Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/08/2005 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB94 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB279 | |
| HB130 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 26 | |||
| + | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 8, 2005
1:03 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Green convened the meeting at approximately 1:03:22 PM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Co-Chair Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS; ADAM BERG, Staff to
Representative Carl Moses; LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor; JOE SONNEMAN; MYRL
THOMPSON; REVINA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill; BEN
MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze; JOHN MACKINNON,
Deputy Commissioner, Highways and Aviation, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; PETE KELLY, State Relations
Director, University of Alaska; JANET BURLESON-BAXTER, Special
Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
Attending via Teleconference: From Offnet Sites: BOB LOEFFLER,
Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural
Resources; JOE BEEDLE, Vice President, Finance, University of
Alaska; MARY MONTGOMERY, University of Alaska
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 26-SHORT-TERM COM FISHING CREWMEMBER LICENSE
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and reported the bill
from Committee.
HB 94-ELECTIONS/VOTERS/POLTICAL PARTIES
The Committee heard from the Division of Elections and took public
testimony. One amendment was considered but failed to be adopted,
and the bill reported from Committee.
HB 53-CHILDREN IN NEED OF AID/ADOPTION/GUARDIAN
The Committee heard from the sponsor, adopted five amendments and
reported the bill from Committee.
HB 279-OUTDOOR ADVERTISING; ENCROACHMENTS
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities. One amendment was adopted and
the bill reported from Committee.
HB 130-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
The Committee adopted a committee substitute and heard from the
University of Alaska and the Department of Natural Resources. Three
amendments failed to be adopted and the bill reported from
Committee.
HB 98-NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
The Committee adopted a committee substitute and one amendment. The
bill reported from Committee.
[NOTE: This record of this meeting between 1:03 PM and 1:45 PM was
inadvertently recorded under the May 8, 2005 recording titled J141.
The remainder of the meeting is correctly recorded under the May 8,
2005 SFIN heading.]
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 26(FIN)
"An Act relating to short-term commercial fishing crewmember
licenses; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
ADAM BERG, Staff to Representative Carl Moses, the bill's sponsor,
explained that, were this bill enacted, a person, regardless of
residency status, could purchase "a seven-day commercial fishing
crew member license" for $30. The only option currently available
is an annual license for a fee of $60 for a resident and $180
dollars for a non-resident.
1:04:13 PM
Mr. Berg noted this legislation would also allow commercial
fishermen to generate money from the tourist industry. While
commercial fishermen are currently able to take tourists on their
vessels, the tourists are prohibited from participating in the
"hands on" commercial fishing experience. They cannot touch a fish
or any of the gear without a crewmember license.
Mr. Berg stated that this legislation would also provide commercial
fishermen the ability to hire short-term temporary help at a more
affordable price in times when permanent crew members were sick or
when manpower availability lessened near the end of a fishing
season.
Co-Chair Green asked for information about the vessel liability in
these cases.
1:05:06 PM
Mr. Berg responded that while commercial vessels are not required
to carry liability insurance, it would be "strongly recommended",
as, otherwise, the vessel and the operation could be placed in
jeopardy.
Co-Chair Green asked for examples of what might be at risk in the
case of such litigation.
Mr. Berg expressed that everything a fisherman owned would be at
risk of being lost were one to elect not to have liability
coverage. However, most commercial fishermen carry liability and
the expectation would be that those who not astute in that regard
would not participate in this endeavor.
Co-Chair Green asked whether a commercial fishermen who hires
tourists or other short term seasonal workers might experience a
monetary increase in their liability coverage rates, and whether
the reporting requirements for this type of operation might differ
from the norm.
Mr. Berg stated that any commercial fisherman who charged money for
taking people out on his or her boat would be considered a "vessel
for hire" under federal law by the United States Coast Guard. The
vessel for hire status would require the operator to have such
things as a Six-Pack License, first aid and CPR training, and
random drug testing for the crew.
Co-Chair Green ascertained therefore that "the standard would be
higher".
Mr. Berg affirmed.
Co-Chair Green understood that a commercial fisherman would be
aware of those requirements.
Senator Olson asked whether a provision of this nature had
previously existed in the commercial fishing industry.
Mr. Berg clarified that tourists could currently purchase a crew
license; however, it is a more expensive longer-term license. The
short-term, less expensive license could expand the market.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS HB 26(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee
with $1,700 fiscal note #1 dated February 11, 2005 from the
Department of Fish and Game and indeterminate fiscal note #2 dated
February 15, 2005 from the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
1:08:03 PM
AT EASE 1:09:06 PM / 1:13:56 PM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 94(STA)
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, political parties, voters unaffiliated with a
political party, early voting, absentee voting, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, qualifications for elected office, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election
Code; and relating to incorporation elections."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, characterized this legislation as being "a
major piece of election reform". It is an updated version of a bill
that was introduced but not adopted the previous Legislative
Session.
Ms. Glaiser stated that this bill would clean up and enhance
current election provisions, including minor changes such as
changing the term "work site" to "construction site"; proposing
that the voter record rather than the voter card be the presumptive
evidence of a voter's residence; including the definition of non-
partisan and undeclared voters; "protecting voter information of
domestic violence victims in accordance with confidentially laws
approved last year; defining the process for independent candidates
for Vice President and President; sharing consistency in the
definition of an overseas voter; making clear age requirements for
serving once selected; and clarifies recognized political party
status and how the Division notifies a party". Changes to Title 29
would include "clearly" defining a qualified voter as one
registered to vote within a proposed borough or municipality at
least 30 days prior to an election as a hardship is currently
incurred by the requirement that a person must live in an area. The
bill would "define re-registration and repeal duplicate language"
regarding regional supervisors and absentee voting stations.
Ms. Glaiser spoke to the "major changes" proposed in the bill
regarding such things as allowing a voter through power of attorney
to register to vote, and make changes to their registration. Other
changes would include reducing the witnessing requirements for
absentee by mail or electronic transmission from two witnesses to
one. The Division desired that witness be a United States (U.S.)
citizen, however that requirement was eliminated in the House State
Affairs Committee.
Co-Chair Green asked for further information regarding the witness
requirements.
Ms. Glaiser responded that current law requires two U.S. witnesses
for a faxed voted ballot and two witnesses for a by-mail ballot.
The Division recommended changing both those voting scenarios to
one witness who must be a U.S. citizen; House action eliminated the
U.S. citizenship requirement, but incorporated language that would
subject a person making false statements on the absentee ballot to
the act of perjury.
Co-Chair Green understood that, were they to submit an "ineligible
witness", the person submitting the absentee ballot would be
subject to that punishment.
1:16:57 PM
Ms. Glaiser affirmed.
Ms. Glaiser continued that the bill would incorporate scanning as
another mode of transmitting voter registration or by mail absentee
ballot requests to the Division. Current acceptable transmittal
means include delivery in person, by mail, or by fax.
Ms. Glaiser informed the Committee that, while current law requires
the Director of the Division of Elections to determine a random
order for all candidates, the House added language requiring the
Division to implement a ballot rotation for the names of those
candidates running for governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. senator,
U.S. representative, and State senator for each district. "The
names of the candidates for State House races will appear in random
order as determined by the Director as is the current practice."
Ms. Glaiser pointed out that the Division advanced language that
"would improve ballot security by adding that the ballots would not
be mailed to a voter whose address has been identified as being
undeliverable". In addition, election boards must notify the
Division of the number of ballots that have been destroyed to
increase accountability. Voting machine and vote tally machine
standards provisions were also included in the bill.
Ms. Glaiser stated that a large portion of the bill would be
dedicated to improving the process pertaining to petitions,
referendums and recalls. The changes would make the process "more
user friendly" for citizens and would make the process of
"petitioning the government more consistent". One change would be
the inclusion of a "printed name and numerical identifier for a
petition signer". The numerical identifier language added by the
House Judiciary Committee would include such things as date of
birth, last four digits of one's social security number, Alaska
driver's license number, or State or voter identification number.
This information "would improve the Division's ability to qualify a
voter's signature".
