Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 03:15 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 29, 2000
3:15 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Jerry Mackie
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission - Mr. Ed Dersham and Mr.
Larry Engel
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - Mr. Daniel Seamount
Board of Fisheries - Ms. Marlene Johnson
SENATE BILL NO. 283
"An Act relating to the accounting for and appropriations of state
land disposal program revenue; and providing for an effective
date."
-MOVED CSSB 283(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 124
"An Act relating to electronic application for and issuance of
licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department of Fish and
Game; to violations regarding a license, permit, or tag applied for
or issued electronically; and providing for an effective date."
-HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 296
"An Act relating to charges for state services; requiring that fees
levied by resource agencies for designated regulatory services be
based on the actual and reasonable direct cost of providing the
services, except in the case of certain negotiated or fixed fees;
relating to negotiated and fixed fees of resource agencies;
relating to invoices for designated regulatory services;
establishing a petition process regarding fees charged by resource
agencies for regulatory services; and providing for an effective
date."
-MOVED CSSB 296(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to certain audits regarding oil and gas royalty
and net profits and to audits regarding costs relating to
exploration incentive credits and oil and gas exploration licenses;
and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED SB 38 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Relating to subsistence activities of urban Alaska Natives under
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
-MOVED SJR 31 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act repealing the prohibition against the taking of antlerless
moose."
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 283 - See Resources minutes dated 3/27/00.
SB 296 - No previous action to record.
SB 38 - See Resources minutes dated 3/27/00.
SJR 31 - No previous action to record.
HB 114 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Carol Carroll, Director
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Support Services
400 Willoughby Ave., 5th Floor
Juneau, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 283.
Mr. Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 124.
Ms. Janice Adair, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 296.
Ms. Charlotte MacCay, Senior Administrator
Environmental Affairs
Cominco Alaska
1133 W 15 th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 296.
Mr. Ken Freeman, Executive Director
Resource Development Council
121 W. Fireweed Lane #250
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 296.
Mr. Mike Tibbles, Aide
Representative Gene Therriault
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 296.
Mr. Ed Grasser, Aide
Representative Beverly Masek
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 114.
Mr. Matt Robus, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 114.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-15, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:15 and announced that they would take up the
confirmation hearings.
MR. ED DERSHAM, Board of Fisheries, said he had already done a
three-year term on the Board. He has become very familiar with the
Board process and fishery issues. He looks forward to working for
another three years.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the committee didn't have any questions and
thanked him for his service.
MR. LARRY ENGEL, Board of Fisheries, said he came from a commercial
fishing family and reviewed his professional history.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked both Mr. Engel and Mr. Dersham and said he
appreciated the committee system that they have adopted to work
under. He wished them well.
SENATOR GREEN thanked Mr. Engel for changing his mind to come back
and serve on the Board of Fisheries.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to send the standard letter of non-objection
forward. There were no objections.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a hearing for the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission.
MS. MARLENE JOHNSON said she had been on the Commission for three
years and three months and she enjoys the work.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked her for her years of service.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to send the standard letter of non-objection.
There were no objections.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced the hearing for the Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission.
Number 497
MR. DANIEL SEAMOUNT said he has been filling in as a commissioner
for the last five weeks and finds the job very exciting and
fulfilling. He reviewed his resume'.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he had a position on the Governor's compact
with BP.
MR. SEAMOUNT answered no.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to forward the standard letter of non
objections to the Senate. There were no objections.
SB 283-NAT RES.REVENUE: FISH/TIMBER/LAND
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 283 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that it created three new categories of
designated program receipts and is pretty self explanatory. In the
process it reinstates and keeps the shore-fishery leases going.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 283(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there was any objection from the
Department or from the Administration.
MS. CAROL CARROLL, Department of Natural Resources, said they do
not object to the title changes at all. For the timber receipts,
the only concern they have is they hope not to raise the
expectation of folks that this will fund timber sales, because the
money coming in to this account is not really enough to fund the
program. If that expectation is there, they might not get the NCIP
receipts to have future timber sales.
SENATOR LINCOLN withdrew her objection and the bill passed from
committee with individual recommendations.
SB 124-FISH & GAME LICENSING BY ELECTRONICS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 124 to be up for consideration.
MR. GERON BRUCE, Department of Fish and Game, said the bill enables
the ADF&G with the concurrence of the Department of Public Safety
to set up an electronic licensing system using either the Internet
or something like an 800 phone number which would allow people to
purchase and directly be licensed at the time of purchasing. They
would be issued a "smart number" which would have some information
that would be correlated to some personal identification
information like date of birth, eye color, etc.
