Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/20/1996 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 1996
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 63
"An Act relating to special request licenses depicting the sport of
dog mushing."
- PASSED CSSSHB 63(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 60
Relating to Revised Statute 2477 rights-of-way.
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 51
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied
professions.
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 495
"An Act amending the Election Code to provide that voters be
permitted to register opposition to all candidates in certain
election contests."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 363
"An Act requiring banks to pay interest on money in reserve
accounts held in connection with mortgage loans."
- PASSED CSHB 363(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 338
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 472
"An Act relating to release before trial for cases involving
controlled substances."
- BILL CANCELLED FOR THIS DATE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 63
SHORT TITLE: DOG MUSHING VANITY PLATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES, Bunde, Barnes, Willis,
Elton, Toohey, James, Nicholia
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 37 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS,
FINANCE
01/19/95 91 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/15/95 740 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/15/95 740 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 741 (H) TRANSPORTATION,STATE AFFAIRS,FINANCE
01/08/96 2382 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BARNES, WILLIS, ELTON
01/08/96 2382 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
01/17/96 2474 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
01/24/96 2527 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NICHOLIA
01/24/96 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/24/96 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
01/30/96 2564 (H) TRA RPT CSSS(TRA) 3DP 3NR
01/30/96 2564 (H) DP: JAMES, LONG, BRICE
01/30/96 2564 (H) NR: MASEK, SANDERS, G.DAVIS
01/30/96 2564 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/15/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 60
SHORT TITLE: RS 2477 HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/16/96 2790 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/96 2790 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 51
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2358 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2358 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FSH, JUDICIARY
02/13/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/17/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 495
SHORT TITLE: NONE OF THE ABOVE OPTION IN ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2698 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2699 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 363
SHORT TITLE: INTEREST ON MORTGAGE ESCROW ACCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2361 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2361 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2361 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, FINANCE
01/18/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/18/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/23/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4457
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSHB 63(TRA).
WALTER WILCOX, Legislative Assistant
House State Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 60.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
State Capitol, 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner
Kodiak Western Charters
P.O. Box 4123
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 51.
KEITH GREBA
504 Monastery
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8309
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
BARBARA BINGHAM
P.O. Box 6112
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
KENT HALL
500 Lincoln Street, Number 641
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5089
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
ALAN LEMASTER
P.O. Box 222
Gakona, Alaska 99586
Telephone: (907) 822-3664
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
MARK BUCHNER
P.O. Box 1103
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4435
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Joe Green
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 495.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4834
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 363.
CRAIG INGHAM, President and Chief Executive Officer
Mt McKinley Bank
P.O. Box 73880
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 452-1751
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 363.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-20, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:02 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Robinson, Willis, Porter and James.
Members absent were Representatives Ivan, Green, and Ogan.
HB 63 - DOG MUSHING VANITY PLATES
The first order of business to come before the House State
Affairs Committee was CSSSHB 63(TRA).
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced HB 338 would not be heard today.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative John Davies, sponsor of
CSSSHB 63(TRA).
Number 0103
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES read the following sponsor statement
into the record.
"With recent attacks on our state sport, it is more important
than ever for Alaskans to show their enthusiastic support for dog
mushing. While not a musher myself, dog mushing is a sport I
enjoy following very much. There is nothing quiet like watching
a good team moving quietly along the trails in Goldstream Valley
near sunset. I am worried that the loss of financial backing for
the long distance races like the Quest and the Iditarod will
erode support for the whole sport.
"For that reason, I introduced House Bill 63, which would allow
the Department of Public Safety to issue dog mushing license
plates. Clearly this bill is not going to solve all of the
problems of the long-distance races, nor is it the most crucial
issue facing the state. But it will encourage Alaskans to show
their zest for mushing.
"House Bill 63 would allow automobile owners to purchase
specially designed license plates depicting some aspect of
mushing. The extra $50 fee will more than pay for the plates and
any excess revenue could be appropriated to support dog mushing
programs. Admittedly, the pool of money would be modest, but the
real objective would be met by making dog mushing more visible on
every street and parking lot in Alaska. Moreover, is it gives
nonmushers an opportunity to bolster the mushing community with a
proud symbol of their support!"
