Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1996 01:12 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 1996
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Co-Chair
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Mackie
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
EXECUTIVE ORDER 93 - TRANSFER ARDOR TO DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AND
REGIONAL AFFAIRS
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 391
"An Act relating to succession to assets and liabilities of
dissolved municipalities."
- PASSED CS HB 391(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 358
"An Act relating to dog mushers' contests."
- PASSED CS HB 358(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First Public Hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 391
SHORT TITLE: DISSOLVED MUNICIPALITIES/SUCCESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/05/96 2369 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2369 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2369 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/08/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 358
SHORT TITLE: DOG MUSHING CONTESTS/GAMES OF CHANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
12/29/95 2359 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2359 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2360 (H) CRA, FINANCE
01/23/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/08/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF SMITH, Director
Division of Community and Rural Development
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
333 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 220
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-4607
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on EO 93.
DONNA TOLLMAN, President
ARDOR Association; and Executive Director,
Copper Valley Economic Development Council
P.O. Box 9
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5001
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported EO 93.
KIMBERLY METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: (907) 465-4898
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on EO 93.
JOHN WALSH, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Richard Foster
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 410
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3789
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on EO 93.
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement and explained
changes in the committee substitute for
HB391.
MARJORIE VANDOR, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division (Juneau)
Governmental Affairs Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 391.
JOHN BAKER, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 391
RON SWANSON, Director
Central Office
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position on HB 391.
PATRICK K. POLAND, Director
Central Office
Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
333 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 319
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-4578
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position on HB 391.
ANTHONY CAOLE, Tribal Administrator
Village of Quinhagak
General Delivery
Quinhagak, Alaska 99655
Telephone: (907) 556-8167
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 391.
DARIO NOTTI, Legislative Intern
Office of Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented committee substitute and discussed
changes to HB 358.
DENNIS POSHARD, Director
Charitable Gaming Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110440
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0440
Telephone: (907) 465-2229
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 358.
VINCENT USERA, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 358.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ivan, Austerman and Kott;
Representative Elton joined the meeting shortly thereafter.
Members absent were Representatives Mackie, Vezey and Nicholia.
EO 93 - TRANSFER ARDOR TO DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Number 0074
CO-CHAIR IVAN IVAN noted that committee packets for EO 93 contained
a copy of the order; zero fiscal notes from the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs; and the Governor's transmittal letter. Co-
Chair Ivan informed the committee that any action opposing EO 93
must take place by March7, 1996; otherwise, the executive order
would stand.
Number 0153
JEFF SMITH, Director, Division of Community and Rural Development,
Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in support of EO 93. The department
believed that administering the ARDOR program would allow DCRA to
better integrate the program, using DCRA's regional office staff to
provide more specific technical assistance to individual ARDORs.
The department also thought it could help new ARDORs start up in a
more effective and efficient manner. Mr. Smith noted that DCRA
would administer the program for approximately $60,000, down from
$250,000, with the savings due to utilizing DCRA's existing
resources and regional offices, which were already involved in
economic development programs.
Number 0286
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN referred to the budget being reduced to $60,000
and asked Mr. Smith if that was due to federal cutbacks.
MR. SMITH replied that some was due to federal reductions but there
were also reductions the Governor had included in the FY 97 budget.
Number 0326
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked how much of the $60,000 was federal money.
MR. SMITH believed none of it was.
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if the ARDOR program would receive no
federal funding or whether that meant their budget was more than
$60,000.
Number 0358
MR. SMITH replied they did not anticipate any federal receipts for
the program next year.
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked Mr. Smith how many ARDORs currently existed in
Alaska.
Number 0374
MR. SMITH responded he was not sure.
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN replied that he had just been signaled that
there were 12.
MR. SMITH agreed that sounded right.
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if they were talking about dividing
$60,000 among the 12 ARDORs.
