Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/28/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB219 | |
| HB217 | |
| HJR29 | |
| HB386 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2018
1:31 p.m.
1:31:59 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Brandon S. Spanos, Deputy Director, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue; Representative Geran Tarr, Sponsor;
Representative George Rauscher, Sponsor; Darrell Breese,
Staff, Representative George Rauscher; Kathie Wasserman,
Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League; Representative
Paul Seaton, Sponsor; Patricia Nickell-Zimmerman, Staff,
Representative Paul Seaton.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Gary Lee, Criminal Justice Planner, Department of Public
Safety; Eric Gaffney, Records and Licensing, Department of
Public Safety; Carol Beecher, Director, Division Child
Support Services, Department of Revenue; April Wilkerson,
Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of
Corrections; Johanna Herron, Development Specialist,
Division of Agriculture; Amy Seitz, Alaska Farm Borough,
Soldotna; Robbi Mixon, Director, Local Foods, Homer
Farmer's Market Association/Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage
Food Hub; Christina Carpenter, Director, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Anchorage; Peter Caltagirone, Attorney, Civil
Division, Environmental Section, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 217 RAW MILK SALES; FOOD EXEMPT FROM REGS
HB 219 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 219 CRIM HIST CHECK: ST EMPLOYEES/CONTRACTORS
HB 219 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 386 VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
HB 386 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HJR 29 REAUTHORIZE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT
CSHJR 29(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (LEG).
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to background investigation
requirements for state employees whose job duties
require access to certain federal tax information;
relating to persons under contract with the state with
access to certain federal tax information;
establishing state personnel procedures required for
employee access to certain federal tax information;
and providing for an effective date."
1:33:04 PM
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced the legislation. He read
from a sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Amends AS 12.62.400 by adding a new subsection.
This will require an agency to submit the fingerprints
of current or prospective employees or contractors
whose job duties require access to federal tax
information (defined in AS 39.55.015(e)(3) and
36.30.960(d)(3)) to the Department of Public Safety
for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to obtain a criminal history record. Defines "agency",
"employee" and "contractor".
Section 2
Amends AS 36.30 by adding a new section.
This section establishes state personnel procedures
for obtaining and submitting fingerprints for current
or prospective contractors if a contract with the
state requires access to federal tax information.
Defines "agency", "contractor" and "federal tax
information".
Section 3
Amends AS 39 by adding a new chapter.
This new chapter addresses state personnel procedures
related to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.010
This section explains the purpose of the chapter-- to
establish procedures to safeguard federal tax
information which will apply to a current or
prospective state employee whose job duties require
access to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.015
This section requires current and prospective state
employees whose job duties require
access to federal tax information to provide
information to an agency for a state and national
criminal history record check. Defines "agency",
"employee", "federal tax information", "return", and
"return information".
Section 4
Provides the effective date of July 1, 2018.
Representative Wilson stated that she did not understand
why the department and agencies were doing the
fingerprinting and sending them in; rather than the
employee pay for the process.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had been joined by
Representative Pruitt and Vice-Chair Gara.
Mr. Spanos noted it was a good point. He felt that it could
be another option.
Representative Wilson stressed that the state did not have
any money, so she did not understand why the budget would
be increased. She noted that the fiscal notes showed that
the Department of Corrections (DOC) had the program for
free. She wondered why DOC was free.
Mr. Spanos replied that he understood that DOC did the
program themselves, so the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) would charge for the cost of the background check.
1:37:19 PM
GARY LEE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Representative Wilson wondered whether DPS had a cost to
the background checks.
Mr. Lee replied in the affirmative. He stated that the cost
was $47 for a fingerprint-based background check.
Representative Wilson wondered whether DPS paid for that
cost for those that had been accepted into the department,
or whether the employee paid for the cost.
Mr. Lee answered that it was generally funded by the
requesting agency. He stated that DPS did approximately
40,000 background checks per year for agencies.
Representative Tilton noted that there were some agencies
within the fiscal note that stated that they could absorb
the costs, and other agencies were doing it for free. She
wondered why the individual paying for the background
check. She understood that the federal government would not
allow the documentation to be available to the agencies
without the background checks. She queried the agencies'
different uses of the background checks.
