Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/04/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB307 | |
| HB29 | |
| HB446 | |
| HB326 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB419 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 307 | ||
| + | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 446 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 326 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 419 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 4, 2006
9:05 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Lyda Green convened the meeting at approximately
9:05:32 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Also Attending: REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG; REPRESENTATIVE BOB
LYNN; BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze; LINDA
HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; CRAIG JOHNSON, Staff to
Representative Lesil McGuire; NANCY MANLEY, Staff to
Representative Bob Lynn; MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative
Kevin Meyer; TERRY HARVEY, Staff to Representative Bruce
Weyhrauch; SARAH GILBERTSON, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game; KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill; LARRY DIETRICK, Director,
Division of Spill Prevention & Response, Department of
Environmental Conservation
Attending via Teleconference: From offnet locations: CECIL
BYKERK, Executive Director, Alaska Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association (ACHIA); BRIAN ANGEL, Counsel with
American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus (AFLAC) and
Vice-Chair, ACHIA Board of Directors; DICK MYLIUS, Director,
Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural
Resources; JOHN SCHABEL; From Anchorage: ED SNIFFEN, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Law
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 307-KNIK RIVER PUBLIC USE AREA
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and adopted a Letter
of Intent. The bill and the Letter of Intent reported from
Committee.
HB 29-HEALTH CARE INSUR./ COMP HEALTH INS. ASSN
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the Division of
Insurance, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, and representatives of the Alaska Comprehensive
Health Insurance Association. The bill reported from Committee.
HB 446-PENALTY FOR UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICE
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the Department
of Law. The bill reported from Committee.
HB 326-USE OF LEWD MATERIAL AS HARASSMENT
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the reported the
bill from Committee.
HB 41-ASSAULT ON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES/BUS DRIVERS
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the Department
of Law. The bill reported from Committee.
HB 57-SALE OF STATE LAND TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the Department of
Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Game. The bill
reported from Committee.
HB 419-REPEAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LAWS
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the Department
of Environmental Conservation. The bill reported from Committee.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 307(RES)
"An Act creating the Knik River Public Use Area."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green announced that a Senate Finance Committee Letter
of Intent was developed to address concerns raised by members
during the bill's first hearing.
Co-Chair Green moved to adopt the Committee Letter of Intent
(LOI) and read it into the record as follows.
Letter of Intent
Senate Finance Committee
CS HB 307(RES)
It is the intent of the 24th Alaska State Legislature that
the Department of Natural Resources evaluate instituting
user fees to pay the long term costs for management and
necessary facilities associated with the public use of the
Knik Public Use Area established under House Bill 307. The
department should consider such fees as a component of the
Management Plan that will be prepared under AS 41.23.190.
Senator Stedman spoke in opposition to the establishment of a
user fee program and, therefore, objected to adopting the LOI.
9:07:07 AM
Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that the inclusion of the word
"evaluate" was key to his support of the LOI, as it would
require the Department to develop a plan, which would then be
presented to the Legislature for "some sort" of approval.
Co-Chair Green characterized the Knik Public Use Area (KPUA) as
an "unwieldy area" in which to institute a user fee program, as,
rather than being a park at which money could be collected at
the gate, this is "an open area" with many entry points. An
appropriate user fee program must be developed. Options could
include the purchase of a bumper sticker, card, or certificate.
While a user fee program "would not be an easy thing to
implement", it is worthy of discussion.
9:08:27 AM
Senator Dyson, while appreciating the intent of the LOI, asked
the sponsor's opinion of it.
9:08:35 AM
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, the bill's
sponsor, noted that Representative Stoltze was comfortable with
the language since it specified that the implementation of a
user fee would be "evaluated". This language would allow any
proposed fee structure to be reviewed by the Legislature.
Senator Bunde noted that numerous user fee programs have been
successfully implemented in the State. For example, the
Anchorage Ski Club sells a pin to generate money to maintain
their trails. While the purchase of the pin is voluntary,
pressure is exerted on users to purchase one. The State has a
snowmobile registration fee that generates money for snowmachine
trail maintenance.
Senator Bunde pointed out that this legislation would not have
been introduced had users of the KPUA area been more
responsible. Implementation of a user fee program would
accomplish two things: people who paid the fee "would be less
tolerant of the scofflaws" and the funds it generated would help
"care for the area".
9:10:29 AM
Senator Stedman was disinterested in establishing a user fee
precedence for areas beyond the KPUA. The prospect of requiring
people to pay user fees or to place identifying stickers on
their boats or recreational vehicles to recreate, hunt, or fish
on State or federal lands, such as the United States Forest
Service managed land in Southeast Alaska, was unappealing. He
was "adamantly opposed" to the language in the LOI. It could
diminish the bill's ability to be adopted by the Legislature.
