HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE April 5, 2000 1:50 P.M. TAPE HFC 00 - 102, Side 1 TAPE HFC 00 - 102, Side 2 TAPE HFC 00 - 103, Side 1 TAPE HFC 00 - 103, Side 2 TAPE HFC 00 - 104, Side 1 CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Mulder Representative Foster Co-Chair Therriault Representative Grussendorf Vice Chair Bunde Representative Moses Representative J. Davies Representative Phillips Representative G. Davis Representative Williams Representative Austerman was absent from the meeting. ALSO PRESENT Peter Torkleson, Staff, Representative Dyson; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Nancy Welch, Department of Natural Resources; Rick Thompson, Regional Manager, Land Office, Southeast Region, Department of Natural Resources; Wayne Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game; Tamar DiFranco, Deputy Director, Statewide Design and Engineering Services, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Carol Carroll, Director, Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources; Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative Therriault; Eddie Grasser, Staff, Representative Masek; Wendy Lindskoog, Alaska Railroad Corporation; John Manley, Staff, Representative Harris. TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE Carrie Williams, City Manager, Whittier; Phylis Johnson, General Counsel, Alaska Railroad corporation (ARRC); Craig Hughes, Project Engineer, Alaska Railroad corporation (ARRC); Blair McCune, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency; Sheri Buretta, Chairman of the Board, Chugach Alaska Corporation. SUMMARY HB 320 "An Act approving the application for and acceptance of a grant of certain federal land by the Alaska Railroad Corporation; approving the conveyance of the entire interest in the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands by the Alaska Railroad Corporation; relating to use and disposition of the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated land; and providing for an effective date." HB 320 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HB 349 "An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety education and game conservation education programs; relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game critical habitat areas, and public use areas." CSHB 349 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Natural Resources. HB 362 "An Act authorizing the exchange of land between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc., between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the United States Department of the Army and the United States Department of the Air Force, between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Chugach Alaska Corporation, and between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage; and providing for an effective date." HB 362 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HB 368 "An Act relating to release of persons before trial and before sentencing or service of sentence; relating to custodians of persons released, to security posted on behalf of persons released, and to the offense of violation of conditions of release; amending Rule 41(f), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." HB 368 was Postponed. HB 372 "An Act relating to criminal sentencing and restitution." HB 372 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HB 426 "An Act relating to transfers of public land or grants or conveyances of interest in public land among the Alaska Railroad Corporation, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the Department of Natural Resources to relocate or widen the Seward Highway, to relocate railroad facilities, and to relocate adjacent utility facilities; and providing for an effective date." HB 426 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 372 "An Act relating to criminal sentencing and restitution." REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, testified in support of the legislation. He noted that virtually all justice systems around the world have focused on restitution of the victim after public safety. He noted that there has been a tradition of paying debts to society by paying the King instead of the victim. An effort has been made to return to a focus of restorative justice and restitution of victims. He observed that the juvenile justice system is committed to the restorative justice system. The legislation places current practice in statute and allows a negotiated agreement between the victim and the perpetrator to work out restoration of the community and victim as part of the sentencing agreement. PETER TORKLESON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DYSON observed that HB 372 is post-adjudication. The judge may consider letting a willing victim and defender negotiate a way, such as community service, to make the victim whole. Vermont has had stellar success in cost savings and reduced recidivism rates. He acknowledged concerns by the Department of Law regarding sentencing of potential felons. He pointed out that under lines 9 - 10 the negotiated sentence must comply with general sentencing guidelines. He stated that some people that commit technical felons, such as those that commit property fines, should be allowed to negotiate under the section. The legislation is permissive. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if discussions occurred regarding the exclusion of violent felons from the provisions. Representative Dyson stated that violent felons would be excluded. Mr. Torkelson pointed out that line 6 excludes violations under AS 11.41, which includes person to person assault and murder. Representative Phillips referred to the negotiated agreement and questioned the rationale of giving the defender the right to request negotiation. Representative Dyson gave examples of negotiations that may be presented by a defendant. Confronting the victim and apologizing is helpful in restoring the perpetrator. In response to a question by Representative Phillips, Representative Dyson noted that more than half of offenders chose to enter into an agreement and more than half of those that chose negotiation fulfill their obligation. If the agreement is not fulfilled than the perpetrator returns to the original penalty. Agreements have the force of law. Representative J. Davies questioned if the legislation limits the ability to restore costs to the "King". Representative Dyson emphasized that the community gets an opportunity to recover costs. Co-Chair Therriault observed that after an offender is convicted a fine is charged and that surcharges pertain to the fine or penalty. He clarified that the victim and the perpetrator could agree on something to make the victim whole and pay a fine to the community and that the surcharge to the state would be included. Representative Dyson agreed that surcharges would be included and added that the cost of adjudication could be included. Vice Chair Bunde clarified that the judge would monitor non- compliance. Mr. Torkelson stated that some perpetrators approach the court to negate the contract and resume the original sentence. Representative Grussendorf summarized that the legislation would resolve the civil aspect of minor criminal offenses. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW provided information on the legislation. The department is not opposed to restorative justice, but has some concerns regarding the legislation. She gave a brief history of current sentencing procedures. She observed that the main focus of presumptive sentences in the late 70's was to impose a sentence according to the offence and to provide uniformity for certain acts. She maintained that restorative justice is a bend in the road. She acknowledged that it is appropriate in certain cases and added that judges are using the process in mental health cases, substance abuse and in minor property crimes. Statutory authority is not needed for restorative justice. She expressed concern that the legislation sets parameters around the use of restorative justice. She stated that the department is concerned that restorative justice would be allowed in cases that they do not feel are appropriate such as first time unclassified felonies, first time class A felonies, and second offense class B and C felonies; this includes arson and burglaries. She maintained that these are serious crimes and questioned if a victim would be in a position to negotiate with an offender. Ms. Carpeneti stated that the department is also concerned that allowing negotiation between a victim and an offender is difficult because the victim is not in an equal bargaining position, victims are not represented. She recommended that the courts continue their current practice of slowly applying restorative justice in cases where it is appropriate without legislation. Ms. Carpeneti noted that in a victimless crime there is a question of who is the community. There would be cases where it is unclear who represents the community or what is best for the community. She summarized that the department has problems with the legislation but not with restorative justice. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the judge does not have to accept a negotiated agreement if he/she does not believe it is adequate punishment. Ms. Carpeneti expressed concerns regarding equality of cases where the offender has enough money to negotiate a settlement that the victim thinks is fair as opposed to the person that does not have enough money to pay for the car or the window to make the victim whole. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if judges could be relied on not to allow perpetrators to buy their way out of adequate punishment. Ms. Carpeneti responded that it would be easier for a judge to address the issue on a case by case basis. The legislation provides for mitigating factors for a negotiated fee. Representative Grussendorf questioned if the state prosecutor would not act as the victim's attorney. He asked if the legislation could require that the state agree to negotiation. Ms. Carpeneti noted that defenders have one attorney for his or her only interest. The interest of the prosecutor is divided. She agreed that the legislation could require agreement by the state. She acknowledged that there has not been a problem with the current use of restorative justice. Vice Chair Bunde summarized that the legislation is permissive and that judges can choose not to use the provisions of the law. Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the provision is permissive but emphasized that it is difficult for a judge to know if there has been intimidation. She gave the example of an older person that has been the victim of someone known to them. She stressed that victims can be fragile and afraid to speak for themselves. She noted that restorative justice is being used for cases involving mental health. She suggested amending the purposes of sentencing under AS 12.55.005. She stated that restoration to the victim and community could be added to sentencing purposes. Vice Chair Bunde observed that the judge initiates restorative law under the current practice. If the legislation is passed the victim or the offender could initiate justice. Ms. Carpeneti noted that, in Anchorage, cases are directed to particular courts where judges have adopted procedures. She suggested that the legislation would result in defense lawyers contacting victims. She pointed out that defendants often will not plea guilty unless they know what their sentence would be. She maintained that the provision is not practical due to plea negotiations. Co-Chair Mulder expressed concern with presumptive sentencing. He summarized that the department is concern that the legislation would allow the court to circumvent presumptive sentence. Ms. Carpeneti explained that a negotiation would be a mitigating factor and would allow the court to reduce presumptive sentencing. Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the negotiated settlement should include the judge. Ms. Carpeneti stated that it would depend on the type of case but that it would not a bad idea to include the judge. Co-Chair Mulder emphasized that the judge would be the third party to balance the agreement. He noted that there are some factors that might want to be exempted. Ms. Carpeneti responded that there has been discussion on excluding cases that are outside of AS 11.41. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Carpeneti noted that an offender that burns down a house and an offender that burns something in someone's yard would both be included under arson. In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Ms. Carpeneti explained that the legislation adds a mitigating factor. She discussed presumptive sentencing under AS 12.55.125. She noted that terms were set for what were deemed to be the right time for certain offenses. Then mitigating factors were set out to allow the court to raise or lower sentences. Factors of mitigation have to do with excuses. The defendant has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was a mitigated crime. The legislation would add a mitigating factor without clear and convincing evidence. Representative Grussendorf questioned how "community" would be defined. Ms. Carpeneti responded that she did not know how community would be defined. BLAIR MCCUNE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY testified via teleconference in support of the legislation. He clarified that mandatory fines and surcharges would be included. He pointed out that the Victim's Rights Act protects the victim. He noted limitations on the contact of victims by the defendant's lawyer or the defendant. The state while representing the public interest also often represents the interest of the victims. Mr. McCune observed that juvenile court cases are screened to be sure that the cases chosen are appropriate. There is a victim offender mediator, which helps the process. He suggested that judges would be less inclined to take cases negotiated through straight contact. He maintained that restorative justice is about mediated controlled and carefully screened cases, in which the interests of the community, the victim and the offender are taken into account and carefully weighed. He noted that restorative justice has worked well in other states. Representative Grussendorf reiterated his questioned concerning the definition of "community". (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 102, SIDE 2) Mr. McCune gave examples of the interpretation of community. Mothers against Drunk Drivers were involved in a DWI case. Other restorative justice cases have included local merchant associations in downtown areas that were vandalized. He acknowledged that community is not strictly defined. Representative Grussendorf summarized that the judge would decide the definition of community. Mr. McCune affirmed. Representative Dyson expressed confidence in the judge's ability to look after the interest of the victims. He pointed out that judges are already doing it and that the legislation would just authorize current practice. He stressed that there are good application opportunities for rural Alaska and emphasized that it is not a new practice. Representative J. Davies expressed concern that there not be unintended consequences. He asked for purpose of including a mitigator. Mr. Torkelson responded that the purpose was to allow the judge to take the negotiation into account. Representative J. Davies noted that all the other mitigators were on the nature of the crime itself. He pointed out that there would be a new class of mitigators. Vice Chair Bunde stated that his concern is with the victim. He stressed that he would rather have his loss restored than have someone sit in jail. Representative Dyson observed that perpetrators that go through restorative justice have lower incidents of recidivism. He maintained that working to restore a loss expresses the magnitude of the crime and the loss on the offender. He felt that it would be a greater punishment to face victim and be accountable. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that he wanted to assure that judges do not just rubber stamp negotiations but take an active role. Representative Grussendorf questioned if some of the more serious crimes should be excluded. Representative Dyson acknowledged his concern and added that making up for a burglary is a good experience for the burglar. He emphasized that it can work for very violent crimes and urged that the judge make the decision. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that burglary and arson can turn into very serious offenses. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if lesser and greater extents of arson can be separated. Representative J. Davies stated his intention to offer amendments on the legislation. He stated that he would like to add a requirement that the court approve the negotiation before it happens. Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the judge should be involved. Discussion ensued regarding involvement of the judge. Co- Chair Mulder argued in support of the judge's involvement. Representative J. Davies stressed that there are classes of restorative justice that would not require the involvement of the judge during negotiations. Representative J. Davies restated his intention to offer an amendment that would insert a sentence at the end of section 1: in this section "community" shall be defined by the court. Mr. Torkelson observed that "community" is defined as a group of people with common interests. Representative J. Davies stated that his amendment would make it clear that is not up to the offender to define the community. Mr. Torkelson questioned why would the defense attorney allow to a defender to go into something without knowing the outcome. Representative J. Davies pointed out that have the choice to agree or go back to the original