Mr. Spanos answered that the Tax Division used the
information to compare corporate tax returns to the federal
tax return, and verify that the information was similar. He
stated that the IRS would share information about a
corporation audit. He stated that Child Support Services
used the information to garnish a tax refund. He stated
that the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DOLWD) used the background check to verify wage
information for the unemployment insurance tax.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the legislation would
give the state employees and contractors access to federal
tax information. He stressed that the entity paying for the
service controlled the service. He wondered whether the
federal government had a requirement outlining whether the
state or individual paid for the background check, and how
it would be processed, paid for, and shared.
1:42:43 PM
Mr. Spanos answered that the IRS released a document,
"Publication 1075", which detailed the state requirements
in order to continue to receive federal tax information. He
stated that the state was in compliance with all the
requirements, except for the fingerprinting. He announced
that there was an implemented policy on background checks,
and those checks were conducted up to the level possible.
He stressed that the fingerprinting required authority. He
stated that the Publication 1075 the IRS did not specify
who would pay for the fingerprinting, rather it stated that
the states must conduct background checks on their
employees.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that the issue only
applied to state employees or contractors who would access
the federal tax information.
Mr. Spanos answered in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked how many people would have
access.
Mr. Spanos answered that there were approximately 105
filled positions in the division that would have access or
potential access. He remarked that there were only six
employees that actually had the security to go into the
system to view the information. He stressed that there was
a possibility to view the information on the computer. He
stated that, in Child Support Services, the number was 250
people, and deferred to Ms. Beecher for more information.
He restated that the number was closer to 200.
Representative Kawasaki stated that currently there were no
criminal background checks done in the agency. He asked if
it was a new requirement.
Mr. Spanos answered that the publication was finalized the
year prior. He stated that with the updated publication,
the Child Support Division and Tax Division created a new
policy for background checks. That policy was already
implemented. He stressed that they had yet to implement
fingerprinting run through the federal database. He
explained that it was the final step of the background
check.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the department would
not be doing the fingerprinting.
Mr. Spanos replied that fingerprints would be done by the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). He deferred to Mr.
Gaffney for more information.
Representative Wilson questioned the details of the efforts
of DPS.
ERIC GAFFNEY, RECORDS AND LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), responded that most
fingerprinted in Alaska for civil purposes was done either
by private commercial finger printers, employers, or local
police agency. He stated that DPS usually did not conduct
fingerprinting in larger urban areas, because there were
private venders who provided that service. He shared that
there was no strict rule on who should roll the
fingerprints. He remarked that the fingerprints were
conveyed to DPS, were scanned, and then transmitted to the
FBI. He remarked that the rolling of the fingerprints was a
different issue than processing them for background checks.
He stated that there was no specific rule in Alaska, except
for concealed handgun permits, on who may or was required
to roll those prints.
1:47:38 PM
Representative Tilton asked for more information about the
federal receipts in the fiscal note.
CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via teleconference), asked for a
restatement of the question.
Representative Tilton noted that the fiscal note showed the
source of funding from federal receipts. She wondered
whether there was a federal grant with a match that would
help to pay for the program.
Ms. Beecher replied that the Child Support Division was a
federally matched program. She explained that the state put
forward 34 percent of the budget, and was matched at a 66
percent rate from the federal government. She shared that
66 percent of the cost would be bourn by the federal match
money.
Representative Wilson noted that the fiscal note specified
that currently there was no cost to the DOC to do
background checks. She wondered why the background checks
were free.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
stated her understanding of the question. She assumed that
the question was asking why DPS did not charge DOC for
processing the fingerprints.
Representative Wilson stated that the fiscal note showed
that the fingerprinting was provided, currently, to the
department at no fee. Therefore, she assumed that DOC was
not charged either.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative. She stated that
DOC currently processed their own fingerprints, and rolled
fingerprints through the machine. It was a cooperative
agreement in place within the DOC facilities in support of
DPS. She shared that the DOC would resubmit its employee
and contractor backgrounds. She stated that DPS did not
bill DOC for the processing on the background and criminal
checks.
Representative Wilson surmised it would be cheaper to go
through DOC for everything.
Mr. Spanos appreciated receiving the federal tax
information. He stated that the information helped with
audits and receive revenue. He shared that, over the
previous five years, the department had received an average
of $2 million per year.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
HB 219 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to the Alaska Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; relating to the sale of milk, milk
products, raw milk, and raw milk products; and
providing for an effective date."
1:52:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "House Bill 217 Alaska Grown" (copy on
file). She began on slide 2, "A Food Freedom Movement is
Growing Across the United States and Locally":
First state to pass policy was Wyoming in 2015
"Wyoming has had roaring success[,] and we
continue to capitalize on those aspects,"
Lindholm tells me, "in fact the Agriculture
committee for the State of Wyoming will spend the
summer studying ways to expand on the Food
Freedom Act." (Wyoming State Rep. Tyler Lindholm
(R))
Bills have been considered in Utah, Maine, Colorado,
Virginia
"Food Freedom means more small farms." (Virginia
Food Freedom)
Alaska Farm Bureau $5 Alaska Challenge could raise
$180 million for Alaska economy
1:56:41 PM
Representative Tarr stated that her summary had been the
goal of the bill starting out. She turned to slide 3,
"Supporting Alaska Grown Products":
1) Increase direct producer to consumer sales
2) Support entrepreneurs
3) Create more opportunities for small scale producers
4) Strengthen our local food systems
5) Grow our local economies
Representative Tarr shared that DEC had agreed to a one-
year pilot program. The farmers wanted to provide a good
high-quality product and would not knowingly do something
to make someone sick. She shared that the changes had been
a disappointment to her, but she would not give up. She
read items from slide 3.
2:01:23 PM
Representative Tarr stated that the version before the
committee did three things. She looked at slide 4, "House
Bill 217 Does Three Things":
Gives farmers freedom from some civil liability for
farm tours
Gives DNR receipt authority for Alaska Grown logo
Gives state, school districts and municipalities more
flexibility to purchase Alaska grown produce - 15
percent procurement differential
Representative Tarr looked at slide 5, "Alaska Farmers
Market Sales":
$1.25 million: Fairbanks
$500,000: Homer
$100,000 Kodiak
$19,000: Mt. View
2:07:04 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the difference in the law for
Alaska foods between the current system and the bill.
Representative Tarr replied that there were restrictions on
what qualified as an Alaska Grown product. She stated that
there was some discussion regarding imported foods,
especially with livestock imports. She remarked that in the
livestock case, a certain percentage of its life had to be
spent in Alaska for it to be considered Alaska Grown. She
remarked that, with the Alaska Grown logo, it was
trademarked. She explained that currently the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) did not have receipt authority to
collect the money that would come from selling the logo.
She remarked that the dollars would be reinvested into the
Alaska Grown program.
Representative Wilson looked at page 2, line 1, "to the
extent practical, the commissioner shall sell only
merchandise produced or manufactured in the United States?"
She wondered whether one could sell things not manufactured
in the United States, and still be considered Alaska Grown.
Representative Tarr replied that it referred to where the
t-shirts or sweatshirts with the Alaska Grown logo could be
manufactured outside of the United States .
Representative Wilson asked who decided to the extent
practical.
Representative Tarr replied the individual was online for
testimony.
JOHANNA HERRON, DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
AGRICULTURE (via teleconference), replied that there were
state procurement rules. She stated that the licensing
agreements worked through agriculture non-profit
organizations, who were allowed to receive a licensing
agreement for merchandise sales. She stressed that the
farmers were in need of wholesale pricing for marketing
materials, and often were unable to purchase in small
quantities.
Representative Wilson gave an example of a t-shirt made in
California or China. She asked if either would be
acceptable as long as the finished product was done in
Alaska.
Ms. Herron answered that the effort was usually doing what
they could to get the best price.
2:12:09 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about procurement
requirements under the bill.
Ms. Herron replied that the department was only interested
at the current stage, so the merchandising was not a
current focus. She did not believe they would change from
the system currently.
Representative Guttenberg was trying to divide the things
the department was contracted out to do, and whether DNR
was given receipt authority. He wondered whether money
would come back into the program for sales of merchandise.
Ms. Herron responded that the licensing agreements would
still operate through their offices. She stressed that
nothing would change with the way its operating agreements
were done.
2:16:08 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated he had gone through a
lengthy regulatory review about milk. He asked if that
program was in place.