They expect that most licenses would still be sold through the
current system of private vendors issuing a paper license. This
would just add convenience for some people. They would also have
to carry a photo i.d. in the field which you are not required to do
with a paper license.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this applied to the king salmon stamp or
the State duck stamp.
MR. BRUCE replied yes, that is their intention. Eventually, they
would like to bring as many of their licenses, tags, and stamps, as
possible on line.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how an enforcement officer on the Noatak
would know whether someone has a sheet tag.
Number 974
MR. BRUCE explained if you had a sheet tag, you would be issued a
number at the time of purchase that would be equivalent to a
license. It would be coded in such a way that a public safety
officer would be able to have references to tell whether it had the
proper coding required for the particular hunt.
SENATOR GREEN said that a vendor came to her with the problem of
someone getting a media license and then coming to his place to get
all the rest of the documentation. He would not be able to collect
a fee.
MR. BRUCE replied that the situation under electronic licensing
would not be different than it would be under current licensing.
That is, if someone were to purchase a hunting license from one
vendor and then decide they wanted to pick up a tag from another.
He didn't think it was a significant concern; it wouldn't take
revenue away from the vendor. He is providing a service that he
doesn't have to. Usually the reason a vendor sells licenses is
because it draws people into their store where they can sell them
merchandise or other services.
SENATOR GREEN asked on what item the bulk of money is made.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD answered "non-resident tags."
SENATOR GREEN asked what the fee was for the license.
MR. BRUCE answered that he thought it was $85 for a hunting license
for a non-resident. He thought a vendor got a percentage - about
5% and additional compensation later in the form of a flat amount
or a flat amount per license if it's over the minimum amount.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how they are going to do all of the stamps and
licenses electronically since there are so many and the stamps come
out later in the spring.
MR. BRUCE replied when you purchase the state stamp, you don't need
an additional federal stamp.
SENATOR TAYLOR said, "Oh yeah, you do. It's called a federal duck
stamp." There are two different stamps; one of them you buy at the
U.S. Post Office and the other is from the State. He asked how a
guide or charter boat captain would be able to verify licensure.
MR. BRUCE said he didn't know and would find out for him. There
would have to be a picture i.d. which would be linked to the smart
number so it would indicate the license you held was actually
issued to the individual that the picture i.d. indicates you are.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how they get a verification of signature.
MR. BRUCE replied, similar to other kinds of electronic commerce,
when you purchase it, you would assent to the statement that the
information you have provided is accurate and truthful. There
would be an enforceable mechanism. A vendor would have a list of
the codes. The Department anticipates contracting with a private
party to do an 800 number and possibly the Internet licensing,
itself. He explained how simple the number system would be.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD was concerned that the number would be simple
enough for someone to figure out.
MR. BRUCE said there would be 10 numbers and what some of them
signify would be known to everyone, but some numbers would be known
only to Public Safety.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't think there were enough votes to
move SB 124 right now and held it.
SJR 31-SUBSISTENCE FOR URBAN AK NATIVES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SJR 31 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR WARD, sponsor, explained that in 1970, Shim Pete (80 years
old) signed up for land claims in Red Shirt Lake, what is now
considered urban Alaska. Senator Ward told him they were going to
get land, money, and subsistence rights protected. Apparently, he
misunderstood. Congress meant that subsistence would be for those
people who lived in the right zip code and not for the other
people. He is asking the Alaska Legislature to ask Congress to
clarify whether it truly intended to deny Alaska natives residing
in urban areas of Alaska the opportunity to engage in subsistence
activities on the same basis as rural Alaskan residents when it
passed the land bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that there wasn't a quorum and he would hold
the bill.
SB 296-FEES FOR STATE SERVICE
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 296 to be up for consideration.
MR. MIKE TIBBLES, Aide to Representative Therriault, said he has
the companion bill in the House. He said this bill establishes
three categories of services, a standard designated regulatory
service, a designated regulatory service, and regulatory services.
They are each applied differently in the bill.
The standard designated regulatory services are services that they
believe are not complex. The bill mandates that DEC fix as many of
them as possible. That fixed fee would be based upon the average
actual reasonable and direct cost in providing the service.
The bill also provides for negotiated agreements between DEC and
the industry. There is no mandatory provision that they reach
agreement, but it provides that if the permittee requests
negotiation, DEC at least make the attempt. If negotiations are
unsuccessful, billing would fall back to time and expense which is
actual and reasonable direct costs of providing the service.
