Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/21/2002 09:36 AM 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
February 21, 2002
9:36 AM
TAPES
SFC-02 # 13, Side A
SFC 02 # 13, Side B
SFC 02 # 14, Side A
SFC 02 # 14, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Pete Kelly convened the meeting at approximately 9:36 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice Chair
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Donald Olson
Also Attending: SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT; REPRESENTATIVE FRED
DYSON; EDDIE JEANS, School Finance Manager, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Education Support Services, Department of
Education and Early Development; DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive
Director, Alaska Council of School Administrators; DARWIN PETERSON,
staff to Senator Torgerson; SALLY SADDLER, Business Development
Specialist/Legislative Liaison, Division of International Trade and
Market Development, Department of Community and Economic
Development; CHIP DENNERLEIN, Director, Division of Habitat and
Restoration, Department of Fish and Game; ANNALEE MCCONNELL,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor;
Attending via Teleconference: From Fairbanks: TIM DORAN,
President, Alaska Association of Elementary School Principals, and
Principal, Denali Elementary School; From Off-Net Site: DEBBIE
OSSIANDER, Member and Legislative Chair, Anchorage School Board;
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of
History and Archaeology Alaska Historical Commission, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources; From
Anchorage: WILL ABBOTT, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska; GARY PROKOSCH, Water Resources Section, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources; JACK HESSION,
Alaska Public Water Coalition
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 11-COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of Education
and Early Development and representatives from school districts.
The bill was held in Committee.
SB 140-SMALL WATER-POWER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of
Community and Economic Development, the Department of Fish and Game
and the Alaska Public Water Coalition. The bill was held in
Committee.
HB 349-AGENCY PROGRAM AND FINANCIAL PLANS
The Committee heard from the sponsor and the Office of Management
and Budget. The bill was held in Committee.
HB 96-ACQUIRING JESSE LEE HOME
The Committee heard from the Department of Natural Resources. An
amendment was adopted and the bill moved from Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 11
"An Act relating to the legal age for attending school; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor, testified this legislation is in
response to conversations he had with the principal of an
elementary school located in his district. He was told of parents
enrolling their children in school at age six, although the
mandatory school age requirement is age seven. He stated the
problem arises when some of these six-year-old students attend
class inconsistently and the school has no authority to require
attendance. He said this causes a hardship for the teachers, who
invest time and resources attempting to "keep these children up to
speed" with the rest of the class.
Senator Therriault indicated the benefits of early education and
informed this bill lowers the mandatory attendance age from age
seven to age six. He stressed this legislation does not amend the
list of 12 exemptions currently in statute that allow parents to
withhold their children from the public education system. He gave
illness, home schooling, and private schooling as examples of the
exemptions.
Senator Therriault spoke to misconceptions that this bill negates
the exemptions and requires all children in Alaska to enter the
public school system. Rather, he remarked, this legislation,
stipulates that once a child is enrolled in the public school
system, that child must attend. He emphasized the intent is that
parents do not treat the school system as a convenient day care
system, or baby-sitter, for six year olds.
Senator Therriault pointed out the effective date contained in the
bill that was introduced in the first session of the Twenty-Second
Legislature, must be amended to reflect the current year.
Senator Olson asked the affect on those children who attend private
school or who are home schooled.
Senator Therriault replied this legislation only applies to
children in public school and has no impact on private schools or
home school systems. He stated that the parents in these instances
are utilizing their own financial resources rather then public
funds. He reiterated the intent is to minimize the impact on a
public school classroom caused from a student who has missed a
significant amount of school because of the amount of time the
teacher must refocus toward that student.
TIM DORAN, President, Alaska Association of Elementary School
Principals, and Principal, Denali Elementary School, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks to strongly support the change for
mandatory school attendance to age six. He noted the average seven-
year-old is in second grade and because this is the earliest age of
mandatory attendance, a child could begin school for the first time
two years behind his peers. He spoke to the physical and
developmental levels of seven-year-olds compared to five and six
year olds.
Mr. Doran stressed that starting children in school at age six
would give educators "a real benefit in working with parents
throughout first grade and even kindergarten." He stated that
studies show that exposure to the school environment at an earlier
age has an impact on a student's future education.
Mr. Doran gave examples of his experiences teaching in both rural
and urban schools. He told of the disadvantages some children face
when they do not attend school until a later age. He stressed that
under current law, school districts could not require these
children to attend school.
Mr. Doran also noted the name of the Department of Education was
changed a few years prior to add Early Development. He saw this
bill "as another way for us to really promote good solid early
education for kids; really helps them in the process as we are all
trying to be accountable for the education for students throughout
the community, not just within the school system."
Co-Chair Donley surmised the witness' main concern is that once
children are enrolled in the public school system, they are at the
same level as other students. He expressed that to achieve this
goal, the mandatory attendance age does not have to be lowered. He
suggested requiring that attendance is mandatory for those enrolled
students, regardless of their age.
Mr. Doran agreed Co-Chair Donley's recommendation would address the
issue of student attendance. He remarked that currently the school
district has no authority in enforcing truancy rules for those
students below the age of seven.
Co-Chair Donley stressed the legislature has the ability to "re-
craft the law" to require attendance of those children who are
enrolled, yet still allow parents the flexibility to determine when
their children should begin school.
Mr. Doran agreed this would be beneficial to students who have
enrolled, but would not benefit those children who do not begin
school before the age of seven. He stressed the disadvantage of
children who have no early schooling then enter the school at a
later age then their peers. He clarified the issue is not with
parents who chose to home school their children, but for those
children who receive no education.
Co-Chair Kelly stated there are two issues involved. The first
relates to parents who treat the school system as a day care
center, "which interrupts the education process." The other, he
said, relates to the best age to begin education. He understood the
sponsor is intending to address the first, more practical, issue.
Senator Therriault affirmed and noted this legislation does not
affect the exemptions for delaying schooling. He expressed, "those
12 things pretty much cover anything" and if a parent wants their
child out of school at least one of the exemptions could apply.
Senator Therriault reiterated this legislation addresses those
parents who enroll their child in school but then do not have the
child attend regularly. He stated the language is the "cleanest"
way to address the issue.
Co-Chair Donley referenced the list of exemptions and noted they
are broad. He asked about regulations that interpret the statute.
EDDIE JEANS, School Finance Manager, School Finance and Facilities
Section, Education Support Services, Department of Education and
Early Development, testified there are no regulations that further
interpret the 12 exemptions.
