Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/30/1996 10:40 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 30, 1996
10:40 p.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #105, Side 1 (000-575)
SFC-96, #105, Side 2 (575-050)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, reconvened the meeting at
approximately 10:40 p.m.
PRESENT
All committee members (Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and
Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff) were
present.
ALSO ATTENDING: Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General,
Criminal Division, Dept. of Law; Wendy Redman, Vice-
president for University Relations, University of Alaska;
Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison, Dept. of Fish and Game;
Tom Williams, aide to Co-chairman Frank; Fred Fisher and
Kathryn Daughhetee, fiscal analysts, Legislative Finance
Division; and aides to committee members and other members
of the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 215 - OMNIBUS STATE AGENCY OPERATIONS & PROGRAM
Discussion was had with Wendy Redman. Amendments
1, revised 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 as amended, were
ADOPTED. CSSB 215 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a Dept. of Revenue (Treasury) note
showing revenues of $7,065.0; a ($720.0) Dept. of
Fish and Game note; a ($5.3) Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development note; and zero notes from the
Dept. of Natural Resources and Dept. of Revenue
(Income/Excise).
SB 265 - RECEIPTS OF TEST FISHING OPERATIONS
Testimony was presented by Tom Williams. CSSB 265
(Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
($7,731.4) fiscal note from the Office of
Management and Budget, applied to various
departments.
SENATE BILL NO. 265
An Act relating to receipts of commercial fisheries
test fishing operations; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 265 be brought on for
discussion. Co-chairman Frank referenced a draft CSSB 265
(Fin) (9-LS1614\F, Utermohle, 4/29/96) and explained that he
worked with the department to expand the definition of
"program receipts" to accommodate a list of revenue neutral
"restricted program receipts." The intent is not to
unintentionally cut (from the budget) operations that are
self-supporting and not dependent upon general funds. The
proposed draft accomplishes that.
Co-chairman Frank next noted that the draft was also
intended to cover the commercial test fishery contained in
the original bill. The Office of Management and Budget has
since indicated that specific language relating to the
fishery must be added to the draft. Co-chairman Frank thus
referenced a proposed amendment dated 4/30/96. He then
MOVED for adoption of CSSB 265 ("F" version, dated 4/29/96)
including the commercial fisheries test fishing amendment as
a technical correction. No objection having been raised,
CSSB 265 (Fin) was ADOPTED with the accompanying commercial
fisheries test fishing amendment.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED that CSSB 265 (Fin) pass from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. The Co-chairman subsequently remarked that
the fiscal note should be revised to reflect a change in
funding source from general funds to restricted program
receipts.
Senator Sharp raised a question concerning listings that
have not yet been authorized. Co-chairman Frank
acknowledged that the list reflects items in the budget
request. Items would have to be authorized in budget
documents. Mere listing on an attachment to the fiscal note
does not provide that authority. TOM WILLIAMS, aide to Co-
chairman Frank, further advised that the list was prepared
by the Office of Management and Budget. It merely lists
everything funded from designated program receipts and sets
forth potential items that could be impacted.
Co-chairman Halford called for objections to passage of the
bill. No objection having been raised, CSSB 265 (Fin) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a ($7,731.4) note from the
Office of Management and Budget to be applied to various
departments. Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and Senator
Zharoff signed the committee report with a "do pass"
recommendation. Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, and
Sharp signed "no recommendation."
SENATE BILL NO. 215
An Act streamlining the functions of state government,
including authorizing the commissioner of fish and game
to award grants for certain resource activities;
allowing agents selling fish and game licenses and tags
to retain certain compensation; authorizing the
Department of Health and Social Services to award
grants for certain services for developmentally delayed
or disabled children; relating to rabies control and
administration of flour and bread standards by the
Department of Environmental Conservation; repealing the
Athletic Commission, the regulation of boxing and
wrestling, the certification of professional
geologists, and the Water Resources Board; repealing
certain filing statements and bonds for enforcement and
collection of certain taxes; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 215 be brought back
before committee for discussion, referenced Amendment No. 6,
and asked that Wendy Redman speak to the amendment. WENDY
REDMAN, Vice-president, Statewide University System,
University of Alaska, came before committee. She explained
that current law does not allow an employer to require
automatic deposit for employee pay. The proposed amendment
would allow the University to impose that requirement. The
intent is to establish a program with an option that allows
for employees who have no bank accounts. The program would
thus not be absolutely mandatory. Approximately 42 percent
of University employees now utilize automatic deposit. The
hope is to increase usage to 70 percent. University
accountants believe in excess of $100.0 a year can be saved
through use of automatic deposit.
