Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/20/1998 01:48 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 20, 1998
1:48 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 72, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 72, Side 2
TAPE HFC 98 - 73, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:48 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Hanley was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mark Hodgins; Mary Gore, Staff, Senator
Miller; Janice Seitz, Staff, Representative Rokeberg; Rick
Harris, Senior Vice President, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau;
James Eason, Forcenergy.
The following testified via the teleconference network: Ken
Freeman, Executive Director, Resource Development Council,
Anchorage; Janice Adair, Director, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation; Ken Boyd,
Director, Division of Oil and Gas; Steve Borell, Executive
Director, Alaska Miner's Association;
SUMMARY
HB 144 "An Act authorizing the Department of
Environmental Conservation to charge certain fees
relating to registration of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 144 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 380 "An Act relating to a temporary reduction of
royalty on oil and gas produced for sale from
fields within the Cook Inlet sedimentary basin
where production is commenced in fields that have
been discovered and undeveloped or that have been
shut in."
HB 380 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 261 "An Act relating to the Special Olympics World
Winter Games to be held in Anchorage in the year
2001; establishing a reserve fund for the games;
providing certain duties and authority for the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
regarding financing for those games; and providing
for an effective date."
HCS CSSB 261 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero
fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, 2/6/98.
HCR 9 Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature relating to committee
meetings; and providing for an effective date.
CSHCR 9 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by
the Legislative Affairs Agency.
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act authorizing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to charge certain fees relating to
registration of pesticides and broadcast chemicals; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 0-LS0573\L, dated 3/18/98
(copy on file).
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT observed that
the legislation is not intended to be a solution for
everyone. It attempts to address some of the serious
concerns about how statutes, under AS 44.46, can be
interpreted. An attempt was made to include interested
parties in the discussions. Concerns by the Department of
Environmental Conservation and industry were considered and
incorporated into the proposed committee substitute where
possible. Changes incorporated by the proposed committee
substitute do not modify the intent. The legislation allows
the Department of Environmental Conservation enough
authority to ensure that users of the system pay for the
actual direct costs of services being provided. The
legislation has built in safeguards to prevent abuses and
ensure that general governmental functions, which benefit
the State, are paid for by the state. Inquiries for
information and training of DEC staff are two examples where
the State benefits and should therefore carry the cost.
Mr. Tibbles reviewed the proposed committee substitute:
* Section 1 still requires that the Department establish
fixed fees for direct costs. A technical change has
been made to make this section permissive and relocate
all references to restrictions and limitations to
another section of the bill.
* Section 1(a)(1) gives DEC the authority to charge for
other services relating to agriculture, animals, food,
drugs, cosmetics, and public accommodations and
facilities.
Mr. Tibbles noted that Ms. Adair previously testified that
the language "other services" was originally attached to
these types of functions. By removing this language, the
Department of Environmental Conservation's authority to
charge for many legitimate direct costs was inadvertently
removed. This amendment was added to correct that
situation.
* Section 1(a)(3) adds authority for the Department of
Environmental Conservation to charge for "sanitary
surveys, determinations, classifications, and
monitoring waivers".
* Section 2 (e) contains new language for the negotiated
agreements. It requires the Department of
Environmental Conservation, at the request of an
applicant, to negotiate a fee for service that is based
upon the actual hourly wage rate of the employees
performing the service. In addition, it may include
travel and third party inquiries.
Mr. Tibbles observed that this subsection is a result of
the realization that there are complex situations where a
fixed fee is not appropriate. It is intended to provide
the Department with the flexibility to deal with those
complex situations while placing restrictions to limit the
charge to an appropriate level.
* Subsection (f) increases the restricted use pesticide
fee from $25 to $30.
Mr. Tibbles noted that this change is in response to Ms.
Adair's concern that there may not be enough receipts to
cover the required state match for the pesticide program.
* Subsection (g) adds a new subsection clarifying that
the Department of Environmental Conservation may not
charge for conferring with or providing information to
third parties.
? Subsection (h) permits the Department of Environmental
Conservation to charge an hourly rate for the solid
waste program and is set out to be repealed in the year
2000 by section 3 of the bill.