Co-Chair Donley asked which exemption would apply if a parent
"simply didn't feel their child was ready to attend school."
Mr. Jeans listed number 12: the child is educated in the child's
home by the parent or legal guardian. He explained there are no
specific requirements as to what kind of education must be
provided.
Co-Chair Donley asked if there are interpretations of the quality
of education imposed by the Department of Education and Early
Development or local school districts.
Mr. Jeans was unaware of any.
Co-Chair Donley asked if school districts or the Department of
Education and Early Development have authority to impose such
requirements.
Mr. Jeans answered the Department could adopt regulations.
Mr. Jeans suggested consideration of other statutes relating to age
requirements in education, specifically AS 14.03.070 commonly known
as the School Age Law. He detailed the provision identifies
children between the age of six years by August 16 and 20 years,
th
who have not completed the 12 grade. Therefore, he said amending
the compulsory attendance age from seven to six years old, "makes
sense to me." He noted kindergarten is not required in Alaska.
Senator Ward asked how many children started school last year at
the age of seven.
Mr. Jeans answered he did not have this information.
Senator Therriault cited the most recent data available from 1995
showing that of the total population, 98.7 percent of children
between the ages of seven to nine were enrolled in school and that
96 percent of children aged five and six were enrolled in school.
Senator Ward wanted to know how many children begin school at age
seven. He understood the 1995 figures, as well as Mr. Doran's
experience with one student, but stated they do not describe the
problem.
Mr. Jeans noted the Department has records of the number of
students enrolled, but does not monitor the number of seven-year-
olds enrolled for the first time,
Co-Chair Donley shared he had reviewed AS 14.03.070, which is a
definition of "school age". He asked if this definition serves any
function in other statutes.
Mr. Jeans replied the purpose of the definition is for providing
state funds for public schools. He referenced AS 14.03.080 as
stipulating the right to attend school without the payment of
tuition. He noted one provision of the right to attend school,
allows a child to attend kindergarten at the age of five years.
Co-Chair Donley clarified that AS 14.03.070 is utilized for
financial purposes only and does not relate to the policy
established in AS 14.03.010, which sets the mandatory age.
Mr. Jeans affirmed but noted this legislation would align the two
statutes.
Senator Therriault stressed the parent's flexibility of when a
child attends school is not removed. He reiterated the child could
attend kindergarten at age six, or the parent could utilize one of
the 12 exemptions and withhold the child from school until the age
of seven.
Senator Therriault stressed the expenditure of efforts to
accommodate those students who only periodically attend school. He
understood and sympathized with other efforts to enroll all
children in school at an earlier age, but qualified that is not the
purpose of this legislation.
Co-Chair Kelly asked for clarification, noting that if a parent
does not take advantage of one of the 12 exemptions, the child
would be required to be enrolled in school at the age of six.
Senator Therriault emphasized that a parent, who does not want
their child to attend school until the age of seven, could take
advantage of one of the exemptions. He reiterated the 12 exemptions
are "all encompassing."
Co-Chair Kelly agreed with Co-Chair Donley's suggestion to amend
the language to provide that once a child is enrolled, attendance
is mandatory, regardless of age. Co-Chair Kelly commented that
parents, who determine their six-year-old is not ready for school,
must attest to one of the exemptions, essentially "making a liar
out of them." Although he assumed some form of instruction would be
provided by the parent during this time, he questioned whether this
is "in the spirit" of these exemptions. He asked if the sponsor
would oppose such an amendment.
Senator Therriault replied such an amendment would be "workable"
although it would be "less clear" in statutes.
Mr. Jeans cautioned the Committee against such action because
currently there is no kindergarten attendance requirement, and this
legislation would set the precedent of mandatory kindergarten. He
spoke to reimbursable transportation issues involved in full-day
and half-day kindergarten programs.
Co-Chair Kelly acknowledged and suggested language could be drafted
to accommodate these concerns.
Senator Therriault asked if this would require the school district
to track the enrollment date for children who transfer schools
within the district.
Co-Chair Kelly understood this is required already.
Senator Green asserted none of these issues are pertinent because
at any time a parent could remove their children from the public
school system, and educate them how they see fit. She said this
language would further restrict parents because once enrolled, a
student could not be transferred to different education settings.
She told of tutoring children suffering from learning difficulties
and their movement from school to school.
Co-Chair Kelly did not agree.
Co-Chair Donley offered to draft language to address these
concerns, which could be discussed on their merits.
Co-Chair Donley was encouraged the Department of Education and
Early Development does not have regulations in place at this time.
However, he pointed out the Department does have such authority and
was concerned that a future governor could be opposed to home
schooling and could adopt regulations to restrict home schooling,
which he emphasized is very important to many Alaskans.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member and Legislative Chair, Anchorage School
Board, testified via teleconference from an off-net site in support
of the bill. She informed the Board has passed a resolution in
favor of lowering the mandatory age for school attendance, which is
important for the "academic preparation of children". She detailed
state and locally adopted performance standards that establish high
criteria for mathematics, reading and writing for children ages
five through seven. She listed the language and reading
expectations of young children and the difficulties children
without adequate preparation could have in obtaining these skills.
Ms. Ossiander also spoke to the intent of instilling the importance
of regular school attendance at an early age. She said this is
difficult to encourage when attendance is required of some but not
of others.
Ms. Ossiander told of children who entered the school system for
the first time at the age of seven with no other education
experience and the difficulties in placing these children. She
referenced the Bush Administration focus on the importance of early
education.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, testified in Juneau that superintendents are on
record in support of this bill. He stressed the need to focus on
what is in the best interest of children. He cautioned, "it we put
too many vagaries in here," the matter could become too complex at
the school level. He supported the mandatory age change from seven
to six years of age, asserting the average six and seven year old
is different today then when this provision was originally enacted
prior to statehood. He explained six-year-olds "from a social and
education standpoint" need to be in school noting that they learn
faster then six-year-olds did a decade before. He stated research
supports this. He qualified that if a child needs to delay starting
school for certain reasons, it would still be allowed.
Co-Chair Donley asked the process for enrolling a child in home
school.
Mr. Hargraves was unsure but noted the process for six-year-olds
would be the same as for seven-year-olds. He understood statute
requires that parents must notify the school district of their
intent to home school their child.
Co-Chair Kelly stated there are concerns within the Committee about
changing the school age. He assigned Senator Leman to draft an
amendment that would satisfy the sponsor's intent to require
attendance of enrolled students without changing the mandatory age
requirement.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 140
"An Act relating to regulation and licensing of certain water-
power development projects."
