Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/14/1994 08:00 AM House STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                         April 14, 1994                                        
                            8:00 a.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Al Vezey, Chairman                                            
  Representative Pete Kott, Vice-Chairman                                      
  Representative Bettye Davis                                                  
  Representative Gary Davis                                                    
  Representative Harley Olberg                                                 
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Representative Jerry Sanders                                                 
  Representative Fran Ulmer                                                    
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  *HR 9:         Protecting the lifestyle of pachyderms and                    
                 other exotic animals.                                         
                 MOVED FROM COMMITTEE WITH DO PASS                             
  HB 375:        "An Act relating to investments of the                        
                 permanent fund in certain limited                             
                 partnerships each of whose principal purpose                  
                 is investment in securities of public or                      
                 private companies; and providing for an                       
                 effective date."                                              
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  SB 303:        "An Act relating to voter eligibility, voter                  
                 registration, and voter registration                          
                 agencies; and providing for an effective                      
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 482:        "An Act making permanent a temporary                          
                 requirement relating to the provision of                      
                 employment information to the state."                         
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  (*First public hearing)                                                      
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  CARL BRADY, Trustee                                                          
  Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation                                            
  Brady & Company                                                              
  1031 West Fourth Ave.                                                        
  Anchorage, AK  99517                                                         
  Phone:  276-5617                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Addressed HB 375                                        
  BILL SCOTT, Executive Director                                               
  Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation                                            
  801 10th St.                                                                 
  Juneau, AK  99801                                                            
  Phone:  465-2047                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 375                            
  DAVID GOTTSTEIN, President                                                   
  Dynamic Research Group                                                       
  P.O. Box 112729                                                              
  Anchorage, AK  99511                                                         
  Phone:  346-1797                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 375                                        
  RALPH SEEKINS, Chairman                                                      
  Board of Trustees                                                            
  Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation                                            
  1625 Old Steese                                                              
  Fairbanks, AK  99701                                                         
  Phone:  452-1991                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 375                                        
  LAURA GLAISER, Elections                                                     
  Office of the Lieutenant Governor                                            
  P.O. Box 110015                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811                                                            
  Phone:  465-4084                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed SB 303 for the Lieutenant                      
                      Governor's Office, Sponsor                               
  MARY GAY, Director                                                           
  Child Support Enforcement Division                                           
  Department of Revenue                                                        
  550 W. 7th, Suite 312                                                        
  Anchorage, AK  99501-3556                                                    
  Phone:  269-6800                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Addressed HB 482                                        
  LARAINE DERR, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury                                  
  Department of Revenue                                                        
  P.O. Box 110400                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811-0400                                                       
  Phone:  465-4880                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 482                            
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HR   9                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS BY REQUEST                                         
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  04/06/94      3154    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/06/94      3154    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                    
  04/14/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 375                                                                
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/14/94      2066    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/14/94      2066    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                           
  03/05/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/05/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/14/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  SB 303                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/11/94      2792    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/11/94      2792    (S)   STA, JUD, FIN                                    
  02/11/94      2792    (S)   FNS PUBLISHED (DPS,GOV,DHSS-3,                   
  02/11/94      2792    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED                       
  02/11/94      2793    (S)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  03/02/94      3027    (S)   STA RPT  4NR                                     
  03/02/94      3027    (S)   ZERO FN PUBLISHED (REV)                          
  03/02/94      3027    (S)   PREVIOUS FNS (DPS, GOV, DHSS-3,                  
  03/02/94      3027    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DOE)                           
  03/02/94      3038    (S)   JUD REFERRAL WAIVED   Y11 N9                     
  02/22/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/02/94              (S)   STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  03/02/94              (S)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/15/94      3212    (S)   FIN RPT  1DP 1DNP 5NR                            
  03/15/94      3212    (S)   PREVIOUS FNS (DPS, GOV, DHSS-3,                  
  03/15/94      3212    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DOE, DOR)                     
  03/15/94              (S)   FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  03/18/94              (S)   RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/18/94              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/28/94      3373    (S)   RULES RPT  1CAL 2NR   3/28/94                    
  03/28/94      3375    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/28/94      3376    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                   
  03/28/94      3376    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 303                      
  03/28/94      3376    (S)   PASSED Y11 N8 E1                                 
  03/28/94      3376    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y19 N- E1                  
  03/28/94      3377    (S)   MILLER NOTICE OF                                 
  03/30/94      3415    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                     
  03/30/94      3416    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/31/94      3102    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/31/94      3103    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                           
  04/05/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  04/05/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/14/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 482                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY,Ulmer                                   
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/14/94      2377    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/14/94      2377    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                    
  03/15/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/15/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/22/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/22/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  04/14/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-47, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN AL VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.                   