Senator Zharoff expressed concern that perhaps those with
bank accounts may not wish to use that process. He
questioned the wisdom of mandating use. Ms. Redman noted
that 60 percent of University employees have bank accounts.
She acknowledged that many choose to receive a pay check and
do their own banking. She suggested that that ritual is
very expensive. It costs a considerable amount to write the
checks and distribute them throughout the system. The
University seeks to save that money and put it into
programs.
Senator Rieger asked if the proposed amendment would effect
a change for all employers or merely the University. Ms.
Redman replied, "This changes the law for all employers,"
but it does not require it for all employers. The issue
would have to be bargained with collective bargaining units.
The Dept. of Administration asked that language ensure that
"It was optional for everyone else." Co-chairman Frank
sought further clarification of applicability. Ms. Redman
said the statute only applies to public employers. It would
remain optional for all other employers. Co-chairman Frank
sought additional clarification concerning whether the
change would be limited to public employers.
Discussion followed regarding those with accounts at
brokerage houses and whether language was sufficiently broad
to cover a variety of accounts. Ms. Redman responded
affirmatively, advising that the University presently
accommodates distribution of an employee's pay to up to six
accounts. She reiterated that the University policy would
provide exceptions for those who do not have bank accounts.
Co-chairman Halford observed that a reading of AS 23.10
indicates the proposed amendment would apply to all
employers, including private employers. Ms. Redman stressed
that it would be optional. Co-chairman Halford said that
existing law is optional. The proposed amendment would
allow an employer to require direct deposit.
Senator Zharoff asked if the title would require a change to
accommodate application to private employers.
Co-chairman Halford directed attention to a draft CSSB 215
(Fin) (9-GS2023\M, Cook, 4/30/96) and explained that it
incorporates amendments (2 through 5) previously adopted by
committee at the April 23, 1996, meeting. Senator Sharp
MOVED for adoption of CSSB 215 (Fin) dated 4/30/96. No
objection having been raised, CSSB 215 (Fin) was ADOPTED.
The Co-chairman then queried members regarding disposition
of Amendment No. 6. Wendy Redman suggested that if the
committee is uncomfortable in applying amendment provisions
to all Alaskan employers, she would redraft the language
under AS 14.40 (statutes applying to the University) in a
way that would allow the University to impose the
requirement. Co-chairman Frank concurred in need for narrow
application. He then MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment No. 6.
Co-chairman Halford explained that Amendment No. 7 contains
language similar to that adopted in the unincorporated
community grant act with the exception that amendment
language contains a two-year sunset and would only apply to
July 1, 1998. Court cases challenging state jurisdiction
and authority will, hopefully, be decided by that time.
Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 7.
Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. Co-chairman Halford called for a
show of hands, and Amendment No. 7 was ADOPTED on a vote of
6 to 1.
Co-chairman Halford explained that Amendment No. 8 deals
with lobbying contracts by state entities. Co-chairman
Frank MOVED for adoption. Senator Rieger raised a question
concerning salaried employees who also register as lobbyists
and whether they would be prohibited from working on
projects. He pointed specifically to Page 1, line 23, of
the amendment and cited the following language as
problematic:
(1) 'contract with' includes hiring as an
employee;
Co-chairman Halford agreed that the definition appears
overly board. Several suggestions of alternative language
were offered by both Co-chairmen. Co-chairman Frank
stressed that the legislature is interested in hearing from
the executive director and other corporate or agency people
who are knowledgeable about programs. The committee is not
interested in hearing from "the hired gun that's been hired
specifically to come down here and communicate." Senator
Zharoff asked how suggested language would impact
legislative liaisons. Co-chairman Halford explained that it
would depend upon whether liaison work is full time or
incidental to the remainder of the employee's full time
occupation. It would prohibit agencies from contracting
with someone to lobby if lobbying was all the individual
did. The Co-chairman pointed to the representative from the
Alaska Permanent Fund who comes before the legislature. The
individual also deals with other communication and
information functions for the corporation. Co-chairman
Frank suggested that the focus of the amendment is not
hired employees, but contracts with lobbyists who also
represent "a host of other clients."