DARWIN PETERSON, staff to Senator Torgerson read a statement into
the record as follows.
th
In the 106 Congress, Senator Murkowski sponsored Senate Bill
422 amendment the Federal Power Act to provide for Alaska
state jurisdiction over small hydroelectric projects. This
legislation transferred to Alaska, and only the state of
Alaska, licensing and regulatory authority over hydroelectric
projects that are 5,000 kilowatts or less.
Bringing this regulatory authority closer to home will reduce
the great time and expense associated with federal licensing
and regulation of small hydro projects in Alaska. The time and
money required for federal licensing is virtually prohibited
for some small utility and personal projects.
Before Alaska can acquire jurisdiction from FERC (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission), the Legislature must approve
this bill and the Governor must submit a program satisfying
FERC's regulatory requirements. As SB 140 is currently
drafted, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska would be the
regulatory agency responsible. All the current environmental
protections required under federal law will still apply and
cannot be preempted by this legislation.
Senator Wilken referred to Section 1(b)(2)(E) on page 2, line 9 of
the bill and questioned the necessity of the language, which
includes "the interest of Alaska Natives" as one of six criteria
that must be given "equal consideration" in the establishment of a
regulatory program.
Mr. Peterson referred to the set of criteria included in the
federal enabling legislation [copy on file] that Congress has
established the state must meet before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) would authorize transfer of regulatory
authority to the state. Included in this criterion, he pointed out,
the interest of Alaska Natives is specifically listed. He was
unsure why Congress chose this language, but asserted that by not
"mirroring the federal enabling legislation," transfer could be
denied.
SFC 02 # 13, Side B 10:24 AM
Senator Wilken understood the need for this legislation to be
identical to the federal law; however, he argued that no
consideration is given to the private landowner unless that
landowner is Alaska Native. He noted the other considerations
include protection of the environment, recreation activities, and
energy conservation and asserted the omission of landowners
represents "a gap". He proposed that additional language be added
to this subsection to require equal consideration for nearby
residents and landowners.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if "the interest of Alaska Natives is defined
somewhere" that the Committee could reference.
Mr. Peterson was unsure but surmised there could be a process
contained elsewhere in FERC regulations for addressing the interest
of landowners. He deferred to the next witness.
WILL ABBOTT, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage that he could offer no
explanation either. He stated that the process to establish
regulations for this program would have to define the matter.
Co-Chair Kelly clarified the process of adopting regulations would
have to consider the interest of Alaska Natives, and only once
regulations are adopted, would those interests be determined. He
again asked if there is no definition already in place.
Mr. Abbott stated that is his understanding, but qualified he does
not have definitive knowledge because the program is new to the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). He stated that FERC must
define the language, pointing out the federal law "leaves an awful
lot of authority with FERC" in that this agency could approve or
not approve, the state regulations.
Co-Chair Kelly was more concerned that a Native organization or an
Alaska Native individual could argue that a proposed project is not
in its best interest and the project would be denied on that basis.
Mr. Abbott predicted such an argument would be considered equally
along with the other criterion relating to mitigation of wildlife,
the environment, and etc., during the process of licensing a
hydroelectric project. He stated the decision would then be made by
the RCA.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked that an African-American, a Filipino, or
white person would not have the same input. He commented, "Sounds
like Alabama 1952 in reverse."
Senator Olson informed there is a federal definition of "interest
of Alaska Natives". He understood Senator Wilken's concerns
regarding landowners, but ascertained other issues beside land
ownership are involved.
Senator Ward shared that initially, he approved of the equal
consideration granted to Alaska Natives. He asked if shareholders
th
of the 13 Region of the Alaska Native Lands Claim Act (ANLCA),
those Alaska Natives who do not reside in Alaska, are included in
this provision.
Mr. Abbott guessed the criteria would apply to those Alaska
Natives, but stressed that all parties would have an opportunity to
comment during the licensing process. He stated that how much
weight is given to each argument would be the decision of the
Commission.
Senator Ward asked if a project were challenged by any of these
shareholders, as not in their best interest, whether Alaska would
be in violation of federal law if the arguments were ignored.
Mr. Abbott predicted this could be the case.
Senator Ward asked if SB 140 could be "corrected" to eliminate the
potential for "non-residents controlling resources in Alaska."
Mr. Abbott replied that how much weight is given to each criterion
could be considered.
Senator Ward interjected he did not want the specific interest of
this group of people given any weight because they do not reside in
Alaska.
Co-Chair Donley wanted a sense of the amount of power 5,000
kilowatts generates. He requested an example of the diesel turbines
that supply the City of Bethel.
Mr. Abbott responded the Bethel facility is larger. He
characterized a 5,000 kilowatt project as "relatively small, run of
the river-type" containment dam "with a pipe coming down into the
turbines" but no large dam behind. He gave a project by Lake Clark
as an example, noting it provides the villages of Illiamna, New
Haven and Nondalton with approximately two-thirds of their power.
Another example, he noted, is near Haines and would augment the
Goat Lake Hydroelectric Power source for Skagway and Haines.
Co-Chair Kelly referenced data included in the member's bill files
lists several such projects [copy on file].
Co-Chair Donley asked if the term "five megawatt" originates from
the federal legislation.
Mr. Abbott affirmed and noted five megawatts is the same
measurement as 5,000 kilowatts.
Co-Chair Donley next asked if five megawatts is the maximum size of
a project that would qualify for this program, whether there is a
minimum size requirement that would provide that smaller projects
are exempt from these regulations.
Mr. Abbott answered no, that all projects less than 5,000 kilowatts
are included in the federal law.
Co-Chair Donley asked if there are provisions for exempting any
projects from regulation.
Mr. Abbott said there are not.
Co-Chair Donley next asked the status of federal regulatory reform
legislation under congressional consideration.
Mr. Abbott did not know the status.
Co-Chair Donley asked if SB 140 or the federal enabling act allows
the RCA to modify its regulations in the event the reform
legislation is adopted in order to "lessen the regulatory burden"
on the public.
Mr. Abbott responded the federal enabling legislation contains a
provision to allow the RCA to modify regulations with approval from
FERC.
Senator Olson clarified that currently FERC approval is required
for a one-kilowatt hydroelectric project, such as those found in
mining sites that provide power for only one or two residents.
Mr. Abbott was only familiar with the recent federal enabling
legislation. He reiterated the RCA must consult with FERC to
determine the perimeters of the state authority.
Senator Olson asked if miners operating small systems are currently
in violation.