  Members present were REPRESENTATIVES KOTT, G. DAVIS, OLBERG                  
  and B. DAVIS.  A quorum was present.                                         
  HR 9 - PROTECTING LIFESTYLES OF PACHYDERMS                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HR 9 for discussion.  He stated HR 9                   
  encourages the Governor to grant an extension for Moxie the                  
  Number 043                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS moved to pass HR 9 from committee                  
  with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal                     
  Number 050                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  IN FAVOR:      REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, B. DAVIS, G.                     
                 DAVIS, OLBERG.                                                
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES ULMER, SANDERS.                               
  MOTION PASSED                                                                
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 375 for discussion.                                 
  Number 078                                                                   
  (APFC), introduced himself and BILL SCOTT, EXECUTIVE                         
  DIRECTOR, APFC, who joined him at the table.  He addressed                   
  the proposed amendment to HB 375.                                            
  The amendment reads as follows:                                              
  *Sec 1.  AS.13.120(g) is amended by adding a new paragraph                   
  to read:                                                                     
            (21) Notwithstanding 37.13.120(i), equity                          
       investments may comprise more than five percent of the                  
       stock of a corporation only through an interest in a                    
       partnership, or ownership in a collective investment                    
       vehicle, under the following conditions:                                
                      (A)   the Fund shall not own more than a                 
                 60% interest in a partnership or collective                   
                 investment vehicle;                                           
                      (B)   the aggregate investment of the                    
                 Fund under this paragraph may not exceed five                 
                 percent of the total investments of the Fund;                 
                      (C)   at no time may the Fund own                        
                 directly or indirectly, through a                             
                 corporation, partnership or collective                        
                 investment vehicle, more than 5% of any                       
                 entity which has substantial oil and gas                      
                 operation in the State of Alaska;                             
                      (D)   appropriate policies and                           
                 procedures for investments under this section                 
                 shall be reviewed and approved annually by                    
                 the Board of Trustees.                                        
  MR. BRADY stated the success of permanent fund's investments                 
  is primarily attributed to diversification, or asset                         
  allocation; attributing 90 percent of most funds success to                  
  asset allocation.  He expressed markets do, however,                         
  fluctuate.  He likened APFC's assets to a pyramid, whereby                   
  the further they horizontally diversify in other classes,                    
  the more safety brought to the principal of the                              
  corporation's assets.                                                        
  MR. BRADY explained APFC is requesting authority to invest                   
  into more than five percent of any one individual equity.                    
  When the fund had $3 billion, more than five percent of a                    
  Fortune 500 company or blue chip stock, would have been a                    
  significant amount of money.  Five percent of smaller                        
  capitalization stocks may only be $8-$10 billion.  APFC                      
  believes owning more than five of a particular equity would                  
  be more beneficial.                                                          
  MR. BRADY addressed alternative investment strategies.                       
  There are over 200 of public and private entities that have                  
  them.  He noted Oregon and Washington have over $1.5 billion                 
  each in alternative investments, or with institutional                       
  investors.   The APFC would limit itself to no more than 60                  
  percent in a partnership with other institutional investors.                 
  APFC has been fortunate because the bull market has been                     
  very good to its stocks in the past; however, this is no                     
  longer the case.  APFC is now losing some of its unrealized                  
  gains.  Therefore, the horizontal horizon of the pyramid                     
  needs to be broadened to cover the fluctuations in the                       
  market in the future.  He noted APFC international and                       
  global stocks are working in this way, whereas they are                      
  outperforming their U.S. domestic stocks.                                    
  MR. BRADY commented the language provides there would not be                 
  double exposure on oil and gas, for example.  APFC would not                 
  be purchasing stocks principally dealing with oil and gas in                 
  Alaska.  APFC will spend a lot of time selecting who it                      
  intends to co-invest with.  HB 375 is important now.                         
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked where the proposed amendment goes.                      
  REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG interjected he believed the                     
  amendment was a proposed committee substitute.                               
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if MR. BRADY was suggesting the                      
  draft language for the proposed change to a CSHB 375 was to                  
  replace all the wording in the existing HB 375.                              
  Number 191                                                                   
  BILL SCOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APFC, responded that was                     
  correct.  He stated the proposed amendment is a replacement                  
  of the original language, which accomplishes the same thing.                 
  The suggested change describes the investment more clearly.                  
  Number 195                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned if there was an AS 13.120.                         