Co-chairman Halford suggested insertion of "does not include
hiring as a full-time employee" in lieu of "includes hiring
as an employee." Co-chairman Frank MOVED for adoption.
Senator Rieger concurred in the foregoing as long as it is
not construed "that you had to use the full-time employee
strictly for lobbying the legislature." Senator Rieger then
suggested the following amendment to Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 23: Following 'contract with'
Delete: includes hiring as an employee
Insert: does not include regular employment
Co-chairman Frank WITHDREW his motion. Senator Rieger then
formally MOVED for adoption of the foregoing amendment to
Amendment No. 8. No objection having been raised, the
amendment to Amendment No. 8 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford called for objections to adoption of
Amendment No. 8. No objection having been raised, Amendment
No. 8 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford advised that Amendment No. 9 relates to
procurement by the Alaska Railroad. Co-chairman Frank MOVED
for adoption. No objection having been raised, Amendment
No. 9 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford next directed attention to Amendment No.
10. Senator Sharp explained that the amendment would extend
present subsistence law scheduled to expire this fall. Co-
chairman Halford voiced need to review pertinent session law
relating thereto.
Senator Zharoff asked that committee discussion revert to
consideration of Amendment No. 1 and MOVED that the
committee rescind its earlier action failing to adopt the
amendment. Co-chairman Halford advised that he had no
objection to the motion to rescind but advised he remained
opposed to the amendment which would provide grant authority
to the Dept. of Fish and Game. He then asked that staff
from the department speak to both Amendments 1 and 10.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Dept. of Fish and Game,
came before committee.
END: SFC-96, #105, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #105, Side 2
Mr. Bruce explained that subsistence law was extended last
year and is again scheduled to expire in October of 1996.
It thus requires extension this year as well. The
department supported extension last year and would again
support a simple extension with no changes.
Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that the intent
of Amendment No. 10 would be to repeal the sunset without
making any other changes in subsistence law. Senator Sharp
concurred, adding that he would not object to establishment
of another sunset.
LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Dept. of Law, next
came before committee. She voiced her understanding that
legislative attorneys have advised that the proposed bill
violates the constitutional single-subject provision. When
the original bill relating to streamlining of state
government was introduced, the Dept. of Law took the
position that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Amendments offered and adopted by committee involving
banking for University employees, subsistence, funding for
tribal entities, and lobbying activities place the bill in
violation of constitutional provisions. The net result will
be that the entire bill and all its provisions would be
struck down by the courts. While the state has never struck
down law on that basis, there has never before been a law as
broad and touching on so many subjects. Ms. Otto cautioned
that the committee appears to be adding provisions relating
to "groups that are particularly litigious." She expressed
concern that the committee was spending much time on a piece
of legislation containing important provisions but which was
being set up to be stuck down by the courts. She said the
Dept. of Law has now joined the opinion expressed by
legislative attorneys and has reach the conclusion that the
bill, as amended during the present meeting, is
unconstitutional.
In response to a comment by Co-chairman Halford, Ms. Otto
explained that the title does not put the public on notice
of what the bill addresses. Amendments have resulted in a
bill that does not withstand constitutional scrutiny. That
has nothing to do with the merits of the amendments.
Co-chairman Frank asked that the meeting be briefly
recessed.
RECESS - 11:10 P.M.
RECONVENE - 11:20 P.M.
Co-chairman Halford again referenced Amendment No. 10. He
then noted repealers covering an "amazing array" of titles
and statutes (incorporated within the bill as introduced by
the Governor) and acknowledged that additional amendments
"stretch it even further." Senator Sharp advised of his
understanding that legislation extending subsistence law is
pending in House Rules. He then WITHDREW Amendment No. 10.
Co-chairman Halford then referenced Senator Zharoff's motion
to rescind action failing to adopt Amendment No. 1 and
called for objections. Senator Zharoff explained that the
amendment would provide the Dept. of Fish and Game authority
to work with private landholders or other entities to
restore fish habitat. Geron Bruce said that provisions
within the amendment were prompted by legislative
appropriation of two sources of funding for work on the
Kenai River. A portion of the money was to be used to work
with private land owners on demonstration grants on land
fronting the Kenai. The effort was to protect habitat. In
the process of administering the program, the department
found it did not have grant authority and thus had to go to
a third party for award. The proposed amendment would
provide the department with ability to directly award grants
in areas where the legislature appropriated money for
specific grant purposes. Mr. Bruce said he worked on the
language with Senate President Drue Pearce as well as
members of the Senate Resources Committee. Wording is
intended to be limiting and maintain legislative oversight.
Senator Sharp voiced his recollection that revised, more
narrowly tailored language was to be developed rather than
reverting to Amendment No. 1. He said he objected to the
broad nature of authority that covers delegation of
management. He advised he had no objection to habitat
improvement efforts involving private land owners or other
organizations. Original language appeared to delegate
everything the Dept. of Fish and Game could do through
grants. Mr. Bruce said that the intent was that control and
direction of funds would occur in the appropriation process.
Authorizing language was then to be sufficiently broad to
reach "a number of the kinds of things that the department
did, if you so desired."
SENATE PRESIDENT DRUE PEARCE next came before committee.
She explained that the legislature appropriated $1 million
in federal receipts and a match from EVOS moneys for Kenai
River habitat projects. In the appropriation for federal
receipts, subsection language said the Dept. of Fish and
Game could make a transfer of grants directly to the Kenai
Peninsula Borough for demonstration projects on private
land. The borough subsequently had difficulty with an
ordinance relating to Kenai River management. In the end,
the borough did not have direct authority to accomplish the
projects, and language within the appropriation bill did not
permit the Dept. of Fish and Game to conduct the projects.
The proposed amendment would allow grants for approved
projects to be made directly to private land owners.
Further discussion followed regarding citations for the
above-referenced Kenai River projects. Laurie Otto again
cautioned regarding violation of the constitutional single-
subject provision. Co-chairman Halford acknowledged that
the committee and legislative attorneys would have to work
on an all-inclusive, single-subject title. He further
acknowledged that items may have to be removed from the bill
if it is to be workable.
Referencing concern by Senator Sharp regarding the broad
nature of amendment language, Senator Pearce noted that it
is "much less broad" than language removed from the bill
when it was in Senate Resources Committee.
Senator Donley MOVED for adoption of a conceptual amendment
to Amendment No. 1 that would limit authority to the two,
specifically cited, appropriations for Kenai River projects.
Senator Zharoff asked if the conceptual amendment would make
language too restrictive for the original intent of
Amendment No. 1. Mr. Bruce responded negatively. He noted
an immediate need to deal with funds relating to the Kenai
River. He then voiced his belief that the concept embodied
within Amendment No. 1 could be applicable to a broader
range of projects, subject to legislative appropriation.
The department would like to have that authority. Co-
chairman Halford asked that the conceptual amendment contain
leeway to utilize date restrictions should SLA citations
prove to be a problem. He stated that the intent is to deal
with specifically noted appropriations and not create the
broad authority embodied in the original amendment. He then
called for objections to the conceptual amendment. No
objection having been raised, the conceptual amendment to
Amendment No. 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford next queried members regarding action on
Amendment No. 1. He explained that, as amended, it would
authorize the department to make grants from the two funding
sources defined by SLA citations, statute numbers, or
specific dates. No objection having been raised, Amendment
No. 1 was ADOPTED as amended.
Co-chairman Frank asked that committee attention revert to
Revised Amendment No. 6. He explained that it would now be
limited to the University, and an employee would have the
right to request an exemption from the direct deposit
requirement.
In response to a question from Senator Randy Phillips, Wendy
Redman explained that when the University hires a new
employee, information relating to direct deposit and
exemptions would become part of the normal paperwork.
Existing employees would be sent correspondence notifying
them of the change and furnishing an exemption form should
they choose to make that request. Ms. Redman reiterated
that the University would not have requested the change if
substantial cost savings were not to accrue. Co-chairman
Frank formally MOVED for adoption of Revised Amendment No.
6. Co-chairman Halford voiced his OBJECTION, and then
called for a show of hands. The motion CARRIED, and Revised
Amendment No. 6 was ADOPTED.
Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 11. He
explained that it would fall within the title and allow a
vendor of fish and game licenses to assign compensation
earned as an agent to a non-profit fish or game association
and to notify the Dept. of Fish and Game of such action.
The commissioner would retain 25 percent of the assigned
compensation for costs associated with assignment. The 25
percent would flow to the "regular state fish and game
fund." Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that moneys
would accrue to the fund that could be used for the broadest
range of activities. Senator Sharp concurred. Co-chairman
Halford noted his OBJECTION. No further objection having
been raised, the Co-chairman advised of ADOPTION of
Amendment No. 11 on a vote of 6 to 1.
Geron Bruce referenced Page 7, line 27, of CSSB 215 (Fin)
and noted need to delete a repealer (AS 16,05.390(c))
relating to Amendment No. 11. Co-chairman Halford queried
members regarding objection to deletion of the repealer as a
conforming amendment to Amendment No. 11. No objection
having been raised, reference to "AS 16.05.390(c)" was
deleted from Section 17 of the bill.
Co-chairman Frank directed attention to Amendment No. 12
which he explained relates to annual six-year plans within
the Dept. of Education. He further acknowledged a proposed
amendment to Amendment No. 12, by Senator Donley, and
explained that it relates to unhoused students. Co-chairman
Frank then MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 12 and
requested unanimous consent. Senator Donley MOVED for
adoption of his amendment to Amendment No. 12. In response
to a question from Senator Zharoff, Senator Donley explained
that his amendment to the amendment contains the exact
language adopted by committee for incorporation within SB
244. It requires that students in temporary, relocatable
facilities be counted as unhoused, statewide. Co-chairman
Halford called for objections to adoption. No objection
having been raised, the amendment to Amendment No. 11 was
ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford next voiced his OBJECTION to Amendment
No. 12 and asked if there were additional objections. No
further objection having been raised, Co-chairman Halford
declared Amendment No. 12 ADOPTED on a vote of 6 to 1.
Senator Donley remarked that when SB 244 was sent to the
House, it contained a provision regarding equal
reimbursement for transportation. He then voiced his
understanding that it was subsequently removed and said it
now appears that something intended to provide fairer
reimbursement has been turned "into an even worse negative."
The Senator advised that he was considering offering an
amendment that would create a maximum differential between
school districts for reimbursement of pupil transportation
per the following language:
Any differential between school districts in the
level of reimbursement for transportation provided
by a school district shall not exceed 10 percent.
That would provide a range within which the department could
work, based on actual costs, but the department could not
exceed 10 percent in discriminating among school districts
for expenses. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that
the foregoing language would not relate merely to the
differential between private and public bus transportation
within a district but to all reimbursement statewide.
Senator Donley concurred.
Co-chairman Frank remarked on need to attend the upcoming
floor session and referenced need for substantive discussion
with the Dept. of Education prior to taking action on
reallocation of transportation moneys. Senator Donley said
he would not offer the amendment at this time. Co-chairman
Halford voiced support for the language, but suggested that
Senator Donley find a different vehicle.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for passage of CSSB 215 (Fin) with
individual recommendations and appropriate fiscal notes. No
objection having been raised, CSSB 215 (Fin) was REPORTED
OUT of committee with a Dept. of Revenue (Treasury) note
showing revenues of $7,065.0; a ($720.0) Dept. of Fish and
Game note; a ($5.3) Dept. of Commerce and Economic
Development note; and zero notes from the Dept. of Natural
Resources and Dept. of Revenue (Income/Excise). Co-chairman
Frank and Senator Sharp signed the committee report with a
"do pass" recommendation. Co-chairman Halford and Senators
Donley and Phillips signed "no recommendation." Senator
Rieger indicated need for amendment, and Senator Zharoff
signed "do not pass (Titanic)."
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:00 midnight.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|