9:11:16 AM
Senator Bunde pointed out that recreation in the State is
already being paid for, as such things as small boat
registration fees already exist. In order to support recreation
programs, the State must either implement user fees or utilize
the State's general funds.
Co-Chair Green asked whether Senator Bunde could suggest any
alternate funding source.
Senator Bunde could not.
9:11:48 AM
Senator Dyson noted that, for a long time, hunters and fisherman
have willingly purchased fishing and hunting licenses, as the
proceeds from those licenses are used to fund research and
resource management activities. He did not believe that
implementing a fee structure in the KPUA would set a
recreational use fee precedent because the purpose of the fee
would be to limit damage being done in the area and to pay for
the cost of policing it. He agreed with Co-Chair Green that the
area was difficult to work with. The proposal could either be
considered "brilliant" or at a minimum "a well thought out first
step" towards a solution.
Co-Chair Green added that the difficulty in addressing the
concerns about the area is compounded by the fact that it is "in
such close proximity to where people live". The "great deal of
interest" in how the area should be managed has increased the
conflicts.
Senator Stedman maintained his objection to adopting the LOI.
9:13:31 AM
Senator Olson, who was unfamiliar with the area, asked whether
implementing a user fee would assist in deterring "nuisance
behavior", specifically "the discharging of firearms in an
unwise manner".
Co-Chair Green responded that the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) might hire "caretakers" to police the area for
illegal activities, particularly during evening and weekend
hours when the use of the area is the heaviest. Additional
funding might be required in the future to support policing
efforts. While the State's general fund is not typically used to
fund this type of activity, this might be "an exception because
it is such a unique" and heavily used area. While the majority
of people using the area are respectful and law-abiding, five to
ten percent of the users are scofflaws. Peer pressure might have
some affect were the implementation of a user fee to fail to
alter deviant behavior.
A roll call was taken on the motion to adopt the LOI.
IN FAVOR: Senator Bunde, Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman, Co-
Chair Wilken and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Stedman and Senator Olson
The motion PASSED (5-2)
The Letter of Intent was ADOPTED.
Senator Dyson moved to report the bill and the Senate Finance
Committee Letter of Intent from Committee with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
Without objection, CS HB 307(RES) and the Senate Finance
Committee Letter of Intent were REPORTED from Committee with a
new $356,800 fiscal note dated May 3, 2006 from the Department
of Natural Resources.
AT EASE 9:16:18 AM / 9:16:38 AM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 29(L&C)(title am)
"An Act relating to the Comprehensive Health Insurance
Association; granting a 50 percent premium tax credit for
assessments against members of the Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association; requiring members to provide
information to the association's board of directors or the
director of the division of insurance; modifying voting
rights for the association members by basing their exercise
on a member's share of assessments; basing assessments on
major medical premiums; modifying the manner of determining
members' liabilities for losses; and changing the
definition of "major medical" coverage for purpose of state
health insurance and providing for exclusions to major
medical coverage."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, the bill's sponsor, informed the
Committee this legislation would change the funding mechanism
for the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association
(ACHIA), which serves as the health "insurer of last resort" for
high-risk citizens in the State. ACHIA is a federally mandated
program under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA). While individuals participating in ACHIA
contribute toward their insurance premiums, any premium
shortfall is provided for by an assessment against health
insurance underwriters operating in the State. This bill would
make a minor change in that funding source process.
Representative Rokeberg directed Committee members to a handout
titled "Insurers Writing Comprehensive Health Insurance in
Alaska" [copy on file] which depicted the market share of health
insurance providers operating in the State in the year 2003. The
Alaska Division of Insurance conducts such a survey on an annual
basis. It is "sobering" to see that Premera Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Alaska has approximately 80 percent of the active
insurance market share in the State.
9:18:22 AM
Representative Rokeberg stated that one of his goals as a
legislator was to decrease "the barriers for entry for new
underwriters to increase competition and to enable and help pull
down rate structures by enabling better competition within the
State. Basically, my ten-year quest has fundamentally failed."
Representative Rokeberg shared that the annual assessment levied
against insurance underwriters to "subsidize the ACHIA pool" has
been approximately $3.5 million. This is a major concern, as
there are large groups in the ERISA pool, specifically organized
labor groups, which either do not contribute or pay little
toward the ACHIA insurance premiums fund. His efforts to get
these groups "to pay more to the pool" have been resisted. The
situation was further compounded in 1998 when "the State of
Alaska allowed all their bargaining units to step out of the
major pool of the State of Alaska".
