MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE March 18, 1999 9:02 AM TAPES SFC-99 # 58, Side A & Side B CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at approximately 9:02 AM. PRESENT Senator John Torgerson, Senator Sean Parnell, Senator Randy Phillips, Senator Gary Wilken, Senator Al Adams, Senator Lyda Green and Senator Dave Donley. Also Attending: JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor; MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Corrections; DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and Regulations Section, Civil Division, Department of Law; CAROL CARROLL, Director, Division of Support Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and Department of Natural Resources; NICO BUS, Administrative Services Manager, Division of Support Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and Department of Natural Resources; CATHERINE REARDON, Director; GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Legal Council, Legal Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency. Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration; DAVID LIEBERSBACK, Director, Division of Emergency Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs; SUMMARY INFORMATION SB 101-DEFINITION OF DISASTER The committee adopted a committee substitute and heard testimony from Legislative Legal Council and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Amendment #2 was adopted. The bill was held in committee. SB 11-PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS The committee heard testimony from the Department of Corrections and the Public Defenders Agency. The bill was held in committee. SB 24-REGULATIONS: ADOPTION & JUDICIAL REVIEW The committee amended and adopted a Committee Substitute. The bill was held in committee. SENATE BILL NO. 101 "An Act amending the definition of 'disaster.'" This was the second hearing for this bill. Co-Chair John Torgerson shared a committee substitute he had prepared for the meeting and called upon a member of his staff to explain the changes. DARWIN PETERSON, staff to Senator John Torgerson, explained the committee substitute. Section 1 amended the statute AS 26.23.020 to provide that a proclamation of disaster emergency is effective for only 30 days unless extended by the Legislature by law. Section 2 repealed and reenacted AS 26.23.025 relating to the Legislature and disaster emergencies. Section 8 set out the information the Governor must provide the Legislature upon declaring a disaster emergency. This subsection also set out the procedure that the Governor must follow to obtain approval for additional money or expenditure authority from the Legislature to cope with a disaster. Approval for additional money or expenditure authority could only be obtained by an act of the Legislature. Subsection (b) provided that if a declaration of a disaster emergency occurs while the Legislature is in session or if a special session is held, actions taken by the Governor that are not ratified by law, adopted during that session are void. Subsection (c) provided that the Legislature may terminate a declaration of disaster emergency any time by law. He explained some of the differences between the CS and the original bill. In current law, if the Legislature is session, the Governor's disaster declaration can be ratified by a current resolution. If it was during the interim, a special session was convened unless the presiding officers of the House of Representatives and the Senate agree in writing that a special session was not necessary. The Legislature may terminate a disaster emergency by concurrent resolution. The committee substitute would require a disaster declaration to be ratified or terminated by law rather than by a concurrent resolution. It would also require a special session to be convened during the interim to ratify a declaration. Section 3 repealed and reenacted AS 26.23.300 that provided for the creation and operation of the disaster relief fund. Subsections (b) and (c) were in current law and stated that the Governor may expend up to $500,000 of the fund to address an event that posed a direct and imminent threat of disaster that warranted state action. It also provided that the Governor could expend up to $1 million from the fund to address disaster. Subsections (d) through (h) were reenacted language. Subsection (d) provided that the Governor could expend up to $5 million from the fund to address a disaster resulting from certain specified events: fire, flood, earthquake, severe storm, tsunami, volcanic activity, epidemic, explosion, riot and release of oil or hazardous substance. Subsection (e) provided that the Governor could not exceed the spending limits set out in (c) and (d) unless the President of the United States declared the disaster to be a major disaster and the Legislature approved the expenditure of additional assets from the disaster relief fund. Subsection (f) provided that a community or area was eligible only once for flood disaster relief funded from the disaster relief fund. Subsections (g) and (h) stated that the Governor shall provide an annual accounting of expenditures from the disaster relief fund and that the Governor could adopt regulations to implement this section. Section 4 amended the definition of disaster. The language "a natural or manmade cause including" was removed "or shortage of food, water, fuel or clothing" was inserted. Subsection (a) "the event of weather condition" was removed and "severe storm" was inserted. Also deleted was the language, "or shortage of food, water, fuel or clothing". Senator Sean Parnell moved for adoption of CS SB 101 Version "H". Senator Al Adams objected. He had questions on the special session provisions. He wondered if there would be numerous special sessions. He also felt the need to elaborate on the definition of "severe storms". It should include cold snaps and long term cold temperatures. He then asked how often the community could have one flood - in a lifetime or annually. Co-Chair John Torgerson walked through his intentions. Most of the things incorporated were attempts to clarify language. It would bring