the number
if better information is available. Co-chairman Halford
directed that a Senate Finance Committee fiscal note be
prepared showing $900.0 in non-general- fund railroad
receipts.
Senator Randy Phillips raised a question regarding how the
transfer would affect railroad employees and their
retirement and benefits. Co-chairman Halford suggested that
language at Page 1, subsection (2) would cover the
situation. Senator Phillips termed the retirement system
under federal jurisdiction "unique" and sought clarification
of the status under the proposed sale. Mr. Hickey explained
that, in terms of retirement, the railroad has two classes
of employees:
1. Those who have been with the railroad for a period
of time and fall under the federal program.
2. New employees who joined the railroad following
purchase by the state.
For those in the federal system, it seems clear that the
definition of what constitutes a "state-owned railroad" is
broad enough to include a private entity operating the
railroad. Those employees will continue to participate in
the federal system as long as they remain with the railroad.
They are covered by the previous transfer law.
Newer employees are in a different retirement system
maintained by the railroad. Mr. Hickey said he was less
comfortable commenting on coverage, without additional
information. He voiced his belief that current bargaining
agreements deal with the retirement benefit as a component
of the agreement.
Senator Phillips advised that he would feel more comfortable
adding language relating to retirement agreements. Co-
chairman Halford suggested that "and retirement obligations"
be added to language at Page 1 so that the first portion of
subsection (2) reads:
(2) accept assignment of all contracts, including
collective bargaining agreements and retirement
obligations and agreements with connecting
carriers, shippers . . . .
Senator Phillips formally MOVED for adoption. No objection
having been raised, Amendment No. 2 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger then MOVED that CSSB 64 (Fin) pass from
committee with individual recommendations and the Senate
Finance Committee fiscal note. No objection having been
raised, CSSB 64 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
Senate Finance Committee fiscal note showing $900.0 in
railroad corporate receipts. All members present (Co-
chairmen Halford and Frank and Senators Phillips and Rieger)
signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 158(FIN) am(ct rls pfld)(efd fld)
An Act relating to civil actions; amending Alaska Rule
of Civil Procedure 95.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SCS CSHB 158 (Jud) be
brought back before committee for continued review of
amendments.
Senator Rieger referenced Amendment No. 7, relating to
apportionment of fault, and reiterated comments at a
previous meeting which, he explained, led him to decide not
to offer the amendment.
Senator Rieger directed attention to Amendment No. 8 and
explained that the issue of award of attorney fees is often
raised in the offer of judgment process. He noted that if
the ultimate award is less than the offer of judgment, award
of attorney fees is against the plaintiff. If the award is
greater than the offer, award is against the defendant.
Complications occur surrounding application of interest when
there is a substantial time span between the offer and final
judgment. Amendment No. 8 would require comparison of the
offer to the judgment "at a like time." The court would
thus disregard accrual of prejudgment interest after the
time the offer is made. Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption
of the amendment. No objection having been raised,
Amendment No. 8 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger explained that Amendment No. 9 relates to
situations in which there are two or more defendants, and
one defendant offers to settle but the other or others do
not. As written, the bill excludes ability for one
defendant to settle, even if his or her offer is reasonable.
The amendment would delete that provision. DANIELLA LOPER,
aide to Representative Porter, came before committee. She
said the sponsor did not concur in addition of problematic
language by Senate Judiciary. She concurred in removal per
Amendment No. 9. Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption. No
objection having been raised, Amendment No. 9 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger explained that language at Page 7, line 10,
allows parties to enter into a written agreement to submit
to arbitration.
Present wording speaks to agreement "before the action." He
said he saw no reason why agreement could not be entered
"after" commencing the action. Amendment No. 10 adds that
option. Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption. No objection
having been raised, Amendment No. 10 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger noted that Amendment No. 11 also relates to
arbitration. Under the proposed bill a list of attorneys
with at least five years of civil practice experience would
be eligible to serve as arbitrators. It is not clear
whether attorneys with that experience might, for other
reasons, not be qualified. Language in the proposed
amendment would allow the court to flesh out the
qualifications for those who agree to serve as arbitrators.
Co-chairman Halford called for objections. No objection
having been raised, Amendment No. 11 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger questioned the sentence at Page 8, line 7.
It refers to documents that would be "presumptively
admissible." Amendment No. 12 says that the foregoing
language may not be construed to require that the arbitrator
use or rely on documents when there is reason to doubt the
authenticity or accuracy of the documents. Co-chairman
Halford called for objections. No objection having been
raised, Amendment No. 12 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger said that while Amendment No. 13 appears
lengthy, it is not. He directed attention to Page 18, lines
26 and 27, and noted language specifying that a claim
subject to arbitration is not subject to offer of judgment
provisions. He suggested that while it should not be
subject to the portion of those provisions within AS
09.30.065(b), other portions of the provisions could apply.