Mr. Abbott again noted the projects are still under FERC
jurisdiction and that he was unfamiliar with specifics.
Co-Chair Donley noted Congress occasionally exempts hydroelectric
projects from FERC regulations primarily because a local government
owns them. He asked if there are any exemptions in the proposed RCA
program.
Mr. Abbott affirmed there currently are such exemptions, but
informed this legislation does not address the matter and that this
is another issue to be determined with the FERC.
Co-Chair Kelly commented that locally owned projects regulated by
the RCA are exempt.
Co-Chair Donley corrected that some are exempt but others are not.
Co-Chair Donley understood the policy is straightforward regarding
privately owned systems, but that policy differs when government-
owned systems are involved. He wanted consideration for possibly
reducing the amount of regulations for government-owned systems.
Senator Green asked if this legislation should reference the
federal enabling statute, so that in the event regulatory reforms
are enacted, the RCA regulations would be amended automatically.
She said this would eliminate the need for the regulatory amendment
process each time the federal laws are changed.
Mr. Peterson responded this would be acceptable. He noted the only
action necessary to enact this program is a state statute providing
for the transfer of this authority from FERC to the RCA.
Senator Wilken informed that a five-megawatt plant is one-forth the
size of the power plant located on the Chena River in Fairbanks. He
calculated a five-megawatt system would provide enough energy to
power 50,000 100-watt light bulbs. Therefore, he predicted future
projects could be larger then the Committee understood.
Mr. Peterson stated there are currently 53 proposed projects in the
permit application process. Of those projects, he said, 42 are for
projects five megawatts or less.
Senator Ward asked if current regulations apply to small electrical
generating operations on mining claims that do not sell power to
others.
GARY PROKOSCH, Water Resources Section, Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage that FERC allows exemptions for many
small projects in Alaska, including the example Senator Ward
provided.
Senator Ward asked if the new program would remove the exemptions.
Mr. Prokosch replied that if this law passed, the small projects
would be regulated by the state RCA rather then under direct
supervision of FERC. He surmised the implementation regulations
could include exemptions.
Senator Ward expressed that Senator Green's comments are valid.
SALLY SADDLER, Business Development Specialist/Legislative Liaison,
Division of International Trade and Market Development, Department
of Community and Economic Development testified in Juneau and read
talking points as follows.
· Bill calls for RCA to adopt regulations, licenses and
regulate water power plants of 5 mw or less, essentially
creating a state version of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission program. We believe RCA is an appropriate
agency to assume these duties. It does represent an
expansion of their current mission, and accordingly costs
are outlined in our fiscal note and in fiscal notes of
other agencies.
· Administration has an interagency team (Department of
Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Game, CZM, RCA
and Department of Community and Economic Development)
analyzing the bill. Want to share today the common points
emerging from our review.
· We believe development of small hydro projects can
support economic development and improve the
availability/cost of power in rural Alaska. We understand
a state program may have advantages in allowing us to
focus the process on issues pertinent to Alaska.
· When federal legislation was pending, the Governor
supported giving Alaska jurisdiction. At the same time
the Governor recognized that this is a complex
undertaking and we must be sure a state program results
in proper design and construction, and at the same time
protects fish, wildlife and the environment at least as
well, or as rigorously, as does FERC. The Governor also
acknowledged the importance of establishing an
appropriate funding mechanism that could be either a
direct appropriation or be based on a user fee system.
· Each agency fiscal note (RCA, Department of Natural
Resources, and Department of Fish and Game) assumes it
will take two years to develop regulations that will
define program operations. Once state regulations are
recommended, FERC must approve our state program before
ceding authority to the state.
· Costs of operating the program in FY 05 and beyond are a
bit more difficult to estimate. Agencies currently
understand their existing role with FERC process but
expect during the regulations process to outline the
additional duties, statutes and regulatory authority they
may need to operate a program as well as FERC (for
example, FERC has jurisdiction over entire watersheds
while FG currently has oversight only of streambeds.)
· The State of Oregon currently has a hydro project program
that operates in addition to FERC for all hydro projects
in that state, and we will examine their extensive
statutes and regulations, as well as work with FERC, for
ideas.
Senator Ward asked the witness to comment on Senator Green's
suggestion.
Ms. Saddler stated she was not in a position to respond. She noted
however, that some regulations in the existing FERC program "may
not be totally appropriate for Alaska." She understood the intent
of this program change is to "allow us to focus on those that are
Alaska specific." In adopting state regulations, she explained
projects in Alaska would not be subject to all the FERC provisions.
Senator Leman expressed that the state should have the ability to
grant exemptions given that FERC currently does so.
Senator Leman also questioned the "equal consideration" language
discussed earlier. He was unsure if this would be possible,
realistic or appropriate. He noted the provision also does not
allow consideration of other interests that could be involved. He
presumed the state statute could allow for this and remain within
the requirements of the federal law.
Senator Leman then referenced the general funds included in the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources
fiscal notes and asked if federal funding would be provided to
operate the program or whether the only benefit is the transfer of
oversight to the state.
Ms. Saddler responded she understood the RCA would have the
opportunity to develop regulations that could include consideration
for other interests, provided these regulations "meet the intent of
the FERC regulations." She was unsure about the amount of federal
funds available for this program.
Mr. Abbott explained the current process in which FERC does not
collect funds from the applicant until the project is permitted and
begins to operate. At this time, he detailed, a charge is assessed
based on the amount of kilowatts produced. He assumed these
revenues would be allocated to the RCA. He noted the program would
operate using revenue generated from completed projects, although
it is unknown how the program would be funded before any projects
are completed and supplying revenue.
Senator Leman asked if no revenues were generated from projects
proposed but never completed, the state would subsequently not
recover expenses incurred in the permitting process.
Mr. Abbott affirmed.
JACK HESSION, Alaska Public Water Coalition, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage and read a statement into the record
as follows.
The Coalition includes sport fishing groups, conservation
organizations, former members of the Alaska Water Board and
other individuals, all of whom share an interest in the sound
management and proper disposition of Alaska's publicly owned
water resources.
In summary, the Coalition strongly opposes enactment of SB
140, which would establish a state hydroelectric regulatory
program with authority to accept license applications for
hydroelectric projects on state, private, and federal lands in
Alaska, including state and federal conservation system units.
The Coalition supports the continuation of Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission jurisdiction on all lands in Alaska.