1:18:22 PM
Ms. Glaiser stated that the proposed changes in the qualifications
pertaining to a circulator or petitioner would align the State with
the Buckley ruling in that, while the circulator must be 18 years
of age, an Alaskan resident, and a U.S. citizen, they would not be
required to be a registered voter.
Ms. Glaiser noted that "language that was the basis for the
Division requiring accountability reports from the petition
sponsors has been removed", as a Court ruling considered that
requirement to be "an undue burden and a barrier for petition
carriers".
Ms. Glaiser also pointed out that language requiring the
circulator's name to be prominently displayed on the petition was
eliminated. While the Division had chosen not to enforce that
provision following the year 2000 Buckley ruling, the Statutes had
not been changed.
Ms. Glaiser continued that language regarding the number of
signatures required on a recall petition was clarified by the
removal of language pertaining to 100 signatures. Going forward,
ten percent of the voters in the preceding general election would
be required to sign a recall petition.
Ms. Glaiser stated that one of the changes advanced by the House
Judiciary Committee was to reduce the percent of votes required by
party candidates for the party to continue as a recognized
political party. "The amounts for recounts were raised" as depicted
in the sectional analyses contained in Members' packets. The
amounts had not been reset since 1986.
1:19:52 PM
Ms. Glaiser specified that the legislation would also require
petitions, referendums or recalls to specify in the petition
booklet "the minimum cost to the State for the review and
certification of those petitions". In addition, the cost to the
State, were the act approved by the voters must be provided.
Ms. Glaiser stated that language was added on the House Floor that
"no one supplying an absentee ballot application may pre-mark the
primary ballot choice for a voter before mailing it out". Language
was also added that specified that "only a voter or a person with a
power of attorney could mark party affiliation on a voter
registration or absentee ballot application unless the mark is
consistent with the voter's current registration record".
Ms. Glaiser noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee changed
the word "oath" in Section 6(a) (11) back to "attestation" as is
reflected in current law. That word would be consistent with the
national voter registration act. The use of the word "oath" was
incorrect.
Ms. Glaiser informed the Committee that, while the Senate State
Affairs Committee added Sections 11, 12, and 13, she could not
speak to those sections was they pertained to law that she did not
administer.
Ms. Glaiser stated that Section 19 changed the date by which the
Director must identify locations for early voting sites. The
proposed date of June first would replace the existing January
first date. This was a Division request as moving the date closer
to the election date would provide more time to determine the most
appropriate sites for that activity. The June first date would
continue to provide the Division the time required for ordering
ballots, supplies, and the hiring of election workers.
1:21:14 PM
Ms. Glaiser noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee removed
language adopted on the House Floor that would have provided a
ballot with the greatest range of candidates from the most parties
to an unaffiliated voter who failed to mark a primary ballot
choice. This language was removed, as no such ballot exists in
Alaska because it has "closed primaries in which there are
individual ballots for individual parties". Therefore the House
language was inconsistent with existing State law. The Senate
Judiciary Committee also removed language that would change
existing qualifiers for recognized political parties.
Co-Chair Green described this as being "a huge bill". Continuing,
she asked whether any language in the bill would provide the
Division the ability to "clean up" the State's voter registration
lists.
1:22:39 PM
Ms. Glaiser responded that the bill would not address purging of
the voter registration list. The federal Department of Justice
(DoJ) and the National Voter Registration Act "heavily monitor the
portion of the law regarding that endeavor". The Division has
conducted internal discussions in this regard; however, it would
require tremendous effort and coordination with DoJ. As a
consequence of existing State law, the Division has been notified
by DoJ that the State is one of a few with more registered voters
than people over the age of 18. The Division has responded to DoJ,
and as result, an effort in this regard might be forthcoming.
1:23:34 PM
Co-Chair Green asked whether State or federal law would allow for
the requirement that a person "at the time of voting" update their
address information. This would seem to be the most feasible manner
through which to update records. The fact that a high percent of
the Division's mailings are returned is a point of frustration.
Many addresses are old and past the time allotted by the U.S. Post
Office for forwarding. Efforts such as developing an unobtrusive
method to update records at the voting poll should be furthered.
Ms. Glaiser responded that requesting people to update their
address at the time of voting would not be obtrusive. The process
of Questioned Ballots currently allows that. While State or federal
law would not prohibit asking for address verification, it would
slow down the polling process.
Co-Chair Green asked whether permission to ask for address
verification would be required in State Statute.
Ms. Glaiser stated that this would be researched.
Co-Chair Green expressed that a determination would be appreciated,
as this is an important issue.
1:26:27 PM
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the inclusion of a FY 2007 capital
budget request for a dedicated staff position to work with the
federal DoJ in regards to the State's Voter Registration list might
be appropriate. To that point, he asked whether such an effort
could be accomplished in one year.
1:26:57 PM
Ms. Glaiser responded that this effort would involve more than
"just a body", as the person must be able to speak on behalf of the
Division. In addition, she was unsure whether a temporary or
contract employee could conduct negotiations on behalf of the
State. This suggestion could be further reviewed and could be
funded through the Help America Vote Act.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this issue is worthy of discussion, as
the voter registration process should be improved.
Co-Chair Green remarked that the voter registration list issue must
be frustrating for the Division. She estimated that half of
Division's mailings are returned.
Ms. Glaiser nodded in affirmation.
1:28:26 PM
Senator Dyson asked for further information about how the Division
could change the voter registration list so that potential victims
could be protected from perpetrators.
1:28:48 PM
Ms. Glaiser explained that SB 284, which became law the previous
Session, would allow any voter who had a separate mailing and
residence address to keep their residence address protected. In
addition, law now specified that the Division could not release
information such as a social security number or date of birth.
Senator Olson inquired as to how people in Rural areas of the State
that do not have such things as post office box mail delivery would
be able to receive absentee ballots or other mailings. He voiced
concern that voter apathy might occur were those individuals to
think their ballots would be questioned.
Ms. Glaiser understood the question to be how to ensure by-mail
voters or absentee voters that their votes would be counted. In
other words, the question is whether this bill might provide those
people further consideration. She voiced the understanding that
there is nothing currently in the bill that would address this
concern. The action of a voter "to keep their registration current
is the most important thing".
Ms. Glaiser expressed that Alaska is "a great State" because people
call the regional Election office if they do not receive a ballot
or something expected does not arrive. The only section that speaks
primarily to Rural communities is the section regarding
undeliverable addresses in REAA/CRSA election districts. The
Division would no longer send a ballot to an address that is known
to be undeliverable. "That is an election integrity question."
1:31:40 PM
Co-Chair Green ascertained therefore, that, at some point, it is
incumbent upon the voter to be aware.
Ms. Glaiser stated that the undeliverable address ballot issue is
addressed in Sec. 25 of the bill. She qualified that the decision
to not send a ballot to an undeliverable address would only apply
to the REAA/CRSA elections, which are exclusively conducted by
mail. It would not apply to absentee voting by mail ballots as that
process is one in which the voter first sends the Division an
application containing a mailing address to which the ballot is
then sent. That procedure would maintain the process integrity.
1:32:21 PM
JOE SONNEMAN informed the Committee that he holds a PhD in
Government and has a Law Degree. This education has attributed to
his interest in election procedures. He mentioned that at one time
he had filed a lawsuit to assist in restoring the State's long-
standing practice of rotating candidate names. He voiced
appreciation for the fact that the House State Affairs Committee
incorporated rotation provisions into the bill at zero cost. To
that point, he asked that the Committee support that language and
the other provisions supported by the House in the bill.
Mr. Sonneman continued that he had also served as chair of the
Alaskans for Fair Elections group that was involved in the 2004
State recount effort. Thus he has reviewed the provisions in this
bill that address the recount issue. Again, he voiced support for
the work conducted by the House committees in that regard. He
"commended the House version of the bill to the Committee for
consideration. The differences between the bill that reported from
the House and the Senate committee substitute is that the Senate
version basically re-instills "soft money. It would allow unlimited
spending for political party building with no record of
contribution or expenditure". While people who support strong
political parties might favor that endeavor, he opined that the
"wider Alaskan view" might differ. He noted that an amendment to
delete that language could be forthcoming, that and he "would
commend that amendment".