Amendment No. 13 thus divides 09.30.065 into part (a) and
part (b). Daniella Loper directed attention to the last
sentence of subsection (b) and suggested that language
relating to two or more defendants be deleted. Senator
Rieger concurred, saying the language was incorporated
within an earlier adopted amendment. Co-chairman Halford
advised that deletion would be considered a technical
amendment to Amendment No. 13 and would be adopted without
objection. Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment
No. 13, as amended. No objection having been raised,
Amendment No. 13 was ADOPTED as amended.
Senator Rieger next directed attention to Amendment No. 14.
He pointed to Page 9, line 22, as well as several instances
on Page 10 and noted reference to "non-employees." Language
within the bill speaks to "staff" and does not read well.
Amendment No. 14 deletes language that makes a contractor a
member of the hospital staff. No objection having been
raised, Amendment No. 14 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger directed attention to Amendment No. 15. He
further referenced language at Page 12, lines 12 through 18,
requiring that rates decrease by 10 percent by December 31,
1999. The amendment would delete that provision. Co-
chairman Halford called for objections. Co-chairman Frank
OBJECTED and asked if the rationale was a reluctance to
dictate pricing in a piece of legislation. Senator Rieger
acknowledged that to be the case, saying the provision was
contrary to free market principles. Co-chairman Frank
removed his objection. In the absence of further objection,
Amendment No. 15 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger directed attention to Page 7, line 8, and
referenced testimony from court system counsel that language
relating to mandatory arbitration might eliminate ability to
"go to small claims court." The Senator suggested that the
following language be added at Page 7, line 8 (after
$100,000 and before the semicolon):
or is eligible for small claims court
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System,
came before committee voicing his belief that the proposed
language "would work." As an alternative, a new subsection
(H) could be added at Page 7, line 19, to say: "is a small
claim under AS 22.15.040." Senator Rieger MOVED for
adoption of the language he proposed, above, as Amendment
No. 16. No objection having been raised, Amendment No. 16
was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Frank referenced a $867.0 fiscal note associated
with arbitration provisions within the bill and asked if
there would be an offsetting reduction in litigation. Mr.
Christensen said that the bulk of the fiscal note reflects
the cost of providing arbitration services for litigants who
are legally indigent. At the present time, 95 percent of
all tort cases settle without going to trial. These cases
are not costly to the system.
Mr. Christensen further commented on effective use of
arbitration in contract and family law cases. The court
system does not believe it is effective in a typical tort
case. Parties can presently engage in arbitration if they
wish to. Virtually none of them do.
END: SFC-96, #70, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #70, Side 2
In response to a question from Co-chairman Halford asking if
the state is required to provide counsel to indigent
individuals in both criminal and civil cases, Mr.
Christensen explained that if
the law says an individual cannot exercise his or her right
to bring a case before a judge and a jury until "they go to
arbitration," the state would have the duty to pay for
arbitration if a person could not afford it.
Co-chairman Halford questioned whether mandatory arbitration
was worth the $867.0. Co-chairman Frank noted that Senator
Taylor included the provision when the bill was before
Senate Judiciary. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding
that when the court system is budgetarily squeezed, the
civil liability system suffers. Part of the fiscal note
probably represents "allowing people to get their cases
heard that, right now, are languishing without ever getting
to court," because of time delays in getting them on the
docket.
Discussion of alternatives to mandatory arbitration followed
among the Co-chairmen and Mr. Christensen.
Additional comments followed by Mr. Christensen concerning
how fiscal note numbers were developed and the share of
arbitration costs to be paid by the state on behalf of
indigent individuals. Senator Rieger noted that fiscal note
funding would make the court system more accessible. He
suggested that is a different issue than paying for free
counsel.
Co-chairman Halford directed attention to mandatory
arbitration language at page 7, line 5, and suggested that
addition of "if requested by one of the parties" following
the word "arbitration" would lessen impact. Mr. Christensen
advised that he could not say what percentage of plaintiffs
or defendants would request arbitration. If the judge were
given the discretion to decide whether or not arbitration
would be valuable, the impact on the state would be
relatively minimal compared to the proposed bill. Judges
would likely not order it in cases where the parties could
not afford the process.
Mr. Christensen told members that arbitrators in Anchorage
have indicated that the form of arbitration contained within
the bill is "about as expensive as arbitration can get." A
retired judge or attorney is needed to draft discovery
orders and findings of fact and statements of law at the end
of the process. Co-chairman Halford voiced a preference for
removing mandatory arbitration from the bill. Co-chairman
Frank concurred. Senator Rieger expressed a preference for
retaining the provision but preventing the most expensive
form.