9:19:36 AM
Representative Rokeberg referred to an April 20, 2006 handout
prepared by ACHIA [copy on file] labeled "ACHIA 1993 through
2005". One of the three pie charts depicted on the handout
summarizes the total dollar amount received by ACHIA from 1993
to 2005 from its three financial contributors: Insurer
Assessments-State Portion $1,364,000; Participant Contributions
$17,049,335; and Insurer Assessments $29,186,000.
Representative Rokeberg spoke to the pie chart labeled "1998-
2005: Proforma with HB29". This chart depicted the contribution
the State would have made to ACHIA during the 1998 to 2005
timeframe under this legislation, which would require the State
to participate at approximately a one-third of cost ratio. Thus,
under the provisions of this bill, between 1998 and 2005, the
contribution distribution would have been: State General Fund
Contribution, $12,900,000; Participant Contributions,
$14,861,088; and Insurer Assessments, $12,900,000.
Representative Rokeberg spoke to the third pie chart labeled
"1998-2005: Proforma Assuming State Had Remained Insured". Had
the State not opted out of the program in 1998, it would have
contributed approximately $10 million of the $38 million
required. The breakout would have been: State Portion of
Assessments, $10,320,000; Participant Contributions,
$14,861,088; and Remaining Insurer Assessments, $15,480,000. The
conclusion from this chart is that "there is a huge shortfall
because of the reduction of State contributions." While that
money instead benefited the State's general fund, it was a
detriment to the ACHIA program. There should equity in the ACHIA
funding.
9:21:04 AM
Representative Rokeberg specified this bill would require "the
State to participate in the funding" of the program, by
requiring the State to "allocate one half of the [ACHIA]
assessment … in the form of a tax credit to the [health]
insurance companies".
Representative Rokeberg informed the Committee that insurance
premium taxes paid to the State by insurance companies are the
State's third largest revenue source, the first being petroleum
royalty taxes and the second being corporate income taxes. The
State received $47 million from insurance premium taxes last
year and the expectation is that the taxes would amount to $46
million this year. Health insurance companies would pay $11
million or approximately 25 percent of that amount.
Representative Rokeberg noted this bill would not impact the FY
2007 (FY 07) budget as assessments are delayed to allow the
calculation to be based on actual costs. Therefore, the FY 07
tax credit of approximately $1,750,000 would affect the State's
FY 2008 general fund. The credit amount would increase or
decrease each year as determined by the annual ACHIA assessment.
He noted that assessment levels are projected to increase.
9:22:57 AM
Representative Rokeberg proclaimed that this bill would require
the State "to pick up their fair share" of the ACHIA assessment.
The State would join 32 other states that either partially or
fully participate in the funding of this federally mandated
program.
9:23:48 AM
Senator Dyson understood this legislation would not require the
State's bargaining units' insurance programs to contribute to
the ACHIA fund.
Representative Rokeberg affirmed. While he had in the past
suggested their participation, this proposal would specify that
"the State as a whole" would make the contribution in the form
of a tax credit to the sources of the revenue.
Co-Chair Green declared that the bargaining units chose not "to
participate in providing" this insurance coverage which is
required by federal and State law. "That was why I fought the
State becoming self insured in the first place;" she knew it
would be "unfair" to remove "a huge chunk of support of a State
mandated program". Her "prediction" that some entity would be
required to provide 75 percent of the funds necessary for the
program has come true, as the number of private payers in the
State is limited. Therefore, "a very small part of the
population" is being forced to pay for a State and federally
mandated program, which everyone could be "eligible for at some
time of their life".
9:25:39 AM
Senator Dyson pointed out that the State's "small market" size
also makes the State a less attractive place for insurance
companies to provide "consumer directed care" such as health
savings accounts. The availability of such programs could be a
part of the solution. He characterized the insurance providers
operating in the State as "institutional and not available to
that which I see as a very responsible way of proceeding".
9:26:13 AM
CECIL BYKERK, Executive Director, Alaska Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association, testified via teleconference from an
offnet location. He has been involved with ACHIA since it was
enacted by the State in 1992. ACHIA is a program that could
serve all Alaskans. The ACHIA plan was chosen by the State as
"the solution" to the federal Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) mandate that each state must
provide all residents of the state access to health insurance.
60 percent of the states adopted plans similar to ACHIA.
Mr. Bykerk informed the Committee that ACHIA has paid out more
than $45 million in claims since 1992. It has collected $17
million in premiums from individuals enrolled in it. ACHIA has
allowed people to manage their own care and medical expenses.