Mr. Tibbles explained that since the Department is currently
charging an hourly fee for the industrial solid waste
program, this change would authorize them to continue to do
so under the direct cost restrictions. It also gives them
time to establish by regulation reasonable fixed fees and to
offer negotiated fee arrangements.
* Subsection (i) adds a definition of "actual direct
costs" to the bill. This subsection is intended to
place restrictions on what can and cannot be included
as part of the fixed fee.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Co-Chair
Therriault explained that subsection (g) clarifies that if
the Department spends time answering questions about an
application for a third person, the applicant will not be
automatically billed for the Department's time. The
Department would be serving the public's interest.
Representative Davies asked if third party would exclude
consultants, engineers, hydrologists, or attorneys that are
representing the permittee. Mr. Tibbles recounted that
conversations with the Alaska Legal Services indicated that
persons acting as an agent or a legal representative of a
permittee would be included as consideration of that
permittee or applicant; however, the language could be
changed to clarify the intent.
STEVE BORELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MINER'S ASSOCIATION
suggested that the proposed committee substitute be amended
to included a new section under AS 44.46.025(a)(7).
(7) Certification of federal permits or authorizations
under 33 U.S.C. 1341 (sec. 401 Clean Water Act)
provided there will be only one paid inspection per
year for items covered by this subsection;
Mr. Borell noted that several miners have expressed concern
that if the Department of Environmental Conservation were to
charge per inspection, that this could be used by third
parties for harassment. The Department of Environmental
Conservation follows-up on complaints regarding discharge
violations. Without a limitation on the numbers of
inspections that could be charged against a miner, opponents
of mining could make spurious complaints.
Representative Davies acknowledged the intent of proposed
subsection (7). He questioned if complaints resulting in
violations should result in a charge. Mr. Borell observed
that operators do all they can to correct violations.
Mr. Borell observed that meetings with the Department of
Environmental Conservation indicated that there was a $450
thousand dollar shortfall in the Division of Water's budget
that needed to be covered by fees. Industry worked with the
Department on the concept of fees. At the last meeting it
became clear that the Department was attempting to raise
$1.5 million dollars through fees. At that time industry
brought the issue to the Legislature to define the
relationship between general fund and fees.
Mr. Borell referred to language deleted on page 1, line 10,
"and other services provided by the department." He
maintained that this would have allowed the agency to charge
for anything, anytime.
JANICE ADAIR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION commended the work
by Mike Tibbles, staff, Representative Therriault.
Ms. Adair reviewed remaining areas of concern.
1. Training is limited to permittees and applicants.
Ms. Adair observed that most of the training is not for
permittees or applicants. Most of the training is for waste
water and water system operators or installers. In
addition, training of food service employees, pool spa
operators and sanitary surveyors would not be covered.
2. Fees are limited to activities surrounding (a)(2), (6)
and (7):
- certifications;
- inspections;
- training;
- permit preparations and administration; and
- plan review and approval.
Ms. Adair pointed out that registering pesticides allowed
under (a)(8) does not involve any of the above activities.
3. (g) Does not allow the Department to charge a fee for
conferring with 3rd parties.
Ms. Adair did not interpret the language in subsection (g)
in the same manner as Mr. Tibbles. She asked for further
clarification that agents of the applicant are not included
under (g). She pointed out that statutes require that
certain permits be publicly noticed. She observed that
these notices have been charged to the applicants.
4. Actual Direct Cost
Ms. Adair observed that "actual direct cost" refers to the
actual hourly rate of employees directly engaged in
providing the service. The Department currently establishes
a flat fee for most of their programs. Annual costs of the
employees involved in the activity are added. This is
divided by the number of works each employee provides per
year to determine an hourly rate for each employee. She
stated that it would be difficult to determine the actual
cost of the employees involved. Employees in the same job
class are paid different amounts due to longevity. She
observed that the newest employee would be the cheapest.
She expressed concern with the exclusion of support staff.
She stressed that clerical staff is involved in permit
preparations. Flat fees include a factor for clerical
services. She observed that seafood inspections include 15
minutes of clerical staff for every hour of technical staff.
