HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE April 17, 1996 1:50 P.M. TAPE HFC 96-125, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96-125, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96-126, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96-126, Side 2, #000 - end. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder Representative Brown Representative Navarre Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell Representative Kelly Representative Therriault Representative Kohring ALSO PRESENT Jayne Andreen, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; Annette Smith, Department of Corrections; Lt. Chris Stockard, Department of Public Safety; Susan Flensburg, Bristol Bay Costal RSA; Sean McGuire, Fairbanks; Erik Holland, Fairbanks; Dave Lacey, Fairbanks; Jane Angvik, Director, Division of Lands, Department of Natural Resources; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Tom Williams, Staff, Senator Frank; Wendy Redman, Vice President, University of Alaska; SUMMARY HB 529 An Act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the issuance of certificates of participation in, a lease-purchase agreement for a centralized public health laboratory. HB 529 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with three fiscal impact notes by the Department of Health & Social Services, the Department of Revenue and the Department of Administration, dated 3/29/96. HB 551 An Act relating to the lapse of unexpended 1 balances of one-year appropriations; and providing for an effective date. HB 551 was rescheduled to another time. SB 232 An Act relating to permanent fund dividend program notice requirements, to the ineligibility for dividends of individuals convicted of felonies or incarcerated for misdemeanors, and to the determination of the number and identity of certain ineligible individuals; and providing for an effective date. HCS CSSB 232 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with six fiscal impact notes; two by the Department of Revenue, dated 3/8/96; one by the Department of Corrections, dated 3/8/96; three by the Department of Public Safety, dated 3/8/96; and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Law, dated 3/8/96. SB 250 An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to assets of the University of Alaska; authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state public domain land, designating that land as `university trust land,' and describing the principles applicable to the land's management; and defining the net income from the University of Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university receipts' subject to prior legislative appropriation. HCS CSSB 250 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with four fiscal impact notes by the University of Alaska, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Fish and Game, all dated 2/15/96. SENATE BILL NO. 232 "An Act relating to permanent fund dividend program notice requirements, to the ineligibility for dividends of individuals convicted of felonies or incarcerated for misdemeanors, and to the determination of the number and identity of certain ineligible individuals; and providing for an effective date." TOM WILLIAMS, STAFF, SENATOR FRANK testified in support of SB 232. He noted that the legislation expands both the pool of criminals who are ineligible for a permanent fund 2 dividend (PFD) check and the specific criminal justice system agencies eligible to use the dividends denied to those criminals. He noted that SB 232 resembles SB 135 which was vetoed by the Governor in June 1995. He explained that SB 232 does not contain the timing provision to which the Governor objected. It also clarifies and restricts the purposes for which denied dividends can be used. It requires the Department of Revenue to print on the dividend stub public notice of the criteria and the legislative purpose for denying permanent fund dividends to individuals, and the total amount that was appropriated to each of the agencies eligible to receive funds. He observed that SB 232 will make PFD's of another 2,000 criminals available for appropriation to the criminal justice system in FY 2000. The effective date is 1/1/97. Mr. William provided members with two amendments (copy on file). Amendment 1, 9-LS1455\K.1. The House Judiciary Committee added a provision that would count misdemeanors and similar crimes that occurred in other jurisdictions. This created problems with the Department of Public Safety. Amendment 1 would provide that only in-state crimes be counted. Amendment 2, 9-LS1455K.3 would make a technical correction. It clarifies that any two prior convictions would make an individual ineligible upon the third misdemeanor convictions. This would make an individual ineligible if either of their previous convictions was for a felony. Mr. Williams observed that the House Judiciary Committee made it allowable to count offenses that occurred prior to the effective date of the legislation. The Department of Law would like to see a five year limit. The Department of Corrections estimates that the amendment by the House Judiciary Committee would increase the number of ineligible individuals. Representative Brown expressed concern with the displacement of funding from child support, court ordered fines, and alcohol rehabilitation. She asked how many of the estimated 2,000 applicants that would be denied currently have their PFD's garnished. She spoke against transferring