sentencing. HB 372 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 349 "An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety education and game conservation education programs; relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game critical habitat areas, and public use areas." Co-Chair Therriault provided members with proposed committee substitute, work draft 1-LS1405\ Utermohle, 4/4/00 (copy on file). MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT observed that a proposed committee substitute was created to address concerns expressed during the 3/29/00 House Finance Committee meeting. He reviewed the committee substitute. Sections 1 and 2 deleted "enhancement" and inserted "and maintenance" in a number of places. The change addressed concern that the department may be expected to increase new populations whether than maintain healthy populations. Page 3, section 4 addressed concerns by the Department of Fish and Game that the definition of means and methods did not cover all current practices. Language was modified to add "substances" and the "use of" to allow the use of a tool or substance. The sponsor and the Board of Game's attorney worked on the amendment. Representative J. Davies questioned if it could be read to be redundant. He questioned if the language would address the manner in which the tools are used. Mr. Tibbles stressed that the intention is to include means, tools, implements, devices and the use of substances. He observed that the use of a substance would include poison to trap or bait. Language was added in line 31, page 3: "consistent with (1) of this section". The addition addresses the concern that the protection of traditional use of fish and game not be elevated to the same level protection, enhancement and preservation of the fish and game habitat. Subsection (1) would be the ultimate goal or the purpose of a state wildlife refuge. Subsection (2) would remain a purpose, but it must remain consistent with subsection (1). Subsection (3): "perpetuate and enhance general public recreation in a quality environment" was deleted. Sections 7, 8, and 9 address the ability of the department to work with municipalities and private non-profits to develop hunting safety education and wildlife conservation education programs. Currently, private non-profits are required to establish programs for the primary purpose of preserving hunting, fishing and trapping. The department testified that they would read the wildlife conservation education programs broadly. The Potters Marsh viewing center was referenced. He observed that organizations engaged in wildlife conservation education programs might not be created for the primary purpose of preserving hunting, fishing and trapping. The intent is to not exclude these organizations. Sections 10 through 15 deal with public use areas. The word "preserve" was deleted and replaced with "maintain" in each of the sections. The change addressed the concern that public use areas would be more like refuges. EDDIE GRASSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MASEK provided information on the committee substitute. He explained that legal counsel for the Board of Game stated that the language would cover most of the contingencies that the Board would have to address under section 4. He stressed that the intent is that the use of tools would also be included. Representative J. Davies questioned if Mr. Grasser would object to the insertion of "manner of" in front of "use". Mr. Grasser stated that he would not object to the change. Co-Chair Mulder questioned why is the section of means and methods needed in the definition. Mr. Grasser stated that the section was inserted as the result of a regulation by the Board of Game requiring bones to be packed out of the field. He stressed that statutes clearly state that bones are not part of the edible portion of an animal that would need to be packed out. Co-Chair Mulder observed that they are working hard at a definition that may work and questioned if it would not be better to address the particular concern. Mr. Grasser noted that there is no definition of the terms and expressed concern that the Board of Game has used this as a loophole. Representative J. Davies agreed that it would be simpler to state that bones were not included in items that would be packed out. Mr. Grasser referred to deletion of section 6, subsection (3). The language was removed to avoid confusion. Mr. Tibbles noted that the department would not be able to preclude kayaks from nesting grounds if the language were included. Representative J. Davies pointed out that the problem was addressed with the inclusion of "consistent with", which modified subsection (3). Mr. Grasser stated that they would not object to its insertion. WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME provided information on the committee substitute. He noted that the proposed committee substitute resolved concerns with one exception. Section 3 gives local advisory committees veto authority over actions of the Board of Game. He pointed out that they are advisory committees. There are over 80 advisory committees. They sometimes share jurisdiction. He noted that the Board of Game has a though process and rarely closes down access. Representative J. Davies stated that he also had concerns on the issue. Vice Chair Bunde questioned how the change from "enhance" to "maintain" relates to sustained yield. Mr. Regelin did not think the change would have an effect. Vice Chair Bunde asked for more information on the language on page 3, line 26. Mr. Regelin explained that the language would not cause problems for the Board or department. Vice Chair Bunde referred to page 4, line 18 "with other organizations". Mr. Regelin stressed that the department attempts to cooperate with all private groups to have joint programs, but didn't want to have a mandate. Mr. Grasser explained that 4H organizations would be able to participate if the legislature chose to do a pass through grant and the department chose to assist them. The language is permissive, not mandatory. The grants are subject to legislative appropriation. Municipalities and private non-profits that are setup to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping would only be allowed to participate in wildlife conservation education programs; they would not be allowed to participate in hunter training programs. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 103, SIDE 1) Mr. Grasser expressed trust that the legislature would not allow money to be funneled to anti-hunting groups to attack hunting and conservation education programs. The legislature can appropriate to individual pass through grants. Mr. Regelin stated that the language would provide that the primary purpose must be to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping. Vice Chair Bunde emphasized that there are no "side boards" on other organizations. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislation states: hunting safety education not hunting, safety, education. Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that education could be in favor of or against hunting. Representative J. Davies noted that there are wildlife conservation programs that would not be pro or anti-hunting. Mr. Regelin observed that 4H doesn't have as its primary purpose hunting, trapping or fishing, but that they have a strong program that the department would like to support. Mr. Grasser did not think that the legislature had appropriated funding for any of the programs in the recent years. The legislation provides a mechanism to work with organizations, but the organizations would need to work with the department and the legislature. NANCY WELCH, LAND MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES expressed concerns with language being deleted on page 5, line 31. She felt that the reordering would tip the multiple use scales toward the Department of Fish and Game. She noted that the Susitna Area Plan is deleted from the provision. The Susitna Area Plan is the basis the department uses for decision making. She stressed that the Susitna Area Plan contains provisions for its modification. Representative J. Davies MOVED Amendment 1: delete language on page 3, lines 7 - 9; insert "specifically authorized by a regulation adopted by the Board of Fisheries of the Board of Game, provided that the local fish and game advisory committee with jurisdiction over the area where the regulation would apply has been notified in writing of the proposed regulation". The amendment would address concerns of the advisory committee. This would remove the absolute veto power of the advisory committee. Mr. Grasser observed that there would not be a need for the subsection as amended. The advisory committees are already notified. He maintained that subsection 2 only places a higher standard on the Board for actions reducing public access. He gave examples of previous Board actions. Co-Chair Mulder asked about circumstances where a local advisory committee tends to be dominated by commercial fishermen. He observed that such a Board could attempt to maintain their level of take at the expense of non-resident sport fishermen. He asked how the regulation would apply to such a situation. Mr. Grasser replied that the Board could act regardless of subsection (2). He noted that the recommendations of one advisory committee would not be enacted if there were a conflict with another advisory committee. Representative Grussendorf observed that Board of Fish members are under a lot of scrutiny and pressure to make the best decisions. He pointed out that people in local areas (advisory committees) have a lot of self-interests in mind. That interest may not be in the best idea of management and cause problems with sustained yield. He stressed that the Advisory Committees cannot be allowed to make the final decisions. Co-Chair Therriault stated that subsections 3, 4, 5 & 6 would stand by themselves. He did not think that subsection 2 would provide veto over actions that the Board (of Fish) has taken under the other provisions. Representative J. Davies disagreed. Vice Chair Bunde asked how many advisory committees are in the state. Mr. Grasser replied that there are 84 advisory committees. Vice Chair Bunde suggested that the subsection would give power to the advisory committees and in affect create multiple game boards in the State. He expressed concern that the local advisory committees would not have a statewide perspective. Mr. Tibbles noted that he spoke with the drafter of the bill. He explained that subsection 2 would only apply in the absence of any of the other provisions. The subsection would encourage the Board to use the other provisions and justify why they are restricting access. Representative Phillips felt uncomfortable with the inclusion of subsection 2. She pointed out that the advisory committees do not have legislative oversight. Mr. Grasser argued that allowing advisory committees to have veto power is not a new concept. He maintained that each advisory committee would have an opportunity to object to provisions of the Board of Game affecting their unit. Representative J. Davies pointed out that there are many people that hunt and fish outside of their own areas. Mr. Grasser explained how the process works. The Board of Fish or Game would have to create a special use area with access restrictions. Regulations are promulgated and they are published for public review before the meeting takes place. Then the Board makes the decision. Then the Advisory Committee can take action. Representative J. Davies stressed that then the advisory committee would have a veto. Co-Chair Mulder stated that the access would not be restricted. Representative Grussendorf could not imagine the Board of Fish and Game making a decision without a rational reason for the decision. He maintained that action of the Board of Game would be supported with data and biological studies. He argued it would not be a good idea to give veto power to the advisory committees. Vice Chair Bunde observed that the Board of Game could decide to eliminate a controlled use area and let more people in; the local advisory committee could decide to retain restrictions. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the traditional means of access may not be restricted. Vice Chair Bunde clarified that once an area has been restricted that the provision would not apply. Mr. Regelin agreed with Vice Chair Bunde's conclusion. He stated that he has not seen a board of game close an area without a good reason. He spoke against providing veto power to advisory committees. Representative J. Davies asked how many advisory committees have jurisdiction in an area. Mr. Regelin replied usually one, in some areas it is five or six and is determined through the regulatory process. Representative Grussendorf reiterated that a Board would not make a decision without supporting documentation. He pointed out that advisory committees would overlap in regards to the Board of Fish. Mr. Grasser acknowledged concerns. He referred to issues in Noatak. He pointed out that there are some access restrictions that were not implemented for public safety or conservation issues. He maintained that there are very few places left where people can use different forms of access. The intent is to protect areas like the Nelchina Basin. Vice Chair Bunde noted that he served on an advisory committee and observed that they can be politicized. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment 1. IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Phillips, Bunde OPPOSED: Davis, Therriault, Mulder Representatives Foster, Moses, Williams, Austerman were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-3). Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: delete section 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3: insert "manner of" before "use" on page 3 line 25. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4: delete subsection (f) beginning on page 5, line 31, [PERPETUATE AND ENHANCE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC USES DESCRIBED IN THE SUSITNA AREA PLAN]. Mr. Grasser argued against the amendment. Representative G. Davis observed that the area plans are required under the designation of the land use in the area. He expressed concern with the deletion of the Susitna Area Plan. Mr. Grasser pointed out that the Susitna Area Plan also has within its confines suggestions of uses such as parks. He maintained that the Recreation River Plan reduced any need for the Susitna Area Plan. Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the amendment. CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES observed that deletion of the Susitna Area Plan would take away something that the department uses to settle contradictory uses. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 103, SIDE 2) Ms. Carroll explained that the nature of the public use area is not changed. The guidance is removed. Representative Phillips pointed out that the plan would remain and that the department can still go to it for guidance. Representative J. Davies stressed that the language provides a link. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment 4. IN FAVOR: Davis, Grussendorf, Phillips, Davies OPPOSED: Foster, Bunde, Mulder, Therriault Representatives Moses, Austerman and Davis were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-4). Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5 delete sections 15 - 19. These sections address the Goldstream Public Use Area. The deletion would leave the existing statutory language in place. He stressed that the multi-use trail has been protected by the existing plan. He added that the first purpose is to enhance recreation. There is a large area that encompasses mining. He noted that fish and wildlife protection is the second priority. He expressed concern that the legislation would impact existing mining. He emphasized that there is not a problem. Co-Chair Mulder agreed with comments by Representative J. Davies. He stressed that the change does not include or exclude anything. He concluded that the Goldstream Public Use Area was only included for consistency with other public use areas. Co-Chair Therriault stated that without a compelling reason to maintain the language that he would support the amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a zero fiscal note. Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 349 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 349 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Natural Resources. HOUSE BILL NO. 362 "An Act authorizing the exchange of land between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc., between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the United States Department of the Army and the United States Department of the Air Force, between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Chugach Alaska Corporation, and between the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, SPONSOR testified in support of the legislation. She noted that House Bill 362 authorizes the Alaska Railroad Corporation to enter into several land exchange agreements needed for a track upgrade and realignment project. The bill approves exchanges of Railroad landholdings for equivalently valued land owned by the Air Force and Army on Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson, Ekiutna, Inc., Chugach Alaska Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage, and certain landowners in the Birchwood area. Federal legislation is also necessary because of the land swap with the military. The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) is working with the Washington delegation to get this passed. The exchanges outlined in HB 362 will allow the ARRC's track realignment project between Anchorage and Wasilla to proceed, and will also allow the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to relocate