There is approximately 30 minutes of clerical support for
every hour of technical staff for the solid waste program.
Ms. Adair noted that some employees included in the flat
rate are responsible for supervising other employees. She
observed that her involvement is not charged.
Ms. Adair maintained that actual direct cost would affect
local governmental involvement. She stressed that local
governments are waiting for fees to cover the cost of
programs. If fees do not cover costs it will be difficult
to get local governments to take on certain programs that
they could better administer.
Ms. Adair noted that federal and state laws require sanitary
surveys. There are areas that where private surveys are not
available.
5. Employee Training
Ms. Adair emphasized that a well-trained employee saves
private companies money. Untrained state employees are at a
disadvantage when negotiating with well-trained industry
representatives. She maintained that the public interest is
not served when state employees are not well trained.
6. Ban on Hourly fees
Ms. Adair acknowledged that the ban does not apply to the
Air Program. She observed that the Solid Waste Program has
an hourly fee structure. Other flat rate programs have
hourly fees. After hour inspections are offered to meat
processing plants for an hourly fee. Hourly inspections are
only done at the request of the processor. Applications,
which are withdrawn during the review process, are charged
an hourly rate for work completed.
7. Low Pesticide Levels
Ms. Adair maintained that pesticide levels are too low. She
observed that 2,000 to 3,000 pesticides are sold in the
state of Alaska. The Department of Environmental
Conservation estimated that 95 percent are unrestricted use
pesticides. Based on this amount the Department estimates
that it will be $15.5 thousand dollars short of what is
needed to run the program. She spoke in support of
retaining the Department's ability to set registration fees
by regulations.
Representative Davies questioned if users could initiate
hourly fees. Ms. Adair noted that after hour inspections
are currently at the request of processors. The Department
also initiates hourly fees when applications are withdrawn
during the review process. She suggested that hourly fees
be excluded for water permits only.
In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Ms.
Adair explained that the Environmental Protection Agency
registers pesticides based on the chemical makeup of the
pesticide product. The Department of Environmental
Conservation registers pesticides used in the State. The
primary reason pesticides are registered is for the issuance
of monitoring waivers for drinking water systems. If a
pesticide has not been used in the State, public water
systems can be issued monitoring water waivers for that
pesticide.
KEN FREEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL, (RDC) ANCHORAGE spoke in support of HB 28. He
thanked the sponsor and staff for their work on HB 28. He
observed that RDC supports fixed costs and cooperative
funding agreements. He spoke in support of fixed fees. He
maintained that standardized fees should be established for
the most common permits. He proposed an aggressive general
permits program. Mr. Freeman also provided the Committee
with further written remarks (Copy on file.)
RICK HARRIS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SEALASKA CORPORATION,
JUNEAU expressed frustration with various aspects of the
permitting system. He expressed concern that the goal of
the permitting system is to raise money, not to serve the
public. He observed that the permitting agency has a
monopoly. He asserted that built in protections should
exist. He spoke in support of a general permit for routine
classes of activities. He maintained that permittees should
be charged for actual direct costs. He stressed that
permittees should not be burdened with a lot of indirect or
agency overhead costs.
Mr. Harris observed that the legislation limits fees to the
actual direct costs and allows flexibility. He acknowledged
the need for fees, but emphasized the need for protections
to keep the system in control.
Representative Davies suggested that the clearest way to
charge actual direct costs would be through hourly fees.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Harris emphasized that agencies perform public services. He
stressed that agencies should help pay for overhead costs.
He proposed that actual employee time spent on a project
should be charged to the applicant. Lights, power and other
overhead and administrative costs should be paid by the
agency. The cost of employees directly engaged in providing
the service should be charged. He felt that clerical staff
working directly on permits should be included. General
support staff in the Department, such as the commissioner's
administrative assistant, should not be included. He
maintained that broader overall costs are the role of the
government.
HB 144 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -72, Side 2)
HOUSE BILL NO. 380
"An Act relating to a temporary reduction of royalty on
oil and gas produced for sale from fields within the
Cook Inlet sedimentary basin where production is
commenced in fields that have been discovered and
undeveloped or that have been shut in."