  Number 200                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noticed the "37" was missing from the                  
  statute number.  The correct statute is AS 13.37.120.                        
  Number 203                                                                   
  MR. BRADY stated the original language dealt more with                       
  vehicle, as opposed to the investment.                                       
  Number 206                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT clarified the correct statute is AS 13.37.120.                     
  There had been a typing error in the amendment.  He noted                    
  there would also need to be a new title.  He suggested, "An                  
  Act relating to equity investments of the permanent fund."                   
  Number 208                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented he did not understand the wording                   
  in the original HB 375; however, it would now be replaced.                   
  He questioned if the proposed change still dealt with the                    
  same subject.                                                                
  Number 222                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT responded the original HB 375 emphasized the                       
  vehicle, rather than the investment.  He related to limited                  
  partnerships and how they got a "bad name" from the tax                      
  shelters of the 1980s.  This has caused a misunderstanding.                  
  The intent of the committee substitute is to clarify what                    
  the investment will be.  The investment would probably be                    
  handled through a "limited partnership" vehicle.  If the                     
  APFC was able to own more than five percent of a corporation                 
  they would be able influence the corporate activities by                     
  improving its management and changing policies.  These                       
  changes would improve the corporation's operating profits,                   
  thereby increasing the value of the stock.  The APFC expects                 
  to gain extra earnings from the investment through the                       
  appreciation of the stock.                                                   
  Number 276                                                                   
  MR. BRADY explained co-investors would be investing with                     
  managers.  He stated these institutional managers would                      
  select the stock and involve themselves in the activities                    
  MR. SCOTT mentioned.   Alternative investments typically                     
  return higher rates with greater risk, therfore diligence in                 
  the investment is as critical.                                               
  MR. BRADY referred back to the point of diversification.  He                 
  stated currently, the fund's unrealized gains, "paper                        
  profits," have eroded to nearly $1 billion due to the 9-10                   
  percent reduction in the markets.  The intent is to                          
  redistribute the money into other areas that have had and                    
  continue to have a large degree of success.  He noted most                   
  investors have this class in their portfolios; however, only                 
  a small percent.  APFC limited the amendment to propose only                 
  five percent of the fund, and no more than 60 percent of the                 
  Number 303                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified APFC would like to be able to                       
  invest more than five percent in an equity.  He inquired why                 
  APFC was limiting itself to only 60 percent of a                             
  partnership, implying they would not be dealing with less                    
  than nine percent of an equity.                                              
  Number 316                                                                   
  MR. BRADY replied more than five percent of ABC stock.  He                   
  noted, of the pool of stocks with the institutional                          
  investor, APFC would not own more than 60 percent.                           
  Number 319                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY responded correct.  He commented if the APFC                  
  had no more than 60 percent interest in a fund, the fund                     
  would have to own practically 10 percent of an equity before                 
  APFC would have five percent.                                                
  Number 325                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT answered correct.  He said the fund, however,                      
  might only buy 20 or 30 percent of a company.  They would                    
  then have sufficient to influence management and improvement                 
  of the total operating characteristics of the company.  If                   
  APFC owned 60 percent of that fund, they would effectively                   
  own 12 percent of a company.  He noted the existing statute                  
  only allows the APFC to own five percent of a company.  This                 
  is the reason for the restrictive language in the proposed                   
  committee substitute.                                                        
  Number 337                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY agreed there was a lot of restrictive                         
  language.  He inquired if the APFC was interested in                         
  expanding its investments to more than five percent of an                    
  MR. SCOTT answered as a single investment, no.                               
  Number 343                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY repeated the intent of the proposed                           
  MR. SCOTT added there are investment managers who specialize                 
  in managing these investments daily and they have been                       
  extremely successful.  APFC would like to share in the                       
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he was concerned that as returns tend                  
  to fall, the managers will tend to take higher risks to keep                 
  their returns up to historic levels.  Specifically, pension                  
  Number 365                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT pointed out "pension funds have no restrictions in                 
  their enabling..."                                                           
  Number 367                                                                   
  MR. BRADY explained APFC was not working from a legal list.                  
  They are working from a prudent investor list.  He felt APFC                 
  has a philosophical difference than most investors.  It                      
  would be very difficult for APFC to be much different from                   
  the market place because they are so diversified.  APFC has                  
  a certain amount of money in "very, very, very conservative                  
  cash."  On the other hand, APFC has its international/global                 
  stocks and real estate.  The structure of the change is very                 
  similar to their real estate.  He pointed out, for the first                 
  time in a long time, real estate outperformed all other                      
  asset classes this last quarter.                                             
  Number 383                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred to the restrictions of the proposal.                 