Representative Tarr answered that the cow share program was
still in place. She shared that it was limiting in nature,
but the goal was to put together a working group to bring
all of the stakeholders together. Another question was how
people would be contacted if there was an illness outbreak.
Representative Guttenberg thanked her for the bill. He
believed Alaska needed to establish a stronger foothold on
food security in state.
Representative Tarr answered that the program would bring
$188 million into the economy. She asked for a reminder of
the remainder of the question.
Representative Guttenberg complied.
Representative Tarr stated that the Farm Bureau was working
with her office, and the expected fiscal impact was zero.
2:21:07 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the third bullet on the sponsor
statement. He thought the statement may have been to a
previous bill draft. He wondered about the word "shall."
Representative Tarr answered that the current statute
included the language "shall" and that the 15 percent gave
more flexibility in procurement rules.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that when raw milk had been looked
at four years back - there was no prohibition on selling
raw milk, but a person had to use dye in the milk to
indicate it was raw. He stated that ere no way for parents
to know non-pasteurized milk was being served. He wondered
about anti-bacteria resistant bacteria.
2:25:04 PM
Representative Tarr answered there had been numerous
conversations about the topic over the years. She shared
that there could state-built processing facilities if there
were capital funds, but run as a private business. She
remarked that there was only one dairy in the state.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for clarification that the raw milk
component had been removed from the bill.
Representative Tarr answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to support the bill. He asked if the
bill had been run by school districts.
Representative Tarr replied that she understood that it
would be eligible for any food purchases made by the
district. She remarked that there could be also a
supplemental action, if the food was provided by the
federal government. She stated that the Sitka School
District was using local funds to purchase local fish.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the known cost to the school
district.
Representative Tarr answered that it was known. She
remarked that the scale of purchases allowed for
flexibility, because there were multiple types of food
going into one meal. She used the example of pairing cheap
pasta with more expensive carrots.
Vice-Chair Gara felt that the school may end up paying
more, because the cost of the Alaska Grown products was 8
percent more than the alternative. He wanted to be
convinced that it would not cost more, or he wanted the
school districts to announce that they would not be
bothered by the increased cost. He restated that he did not
understand how the cost would remain the same.
Representative Tarr replied that the amount available to
spend on the food purchases would not change. She stated
that the change was the ability to purchase Alaska Grown
products.
2:32:47 PM
Vice-Chair Gara understood the bill as reading that an
Alaska Grown product would be an additional 15 percent.
Representative Tarr replied that typical procurement rules
for state purchasing expressed that one must purchase the
lowest cost item. She stated that the product preference
statute allowed for flexibility to buy a more expensive
product. She stated that, after the audit, it was seen that
7 percent was not enough of a differential to cover the
difference between Alaska Grown products and the products
that could be purchased from outside. She stated that the
statute gave a little more flexibility in the overall
price, if the Alaska Grown products were found. She
stressed that more farmers should be on the list, and
should have products available at the right quantity, at
the right time, and at the right price. She stressed that
there were many pieces that must function together in order
for it to be successful.
2:34:05 PM
Representative Wilson stressed that the 15 percent was the
maximum differential. She agreed with Representative Gara's
concern about the additional cost. She wondered about
changing "shall" to "may." She felt that the change may
provide the choice to the districts.
Representative Tarr replied that the previous version of
the bill had the word, "may." She stated that, after
conversations with farmers, there was a realization that
changing "shall" in the original product preference statute
to "may", could be seen as "backsliding." She agreed to
consider that change.
Representative Wilson surmised that a statute change would
not be needed, because the department had a one-year trial.
She wondered whether internet sales would include products
other than produce.
Representative Tarr replied that it was all the products
allowed under the cottage food exemptions. She stated that
it was removed, because of the pilot program. She shared
that Title 17 was pretty broad, as related to the
responsibilities of the commissioner. She stated that it
broadly said, "can regulate food." She wanted to see a
consistent statewide policy in statute, rather than pilot
programs.
Representative Wilson recalled that there was already
internet sales for cottage businesses.
Representative Tarr answered that there had been some
products available online, but not the number of products
that were currently sold.
2:37:04 PM
Representative Pruitt wondered how the stat would mandate
that the districts spend more, and how $100 would procure
what was needed. He did not understand how the bill would
not increase costs, or cause the schools to not provide
enough food.
Representative Tarr answered that they did not know there
were food purchases that would meet the requirement.
Representative Pruitt asked what the audit specified the
percentage should be.
Representative Tarr answered that it had varied based on
the product. Items such as potatoes, broccoli, and other
were widely produced in Alaska were cheaper.
2:41:40 PM
Representative Pruitt asked how the bill gave flexibility
if it specified an entity "shall" purchase something. He
thought it appeared they were mandating something.
Representative Tarr answered that flexibility would enable
paying up to 15 percent more. She did not want to do
anything that was overly burdensome for school districts.
She explained that the topic had not received substantial
attention.
Vice-Chair Gara presented an idea. He spoke to the
consideration of the term "may", and whether that would
lose the 8 percent protection. He asked about keeping the
language at 8 percent shall, and adding "may" go up to 15
percent.
2:46:24 PM
Representative Tarr answered that the language had been in
an earlier bill version. She was supportive of the
language. She preferred the language over a blanket "may."
Vice-Chair Gara asked why the language had been changed.
Representative Tarr answered that the intention was not to
spend more money, but to spend what was available.
Vice-Chair Gara was looking for guidance from the sponsor,
but he did not want to render the bill ineffective.
Representative Tarr answered that she was fine with the
change.
Vice-Chair Gara had hesitancy that his proposal would gut
the bill. He would think about it further.
Representative Tarr believed the concerns were fair.
2:52:08 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 217, Work Draft 30-LS0593\T (Bruce/Wayne,
3/26/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster read the list of available testifiers
online.
Representative Tarr indicated there were 2 people online
for invited testimony.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
AMY SEITZ, ALASKA FARM BOROUGH, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), relayed that the Alaska Farm Bureau
strongly supported the bill. She spoke of the benefits of
the bill if passed. She indicated that HB 217 provided
additional tools to the farmers' tool box. She thought the
legislation would play a role in the expansion of the
Alaska Grown program. She talked about the increased
interest of touring farms.
3:00:49 PM
Ms. Seitz continued to address the bill. She spoke in
support of the legislation.
ROBBI MIXON, DIRECTOR, LOCAL FOODS, HOMER FARMER'S MARKET
ASSOCIATION/KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE FOOD HUB (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to
the online sales component of the bill. There had been a
conversation on agreements to move forward. figure out the
best approach. She attested to the value of Alaskan grown.
3:05:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), thanked the bill sponsor and
committee for their efforts in promoting local food sales.
She shared that the department looked forward to working
with Ms. Mixon and the Alaska Food Hub, on the pilot
program that would allow online sales of homemade cottage
food products. She agreed to continue to report on the
successes of that program during the current growing
season. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to
speak.
Representative Wilson queried the current allowances
online, and what the program would change. She wondered
what products would be allowed in the pilot program.
Ms. Carpenter replied that, currently, any producer who had
a permit through the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) could sell their products online. She
stated that the pilot program would allow cottage food
producers to sell through the Food Hub website. She stated
that they would not be subject to the DEC permit.
Representative Wilson asked how the department would manage
the success of the program after the one-year period ended.
Ms. Carpenter replied that it was part of the variance
process with the Alaska Food Hub. She remarked that DEC
would request from the Alaska Food Hub was an end-of-year
close-out report.
Representative Wilson requested the information for
tracking.
3:09:59 PM
Representative Pruitt was looking at the audit and report
conclusions. He read from the audit.
Representative Pruitt did not see anything in the report
conclusions to indicate the amount given was a barrier. He
stated there were portions of the current draft that were a
mandate on schools. He thought it appeared to be logistical
hurdles.
Representative Tarr answered that it had not been a
question asked by the audit, which was the reason it did
not answer the question. They wanted to understand how the
current 7 percent statute was working.
HB 217 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:14:31 PM
AT EASE
3:15:55 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29
Urging the United States Congress to reauthorize the
Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-
Determination Act of 2000.
3:16:00 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HJR 29, Work Draft 30-LS1116\J (Laffen,
3/24/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, SPONSOR, read from a
prepared statement. He stated that the intent of the
resolution was to urge the federal government to take
action to restore funding to communities through
reauthorization through the rural schools and community
self-determination action. He stated that the program
expired in 2017, and federal funding for the program to
local school districts had ceased. He remarked that the
recent federal omnibus bill was included, but would expire
eventually.
DARRELL BREESE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER,
shared that the changes made in the CS (copy on file):
House State Affairs The Committee Substitute corrected
an error in the list of Copy of Recipients, removing
the Secretary of Interior and including the Secretary
of Agriculture. This change reflects that the US
Forest Service is under the Secretary of Agriculture,
which manages the Secure Rural Schools and Self
Determination Act of 2000.
House Finance Committee Changes were made to reflect
the authorization of two years for the program made
under the Federal Omnibus Spending bill recently
passed by the US Congress; and to modify the
resolution call for a permanent authorization of the
Secure Rural Schools Funding program.
Page 2, following line 11 inserts: "Whereas the US
Congress has temporarily authorized the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
for Federal Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018; and
Page 2, line 14 After "to" Inserts "permanently"
Page 2, line 22 After "1027" Inserts "or legislation
to permanently"
Representative Wilson stated there was a zero fiscal note.
She asked if the item would be mailed or emailed.
Mr. Breese answered that they were traditionally sent
through mail, and Legislative Affairs covered the cost of
the postage for resolutions.
Representative Wilson felt that they could be sent via
email.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, spoke in support of the resolution. She had worked
on the issue for 15 years and usually went to D.C. annually
or sent a timber. The resolution was a huge boon to
municipalities, and for small communities like Pelican it
was a substantial amount of money. She asked the
legislature to help lobby for payment in lieu of taxes
(PILT).
3:22:57 PM
Representative Guttenberg did not have a problem with the
resolution. He asked if there was any comparable program
covering impact funds in those communities.
Ms. Wasserman answered that every community received PILT
payments. The payments in Alaska were running at about
$0.07 per acre.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the zero fiscal note from the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHJR 29(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHJR 29(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (LEG).
3:26:32 PM
AT EASE
3:27:05 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 386
"An Act relating to abandoned and derelict vessels;
relating to the registration of vessels; relating to
certificates of title for vessels; relating to the
duties of the Department of Administration; relating
to the duties of the Department of Natural Resources;
establishing the derelict vessel prevention program;
establishing the derelict vessel prevention program
fund; and providing for an effective date."
3:27:30 PM
Co-Chair Foster discussed the schedule.
3:28:05 PM
AT EASE
3:28:33 PM
RECONVENED
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, provided background
information about the impetus for the bill. He stated that
in 2012 there was an emergency, because someone had
purchased two old boats, but could not put them in the
water. He stated that those boats sank in the swamp. He
stated that the clean up of the vessels was a long
expensive process. He shared that it was a state
responsibility, because it was difficult to determine who
owned and who was responsible for the vessels. He stated
that he had sponsored bill that said that if vessels were
denied entry into harbor, they could not be stored in state
waters for over two weeks without removing the hazardous
waste from the vessels. He felt that the legislation was
difficult to enforce.
3:33:50 PM
Co-Chair Seaton continued to discuss the need for the bill.
PATRICIA NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PAUL
SEATON, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "HB 386
Vessels: Registration/Titles; Derelicts" (copy on file).
Ms. Nickell-Zimmerman moved to slide 3, "Title 05. Chapter
25. Watercraft:
Undocumented Vessels:
Adds Title requirement @20.00 for vessels that
are: (AS 05.25.096(a)(6))
20 feet or more; and
commercially used (AS 05.25.056(g))
Increases boat registration fee to $30.00
[$24.00] for 3 years. (AS 05.25.096(a)(1))
List of exemptions to Title and Registration
requirements. (AS 05.25.056), (AS 05.25.055(i))
Documented Vessels:
No Title required (AS 05.25.055(i)(1)(c))
Adds Registration of $30.00 for 3 years. (AS
05.25.096(a)(1))
Barges
Adds definition of barge (AS 05.25.100(16))
Adds Barge registration of $75.00 for 3 years.
(AS 05.25.096(5))
3:39:23 PM
Ms. Nickell-Zimmerman turned to slide 4, "Title 30. Chapter
30. Abandoned and Derelict Vessels":
? Adds state or municipal property to areas that a
person may not store a derelict vessel.
AS 30.30.010 (a)(1)
? Amends statute upon conviction, increases fine to
not less than 5K or more than 10K and/or not more than
90 days imprisonment and/or forfeiture of vessel. AS
30.30.010(e)
? Adds DNR duties and powers to establish and
administer Derelict Vessel Prevention Program Fund.
AS 30.30.095 and 096
? Adds regulated process for impoundment, through
notice and hearings prior to disposition. AS
30.30.040, 045, 055, 060, 065, 075
Ms. Nickell-Zimmerman addressed slide 5 titled "What is
Derelict?":
DERELICT VESSEL 30.30.090
Sunk or sinking, obstructing or endangering
health, safety, or environment
number obliterated
Owner of record disclaims and current owner
cannot be determined
Moored, anchored, stored, abandoned (see
definition) or left contrary to law
No record of documentation or registration and
ownership cannot be determined
Moored, anchored, stored, abandoned (see
definition) without authorization on private
property.
Expired registration or document number and owner
no longer at address
Ms. Nickell-Zimmerman moved to slide 6 titled "Process to
Impoundment":
20 days prior to impoundment, written notice and
posted on agencies website AS 30.30.040
Within 15 days after postmark on written notice, owner
may request informal pre-impoundment hearing AS
30.30.040(c)
10 business days (or longer per request of
owner) after receipt of written request by owner,
jurisdiction schedules informal hearing. AS
30.30.040(d)
Jurisdiction to provide written decision to
owner, showing "substantial evidence that vessel
is derelict". AS 30.30.040(f)
If found to be derelict, jurisdiction may impound
AS 30.30.055
Owner may take possession upon reimbursement
to State or municipality of incurred costs.
(notices costs, harbor fees, storage fees, etc.)
AS 30.30.060
Jurisdiction may sell, donate or destroy if
not repossessed within 30 days after postmark on
written notice AS30.30.055(b) after posting
disposition. AS 30.30.045
Ms. Nickell-Zimmerman addressed slide 7, "Appropriation of
Title Fees and Barge Fees created through this
legislation":
Derelict Vessel Prevention Program Fund AS 30.30.096
Money is appropriated into the fund, no further
appropriation is needed to move funds out.
Appropriations do not lapse.
3:44:41 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 386, Work Draft 30-LS1475\D (Bruce,
3/21/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-Chair Gara supported the bill. He remarked on the
short title of the bill, which he believed should be
changed.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the collection from
people who had left derelict vehicles.
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions.
Co-Chair Seaton deferred to the Department of Law.
3:47:25 PM
PETER CALTAGIRONE, ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL
SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), asked to
hear the question.
Representative Kawasaki wondered why it was difficult to
prosecute the owner in removing their "junk."
Mr. Caltagirone replied that the current penalty in statute
was not very high. The bill as presented increased both the
fines, and punishment as an unclassified misdemeanor. He
remarked that the difficulty in removing the vessel was
primarily the cost. He shared that the current statute gave
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the
municipality the ability to take the vessel, but did not
address the high cost. He shared that the current bill
created a titling requirement, which would help tracking
the owner. He furthered that even knowing the owner of the
vessel did not guarantee removal of the vessel. He stated
that there was a high cost to remove even a smaller vessel.
3:51:10 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about past legislation about
derelict mining equipment on state lands.
Mr. Caltagirone was not familiar with the mentioned
legislation.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the registration
process sat on top of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
process. He asked if there was a way for a party to take a
vessel before it derelict and take ownership.
Mr. Caltagirone replied in the negative. The current law as
written did not allow it. There was no current titling
requirement in Alaska.
Representative Guttenberg asked if a person would have an
opportunity to bid on the item.
Mr. Caltagirone asked what Representative Guttenberg meant
by his use of the word "you."
Representative Guttenberg clarified.
Mr. Caltagirone replied it would be his understanding. For
the state to get involved he believed it would have to be
on trespassing.
3:54:38 PM
Co-Chair Seaton requested to hear about the process from
his staff.
Ms. Nickel-Zimmerman shared that one of the questions that
had arisen when DMV had approached the sponsor was related
to titling. Titling would be new for boat owners, and was
proof of ownership. They had been told there would be
another process for the potential of an affidavit.
Representative Wilson asked for verification they were
speaking about boats 20 feet or larger.
Ms. Nickel-Zimmerman replied in the affirmative.
HB 386 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting schedule for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:59:00 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.