Number 0420
MR. SMITH clarified that the $60,000 was for administration. The
budget, including administration, was $650,000 for FY 97. He added
that none of that was state general fund money. Instead, they
would be working with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA), which would be expanding their investments
throughout Alaska. The DCRA would be utilizing those organizations
and corporate receipts from AIDEA to curry the atmosphere in areas
where economic development projects would be viable.
Number 0536
DONNA TOLLMAN, President, ARDOR Association, and Executive
Director, Copper Valley Economic Development Council, testified via
teleconference from Glennallen in support of EO 93. Her
organization's concern, she said, was that they be allowed to
continue to serve the needs of the entire state of Alaska in
economic development, in the manner they were currently doing it.
Number 0599
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked Ms. Tollman how much of a cut most ARDORs
would receive with the loss of federal funds.
MS. TOLLMAN explained that the $250,000 which DCED had was a match
with U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration (EDA) grant funding. The loss of funds would
eliminate the ARDORs' ability to meet with each other. Currently,
their organization received parts of two salaries and two full
salaries, for administration and technical assistance through the
ARDOR program. Using EDA monies, they were also working on an
infrastructure project; each year, they tried to tackle an issue
such as that. The reduction in funds would affect their ability to
accomplish such a major statewide task. In terms of funding to
each individual organization, Ms. Tollman said, they had received
a substantial cut the previous year and did not anticipate
receiving much larger amounts this year. She said they were
currently "at low maintenance level." She reiterated that they had
to match all of those funds in order to receive them. That was
done through a process using federal funds that were project-
specific, as well as private sector contributions.
Number 0717
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted for the record that Representative Irene
Nicholia had joined the meeting.
KIMBERLY METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs,
acknowledged that the committee had questions about the budget.
Although she denied being an expert on that subject, she did know
that of the $250,000 that DCED had in their budget, $125,000 came
from a federal Economic Development Association (EDA) grant. She
said DCED was in the sixth year of a three-year grant cycle. They
had extended it three years beyond what they originally thought
they could, she explained. That money would no longer be there
after the transfer occurred. It was not expected, even if the
program had remained in DCED this year.
Number 0775
MS. METCALFE-HELMAR said she understood that the $125,000, a state
match, had been reduced to $60,000. She explained that DCRA had
asked to fund one grants administrator position. At DCED, she
noted, they had run the program using two grants administrators;
there had also been a $50,000 budget for travel that would no
longer be there. From her understanding, each ARDOR received a
yearly grant of approximately $50,000.
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if that was from the state.
MS. METCALFE-HELMAR replied that it came from the ARDOR grant fund
money, a total of $650,000. This year, she said, that money came
from AIDEA corporate receipts. It would no longer be general fund
money, as put into the Governor's budget this year, as she
understood it.
Number 0851
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked who would pick up the moving costs
for transferring the program from DCED to DCRA.
MS. METCALFE-HELMAR responded there should be no moving costs;
there might be files to be moved, but no positions were moving with
the transfer. There would be no furniture or people moving.
Number 0898
JOHN WALSH, Legislative Assistant to Representative Richard Foster,
explained that Representative Foster was Co-Chairman for the House
Finance Committee. Mr. Walsh stated that EO 93 was evidently an
attempt by the Administration to streamline operations, in light of
budget changes on the federal level and reorganization of plans
internally. He acknowledged that DCRA had a rural perspective and
outreach in their mission statement.
Number 0945
MR. WALSH voiced concern about the risk of taking funds from AIDEA,
based on the Governor's veto the previous year of the legislature's
attempt to take funds from AIDEA. If the fund shift did not occur,
he said, the program could be vulnerable. Whether or not it was a
House Finance Committee issue, it was certainly an issue in the
budget, Mr. Walsh said, and one that needed brought to the
attention of the current committee.
Number 1030
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN mentioned that one of the questions he had was
how the Governor could use AIDEA corporate receipts, whereas the
legislature had to allocate those funds on a yearly budget basis.
He suggested that the House Finance Committee consider that
question.