Impact on state and national conservation system units
Under SB 140 a state license or exemption from licensing in a
national conservation system unit would be subject to the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture, and
licensing conditions could be imposed. The provision provides
insufficient protection for the national conservation system
units, as a Secretary favoring hydropower could be expected to
endorse projects in the units. The bill does not have a
similar provision for state conservation system units.
Alaska jurisdiction over projects located in federal
conservation system units would be unprecedented; no state
currently has such jurisdiction. Under the Federal Power Act
and other applicable federal law, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission does not accept applications for
hydropower projects located within national parks, wild and
scenic rivers, or wilderness areas, all of which are closed to
new hydropower development.
If a state regulatory authority accepted license applications
for hydropower projects within these national conservations
system, it would be met with intense controversy and
litigation from citizens determined to protect the purposes
and natural values for which these lands were set aside by
Congress. With equal determination, citizens would also defend
state conservation system units from destructive hydroelectric
dams.
The State should not assume the cost of hydropower regulation
SB 140 would establish a state hydroelectric regulatory
program within the Regulatory Commission of Alaska for the
purpose of licensing, re-licensing, exempting from licensing,
and regulating hydroelectric projects of 5 megawatts or less
on all lands in Alaska, with the exception of national study
rivers. The new regulatory program would be modeled after the
licensing requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). To ensure that the state program met these
federal requirements, the program would have to be approved by
FERC.
Putting this state regulatory program in place would require a
professional staff capable of matching FERC's expertise, and a
substantial annual expenditure of state funds. Because the
federal law requires the state's regulatory program to
"…protect the public interest, purposes…and the environment to
the same extent provided by the requirements for licensing and
regulation by [FERC]," the State would be obliged to spend
approximately as much on a regulatory program as FERC now does
for its Alaska regulatory responsibilities. (Emphasis added).
The State's cost could even exceed FERC's if state regulators
accepted applications for dams in national conservation system
units.
To get a realistic estimate of the cost of a state regulatory
program, the Committee should consult FERC on the cost of the
Commission's Alaska regulatory program.
In any event, we question whether it is in the State's
interest to take on a new and costly responsibility when the
State is facing a fiscal crisis and the Legislature is seeking
to reduce, not increase, the cost of state government.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Expanding an existing state bureaucracy such as the Alaska
Regulatory Commission, or creating an entirely new agency or
division in an existing department makes no sense at all when
licensing of hydroelectric projects is being completely
administered by FERC. The "small" hydropower industry, which
was the moving force behind the federal law and now supports
SB 140, has failed to show that FERC's licensing process for
small hydro is flawed or somehow fails to protect the State's
interest in hydropower license procedures. The industry
complains of its costs and the length of the FERC process, but
to our knowledge, the industry has been unable to cite a
single instance of an Alaska license application being denied
by the federal commission.
Ironically, the Alaska Rural Electric Co-Operative
Association, which supports SB 140, had some kind words about
the existing FERC process. In testimony before the Senate
Resources Committee's February 8 hearing on SB 140, Eric
Yould, the Associations's Executive Director, said that "Our
members have taken a certain amount of solace in having a
third independent body, FERC, with the ability to stand up to
the federal and state agencies. We have found ourselves at the
mercy of the state agencies that sometime are not friendly at
all to the very notion of hydro projects and make the lives of
people trying to do this quite miserable." He said that FERC
is a "known" and "trusted" entity that acts as an independent
arbiter.
His observations bear on the fundamental question before the
Alaska Legislature as it considers SB 140: Given that the FERC
process is working satisfactorily, should the State rush to
replace it and assume the financial burden now carried by the
federal government? We think the answer is clearly "no."
Thus as it considers SB 140, we recommend that the Committee
and the Legislature as a whole apply the adage "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it." FERC's program is not broken; the
Commission is adequately carrying out the responsibilities
assigned to it by Congress.
Furthermore, a state takeover of FERC's responsibilities would
amount to a voluntarily accepting an unfunded mandated from
the federal government. By contrast, other federal mandates to
the State are accompanied by substantial federal funds, an
example of which is the generous federal funding of the Alaska
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Thus in order to
adequately fund a state hydropower regulatory program, the
Legislature would be obliged to increase overall state
spending, or take the necessary funds from other vital state
services and programs. Neither course is in the public
interest. Congress's offer of "small" hydropower jurisdiction
is an offer the State should politely but firmly refuse.
In conclusion, a state regulatory program would likely result
in intense controversy if hydropower projects were proposed
for units of the state and national conservation systems.
Because the existing FERC licensing and regulatory process is
performing satisfactorily and at minimum cost to the state
government, it is not fiscally prudent for the State to assume
FERC's responsibilities and costs, particularly at a time of
major shortfalls in state revenues.
We recommend that the Committee take no further action on SB
140.
Thank you for considering our views.
CHIP DENNERLEIN, Director, Division of Habitat and Restoration,
Department of Fish and Game, testified he is a member of the
interagency team referenced by Ms. Saddler. He informed the
Department of Fish and Game is participating in this effort because
the management and resolution of fish and wildlife issues, both in
resource protection and in public use, are "central to the current
FERC process" as well as central to this legislation. He stated the
intent is to establish a state program that "effectively and
efficiently hits the targets."
Mr. Dennerlein pointed out Governor Tony Knowles wrote Congress in
support of the federal enabling legislation and "expressed a few
conditions on funding" including "adequate state authority in
legislation," a source of funding sufficient to ensure "a real
program", and protection of fish and wildlife resources for
Alaskans at least as well as the current process.
Mr. Dennerlein clarified his remarks "support the concept" of
transferring regulatory authority to the RCA.
Mr. Dennerlein noted no hydropower projects proposed in Alaska that
have "passed the basic economic analysis" have been opposed by the
Department. He listed a hydroelectric dam on Kodiak Island as one
major project that had potential impact on fish and wildlife.
Mr. Dennerlein described the duties of FERC including licensing,
economic analysis, due diligence, independent review and serves as
the "coordinating point for all concerns." He continued, the agency
performs monitoring and compliance over the life of projects, as
well as re-licensing existing projects, such as those involving
restoring salmon runs in previously dry creek beds, and ensure dam
safety.
Mr. Dennerlein instructed on the application process and partial
exemptions whereby the applicant agrees to abide by the "resource
agency stipulations" and full exemptions "for relatively benign
projects that do not involve significant federal land interest."