  He clarified the APFC would not invest more than five                        
  percent of the fund's assets in the total class.                             
  Number 391                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT answered in this type of investment, correct.                      
  Number 394                                                                   
  MR. BRADY added over 50 percent is in fixed income, or                       
  bonds.  Real estate is six-seven percent.                                    
  Number 396                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified in this type of investment, in                      
  total, APFC would not exceed five percent.                                   
  MR. SCOTT replied of the fund, correct.                                      
  Number 399                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the strategy is a diversification of a                 
  rather small portion of the portfolio.                                       
  MR. SCOTT said correct.                                                      
  Number 401                                                                   
  MR. BRADY stated in their Ketchikan meetings last fall, they                 
  entered into securities lending as an additional class.                      
  This is authorized; however, they had not been doing it.  He                 
  noted has produced $800,000 to $1 million since it was                       
  started a couple months ago.  APFC wants to continue                         
  diversification as the fund continues to grow at $80-100                     
  million a month in income.                                                   
  Number 416                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG inquired of the total number of assets                 
  the fund has today.                                                          
  MR. SCOTT answered about $15 billion.                                        
  Number 418                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG pointed out five percent would exactly                 
  be "chunk change" - $750 million.                                            
  Number 419                                                                   
  MR. BRADY said correct.  He added it would be very difficult                 
  for the APFC to get anywhere near that amount of money at                    
  the onset.  The asset allocation targets are hard to meet                    
  with the income flowing at the rate that it is.  The targets                 
  cannot be met as fast as the revenue is coming in.  APFC                     
  needs percentages to make everything add up to 100 in their                  
  Number 428                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY read subparagraph (C) of the amendment and                    
  said it was complicated.  He stated APFC's opportunity to                    
  participate with a venture capital firm, who was going to do                 
  an exploration well in Alaska, would be almost nonexistent.                  
  Number 437                                                                   
  MR. BRADY responded APFC would not participate in the deal                   
  if the firm had an oil and gas producer in Alaska in the                     
  fund.  APFC might end up with more than five percent and                     
  they feel it would be doubling their exposure, noting their                  
  core source is royalty revenue.  He noted, as royalty                        
  revenue goes down, presumably the value of their stock would                 
  Number 444                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY felt this contradicted the intent of                          
  investing the state's wealth back into Alaska.                               
  MR. BRADY agreed, in that regard.  Referring to this asset                   
  class, APFC owns a considerable amount of stocks with oil                    
  and gas operations in Alaska in their domestic equity                        
  portfolio.  He believed ARCO, Exxon and Union Oil are stocks                 
  in that portfolio; however, they are not even near five                      
  Number 456                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred to mining and timber also.  He                       
  stated by APFC standards, five percent of AMEX Gold would                    
  not be a major investment.  He guessed $400-500 million.                     
  Number 461                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS corrected gold and timber are not                    
  oil and gas.                                                                 
  Number 462                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified subparagraph (C) is limited to oil                  
  and gas.  He questioned why APFC would want to restrict its                  
  opportunities to invest in Alaska.  He appreciated, however,                 
  the prudent investor attitude about investing in oil and gas                 
  prospects in Alaska.                                                         
  Number 472                                                                   
  MR. BRADY stated he believed the primary purpose was not to                  
  let it go.  They do not want to invest in stocks which they                  
  are already getting their core source of income from.  They                  
  fear if the price of oil were to go down the value of the                    
  stock would follow.  This is a safety concern.                               
  Number 479                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented he did not believe it was true that                 
  royalty was the APFC's core source of income anymore.                        
  MR. SCOTT answered not anymore.                                              
  Number 482                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY added oil has been converted into another                     
  form of wealth.                                                              
  MR. BRADY stated their investment income is superceding the                  
  royalty income now.                                                          
  Number 484                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG questioned if royalties were not still                 
  the single largest source of income.                                         
  Number 486                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT answered no, not for the APFC.  He said their                      
  bottom line is more in a couple of months than they receive                  
  all year from royalties.  He said CHAIRMAN VEZEY was                         
  Number 490                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG commented he was more concerned with                   
  how the APFC invests, not where.  He has never felt the APFC                 
  "had a special charge" to invest in Alaska.  The quality of                  
  investments is much more important than the geographic                       
  Number 495                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY replied he had trouble putting into statute                   
  that APFC would basically stay out of oil and gas operations                 
  in Alaska.                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT responded only with respect to this vehicle.                       