Number 1087
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN moved that the committee pass EO 93 out of
committee, with individual recommendations; Representative Kim
Elton added that there were attached zero fiscal notes. There
being no objection, EO 93 was moved from committee.
HB 391 - DISSOLVED MUNICIPALITIES/SUCCESSION
Number 1118
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that a committee substitute for HB 391 had been
submitted to committee members earlier in the week.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that the committee substitute be adopted
for discussion purposes. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 1143
CO-CHAIR IVAN explained that CS HB 391 was the result of work
between the Department of Law, the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and the Legal Services Division of the legislature. He noted
that on teleconference were DCRA representatives Pat Polland,
Director, Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance, and Dan
Bockhorst of the Local Boundary Commission; Ron Swanson from DNR;
and John Baker from the Department of Law.
Number 1192
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan, sponsor
of HB 391, noted that the original hearing on HB 391 had been
postponed until differences among the various departments had been
resolved. The resolution of those differences, he said, were found
in CS HB 391. He read the sponsor statement for HB 391:
"The bill was introduced by request of the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs and the Local Boundary Commission. Currently,
the state automatically becomes the successor to a dissolved
municipality unless another municipal government assumes such
responsibility. In most cases, the state becomes the successor by
default. This means the state takes over the responsibility and
liability of owning properties such as solid waste facilities, bulk
fuel storage facilities, power utilities, sewer systems and other
facilities that were previously owned by the municipality.
"House Bill 391 allows the Local Boundary Commission to designate
a Native council or nonprofit corporation to be a direct successor
to a dissolved municipality. The terms of the transfer of assets
and liabilities of the dissolved municipality must be approved by
the Department of Law. The bill also specifies that any transfer
of assets or liabilities does not constitute recognition by the
state of that organization."
Number 1268
MR. WRIGHT explained that the changes made in the committee
substitute, draft LS 1371\C, were recommended by DCRA, the
Department of Law and DNR. Mr. Wright noted that the document
before him, entitled "Changes in Committee Substitute for HB 391
(CRA)," was presented to the committee members at the time the
committee substitute was distributed. He read from the document
and added further comments:
"The first change occurs in the title. It adds `and to the
administration and disposal of certain land dissolved
municipalities.' This reflects the various changes made throughout
the bill."
Number 1316
"The second change occurs in Section 1, line 6. At the suggestion
of the Department of Natural Resources, before the Local Boundary
Commission and the Department of Law decide where a dissolved
municipality's former state land assets will be transferred, DNR
must be consulted."
Number 1330
"The third change occurs in Section 1, line 7. Reference is made
to AS 38.05.825(d); this was suggested by DNR. This statute
requires that tide and submerged land conveyed revert to the state
upon dissolution of the municipality. The reason for this, as
stated by DNR in their fiscal note, is to protect the public
interest, as established through the public trust doctrine."
Number 1350
"The fourth change is Section 1, line 13. Moved the state as a
successor from the first option to the last option, and that is
noted in subsection (b), found on page 2, line 6, of the committee
substitute. This addresses the Department of Law's concern that
the state succeed to the dissolved municipality's assets or
liabilities only if there is no other successor, as another
municipality, under current law. This lessens the liability for
the state in the succession process."
Number 1380
"The fifth change occurs in Section 1, line 14." Mr. Wright noted
this was still on the first page. "Reference is changed from `a
Native council organized under federal law' to `a council formed
under 25 U.S.C. 473(a).' This change was recommended by the
Department of Law. According to the department, a Native council
organized under federal law is generally considered to be a federal
IRA council. This conflicts with current regulations and practice,
which allow traditional councils, as well as IRAs and nonprofit
corporations, to be deeded certain real properties from dissolved
municipalities. Also, in the original bill, reference was made to
`within the entire area of the dissolved municipality', which may
have caused problems, since Indian county is not recognized in
Alaska, except in Metlakatla, and it could be that the area where
a Native council operates may be different from what were the
boundaries of the former municipality."