Most of the people participating in ACHIA and HIPAA are
uninsurable; otherwise they would enroll in other less expensive
plans, as ACHIA premiums, at 140 percent of standard plan costs,
are significant. Contrary to public perception, ACHIA is not a
Medicaid or welfare program. Individuals enrolled in ACHIA have
no or few other health insurance options and must contribute to
their coverage in order to participate in the system. Due to the
out of pocket expense, people in the ACHIA plan tend to "stay
out of emergency rooms" unless the medical care is unavoidable.
Mr. Bykerk noted that ACHIA is under funded because ACHIA
participant premiums must be kept at an affordable level. "The
shortfall is made up by assessing health insurers as a percent
of their health insurance premium." Thus, "individuals and small
businesses in the State" pay the cost. "HB 29 will ease this
burden".
Mr. Bykerk agreed that, in a small but significant manner, the
State's participation in funding ACHIA would assist in making
the State attractive to new insurance companies. In addition to
the State's small population and the geographic distances
between communities, there are also business "barriers" to
attracting new business. Easing the burden of this program would
assist in increasing competition in the commercial insurance
industry.
Mr. Bykerk reiterated that approximately two-thirds of the
states that have high-risk pools such as ACHIA support their
programs with State general funds.
9:31:10 AM
Mr. Bykerk noted that recently enacted federal legislation would
allow ACHIA to acquire federal funding assistance during the
next five years. "This is only right" considering the
requirements placed on the State by HIPAA. The federal support
would further reduce the impact on both the insurance companies
and the State's contributions to ACHIA. He noted that the
federal support is not reflected in the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development fiscal note #1. "All Alaskans
benefit directly or indirectly from ACHIA." He encouraged the
Committee to advance this legislation.
9:32:29 AM
BRIAN ANGEL, Counsel with American Family Life Assurance Company
of Columbus (AFLAC) and Vice-Chair, ACHIA Board of Directors,
testified via teleconference from an offnet location. "By
providing access to health coverage, and putting dollars into
the health care system, and by keeping people off Medicaid,
ACHIA truly does benefit all Alaskans." Because all citizens of
the State could benefit by ACHIA, "we believe the most equitable
funding approach is one that is broad based". Currently,
however, the cost of the program "is borne by a small segment of
the population", those individuals and small businesses that
purchase health insurance. "By broadening the funding base",
this bill would ease the burden on health insurance consumers.
He informed the Committee that the ACHIA Board of Directors
fully supports the bill, and he urged the Committee to advance
it.
Co-Chair Green expressed her support of the bill.
9:34:40 AM
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development, concurred with
Representative Rokeberg's and the ACHIA representatives'
testimony on the bill.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS HB 299(L&C)(title am) was REPORTED
from Committee with previous zero fiscal note #1 dated March 29,
2006 from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
Co-Chair Green knew people in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley who
have ACHIA coverage. She was "shocked to learn" the amount of
their insurance premiums. This is certainly not a "giveaway
plan".
9:35:46 AM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 446(JUD)
"An Act relating to the amount of a civil penalty for an
unlawful act or practice in the conduct of trade or
commerce; and eliminating mandatory continuances in these
matters after issuance of an injunction."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:36:03 AM
CRAIG JOHNSON, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, the bill's
sponsor, stated this legislation would update State consumer
protection laws. Civil penalty amounts have not been increased
since the bill's enactment in the 1970s. This bill would adjust
penalty levels to reflect inflation.
In response to a remark from Co-Chair Green, Mr. Johnson stated
that, in addition to adjusting the fine levels to account for
inflation, the increased fine levels would provide more
substance to the Department of Law's effort to address consumer
fraud cases.
9:37:27 AM
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. One of his
responsibilities is the enforcement of the State's Consumer
Protection Act. This legislation would "make a correction" to
the civil penalty levels specified in State Statute by
increasing the maximum allowable penalty from $5,000 to $25,000.
In addition, the legislation would mandate a $1,000 minimum
fine. This would provide the Department "more teeth" when
dealing with "offenders who aren't really worried about breaking
the law because they know if they pay back the money" that they
received illegally, they might currently only be subjected to "a
little scolding from the Department". The proposed $1,000
mandatory minimum fine level could be a serious deterrent to
those considering fraudulent activities. In addition to the
minimum penalty, the bill, in general, would expand the "tools"
available to the Department's "small enforcement section".
Senator Olson asked whether there was opposition to the bill.
Mr. Johnson responded in the negative.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS HB 446(JUD) was REPORTED from
Committee with previous zero fiscal note #1 dated February 21,
2006 from the Alaska Court System and indeterminate fiscal note
#3 dated March 15, 2006 from the House Finance Committee
pertaining to the Department of Law.