a portion of the Seward Highway just north of Seward. Upgrading and realigning the track will increase safety and efficiency. Straighter track is safer due to reduced track and equipment wear, consistency in train handling, increased sight distance, and reduced maintenance requirements. Running time between Anchorage and Wasilla would also be decreased from 95 minutes to 53 minutes, making commuter service more viable. The railroad plans an investment of $45-60 million for the improvements. These funds will come from federal transportation grants as well as the ARRC's operating revenues. No general funds will be required. Representative J. Davies questioned the impact on the highway system. WENDY LINDSKOOG, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION (ARRC) provided information on the legislation. She explained that grade separated crossing at the military base would be paid by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. The movement of the tracks helps to facilitate the department's work. The cost of the grade separated crossing at Beach Lake Park would be incurred by the railroad. The grade separated crossing along the Seward Highway is a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities' project. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has asked the railroad to move the track over through land exchanges to accommodate the project. Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there is a plan to relocate fiber optic cable. Ms. Lindskoog affirmed that the plan is to relocate the fiber optic cable so that it would remain within the railroad right-of-way. This is part of the railroad's cost. In response to a question by Representative Phillips, Ms. Lindskoog affirmed that arrangements have been made with the military. Representative Phillips questioned if the rails between Wassila and Anchorage would support a fast train and if there is an ability to lease out the tracks for a commuter fast track. CRAIG HUGHES, PROJECT ENGINEER, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION (ARRC) testified via teleconference. He noted that the railroad had not looked at the market for a commuter service. He stressed that travel time would be reduced from 95 minutes to 53 minutes. The improved track would support a train operating at 50 miles an hour. The rail currently runs at 35 miles an hour. Representative Phillips noted that Amtrak operates at 75 to 80 miles an hour. Mr. Hughes responded that the tracks would not support a train operating at 75 - 80 miles an hour. Representative J. Davies questioned if there has been a cost analysis of what it would take to support a 75 to 80 miles an hour computer rail. Mr. Hughes responded that the cost of the project has not been figured at anything over 60 miles an hour. Ms. Lindskoog pointed out that light and heavy rail cannot be mixed. Representative Grussendorf questioned if there has been discussion of game on tracks. Mr. Hughes explained that they found that snow depth is a greater factor than speed. In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Ms. Lindskoog observed that the interest of the Chugaik Corporation is in Seward. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the language on page 3, lines 2 - 16 were absolutely necessary for the legislation. (a) Contingent upon the conveyance to the Alaska Railroad Corporation by the Chugach Alaska Corporation of an equivalent interest in real property onto which the railroad utility corridor may be relocated, the Alaska Railroad Corporation is authorized to convey the corporation's entire interest in approximately 6.4 acres of railroad utility corridor between railroad mileposts 14 and 15, within Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Sections 6 and 7, Seward Meridian, to the Chugach Alaska Corporation. (b) The conveyances described in this section are made for the purpose of realignment of the railroad to allow relocation of the Seward Highway by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to improve highway operations and enhance safety. (c) Land conveyed by the Chugach Alaska Corporation to the Alaska Railroad Corporation shall be held and managed by the Alaska Railroad Corporation in accordance with AS 42.40. (d) This section constitutes legislative approval under AS 42.40.285(1) for the Alaska Railroad Corporation to convey its entire interest in the land described in (a) of this section. Ms. Lindskoog responded that the language is not necessary for straightening of the track. She emphasized support for creating a grade-separated crossing that would help the general safety of the public. She thought that the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities would view the language as important. In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Representative Murkowski stressed the importance of straightening the track and did not want to see the bill derailed by adding pieces of other legislation. She thought that the other bills would be acceptable. Lindskoog stressed the importance of straightening the track. Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that HB 362 could be the locomotive to pull other legislation along. HB 362 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 426 "An Act relating to transfers of public land or grants or conveyances of interest in public land among the Alaska Railroad Corporation, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the Department of Natural Resources to relocate or widen the Seward Highway, to relocate railroad facilities, and to relocate adjacent utility facilities; and providing for an effective date." TAMAR DIFRANCO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES testified in support of the legislation. She observed that the Department of Natural Resources has management responsibility for Chugach State Park, but may not modify the boundaries of the park without legislative approval. This has been interpreted to mean that the department may not relocate easements