Senator Rieger MOVED for passage of SCS CSHB 158 (Fin) with
individual recommendation and accompanying fiscal notes. No
objection having been raised, SCS CSHB 158 (Fin) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a $0.8 fiscal note from the
Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development; and zero notes
from the Dept. of Law, Dept. of Administration, and the
Court System. (The Court System note indicated a $862.0
cost commencing in 2001.) All members present signed the
committee report with a "do pass" recommendation.
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 referenced correspondence
from the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development,
Amendment No. 1, and a draft SCS CSHB 335 (Fin) (9-LS1156\N,
Utermohle, 3/27/96).
Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the
"N" version of SCS CSHB 335 (Fin) dated 3/27/96. Co-
chairman Halford provided a review of provisions contained
within the amendment:
Page 6, line 16:
Eighteen years of age is changed to 21 for the class-A
assistant guide license. This individual would actually be
in charge of a camp. The license is the level below a
completely independent registered guide. The age remains at
18 for assistant guide entry into the profession.
Page 6, line 21:
A technical change relating to assistant guiding deletes
"for at least three seasons" and substitutes "during at
least three calendar years." There was need for clarity
concerning whether the three seasons could occur in a
calendar year. Language thus reverted to original statutory
language.
Page 10, lines 10, 19, 22, and 23-25:
The first change at line 10 relates to financial
responsibility. It is unclear whether a licensed guide
working for another guide would have to carry insurance
himself. The amendment clarifies that the person who is
required to carry insurance and proof of financial
responsibility is the guide who has contracted the hunt.
The change at line 19 relates to need for timely action on
the part of the department when violations occur.
Changes at lines 22 through 25 break up areas in which
administrative sanctions apply. Language limits
administrative action to minor infractions while court
action applies to significant infractions.
Page 11, line 12:
A provision is inserted saying that if the court takes
action on a license, the department cannot take action on
the same license for the same infraction.
Page 14, line 27:
A technical change in citation is made.
Page 16, after line 30:
New language allows the department to charge nonresidents
two times the amount of the resident license fee.
Co-chairman Halford noted that licensing of guides is funded
from program receipts. The additional cost assessed against
nonresident guides reflects costs nonresidents are not
paying for the management of lands and resources as well as
other management costs associated with the process. The
two-to-one ratio does not nearly cover management
expenditures by Alaska residents in which nonresidents do
not participate. That is the reason for the difference in
licensing fees.
Brief discussion followed between Co-chairman Halford and
Senator Randy Phillips regarding the age change from 18 to
21.
Co-chairman Halford called for objections to the amendment.
No objection having been raised, Amendment No. 1 was
ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for passage of SCS CSHB 335 (Fin)
with accompanying fiscal notes. No objection having been
raised, SCS CSHB 335 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee
with a ($49.6) fiscal note from the Dept. of Fish and Game,
a ($24.8) note from the Dept. of Public Safety, and a ($1.8)
note from the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development.
Co-chairmen Halford and Frank signed the committee report
with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators Rieger and
Phillips signed "no recommendation."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 272(FIN)
An Act relating to municipal taxation of motor
vehicles; and providing for an effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 272 (Fin) be brought
on for discussion. KIP KNUDSON, aide to Representative
Hanley, came before committee. He reference a proposed
amendment and noted that interested parties would speak to
two issues therein:
1. Ability to dedicate funds
2. The bureaucratic challenge of dedicating the funds
The bill is intended to provide flexibility to
municipalities with regard to taxing ability. At the
present time, only the legislature can establish taxation
rates on motor vehicles. The bill would allow
municipalities to raise rates internally. It is a top
priority of the municipal league. Municipalities that
contacted Representative Hanley's office are intending to
use the measure as a "net zero" issue; if motor vehicle
taxes are raised, the municipality will lower another tax.
Mr. Knudson acknowledged the cooperation of the Dept. of
Public Safety in developing the bill.
KEVIN RITCHIE next came before committee on behalf of the
Alaska Municipal League and Alaska Conference of Mayors. He
directed attention to a letter of support from the league
and stressed that the propose bill is an important tool for
municipalities for the future. Municipalities do not plan
large increases in the tax rate. In the case of the
Municipality of Anchorage, "This is within their tax cap."
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Dept. of Public Safety, came before committee to
respond to questions.
Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 1 and
requested unanimous consent. Both Senator Phillips and Co-
chairman Halford noted questions and asked that the sponsor
speak to the amendment. Senator Rieger remarked that roads
in his area are paid for by a property tax assessment
applied to road servicing. He then referenced
correspondence from the Mayor of Anchorage saying that
passage of the proposed bill would "help communities solve a
nagging problem--which is road maintenance costs."
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the bill would
allow municipalities to raise taxes on residents residing in
road service areas, but there is no mechanism for ensuring
that the money being raised would go to road service areas
in which taxpayers reside. Instead, it represents one more
example of a tax imposed on outlying parts of a municipality
to support the core. The legislature must ensure equitable
distribution of revenues raised for a particular purpose.