Mr. Sonneman addressed language in Sec. 57, which was included in
the House version of the bill, but not included in the Senate
committee substitute. Sec. 57 would redefine political parties and
lower the qualifier requirement from three percent to two percent.
Currently, the Alaska Independence Party, which more than likely
draws votes from the Republican Party, would qualify as a political
party under either the two or three percent requirement. The change
to two percent would allow the Green Party to continue to qualify
as a political party. That would affect the votes for the
Democratic Party "almost to the same degree that" the Alaska
Independence Party would affect the Republican Party. Therefore,
one could say that the House version of the bill "is more balanced
on its affect on the major parties and preserves smaller parties in
Alaska".
Mr. Sonneman shared that he has closely followed this bill through
its House processings. The House committees did good work, and he
commended the House Version to the Committee. Were the Senate bill
to be favored, he urged that Sec. 57 be re-incorporated into it.
MYRL THOMPSON, who defined himself as a Susitna Valley resident,
past Legislative candidate, and initiative and recall effort
participant, voiced that he has followed the movement of this
legislation through its House and Senate hearing process. The
Senate State Affairs committee substitute, which added Sections 11,
12, and 13, "poisoned" a very good House bill.
1:37:19 PM
Mr. Thompson applauded the efforts conducted by the Division of
Elections and the House. However, the Senate's inclusion of
Sections 11, 12, and 13 would push "backwards" campaign reform
efforts intended to reduce "soft money" from out-of-State "5270"
special interest groups influencing Alaskan politics. Therefore, he
asked that Sections 11, 12, and 13 be omitted from the bill. "Soft
money" would also place small political groups at "a distinct
disadvantage". He defined "soft money" as money that "there is no
trail on".
Mr. Thompson noted that 51-percent of voters in the State have no
party affiliation. The Senate State Affair's action of eliminating
the changes the House proposed in Sec. 57 would result in there
being fewer qualified small political parties in the State. This
would serve to increase the number of non-party affiliated voters.
Mr. Thompson stated that the people of the State have strongly
supported campaign reform efforts opposing soft money. The removal
of language in Sec. 57 that would decrease the percent of voters
required in support of a political party from three percent to two
percent of registered voters and the addition of Sections 11, 12,
and 13, that would allow for increased "soft money", are
contentious issues to him. He shared that during discussions with
some employees of the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) it
was apparent that they "strongly disagreed" with the inclusion of
Sections 11, 12, and 13 in the bill. He voiced disappointment that
representatives from APOC have not testified in this regard.
Nonetheless, their opposition "is on record".
Co-Chair Green assured that APOC was aware of today's hearing. APOC
"is set up to administer the law; they do not set policy".
Mr. Thompson interjected that it was his understanding that APOC
had been unaware of the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on
the bill. After that hearing, the bill was supposed to have been
transmitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1:41:04 PM
Co-Chair Green specified that APOC does not, "set policy nor do
they write law. They implement the law and the policy".
Mr. Thompson acknowledged.
Co-Chair Green asked whether State action could impact the action
of a "5-27".
Mr. Thompson determined that State action would not affect this
federal law.
Co-Chair Green stated that her question was directed to clarify
remarks made by Mr. Thompson in this regard; State action "would
not change the status" of that law which would allow for "the
complete formation of a group that has a set purpose to receive
unlimited" support. The reality is that "we have no impact over
that". Furthermore, she questioned the statistical validity of how
many people are aligned with a party, as, according to her
calculations, approximately 35 to 40 percent of the people on voter
mailing lists "don't exist". Were those lists cleaned up, the
numbers might reflect there being a greater number of organized
party voters. The numbers could "be skewed" were the whole numbers
factored in.
Mr. Thompson commented that by passing Sections 11, 12, and 13, the
State would be "setting up a quasi 5-27. In other words, we're
getting money influencing our system that we don't have any idea
where its coming from…big money doesn't come from small people, it
comes from groups that are certainly interested in influencing our
politics and with no record of them, that's the reason that APOC
has some problem because that's something that they do".
1:43:46 PM
Co-Chair Green reiterated that, "they can have their problem
personally, but as a matter of policy, they implement Statute. They
implement regulation. They do not establish law or policy. They are
welcome to testify personally, but not on Statute being proposed."
Mr. Thompson stressed that Sections 11, 12, and 13 would allow
"soft money".
Co-Chair Green expressed that Alaska is unique in regards "to the
ability of the level" of the party's participation with candidates.
Alaska's qualifications "are very low" when compared to other
states. "Our candidacy and active campaigns does more to party
building than the party does" for the candidate "as far as
financing our campaigns". The low limit that the party could
contribute does not allow otherwise.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
RECESS TO CALL OF CHAIR: 1:45:02 PM / 6:56:25 PM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 94(STA)
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, political parties, voters unaffiliated with a
political party, early voting, absentee voting, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, qualifications for elected office, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election
Code; and relating to incorporation elections."
The bill was again before the Committee.
Co-Chair Green asked whether there were any further questions for
the Division of Elections in regards to this bill. None were
forthcoming.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes the entirety of Sections 11,
12, and 13 from the bill, beginning on page nine, line 20 and
concluding on page 11, line 14.
In addition, the amendment replaces Applicability references "34-
57" with "31 - 54" in Sec. 65, on page 35, line two.
Senator Hoffman offered Amendment #1, on behalf of Senator Olson.
Co-Chair Green objected.
Senator Hoffman explained that the removal of these sections would
address the concerns relating to "soft money".
Co-Chair Green restated her earlier comments in regards to the fact
that the State could not influence the federal law pertaining to
"5-27s". These sections would simply allow "some money to go to the
party for party building". Since this State has much tighter
restrictions than other states in regard to the amount of money an
individual or an organized party could contribute to a candidate,
the levels of concern in this regard would be lower than that
experienced in other states. "The roof is low in our State."
Senator Dyson voiced appreciation for the issues brought forward in
this discussion. He noted that a friend of his from Florida had
commented that Alaska's "election process is so unique and so
precious, we ought to be very very careful about messing with it."
Even though extreme efforts have been exerted in this regard, the
opportunity is there for it to be "messed with". While it is "an
imperfect system", the language in question "is at least a small
attempt to allow some other folks to have access to resources". He
voiced being "comfortable with the situation at this time".
Senator Hoffman thought, incorrectly, that Senator Dyson's initial
remarks about "not messing with the system" were an indication that
he was going to support the amendment, as removing the Sections
would "not mess with the system".
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman
OPPOSED: Senator Dyson, Co-Chair Wilken, and Co-Chair Green
ABSENT: Senator Stedman, Senator Bunde, and Senator Olson
The motion FAILED (1-3-3)
Amendment #1 FAILED.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS HB 94 (STA) was REPORTED from
Committee with zero FY 07 fiscal note #3, dated April 21, 2005,
from the Division of Elections, Office of he Lieutenant Governor.
7:01:13 PM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR SS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 53(JUD)
"An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings; amending
the construction of statutes pertaining to children in need of
aid; relating to guardianships; relating to the
confidentiality of investigations, court hearings, court
records, and public agency records and information in child-
in-need-of-aid matters and certain child protection matters,
to immunity regarding disclosure of information in child-in-
need-of-aid matters and certain child protection matters, to
proceedings regarding voluntary relinquishment and termination
of a parent and child relationship, to eligibility for
permanent fund dividends for certain children in the custody
of the state, and to juvenile delinquency proceedings and
placements; reestablishing and relating to a state citizens'
review panel; amending the obligation of a public agency to
disclose agency information pertaining to a child in need of
aid; relating to disclosure of confidential or privileged
information about children and families involved with
children's services within the Department of Health and Social
Services to officials for review or use in official
capacities; relating to reports of harm and to adoptions and
foster care; relating to consent for the medication of
children in state custody; prescribing the rights of family
members related to child-in- need-of-aid cases and
establishing a familial priority for adoption; modifying
adoption and placement procedures in certain child-in-need-of-
aid cases; relating to the admissibility into evidence of the
prior recorded statement of a crime victim less than 16 years
of age; amending Rules 9 and 13, Alaska Adoption Rules, Rules
3, 17.2, 18, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure, Rules 14 and 15, Alaska Rules of Probate Procedure,
and Rule 801, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green reminded the Committee that as several issues were
raised during the first hearing on this bill, some amendments have
been developed through which to either address concerns or to
clarify certain points of the legislation.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes Sec. 14(t) on page ten lines
20 through 23. The language being deleted reads as follows.