without legislative approval. The purpose of HB 426 is to provide the Department of Natural Resources the ability to work with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Railroad corporation and utilities with easements within the Park in order to modify, improve, upgrade, and enhance pubic facilities within the Park. Ms. DiFranco observed that the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has four projects proposed for construction along the Seward Highway within the Park, in the next three years. The legislation would allow the Department of Natural Resources to modify and/or relocate highway rights-of-ways for these projects. Representative Phillips questioned if Representative Murkowski would have problems with combining HB 426 with HB 362. Representative Murkowski did not see any problems with combining the bills. Ms. Lindskoog observed that the legislation seeks pre- approval for any work that the railroad or the highway needs to make the improvements. The railroad supports the bill. The legislation has been driven by concerns of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. HB 426 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 320 "An Act approving the application for and acceptance of a grant of certain federal land by the Alaska Railroad Corporation; approving the conveyance of the entire interest in the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands by the Alaska Railroad Corporation; relating to use and disposition of the Whittier DeLong Dock and associated land; and providing for an effective date." JOHN MANLEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS testified in support of HB 320. He noted that the United States Army notified their intent to surplus the DeLong Dock. The Alaska Railroad Corporation applied for conveyance of the dock. The legislation gives legislative approval for the railroad to receive the DeLong Dock and its underlying real estate. The bill also ratifies an agreement between the city of Whittier and the Alaska Railroad Corporation to transfer the real estate to the city and lease the land underlying the north half of the dock. The railroad would in turn lease the south half of the dock to the city. In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Mr. Manley noted that the title is in the process of being transferred. PHYLLIS JOHNSON, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION testified via teleconference. She explained that the railroad was given priority for the transfer as a state entity. Representative G. Davis noted that there has been interest by different groups. Co-Chair Therriault noted that there was a proposed amendment: Page 2, line 20 After "Whittier." Insert "Neither the corporation nor the city of Whittier may grant any special right, privilege, or preference to a third party to provide management services at the dock. A contract for management of the dock by a third party shall be awarded by competitive sealed bidding" Mr. Manley expressed concern that the amendment was too tightly written. He pointed out that the railroad procurement code mirrors the state's procurement code. Co-Chair Therriault observed that there is no statutory reference that can be made to the railroad code. Mr. Manley questioned if the statute could reference the variety of contracting methods available to the railroad. Ms. Lindskoog stated that the Alaska Railroad Corporation was not concerned with the amendment. Ms. Johnson explained that the railroad is not under the state's procurement code, but is required to have its own procurement code, comparable to the state's. The Alaska Railroad Corporation's procurement code mirrors the state's code. She thought that it would be possible to come up with language that would allow competitive sealed bidding and RFP's. Co-Chair Mulder stated that he wanted to make sure that everyone would have the opportunity to bid. He asked her to work on an amendment that would be less direct and still get to the spirit of the competitive bid. SHERI BURETTA, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION provided information on the management terms. She maintained that the Chugach Alaska Corporation should have first right of refusal. She noted that Resolution 8, passed in the previous session, urged the Alaska Railroad Corporation to select an Alaskan bidder for the design and construction of its projects. She felt that changes to HB 320 were contradictory to the resolution. Co-Chair Therriault noted frustration on the part of the legislature regarding the railroad's ability to negotiate with the Chugach Alaska Corporation on behalf of the legislature. He maintained that the bidding process should not be restricted to one corporation. Ms. Buretta stressed that the Alaska Chugach Corporation is in a unique situation due to the direct impact on its communities. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 104, SIDE 1) Representative Phillips pointed out that the purpose of the resolution was to look at Alaska hire for an Alaskan company. She did not think that there was a difference in the intent to allow bids by Alaskan companies. CARRIE WILLIAMS, CITY MANAGER, WHITTIER testified via teleconference in support of HB 320. She stressed that the division of property between the railroad and the city of Whittier is fair and necessary. Vice Chair Bunde commented that the railroad can do as it sees fit to mange its business, but that it is still a state agency with legislative oversight. He stressed that it is not in the best interest of the state to enter into a law that is illegal in relationship to the procurement code. Representative Phillips did not support the merger of HB 320 with HB 426 and HB 362. Representative J. Davies agreed and stated that he did not see a compelling reason to combine the other bills. Representative G. Davis spoke in minimizing legislative and cautioned against micro managing. HB 320 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. House Finance Committee 22