Number 1429
"The sixth change occurs in Section 1, page 2, line 18. The change
in subsection (c) (lines 18-19) is a change in drafting and
technical in nature. This change was recommended by the Department
of Community and Regional Affairs."
Number 1440
"The seventh change is in Section 2, page 3, line 4. The original
bill would have deleted authority of the commissioner of DC&RA to
dispose of relevant trust lands to an appropriate village entity if
a municipality dissolves. Current regulations allow the
commissioner of DC&RA to transfer the lands of a dissolved
municipality to an appropriate village entity. Deletion of this
authority would make current regulations inapplicable to land asset
distribution in the event of a municipal dissolution. Therefore,
the Department of Law recommended reinstating this authority."
Number 1464
"The eighth change is Section 3." Mr. Wright noted this was a
whole new section, not found in the original bill. He said, "This
is a recommendation by the Department of Law. This requires that
the transfer of land by sale, lease, right of way, easement or
permit may be made by the commissioner only after the approval of
the appropriate village entity by resolution filed with the
department."
Number 1483
"The final change is found in a whole new section, Section 4.
Language was added to AS 44.47.150(c). This states that after one
complete fiscal year after incorporation of a municipality that
includes all or part of the area of a dissolved municipality, land
or interest in land acquired under (a)(3) of this section and
retained by the state will be conveyed without cost to the newly
incorporated municipality."
Number 1510
MR. WRIGHT concluded by saying Marjorie Vandor was present from the
Department of Law to answer questions. He noted that John Baker,
who was well-versed in Native lands issues, was also present via
teleconference.
Number 1566
MARJORIE VANDOR, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said she
believed the ANCSA land issues were not addressed in HB 391, which
dealt with municipal trust lands. She indicated she would defer to
John Baker for clarification, but said the only lands that DCRA had
control over under HB 391 were municipal lands given to a city;
once it dissolved, those lands needed to revert to the state or be
moved into trust again with the new entity. Ms. Vandor reiterated
that it did not address ANCSA trust lands at all.
Number 1594
JOHN BAKER, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via
teleconference. He said he was not too familiar with HB 391. He
did not have an understanding one way or another whether HB 391
would allow the trust lands acquired from the village corporations
under 14(c) to then go to the village council; if they did,
however, it would certainly be subject to a reversionary interest,
whether HB 391 accomplished it or not. What the state could be a
party to, consistent with its trust responsibilities under Title
29, as well as under federal law under ANCSA, would be to make the
conveyance subject to a reversionary interest, so that it would
revert to the state in the event a municipality ever formed again.
Mr. Baker asked if that answered the question.
Number 1640
CO-CHAIR IVAN expressed appreciation for the response and indicated
it answered his questions. He noted they were dealing with land
that already had been conveyed or property of the municipal
government at this point in time, not six months or a year from
now.
Number 1668
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to page 2, lines 8 - 11, and asked for
an explanation. He said it left him with the impression that if an
entity went belly-up or into bankruptcy, the state would end up
taking over liabilities.
Number 1686
MS. VANDOR replied that was if a municipality dissolved under the
statute right now, which required a petition process and going to
the Local Boundary Commission. Depending on the type of petition
process that occurred, it either came directly to the legislature
with a recommendation to allow dissolution and/or it could involve
a vote of the people to allow dissolution. Ms. Vandor noted that
several instances had occurred where there were inactive cities;
DCRA had, on their behalf, petitioned for them. This was not
dealing with bankruptcy, she emphasized. If a municipality went
bankrupt, that was handled in the bankruptcy court, through a
completely different proceeding.
Number 1717
MS. VANDOR explained what subsection (b) accomplished. Under
current law, the state was the successor to an asset if there was
no municipality to take over. In most cases, she said, there was
not, because most of the dissolving entities were small, second-
class cities in the unorganized borough. It was not as if they
were being absorbed into an organized borough, which would happen
by operation of law, she added.