Number 0247
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS commented the bill sounded good.
Number 0255
CHAIR JAMES said she was a member of Mush With Pride and
encouraged everyone to join. The organization tried to put more
credibility into the sport of dog mushing and thwart adverse
publicity. She referred the committee members to page 1, line
10, and read "The department shall use the colors blue and gold
in designing the registration plates under this subsection." She
said the color restrictions were a product of the difficulty of
identifying license plates. She announced she did not want to
restrict the colors to blue and gold because she envisioned ugly
license plates. She explained the Chair of the House
Transportation Committee, Representative Gary Davies, stated the
plates did not have to be entirely blue and gold, but rather had
to include those colors. Chair James suggested deleting that
provision altogether.
Number 0427
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved to adopted CSSSHB 63(TRA) for
consideration. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 0452
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to delete on page 1, line 10,
starting with "The department," and ending on line 11, with "this
subsection." (Amendment 1) Hearing no objection, it was so
deleted.
Number 0494
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS wondered if Representative John Davies
objected to the amendment.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied, "no." He further stated there
were a variety of opinions regarding the colors. The Department
of Law felt it would be difficult to identify. He also said some
plates were very distinctive such as the University of Alaska
Fairbanks' (UAF) which enhanced the ability to identify it. The
amendment, he stated, would return the bill to its original form
as introduced.
Number 0567
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the bill called for the Department of
Public Safety to approve the design and color, and the department
would not approve one that would cause a law enforcement problem.
Number 0581
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON commented the bill clearly gave the
power to the Commissioners.
Number 0601
CHAIR JAMES agreed, however, she also thought it was not a good
idea to restrict the ability of the artist to make an attractive
license plate.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Joe Green.
CHAIR JAMES explained the amendment on the table to
Representative Green.
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked, if the colors were not in the
design, was it a problem for the department?
Number 0660
CHAIR JAMES replied that was the issue, but she did not hear any
testimony from the department in the House Transportation
Committee regarding that concern directly.
CHAIR JAMES announced, hearing no objection to Amendment 1, it
was so adopted.
Number 0740
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS moved that CSSSHB 63(STA), move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the
House State Affairs Committee.
HJR 60 - RS 2477 HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 60.
CHAIR JAMES announced HJR 60 was put forward by the House State
Affairs Committee, and called on Walter Wilcox, Legislative
Assistant, House State Affairs Committee, to present the sponsor
statement.
Number 0841
WALT WILCOX, Legislative Assistant, House State Affairs
Committee, said HJR 60 dealt with Federal Revised Statute 2477
(RS 2477) that allowed roads and trails used prior to a certain
date to be turned into transportation corridors for future
highways, rails, and trails. He further stated the bill expired
in 1976 and Congress was trying to undo the RS 2477 access trails
across Alaska. Therefore, HJR 60 supported the Congressional
level resolutions that promoted the extension of the assertion
time and the ability of the state to maintain its current roads
and trails. He said it was an important issue for Alaska,
especially for the east to west transportation corridors, and
encouraged the committee members to support the resolution.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HJR 60 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note.
Number 0931
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS wondered about the hearing this summer in
Anchorage regarding RS 2477 and questioned the role of the
Attorney General.
Number 0954
MR. WILCOX replied the resolution had nothing to do with the
Attorney General. He further said HJR 60 supported Senators
Murkowski and Stevens, and the ability of Alaska to retain its RS
2477 assertions.
Number 0976
CHAIR JAMES said there were 11 cases prepared to go to court to
challenge the validity of the RS 2477 trails. As a result of
reductions in spending, however, the Department of Law had taken
no action against challenging those 11 cases. The state had been
expecting action from Washington D.C. to give Alaska an extended
length of time to recognize the cases. "The clock was ticking,"
she said, to assert these rights. Therefore, money was spent for
nothing, and if there was not enough money to take the cases to
court, the next step was to expect the federal government to do
something. That was the issue HJR 60 addressed. It also put
Alaska on record with Congress that the state supported it to
preserve its RS 2477 right-of-ways.