(t) The court may not terminate parental rights solely on the
basis that the parent did not complete treatment required of
the parent by the department for reunification with the child
if the treatment required was unavailable to the parent and
the department did not provide the treatment.
Co-Chair Wilken moved Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Green explained that this amendment would delete language
prohibiting the termination of parental rights due to their non-
completion of a specified treatment plan.
REVINA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, stated that,
while the Department of Health and Social Services would have
strived to insure that parents completed their treatment plan,
there was concern that the inclusion of this language would have
provided parents "a piece of ammunition" through which to delay the
process of getting treatment.
There being no objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes the phrase ", the legislature,
or the governor" following "the department" from Sec. 23(b)(12) on
page seventeen, lines six and seven. The revised language reads as
follows.
(12) a review panel established by the department for the
purpose of reviewing the actions taken by the department in a
specific case.
Co-Chair Wilken moved for the adoption of Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Green stated that this amendment would delete the words
"'department and legislature' in order to comply with federal
requirements that confidential information can only be reviewed by
the Department and the State Review Panel".
[NOTE: Co-Chair Green inadvertently stated "department and
legislature" rather than the correct reference to "the legislature
and the governor.]
Ms. Moss noted that the federal Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act would require that the confidentially of records be
restricted to the department. Therefore, the inclusion of the
Legislature or the Governor in this regard would have "placed
federal dollars at risk".
Senator Hoffman asked for confirmation that the words "the
legislature or the governor" would be deleted by the amendment.
Co-Chair Green affirmed. The amendment language was correct; she
had misspoken. She also noted that in order to further clarify the
issue, the amendment is accompanied by a memorandum, dated April
11, 2005 from Jean Mischel, Legislative Counsel, Division of Legal
and Research Services, and addressed to Representative Coghill.
There being no objection, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
7:04:22 PM
Amendment #3: This amendment deletes the words "foster parent" and
inserts the words "out-of-home care provider" following the words
"Grandparent or" in Sec. 51(c) on page 26, line ten.
In addition, the amendment deletes the words "foster parent or
other" following "and the" in Sec.51(c) on page 26, line 11.
Co-Chair Wilken moved Amendment #3.
Co-Chair Green stated that replacing the words "foster parent" with
"out-of-home care provider" would make the language consistent with
the Statutory change specified in Sec. 10 page six, line 18 through
page seven line 24 regarding the sideboards for closing hearings to
the public.
Ms. Moss furthered that this amendment would be required to align
Sec. 10 language with revisions in the bill that expand rights
previously provided to foster parents to include other out of home
care providers such as adult family members and family friends.
Co-Chair Green qualified therefore that the proposed language would
more clearly define who would be involved.
Without objection, Amendment #3 was ADOPTED.
Amendment #4: This amendment deletes the words "in the proceeding"
following "further hearings" in Sec. 52(f)(5) page 27 line 28.
Co-Chair Wilken moved the amendment.
Co-Chair Green stated that the purpose of this conforming amendment
would be to clarify that any person banned from one CINA hearing
could be banned from all such hearings.
Ms. Moss affirmed that the amendment would make the language
consistent with language in Sec. 10.
There being no objection, Amendment #4 was ADOPTED.
7:05:55 PM
Amendment #5: This amendment deletes all language in Sec. 59 on
page 31 lines four through 24. The language being deleted reads as
follows.
Sec. 59. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended
by adding a new section to read:
DIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. Rule 801(d), Alaska Rules of
Evidence, is amended by adding a new paragraph to read:
(3) Recorded Statement by Child Victims of Crime.
The statement is a recorded statement by the victim of a crime
who is less than 16 years of age and
(A) the recording was made before the
proceeding;
(B) the victim is available for cross-
examination;
(C) the prosecutor and any attorney
representing the defendant were not present when the statement
was taken;
(D) the recording is on videotape or other
format that records both the visual and aural components of
the statement;
(E) each person who participated in the taking
of the statement is identified on the recording;
(F) the taking of the statement as a whole was
conducted in a manner that would avoid undue influence of the
victim;
(G) the defense has been provided a reasonable
opportunity to view the recording before the proceeding; and
(H) the court has had an opportunity to view
the recording and determine that it is sufficiently reliable
and trustworthy and that the interests of justice are best
served by admitting the recording into evidence.
Co-Chair Wilken moved Amendment #5.
Co-Chair Green stated that this amendment would remove language
adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as "that language is
standard for a criminal trial not a civil trial". Removal of this
language would maintain the order of civil trail proceedings.
7:06:31 PM
Senator Hoffman asked the reasons for the action of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Moss responded that the intent of the Committee was to
incorporate language from another bill into this bill. However,
this bill relates to civil rather than criminal law.
Co-Chair Green stated that the [unspecified] bill from which the
language was fashioned related to criminal rather than civil
statutes.
Senator Hoffman acknowledged.
Without objection, Amendment #5 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS SS HB 53(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with $82,700 fiscal note #12 dated April 27, 2005 from
the Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration; $161,300
fiscal note #13 dated April 27, 2005 from the Office of Public
Advocacy, Department of Administration; $94,900 fiscal note #14
dated April 27, 2005 from the Alaska Court System; $142,700 fiscal
note #15 dated April 26, 2005 from the Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services; $106,200 fiscal
note #16 dated April 27, 2005 from the Front Line Social Workers
component, Office of Children's Services, Department of Health and
Social Services; and $586,400 fiscal note #17 dated April 27, 2005
from the Department of Law.
AT EASE 7:07:41 PM / 7:12:09 PM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 279(FIN)
"An Act relating to encroachments in the right-of-way of a
highway."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, recounted that,
during the first hearing on this bill, Senator Stedman had
requested the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities'
input on certain provisions of the bill.
Senator Stedman stated his desire was to hear the Department's
position regarding the right of way restrictions addressed in the
bill.
JOHN MACKINNON, Deputy Commissioner, Highways and Aviation,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, informed the
Committee that the Department "welcomes the legislation", as it
would allow the Department to conduct activities in a manner
desired. While the Department currently has authority in this
regard, this bill would clarify that authority and improve current
regulations by implementing a six-part encroachment test. The
Department worked closely with both the Senate and House bill
sponsors in the development of the bill. While the bill has been
improved during its transit through the committee hearing process,
some additional amendments would be desired. The Department of Law
also supports the bill.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS, Senate Transportation Committee Chair,
explained that Amendment #1 would align language in HB 279 with
that of the Senate Transportation Committee's companion bill.
[NOTE: Amendment #1 was adopted during the May 7, 2005 Committee
hearing on this bill.]
Co-Chair Green noted that Amendment #1 specified that in order for
an encroachment to be considered it would have had to exist by
January 1, 2005. It also removed the liability on the part of the
State for any damages.
Senator Huggins concurred.
AT EASE 7:17:06 PM / 7:18:10 PM
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes all material in Sec. 2(c)(2)
on page two, lines ten and eleven of the bill and replaces it with
the following.
(2) The applicant has demonstrated the encroachment was
erected with the good faith belief it was lawful to erect and
maintain the encroachment in its location.
The amendment also deletes the entirety of Sec. 2(g) that was
adopted in Amendment #1 during the May 7, 2005 Committee hearing
and replaces it with the following.
(g) The state is not liable for damage to, or damage or injury
resulting from the presence of, an encroachment in the right-
of-way of a state highway.