9:40:16 AM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 326(JUD)
"An Act relating to the definition of the crime of
harassment; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:40:26 AM
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, the
bill's sponsor, stated this legislation was developed to address
a loophole in existing State harassment statutes, which was
brought to Representative Meyer's attention by a constituent.
Previously adopted legislation addressed harassment conducted by
electronic communications, but did not address harassment by the
publishing and posting of photographs and other lewd materials.
Mr. Pawlowski disclosed that the situation brought to
Representative Meyer's attention involved a woman who allowed
her boyfriend to take pictures of her. Because the picture
taking was consensual, it did not violate any lewd material
laws. However, after the relationship terminated, the ex-
boyfriend printed pictures of the woman and posted them around
the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. Nothing currently
exists in State law to prohibit this action. Thus, this bill
would expand State Statutes to include "the publishing or
posting of lewd pictures to the definition of harassment". In
other words, the use of intimate pictures to bully, annoy or
harass someone would be prohibited. Adoption of this bill would
not incur any fiscal impact on the State, as evidenced by the
three zero fiscal notes accompanying it.
9:41:47 AM
Senator Bunde understood therefore that this bill would prohibit
the sharing of intimate pictures with strangers, even had the
person in the picture initially consented to being photographed.
Mr. Pawlowski concurred. "The intent of the person doing the
harassing is what matters". This bill would apply to a situation
in which the person publishing or posting pictures of someone
intended to harass or annoy that person. While he had used the
word "lewd" in his comments, the "terms are more clearly
defined" in State Statute.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 326(JUD) was REPORTED from
Committee with three previous zero fiscal notes: fiscal note #1
dated January 13, 2006 from the Alaska Court System; fiscal note
#2 dated January 26, 2006 from the Department of Law; and fiscal
note #3 dated January 17, 2006 from the Department of Public
Safety.
9:43:44 AM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 41(JUD)
"An Act relating to minimum periods of imprisonment for the
crime of assault in the fourth degree committed on school
grounds, on a school bus, at a school-sponsored event, or
at certain school district administration offices."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, the bill's sponsor, informed the
Committee that this bill had passed the House of Representatives
with a unanimous vote of the members present. He supported the
title change adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee which
expanded the scope of an assault against a person to include an
assault occurring "on school grounds, on a school bus", and "at
a school sponsored event".
Representative Lynn pointed out that the bill would also require
a person convicted of a misdemeanor assault occurring at the
aforementioned locations to receive a mandatory minimum sentence
of 60 days. This bill would complement HB 88-CRIM LAW: MINORS,
SCHOOLS, DRUGS, SENTENCES, which was recently signed into law by
Governor Frank Murkowski. This bill would address misdemeanor
assaults, while HB 88 would address felony assaults on school
employees made with a deadly weapon.
Representative Lynn contended that the mandatory 60-day sentence
specified in this bill was an "appropriate" sentence. The
message must be sent that assaults on school grounds would not
be tolerated.
Representative Lynn disclosed that, being a retired public
school teacher; he personally understood "how dangerous working
on school premises could sometimes be". He noted that
representatives from the Department of Law, the Anchorage School
District, and the Alaska Association of School Boards, which is
on record in support of the bill, were available to answer
questions. He urged the Committee to advance the bill.
AT EASE: 9:46:23 AM / 9:46:35 AM
Co-Chair Green appreciated the work conducted on this bill. She
directed members' attention to a Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
newspaper article titled "Police: Student urged into fight by
mother" [copy on file] about a Wasilla middle student who was
urged by her mother and another adult to assault another
student. The school district found they could not take action
against the adults for their involvement. She mentioned that
Senator Ralph Seekins has also recognized the validity in
addressing such a situation. Passage of this legislation would
delight school districts for it would provide them the ability
to adequately address assault situations in the future.
Senator Stedman asked whether the bill's language might subject
junior high or high school boys who might "get a little rough
with each other" when settling issues to 60 days in jail, were
such action to occur on school grounds.
NANCY MANLEY, Staff to Representative Lynn, deferred to the
Department of Law.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated
that the situation "would depend on the circumstances". Students
fighting at a school-sponsored event would be subject to this
provision if "we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they
were assaulting each other".
Senator Stedman questioned the "leeway" a judge might have in
dealing with these situations. "More often than we'd like", the
reality is that such behavior does occur with young adults.
Ms. Carpeneti understood the Senator's concern, as she recalled
from her high school experience that "kids did push each other
around". However, "it would be unlikely" under those
circumstances that an assault charge would be issued "unless the
fight was very serious".