Mr. Dennerlein then detailed the relationship between the
Department and FERC to obtain necessary data for the Department to
make decisions relating to salmon spawning and hydrology. He noted
the Department "helps frame questions" for environmental impact
statements, according to the provision in the Fish and Wildlife
Service Coordination Act. He elaborated on this process giving
examples of determining whether a proposed project impacts marsh
"where the Coho are rearing" and watershed where "the deer hunters
are concerned."
Mr. Dennerlein then spoke to the impacts of this legislation on the
Department listing front-end costs, the permitting process,
operating expenses of the program, participation of the Native
corporations and other Native organizations. He opined that more
work is necessary to avoid an "unintended result." He qualified the
Department supports small hydropower projects, but stressed there
are many affected parties in such a project, many of which are
competing.
Senator Leman asked if this legislation provides specific authority
to allow for partial and full exemptions that are comparable to
those granted by FERC that the witness mentioned.
Mr. Dennerlein answered it does. He indicated the decision would be
deferred to the Department. He was unsure whether federal law would
allow the state to exempt a privately owned project.
Senator Olson asked if this bill would make securing a permit less
cumbersome for small operators and or seasonal users.
Mr. Dennerlein answered, "That's the million dollar question." He
stated the "state is uncertain at this moment." He surmised a
program could be "crafted", which could accomplish this.
Mr. Dennerlein next addressed the fiscal note, stressing it is not
possible to accurately predict the cost of operating this program.
He listed many variables and suggested a consultant with experience
in this matter could be retained. He noted the State of Oregon
operates a similar program, which could be a source for locating an
expert.
SFC 02 # 14, Side A 11:12 AM
Mr. Dennerlein continued speaking to the number of staff required
to establish this program, including a full-time "team leader" and
staff from the Department of Law, Department of Fish and Game and
Department of Natural Resources.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to agency programs and financial plans."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, sponsor, testified this bill would
require the Executive Branch submit to the legislature, a budget
that prioritizes the "activities and outputs" of departments. He
informed he had served on the Municipality of Anchorage Assembly
and that Annalee McConnell, currently director of the state Office
of Management and Budget, while working for the Municipality,
instituted a similar process in that body, which he said has been
effective. He opined the process "has a great deal of utility" and
would provide "another useful tool in our hands."
Representative Dyson relayed that some concerns were raised during
House of Representative hearings on this bill. He gave an example
of two programs that a department determines to have equal
priority. He predicted this would be rectified as the process is
implemented, with an assignment of equal priority as one option.
He noted law mandates some functions and that the Municipality
system included a method for quantifying these programs. In
addition, he noted a process was implemented for identifying
programs that received significant funding contributions from other
sources, such as the federal government.
Representative Dyson qualified this legislation does not require
the Administration to delineate the cost for each item. He shared
that in conferring with Ms. McConnell, she told of frustrations
with the Municipal process in the amount of time and effort spent
identifying all costs for some programs that were undisputed as to
their continuance. He assured this legislation does not require
this expenditure of effort.
Representative Dyson also referenced arguments made in the House
Finance Committee and by the media that the legislature is
responsible for setting budget priorities and he agreed. However,
he stressed that in many instances department personnel is more
knowledgeable on these issues and it is "disrespectful" to not
include them in the process. He emphasized the legislation would
retain the authority to change the priorities submitted by the
Executive Branch.
Representative Dyson summarized the purpose of this legislation is
to, "respectfully get the input from the people who are delivering
the services, have far more experience and frankly are better
qualified to make those judgments than any of us. It's our job to
set the priorities. We deserve to have the best information-best
tools to make those."
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated the criticism raised by the director of
the Office of Management and Budget, is that some programs within
one department have different but equal value. He gave the
Department of Administration as an example, as it implements the
Pioneers' Homes and the Permanent Fund Dividend programs. He asked
if consideration had been given to a different method of
prioritization to accommodate for such instances.
Representative Dyson analogized the Olympic Games pointing out that
if there is a tie in an event, the top two contestants are awarded
gold medals and the third-place finisher receives a bronze medal.
He further described the Anchorage process, which he stated was
done in good faith, although "never ensconced in a law." He told
how that process evolved as necessary.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the sponsor had consulted with the
Department of Law about the constitutionality of this law and
whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to enact it.
Representative Dyson had not.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked he wanted this bill to proceed through the
legislative process, but he was concerned about the separation of
powers involved because "as we've seen in the past, you can't
really make the agencies do exactly what you want; they can just
say no and they have the constitutional authority." He ascertained
that a constitutional amendment might be required before this law
could be enforced. He informed he has introduced a resolution
providing for such a constitutional amendment. He stated HB 349 is
an example of how this constitutional amendment would be
implemented.
Senator Olson referenced the title of the bill and expressed
concern that it is too broad and that unintended changes could be
made to the bill itself.
Co-Chair Kelly pointed out no changes to the bill had been made to
date.
Representative Dyson did not consider this a concern. He noted the
bill drafter at the Division of Legal and Research Services
recommended the title name.
Senator Leman supported the concept of the Executive Branch
prioritizing budget expenditures, but had questions about the
implementation. He referenced programs that operate using funding
sources other then the general fund, which may not have a higher
priority, but could be treated as such because of the alternate
funding.
Senator Leman suggested dividing some programs into "sub-
activities" to clarify their importance. He predicted the
Administration would claim that all activities are important
because the legislature directed the agencies to perform them.
Representative Dyson referenced an example of the Municipality of
Anchorage budget priority provided in the bill packets [copy on
file.] He pointed out the items included "their output," which he
stated make prioritization easier. He assumed most discussion would
involve a few items at the top of the priority list. He asserted
the Committee is "part way there already" with the utilization of
the missions and measures practice as well as impact statements
submitted by department. Practicably speaking, he qualified this
prioritization process would be valuable for evaluating only ten to
15 percent of a department's activities.
Representative Dyson expressed the intent of this bill, "is to
build an even more cooperative working relationship between the
Administration and the legislature." He opined this legislation is
reasonable and that the process itself has been successful under
Ms. McConnell's direction at the Municipality of Anchorage.
Senator Ward asked if any other state practices a similar
prioritization method.
Representative Dyson answered yes, but admitted he did not have
specific information as to which states. However, he stressed, all
businesses and individuals practice some method of prioritizing
expenditures.
Senator Wilken shared Senator Leman's concerns about implementation
and warned "I fear we're going to spend more time worrying about
what is number 35 and whether it should be 45 or 25." He spoke of
operating his own business and the practice of rating expenditures
in categories of ABC. He explained "A" items are those expenditures
that must be made, such as fuel; a "B" item might be a new truck
that should be purchased; and a "C" rating would be given to "the
things we'd like to have" such as painting that new truck. He
suggested this system could be applied to budget request items
(BRU) within the state budget.