Additionally, the bill establishes a process for petitioning the
agency or agencies involved. If you desire a single project fee, a
permittee can petition DGC to come up with a single fee. There is
also a provision regarding invoicing which they require on a
monthly basis. There is a provision for the industry to petition
a resource agency to adopt additional fixed fees if they believe
they have a category of services that would be suitable for a fixed
fee. This perhaps is a repetitive permit that is used on an annual
basis or every four years.
The designated regulatory services that are used in this bill are
limited to water, waste water, and solid waste.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked regarding page 8, section 3, where line 14
deletes "not including travel" as a basis of fees. The laundry
list includes all the agriculture inspections, food, drugs,
cosmetics, public accommodation. That looks like a broad list
that's outside of the interests of the advocates of this
legislation. And yet by taking out the exclusion on travel their
fees may be increasing. He asked if that was a necessary part of
this bill.
MR. TIBBLES responded that they are opening the possibility that
additional services under AS 44.46.025(a) may see an increase in
their fees for travel. It wouldn't be every single program. Some
of them don't even charge. For drugs and cosmetics there's no fee.
Some individuals in the industry felt they should be able to pay
for travel. There were concerns from small operators that they
were going to be "killed" by the travel.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said this was not a service that the owner of a
small bed and breakfast in a rural area with expensive travel
particularly wants. He asked if that section was essential for the
bill.
MR. TIBBLES replied that language was added in this section for
consistency. The goal of this bill is to establish a model for
particular programs - water, waste water, and solid waste. This
provision is outside the model they are attempting to build.
SENATOR TAYLOR said his concern was that by adding more words to
the statute they are trying to get a handle on these folks and
still you are leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. You
still have the agency telling you what is a reasonable time.
TAPE 00-15, SIDE B
MS. JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, said
that all issues they agreed upon are reflected in SB 296, but there
are few issues remaining that she hopes are minor that they will be
meeting with the RDC on. Their overriding concern with this
legislation is that it doesn't answer the policy question of how
the cost of state services should be divided between the users of
those services and the public. They believe the State desperately
needs a rational basis for apportioning costs to State programs in
setting fees. There has never been a holistic debate on how the
cost of government services should be apportioned. They believe
equity must be a cornerstone of any allocation of costs. To the
extent there are inequities, there should be some rational basis.
While this bill may result in an equitable distribution of costs
for those programs and users covered by it, not all the programs
within DEC for which fees are charged are included in it. In some
cases, some of the smallest and least profitable businesses
permitted by DEC are not covered by this bill. That remains a
significant concern to them.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it sounded like she said it's unfair not to
charge those who can't afford to pay.
MS. ADAIR responded that they believe this bill is equitable for
the people it covers; it should be equally equitable for those who
aren't covered by it.
Number 2270
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that last year the legislature did an
unallocated cut across the board and her department chose where to
take it. She took out the food inspectors and then told the press
how dangerous it was to go to restaurants because the legislature
had cut them. They, then increased fees (by $1.1 million)to all
the people who were out there and were licensed that had anything
to do with food preparation. He thought they made a profit for the
Department of $700,000 - $800,000.
MS. ADAIR responded that there were two cuts; one was an
unallocated reduction of $340,000 and that was taken in the Water
Quality Program. Another cut was taken specific to the Food Safety
and Sanitation Component of $339,000. That was a reduction to that
component and was made by the Conference Committee. In addition,
another $548,000 was switched from general funds to general fund
program receipts in Seafood Safety and Sanitation component. They
increased fees by $548,000. So their fee authority totals $1.5
million. Prior to that it was about $1 million. That is if every
single person pays.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it still looked like they are raising more fees
than the amount of their cuts.
MS. ADAIR responded that they had raised their fees to the level
necessary to bring in the amount in their budget that is authorized
as general fund program receipts which is $1,530,000. Their
analysis shows that they will actually under-collect, because not
every single person paid.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they didn't have flat fees 10 or 15 years
ago.
MS. ADAIR recollected when fees were first established for this
program, there was a flat $50 fee for some time. This program is
general funded; there are very little federal dollars and those are
contract dollars to hire people to go out and do inspections.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if some of the choices made within the
department as to the level of interest or risk.
MS. ADAIR answered that the number of positions any agency has to
be authorized; the total amount of fees they are authorized to
collect has to also be authorized. How they allocate those costs
amongst the permittees is part of the regulatory process. They
make a proposal to the public; they mail out to areas that are
going to be affected and work with them to the maximum extent they
can.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how the section worked if you're an employer
of less than 20 in the category of fees that are going to be
covered.