  Number 501                                                                   
  MR. BRADY said they could provide lists of stocks doing                      
  business in Alaska that are domicile elsewhere, but their                    
  revenue comes from Alaska.                                                   
  Number 503                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 375 would involve APFC with a                       
  managing partner that had a substantial equity interest and                  
  effective management influence.  He questioned if this much                  
  restriction needed to be in statute.  Are the Board of                       
  Trustees trusted enough to not have it in statute?                           
  Number 517                                                                   
  MR. BRADY replied that was a good point.  Their debate on HB
  375 resulted in the conservatism.  He noted they have a very                 
  good board; however, trustees do come and go.                                
  Number 528                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS referred to subparagraph (C) of                  
  the proposed change.  She asked if (C) could be deleted,                     
  thereby having it done in regulations rather than in                         
  statute.  She noted the proposed amendment is supposed to be                 
  a committee substitute to the original HB 375.  Subparagraph                 
  (C) does not have to be included.                                            
  Number 535                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT commented the deletion would not affect the intent                 
  of the legislation.                                                          
  Number 537                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned why HB 375 had a $200,000 fiscal                   
  MR. SCOTT answered consultants and advisors will need to be                  
  hired to screen any investment of this type made by the                      
  APFC.  They  approach each investment with due caution,                      
  therefore an independent analysis will be done.                              
  Number 552                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY said he was still trying to learn how the                     
  APFC accounts to the legislature.                                            
  Number 556                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT responded the legislature approves their budget                    
  just as it does for other departments.                                       
  Number 557                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out there are general moneys and                      
  program receipts.                                                            
  Number 559                                                                   
  MR. SCOTT clarified they are funded by program receipts.                     
  APFC expects the expense impact would be far offset by                       
  potential gains.                                                             
  Number 568                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if the APFC would be objectionable to                   
  the deletion of subparagraph (C).                                            
  Number 573                                                                   
  MR. BRADY said he did not believe so.  They put subparagraph                 
  (C) in for two reasons.  First, so APFC would carefully                      
  watch to not double their exposure.  Second, it made APFC                    
  more politically comfortable because it clarified the                        
  proposal came from the board itself, and not the                             
  Administration.  He stated there had been questions as to                    
  whether alternative investments would include water                          
  pipelines, etc...  He answered no.  Sub-paragraph (C) would                  
  dispel any concerns.                                                         
  (REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG left the meeting at 8:38 a.m.)                        
  Number 593                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if there was similar language                  
  in present statute in other areas where the APFC is limited.                 
  MR. SCOTT answered their only limitation in real estate is                   
  that it must be within the U.S.  Other than that, not                        
  Number 598                                                                   
  MR. BRADY mentioned institutional grade and code.                            
  Number 600                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS commented he thought it might be                     
  policy that certain percentages were to be invested in                       
  certain areas.  He inquired if this was in statute or                        
  Number 602                                                                   
  MR. BRADY clarified within institutional grade there is                      
  residential, industrial, commercial, etc...  He noted                        
  certain things are not done because they do not think it is                  
  Number 606                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if there was a companion bill in the                 
  MR. BRADY answered yes, SB 244 moved out of Senate State                     
  Affairs yesterday.                                                           
  Number 610                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked if the bill that passed the                    
  Senate State Affairs Committee was the new committee                         
  MR. BRADY affirmed REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS.                                  
  Number 618                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if there was a motion to adopt the                      
  committee substitute, version E to HB 375.                                   
  Number 619                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS so moved, and noted that she wanted                  
  to delete subsection (C), page 1.                                            
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  IN FAVOR:      REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, B. DAVIS, G.                     
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES ULMER, SANDERS, OLBERG.                       
  MOTION PASSED                                                                
  Number 627                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the committee substitute to HB
  375, less subsection (C) had been adopted.                                   
  Number 630                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked what the title change would                    
  MR. SCOTT suggested the title be, "An Act relating to equity                 
  investments of the permanent fund."                                          
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked why this title would be suggested.                      
  MR. SCOTT answered the title on the original HB 375 does not                 
  quite fit; therefore, the new title would simplify the                       
  description of the intent.  He noted the original title                      
  emphasized limited partnerships which was not the thrust of                  
  the bill.                                                                    
  Number 644                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY said CSHB 375 would be held in committee so                   
  legal services could prepare a title.  He advised it was                     
  very late in the legislative process and the actual chance                   
  of CSHB 375 passing this session was slim.                                   