Number 1741
MS. VANDOR explained that by arranging and setting out who could
succeed to the assets of a dissolving municipality, the Local
Boundary Commission was given a directive, in subsection (b), to
grant a preference to any of the four listed entities before the
state could become the successor, by operation of law. In other
words, they first looked at 1) another municipality; 2) an IRA
council, which was a corporation providing certain protections in
transferring title to land and assets; 3) a traditional council;
and 4) a nonprofit corporation, which was a community association,
such as Red Devil or Point Baker, able to accept state revenue
sharing money for unincorporated communities in order to provide
public services. If none of those four existed or it was not
feasible or practicable to have the assets go to them, then the
assets would revert to the state. If that happened, the state
could then contract to provide those services or take over those
assets. That had always been provided in law, Ms. Vandor added.
No one expected the state to really run it; they would probably
contract out for services.
Number 1864
RON SWANSON, Director, Central Office, Division of Land, Department
of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage
that the committee substitute had addressed his concerns and that
he had no further comments.
Number 1880
PATRICK K. POLAND, Director, Central Office, Division of Municipal
and Regional Assistance, Department of Community and Regional
Affairs, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He referred
to written testimony he had submitted to the committee earlier that
day and stated support for CS HB 391.
Number 1920
ANTHONY CAOLE, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Quinhagak,
testified via teleconference. He mentioned that he had no copy of
the bill; however, he had a copy of the Local Boundary Commission's
policy concerning the transfer of municipal assets to IRA councils.
He voiced concern about 1) the disclaimer that the conveyance did
not constitute recognition of tribal status and 2) the conveyance
containing a waiver of claims of Indian country. Mr. Caole
wondered, under HB 361, whether the IRA councils would still have
to sign a waiver stating the lands being received from the city
would not constitute Indian country.
Number 2003
MS. VANDOR replied yes, there would have to be a waiver of
sovereign immunity in order to gain title to the assets, whether it
was land or personal assets of the dissolved municipality. Also,
if there was land to be transferred, a statement would be a
required that no assertion of Indian country would be made at a
future time. That was in the agreement, she added.
Number 1990
MR. CAOLE asked if there was a reason why the language could not be
neutral on the issue of Indian country.
Number 2003
MS. VANDOR said she believed at this point, based on the Venetie
case and the status of such lands in Alaska, it was the policy of
the Department of Law and the Local Boundary Commission to require
that such a statement be included.
Number 2020
MR. CAOLE responded that it was rather insulting for IRA councils
to accept land and then sign a waiver saying that land did not
constitute Indian country. He asked again if it would be possible
to change the language so that it was neutral or so that the state
could say it was still subject to federal courts.
Number 2037
MS. VANDOR pointed out that the land being transferred under HB 361
was municipal trust land. It had a legal status already, existing
in state law. In many cases, about which Ms. Vandor said she could
not speak for certain, some of the lands were transferred to the
state from the federal government. She emphasized that the lands
had a legal status now. It was only those lands, she said, that
were being addressed and transferred under the agreement. Under
any quitclaim deed the state would give to an IRA council or tribal
village, the recipient would only receive as much interest in the
land as the municipality had or the state had. It would always
have that municipal trust status, Ms. Vandor added. She said she
could not understand why there was a problem on the assertion of
Indian country because it could not constitute that. The question
was more "why would we have to litigate over this in the future."
The state would like assertions of Indian country to be waived so
the land would keep its legal status, avoiding problems. The
Venetie case, she said, did not concern municipal trust lands.
Number 2090
MR. CAOLE replied if he was not mistaken, some of the municipal
lands were originally tribal lands that were being transferred to
the cities and then, after dissolution, being transferred to an IRA
council. He asserted it was a situation concerning lands that were
once tribal lands, potentially Indian country, being transferred to
the cities and obtaining a lesser status, then being transferred
back to the IRA councils, which could not assert any jurisdiction
on those lands.