Number 1064
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there was concern that the state had
not moved forward sufficiently to register the claims that were
ready.
Number 1084
CHAIR JAMES agreed that was a concern. She said, many of the RS
2477 right-of-ways had been identified, but getting information
to use in court to assert the right was becoming difficult.
There was testimony from the Attorney General that there was
action in the federal government to extend the state's time.
There was also a question of the notice time and whether it
expired in July of 1996. She reiterated there were 11 cases
fully documented and ready to go to court. She further said
there were two ways to address the issue - through the state or
through the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented the two ways to address the issue
were not mutually exclusive.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no," they were not mutually exclusive. The
best was probably to address it both ways. At this point in
time, however, the approach was through the federal government.
Number 1180
MR. WILCOX stated the legislature appropriated $1.2 million to
help fund this project, and more than 560 routes qualified as an
RS 2477 right-of-way.
Number 1204
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered why the 11 cases had not been
filed.
Number 1210
CHAIR JAMES said, according to the Attorney General, the
Department of Law was focusing on other civil cases and this was
not a priority. The department was also expecting an extension
from Congress.
Number 1233
MR. WILCOX announced HJR 60 did not address private lands, only
public lands. Mr. Wilcox further explained the zero fiscal note
was from the House State Affairs Committee, and the only cost
incurred would be that which was needed to inform the Alaskan
Congressional contingent the results.
CHAIR JAMES asked again if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, HJR 60 moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Scott Ogan at
8:23 a.m.
HJR 51 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 51.
CHAIR JAMES called on Jeff Logan, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Joe Green, to present HJR 51.
Number 1315
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representataive Joe Green,
explained, when he presented HJR 51 to the committee members last
week, the questions primarily related to the specificity of the
language. He said, after further research, the simple answer to
the questions, was politics. The sponsor was concerned if the
language was too broad, the resolution would encounter the same
problems as Representative Scott Ogan encountered with his
efforts to save the Big Game Commercial Services Board. He
called this a "catch-22" situation whereby the resource managers
could not take the necessary action without a constitutional
amendment. He said the concern expressed earlier regarding
restricting other types of resources, such as brown bear guides,
through the constitution was valid. However, based on the
current information, it was unlikely that would be necessary for
quit some time. He said in 1968 the legislature took action to
address fishery management issues and passed a bill that
instituted limited entry. Litigation followed, of which the
state lost, and ultimately a ballot was put before the voters.
This, he explained, was how limited entry came about for
commercial fisheries. Therefore, a resolution was specific, but
it was not unprecedented.
Number 1446
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered about sufficient data collected
before a decision was reached.
Number 1463
MR. LOGAN replied there was a lot of anecdotal evidence. He
explained there were fisheries that were full of boats, and
resource managers and users had asked for a limit. He cited in
1991 the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation had a set of
regulations that were ruled patently unconstitutional. He
further stated, everyone knew the real solution to the problem
lied with something that would come after HJR 51.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered about the progress of HB 175,
Sport Fish Guide Licensing.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied HB 175 was moving forward.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Kodiak, Eric Stirrup.
Number 1550
ERIC STIRRUP, Owner, Kodiak Western Charters, said he strongly
supported HJR 51. He said the state and the sport fish guide
industry were at an important crossroads. He said there were
three choices - HJR 51, allocations quoted to each business, or
over capitalization. He stated the business was growing by leaps
and bounds pushing the allocation window. He asserted it was
time the state considered HJR 51 as a management option.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Sitka, Keith Greba.
Number 1630
KEITH GREBA said there was ample data to suggest a moratorium due
to the limited amount of resources. He was also concerned about
the qualifications to become a guide and suggested it needed to
be looked at further, otherwise HJR 51 would not solve the
problem.
Number 1702
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Greba if he was in favor of HJR 51?
Number 1703
MR. GREBA said he favored a moratorium, and addressing the area
of qualifications, before mandating a limited entry.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Sitka, Barbara Bingham.
Number 1763
BARBARA BINGHAM said conservation was the issue and a resource
should be managed for the end user. She said a constitutional
amendment would not solve the problem, and restricting a
particular group did not seem appropriate. She also favored a
moratorium.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Sitka, Kent Hall.
Number 1798
KENT HALL said a constitutional amendment was too drastic. He
also favored a moratorium for control.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Gakona, Alan Lemaster.
Number 1830
ALAN LEMASTER said he was listening at this point and trying to
formulate some ideas. He cited, however, the Gakona River was
receiving more pressure every year as a result of problems on
other rivers. He said, if the trend was to continue, a
regulation would be needed.
Number 1887
MR. LOGAN said HJR 51 did not say "when" the limits would be
imposed. He asserted the limits would be the end result of a
public process based on scientific data. The resolution said the
state would have the power to impose a limitation, if needed. He
asked the committee members, if saving important fisheries dear
to many Alaskans and tourists, was good statewide policy?
Number 1942
CHAIR JAMES said she was struggling with this issues. She was
not sure a constitutional amendment was the correct way to fix
the problem. She agreed there was a problem, but she did not
have any suggestions. She stated the Alaska State Constitution
mandated the state manage fish and wildlife for sustainability,
but no one had tried to manage the state's resources in that
manner due to politics. She said some were unwilling to take the
political heat that had to be taken to address the problem. She
announced she was not pleased with the limited entry program for
commercial fisheries, and she did not want to create a limited
entry permit that suddenly had a dollar value.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, if it was that clear to everyone, it
would not be necessary to put the issue on a ballot. House Joint
Resolution 51 removed any stigma, and cleared the way for a
solution.
Number 2090
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he supported the concept of HJR 51. It
was imperative for the state to retain the ownership of the
permits, he asserted. He said it was also important to avoid
what happened to commercial fisheries. He said he was concerned
about Alaska loosing its resources and cited the vulnerability of
rock fish.
Number 2179
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he agreed with Chair James regarding
the value of the permit. He said there was the opportunity to
correct that, and suggested adding language to prevent it from
happening again. He said he would be willing to take that up in
the House Judiciary Committee as Chair of the committee.
Number 2223
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated HJR 51 was not the answer, it
just opened the avenue for the answers. There was the suggestion
of limiting guides to half-a-day - a morning guide and an
afternoon guide, for example. He further said the resolution did
not want to cause a rash of unqualified sport guides based on
speculation. However, he said limiting the value of the permit
was a legal question.
Number 2282
CHAIR JAMES stated she found it distressing that the state had
not found a way to follow the constitution. She further said it
was not proper to use the constitution for special interests.
She also alluded there was a timing issue involved, because it
was a presidential election year, and suggested the ballots were
being stacked.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Valdez, Mark Buchner.
Number 2350
MARK BUCHNER said he was the owner of a gill net permit. He said
he saved for 10 years to be able to buy the permit. He said it
was not fair and suggested a place system for future limited
entries.
CHAIR JAMES explained the next committees of referral for HJR 51
were the House Special Committee on Fisheries, and the House
Judiciary Committee, and announced she felt comfortable moving
HJR 51 forward to those committees.
Number 2408
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if HB 175 was also referred to
the House State Affairs Committee.
Number 2418
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "no."
CHAIR JAMES explained the only reason the House State Affairs
Committee was hearing HJR 51 was because it was a constitutional
amendment.
Number 2426
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she also struggled with HJR 51. She
agreed there was a problem facing the state. She was also
concerned about taking an extreme action before all the data was
collected to determine the true problems. She announced she did
not have a problem moving HJR 51 forward to the next committee of
referral - the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
Number 2455
CHAIR JAMES commented she was concerned about forwarding HJR 51
to the ballot without more information for the public.
Number 2472
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said HB 175 should be in place as a modality
to identify sport guides. He cited there was an attempt for a
point system on the Guide-Outfitter Use Areas Board for hunting
in a particular area. He said there were many problems because
of the Owsichek v. State case which ruled the exclusive use of an
area was unconstitutional.
TAPE 96-20, SIDE B
Number 0059
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated HJR 51 said the state "may" limit
sport guide fishing and required further legislation. He
reiterated the resolution assured there would not be an
impediment and removed any stigma.
Number 0107
MR. LOGAN addressed the data issue and referred the committee
members to a proposal titled "The Kenai River Guide Limit
Proposal." He said it was backed-up by more data than the
committee members would like to consider. He further said any
proposal under the auspices of a constitutional amendment would
be backed-up by ample data.
Number 0131
CHAIR JAMES said she understood the "sales technique" regarding
the constitutional amendment because the resolution was prompted
by a lot of support for a limited entry.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Ivan Ivan at
8:55 a.m.
Number 0154
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "I would like the record to reflect
that you have no idea what my intent is." He said he did not
enjoy having it on the record this was a sales technique, and was
very offended. He asserted, the resolution was intended to open
the avenue for others to solve the problem.
Number 0169
CHAIR JAMES apologized to Representative Green.
Number 0175
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she was concerned a constitutional
amendment was too extreme when it could be discovered that it was
not the right direction needed.
Number 0202
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied HJR 51 authorized a cure, it did not
mandate an answer.
CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representative Ivan Ivan
for the record.
Number 0240
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded the cure needed to be
concluded, before convincing the public a constitutional
amendment was necessary.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "the cart before the horse."
Number 0253
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "that would put the cart before the
horse, exactly." He cited a scenario where time and energy was
spent to determine a solution and the people said, "no." He said
there was a good chance of a legal challenge, but at least it
would be a possibility and the time would be spent for something.
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS wondered if a moratorium was a practical
way to address the permit issue.
Number 0300
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded, without a constitutional
amendment, there would be a legal challenge.
Number 0318
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Green to respond to the fact
that the Alaska State Constitution required the state to manage
its fish and game on a sustainable yield basis, and wondered what
the options were.
Number 0329
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied the state managed it resources
through seasons and bag limits. He said a moratorium was not
possible because it would restrict commerce.
Number 0357
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN cited the water shortage in Orange County
California whereby at one time the people believed the aquifer
was more than sustainable. He said, as an analogy, when the
constitution was passed, there was probably more fish than man
could ever catch. However, the population and number of people
fishing had increased creating a problem with allocation because
the resources could no longer sustain the appetites of the users.
He agreed meddling with the constitution was risky. He said HJR
51 did not meddle with it, it just made it clearer.
Number 0436
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reiterated he supported HJR 51. He called it
an enabling amendment that gave latitude to resource managers.
Number 0471
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that HJR 51 move from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
HB 495 - NONE OF THE ABOVE OPTION IN ELECTIONS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 495.
CHAIR JAMES called on Kristy Tibbles, Legislative Secretary to
Representative Joe Green, to present the sponsor statement.
Number 0525
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary to Representative Joe
Green, read the following sponsor statement into the record.
"In the 1994 Alaska gubernatorial election, 119,558 registered
voters did not vote. This number represents 35.6% of registered
voters. This high rate of voter apathy is often reflected
nationwide. While there may be several reasons for this nonvoter
group to be so large, one reason often mentioned is that people
just did not like any of the candidates for particular offices.
As Americans and Alaskans, to all those who have died to
establish and preserve this precious heritage, we have an
obligation to exercise this invaluable right to vote.
"House Bill 495, if enacted, would provide citizens with an
incentive to vote even though they may be dissatisfied with all
the candidates and would otherwise not take the time to vote.
Nonvoting is a poor method of registering protest and therefore
HB 495 will give voters a better alternative. It will also
encourage them to develop the good habit of voting.
"Only votes cast for candidates shall be counted in determining
election to any office. The candidate receiving the majority of
yes votes (unless a minimum number is required) shall prevail.
There will not be a re-election, even if the results for "none of
these candidate" receives the highest number of votes cast in any
particular contested position. Presidential elections, elections
for delegates to a constitutional convention, municipal/borough,
and school board election are excluded.
"While NOTA has no legal effect, it does allow the voting public
to express themselves. By providing citizens with this option,
there is a potential that Alaska's voters turnout for the coming
1996 election may increase. NOTA may also have an impact on
negative campaigning, leading to cleaner, more issue-oriented
campaign races."
Number 0611
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that not voting was a show of no
support. He said, when he was not sure about a particular
candidate, he did not vote for anybody.
Number 0633
MS. TIBBLES responded there were many people that did not show to
vote at all, and HB 495 would encourage those who gave-up to come
forward and vote.
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said HB 495 was a proactive means to get the
people to vote. It was not a reaction or a non-action.
Number 0690
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if there were instructions to
check a spot, if the voter did not know enough about the issue or
candidate to vote for none of the above. He further said he did
not support HB 495.
Number 0707
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said NOTA was growing in popularity across
the United States. He cited Nevada used NOTA in its general and
primary elections. He also cited one-half of the states used it
in the primary. He said NOTA did not imply time was not taken to
understand the candidates, and furthermore, if a voter did not
take the time to understand the candidates, he probably would not
read the instructions anyway. The concept of NOTA was to keep
the voters proactive, even if they did not like the candidates,
he stated. He further said NOTA would eliminate any doubt why
the people were not voting. He lastly said it was a floating
concept to energize the large number of non-voters.
Number 0815
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said a low voter turnout was an
indication the voters did not support any of the candidates. She
stated she was concerned about the cost when the state was trying
to cut the budget.
Number 0896
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied 70 percent of the fiscal note was
based on a "potential" cost. He said as the ballots were printed
another line would be needed for NOTA, and if there were many of
these, an additional ballot would be necessary requiring another
$53.4 thousand otherwise only $30 thousand. He explained it was
not an automatic $84.9 thousand.
Number 0933
CHAIR JAMES said 2,834 people in her district did not vote last
year out of approximately 8,000 people. She sent those 2,834
people that did not vote a letter and response card indicating
her interest as to why they did not vote. She cited out of the
2,834 cards mailed, 1,422 were returned not received by the
addressee, and only 114 people mailed the card back. The
following were the responses: 45 were absent from town, 19 had a
problem with the absentee ballot, 13 did not register to vote in
time, 11 had transportation problems, 6 said they did vote, 5
were fed-up with the candidates, 4 said there was not enough
information, 3 said they did not have time, 2 were ill, 2, were
not interested, 1 had a death in the family, 1 was experiencing
marital problems, 1 had a baby, and 1 slept during the day.
Chair James said, based on the results, the people did not vote
because they were fed-up contrary to her initial belief. She
said when she first saw the presentation on NOTA in 1994 she was
excited about it because she thought many people were fed-up, and
thought NOTA created the potential for better candidates.
However, after the survey, she decided it was not the case that
voters were fed-up. She said a big problem was that voter
registrations were not purged. She also stated a better absentee
ballot process was needed to guarantee a greater turnout.
Number 1085
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied the statistics Chair James shared
with the committee members did not reflect the national
statistics, but was probably reflective of Alaska.
CHAIR JAMES said it was an expensive process, but treasured the
information like it was the bible.
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said there was a write-in option, if a
voter was not satisfied with the names on the ballot. He cited
Mr. Hickel came very close to winning a gubernatorial race on a
write-in.
Number 1174
CHAIR JAMES said, if NOTA could change an election, there would
be a reason for a write-in candidate, and not to just make a
statement.
Number 1208
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HB 495 move from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Representative Porter objected, so a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Ogan, Ivan, and Porter voted against
moving the bill. Representatives Green, Robinson and Willis
voted in favor of moving the bill. So HB 495 did not move from
the House State Affairs Committee.
HB 363 - INTEREST ON MORTGAGE ESCROW ACCTS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was the proposed CSHB 363(STA).
CHAIR JAMES called on the sponsor of the proposed CSHB 363(STA),
Representative Con Bunde.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said the proposed CSHB 363(STA) shed
more sunshine on the escrow business without disrupting the
financial mortgage services in Alaska. He stated the proposed
CSHB 363(STA) incorporated three changes. He referred the
committee members to page 1, line 6, and explained the word
"assessments," was added because mortgage money was often used
for repairs. He also referred the committee members to page 1,
line 9, which stated the "The rate of interest paid on that money
shall equal three percent..." He further referred the committee
members to page 1, line 14, section (c), which required lending
institutions to produce a year-end report that included: the
cost to administer the account, the amount in the account on the
last day of each month, the amount of interest earned on that
account, and a schedule of payments made by the bank from the
account. He stated this information gave the consumer choices.
He said lending institutions advertized their interest rates as
part of the service provided and the information would allow for
more competition.
Number 1546
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered about the increase in the
interest rate from 2 percent to 3 percent.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it was actually a decrease. The
original bill stated 2 percent below prime and 3 percent was
passbook savings. He said the prime was too much of a burden to
calculate.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said Section 1 created a state sanction for
a violation of a federal law, and wondered what the federal
sanction was for violating the federal law.
Number 1602
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied that was a good question. He was
not sure what the sanction was for a violation of a federal law.
Number 1633
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said a federal law was usually enforced by
the feds and it was ironic that a state should enforce it.
Number 1662
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said Representative Porter had a valid
point, however, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
was not high on the category of crimes according to the federal
government.
Number 1674
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if the reporting requirements in
Section 1, subsection (c) were obtainable because the banks co-
mingled funds.
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the banking institutions co-mingled
funds, and the escrows ended-up in an account, and interest was
paid per dollar.
Number 1722
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented the interest the account earned
was a moving target.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it was the average interest at the end
of the month that was being looked at. He said the amount of
interest earned varied daily, and the bill required the amount
earned for the month.
Number 1770
CHAIR JAMES said an interest daily calculation was required
because the balance in the account would vary.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said this was done electronically and any
institution making a profit was well aware of what was happening
daily to shift funds. He said this would not be an onerous
burden.
Number 1835
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said, in response to Representative
Porter's question, the sanctions would probably fall under a
regulation that was not being followed.
Number 1868
CHAIR JAMES said she assumed the bank examiners would determine
if a bank was not following the law and act accordingly. She
further stated there was no evidence within Alaska that the banks
were not following the RESPA law.
Number 1938
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said testimony indicated banks were having
problems meeting RESPA limitations and were moving rapidly into
compliance. He said there was a bank regulating portion of the
state government that would be aware of when an institution broke
the RESPA rules whereby the 3 percent interest would kick-in.
Number 2000
CHAIR JAMES said the cost of the information required at the end
of each year would be born by the consumer.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said banks calculated interest rates daily
now so it would probably amount to printing three more lines, for
example, on their annual report.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Craig Ingham.
CRAIG INGHAM, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mt McKinley
Bank, said the cost of the added disclosure according the
Representative Bunde was untrue. The amount of revenue and
expense for each loan was constant. The cost to service a $50
thousand mortgage was the same as servicing a $250 thousand
mortgage, but the revenue received was greater on the $250
thousand mortgage. He stated, if there was a problem disclosing
proper information to the consumer, the federal government was
better equipped to properly inform the borrowers under the
disclosure rules that were in effect right now. He said he
really did not see the purpose of the bill. It was changed to a
penalty driven piece of legislation. He said, if the banks
failed to follow the federal regulations that went into effect
the first of this year, it faced a civil penalty. The banks, he
asserted, would not be foolish enough to violate those penalties.
He questioned if an additional law was needed. He said he saw no
purpose in the piece of legislation except to create an added
burden on banks. He said the consumer would not benefit. He
said the balance and account activity was already provided under
federal regulations, and a penalty would be more than paying 3
percent interest on the amount over RESPA regulations required in
this bill.
Number 2392
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Ingham if the federal regulations
required all the calculations the bill required.
Number 2411
MR. INGHAM replied, "no." He said the cost to the bank would
require an analysis at a great cost to the bank with no benefit
to the consumer at all. He said he was not sure if it could be
done accurately. He said it was possible on an aggregate basis,
but did not see how it could be done on an individual basis,
accurately, even with the technology. He further said the
account balance on the last day of each month would be zero, and
questioned the need for a data base field for a zero balance. He
also stated a schedule of payments made by the bank was required
under federal law. He said Section 1, subsection (c) was a
duplication of federal regulations. He said this legislation did
not protect the consumer, but created a burden on the banks.
TAPE 96-21, SIDE A
Number 174
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE respectfully disagreed with Mr. Ingham
regarding the sharing of the information. Mr. Ingham said it
would be burdensome to share that with the consumer.