Number 1900
MS. ADAIR said that was the definition of direct deposit fee and is
on page 7, line 5. This is an amendment made in House Finance. It
was explained that there may be placer miners out in remote areas
of the state, people would call up and complain about them and DEC
would have to out numerous times to follow up on essentially
specious complaints. The maker of the amendment does not want the
businesses to have to pay for that travel. They agree with the
goal and don't charge people the inspection fee for a complaint
that turns out to be invalid. People do that to their competitors.
However, the language in the bill doesn't read that way and the way
they think it will work is to have two separate flat fees - one for
businesses with 20 or more employees and one for businesses with
less than 20. They haven't figured out yet how they will know how
many employees a business has. It's somewhat problematic the way
it is written.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was troubled that there was an incentive
within the Department to do more inspections, because the revenues
upon which it is based will depend upon the level of inspection.
He wouldn't want to go into a court where the judge's salary
depended upon whether or not he was convicted.
MS. ADAIR said in this case, the bill is premised on the Department
having as many flat fees as possible. A permittee would pay a flat
fee annually and that fee would be the same whether they were
inspected once or five times.
Number 1774
MS. CHARLOTTE MACCAY, Senior Administrator, Environmental Affairs,
Cominco Alaska, and Vice President, Producers Council, said as Red
Dog Operations they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fees to DEC. They supported this bill so there are some side bars
and structures, some consistencies and accountability for the fees
they have paid. There has been very little of that in the past.
Regarding the travel, they have often gone into legal uncertainties
to be able to request to pay DEC to travel up to see the operation
before they attempt to regulate it - as well as legal obstacles to
being able to pay to get everyone to Seattle and coordinate with
the federal agencies. They can't pay to bring EPA up here.
Having the travel in the bill is so they have clear ability to do
so. They feel that other solutions could help protect the small
operators from having it imposed on them unwillingly. They have
viewed this bill as part of a multi-faceted solution.
MS. MACCAY said that industry has a responsibility to pay for some
of the permitting; but they also feel the need to pay for a core
management within those permitting functions that is experienced,
seasoned, and also knows their authority and when not to bow to
EPA's authority. Third party consultants and new inexperienced
people do not have that confidence to do so. Third party
consultants do need to be brought in for the permitting staffing
for the technical work and the general permit writing.
Number 1585
MR. KEN FREEMAN, Executive Director, Resource Development Counsel
(RDC), said their work group had worked over the last 13 months to
develop a permit fee structure based upon two underlying principles
- predictability and accountability. He stressed the productive
working relationship their group has developed with both the
legislature and the administration on this bill. He said he could
address Senator Taylor's concerns one of which was the agencies
ability to determine reasonable and direct costs. There are a
couple of protections within the bill that give industry comfort.
First, fixed fees will go through a regulatory process and the
public has the to test the reasonable question. Page 6, line 18
has the definition of direct costs. Those things which will not be
allowed to be in direct costs include the cost of salaries of
administrative support and supervisory personnel who are not
directly engaged in providing a service, other budgeted overhead
expenses, interagency charges that would not meet the requirements
if those charges were incurred or invoiced by the agency providing
the designated regulatory service.
Secondly, if negotiated permit activity doesn't come together for
the permittee and the agency, time and expense invoices can be
appealed to OMB, an opportunity for an additional check for the
permittee.
Thirdly, negotiated contracts as written in the bill are contracts
(page 3, line 12).
SENATOR MACKIE said he first became aware of the need for this bill
last year. He asked him what the concerns of the agencies were and
what had been done to accommodate them.
MR. FREEMAN said RDC met for over a year and Mr. Jon Tillinghast
helped them craft the initial draft which was given to DEC. They
reviewed it with some changes which were incorporated. That
exchange before the legislative process happened three or four
times. When they got to the Finance Committee, agency staff had
all been giving them input on a daily basis.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if he was satisfied that they had accommodated
90% of agency concerns with DNR.
MR. FREEMAN replied that all of DNR's concerns were taken care of.
DEC's original fiscal note was within the millions of dollars and
at this point in time it's down to $0.
MR. FREEMAN said with regard to Senator Taylor's concern about
giving DEC the discretion to come up with what is reasonable and
direct costs, that there are several clauses that give comfort.