Number 2116
MR. BAKER expressed his understanding that these lands were the
former ANCSA Section 14(c)(3) lands. The relationship between
those lands and the municipal trust under state law was part of the
design from ANCSA, which directed that lands in the core village
areas would be part of the village corporation entitlements, to
then be conveyed either to existing municipalities in those
villages or to the state to hold in trust for future
municipalities.
Number 2150
MR. BAKER explained that in the present situation, those
conveyances had already been made, only now the formerly existing
municipalities were dissolved. The problem was that no one knew
whether the cities might form again in the future. Under existing
federal and state law, the state still had a responsibility to
protect the municipal trust status of those lands. Whether there
might be a claim that those lands were at some time considered
tribal lands, he did not know. However, the only legal status
extended by the federal government had been the progression of
being federal lands, then ANCSA village corporation lands, then
municipal lands subject to the state trust.
Number 2203
MR. CAOLE commented that it was frustrating for the IRA councils,
which were trying to govern the communities. He expressed concern
over having to sign a waiver of jurisdiction on the land. He cited
the possibility of a public safety officer not knowing what to do
about an intoxicated person because of lack of jurisdiction. He
did not know why "the state is so afraid to allow the IRA councils
to have some jurisdiction."
Number 2242
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if there was any further testimony and thanked
Mr. Banker and Ms. Vandor for their contribution.
Number 2258
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA moved to pass CS HB 391 out of committee,
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
HB 358 - DOG MUSHING CONTESTS/GAMES OF CHANCE
Number 2273
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that some of the concerns expressed about HB
358 in a previous hearing had been worked on by his staff and the
Division of Charitable Gaming. He said a committee substitute had
been submitted to committee members.
Number 2290
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA moved to adopt CS HB 358 for discussion
purposes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2309
DARIO NOTTI, Legislative Intern, Office of Representative Ivan
Ivan, sponsor of the bill, presented the committee substitute for
HB 358 and outlined the changes. He explained that the only
changes were in Section 2. The first change was a specification
that the games of chance must be operated by dog mushers'
associations, to ensure that proceeds would go to the cause
intended. The second change was a definition of the three elements
of chance specifying that the first element was the primary
determinant, with the second and third elements being tie-breakers.
The third change was to drop the 200-mile minimum, amending it to
include any race recognized by the Charitable Gaming Division. The
purpose of this was to include the entire sport and to avoid an
inference that it was special legislation.
Number 2417
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN referred to page 2, section (B), lines 6 and 7,
and asked if the "primary determinant of success" was the winner.
MR. NOTTI affirmed that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to "primary determinant of success,"
saying he read it in terms of the three different elements. One
element would be primary, being the winning person or the winning
time, for example; that would be how the prize would initially be
awarded. However, if there were a tie, the second element would be
used; if there were still a tie, the third element would be used.
Representative Elton said he had not read it as necessarily being
the winning musher, but rather that each race would have to specify
the primary determinant of success, whether it be time of finish or
another element.
TAPE 96-11, SIDE B
Number 0002
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if the primary determinant of success was
defined either in the bill or in statute.
DENNIS POSHARD, Director, Charitable Gaming Division, Department of
Revenue, replied no, he did not believe "success" was defined
anywhere in statute. Neither was "winner." Certainly, he said,
there would be other choices of words that may read better. He
thought there were not many other ways to interpret the bill other
than the interpretation provided by Representative Elton. Mr.
Poshard felt that the "primary determinant of success" in the
contest, meaning whether or not a person won, would be the first
element; the second element would be the secondary determinant of
success and so forth. He added that was how he himself read the
bill and that was how the Charitable Gaming Division would
interpret it. The division would certainly ensure that contests
were structured in that manner, he added.