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, SPONSOR, spoke in support of HB
380. He explained that HB 380 would offer royalty
reductions on six oil and gas fields, in Cook Inlet region,
that have been shut in for more than twenty years. The
fields have been worked on and proven to be uneconomic. He
observed that the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas put
limits of 35 million barrels of oil or 35 billion cubic feet
of gas produced. Tyonek Deep would not be included. He
observed that the oil industry in Cook Inlet is declining.
There are several oil field service companies that are no
longer in operation. Royalty would be reduced from 12.5
percent to 5 percent. He observed that there is no royalty
if the oil is not removed.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault,
Representative Hodgins clarified that the legislation
pertains to delineated fields. Pools underlying the fields
would not be included.
Representative Hodgins noted that Falls Creek, Nicolai
Creek, North Fork, Point Starichkof, Redoubt Shoal, and West
Foreland fields were specifically identified. Royalty
reductions would be included on any "sweet spots" found on
the above named fields. He observed that seismic studies do
not indicate the existence of sweet spots.
KEN BOYD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES spoke against the legislation. He
disagreed that the fields are delineated. He maintained
that the Point Starichkof field is not delineated. He
observed that the fields are recently leased. He maintained
that old fields are being developed using new technology.
He noted that discovery royalty legislation was confined to
the pool of discovery. House Bill 380 would apply to the
whole field. He stressed that oil and gas activity will
increase due to 3D seismic, other new technologies and
recent legislation. He observed that there is more oil and
gas activity in Cook Inlet now then during the previous five
years. He asserted that the relief is not based on any
economic evaluation of need and does not protect the State's
upside interest if economic conditions change. Both of
these conditions were included in HB 207. He stressed the
need for more information. Fields have proven, probable and
high side potential. He observed that the potential of the
fields is unknown.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of the legislation.
He maintained that every advantage should be taken to reduce
taxes on the industry.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that revenues to the state of
Alaska from resources and the amount that industry must pay
must be balanced.
Representative Hodgins clarified that no royalties have been
received from the six fields. Mr. Boyd agreed that the
fields have not been developed, but emphasized that they
have recently been leased. He noted new technology might
bring them on line.
Representative Davies questioned how the state of Alaska's
upside could be protected. Mr. Boyd observed that the
actual shape of the field is unknown. He suggested that
volume and price structure overtime should be determined.
He maintained that once the company recoups its cost to
develop the field the State should be able to recapture the
money provided at the front end. A combination of value and
price is needed.
JAMES EASON, FORCENERGY testified in support of the
legislation. He referred to a letter to Senator Halford,
dated 3/11/98. The letter contained an estimate of
reserves. He observed that the fields are not delineated.
House Bill 207 requires a set of standards that an applicant
must make. The commissioner makes a definitive set of
findings based on a standard of delineation, which the
fields in HB 380 do not have. Royalty relief is not
available to these fields under HB 207, since they are not
delineated.
Mr. Eason observed that royalty relief would be exchanged
for guaranteed development before January 1, 2004. Royalty
would only be reduced if development occurs prior to January
1, 2004. He emphasized that the fields have not been
developed in 30 years. The state of Alaska would receive 5%
instead of 12.5% under the lease. Infrastructure would
occur as a result of development. There is no
infrastructure in the fields to encourage development.
Pipelines and platforms would have to be built. The bill is
narrowly crafted to affect defined fields that meet the
criteria and are brought under production by 2004. He noted
that the primary focus of previous hearings has been the
value of the legislation to the leasee and the cost and
value to the State.
Mr. Eason observed that the accompanying fiscal note assumes
that there will be large impacts from the legislation. He
pointed out that the fiscal note is based on estimations.
He stressed that revenue would be generated on fields that
would not otherwise be developed. He questioned why the
fiscal note on HB 380 is so different from HB 207.
Representative Grussendorf observed that marginal fields are
being shut in due to low oil prices.
Representative Davies noted that reserves at Redoubt Shoals
were estimated at 8.9 million barrels. Mr. Eason clarified
that the estimate should be adjusted to 11.0 million barrels
of oil. He did not think that there was an oil price based
upon the known proven reserves that would make development
economic. He did not think that there was an oil price that
would justify the development of the field, given the
expected cost, based on the reserves that are known to
exist, under the current royalty structure, at Redoubt
Shoals. Representative Hodgins pointed out that Redoubt
Shoals is an offshore field and would need additional
infrastructure.