The proposed amendment would help ensure that the purpose is
fulfilled.
Co-chairman Halford advised of those who would prefer that
moneys be allocated back against property taxes "that pay
all the bills for everyone else." Senator Rieger
acknowledged the validity of that preference. The Co-
chairman voiced his understanding that every dollar
increase, as a result of the proposed bill, would have "to
come off of property taxes" in the Municipality of
Anchorage. Mr. Knudson concurred in that understanding.
Discussion followed concerning allocation of taxes, using
the Municipality of Anchorage as an example. Senator Rieger
reiterated that the bill could result in taxation of
outlying areas for the purpose of tax relief for the core.
Mr. Knudson acknowledged that while that could happen, it is
up to each municipality to "fix that inequity." Senator
Rieger noted that Amendment No. 1 provides a degree of
comfort. He voiced a lack of confidence in application of
the bill by the Anchorage municipality. He referenced a
clear division on the assembly between Eagle River and South
Anchorage and the "rest of the town." He suggested that a
Chugach, Eagle River, or South Anchorage legislator could
not in good conscience allow the proposed bill to go
forward.
Mrs. Hensley described the present system of department
collection of motor vehicle taxes on behalf of
municipalities. She stressed that the department does not
track road service areas in which vehicle are registered.
That would be a new function not previously performed by the
department, and additional computer programming would be
required. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the
department's responsibility is simply to remit moneys to the
municipality rather than to allocate it service area by
service area. Passage of the proposed bill should not
impact the department. Mr. Knudson advised of indication
that the municipality would be saddled with the computer
work associated with allocation. Municipalities have
advised that it would be difficult and "quite a challenge."
Co-chairman Halford suggested that Amendment No. 1 be
reworded to say that "money received shall be allocated to
area-wide services or tax relief." Moneys would thus flow
to the base and reduce property taxes rather than apply to
the downtown service area or other service areas. That
approach might protect against negative application.
Senator Rieger concurred in the approach but voiced need to
use appropriate terminology for area-wide, so that outer
perimeters of municipalities would be included. He then
MOVED for adoption of a conceptual amendment providing that:
money received by an increase under this section
shall be used to reduce the tax mill rate equally
across the entire borough
Mr. Knudson expressed concern that the foregoing language
might not provide the flexibility sought by municipalities.
Co-chairman Halford called for objections to the conceptual
amendment. No objection having been raised, the conceptual
amendment was ADOPTED in lieu of Amendment No. 1.
END: SFC-96, #70, Side 2
BEGIN: SFC-96, #71, Side 1
Discussion of biennial licensing followed between members
and Juanita Hensley. Both Co-chairman Halford and Senator
Phillips expressed concern that doubling the annual cost in
addition to increased motor vehicle taxes that might be
levied by a municipality would result in a "hefty"
registration fee. Co-chairman Frank stressed the
convenience associated with biennial licensing. Mrs.
Hensley voiced department support for both HB 272 and Co-
chairman Frank's biennial licensing bill.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for passage of SCS CSHB 272 (Fin)
with individual recommendations. No objection having been
raised, SCS CSHB 272 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee
with a $44.5 fiscal note from the Dept. of Public Safety and
a zero note from the Dept. of Community and Regional
Affairs. Co-chairman Frank signed the committee report with
a "do pass" recommendation. Co-chairman Halford and
Senators Phillips and Rieger signed "no recommendation."
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 29
Objecting to the Department of Administration's
settlement with certain employees of the Alaska
marine highway system.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SCR 29 be brought on for
discussion and referenced a draft committee substitute (9-
LS1829\G, Cramer, 4/9/96). TED POPELY, Senate Majority
Aide, came before committee. He explained that the
resolution registers general objection to the settlement
agreement entered between employee members of the Alaska
Marine Highway System and the Dept. of Administration. It
calls for the attorney general to appoint a special
investigator to investigate the actions of the Dept. of
Administration with respect to the settlement, especially
with regard to potential ethical violations under AS
39.52.120. The resolution objects to the settlement on the
grounds that it was entered into inappropriately by the
Dept. of Administration because AS 23.40.215(a) and (b)
require legislative approval of collective bargaining
agreements.
Co-chairman Halford termed the resolution "self-
explanatory." Senator Randy Phillips MOVED for adoption of
CSSCR 29 (Finance). No objection having been raised, CSSCR
29 (Finance) was ADOPTED. Senator Phillips then MOVED that
CSSCR 29 (Finance) pass from committee with individual
recommendations. No objection having been raised, CSSCR 27
(Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero Senate
Finance fiscal note for the Dept. of Law. Co-chairmen
Halford and Frank and Senators Phillips and Rieger signed
the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|