Number 0056
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that CS HB 358 was a good
committee substitute. She noted that it addressed all the problems
people had testified about and that it was a good bill for the dog
mushing associations.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed with Representative Nicholia. He then
brought up an issue for the purposes of discussion, saying he was
not sure how he felt about it. He referred to the elimination of
the 200-mile restriction; he expressed some discomfort with the
notion that some junior mushing events might be the subject of
gambling by adults.
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA responded that she had grown up around dog
mushing and had been a junior dog musher herself. In all the races
she had been to, she had never seen bets placed on junior races.
CO-CHAIR IVAN commented that in looking at Iditarod-qualifying
races of 200 miles and more, there were quite a few; they were
looking for ways to assist in the fund-raising efforts. He said
they had conceded to include, for example, the Fur Rendezvous races
in Anchorage, which were a 25-mile, three-day event. The smaller
races occurred in small communities, which did their own fund-
raising.
Number 0167
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN said he had the same question the last time
around. He wondered, if there was an 18-year-old running in a dog
race, or a 17-year-old, what the public perception would be if
betting was allowed on that race. He also wondered if there were
limits in the mushing association. He added that it was probably
a public perception issue and that it made no difference to him one
way or the other.
Number 0189
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he assumed the Charitable Gaming Division
would adopt regulations or a permit application. He explained his
experience with dog mushing was more urban, including organized
races for juniors in the Mat-Su Valley. He was more concerned
about races organized for children and juniors than about an
Iditarod race or Iditarod-qualifying race that might have juniors
in it. He asked Mr. Poshard if it were possible, in the permit
application, to specify no betting on races designed and organized
for the benefit of junior mushers.
Number 0237
MR. POSHARD responded that the division could adopt regulations,
but he had concerns about the difficulty of doing that within the
gaming industry. The more clearly it was spelled out in statute,
he said, the better off they were. If the committee wished to set
an age limit for betting or prohibit gambling on a junior mushing
race, Mr. Poshard preferred that it be addressed in statute.
However, the division certainly could adopt regulations.
Number 0266
CO-CHAIR IVAN said before proceeding further, he wanted to have
Vincent Usera from the Department of Law address that issue.
VINCENT USERA, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section,
Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, agreed with Mr. Poshard
that if the committee wanted to set an age limit, it would be best
done in statute. He explained that there was a question at times
whether a particular regulation exceeded statutory authority.
Statutory authority for adopting regulations in general was
extremely broad for charitable gaming. However, there was still a
question. It would be best to place any restrictions in the
statute itself.
Number 0308
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Usera to expound on his feelings about
the technicality of a 19-year-old or 17-year-old actually running
in a race where there was betting going on.
MR. USERA asked if the question was whether it was legal or not.
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN clarified he wanted to know if the law precluded
it.
MR. USERA specified that the law did not say one way or the other.
One might have moral objections, but the law itself did not address
the issue.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether the salmon classics were
restricted by age.
MR. USERA replied no, he did not believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned why it should be done for dog
mushing.
MR. USERA continued, saying if a seven-year-old boy caught the
biggest fish in the derby, he got the prize.
Number 0357
MR. POSHARD explained that the only age limits in statute that
dealt with charitable gaming activity were: 1) a person had to be
19 years old to play bingo and 2) a person had to be 21 years old
to play pull tabs. Those were the only statutory or regulatory age
limits that had been established. None of the other contests,
including the Nenana Ice Classic, had any age limitations placed
there by law.
Number 0378
MR. USERA pointed out there was a distinction, which he thought
important here, between the age of the person playing the game and
the age of the person who was the subject of the game.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Usera if "juvenile" was defined in
statute elsewhere and, if so, what that definition was.
Number 0400
MR. USERA replied no, not in the charitable gaming statutes. There
was a definition of "minority," he said, which was the age of 18.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON mentioned again that he was not sure how he
felt about the issue. However, he suggested that, for example, the
committee could, on page 1, line 14, in Section 2, do something
while defining contests. For example, the language could read,
"contests, conducted by a dog mushers' association, except dog
mushers' contests restricted to juveniles". That would preclude
people from betting on the three-dog children's races, for example,
without precluding them from betting on the Iditarod if there was
a 17-year-old in that race.
