Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/04/1998 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 4, 1998
1:50 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 52, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 52, Side 2
TAPE HFC 98 - 53, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Mulder
Representative Foster
Representative Grussendorf
Representative Moses was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Annalee McConnell, Director, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor; Dan Spencer, Chief Budget
Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the
Governor; Nancy Slagle, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Transportation; James Baldwin,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Mike Tibbles,
Staff, Representative Therriault; Jeff Logan, Staff,
Representative Green; Jim Sourant, Staff, Representative
Porter.
The following testified via teleconference: Fred Smith,
Association of Village Council Presidents, Bethel; Debra
Tennyson, Department of Community and Regional Affairs,
Anchorage; Chris Hladick, City Manager, Dillingham.
SUMMARY
HJR 36 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to redistricting of the
legislature, and repealing as obsolete language in
the article setting out the apportionment schedule
used to elect the members of the first state
legislature.
HJR 36 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HJR 44 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to redistricting of the
legislature.
HJR 44 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 370 "An Act making an appropriation for relief of the
1997 fishery disaster in Bristol Bay and on the
Kuskokwim River; and providing for an effective
date."
HB 370 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 461 "An Act making supplemental and special
appropriations; and providing for an effective
date."
HB 461 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 370
"An Act making an appropriation for relief of the 1997
fishery disaster in Bristol Bay and on the Kuskokwim
River; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Hanley provided members with a proposed committee
substitute for HB 370, Work Draft 0-LS139\F, dated 3/4/98
(copy on file). He clarified that the proposed committee
substitute identifies the same regions and funding amounts
as contained in the original version. He added that the
breakout of loans and community block grants are the same.
FRED SMITH, ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS,
BETHEL testified via teleconference in support of HB 370.
He noted that the legislation includes areas that were not
in the Governor's original declaration area and provides a
full state obligation for the federal funds. He spoke
against changes to the legislation that would delay its
passage.
CHRIS HLADICK, CITY MANAGER, DILLINGHAM testified via
teleconference in support of HB 370. He noted that projects
would be fisheries related and would focus on getting as
many people to work as possible. He stressed that the money
would not go into the general fund to pay for general
services.
DEBRA TENNYSON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
AFFAIRS, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. She gave
examples of proposed projects. Projects would include
repairs to existing buildings, dock and harbor projects,
road and trail work, landfill maintenance, and boat ramps.
She clarified that grants would not be limited to fishermen.
She emphasized that most of the communities are small and
the majority of the population in these communities is
involved in fishing activities.
Co-Chair Hanley expressed frustration with federal
guidelines. He observed that economic relief is indirect.
He noted that, although communities will benefit, it is
unlikely that future economic disasters will be reduced due
to the funding.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS139\F,
dated 3/4/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley reviewed changes made by the committee
substitute. He observed that the total funds are the same.
The loan funds were separated from the community grants. He
noted that the Department of Community and Regional Affairs
did not have the legal authority to provide loans. Loans
would be appropriated through the Disaster Relief Fund. The
Commercial Fishing and Revolving Loan Fund (CFRL) would be
used to match federal funds instead of general funds. The
(CFRL) has a surplus of $3 million dollars. The money will
be repaid. The only cost would be the loss of interest.
DAN SPENCER, CHIEF BUDGET ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR stated that the
Administration is still checking on the funding source
change. Co-Chair Hanley observed that the match and the
money would be split at the same rate.
HB 370 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 461
"An Act making supplemental and special appropriations;
and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Hanley provided members with a proposed committee
substitute for HB 461, Work Draft 0-LS1638\E, dated
3/4/98(copy on file).
Representative Martin MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS1638\E,
dated 3/4/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley compared CSHB 461 (FIN) with the original
version, HB 461. He noted that the language "appropriations
that are time sensitive" was removed at the request of the
drafter. The drafter accidentally removed subsection (a).
He observed that Amendment 1 would add subsection (a) back
into the committee substitute (copy on file). He observed
that section 1 (b) was deleted because it is contained in HB
370. Subsection (c) of the old version is now subsection
(a). He noted that the total amount is the same. There
was a funding source change. Subsection (c) of the
committee substitute is similar to subsection (d) of the
previous version. The funding source was changed from
general fund program receipts to federal funds. The federal
funding source is the time study match money received by
school districts. This will not count as general fund
expenditures because federal funds will be used. Subsection
(d) and (e) of the committee substitute correspond to
subsections (e) and (I). These sections provide funding for
the Poker Flats Research range. Total funding for the Poker
Flats project is $20 million dollars. Subsection (f) in the
committee substitute is the same. Subsection (g) is the
same dollar amount. Subsistence harvest research projects
was changed to subsistence data collection. Subsection (h)
was previously subsection (j). Subsection (i) was
previously subsection (k).