Representative Martin stated that the royalty structure
should be left alone and the severance tax should be
adjusted. Mr. Boyd responded that he supports changing
royalty to encourage production when it is supported by
analysis.
Representative Davies observed that Article VIII, Section 2,
Alaska State Constitution requires that the State provide
for the utilization and development of all natural resources
for the maximum benefit of its people. He asked if the bill
provides for the maximum benefit of the people. Mr. Boyd
did not think that the bill provides for the maximum benefit
of the people.
Representative Grussendorf observed that 50% of all
royalties on new fields go into the Permanent Fund.
Representative Hodgins observed that current royalties on
the fields are zero.
Representative Kelly questioned if there are other ways of
finding out the extent of the reserves, short of
development.
Representative Hodgins emphasized that the fields are
isolated and require infrastructure to be developed.
Redoubt Shoals would require an offshore platform and
pipeline. A pipeline would also be needed for development
of North Fork. It would be uneconomical for a pipeline to
go north. The best utilization of North Fork gas would be
for use in Homer.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly,
Representative Hodgins noted that the federal government
goes to five percent when they give royalty reductions.
Mr. Eason observed that Redoubt Shoals has had 6 wells
drilled. He reviewed the drilling history of Redoubt Shoals
as contained in his letter to Senator Halford, dated
3/11/98. He pointed out that it is the only field in the
State's history where the State told the owners that they
had to go into production or lose their leases. The lease
was returned to the State and the unit was disbanded. When
Forcenergy assumed the interest in those leases it committed
to the State, as part of the unit agreement, to conduct a 3D
seismic survey and to evaluate all the options available to
drill further delineation wells to determine if there are
enough reserves to develop the field. Forcenergy agreed to
release the lease if they did not proceed. Forcenergy has
done the 3D seismic survey and commissioned an independent
assessment of options for building a platform. It is
impossible to develop a field offshore in conditions at
Redoubt Shoals for the amount of reserves. More reserves
will have to be identified or the field will not be
developed regardless of the passage of HB 380.
Representative Hodgins pointed out that the state of Alaska
would receive 9 mils in tax platforms or a pipeline built at
Redoubt Shoal. He emphasized that jobs would be created in
the area. He observed that the legislation would open up
possibilities to smaller operators. A two-person operation
is interested in developing the North Fork field. He
emphasized that the essence of the legislation is to try to
put people to work.
Representative Davies questioned what is the sensitivity of
the development of these fields to price and volume
estimates. He asked if the generic form of Mr. Boyd's
calculations is the correct exercise for the state of Alaska
to go through.
Mr. Eason acknowledged that it would be the correct exercise
to go through in circumstances where there is a reasonable
amount of information to make a legitimate calculation. He
stated that he has no objections to the process of HB 207,
but emphasized that it is a high standard. He stressed
that there are obvious indicators for royalty relief for
fields that have been discovered but remain undeveloped
after 30 years. He pointed out that there are prospects
that are not profitable regardless of price. He observed
that Cook Inlet production is declining. He estimated that
Cook Inlet is 90 percent depleted of oil. He maintained
that the ability to deliver the resource would be absent
major new discoveries or development. He noted that it has
been almost 30 years since there has been a major oil or gas
discovery in Cook Inlet. A point will be reached when the
infrastructure cannot be maintained, due to rising cost, to
complete the existing reserves efficiently.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -73, Side 1)
Mr. Eason stated that the time is right for legislation to
see if these fields can be produced for the benefits
described. He asserted that a time would come when the
opportunity will be lost.
Representative Davies stated that there has to be a change
in dollar value of the resource that goes beyond the value.
Why would the State not want to structure the legislation in
the event that the price goes above the threshold value that
makes development sensible or the volume estimates go beyond
the threshold estimates. The state would then participate
in the upside potential.