First is the establishment of fixed fees. The second is if there
is a dispute on time and expense invoices, it can first be appealed
within the agency. If you still have a dispute, particularly with
regard to direct and reasonable cost, you can appeal to OMB. The
objective there was to appeal to an entity outside of DEC. A third
item is on page 3, line 12 where their intent was to have the
negotiated agreements actually be contracts.
Number 466
SENATOR TAYLOR said he had gone over interport cost differential
with DNR where he wrote it into law and foolishly believed someone
would try to enforce it. Our boats continued to not be worked on
in Alaska because he didn't have listed specifically what interport
cost differential would be. He didn't think he had to tell them to
include cost of travel. What they did to diminish the cost of
interport differential is to put nothing down or they would bid the
contracts out with the differential being figured off of Seattle,
Washington, because that's where they would end the run.
MR. FREEMAN said there was a lot of discussion about this issue.
He didn't think they had accomplished all the goals of the members
in the legislation, but he thought they had something they could
all support.
MR. STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Department of Law, said they had resolved
most of the legal issues that had existed with the original version
of this bill. They have worked to give the departments adequate
regulatory authority so they could adopt regulations to implement
the bills. There are still some significant costs for the
Department of Law under reimbursable service agreements will be
from contracts that will have to be reviewed according to statute.
Another cost is increased regulation lawsuits and appeals generated
out of what is a reasonable and direct cost.
SENATOR MACKIE asked him to explain the fiscal note. He asked if
it is was for the review of contracts and wasn't that what DOL is
being paid to do right now or do they have to hire new people.
MR. DAUGHERTY answered that they are operating beyond capacity
right now, particularly in the natural resources area. In order to
take on new functions, they have to either drop work that is
currently being done or hire new employees.
SENATOR MACKIE said he didn't know money was an issue with the
Department of Law.
MR. DAUGHERTY responded that particularly in the environmental
arena they worked largely on reimbursable service agreements from
the agencies and not on general funds. If they don't get the money
from DEC for the services, basically the Department of Law can't
provide them. They have some environmental general funds, but they
are quite limited. In the first two years, the costs are
approximately $74,000. After that they would have a quarter of an
attorney primarily for contract review and review of regulations.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was any legal problem with the
provision that doesn't apply travel to employers of less than 20.
MR. DAUGHERTY answered that he didn't see a real legal problem.
The number of regulations is increasing, but they could argue that
equal protection isn't applicable, because they aren't similarly
situated. There would also be some problems with defining what is
20 employees. That can be resolved through court action or
regulation.
Number 466
SENATOR TAYLOR asked about the reimbursable fee agreements that are
contracts and if there was anything in the fiscal note about the
times when the State makes a mistake and gets sued under the
contract.
MR. DAUGHERTY answered that he didn't think that was taken into
consideration since it was a normal risk of doing businesses. They
don't normally put that in a fiscal note unless they are certain
they will incur the expenses.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they had thought about the constitutional
aspect of this and the legislature's power of appropriation.
MR. DAUGHERTY said they hadn't looked at that particular question,
but he didn't believe that was a problem because DEC will always be
operating off its appropriation from a previous year. They will
just be using the reimbursable service agreements to collect the
fees to collect the money that was already authorized by the
legislature.
SENATOR TAYLOR said then the legislature's power of appropriation
merely becomes a rubber stamp each year annually to grant to the
Department a certain level of authorization to use receipts
sufficient to allow these arrangements to move forward.
MR. DAUGHERTY said he saw his point - with a multi-year contract
that could be a problem. Normally that's not the case. Permitting
is usually a year and, at most, two. On-going projects are not
covered by this bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was concerned about the overall pattern of
agencies working out a fee arrangement with the people they
service.
MR. DAUGHERTY said he would suggest adding the standard language
"subject to appropriation" to the contracts to deal with his
concern. On the policy issue of fees being set by the legislature,
that is an issue DEC is concerned with. He thought Ms. Adair
should answer that question.
TAPE 00-16, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. DAUGHERTY said they try to avoid any violation of the
Constitution and believe that appropriations go through the
legislature and that program receipts do not violate the
Constitution just from the fact that they are being raised because
they are still subject to appropriation by the legislature.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said on line 14 he wanted to put back "not
including travel" so they're not passing something that's going to
add to the rate base for all the little guys.
SENATOR MACKIE said his only concern was what effect it has in
terms of the consensus building approach that's been taken.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the reason he mentioned it is because this is
an area that's not in the group that's working on it. His goal is
to not change the provisions as it applies to the inspections of
others than this working group.