Co-Chair Wilken moved for the adoption of Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Green clarified that she was the sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. MacKinnon explained that the proposed Sec. 2(c)(2) language
would further "strengthen" the intent of the term "good faith".
This language change was suggested by the Department of Law.
There being no objection, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
Mr. Mulligan pointed out that the Department of Law also suggested
that the Sec. 2(g) language adopted in Amendment #1 be replaced by
that proposed in Amendment #2 in order to "completely" remove the
State from any liability issues were someone harmed as the result
"of hitting an encroachment".
Senator Hoffman questioned the need to hire four new right-of-way
agents as depicted in the Department's April 28 2005 fiscal note
#1.
Mr. MacKinnon stated that considerable effort was exerted in
refining the fiscal note; initial expenses were much higher. The
note is an estimate based on the average number of encroachment
issues the Department deals with on an annual basis. The actual
expense is unknown as there is no history pertaining to the terms
included in the bill. Prior activity in regards to encroachments
was simply to have them removed. The note anticipates that one-
third of the annual encroachments would undergo the permit
application process. The note would be lower were fewer permits
requested. The six-part test would assure that permits would not be
"rubber stamped". Permits would not be issued for things that would
place the public in an unsafe position or something "that would
likely be hit". A thorough determination process would be
conducted.
7:22:55 PM
Senator Hoffman stated, therefore, that the question is whether the
end result of the bill would be worth the expense.
Co-Chair Green understood that the provisions of the bill would not
apply to commercial operations.
Mr. MacKinnon affirmed that it is not the intent of the Department
to apply the provisions of this bill to commercial operations.
However, he noted that 50 commercial encroachment permits are
currently handled under existing regulations, and that the existing
fee structure contributes approximately $107,000 annually in
economic rent to the Department including approximately $7,000 each
from four cellular phone towers. Most of the current commercial
encroachments involve small areas whose rent amounts to
approximately $100 per year.
Mr. MacKinnon stated that an application fee would be imposed for
the residential application. Permits are issued for five years and
could be renewed in five-year increments. No annual rent is charged
for residential encroachments.
Senator Stedman asked how quickly a permit could be cancelled.
Mr. MacKinnon replied that, were the area required for highway
purposes, a 30-day cancellation notification would be required by
regulation. Highway needs take precedence over the public's
privilege to use the right of way "granted through permit".
Co-Chair Green questioned the reason that four new right-of-way
agent positions would be required since the Department already
conducts this activity.
Mr. MacKinnon responded that while the Department could currently
conduct this activity, this legislation would implement a new "set
of rules". There would be a higher application fee and an annual
fee. This legislation would also "differentiate" the residential
encroachments from all the others.
Co-Chair Green noted that the fiscal note specifies that the
expenses would lower in the out-years. However, she asked whether
it would be necessary to retain the four right-of-way agent
positions over time.
Mr. MacKinnon assured that the Department would not endeavor to
create a program that would seek to identify right-of-way
encroachments. Right-of-way encroachments would be identified in
conjunction with the undertaking of a highway project. This bill
would require more work than is presently done in regards to the
permitting process. The Department, as property managers of the
right of way, would be required to insure that the encroachments do
not change during the five-year permit time and become a public
hazard. Therefore a review period would also be assigned to the
five-year period.
Senator Dyson voiced appreciation for the work involved in
developing this legislation as it relates to situations occurring
in his election district. He specifically appreciated the
Department's comments spoken during this hearing. Improved
regulations would be appreciated.
Mr. MacKinnon allowed that some in the Department do not support
this action; however, the clarifications provided by this
legislation would be appreciated.
Senator Huggins stated that Senator Dyson and Senator Stedman could
both attest that, when dealing with areas that have "restricted
terrain", people tend to build right on the road. This activity,
however, makes it difficult to widen or improve a road. In the
past, in order to meet the federal funding guidelines, the State
has simply bulldozed down right-of-way encroachments. This
legislation would "formalize a process" and allow citizens to
petition for a permit. He voiced appreciation for Mr. MacKinnon's
efforts in spearheading this effort in a cooperative and
understanding manner. Efforts have been made to address this in a
manner that is good for Alaskans.
Co-Chair Green agreed that the process has been conducted in a
different manner than it was approximately ten years prior in
regards to a similar issue.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill, as amended, from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being no objection, the SCS CS HB 279(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with $418,500 fiscal note #1, dated April 28, 2005 from
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 130(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the grant of certain state land to the
University of Alaska; relating to the duties of the Board of
Regents; establishing the university research forest; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
PETE KELLY, State Relations Director, University of Alaska,
specified that the University is a State land grant entity that
"was founded with the intent that it would create a land grant
trust" that would supplement its day-to-day activities. To that
point, he emphasized that the Land Grant Trust is operational and
does financially support the University. The debate regarding the
University land grant issue began in 1915 when a territorial
delegate, James Wickersham, envisioned a State university. He
lobbied before the United States Congress for this land grant
endowment, and, in 1929, the State received its University land
grant entitlement. Unfortunately, at the time, a vast majority of
the State was not surveyed; therefore the process of transferring
land was slow. Only two grants, totally approximately 113,000
acres, had been transferred to the University by the time of
Statehood, and "the Statehood Act superseded all of the federal
legislation dealing with Alaska."
Mr. Kelly stated that the total acreage that was provided to the
University's land grant program amounted to 140,000 acres: the
combination of the 113,000 federally granted acreage and other land
grants to the University. The University is "a very small land
grant institution" which only ranks ahead of Hawaii and Delaware's
land grant university programs in size.
7:32:04 PM
Mr. Kelly characterized the University as having "a very successful
land department". Since 1986, the University has sold 1,200 parcels
of land. The University is "the most successful public entity in
the State for getting land into private ownership". The
University's educational endowment, which is established as a
percent of market value (POMV) payout structure, nets the
University approximately $5,000,000 annually. The endowment fund
currently has a value of approximately $135,000,000.
Mr. Kelly stated that during the process involved with this
legislation, a significant amount of public comment in regard to
how the University "treats its disposal of land" occurred.
7:32:40 PM
Mr. Kelly communicated that the University has attempted "to assure
everyone at every step" that "a very very public process" is in
place. "University land issues are routine subjects of Board of
Regents meetings" which are public forums. The Board's decisions on
land are formed in consideration of the public process.
Mr. Kelly noted that one of the greatest areas of concern relating
to this bill has been in regard to land parcels in Southeast
Alaska. To that point, he noted that private land holdings in
Southeast Alaska amount to approximately one percent of the
landmass. This bill would change that percentage "to one and two-
tenths of one percent". The University has addressed the concerns
of municipalities that might attempt to form boroughs at a later
date, and in addition has agreed to take lands that might be
subject to federal claims. Furthermore, the University would accept
land containing established trails. In the past, agreements
regarding such trails have been made, to include such things as
providing easements or relocation of the trail. Nonetheless, a few
concerns continue. "The University is a responsible land developer
and a successful land developer." Even were the University to be
granted the entirety of the lands proposed in this bill, it would
continue to be defined as a small land grant institution.
Nonetheless, the University is looking forward to increasing its
land holdings to a level "that is consistent with most
universities".
7:34:18 PM
Co-Chair Green asked for verification that the land being proposed
for transfer to the University was currently State owned land.
Mr. Kelly affirmed.
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that the State has the
authority to either sell that land or give it to someone else.
JANET BURLESON-BAXTER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources affirmed that the land in question
could be sold.
Co-Chair Green ascertained therefore, that the legislation would
not change the classification of the land, or making it more
available or more or less restrictive. The proposal would simply
move land from one State entity to another.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources testified via teleconference from
an offnet site and agreed that, "in general", Co-Chair Green is
correct that the State "could do any number of things with the land
although there are land use plans that say what" the State is going
to do with the land. "For the most part, the lands" identified in
this bill that are located in Southeast Alaska are currently
included in "development categories". To that point, the State
could plan "to set the land aside for a kind of development whether
that be sales or commercial lodges or whatever. However, he noted
that there are two to four parcels, however, that are inconsistent
with "what the State's planning says".
7:36:47 PM
JOE BEEDLE, Vice President, Finance, University of Alaska,
testified via teleconference from an offnet site and spoke in
appreciation for the Committee subcommittee's May 2, 2005 three
hour public hearing in which approximately 40 individuals testified
about the bill. He also noted that "numerous misconceptions or
misunderstandings" about this legislation were addressed in a
report titled "Department of Natural Resources University Land
Transfer Factsheet February 4, 2005" [copy on file].
Mr. Beedle expressed that the University has deemed the language
proposed in the Committee's committee substitute, draft Version 24-
GH1034\P as being acceptable.
Co-Chair Green asked whether any of the land parcels selected for
sale would negatively impact the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race or
other traditional dog sled racing trails.
7:38:10 PM
Mr. Loeffler informed the Committee that the Iditarod trail would
not be affected by the proposed land selection; however the
Haessler-Norris Trail System does transit one of the selected
parcels. In response to this concern, the State has agreed to
reserve the Haessler-Norris Trail System before that parcel was
conveyed to the University. He also noted that that specific land
parcel is classified for "settlement, meaning the State had the
expectation of selling it". Regardless of whether that parcel was
sold to the University or sold for settlement, the trail system
would be preserved and protected.
Co-Chair Green acknowledged the comments.
7:39:10 PM
Senator Hoffman noted that during the public testimony hearings on
this bill, concern was voiced regarding Native claims on land,
specifically to Parcel 10 around McCarthy.
Mr. Loeffler informed the Committee that the Department of Natural
Resources is unaware of any Native land allotments in the McCarthy
parcel. Nonetheless, were Native allotments uncovered, "they would
have precedence over conveyance to the University".
Senator Hoffman asked whether this would also be the case with any
other parcels being considered for conveyance.
Mr. Loeffler affirmed that to be true. Language was added to the
bill that specifically stated that Native allotments were "a valid
possessary right that would remain valid". In addition, the
question pertaining to Native allotments to parcels such as Biorka
Island and Lisianski Peninsula in Southeast Alaska would be
addressed before those parcels could be conveyed to the University.
Senator Stedman asked that the report from the Committee's
subcommittee assigned to review this bill be provided. In addition,
he asked that the public process involved with this legislation be
reviewed.
Co-Chair Wilken read the May 7, 2005 memorandum [copy on file] he
wrote to Co-Chair Green on behalf of the Committee's subcommittee
on HB 130 as follows.
The Senate Finance Subcommittee for House Bill 130, University
Land Grant/State Forest, met Monday evening, May 2, 2005. The
purpose of the meeting was to provide the opportunity for
statewide public testimony.
The following is a numerical summary of the testimony given:
1) Total Number of Participants 39
2) Geographical Area of the State
S.E. Alaska Participants 24 61%
McCarthy Area Participants 7 18%
Mat-Su Area Participants 5 13%
Other Area Participants 3 8%
39 100%
In addition, I would make the following comments:
1) In regards to Southeast Alaska:
The testimony was spread across many sites in Southeast
Alaska. As you would expect, the testimony was localized
by sub-area across the broad region. Most participants
recommended that specific land parcels not be conveyed to
the University of Alaska.
2) In regards to the McCarthy area:
The testimony revolved around the United States Park
Service's continued restriction and constriction of
usable land around the McCarthy area. It was stated that
further withdrawals by the University would just make a
bad situation worse.
3) In regards to the Mat-Su area:
The testimony was almost entirely confined to the Frying
Pan Lake area and the multiple system of world-class dog
mushing trails situated therein.
Thank you for the opportunity to accept the public's input on
this important legislation. I commend House Bill 130 to you
and stand ready to assist in passing it from Committee.
Gary Wilken, subcommittee chair
Senator Stedman spoke of his concerns regarding "the lack of" a
public process pertaining to this bill. The multitude of
correspondence he has received from House District 2 includes
correspondence from mayors, councils, and assemblies as well as
individuals. The fact that the majority of communities in a
specific district have requested their elected official to "slow
the process down and to have more dialogue with the communities
affected and each community has a little difference issues…" is a
matter of concern. The issue for some of the unorganized
communities that were considering expanding and forming boroughs,
was that the land selected was the only land available. He allowed
that some of those issues have been addressed.
Senator Stedman continued that communities that are boroughs have
voiced concern that the public process guidelines that the
Department of Natural Resources must follow regarding land disposal
"are substantially different" than those required of the
University. The concern is that the in-depth planning that was
conducted over the last couple of decades including such things as
comprehensive plans and coastal management plans, has been
"virtually derailed".
Senator Stedman informed the Committee that letters of concern are
continuing to arrive in his office from communities throughout
Southeast Alaska. "When there's that much concern, there's
something wrong with the system." As there does not appear to be a
pressing time element pertaining to this legislation, and even
though "technically the legislative process being conducted is the
proper process, "extra efforts" could be taken "in such a small
state" when there are such "broad concerns from communities".
Senator Stedman also echoed Senator Hoffman's concern regarding
Native allotment issues. Many of the parcels "in Southeast Alaska
are intertwined with either Native grave sites or Native allotments
or potential Native allotments". Written records prior to the
creation of the Tongass Regional Forest in 1907, were sparse. As
Native elders die, it is difficult to transfer the knowledge from
one generation to the next and attempt "to substantiate it to the
Western world of paper and documentation". While some Native land
has been deeded and several allotments have been platted but not of
yet deeded, quite a few have not reached the platting phase.
7:48:07 PM
Senator Stedman opined that "the more legitimate concerns of
watershed issues and planning issues" are "screened or derailed" by
objections from people who simply do not "want a neighbor". He
urged that Committee members "look beyond those "non-substantiated
or non-substantial concerns and focus more on the issues" brought
forth by the local communities. He opined that "a poor public
process" has been experienced with this legislation, as
"unfortunately" the concerns of the major communities have been
drowned out". It has not "instilled good will" between the
University and the local communities.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt the SCS CS HB 130(FIN), Version 24-
GH1034\P as the working document.
Senator Stedman remarked that Version "P" "looks better than some
of the other bill versions".
There being no objection, Version "P" was ADOPTED as the working
document.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes "." following "Bay" in Sec.
3(n)(7) on page six, line nine and inserts ";
(8) Parcel Number ST. 1002, Pelican;
(9) Parcel Number MF. 1002, Idaho Inlet;
(10) Parcel Number PA 1002, Mite Cove;
(11) Parcel Number ST. 1001, Middle Island;
(12) Parcel Number PA. 1002, Biorka Island;
(13) Parcel Number PA. 1001, Port Conclusion;
(14) Parcel Number ST.LS.1001, Lisianski Peninsula;
(15) Parcel Number SD. 1001, Beecher Pass;
(16) Parcel Number SD. 1001, Favor Peak;
(17) Parcel Number CS.TL. 1001, Three Lake Road;
(18) Parcel Number SD. 1001, Read Island;
(19) Parcel Number SD. 1001, Whitney Island;
(20) Parcel Number CS.EW. 1001, Earl West Cove;
(21) Parcel Number CS.OV. 1001, Olive Cove;
(22) Parcel Number SD. 1001, Thoms Place;
(23) Parcel Number PW.HK. 1001, Hook Arm;
(24) Parcel Number HA.CH. 1001, Haines-Chilkoot;
(25) Parcel Number PW.NA. 1001, Naukati Sound."
In addition, this amendment deletes subsections "o", "p", and "q"
in Sec. 3 beginning on page six, line ten through page seven, line
15.
Senator Stedman moved Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Green objected.
Senator Stedman stated that this amendment would increase the
amount of parcels in Southeast Alaska that would not be conveyed to
the University. He noted that were this amendment adopted and the
University and the State to continue their desire to convey these
parcels, "a more amiable public process and working relationship
with the communities" could be established.
[NOTE: Co-Chair Wilken chaired this portion of the meeting.]
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Stedman
OPPOSED: Senator Dyson Co-Chair Wilken, Senator Hoffman, Senator
Olson, and Co-Chair Green
ABSENT: Senator Bunde
The motion FAILED (1-5-1)
[NOTE: Co-Chair Green resumed chair.]
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes "." following "Bay" in Sec.
3(n)(7) on page six, line nine and inserts ";
(8)Parcel Number ST. 1001, Middle Island;
(9) Parcel Number PA. 1002, Biorka Island;
(10) Parcel Number PA. 1001, Port Conclusion;
(11) Parcel Number ST. LS. 1001, Lisianski Peninsula;"
Senator Stedman moved to adopt Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Green objected.
Senator Stedman explained that this amendment would remove land
parcels within the City and Borough of Sitka. He noted that
language had been added to the bill that would allow the
unorganized boroughs of Petersburg, Pelican, and Wrangell to
organize by the year 2009. Were that action to occur, those
communities could select from State land around their communities
by the year 2013. That language could not apply to Sitka as the
specified parcels are within the borough. Lisianski Peninsula has
been logged; Biorka Island, which is a secluded uninhabited island,
contains an aircraft communication station.
7:56:27 PM
Senator Stedman noted that the State has already sold the shoreline
areas of Middle Island. Therefore, the majority of the land on
Middle Island that would be conveyed to the University would
consist of a small mountain in the center of the island.
Discussions have occurred regarding demolishing that mountain as
jets fly over it on their approach to the Sitka airport. Neither
Middle Island nor Lisianski Peninsula would be considered desirable
land sites. Port Conclusion has issues as well.
Senator Dyson asked Senator Stedman whether Middle Island was one
of the areas that contained military gun sites.
Senator Stedman clarified that Biorka Island had gun placements.
Mr. Loeffler expressed that the University could utilize these
areas in a manner consistent with the needs of the Federal Aviation
Administration and within other physical parameters.
Senator Olson, himself a pilot, stated that he has some aviation
concerns relating to conveying Biorka Island and Middle Island to
the University.
Co-Chair Green asked the Department of Natural Resources whether
selection of these areas might raise aviation concerns.
Mr. Loeffler viewed the University as being "an intelligent
developer". While there could "be things they would want to develop
around"…there is "no significant disadvantage". They could develop
the sites in a manner "consistent with" the needs of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). Were the land was not developed
within ten years, the University's Board of Regents could decide to
return it to the State if they deemed the land of "no value".
Mr. Kelly informed that while the FAA has not objected to the
transfer of these land parcels, they have asked that the University
contact them. The University has agreed to do so.
Senator Stedman noted that Biorka Island contained some Native land
allotments. In addition, Native gravesites have been found
"scattered amongst the islands" around Sitka. Such sites could also
be found on Lisianski Peninsula.
Co-Chair Green stated that this concern could be addressed by
language in Sec. 3(e), page three lines 27 through 31 that reads as
follows.
(e) Land conveyed under this section to the Board of Regents
in trust for the University of Alaska is subject to any valid
possessory interest or other valid existing right, including
any lease, license, prospecting site, claim, sale, permit,
right-of-way, Native allotment, or easement held by another
person, including a federal, state, or municipal agency, on
the effective date of this section.
8:01:55 PM
Co-Chair Green declared that the language in this section would
provide "pretty good safeguards for the various interests that
exist or might be found to exist".
Senator Stedman expressed that the only Native cemetery gravesites
in Sitka were developed after the Russians settled in Sitka. Other
gravesites are unmarked.
A roll call was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment #2.
IN FAVOR: Senator Stedman, Senator Dyson, and Senator Olson.
OPPOSED: Senator Hoffman, Co-Chair Wilken, and Co-Chair Green.
ABSENT: Senator Bunde
The motion FAILED (3-3-1).
Amendment #2 FAILED to be adopted.
Amendment #3: This amendment deletes "AS 14.40.365 - 14.40.367[AS
14.40.365 - 14.40.368] in Sec.2, page two, line 31 through page
three, line one and replaces it with "AS 14.40.365 - 14.40.368".
[NOTE: This amendment was drafted to a bill version that was not in
the Committee's possession. The intent of the Committee was to
conform the amendment to Version "X".]
The amendment also adds a new bill section on page ten following
line nine as follows.
Sec. 7. AS 14.40.368 is repealed and reenacted to read:
Sec. 14.40.368. Sale of land received under AS.
14.40.365. (a) The sale of land conveyed to the Board of
Regents in trust for the University of Alaska under AS
14.40.365 shall be made at public auction to the highest
qualified bidder as determined by the Board of Regents. The
Board of Regents may accept bids and sell land under this
section at no less than 70 percent of the appraised fair
market value of the land. To qualify to participate under
this section in a public auction of land under this section
that is other than commercial, industrial, or agricultural
land, a bidder shall have been a resident of the state for at
least one year immediately preceding the date of the auction
and submit proof of that fact as the Board of Regents
requires. A bidder may be represented by an attorney or agent
at the auction. An aggrieved bidder may appeal to the Board of
Regents for reconsideration within five days after the sale.
The sale shall be conducted by a person designated by the
Board of Regents, and, at the time of sale, the successful
bidder shall deposit with the Board of Regents an amount equal
to at least five percent of the purchase price. The person
designated by the Board of Regents to conduct the sale shall
immediately issue a receipt containing a description of the
land or property purchased, the price bid, and the amount
deposited. The receipt shall be acknowledged in writing by the
bidder.
(b) Before the signing of the formal conveyance, the
Board of Regents may reject all bids when the best interests
of the state and the University of Alaska justify this action.
Land offered at public sale but not sold may be made
available at private sale for not less than its appraised
value.
(c) The contract of sale for land sold at public auction
under this section shall require the remainder of the purchase
price to be paid in monthly, quarterly, or annual installments
over a period of not more than 20 years, with interest at the
rate provided in (i) of this section. Installment payments
plus interest shall be set on the level-payment basis.
(d) The contract for each sale must set out the period
for the payment of installments and the total purchase price
plus interest. With the consent of the Board of Regents, the
contract may also include conditions, limitations, and terms
considered necessary and proper to protect the interests of
the state and the University of Alaska. A violation of any
provision of the contract of sale subjects the purchaser to
appropriate administrative and legal action, including
specific performance, foreclosure, ejectment, or other legal
remedies in accordance with applicable state law.
(e) If a contract under this section has been breached,
the Board of Regents may issue a decision to foreclose and
terminate the contract at any time that is more than 31 days
after delivering by certified mail a written notice of the
breach to the address of record of the purchaser. A breach
caused by the failure to make payments required by the
contract may be cured within 30 days after the notice of the
breach has been received by the purchaser by payment of the
sum in default together with the larger of a fee of $50 or
five percent of the sum in default. If there are material
facts in dispute between the Board of Regents and the
purchaser, the purchaser may submit a written request for a
public hearing for the review of the facts within 30 days
after the notice of the breach has been received.
(f) On a determination that there has been a breach of
the contract based on the administrative record and the
evidence presented at a hearing, the Board of Regents shall
issue a decision foreclosing the interest of the purchaser and
terminating the contract. The obligation to make payments
under the contract continues through the date of the decision
to foreclose by the Board of Regents.
(g) The Board of Regents shall deliver the decision to
foreclose and terminate personally to the purchaser or send
the decision to foreclose and terminate by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to the address of record of the
purchaser. If the breach is a failure to make payments
required by the contract, the decision must include a notice
to the purchaser that if, within 30 days, the purchaser pays
to the University of Alaska the full amount of the unpaid
contract price, including all accrued interest, and any fees
assessed under (e) of this section, the Board of Regents shall
issue to the purchaser a deed to the land. If full payment is
not made within 30 days or the breach is for other than
failure to make payment, the decision forecloses and
terminates all legal and equitable rights the purchaser has in
the land.
(h) Within 30 days, the purchaser may request that the
Board of Regents reconsider the decision. The final decision
by the Board of Regents is reviewable under AS 44.62.560.
(i) The interest rate for contracts under this section is
the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal on the
first business day of the month in which the contract is sent
to the purchaser for signature, plus three percent; however,
the total rate of interest may not exceed 13.5 percent.
In addition, the amendment deletes "AS 14.40.368 is repealed." on
page 11, line one and inserts the following.
AS 38.05.125(a) is amended to read:
(a) Each contract for the sale, lease, or grant of state
land, including land conveyed to the Board of Regents in trust
for the University of Alaska under AS 14.40.365, and each deed
to state land, properties, or interest in state land,
including land conveyed to the Board of Regents in trust for
the University of Alaska under AS 14.40.365, made under
AS 14.40.368, AS 38.05.045 - 38.05.120, 38.05.321, 38.05.810 -
38.05.825, AS 38.08, or AS 38.50 except as provided in
AS 38.50.050 is subject to the following reservations: "The
party of the first part, Alaska, hereby expressly saves,
excepts and reserves out of the grant hereby made, unto
itself, its lessees, successors, and assigns forever, all
oils, gases, coal, ores, minerals, fissionable materials,
geothermal resources, and fossils of every name, kind or
description, and which may be in or upon said land above
described, or any part thereof, and the right to explore the
same for such oils, gases, coal, ores, minerals, fissionable
materials, geothermal resources, and fossils, and it also
hereby expressly saves and reserves out of the grant hereby
made, unto itself, its lessees, successors, and assigns
forever, the right to enter by itself, its or their agents,
attorneys, and servants upon said land, or any part or parts
thereof, at any and all times for the purpose of opening,
developing, drilling, and working mines or wells on these or
other land and taking out and removing therefrom all such
oils, gases, coal, ores, minerals, fissionable materials,
geothermal resources, and fossils, and to that end it further
expressly reserves out of the grant hereby made, unto itself,
its lessees, successors, and assigns forever, the right by its
or their agents, servants and attorneys at any and all times
to erect, construct, maintain, and use all such buildings,
machinery, roads, pipelines, powerlines, and railroads, sink
such shafts, drill such wells, remove such soil, and to remain
on said land or any part thereof for the foregoing purposes
and to occupy as much of said land as may be necessary or
convenient for such purposes hereby expressly reserving to
itself, its lessees, successors, and assigns, as aforesaid,
generally all rights and power in, to, and over said land,
whether herein expressed or not, reasonably necessary or
convenient to render beneficial and efficient the complete
enjoyment of the property and rights hereby expressly
reserved.
Senator Stedman moved Amendment #3. This amendment would require
the University to conduct the "more restrictive" public process
required of the Department of Natural Resources in regards to land
disposal.
MARY MONTGOMERY, University of Alaska, testified via teleconference
from an offset site and stated that, while she had not been able to
review the amendment, "the University would object to turning
ourselves into another Department of Natural Resources". She
credited the absence of the process required of Department of
Natural Resources as being one of the reasons that the University
is successful in its land management program. The University
currently has "a very adequate public process". The Department of
Natural Resources is required to meet a larger public interest. The
University's Land Grant program "is to generate revenue for the
Trust while balancing the community's interest". Adoption of this
amendment would serve "to turn the University into another"
Department of Natural Resources. That Department "has a difficult
time in getting real estate available and into public hands because
of the cumbersome process" they must conduct.
Co-Chair Green objected to the amendment.
Co-Chair Wilken identified language in Sec. 4, page seven, line 16
through page eight, line 12 as "clearly" defining the process the
University must conduct before disposing its land to a third party.
He reviewed the policies mandated in the section. The attempt to
address land disposal concerns "is very inclusive" and would
involve the local community.
8:06:08 PM
Senator Olson stated that one of his concerns was in regards to the
conveyance of University land "to another entity or private
person". To that point, he asked whether preference language was
included in the bill that could provide a local community or
municipality priority conveyance rights over another entity.
Mr. Loeffler responded in the affirmative. Language in this regard
is included in Sec. 4(c) on page seven, lines 29 through 31.
(c) Before the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska
offers a parcel of land for sale under this section, the board
shall offer first refusal to the closest municipality.
Co-Chair Green commented that several issues have been considered,
as exampled by language in Sec. 3(k) page three, lines 12 through
14 combined with language in Sec. 3(k)(3), page three, lines 19
though 21. This language reads as follows.
(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
within 10 years after conveyance of land under this section,
the Board of Regents may reconvey to the Department of Natural
Resources land
(3) that the Board of Regents and the commissioner of
natural resources jointly agree is in the best interests
of the state and the university to reconvey.
A roll call was taken on the motion to adopt amendment #3.
IN FAVOR: Senator Stedman
OPPOSED: Senator Olson, Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman, Co-Chair
Wilken, and Co-Chair Green
ABSENT: Senator Bunde
The motion FAILED (1-5-1)
Amendment #3 FAILED to be ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report SCS CS HB 130 (FIN) from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Wilken amended his motion to include the House Finance
Committee Letter of Intent.
Senator Stedman objected.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, Co-Chair
Wilken, and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Stedman
ABSENT: Senator Bunde
The motion PASSED (5-1-1)
S CS CS HB 130(FIN), accompanied by the House of Representatives
Finance Committee Letter of Intent, was REPORTED from Committee
with zero fiscal note #1, dated January 25, 2005 from the
Department of Fish and Game; $21,600 fiscal note #2, dated January
11, 2005 from the Department of Law; $380,000 fiscal note #3, dated
January 12, 2005 from the Department of Natural Resources; and
$500,000 fiscal note #4, dated February 4, 2005 from the University
of Alaska.
8:10:38 PM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 98(RLS)
"An Act relating to the compensation of the governor, the
lieutenant governor, and certain public officials, officers,
and employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements;
and providing for an effective date."
This was the third hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green reminded that this legislation would address non-
union public employee salaries and benefits.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt committee substitute, Version 24-
GH1099\X as the working document.
Co-Chair Green explained that language in Sec. 12 page four, lines
17 through 24 has been modified to address the issue of bonuses
paid to Legislative employees. This language reads as follows.
Sec. 12. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended
by adding a new section to read:
BONUSES FOR CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES. In addition to
compensation authorized under AS 24.10.200, an employee of the
house of representatives or senate may be awarded and paid a
bonus to reward extraordinary effort, competency, job
performance, or uncompensated overtime. However, after January
1, 2005, the authority to award and pay a bonus under this
section is terminated, and bonuses may not be awarded or paid
after that date.
Co-Chair Green stated that this language would clarify this ruling
in Statute.
Co-Chair Green stated that in addition, language in Section 1, page
one, lines six and seven would specify that Legislators' salaries
would be "equal to Step A, Range 10, of the salary schedule in AS.
39.27.011(a)." The Speaker of the House and the Senate President
would each be entitled to an additional $500 a year while they held
that position.
Co-Chair Green also noted that Sec. 2 page one line 12 and Sec. 3
page two line one would reflect the proposed increased salary
levels for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectfully. The
proposed pay scales for various non-union employees for classified
and partially exempt employees in the Executive branch of State
government are reflected in Sec. 5 page two line 12 through page
three line eight.
AT EASE 8:13:22 PM / 8:19:00 PM
Without objection, the Version "X" committee substitute was ADOPTED
as the working document.
Conceptual Amendment #1: This amendment adds "and AS 24.10.210"
after "AS 24.10.200," and replaces "house of representatives or
senate" with "legislature" in Sec. 12, page four, lines 20 and 21.
Senator Dyson moved the amendment. He explained that utilizing the
term "legislature" would widen the applicability of the provision
to include Legislative support staff. The existing language would
limit the provision to the members of the House of Representatives
and Senate staff.
Co-Chair Green agreed that the proposed language "would properly
cover the proper employees".
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill, as amended, from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being no objection, the S CS CS HB 98(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with $1,650,200 fiscal note #2, dated January 24, 2005
from the Legislative Affairs Agency; $1,616,300 fiscal note #4
dated April 12, 2005 from the Alaska Court System,; and $10,463,000
fiscal note #5, dated April 27, 2005 from the Office of Management
and Budget.
RECESS TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR: 8:22:29 PM / 10:05:44 PM.
[NOTE: The adjournment of this meeting was not recorded.]
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 10:05 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|