Representative Martin MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, to add
subsection (a). Subsection (a) would add $1,786,400
thousand dollars in Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
corporate receipts for operation of the Bank of America
building. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Mr. Spencer discussed Amendment 2. Amendment 2 would add
$1,303,600 thousand dollars to the Department of Revenue for
Child Support Enforcement Division grants (copy on file).
He observed that state and federal funding would cover three
federal fiscal years, which is the life of the grants. He
suggested that the appropriation be made as a capital
expense so that the funding does not lapse at the end of the
fiscal year.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 with a
conceptual amendment to include the appropriation in the
back section as a capital project. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that he anticipated an additional
amendment from the Department of Corrections.
Representative Davies referred to subsection (f), Glennallen
to Tok highway funding. Co-Chair Hanley noted that the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) was
amended to include the project. The Department has
sufficient funding to provide the state match.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR noted that the condition of
the road has deteriorated. She stressed that the urgency of
completing this project is greater than any other project
that is underway.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION noted that the Department wants
to complete the work this summer. The bid would have to be
released in April. Poor weather conditions caused the road
to deteriorate faster than anticipated. The Department had
projects included in the STIP that went through to the year
2004. These were removed from the STIP and combined into
one project. Approval has been received from the federal
Highways Department. No other projects will be delayed
because of the project. The Department is unsure of the
level of federal funding it will receive in FY 99.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the original
supplemental request included $464 thousand dollars in test
fisheries receipts for a project relating to herring roe on
kelp. He stressed the need for quick action on this
appropriation.
Ms. McConnell stressed that many of the supplemental
projects are time sensitive. She spoke in support of the
appropriation.
HB 461 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to redistricting of the legislature.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that Work Draft, 0-LS538\I was
adopted on 3/3/98.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file). Amendment 1 would add "and as may be provided by
law" after "section" on page 3, line 3. Representative
Davies OBJECTED. Co-Chair Therriault stated that the intent
is to clarify that the legislature may add additional
clarifications through statute.
JIM SOURANT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that
Amendment 1 would allow the legislature to provide
additional firm guidelines for the chief justice in the
process of selecting the five board members.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the Court indicated that
it would be more comfortable with greater direction by the
legislature. Mr. Sourant agreed. Co-Chair Therriault noted
that clarification might pertain to the length of residency
or a prohibition against all members being from one
political party.
Representative Davies stated his objection based on the fact
that the other criteria would not be known at the time the
question goes on the ballot. He stressed that specific
concerns could be addressed in the resolution.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of the amendment. He
maintained that the intent is to make the process fair and
equitable.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that geographical balance would be
maintained by requiring one member to be appointed from each
judicial district.
Mr. Sourant emphasized that changes to the Constitution
should be minimal. He stated that additional statutory
clarification could not be contrary to the Constitution.
Representative Davies asked if the language "subject to the
provisions of this section" is necessary.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that the language clarifies that
the Constitution contains some requirements and that
additional changes may be placed in law.
Representative Davies asserted that Amendment 1 would open
the process to political influences.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Therriault
OPPOSED: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley
Representatives Moses and Martin were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file). He observed that the amendment clarifies when
members of the redistricting board are to be appointed. He
observed that the current version would provide that they be
appointed between January 1st and 16th of the year following
the census. He emphasized that board members have been
appointed before the information is actually available. He
observed that members could use the time to review court
cases and establish procedures. The amendment would provide
that board members be appointed by September 1st of the year
of the census.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on
file). Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED for the purpose
of discussion. Co-Chair Therriault noted that Amendment 3
would require members to reside in the judicial district
that they are appointed to represent. He added that members
would be appointed based on judicial districts in existence
on January 1, 1999.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Co-Chair
Therriault stated that the provision would retain 5 members
on the committee. Geographical representation would be
maintained.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -52, Side 1)
Representative Davies felt that it would make sense for the
board to reflect changes in judicial districts. He spoke in
support of one member from each of the judicial district and
one member at-large. Co-Chair Therriault spoke against a
mechanism that would expand the board. Co-Chair Hanley
pointed out that an additional judicial district could
result in an even number of members on the board. He
observed that the at-large member could come from the new
district if another one is created.
Representative Davies WITHDREW his objection. There being
NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4 (copy on
file). Representative Davies OBJECTED.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained
that Amendment 4 would change the effective date from the
year 2001 to the year 2000. This change corresponds to the
appointment of board members. Co-Chair Therriault clarified
that the new mechanism would be before the board when they
are appointed in the year 2000.
Mr. Tibbles noted that the amendment addresses subsection
(b). The amendment would delete the effective date of
December 31, 2000. The section would be effective on the
date that the lieutenant governor certifies that a majority
of the voters have approved the amendment. Section 12 is
amended to reflect the year 2000 date.
Representative Martin noted that the transitional section is
not part of the Constitution.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that section 8 on page 4 provides
that the current redistribution plan stay in place until the
new plan is approved.
Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that constitutional amendments
are enacted under the provisions of the Constitution. He
questioned the need for section 8.
Mr. Baldwin clarified that Article XIII of the Constitution
provides that amendments are effective 30 days after the
certification of the election returns, unless otherwise
provided in the amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if it would be possible for the
Governor to impanel a redistricting board in 1998 or 1999
based on old census information. Mr. Baldwin did not think
that a governor could appoint a board based on the prior
census. He noted that reapportionment boards have been
impaneled before the end of a governor's term. Governor
Cowper appointed a board before the end of his term.
Governor Hickel discharged the board when he came to office.
There must be some dramatic circumstance to do a midterm
reapportionment. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that under the
legislation, the chief justice would appoint the board. He
noted that the board could not recommend a reapportionment
plan until they receive the new census data.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Baldwin
reiterated his belief that the transitional section provides
for a 12-year cycle. He emphasized that the provision
encourages litigation to keep the present plan in place for
another legislative term. He observed that litigation was
not resolved on the 1990 reapportionment until 1994.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that if the transitional language
were removed the amendment would take effect under normal
constitutional provisions.
Mr. Baldwin stressed his concern that section 8 would result
in the retention of the current plan for an additional 2
years.
Representative Martin pointed out that a governor would need
an appropriation to fund a reapportionment board. He
observed that the first United States census for the state
of Alaska was done in 1990. He maintained that the state of
Alaska would not receive census information before
September.
Mr. Sourant explained that the 2001 effective date was
arbitrarily picked. He did not object to changing the
effective date. He agreed that reapportionment can only
occur once every 10 years unless there is a compelling
reason. He did not see any reason for a delayed effective
date.
Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW Amendment 4. He MOVED to ADOPT
Amendment 5, to delete section 11 on page 5, lines 15 - 24.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that the Constitution states that
the reapportionment and redistricting shall be effective for
the members of the legislature until after the official
reporting of the next decennial census. The new criteria
would be sixty days after the adoption and final
adjudication of the succeeding redistricting plan.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that at the time of the last
redistricting, Representative Miller's district had doubled
in population while other districts had dropped. He
observed that the Representative would not have wanted to
see litigation continue the inequity.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the old system would remain
until all litigation were resolved.
Representative Davies maintained that the "final plan" on
page 3, line 13 refers to the final plan of the
redistricting board. He asserted that the language is
confusing and that there needs to be a distinction between
the final plan of the redistricting board and the existing
official plan.
Mr. Sourant emphasized the need for a plan to be in place
prior to the election. Co-Chair Therriault observed that a
temporary new plan would at least redistribute population.
Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of section 8.
Mr. Sourant clarified that the sponsor's intent is that the
old plan remain in place until the new plan has been
resolved.
Co-Chair Hanley agreed that "final plan" could be
interpreted to mean the new redistricting plan.
Representative Martin stressed that the inclination is to
prolong the process.
Mr. Sourant stated that the language on page 5, lines 15 -
24 would clarify that the "final plan" refers to the plan
that is in existence today.
Representative Mulder and Co-Chair Hanley agreed that the
language implies that the new plan would stay in place until
it is replaced by the final official plan. Members
concluded that section 8 needed further clarification.
Representative Davies spoke in support of retaining the new
redistricting plan as a temporary plan until it is replaced
by a new adjusted plan.
Mr. Sourant stressed that language was added to expedite
Supreme Court consideration of litigation relating to the
redistricting plan.
HCR 44 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to redistricting of the legislature,
and repealing as obsolete language in the article
setting out the apportionment schedule used to elect
the members of the first state legislature.
JEFF LOGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GREEN provided members
with Amendment 1 (copy on file). He noted that the
amendment applies to the effective date and the
applicability section. The amendment would leave the
effective date but delete the applicability section.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -53, Side 1)
Mr. Logan explained that the amendment would clarify that
the reapportionment plan that is currently in effect is the
plan that the sponsor wants to be under until the new plan
takes effect. He maintained that a governor could
reapportion the state at times other than immediately after
the decennial census.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that there has not been a
problem with a governor trying to redistrict before the
census. Mr. Logan noted that there was a mid session
reapportionment in 1964 as the result of a court decision.
He asserted that reapportionment could be necessary due to a
dramatic rise in population in time of war or during
construction of a new pipeline.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the Governor would
select the reapportionment board.
Representative Davies asserted that the State would want to
reapportion if there were a dramatic change in population.
Mr. Logan stressed that the intent is to clarify that the
reapportionment plan that is currently in place would be the
plan that would be used.
Representative Davies MOVED to delete section 10. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Martin expressed concern with the use of
"contiguous". He observed that the US Supreme Court has
required that districts be compact as well as contiguous.
HJR 36 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
RECESSED
The Committee was recessed until 1:30 p.m. on March 5, 1998.
Draft HFC 10 3/4/98pm
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|