the Legislature back into a special session for expenditures over $5 million. This provision was inserted at the suggestion by Senator Dave Donley. He referred to a handout listing the incidences of disasters over $5 million. There were only two. Therefore, past history did not show that the Legislature would be in special sessions under this new provision. The definition of "severe storms" was at the suggestion of Senator Randy Phillips to remove "weather conditions" and provide a broader definition. He believed it would cover severe cold snaps. He noted that FEMA would not provide assistance for a second flood if their suggestions after the first flood were not heeded, such as building above the flood plain. He admitted the bill still needed work and that was the reason for this discussion. Senator Dave Donley explained that part of his proposal for the $5 million limit, was to include a safety valve to allow the presiding officers to poll the members of the Legislature to see if a majority supported allowing the Governor to go beyond $5 million. This was a way to avoid a special session. He still supported that and felt it was reasonable in a disaster situation. Co-Chair John Torgerson said he wished to ask the Legislative Council from the Legal Services Division for an opinion on the issue of binding the Legislature through a poll. Senator Al Adams asked if with the figures stated in the proposed CS, would the disaster relief fund be funded in the regular budget or be incorporated the special session. He then referred to another provision that stated a disaster relief could not continue for more than 30 days unless set into law. He wanted history of the length of prior disasters from the Division of Emergency Services. Co-Chair John Torgerson commented that provision was in existing law and that it could be looked at. Co-Chair John Torgerson addressed the question on funding. This would not change any of the available funding mechanisms. The Governor was not prevented from taking funds where legally available to be used for the disaster. GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Legislative Council, Division of Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came to the table at the request of Co-Chair John Torgerson. Co-Chair John Torgerson questioned him about polling the Legislature and the binding authority. George Utermohle replied that there was precedent in the state for action to be taken other than passage of a law by the Legislature. He detailed the reasons for this. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if this was changed back to concurrent resolution, would the poll not be binding. George Utermohle responded that a decision or approval by the presiding officers would not be sufficient, nor would a concurrent resolution. Senator Dave Donley asked what was the difference between that method and the existing practice of the presiding officers giving approval to the Governor. George Utermohle answered that there was no difference. Senator Dave Donley then challenged that the current law was also illegal. Co- Chair John Torgerson explained the present law did not approve funds. The current decision made by the presiding officers was whether to come into a special session. Senator Dave Donley countered that was still binding because the Legislature could petition a special session. Co-Chair John Torgerson agreed. There was further debate. Senator Al Adams noted the different funding limits set in the CS. He wanted to know if there was a requirement for a special session for any disaster over $1 million. George Utermohle it would require additional approval is obtained from the Legislature in that particular instance. Co-Chair John Torgerson affirmed that the special session would be required for additional funding if the disaster didn't conform to the definition of disaster. The CS SB 101 Version "H" Workdraft was adopted without objection. DAVID LIEBERSBACK, Director, Division of Emergency Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, testified via teleconference to the adopted CS. He spoke to the need for special sessions. In the reality of his experience over the last few years, the special session would be required more often because there was no appropriation to the disaster relief fund and the fund was currently empty. Therefore, the Governor would need to call special session because he would not have other sources sufficient to cope with the disaster. Co-Chair John Torgerson interrupted to ask what made him say that since no changes in the provisions for financing disasters were proposed. David Liebersback responded that there was no money in the disaster relief fund and the provision stated that if there was no money in the fund to deal with the disaster a special session would be required. Co-Chair John Torgerson said that was not true, the Governor had the option of taking funds available to him from other departments to use for relief. David Liebersback spoke to another potential problem under the special session provision and that was the time it would take to get the funding processed to enable relief efforts. He then noted numerous events over the past 20 years where flooding occurred in the same place. He listed several floods in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough and Fairbanks. Without state money to match, the division would be unable to get federal funds for these floods. Relating to the definition of disaster, David Liebersback felt that what had been done was good, but that it limited the division. He suggested "resulting from and event including" would allow for the possibility on an unforeseen event. Senator Al Adams asked if he had a definition of severe storms. David did not and said it would have to be developed. Senator Sean Parnell wanted to know if there was a definition of severe storms that FEMA used. He thought FEMA used similar language but wanted more information. Senator Lyda Green referred to US Code definition. She had been concerned about the difference between disasters and major disasters noting the differing amounts of money spent to respond to each. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for the definition of major catastrophe. Would the Bristol Bay situation return to the definition? Senator Lyda Green answered no. Senator Sean Parnell commented on Senator Lyda Green's referral to the US code. Recess 9:30 AM teleconference connection lost - [recording affected] / 9:34 AM Senator Lyda Green continued talking about the federal definition of disasters that the state would have to provide matching funds to receive federal relief. It referred to a catastrophe being the trigger. Then a major disaster meant, "any natural catastrophe including, hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snow storm or drought. She thought Senator Loren Leman's drafted amendment followed that definition. Co-Chair John Torgerson explained that Senator Loren Leman had drafted an amendment that was not yet distributed that incorporated many of Senator Lyda Green's suggestions. He gave her a copy of the amendment in case she wished to sponsor it. Senator Lyda Green said she would like to incorporate a definition of emergency into the amendment. Senator Al Adams requested Nico Bus to come to the table to answer questions about relief for fires. Under the proposed language, would the state avert federal funding for relief? NICO BUS, Administrative Services Manager, Division of Support Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and Department of Natural Resources, commented on the fire program in general. The emergency statutes referred to both fire and the disaster relief fund. Previously, there was a fire suppression fund that was used for fire disasters. That fund had been completely depleted. The next recourse was through the disaster relief fund, where up to $1 million could be used. He noted that fund was also depleted. When looking at money regularly appropriated for fire suppression, the fund was insufficient. Over the last four or five years, the department found itself in the position where they had to declare a disaster for even the smallest fires. He detailed the budget expenditure process. Recently, the only option was to take funds from other governmental operations. The Administration and the Legislature decided that was not a good plan. Government and projects should not be halted for this. The solution was to do a financing plan then request a supplemental appropriation when the Legislature came back into regular session. The money was borrowed against the general fund. Under the CS, he was unsure if there would be many requests for special sessions because the financing plan would no longer be used. He felt that to borrow money from existing programs would be problematic. Co-Chair John Torgerson repeated that the financing schemes would not be changed. He stressed that while the department claimed each year that the disaster relief fund was under- funded, the Legislature never short funded the programs. As to the matter of special sessions, that was a call of this Legislature. Senator Al Adams had a question on the CS if it would allow the capture of all available federal funds. Nico Bus responded that most of the federal funds appropriated to both the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs was sufficient. The problem was with the federal fund appropriations. Senator Lyda Green noted her amendment was being drafted. There was another issue regarding Senator Randy Phillips' proposed amendment to the original bill relating to the Department of Commerce and Economic Development for economic disasters. She felt the committee should address one type of disaster without addressing the other. Senator Randy Phillips moved for adoption of Amendment #1 with technical changes to comply with the CS Version "H". BRUCE CAMPBELL, staff to Senator Randy Phillips, explained the amendment. There had been some concern about the assistance grants language. Discussions with George Utermohle changed their understanding of what that language meant. Furthermore, this amendment would add language in which the government shall encourage private capital. There seemed to be implications on line 14 that the capital projects were public capital projects. They wanted to make sure it was clear that it could include private, as well as capital projects for economic disasters. In an economic disaster, the Governor could select projects that needed to be moved forward rapidly in permit review and other capital expenditures. Senator Dave Donley wondered what would be different about this law compared to the current law. Bruce Campbell explained that the new language would encourage the Governor to move more quickly with permit packages. He detailed a past instances with the Southeast timber disasters where if the Governor had the power, state land could have been opened and the mills possibly kept open. While if may or may not work, he stressed the need to offer the opportunity. Senator Lyda Green suggested the federal definition of economic disaster added to this section. She read, "the annual income to workers in the designated area drop below the average annual income for the base period for workers in the designated area and the drop in income is of just magnitude." Senator Sean Parnell said it would open the title up for further review and the question was whether the committee wished to only address natural disasters or add economic disaster. Senator Lyda Green felt this was the section where natural disasters fell and thought they needed to oversee that. Senator Sean Parnell agreed and noted that if the title would be opened it should be dealt with in this committee rather than passing the bill along. Co-Chair John Torgerson understood the intent and didn't disagree that there needed to be work done with the economic disasters. However, he didn't think this amendment would accomplish that without causing more problems. Senator Sean Parnell said if it was to be added it needed to be dealt with here. Senator Randy Phillips offered holding this amendment until after the other amendments were heard. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked David Liebersback how much total funds could be distributed under economic disasters. David said his department didn't handle the economic disasters, the Department of Commerce and Economic Development did. He didn't have that information. Co-Chair John Torgerson said his office would request that information from the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Senator Randy Phillips withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment #1. Senator Randy Phillips moved for adoption of Amendment #2. Co-Chair John Torgerson explained would delete the term, "a major disaster" and reinsert, "determined by the President of the United States to cause damage of significant severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974." This was to address the concern that there could be a major disaster but it may not qualify for federal disaster relief aid. Senator Al Adams asked if this amendment would cover all federal funds that might be available. Would it limit the state's ability to obtain federal funds? Tape: SFC - 99 #58, Side B 9:54 AM Senator Al Adams concluded his question. Co-Chair John Torgerson answered no, it authorized the Governor to obtain funds from all sources. It just said that before the Governor could spend over $1 million, or $5 million, the disaster must be declared to qualify under the federal standards. Amendment #2 was adopted without objection. Senator Randy Phillips moved for adoption of Amendment #3. Senator Randy Phillips explained this was to address a concern that the department expressed. Co-Chair John Torgerson objected because the language, "such as" may be too broad. Senator Al Adams commented this amendment was similar to the suggestions made by David Liebersback to insert, ".resulting from a cause, including." CAROL CARROLL, Director, Division of Support Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, came to the table. She addressed the question of whether Senator Randy Phillips's amendment would take care of the concerns of the Division of Emergency Services. It would. She restated the concerns that it was unknown what types of events would be. By limiting events to a list of disasters, some events may be excluded that the Legislature may later want to declare. Senator Randy Phillips said he now viewed the change as opening it up rather than narrowing it down. He didn't want to do that. He withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment Senator Dave Donley moved to amend and adopt Amendment #4. He detailed the technical change to line 20 to insert, "in writing" and spoke to the intent of the amendment to have the notice and the assent in writing. He felt it was important to have discussion on the special session matter. He was not convinced that this was the answer, but it would facilitate a discussion. He agreed with the provisions in the CS placing the $5 million limit before additional Legislative appropriation. He wanted the committee to talk about the flexibility to avoid a special session. Senator Sean Parnell wanted to know if it was the intent that all members of the respective houses be polled in writing. Senator Dave Donley answered it was. Senator Sean Parnell moved to amend Amendment #4 to insert "all" following "after polling". Senator Al Adams requested the amendment be read in its proposed form. Senator Dave Donley complied. Without objection Amendment #4 was amended to change "in writing". Without objection, Amendment #4 amended was amended to insert the word "all". Co-Chair John Torgerson said his earlier object to the polling was under the pretense that the committee would be approving money to exceed the $1 million or the $5 million disaster cap. But under this amendment, the questions before the members would only be whether or not to come into special session. George Utermohle affirmed and detailed. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if this basically conformed to the CS or was there major changes. George Utermohle explained that including this amendment into the CS would require a substantial change to the structure. Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if it would affect just the polling or if it would change other provisions as well. George Utermohle replied that it would make major changes to the CS. The conceptual issue of capping the Governor's unrestricted expenditures at $5 million was consistent. But how those two melded in the CS and the amendment took different approaches. A new CS would probably be required to see how they worked together. Senator Dave Donley was willing to withdraw the amendment and draft another to the CS version to offer on the Senate floor. Co-Chair John Torgerson did not have a problem with the approach but just wanted to understand what was being changed. He spoke to his concerns with the polling of the Legislature. George Utermohle said he would need to have time to study and compare the effects of the CS and the amendment. Senator Dave Donley said it was too major to send out of Senate Finance Committee incomplete. Senator Randy Phillips suggested that Senator Lyda Green's concern with Amendment #1 could also be worked on in a new CS. Co-Chair John Torgerson spoke of the effect this bill would have on the FY99 supplemental budget bill. Senator Dave Donley felt the CS was adequate and he did not want it to impede the supplemental budget. Co-Chair John Torgerson said the matter should be debated before the bill left committee. Senator Sean Parnell offered to take up the bill the next day. Co-Chair John Torgerson said it was his intent that the bill held in committee until the Monday meeting. He wanted direction from the committee on Amendment #1. Senator Gary Wilken felt the two should be separate. Co- Chair John Torgerson asked if Senator Lyda Green would consider separate legislation to address economic disaster. Senator Lyda Green didn't see how one could be addressed without consideration of the other. Senator Sean Parnell commented that the economic disasters might have been a more appropriate route with this bill. He reread the definition of economic disasters and concluded the economic disaster section was pointed directly at helping people whose income had been dramatically affected. The question was, did the committee want to open that matter up as well. It could be such that once the emergency disaster statutes were fixed, then the Administration had the option to utilize the current economic disaster statute as it was. The difference would be that when the Governor designated an area as being an economic disaster are, the Legislature then considered whether to appropriate the money. He didn't see an automatic appropriation by the Governor. Senator Lyda Green said it appeared there was a very high standard since the income had to drop below the base income for workers in the designated areas and the average family of all residents had to drop below the poverty guideline. She was unsure if the Western Alaska Fishing Disaster would have qualified. She still felt the matter needed to be considered Senator Sean Parnell said the point was well taken. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked Senator Lyda Green to research the matter. It was his desire that if it involved a major change, it be handled as separate legislation. If it were a small change, it could be incorporated in this bill. Senator Al Adams requested consideration be given to the definition of severe storms. Co-Chair John Torgerson agreed. Senator Dave Donley withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment Senator Al Adams requested the adopted amendment incorporated into the new CS for the members to review. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD) "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders." Senator Dave Donley spoke to the bill he sponsored. He told the committee that Alaska had possibly the most liberal good-time laws in the nation as it allowed reduction of sentences by one-third for good-time. The federal standard recommended to all states was that 85- percent of sentences be served. In Alaska, good time reduced that to 66-percent. At least 29 states had adopted the federal standard. SB 11 would implement the federal standards in an indirect way, for those serving time for first- and second-degree murder for Alaska. It would say that good time for those who had committed first- and second-degree murder would be only one-half of what it would be for any other type of crime in Alaska. It was still slightly below the federal standards, but was close and would only apply to those serving time for first- and second-degree murder. He noted a great moral and ethical gap between the crimes of first- and second-degree murder and other crimes and they should be dealt with differently. The reason there were no fiscal notes was because the prisoners were already serving lengthy sentences and costs would be incurred beyond the five-year projection of the fiscal notes. He continued saying the idea only partially came from the desire to comply with the national standard. He spoke about attending a ceremony honoring victims of violent crimes and hearing from family members with concerns that many of the perpetrators were already being released from prison under the good-time rules. Senator Al Adams appreciated the cause of the bill with the victim's families. However, he was concerned with the fiscal impact and the potential for lawsuits from prisoners challenging the removal of their rights. He detailed the amount of additional time of incarceration for these offenders. Senator Dave Donley said Senator Al Adams was correct in that there would be a fiscal impact in the future but countered that 30 other states had similar statutes and he felt the bill was important. He noted the seriousness of first- and second-degree murder. He spoke to the possibility of only applying the provision to those serving the shorter, second-degree murder sentences. The greatest benefit would occur for those with the shorter sentences, since those inmates would have to serve 83.5-percent of their sentences. However, he believed it would be inconsistent and suspect if it only applied to those convicted of second-degree murder. Senator Randy Phillips commented that if the budget were in a better position, the fiscal argument would not even come up. Senator Sean Parnell felt Senator Dave Donley expressed the distinction of these very serious crimes. He agreed the legislation would serve public policies of deterrence and community justice and restoration. Both related to the victims and the offenders. There was a multitude of public policies that were reflected in this legislation as it related to these very serious crimes. Senator Al Adams believed the fiscal notes should reflect the costs and that the Legislature would have to also fund programs such as the public defender's office that would be impacted. MARGO KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law working for the Department of Corrections, testified that this was an expensive proposition. She said if this law had been in effect in the last 12 months, the cost in the last year would be over $1 million. If the law had been in effect since statehood, the cost would be $50 million to date. She said another consideration was the high cost of geriatrics in the prison system. Those costs were not included in her figures above. If the time were extended, the state would be responsible for the cost of care for people in their fifties and sixties. The national average cost of prison for each inmate was $23,000 a year. For prisoners over the age of fifty, the cost jumped to over $67,000 per year. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if murder one and murder two could be separated without violating the Equal Protection Clauses. Margot Knuth said it could be done but would not address the sponsor's desire to focus the punishment on those convicted of murder two. She continued that this bill would separate the prisoners into two different classes, those sentenced before and those after 1999. This would cause problems for the department. Senator Dave Donley argued that the Legislature was spending a lot of money to provide new technology to the department that would make this easier. He referred to testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee that some of the sentences served were under ten years. Margot Knuth said none were under ten, the lowest was 14 years. The longest term imposed was 104 years. She read the length of the sentences imposed by the court. There were a few instances were the court exercised its right to give exceptions. Senator Dave Donley asked what was her counter proposal to prevent second degree murder convicts from early release. Margot Knuth said that the Legislature imposing the sentences in criminal cases would be a difficult matter. The way the constitution set up the government, the Judiciary Branch was given the authority to set sentences unless there was a higher mandatory minimum for murder in the second degree. Currently, the mandatory minimum was five years as set by the Legislature. Senator Al Adams asked if there was any good standard used in other states that would work in Alaska. Margot Knuth said the federal government encouraged states to follow an 85-percent truth in sentencing formula for all crimes. However, that would be prohibitively expensive because the sentencing rules were so strict in Alaska. The states that followed the 85-percent rate had much lower initial sentences. She added that the good-time provisions were used on the parole end to allow for parole oversight. This legislation would cause unintended consequences. Sometimes the defendants with the murder two sentences were the ones that should be most closely supervised. Senator Dave Donley said the parole time could be extended in statute. He felt that would be a good idea with or without this legislation. Co-Chair John Torgerson expressed a desire to find out the long-term fiscal impact. BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee that under the equal protection issue, his office would probably have some Rule 35.1 Post Conviction Release Applications filed. However, they were less viable then they had been under the previous version of this bill. He pointed out the federal standards to his understanding was intended to address the entire sentencing structure. Other states had more discretionary parole options than Alaska. He added that when prisoners received very long sentences they tended to be very institutionalized by the time of their release and took longer to reintegrate into the community. He commented on the longer parole time as suggested by Senator Dave Donley. The length of the sentence set the parole period, so it would depend on the length of the total sentence. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee. Tape: SFC - 99 #59, Side A CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 24(JUD) "An Act relating to regulations; relating to administrative adjudications; amending Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." Senator Dave Donley moved for adoption of the CS SB 24 Version "V". Senator Al Adams objected for question. He felt bill should wait for similar bills. He noted SB 106, addressed the Department of Health and Social Services as one. He felt SB 24 should delete Department of Health and Social Services provisions and be handled under SB 106. After those comments, Senator Al Adams withdrew his objection. Senator Dave Donley said he thought the CS would address Senator Al Adams's concerns. It narrowed the applicability to just the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Game and Department of Environmental Conservation. Co-Chair John Torgerson detailed the changes in the CS. Section 16, which set the time limits, was covered in SB 106. Section 2 language was inserted, "except for designated state agencies". Subsection (b) addressed the cost and benefit requirement. His intent was that if a fiscal note were passed with a bill that was not substantial changed by the adoption of the regulation the fiscal note would work as the cost benefit analysis. The fiscal note would then be included in the explanation in the public release of the regulation. If the Legislature passed a law, it was therefore determined through the process whether or not the benefits were to the public's best interest. To then require the Administration to do a cost benefit analysis on those regulations would be duplication. The intent was to lessen the amount of work required of the agencies Section 9 was language dealing another section and would probably be amended out. On page 7 the remainder of the sentence regarding good faith attempt on line 3 was removed. It could be hard to defend in court what a good faith attempt was. Section 16, the time limit section, might be the same that Senator Robin Taylor was attempting with SB 106. Senator Al Adams requested comments from the departments on this section. Section 17 was new and defined "designated agencies". This CS would only apply to the Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Natural Resources and the Division of Habitat and Restoration, Department of Fish and Game. It did not include any functions controlled by a board or commission and it did not include an organizational entity whose members were confirmed by the Legislature. Senator Dave Donley liked the CS with the exception of Section 8. He didn't feel it would give the public appropriate notice of what the department intended to adopt in regulations. He asked if the CS could be adopted without that section. He said the original intent of the bill was to give clear notice to the public of the actual regulation the agencies were going to adopt. He felt the changes in Section 8 went against that. He wanted to see the fiscal notes reflecting the exclusion of Section 8. Senator Dave Donley moved to amend CS SB 24 Version "V" to delete Section 8 (Amendment #10). Without objection, it was adopted. CS SB 101 Version "V" as amended was adopted as a Workdraft without objection. Senator Randy Phillips asked if the number of fiscal notes would be reduced. Co-Chair John Torgerson liked what the sponsor was doing but needed to limit the amount of the fiscal notes. That was why he narrowed the focus down three programs. The bill was held in committee. Co-Chair John Torgerson said he would advise members whether there would be a meeting the next day. ADJOURNED Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 10:51 AM. SFC-99 (20) 3/18/99