funds from families and victims to the bureaucracy in order to displace general funds. Mr. Williams did not know how many individuals would have their PFD's garnished. He stated that of new ineligibles approximately 46 of 2,000 would be impacted. He stressed that this would be mitigated because under the legislation the collection would only be delayed. He explained that individuals convicted would lose their PFD's in the year 3 that they are convicted of a felony or incarcerated for a misdemeanor. He maintained that the largest impact would be if incarceration crossed two calendar years. He pointed out that 100 percent of each garnished dividend would necessarily be collected under current law. Under SB 232 one hundred percent of the dividends are collected. Representative Brown disagreed that only 46 PFD's would be garnished. She estimated that 105 PFD's would be garnished. She maintained that all 211 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) cases will be affected. Mr. Williams explained that the analysis he quoted related to involuntary payments of the garnishment of dividends to make AFDC payments. He acknowledged that potentially 211 individuals will not have the funds. Representative Brown referred to a memorandum by the Child Support Enforcement Division to Nanci Jones, dated May 5, 1995 (copy on file). She stated that the Division estimates at least twice as many families would be affected. Mr. Williams noted that Ms. Vogt indicated that there were no problems with the estimations used by the sponsor. In response to a question by Representative Parnell, Mr. Williams noted that an attempt to use funds for a specific purpose would violate an equal protection provision. Representative Brown questioned how many dividends would have been garnished under court ordered restitution. Mr. Williams had no specific information in regards to court ordered restitution or fines. Representative Brown observed that many of the criminals would be reliant on their PFD's to make restitution to their victim. She maintained that money would be taken from victims and spent on state government. Mr. Williams replied that the legislation was introduced to assure that money is put back into the criminal justice system. He stressed that the intent is to obtain 100 percent of these dollars. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Williams explained that incarcerated felons are currently denied dividends. Dividends of felons are not available for restitution or child support. Representative Brown noted that there was an accounting shortfall for FY 96 due to the over estimation of felons' PFDs to be garnished. She asked how the legislation would account for garnished PFDs. Mr. Williams stated that the Department of Corrections has a fiscal note accompanying the legislation to improve their accounting ability and to 4 better coordinate with the Department of Public Safety. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. Williams explained that felons lose their dividends in the year of conviction and during incarceration. If an individual did not go to jail their eligibility would resume the following year. Eligibility is regained after release from incarceration. Individuals on probation or parole are eligible. Representative Brown asked how individuals will be accounted. Mr. Williams stated that information will be coordinated by the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections will receive information from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Law and the Alaska Court System. Mr. Williams reiterated that funding will not be available until FY 2000. Representative Mulder noted that revenues will be spent immediately. Mr. Williams stated that there will be some reporting and coordination costs. He stressed that returns will be upwards of $2.0 million dollars annual from the year 2000. In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Mr. Williams noted that the Department of Corrections' fiscal note was zero in the previous session. The Department of Corrections' fiscal note was increased to $68.7 thousand dollars. Mr. Williams pointed out that the legislation did not changed. Representative Brown noted that potential revenues are not included in the fiscal notes. Mr. Williams stressed that there is not a specific amount that would be appropriated to any particular department. He observed that the Department of Public Safety recognizes that they would be eligible to receive funds. He explained that the estimation of $2.0 million dollars is based on 2,000 dividends of $1,000 dollars each. Representative Brown asked why the legislation expands eligible agencies to include the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law. Mr. Williams stated that the intent is to establish clear linkage between denying an increased number of PFDs and the criminal justice system as required by the court decision. He observed that the language does require legislative appropriation. He maintained that it is not the intent of the sponsor to redirect existing funding. It is the intention that additional funds would be available to the other agencies. Representative Brown noted that funds are inadequate to 5 cover existing programs. She spoke in support of retaining the current recipients. She asked if the court requires that the other agencies be added. Mr. Williams noted that the Anthony decision does not require additional agencies. Co-Chair Hanley noted that it would be up to the legislature to appropriate funds. Representative Brown maintained that the clear linkage is there and would remain whether the other agencies are added or not. Mr. Williams maintained that the legislation would strengthen the State's position. Representative Brown asked if all new ineligibles would be incarcerated. Mr. Williams explained that individuals that are convicted of a felon but not incarcerated would lose their dividend in the year they were convicted. Third time incarcerations of a misdemeanor would also be included. Representative Parnell referred to the equal protection issue. Mr. Williams explained that public funds cannot be used for a private purpose. Funds cannot be paid to the Child Support Enforcement Division to satisfy a private obligation. Representative Parnell noted that private judgement are subject to priorities of garnishment. He questioned if the same system is possible for convicted felons and misdemeanant. Mr. Williams clarified that the State is not appropriating a specific felon's funds. The State is appropriating money that was denied to the felon. Co-Chair Hanley observed that felons are not required to apply for a dividend. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. Williams clarified that the Alaska Supreme Court decision Anthony vs. State was issued in April 1991. Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. Mr. Williams noted that Amendment 1 restricts convictions to in- state convictions for consideration. The amendment will allay concerns by the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law in regards to the release of out-of-state records. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 2. Mr. Williams explained that Amendment 2 clarifies that upon a third incarceration for a misdemeanor an individual with two prior crimes, felonies or misdemeanors, would be ineligible for a PFD. He noted that "crimes" is defined under AS 11.91.900(9). Co-Chair Hanley noted that under the current language a 6 person who was convicted of two felonies and then was convicted for a misdemeanor would not have their dividend withheld. Someone with three misdemeanors would lose their dividend. Representative Brown noted that a misdemeanor is not a crime if it does not involve imprisonment under the definition of "crime". She questioned the effect on a misdemeanor conviction without incarceration. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that a misdemeanor carries up to a year imprisonment. Incarceration does not have to follow a misdemeanor conviction. Mr. Williams noted that imprisonment can be up to one year under a misdemeanor. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW testified that most misdemeanors have the possibility of jail time. She observed that under AS 11.81 a misdemeanor is defined as an offense for which prison is authorized. Representative Brown expressed concern that "misdemeanor" is contained in other places in the legislation. Mr. Williams suggested that "crimes" be amended to "two or more prior misdemeanors or felonies." He noted that page 2, line 17 refers to noticing requirements. (Tape Change, HFC 96-125, Side 2) Representative Brown noted that "misdemeanor" is not tied to the definition of crimes in other areas of the legislation. She expressed concern that there are misdemeanors that are not a criminal offense. She questioned if an individual has two crimes and is convicted of a non-criminal offense misdemeanor would they lose their dividend. Co-Chair Hanley stated that misdemeanors that do not authorize incarceration would not count as one of the three convictions. He observed the definition of "crimes" under AS 11.81.900(9). Ms. Carpeneti referred to page 2, line 15. She observed that the legislation states that "immediately preceding that dividend year, the individual was incarcerated as a result of... a conviction of a felony or a third or subsequent conviction of a misdemeanor." The conviction itself of a misdemeanor would not evoke the provision. The incarceration for a conviction of a misdemeanor would result in the loss of the dividend. Mr. Williams agreed that it is the incarceration for a third conviction which happens to be a misdemeanor that activates the section. He reiterated that "crimes" could be amended to "two or more prior misdemeanors or felonies." Co-Chair Hanley felt that the Committee was satisfied with 7 "crimes". Representative Brown stated that the language should be tied to imprisonment. Ms. Carpeneti reiterated that the legislation ties misdemeanors to incarceration. Representative Brown argued that AS 11.81.900(9) only addresses the definition of crime, not the definition of misdemeanor. Ms. Carpeneti suggested that all the definitions in AS 11.81.900 could be referenced. Representative Mulder maintained that it is appropriate that those people that cost the system defer a portion of the cost. Representative Brown agreed that forfeitures should be tied to incarceration. She added that the definition of "misdemeanor" in AS 11.81.900 should be referenced. Representative Mulder recommended that the reference to "(9)" be deleted. Representative Mulder MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 by deleting "(9)" on line 17, page 2. Mr. Williams expressed concern that the proposed amendment to Amendment 1 would complicate the process in regards to identifying ineligible individuals and increase the fiscal cost. He stated that it would be simpler to delete "crimes" and insert "two or more prior misdemeanors or felonies". There being NO OBJECTION, "(9)" was deleted. Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 3 (copy on file). She explained that Amendment 3 would delete the new insertion for operation of safe houses and shelters, the Department of Public Safety and Department of Law. She stated that the amount of dividends collected are not sufficient to fund the current activities. She observed that the Crime Victim Compensation Fund is significantly under-funded in the current budget. She expressed concern that broadening the base of agencies eligible for the funds would result in the loss of the main focus of the current law. Co-Chair Hanley questioned why funds to the Council of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault would be restricted to the operations of safe houses and shelters. Mr. Williams replied that the intent is that funds be directed to the function and not the administrative overhead of the agencies. He added that the sponsor wanted to improve the linkage from the denial of dividends to the use of the dividends. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that operations would include administrative overhead. JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT testified that the Council did not anticipate a significant impact from the language. She observed that all PFD money received has been used in the 8 grant line. She stressed that the operation of safe homes and shelters includes crisis intervention services, child services and the administrative cost of the local program. She questioned the intent in the level of tracking funds that would be expected. Mr. Williams noted that the intent is that funding not be for state administrative costs. He did not object to the use of funds for administrative costs relating to grants. The intent is that the money be used for the grant program. Representative Brown expressed concern that the small pool of money is being spread over more participants. She observed that there was a $600.0 thousand dollar shortfall in PFD projections. Ms. Andreen expressed concern about the number of state agencies that would receive the funds. She noted that there is a shift in public policy. She stressed that two of the three entities that currently receive funds are the ones that provide direct services to victims. She emphasized the shift from victim assistance to basic state government support. Representative Martin maintained that the legislation may be too restrictive. He noted that criminals may be paying for domestic violence assistance when their crime was for another reason. Representative Brown clarified that the amendment deletes the expansion to the Department of Law and Department of Public Safety. She observed that the Crime Victim Compensation Fund, the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and the Department of Corrections would be still receive the funds. She emphasized that there are not sufficient funds for the three existing entities. Representative Brown MOVED to AMEND Amendment 3 to delete "operation of safe houses and shelters." There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Parnell spoke in support of Amendment 3. He echoed remarks by Representative Brown. Co-Chair Hanley spoke against Amendment 3. He stressed that the amendment would restrict the legislature's flexibility. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 3. IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Therriault, Parnell OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Foster, Hanley 9 The MOTION FAILED (5-6). Ms. Carpeneti recommended that Amendment 2 be amended on line 17 to insert "within the previous five year period." She stressed that a limit is needed. She observed that DWI laws allow convictions in the previous five years to be used in constituting a felony. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Ms. Carpeneti clarified that the third crime must occur after the effective date of the legislation. Representative Grussendorf questioned how time in incarceration would be counted. Ms. Carpeneti explained that for purposes of presumptive sentencing, the legislation allows the ten previous years that the person was not serving time in prison, or was on parole or probation to be counted. Mr. Williams stated that he would prefer the original version which would count all crimes effective January 1, 1997. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that 30 years from the effective date the crimes would go back 30 years. Representative Martin asked if time would be based on calendar years or the date of conviction. Ms. Carpeneti stressed that either could be used. Co-Chair Hanley stated that there would be fewer individuals affected if a five year limit is adopted. Mr. Williams stressed that the sponsor would prefer that section 6 of CSSB 232 (FIN) be substituted for the similar provision contained in HCS CSSB 232 (JUD). This would provide a January 1, 1997 effective date. Crimes from that point would be counted. Representative Mulder MOVED to delete section 6 and insert CSSB 232 (FIN), section 6. (Tape Change, HFC 96-126, Side 1) Representative Martin OBJECTED to the motion to delete section 6 and insert CSSB 232 (FIN), section 6. Representative Mulder stressed that the amendment would allow a reduction in the Department of Corrections' fiscal note. He emphasized that it would be difficult to research records to find two convictions. Representative Brown spoke in support of the amendment. She observed that the Department of Corrections' accounting system is accurate. Representative Martin MOVED to AMEND the Amendment to begin 10 the counting as of January 1, 1988. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. He clarified that "January 1, 1997" would be changed to "January 1, 1988." ANNETTE SMITH, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS noted that the Department cannot determine the number of convictions. The Department can determine the number of incarcerations. The Department of Corrections would have to obtain information from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Law or the Alaska Court System on the number of prior convictions. She acknowledged that the Department of Public Safety maintains the information on an automatize system. The Department of Public Safety would have to supply the information. DEL SMITH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY noted that the Department could provide the information received from the Alaska Court System. He observed that the Department of Corrections is a criminal system agency and would have full access to the information on the Department of Public Safety data system. CHRIS STOCKARD, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS stressed that the Department would not know if an individual had prior convictions without doing a manual record check. She explained that the mandate to look at prior convictions requires the Department to obtain information from other agencies. Representative Mulder referred to the presentence report. Ms. Smith noted that pre-sentencing reports are tracked manually. Representative Brown asked the cause of the shortfall in accounting for 1996 PFD. Ms. Smith discussed changes that resulted in a reduction of individuals being reported. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Kohring, Martin, Therriault OPPOSED: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Kelly, Mulder, Hanley, Foster Representative Parnell was absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (3-7). There being NO OBJECTION, section 6 was deleted and CSSB 232 (FIN), section 6 was inserted. Representative Mulder suggested that the fiscal note could be reduced. He noted that the Department is already 11 tracking prior felony convictions in relation to the presentence reports. Ms. Smith noted that the evaluation is not used in reporting to the Permanent Fund Dividend Division because the system is not automated. She added that the current statute only requires that incarcerated felons be reported. The Department reports based on incarceration. Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 232 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Brown OBJECTED for purposes of discussion. She stressed that money will be displaced from treatment agencies, child support and victims of crimes. She maintained that most of the individuals affected are low income or indigent. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move HCS CSSB 232 (FIN) from Committee. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kelly, Martin, Mulder, Navarre, Therriault, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Kohring, Brown Representative Parnell was absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-8). HCS CSSB 232 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with six fiscal impact notes; two by the Department of Revenue, dated 3/8/96; one by the Department of Corrections, dated 3/8/96; three by the Department of Public Safety, dated 3/8/96; and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Law, dated 3/8/96. HOUSE BILL NO. 529 "An Act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the issuance of certificates of participation in, a lease-purchase agreement for a centralized public health laboratory." Representative Mulder MOVED to rescind the Committee's action in failing to move HB 529 from Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to pass HB 529 from Committee. IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Kelly, Therriault 12 The MOTION PASSED (9-2). HB 529 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with three fiscal impact notes by the Department of Health & Social Services, the Department of Revenue and the Department of Administration, dated 3/29/96. SENATE BILL NO. 250 "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to assets of the University of Alaska; authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state public domain land, designating that land as `university trust land,' and describing the principles applicable to the land's management; and defining the net income from the University of Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university receipts' subject to prior legislative appropriation." SUSAN FLENSBURG, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BRISTOL BAY COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM expressed concern with the lack of public process in determining lands that are suitable for selection. She stressed that there is not a best interest determination. She observed that the legislation will effect new borough formation. SEAN MCGUIRE, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in opposition to the legislation. He emphasized that the legislation will created conflict. He noted that a diversity of groups object to the legislation. He objected to the opening of the whole State for University selection. He observed that the legislation is not supported by students. He noted that the legislation would represent less than one percent of the University's budget. ERIK HOLLAND, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in opposition to SB 250. He emphasized that the land in question is in public ownership. He maintained that it would be cheaper to fund the University and retain state management of the land. He asserted that it is not the time to weaken the public's control over public land. DAVID LACEY, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in opposition to the legislation. He maintained that the public is being cut out of public land. He acknowledged that public education needs to be properly funded. He suggested that oil fields or part of the Permanent Fund could be transferred to the University. Representative Mulder asked if selections by the Lake and 13 Peninsula Borough would occur prior to selections by the University. JANE ANGVIK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LANDS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES explained that lands selected by boroughs are in line ahead of lands that can be selected by the University. She observed that the Lake and Peninsula Borough has not identified land for selection. She noted that 1.3 million acres of land are committed to municipalities. Only 650 thousand acres have actually been conveyed. Land not identified by a borough are available for selection by the University. Representative Therriault WITHDREW Amendment 1. He provided members with new Amendment 1, 9-LS1394\R.3, 4/15/96 (copy on file). WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA explained that new Amendment 1 clarifies the terms "selected" and "conveyed". The amendment also deals with the issue of over selection. She acknowledged concerns that the University could make over selections. The amendment limits over selection to no more than 20 percent of the total land selection. Representative Navarre referred to page 7, line 28. He questioned if the language is an expansion. Ms. Redman clarified that the University and the State must agree on every acre that comes to the legislature. Then the legislature must agree on the list. (Tape Change, HFC 96-126, Side 2) Representative Navarre referred to section 8(a). He questioned if the land would be approved if the legislature does not take action. Ms. Redman noted that the legislature has to take affirmative action. She pointed out that the legislation authorizations up to 350,000 acres for selection. The legislation does not guarantee the land selection. Representative Navarre maintained that the legislation does not protect traditional and customary use of the land. Ms. Redman replied that the University has an interest in allowing people to hunt and fish on university land. She acknowledged that if the University sells or moves the land to a major lease hold the protections would not apply. She noted that the legislation provides some tort immunity. The University does not currently have tort protection. Ms. Redman stated that the University will allow trees to be cut on university land but is concerned that timber is not 14 harvested for resale under traditional and customary use. Representative Therriault MOVED to adopt new Amendment 1. In response to a question by Representative Navarre, Ms. Redman agreed that the University will develop a priority order for the land selection to be followed by the Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Angvik stressed that the Department of Natural Resources is concerned with the legislation. She emphasized that it will be difficult to find the land. She acknowledged cooperation by the University. She stated that the Department would like time to work out conflicts among user groups. She explained that new Amendment 1 provides clarification in regards to over selection. Representative Navarre asked if the State should prioritize the land for selection. Ms. Redman emphasized that the Department of Natural Resources must approve all the land on the list. Representative Navarre asked if the University supports local government approval of land selections within their jurisdiction. Mr. Redman stated that the University would not support local government approval. She added that all land development projects are submitted to local governments and that they follow the public process required by the boroughs. She maintained that the University works with local governments with every project that is developed. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted. Representative Kelly asked if the legislation would protect lease holders from interference in developing their lease land. Representative Navarre noted that the bill provides that the customary and traditional uses are protected until the right is given to someone else through a lease or sale. Once the land is leased the protections are off. Representative Therriault MOVED to report HCS CSSB 250 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Navarre OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Martin, Hanley OPPOSED: Navarre, Foster Representatives Brown, Grussendorf, and Kohring were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-2). 15 HCS CSSB 250 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with four fiscal impact notes by the University of Alaska, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Fish and Game, all dated 2/15/96. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. 16