Mr. Eason observed that companies look at expectations. Oil
prices, development costs, costs for wells that are not
drilled due to mechanical problems, frequency and magnitude
of work over wells that are required to replace defective
and deteriorating equipment and a host of other factors
including needed permits for platforms are included in
estimates before making investments. Oil prices, royalties
and taxes are all important factors. He cautioned against
over engineering one factor as the cut off point. He noted
that a decision to produce based on the assumption that the
legislation is in place and royalties are 5 percent could
influence the assumption or risks about other things in
order to proceed. He observed that price spikes could
affect more of the business then the price itself.
Representative Davies stressed that uncertainties will exist
in any calculation. He maintained that sensitivity to
royalty reduction is usually small compared to oil price and
production volume. He suggested that the royalty reduction
could be different for each field. He asserted that more
information could be obtained in a confidential manner.
Representative Mulder observed that the Division has implied
that the legislation is premature and not necessary. He
asked if Forcenergy worked with the Division to justify the
need for the legislation. Mr. Eason observed that
Forcenergy has not approached the Department to talk about
royalty relief under HB 207 because the fields are not
delineated. He discussed the terms of the legislation with
the Department. He explained that the commissioner makes a
determination, on undeveloped fields that have not produced,
based on upon a showing of delineation that have not. The
only recourse is to ask the legislature for relief.
HB 380 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 261
"An Act relating to the Special Olympics World Winter
Games to be held in Anchorage in the year 2001;
establishing a reserve fund for the games; providing
certain duties and authority for the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority regarding financing
for those games; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Committee adopted a
conceptual amendment on 3/19/98 that was incorporated into
work draft 0-LS1354\F, dated 3/19/98. The amendment was
incorporated on page 3, lines 8 - 10 and page 4, lines 1 -
3, and 5 - 6. The amendment clarifies that the State's
obligation is on an accumulative total of $4 million dollars
of the cost limitation of $8 million dollars as referenced
in the Special Olympics International Charter.
Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT work draft 0-LS1354\F,
dated 3/19/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that he would have been more
comfortable if specific language could have been added to
guarantee the first $4 million dollars of hard dollars
raised and extended. Representative Martin noted that the
intent is well expressed.
Representative Mulder disclosed that he is on the Board of
Governor's of the Special Olympics.
Representative Kohring asked what is being done to raise
money in the private sector.
MARY GORE, STAFF, SENATOR MILLER discussed fund raising
events. She observed that the fund raising position does
not begin until July 1, 1998. She explained that Special
Olympics International required the guarantee. She stated
that she is confident that the money can be raised by the
private sector. Representative Kohring stated that he
supports the event, but expressed concern regarding
governmental involvement.
Ms. Gore noted that the legislature would only have a moral
obligation because future legislatures cannot be committed.
The money would have to be requested and appropriated in the
year 2001. She noted that the state of Connecticut
guaranteed funding for the games through an agency similar
to AIDEA. The Province of Ontario guaranteed the Toronto
games.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 261 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 261 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, 2/6/98.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska
State Legislature relating to committee meetings; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute for HCR 9, work draft 0-LS0579\B, dated
3/18/98 (copy on file).
JANICE SEITZ, STAFF, ROKEBERG spoke in support of the
proposed committee substitute. She explained that the
proposed committee substitute would allow a member who is
not physically present at a committee meeting to participate
and vote via teleconference. The chair of the committee
would sign for the person participating via teleconference.
Co-Chair Therriault recounted that he participated in a
teleconferenced committee meeting from Fairbanks. He was
able to vote on amendments but could not sign the committee
report.
In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Co-Chair
Therriault expressed concern with interim committee
meetings. He noted that a number of legislators have jobs
that monopolize a portion of their time. He stressed that
legislation could move through the process when legislators
are not present to participate.
Representative Grussendorf observed that it would be more
difficult for the public to be involved in interim meetings.
Representative Davies agreed with comments regarding the
ability of legislators and the public to participate during
interim meetings.
Representative Mulder maintained that concern for public
input and participation could be addressed by moving the
legislative session to Anchorage.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT work draft 0-LS0579\B,
dated 3/18/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHCR 9 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHCR 9 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
House Finance Committee 8 3/20/98 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|