  Number 658                                                                   
  supported CSHB 375.  He noted the permanent fund had                         
  expanded its scope of investments over the years.  He felt                   
  the great market Alaska had been experiencing for the last                   
  10-12 years was coming to an end.  Therefore, from a risk                    
  management perspective, they would have to become even                       
  smarter to accomplish smaller returns because interests                      
  rates are not as high.  He felt CSHB 375 would allow APFC to                 
  expand, while acting prudently.  He concurred with MR. SCOTT                 
  that it is not necessarily appropriate to get bogged down in                 
  the vehicle.  Making sure the investment is good and priced                  
  right is the most important.  CSHB 375 would allow premium                   
  returns while managing the risk appropriately with partners.                 
  Number 683                                                                   
  375.  He clarified APFC was not trying to get more                           
  sophisticated, rather more profitable.  He said the oil and                  
  gas restriction was a political limitation.                                  
  TAPE 94-47, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MR. SEEKINS estimated some of the restrictions presently on                  
  the APFC has cost the people of the state of Alaska between                  
  $300-400 million.  He noted the APFC is restricted by law to                 
  a very small portion of the universe of corporate securities                 
  as an example.  APFC is limited to AA or better, of the five                 
  percent, in the A category.  There are certain good                          
  investments which the APFC cannot buy.  He explained the                     
  only way "to own those A stocks is to be that five percent,                  
  or have an AA move down."                                                    
  MR. SEEKINS stated part of his mandate on the Board of                       
  Trustees is to return the best possible return for the                       
  people of the state of Alaska.  He felt if they did get this                 
  additional class available to them, they would not fill it                   
  very quickly because they would be looking for the prudent                   
  investment.  He noted if ten packages were bought, eight may                 
  be bad.  Therefore, this is where the political risk comes                   
  in.  Those two would be put on the front page even if a                      
  "killing" was made on the other eight.  APFC wants to                        
  balance this problem.                                                        
  MR. SEEKINS expressed APFC felt without moving farther to                    
  the upper right on the risk factor, they can move farther up                 
  on the profit factor.  They are seeking a balance.  APFC is                  
  also not trying to put the legislature farther out on the                    
  "political limb" than it already is.                                         
  SB 303 - UNIFORM VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM                                   
  Number 116                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened SB 303 for discussion.                                 
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY called for a recess at 8:55 a.m.  The meeting                 
  resumed at 9:02 a.m.                                                         
  Number 120                                                                   
  addressed SB 303.  She referred to CHAIRMAN VEZEY's question                 
  about whether the legislature could change the law and go                    
  back to where a person would not have to register to vote                    
  for federal elections.  Currently, Alaska state law only                     
  allows this to be done for the President.  She answered                      
  Virginia Ragle, Assistant Attorney General, Department of                    
  Law, spoke with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and they                     
  again would not commit to whether they will allow the change                 
  or file suit.  DOJ mentioned one state had gone back and                     
  changed the language of its laws so a person did not have to                 
  be registered for federal elections and made it retroactive                  
  to April 11, 1993, even though the change was just enacted.                  
  DOJ did not look on this favorably.                                          
  Number 156                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY said he questioned if it might be cheaper to                  
  go to a dual standard.  He felt the federal government was                   
  trying to use the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of                  
  1993 to tell Alaska how to regulate federal elections, which                 
  they do not have the authority to do outside of court                        
  Number 183                                                                   
  MS. GLAISER responded she felt the Lt. Governor viewed NVRA                  
  as it was directed to the Division of Elections.  She stated                 
  it is extremely expensive to have two dual systems,                          
  therefore CHAIRMAN VEZEY was correct is assuming the federal                 
  government is forcing Alaska to accept that which they want                  
  for the federal government laws.  She noted it is easier to                  
  conform state law to pick up the provisions in NVRA.                         
  Number 197                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified it would be easier to remove the                    
  requirements for registration for federal elections as we                    
  currently do with presidential elections.                                    
  Number 199                                                                   
  MS. GLAISER said correct; however, NVRA says the state                       
  cannot do that.  She noted one state has tried to go                         
  retroactive and that another has just tried to change that                   
  provision.  DOJ is still not committing as to how they would                 
  pursue these changes; however, they gave the impression that                 
  a lawsuit would ensue.                                                       
  Number 207                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the next federal election would be                     
  November 1996.  He questioned if Alaska should be in a rush                  
  to resolve this problem.                                                     
  Number 213                                                                   
  MS. GLAISER replied the only rush is that Alaska is supposed                 
  to be in compliance with NVRA by January 1, 1995.                            