Senator Wilken next referenced page 1, lines 6 and 7, "Toward that
end, each state agency shall, on a semi-annual basis, identify
results-based measures…" He said this is currently provided
annually and asked why it should be increased to bi-annual.
Co-Chair Kelly corrected that the reporting is already done semi-
annually as established in statute.
Co-Chair Kelly informed that he requested an "ABC list" of the two
agencies for which he serves as budget subcommittee chair. He
anticipated enacting this statute and then adopting a
constitutional amendment that would, "bridge the legislative and
the Executive Branch."
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor, testified she is very familiar with the
proposed system because she developed it for the Municipality of
Anchorage. She stated she knows the advantages and disadvantages of
the system. She stressed those programs "around the margins" are
the issue.
Ms. McConnell clarified the Municipality system focuses on the
level of service and whether the service should be discontinued as
opposed to which services are of least important. She said this
process "breaks activities into lots of sub-elements."
Ms. McConnell informed that if she were to recreate this system for
the Municipality, she would do it differently because of the time
spent on some unnecessary efforts. She gave an example of
attempting to determine an acceptable level of service for the
Alaska State Troopers; whether there should be ten or two troopers,
whether to include the crime lab. She stressed this is wasted
energy if "you accept the premise that we are going have a public
safety function."
Ms. McConnell opined "the service level concept" is similar to the
current impact statement process whereby the department provides an
analysis of the possible impact a proposed specific budget
reduction could have. She remarked this is a significantly
different process then that proposed by Senator Wilken. She agreed
that determining whether an item is number 35 or number 42 on a
priority list is irrelevant if it has been determined that all the
activities must be part of the basic structure.
Ms. McConnell pointed out there are instances where the legislature
could consider eliminating an entire program, which would occur
through the statutory process. She said the Administration could
make suggestions as to which programs should be eliminated. She
pointed out that most "activities" are established in statute.
Otherwise, she warned, process would involve "the silliness of"
determining whether the Division of Family and Youth Services is
more or less important than juvenile corrections or public health.
She reiterated this is a waste of time in that it does not foster
productive discussion about what level of service is acceptable in
each of those programs.
Ms. McConnell stressed the Executive Branch proposed budget does
reflect the governor's priorities. She expressed there is an
"inherent misunderstanding that we don't share priorities." In
fact, she remarked, the proposed budget does reflect the opinions
the sponsor characterized as the most qualified to make such
recommendations.
Ms. McConnell listed the Smart Start initiative and K-12 and
University of Alaska education as examples of the Administration's
priorities. She pointed out the legislature has a process for
determining its priorities and noted there has been agreement with
many of the Administration's priorities.
Ms. McConnell suggested the governor's proposed budget reflects
more prioritizing results then is realized. She spoke to the
"phenomenal exercise" the prioritizing provisions of this
legislation would entail. She compared the state budget to that of
the Municipality, stressing that a municipality has comparatively
limited functions and geographic area to govern. She told of the
importance of public safety and nurses.
Ms. McConnell recommended continuing with the missions and measures
process to determine priorities and to establish the acceptable
level of service. She listed caseloads and number of people served
as measures. She noted that the current level of service is the
level of service the public has generally determined to be
acceptable.
Ms. McConnell addressed the "ABC list" idea. She expressed that in
theory it seems simple, but that greater issues, such as the level
of service, are involved. She asked how such distinctions would be
made for youth correction programs, as the quality of resources
invested is apparent when measuring success.
Ms. McConnell cautioned of the amount of detailed material the
Committee would have to review if this legislation were enacted.
She stated that information that would not add to constructive
discussions about what budget changes is a wasted effort for both
those who prepare the budget and for the Committee.
Ms. McConnell asserted the impact statement process is more
efficient. She stated this is a more direct method for obtaining
the information the legislature needs to make effective decisions
then generating information for "every level of state government
activity in every department…in every nook and cranny."
Ms. McConnell commented that the practice of categorizing programs
into ABC priorities would be done with the intent that all C
programs would be eliminated. "I doubt you'd want to go through
that horrific pain for all C activities even assuming we could
split them…and arbitrarily make a split."
Ms. McConnell pointed out that not every department request is
included in the Governor's proposed budget because the Office of
Management and Budget determines priorities already.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked that Representative Dyson is frustrated by
the process. He made an analogy of performing surgery with mittens
on, noting that some agency representative have been helpful but
others have been resistant in offering information. He stated this
is the situation in the governmental system in that the legislature
does not have the authority to fire the president. He continued
that because of the separation of powers the legislation could not
direct the governor.
Co-Chair Kelly stressed that another method should be established
to obtain information so the legislature could make decisions. This
prioritization, he expressed, could provide a "clearer view" in
making the "mittens" less cumbersome.
Co-Chair Kelly addressed the witness' statement that the governor's
proposed budget is prioritized. He pointed out that the legislature
has rarely received recommendations from the Administration for
where budget reductions could be made.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked, "we've been in a war for seven years"
explaining, "we can't get the information from you; we can't get
the prioritization from you; I'm sure there's things that you can't
get from us."
Co-Chair Kelly remarked this legislation is an attempt to "force"
the legislature and the administration to "work together a little
more cooperatively and in the best interest of the State of
Alaska." He encouraged the witness "to get on board with this,
because for one thing, you're not going to have to live with it."
He continued, "Frankly this Administration isn't going to have to
deal with this." However, he surmised the witness experienced the
usefulness of the prioritization process for the Municipality of
Anchorage.
Ms. McConnell clarified she would "do it very differently if I were
doing it again in Anchorage."
Co-Chair Kelly responded he wanted Ms. McConnell's assistance so
that she could assist in making necessary adjustments for the
benefit of future administrations.
Ms. McConnell noted that what Co-Chair Kelly had characterized as a
"war", she considered were disagreements over whether there should
be budget reductions.
Co-Chair Kelly agreed there are two sides of the issue.
Ms. McConnell noted that if the Administration's judgment is that
increased resources were necessary, the Administration would relay
that to the Legislature. She did not perceive the controversy as a
war but rather a public policy difference of opinion, which is
valid to discuss. She opined it is appropriate for the legislature
to determine where to cut. She added that it is inappropriate to
require the Administration to implement an unallocated budget
reduction if the Administration has determined that reduction is
unadvisable.