Number 205
CHAIR JAMES said Mr. Ingham indicated the cost to the bank of
administering the account was the same for each mortgage.
Therefore, the information would be easy to obtain by dividing
the number of accounts by the cost. The amount that was in the
account on the last day of each month was already provided,
therefore, that was not a problem. The amount of interest earned
on the account each month was a problem, however. A schedule of
payments made by the bank from the account was already provided,
therefore, that was a problem as well.
Number 348
MR. INGHAM replied, the cost to the bank of administering the
account was not as simple as Chair James indicated, because each
loan was different. He said a loan might have a private mortgage
insurance on it, for example. He said it would be very
cumbersome to calculate on an individual account basis. He
further reiterated items 2-4 were properly addressed under
federal regulations.
Number 428
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Ingham if this bill was a duplicate of
federal regulation enforcement?
Number 453
MR. INGHAM replied, "absolutely." He said the regulations were
relatively new, but by the end of the year the institutions would
be complying or pay the heavy civil penalty. He further said
right now there was a program that did not allow a bank to have
more than a $50 overage in the account. Therefore, automatically
the system did not allow a bank to hold an excess amount because
of the risk of penalties. He said the banks were doing what
needed to be done, and following the federal regulations. He
said he wished the state would not make it any tougher to the
detriment of the consumer.
Number 558
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented there was interest paid on his
checking and saving accounts daily, and wondered why it would be
burdensome to a bank to calculate an escrow account.
Number 612
MR. INGHAM said if the law mandated a 3 percent interest paid on
the escrow account it would not be a problem, but the bill
required reporting disclosure and a penalty based on an excess.
He wondered again if a state law was necessary when a federal law
existed.
Number 693
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said testimony indicated banks were not
following the federal law, and yet Mr. Ingham indicated there was
heavy civil penalty for a bank that did not follow the federal
law, and wondered which scenario was true.
Number 710
CHAIR JAMES reiterated there was no information available that
Alaskan banks were violating the federal laws.
Number 728
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the regulations were more recent.
Number 756
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the original RESPA put into place in
the 1980's was not obeyed. It was tighten-up this year, and
asserted it was disingenuous to state institutions had been
following the law. He further said, if they followed the federal
law, this law should not be of great concern.
Number 789
CHAIR JAMES replied the 3 percent interested was not a problem.
She said she was concerned the cost to the bank of administering
the account was a nightmare based on personal experience as an
accountant. The amount of interest earned on the account each
month could be done, she said, but saw no real need and it was
difficult to obtain.
Number 886
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, if the amount of interest earned on
the account each month could be calculated daily, or at the end
of each month?
CHAIR JAMES said it depended where the money was invested.
Number 900
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wondered if it would be less burdensome to
say the amount of interest earned that year.
Number 920
CHAIR JAMES replied she was certain the banks had the number
earned on the accumulated balance of the escrow accounts, but
unless it was calculated daily, it would not be accurate.
Number 959
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated a bank would have to know the cost
and how much it made or it was not a good business entity, and
wondered why there was such a resistance to provide that
information to the consumer.
Number 1005
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said this should be more of a policy call for
a bank. He cited, if it was advantageous or there was a consumer
demand, then a bank should do it. He said he agreed with
Representative Porter that the bill was enforcing a federal
mandate. He also said the issue had been belabored enough.
Number 1066
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to accept the proposed CSHB 363(STA)
for consideration. Hearing no objection, it was so accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she appreciated the sponsor and the
bill, but was concerned about implementing a state law when there
was a federal law in place. She also believed this was an issue
for the House Labor and Commerce Committee and would support
moving the bill forward to that committee.
CHAIR JAMES said she supported moving the bill to the next
committee of referral because she did not want to see it anymore.
Number 1108
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that CSHB 363(STA) move from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Representative Ogan objected, so a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Green, Ivan, Robinson, and Willis voted in
favor of moving the bill. Representatives Ogan and Porter voted
against moving the bill. So CSHB 363(STA) moved from the House
State Affairs Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1261
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee at 9:57
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|