  Compliance by 1995 would ensure the federal election in 1996                 
  would be working under NVRA.                                                 
  Number 226                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY said due to a lack of a quorum the committee                  
  could not take action on SB 303.  He stated parts of SB 303                  
  strike him as strange.  He wondered how the courts would                     
  look upon a law that said it is legal to do something if it                  
  was on the books before a certain date, but it is not legal                  
  if it was not.                                                               
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY held SB 303 in committee.                                     
  Number 241                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS related to additional work caused by                 
  the mandates in federal laws and asked if there has been an                  
  extension on the January 1, 1995, deadline.                                  
  MS. GLAISER replied January 1, 1995, is the only date they                   
  were given.  No extension has been granted.                                  
  Number 260                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS inquired, should Alaska not be in                    
  compliance, what additional cost might be incurred to the                    
  Division of Elections relating to question ballots or a                      
  lawsuit by a voter.  Has the cost of elections increased                     
  substantially as the population has increased.                               
  MS. GLAISER answered she was not aware of the cost of                        
  elections or question ballots increasing as the population                   
  increases.  She felt SB 303 would not change this.  The                      
  question ballot is important because it is considered a                      
  "fail safe" within federal law.                                              
  Number 280                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked for MS. GLAISER to prepare some of the                  
  information she received from Virginia Ragle so as a report                  
  might be added to the file.                                                  
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 482 for discussion.                                 
  Number 295                                                                   
  DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, addressed HB 482.  She stated HB 482                  
  requires employers with 20 or more employees, to report new                  
  hires to the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED).  The                 
  original legislation enacted three years ago, contained a                    
  sunset clause.  The original legislation had been proposed                   
  because CSED obtained a federal improvement demonstration                    
  grant to determine whether employer recording of new hires                   
  would increase the effectiveness of collections in child                     
  support.  She said the first year the program was limited to                 
  only the largest employers of the largest number of                          
  obligors.  The first year resulted in $753,000 in                            
  collections, of which $200,000 was directly associated to                    
  the additional information from the employers.                               
  MS. GAY noted prior to the legislation, the only method CSED                 
  had to obtain information as to whether an obligor was                       
  employed was whether the person gave them the information or                 
  through Department of Labor (DOL) records.  The quarterly                    
  reports required by the DOL are only done at the end of                      
  ninety days.  The employer does not have to submit them                      
  until thirty days later; therefore, by the time the                          
  information is accessible to CSED it is already four months                  
  old.  Quite often the employee has moved on to another job                   
  and the CSED misses the opportunity to collect the child                     
  MS. GAY commented the second year CSED collected from                        
  seasonal employers.  Seasonal employers are easily missed by                 
  the CSED.  In the second year, including the first year                      
  target group, CSED collected in excess of $3 million, of                     
  which $625,000 was directly attributed to the legislation.                   
  MS. GAY commented in the third year, the target group will                   
  be analyzed according to the occupation.  CSED will try to                   
  determine which occupations obligors are most commonly                       
  employed in, then target those occupations.                                  
  Number 348                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if the employer reporting requirements                  
  were also applicable to labor unions and hiring halls.                       
  MS. GAY replied she thought the labor unions might have been                 
  included in immediate wage withholding.  HB 482 regards                      
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if hiring halls were required to                     
  notify CSED monthly of dispatches.                                           
  Number 359                                                                   
  MS. GAY said she was not sure, but she did not think so.                     
  Hiring halls do not pay the wages.                                           
  Number 367                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY said he had thought they were also required                   
  to make the support.  He commented the additional                            
  information makes collections much easier.  The reporting is                 
  at the employer's expense and inconvenience.  He felt                        
  employers should be given recognition for doing a tremendous                 
  service at no cost to the state.  He suggested employers be                  
  compensated for their efforts.                                               
  Number 379                                                                   
  MS. GAY responded current law states a dollar can be removed                 
  from the wages of the employee for the employer report.  She                 
  said she did not know if there was federal match                             
  participation, whereby payment by the CSED would be an                       
  allowable expenditure for the federal match.                                 
  Number 386                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned the cost to the employer to account                 
  for the $1 deduction would be considerably more than $1.                     
  Number 388                                                                   
  REVENUE, answered questions on HB 482.  She stated from her                  
  research, the  sunset clause was put into the legislation                    
  three years ago because of a compromise.  The dollar                         
  deduction and the sunset were part of the compromise so that                 
  if the program was not working in three years it could be                    
  repealed, or if there was significant cost impact to the                     
  employers it could be fixed at this time.  From her                          
  knowledge, the $1 has not been under criticism.                              