Ms. McConnell detailed the process undertaken before any increase
is included in the Governor's proposed budget, because an increase
is not an easy aspect for to the legislature or the public. She
pointed out these efforts have not been acknowledged and emphasized
the difficulty in "keeping up with inflation" and population
increases, specifically the senior population and inmate
population. She indicated that the Administration would do
everything possible to minimize the amount of requested increases.
Ms. McConnell referenced the comments of Co-Chair Kelly regarding
the "board of directors". She commented that the state is not
similar to a private corporation, because in a private business,
during times of economic difficulties, there is no requirement to
answer to the public for its actions. In contrast, she stated, the
public continues to expect the state to educate children and plow
roads. She added that roads must be maintained despite the number
of commuters traveling them.
Co-Chair Kelly interjected that the witness had listed high
priority items and he emphasized the legislature needs advice
regarding those lower priority items. He stated that was the level
of communication that the legislature has never been able to get.
He understood agency directors do not want make reductions this
way. He agreed that the state is not a corporation. He stressed
the frustration is that the legislature has many of the
responsibilities of a board of directors and the Executive Branch
has many of the responsibilities of a manager, "yet it's slightly
out of whack."
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated the prioritization process could begin to
bridge that gap in order to be able to operate in a more reasonable
fashion. He continued, there needs to be a higher level of
communication with the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch
should not be able to "thumb their nose" at the Legislature.
Ms. McConnell explained that the Executive Branch has proposed
budget reductions in response and the Administration's advice has
been disregarded. She gave the proposed budget reductions to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities as an example
where the Administration recommended closing maintenance stations
located along least used roads. The Legislature has directed the
Department against such actions, she said.
Ms. McConnell advised that the Governor is not suggesting that the
budget be cut at this point, but rather he is acknowledging that
the State does have some needs for increases in the budget, to keep
up with current commitments and to take on new challenges.
Ms. McConnell pointed out that spending increases have not been
proposed by the Administration to account for increases in
population and/or inflation. She cited the Kato study, which found
that between 1990 and 1997, the average increase in state spending
after adjusting for inflation, was 27 percent among all fifty
states. During that time period, she continued, Alaska was the only
state with a reduction, which was .6 percent. She noted three
states increased spending by over 50 percent. She also informed
that Alaska's general funds/per capita expenditures, adjusted for
inflation, are $1,100 less in the Governor's proposed FY 03 budget
then in 1979 before the oil revenues were available.
Ms. McConnell addressed government efficiency. She listed the
Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations and their
"enormous backlog" for processing corporate filings. She informed
that without requesting additional funding, the Division "saved
money by doing things differently so they could cut down that lag
time."
Ms. McConnell concluded that budget increase requests were only for
those areas "we feel we have absolutely gone as far we can to
squeeze the turnip."
Co-Chair Kelly restated the intent is for the Administration to
inform the Legislature of areas where budget reductions are
possible. He reiterated that the Committee members do not know of
the internal budget reductions.
Co-Chair Kelly mentioned frustrations in dealing with some
employees of the Administration who would not provide information.
He qualified there is a "difference of opinion."
Representative Dyson recommended ending the discussions on the
budget reductions and return to determining whether the
prioritization issue is preferred. He pointed out this legislation
would require less labor then detailed cost analysis of each
program.
Representative Dyson acknowledged that he is not in favor of across
the board budget reductions because it is the legislature's
responsibility to establish priorities and determine whether an
activity should be eliminated. He stressed this bill would assist
the Legislature in making decisions regarding priorities.
Co-Chair Kelly noted the bill is "well into the process" and he
intended to hold it in Committee to allow consideration of other
prioritizing methods. He indicated it is his intent to pass the
bill.
Co-Chair Donley voiced support of the bill.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 96(STA)
"An Act relating to acquisition and development of the Jesse
Lee Home; and providing for an effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
SFC 02 # 14, Side B 11:59 AM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of
History and Archaeology Alaska Historical Commission, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources,
testified via teleconference from an off-net site to address the
revised fiscal note. She noted the $30,000 general fund match would
be used for the architectural assessment and that the $30,000 to
$35,000 federal funds it secures is not reflected on the fiscal
note because the Division has already received the funds. She
explained the general fund reduction from $35,000 as indicated in
the previous fiscal note is possible due to a grant already awarded
to the City of Seward to perform the environmental assessment,
which would be matched from the historic preservation fund.
Ms. Bittner then explained the proposed Jesse Lee Home Commission
was originally envisioned as a "stand alone" group with
representation from Seward and other areas of the state. This, she
stated would require a significant travel budget of $4,500 per
meeting. She informed that instead, the Seward Historical
Commission would serve as the core group working with the City of
Seward "and enhance that as we see needed with certain expertise."
As a result of this change, she noted the travel budget is
decreased and general funds would be utilized for travel and
Commission support expenses incurred by the Department of Natural
Resources.
Co-Chair Kelly asked how much the $30,000 general fund match would
secure in federal funding.
Ms. Bittner answered $30,000 to $35,000.
Co-Chair Kelly asked specifically how those funds would be used.
Ms. Bittner replied the funds would pay for the architectural
assessment of the large building, which would provide an assessment
of the structural condition as well as advice on appropriate uses
and cost estimates for the facility. She noted it is the
architectural assessment that would provide the information needed
"to provide some good advice to Seward, to the state of Alaska, to
the legislature, about some feasible options."
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the $30,000 federal funds were already
appropriated.
Ms. Bittner affirmed and explained the State Historic Preservation
Office has authorization to receive and expend these funds for
grants.
Amendment #2: This amendment inserts "if practical" on page 1, line
12 of the committee substitute. The amended language reads as
follows.
(c) It is the intent of the legislature that, if
practical, the Jesse Lee Home and the real property on which
it is located be preserved and managed in a manner that
recognizes its place in the state's history…
This amendment also inserts, "the possible" on page 2, line 9 of
the committee substitute. The amended language reads as follows.
…The department shall report to the governor, and the
legislature by November 1, 2003, concerning its
recommendations as to the procedures to be used and an
estimate of costs involved for the possible preservation of
the home, erection of an appropriate monument, …
Co-Chair Donley moved for adoption.
Representative Lancaster indicated no objection, stressing the
intent of the bill is to determine whether the building is
salvageable.
Without objection the amendment was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to report SCS CS HB 96 (FIN) from
Committee with $45,000 fiscal note from the Department of Natural
Resources.
There was no objection and the bill MOVED from Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Pete Kelly adjourned the meeting at 12:07 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|