MR. TIBBLES pointed out, if they remove the deletion and put back
in the prohibition to charge travel they will take out DEC's
ability to charge travel in all cases. That's including the
designated regulatory services.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how to do it so they didn't include their
friends in CHAR, etc.
SENATOR MACKIE said he understands what he wants to do and supports
that, but wondered what the overall effect was to non-RDC
industries as well.
Number 372
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said if RDC and their group is willing to accept
travel because of the other things they gain in this process and
the side boards they get on the whole process, that's fine. This
part of the bill (page 7, line 5) goes back to an existing statute
that was an exemption and applied to everybody else. Conceptually,
he wanted to delete "not including travel" for any of the services
that are part of the RDC package. If it is agreeable to have a
conceptual amendment that deletes number one in whatever way the
legal department says to do it, that's clear enough so that
everyone knows what they are doing.
MR. TIBBLES suggested adding "However travel may be charged for
designated regulatory services under AS 37.10.058. They have a
specific definition of what a designated regulatory service is in
this bill. It only includes water, waste water, and solid waste.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if all the industry would fall within that
category anyway.
MR. TIBBLES said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if they would go back to the original
language of not including travel and add that phrase.
MR. TIBBLES said that was right.
SENATOR TAYLOR said this was still going to include anyone out
there who has a trailer court with a water or sewer system hooked
up to it. By making this change, people who have been sending in
water samples will now have to pay the cost of travel for some DEC
inspector to come out. He asked if the 20 employee exemption would
keep them from being involved.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the 20 employee exemption was a
blanket exemption for everyone.
MR. TIBBLES said that was correct.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved Mr. Tibble's amendment. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 296 from committee with the
accompanying fiscal note with individual recommendations. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 38-OIL & GAS AUDITS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 38 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR KELLY moved SB 38 from committee with accompanying fiscal
notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SJR 31-SUBSISTENCE FOR URBAN AK NATIVES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SJR 31 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SJR 31 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
HB 114-REPEAL PROHIBITION ANTLERLESS MOOSE
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HB 114 to be up for consideration.
MR. ED GRASSER, Aide to Representative Beverly Masek, explained
that this is kind of an inflammatory issue. Most of the advisory
committees in the State "chewed them out" because it took all their
power away. Representative Masek decided that an outright repeal
of AS 16.05.780 wasn't the right way to go. They discussed the
issue with several advisory committees and the Department and
decided to change the way the current law works. The new language
would create a situation where the advisory committees would have
to act in the positive to prevent the Board from reauthorizing a
cow moose hunt which involves a lot of time and expense. Usually,
the Board just rubber stamps what the advisory committee sends
them. Right now the Department has to go out with the area
biologists and round up all the advisory committees in an area
where an anterless moose hunt is taking place, get permission to
continue it, and bring that information to the Board to act on the
reauthorization.
Advisory committees made it real clear that they didn't want to
give up that power.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR MACKIE said there was a letter from Commissioner Rue,
ADF&G, supporting the original HB 114 and asked if he supported the
CS.
MR. GRASSER answered that he thought that was the case, though,
they would have to check with the Department. They were trying to
reduce the costs involved with this reauthorization every year. He
thought it would be good to include language that makes it clear
that the reauthorizations only takes place in the area for which
the Board is meeting.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
supported the outright repeal of the prohibition in the original
version. However, the Department introduced language similar to
what's in the CS a couple of years ago and agree that it is an
appropriate way to go. One conceptual change he would like to see
that would further reduce the costs involved in the reauthorization
process would be to word this so that it took on the same two year
region by region cycle the Board of Game meetings now do.
Presently, every spring they have a meeting of the Board of Game in
either Anchorage and Fairbanks. Staff and advisory committees from
throughout the State that have antlerless moose hunts in their area
have to go through the motions of reviewing the status of the herd
and decide whether they want to go forth with this hunt for another
year. This means they bring staff from regions around the State to
the meetings and those costs could be done away with if they
adopted the same cycle.
MR. DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council, supported HB 114. The
statute from 25 years ago has fallen into disuse and become a
burden.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked about a clause saying if no one sends them
anything, you can do what you want. But if a majority of the local
advisory board objects, then you may not adopt.
MR. GRASSER explained that this is how it's been happening for the
last 30 years except for one or two occasions when the Department
had to go out to places and have the advisory committee hold a
meeting. A lot of times they forget or just don't get around to
it. The way the current statute reads, if they don't have a
meeting, they can't have a cow moose hunt.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would hold this bill pending
enlightenment from the sponsor.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|