  Number 404                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY said he had not heard from anyone doing the                   
  $1 deduction.  The $1 deduction was not worth it to the                      
  employers.  He pointed out they are claiming the legislation                 
  is saving the state a lot of money on welfare payments;                      
  however, it is actually taxing the resources of the                          
  employers.  The accounting process in the payroll is                         
  expensive.  HB 482 would expand the project and go down the                  
  scale of employers.  He felt employers would get more angry                  
  because they would have to work harder for the state.                        
  Number 424                                                                   
  MS. GAY reiterated the stages the program has gone through                   
  because it is a study.  CSED does not want to put an undue                   
  burden on the employers.  They do not intend to continue to                  
  request an employer with little turnover in employees to                     
  turn in the information.  She emphasized the federal                         
  government feels the program is very worthwhile and there is                 
  legislation currently before Congress to require all states                  
  to enact laws, whereby employers would report the new hires.                 
  HB 482 would prevent confusion among the employers and the                   
  cost involved with starting and stopping the process.                        
  Number 449                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned the clause in statute that                         
  penalizes employers a 100 percent civil penalty for not                      
  witholding moneys if they have been notified of an employee                  
  with an obligation to the CSED.  He stated the employee,                     
  once terminated, could come back to work in the future and                   
  the witholding order is still enforced until released by a                   
  court order.  He could not recall any court order releasing                  
  any witholding order he has.  He felt the 100 percent                        
  penalty did not foster a good relationship between the state                 
  and the employer.  He found it offensive and believed it                     
  could be corrected easily.                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he had written a letter to Laraine                     
  Derr with suggestive wording.                                                
  Number 469                                                                   
  MS. GAY replied CHAIRMAN VEZEY has the opportunity.                          
  Number 478                                                                   
  MS. DERR did not recall receiving the letter.                                
  Number 490                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS referred to the 1-3 ratio.  He asked                 
  if the CSED was looking to extend the demonstration project                  
  or put the inclusions of the project into statute.                           
  Number 496                                                                   
  MS. GAY replied CSED would like to extend the project, even                  
  though the federal grant was only for three years.  They                     
  want to keep the money coming in on a steady basis so the                    
  custodial parents can plan for their financial obligations.                  
  This would reduce the claims for public assistance.                          
  Number 504                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS referred to the target ratio, 1-3                    
  collected for each dollar spent on the program.  He asked if                 
  the 1-3 target was met.                                                      
  Number 509                                                                   
  MS. GAY answered she had lost the report of those figures on                 
  the airplane to Juneau.  She said $250,000, of the total                     
  $750,000, was directly attributed to the program the first                   
  year.  This is approximately 1-3.                                            
  Number 515                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS inquired as to the anticipated cost                  
  of the program.                                                              
  Number 517                                                                   
  MS. GAY responded CSED did not attach a fiscal note to HB
  482.  The federal government granted approximately $250,000                  
  a year for the project.  She noted CSED had extra steps to                   
  go through to meet the reporting requirements, etc.,....                     
  required by the federal grant.  She said there was a                         
  specific cost involved to determine what the gains were                      
  attributed to.                                                               
  Number 526                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS clarified the demonstration received                 
  $250,000 in federal grants and realized $200,000.                            
  Number 528                                                                   
  MS. GAY said, in the first year.                                             
  Number 530                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS inquired if this number was total or                 
  state share.                                                                 
  Number 532                                                                   
  MS. GAY answered total.  She said 50 percent would be                        
  attributed to AFDC, of which 50 percent would be state and                   
  50 percent would be federal.  Therefore, $50,000 directly                    
  attributed to general fund moneys to the state.                              
  Number 534                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS stated from a cost benefit                           
  standpoint the program might break even.  The grant required                 
  CSED to do extra controls that might cost extra if the                       
  program was a state program.  Employees would still be                       
  Number 545                                                                   
  MS. DERR pointed out in the second year, CSED gained                         
  $621,000.  She stated the $250,000 from the first year grant                 
  was basically for set up charges.  As the study progressed,                  
  the pay collections increased.                                               
  Number 550                                                                   
  MS. GAY commented in the first year report extrapolated from                 
  the existing data, estimated potential collections could                     
  reach $7.5 million by expanding the program to the universe                  
  of employers.                                                                
  (REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG rejoined the meeting at 9:30 a.m.)                    
  Number 555                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he would forward the letter to MS.                     
  DERR again.  He said the committee would try to bring HB 482                 
  up again on Saturday.                                                        
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, having no more business before the                           
  committee, adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m.                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects