HB 369 - PROPERTY EXEMPTIONS REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 369, "An Act relating to property exemptions under the Alaska Exemptions Act; and providing for an effective date." Number 1530 JOHN MANLY, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee on behalf of the sponsor. He informed members that there were two proposed committee substitutes [Version H, 1-LS1266\H, and Version I, 1-LS1266\I]. One version [Version I] retains the indexing for monetary provisions in relation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The other version [Version H] completely deletes the indexing provision in relation to the CPI. He noted that Chris Miller of the Department of Labor & Workforce Development was present to speak to the indexing process and why the legislature changes it as much as it does. Number 1583 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Manly to indicate which proposed committee substitute (CS) was preferred by the sponsor, by Mr. Greer - "father" of the bill - and the Department of Labor & Workforce Development. MR. MANLY replied that Mr. Greer had not expressed a preference in relation to the indexing provision. The provision was inserted into the original bill by the legal drafter [Terry Bannister, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency] because she felt that it needed attention. The sponsor has indicated that he is willing to support what the Department of Labor & Workforce Development prefers. Number 1656 CHRIS MILLER, Research & Analysis, Central Office, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Labor & Workforce Development, came before the committee to testify. He indicated that the department would prefer to get out of the business of indexing. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that he doesn't have a problem with the department getting out of the business of indexing. He would, however, defer to the members of the committee and the legal profession as to whether they want to continue updating the index. He doesn't like indexing himself, he added. Number 1721 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his belief that the indexing provision ought to be deleted. He also thinks that the figure of $250,000 is "close," contrary to those who have indicated that it is high. He would prefer that the legislature periodically update the index in statute rather than to have the Department of Labor & Workforce Development automatically update it. In that way, a person can read the statute and understand the value of the index. Right now, $54,000, the value referred to in statute, doesn't mean $54,000; it means something else that a person has to figure out. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that a person has to wait until October for the department to compute the value of the index. Number 1770 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt as a work draft the proposed CS for HB 369, Version H [1-LS1266\H, Bannister, 3/27/00]. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. Number 1782 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Miller how the figure of $250,000 compares with other states. MR. MILLER replied that he doesn't know; he has not done a comparison of other states but has only looked at the figure in relation to the rest of the state. MR. MANLY said that testimony has indicated that a number of states do not have a limit. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Manly whether it is a reasonable number. MR. MANLY replied that he would classify it as a reasonable number. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted, for the record, that the committee has received a couple of letters indicating that a joint exemption equates to a half million dollars for a spousal combination. Number 1830 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHB 369, Version H [1-LS1266\H, Bannister, 3/27/00], out of committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 369(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.