Ms. Carpeneti clarified, that, were there cause to prosecute,
youth under the age of 18 would be prosecuted under juvenile
law. This provisions in this bill would apply to people 18 years
of age or older.
Co-Chair Green pointed out that internal school discipline
policies involving the principal, the student's parents, and the
school's disciplinary committee would first address an in-school
event.
Ms. Carpeneti anticipated that juveniles would be involved in
"the vast majority" of these situations. This legislation would
not be applicable in those cases.
Senator Bunde noted that a school confrontation that "escalated
to a really extreme situation" could be charged as an assault
under existing criminal law. To that point, he asked whether
this bill would impact existing assault laws.
Ms. Carpeneti stated this legislation would not affect existing
law. "There is already an aggravating factor for this kind of
conduct on school grounds that applied to all felony assaults
against a person".
Senator Bunde asked whether this bill would "increase that
punishment" in the case of "a student upon student assault".
Ms. Carpeneti expressed that this legislation would not affect
juveniles; it would not apply to people under the age of 18.
Senator Bunde shared "a very unfortunate event" in which a
parent attending their child's hockey game in Anchorage
assaulted a juvenile referee. He asked whether this legislation
would be applicable to such a situation were it a school-
sponsored event.
Ms. Carpeneti affirmed it would. "It would apply to the adult".
Co-Chair Green referred to language in Section 1(d)(1) and (2)
of the bill, beginning on page 1 line 6 through page 2 line 7,
which specified this legislation would be applicable to a person
"who knowingly directed the conduct constituting the offense at
a uniformed or otherwise clearly identified peace officer, fire
fighter, correctional employee", emergency medical technician,
paramedic, ambulance attendant, or other emergency responder who
was engaged in the performance of official duties at the time of
the assault or person on school grounds or at a school sponsored
event.
Ms. Carpeneti affirmed.
Co-Chair Green continued that, rather than the target of the
bill to be two kids fighting on a school playground, the focus
of the bill would be to provide legal recourse for school
officials in such cases as that detailed in the aforementioned
newspaper article about the adult who "spurred the child on" to
fight. The school district was frustrated when it found it had
no legal recourse against the adult. She apologized, had her
earlier remarks misled the discussion.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 41(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with three previous zero fiscal notes: fiscal note #6
dated January 28, 2006 from the Department of Administration;
fiscal note #7 dated January 30, 2006 from the Department of
Law; and fiscal note #8 dated January 30, 2006 from the
Department of Public Safety.
AT EASE 9:54:39 AM / 9:58:27 AM
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 57(FIN)
"An Act relating to the sale of certain state land to
adjacent landowners."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:58:50 AM
TERRY HARVEY, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, the
bill's sponsor, explained the bill would revise State Statute to
allow the Department of Natural Resources to negotiate with a
private landowner the sale of a parcel of State land, 20 acres
or smaller, which was surrounded by land held by that private
landowner. These land parcels are unique in that the only access
to these parcels would be through the private landowners
property. This negatively impacts the ability of the State to
sell the land to another entity.
Mr. Harvey noted that Representative Weyhrauch has been working
with Representative Bill Thomas in regards to such a parcel of
land in Haines, which is in Representative Thomas's election
district. A person in Haines has been working for 30 years on
developing his land for a mining operation, which would be open
to the public. That individual's property completely surrounds a
pre-Statehood mining claim that has reverted to State ownership.
The individual in this situation "should be allowed to work
directly with the State," as it would remove the burden of
advertising and survey work he would be required to pay for were
he to attempt to purchase the land through the typical State
land disposal process.
10:00:27 AM
Mr. Harvey noted that Dick Mylius, Director, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources, was available
to answer technical questions about the bill. Sarah Gilbertson
with the Department of Fish and Game was also available to
address public access issues that might arise were the State to
engage in such a sale. The Haines landowner, John Schnabel, was
also available to discuss his situation.
10:01:03 AM
Senator Bunde asked whether a survey would be required on such
parcels.
Mr. Harvey assumed a survey would be required. However, the
direct negotiation sale process would forego the advertising and
other requirements for someone in Mr. Schnabel's position.
Senator Bunde, agreeing to the uniqueness of there being State
land surrounded by privately held land, asked whether other
private landowners were seeking to acquire such land.
Mr. Harvey understood there were other cases, however, Mr.
Schnabel was the only one seeking to purchase such land at this
time.
That being the case, Senator Bunde declared this "seems to be
kinda pushing the edge of special interest legislation".
Co-Chair Green asked whether this situation might be referred to
as "an in-holding".
Mr. Harvey responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Green characterized this situation as "a reverse in-
holding". There are numerous parcels of "in-holding" land in the
State with access issues.