Number 0441
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she had a problem with that because
they were not putting restrictions on salmon and snow machine
classics. She foresaw the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit
from dog mushers.
Number 0466
CO-CHAIR IVAN pointed out that HB 358 was trying to allow dog
musher organizations to raise funds in order for the mushing
contests to be held. Small, junior dog races were not at the site
of the main event, he said. They were on the side and held one or
two days prior to the main event. As far as he saw, those races
would not be involved in the placing of bets.
Number 0508
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded to Representative Nicholia that he
was not trying to restrict the game of chance so that people under
21 years of age could not buy a chance. The notion that bothered
him, he said, was adults betting on kids' races. He felt that put
too much pressure on kids. He agreed that it might not be a
problem. However, there was nothing in the bill to stop that,
either.
Number 0543
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN clarified that in no way was he trying to be
discriminatory. That was the furthest thing from his mind, he
added. While they might all be lumped together in the bill, there
was a difference between catching a salmon and having two people
vying against each other and trying to pick out who would be the
winner of those two, be it dog mushers or boxers in a ring.
Perhaps it was a moral feeling, he said, but he viewed them as
different.
Number 0603
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Nicholia that if
they made a substantive change such as the one they were talking
about, it would be discriminatory. He believed that in the snow
machine classic, for example, people could now bet on a driver of
16 or 17 years of age. Perhaps they should look at changing the
parameters, he said. He agreed that adults should not be betting
on juveniles that participated in any one of the races. Fishing
derbies were entirely different, he added. He agreed it would be
discriminatory if they just carved out dog mushers. However, they
had a broader perspective to consider, one they had already
basically allowed to occur.
Number 0647
MR. NOTTI said he thought for the top-of-the-line races, such as
the Iditarod, the Yukon Quest, the North American and the Fur
Rendezvous, participants had to be 18 years old. However, for
other races, 17-year-olds were allowed. He envisioned that the
betting would be on the bigger races, with tickets sold a month or
six weeks prior to the race. He did not see it as being like at a
horse race. For the junior races, he said, the kids signed up the
day of the race or the day before. He did not envision having
betting booths where a person could sign up right until the start
of the race. He saw this more as buying tickets six weeks before
the big race, with the big names drawing the ticket sales. He
thought they would not go to the bother of printing up tickets for
$100 worth of tickets. "I may be wrong," he added.
Number 0740
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded he was not sure Mr. Notti was wrong.
However, he wanted to present a scenario involving an organized
children's racing group in Anchorage. He wondered about the
possibility of parents wanting to fund the group and financing it
by selling bets on the races. This would be a situation where a
adults would be betting on kids, which he did not want to see
happen. He added that he did not know that it would happen but
nothing in HB 358 prevented it.
Number 0797
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN referred to Representative Kott's comments and
said he tended to agree that it would be discriminatory to only
place the restriction on dog mushing. What they were really
discussing was a much broader concept of law, he said. He stated
he would favor moving CS HB 358 out as it was. If they wanted to
address the overall issue of betting on minors, that should be
brought back as a second bill addressing everything done in the
state that was now considered betting, whether it involved minors
or not.
Number 0843
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would not make an amendment. However,
he was not sure he saw it being any more discriminatory, for
example, than limiting betting to races longer than 200 miles.
Number 0862
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he shared the concerns. He suggested that
if a race held in Anchorage had betting opportunities on minors,
there would be a public outcry.
Number 0891
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN moved that CS HB 358 move out of committee, with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CS HB 358 moved out of the House Community and
Regional Affairs Committee.
CO-CHAIR IVAN thanked the committee members and noted that the
agenda for the meeting on Tuesday, February 13, included a briefing
by the Local Boundary Commission and HB 409.
Number 0923
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIR IVAN adjourned
the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee meeting at 2:22
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|