10:02:40 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference
from an offnet location. This legislation would change the
State's "preference rights" statutes. Typically State land is
sold through a competitive process through which any Alaskan
could participate. However, "preference rights are the
exception" as they allow the State to negotiate a sale with one
individual. Typically this process is utilized when an
individual legally occupies the land and has made significant
investments on the property.
Mr. Mylius stated that the preference rights process could be
expanded to allow State land, which is surrounded by privately
held land, such as the aforementioned land in Haines, to be
sold. Such land would be unattractive to others, as it is
inaccessible.
Mr. Mylius stated that this legislation would include such land
in an existing "remnant" preference rights statute that allows
the State to negotiate the sale of a small parcel of land within
a municipality to an individual. A best use interest finding,
land survey, and appraisal would be required, and the land would
be sold at fair market value. He noted that the Haines land
exceeds the parcel size currently specified in the statute. A
survey has already been conducted on the parcel.
Mr. Mylius noted that, while the land in Haines is the only
known parcel, there could be others, considering the size of the
State and the amount of land the State owns.
Senator Bunde questioned the claim that such land would be
inaccessible, as he understood an existing State law would
require granting right-of-way access to land.
10:06:32 AM
Mr. Mylius clarified that the law was specific to land sold by
the State; the State would be required to insure there was legal
access to any land it sold. A private landowner would not be
required to provide legal access to land sold by the State; the
purchaser would be required to negotiate directly with the
private landowner for access. He was unsure whether the access
requirement was required by State law, as the Department of
Natural Resources provides access to land it sells as a matter
of policy.
Senator Bunde asked whether the land might qualify for access
under the provisions of the State's RS 2477 rights-of-way
project.
Mr. Mylius understood there was a RS 2477 route near or on the
Haines parcel. Its exact location has not been confirmed, as it
has not been surveyed. While RS 2477 "would provide trail
access, one of the problems with RS 2477 is it's not unlimited
access" and there are other [unspecified] RS 2477 restrictions.
Thus, it is unclear as to whether the RS 2477 access would be
sufficient to allow development of the land. While the route is
recognized under State law, it has not been recognized by the
court system and thus, at this point, could not be relied upon
to provide legal access to the land.
Senator Bunde appreciated Mr. Schnabel's situation, however,
suggested the bill be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
so his concern about whether this was special interest
legislation could be addressed.
10:08:50 AM
Senator Stedman furthered Senator Bunde's access question, by
asking whether "prescriptive easements", which are used to
acquire access across property that is privately owned, could be
utilized in these cases.
10:09:27 AM
Mr. Mylius, noting he was not proficient in the subject of
prescriptive easements (PEs), explained that the court must
approve PEs. The Court would require seven to ten years of
actual documented use as well as documentation proclaiming that
no one had attempted to block the access. Nothing like that has
been filed in the Haines case. The Department could attempt to
establish a PE, however, it would be "a time consuming and
expensive process" with an unforeseeable outcome.
Senator Stedman informed the Committee that, while the
Department felt there could be other similar parcels like the
Haines land, no inventory of parcels had been provided when the
bill was heard in the Senate Resources Committee.
Co-Chair Green assumed there could be other parcels of land to
which this bill would apply, particularly in areas where road
construction has occurred.
Senator Olson understood that the bill's previous committee of
referral had considered an amendment sponsored by Senator Ralph
Seekins.
Mr. Harvey communicated that it was not until after the bill
reported from the Senate Resources Committee, that the sponsor
became aware Senator Seekins had some legal concerns pertaining
to the differences between a direct preference sale to an
individual and the State's typical land disposal process.
Representative Weyhrauch understood that the Senator's concerns
arose because he did not have the benefit of hearing Mr. Mylius'
testimony. No amendments have been requested.
Co-Chair Green opined that the key language in the bill is that
"the director 'may' allow the land" in question to be sold to
the adjoining landowner through the direct preference sale
option. This language is located in Section 1(7) page 3 lines 1
though 11 of the bill. In other words, the director would
determine whether to allow this process to transpire.
Mr. Harvey noted that Sarah Gilbertson with the Department of
Fish and Game would explain the efforts taken to address public
access concerns.
10:13:25 AM
SARAH GILBERTSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, announced that the Department is
aware of numerous parcels of land in the State to which this
legislation could apply. Some of these parcels "are State owned
land that is adjacent to a waterway" such as a stream or river.
The surrounding land is either privately or federally owned in
these cases. The Department's primary concern with these parcels
of land was to preserve Alaskans' ability to access the water.
Ms. Gilbertson stated that the Department's concerns were
addressed by adding the requirement that a best interests
finding be determined, as specified in Section 1(7)(b)(A) on
page 3 line 5 of the bill. The inclusion of the best interest
findings would ensure that the access to waterways issue would
be addressed.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the addition of that
language appeased the concerns of the Department.
Ms. Gilbertson affirmed.
AT EASE 10:14:54 AM / 10:15:58 AM
Co-Chair Green appreciated the work that has been conducted on
the issue.
10:16:26 AM
JOHN SCHNABEL, the owner of 84 acres of land surrounding the
State parcel in Haines, testified via teleconference from an
offnet location. His attempts to purchase the State parcel began
in 1980, and the effort has been very challenging. He pointed
out that in separate efforts to purchase other State land via
the public outcry auction, he was held financially responsible
for the land surveys and advertising notices. Even though he had
paid those expenses, other people had the right to bid against
him without any financial obligation.
Mr. Schnabel said he planned to develop the 84 acres into a
wilderness and gold panning experience for tourists. His concern
is that a conflicting activity might present itself on the 13-
acres parcel of land within his development, were it sold to
another individual at an outcry auction. This bill would assist
in making his development plans "secure".
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, CS SS HB 57(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee
with previous indeterminate fiscal note #1 dated April 4, 2006
from the Department of Natural Resources.
10:18:30 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 419
"An Act repealing the Board of Storage Tank Assistance, the
underground storage tank revolving loan fund, and the tank
cleanup loan program; repealing certain reporting
requirements relating to underground petroleum storage tank
systems; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green read the bill's title.
10:18:52 AM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, the bill's
sponsor, stated that, in order to meet federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines regarding underground storage
tanks, the Legislature, in 1990, approved HB 220, which created
the Underground Storage Tank Program (USTP) and the Storage Tank
Assistance Fund (STAF) grant program. Grant applications to STAF
were prioritized on criteria established by the Board of Storage
Tank Assistance (BSTA).
Ms. Lidster stated that USTP was phased out shortly after the
EPA underground storage tank program ended, and the STAF grant
program was converted to the Underground Storage Tank Revolving
Loan Fund (STRLF) in the year 2002. However, the initial grant
program was "extremely successful" and when STRLF was created
there were no applicants for its funds. With the transition to
STRLF, there was no reason to continue the BSTA. Therefore, this
bill would modify "the end date for the Board [of Storage Tank
Assistance] in order to be consistent with the end date for
formal termination of the loan program." It would in essence
eliminate statutes and regulations that are no longer required.
10:20:49 AM
Senator Bunde asked for further clarification of the reason
STRLF did not receive any applications, specifically whether the
funds provided by STAF had adequately addressed the entirety of
underground tanks or whether the transition from a grant program
to a loan program caused the decrease in applicants.
Ms. Lidster deferred to Larry Dietrick with the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
10:21:22 AM
Senator Bunde clarified his question as whether there were
storage tanks still needing to be addressed and whether they
were not being cleaned up because the program changed to a loan
program.
10:21:36 AM
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention &
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, stated that
6,000 of the 7,000 underground storage tanks in the State have
been removed. The balance of the tanks was upgraded to current
requirements. The effort has cost $43 million. This "was a very
significant program", and the hope is that it negated the threat
from underground storage tank pollutants.
Senator Bunde understood therefore that the deteriorating tanks
were "eliminated".
Mr. Dietrick affirmed.
Senator Olson asked whether the term "eliminated" meant that the
tanks were actually removed or were simply "not being used
anymore".
Mr. Dietrick stated that 6,000 tanks were physically removed.
Senator Olson asked whether the program addressed both under and
above ground storage tanks.
Mr. Dietrick responded that the program was limited to
underground storage tanks.
Senator Hoffman asked whether restoring the program to a grant
program would generate further applicants.
Mr. Dietrick expressed that continuing the grant program as it
was originally designed, which was to remove tanks not meeting
EPA standards, would not generate additional applicants, as all
of the tanks were either removed or updated.
Co-Chair Green opined that Senator Hoffman appeared to be having
difficulty believing that.
Senator Bunde shared Senator Hoffman's sentiment. "If there
wasn't a free lunch, they wouldn't be standing in line."
Co-Chair Green voiced being encouraged that "we are ending an
era".
10:24:30 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the underground storage tank program
pertained to both water and petroleum product tanks.
Mr. Dietrick stated that the program was limited to petroleum
product tanks.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 419 was REPORTED from Committee
with previous zero fiscal note #1 dated March 21, 2006 from the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Lyda Green adjourned the meeting at 10:25:48 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|