MINUTES  SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE  11 March, 1998  8:25 a.m.    TAPES  SFC 98 #76 #77, Sides A and B CALL TO ORDER  Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, convened the meeting at approximately 8:25 a.m. PRESENT  In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Donley, Torgerson, Adams and Phillips were present when the meeting was convened. Senator Parnell arrived shortly thereafter. Also Attending: Senator RICK HALFORD; JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Lands, Department of Natural Resources; NANCY JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue; CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; PAM LA BOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce; MIKE GREANY, Director, Division of Legislative Finance and aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature.     SUMMARY INFORMATION  [Note: There was a presentation on the Key Campaign Presentation, which was not transcribed; audio is available on Tape #76, available at the Legislative Reference Library.] SENATE BILL NO. 235 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers." Co-Chair Sharp pointed out a Legislative Budget and Audit report on this bill that, in his opinion, gave a favorable recommendation for the extension. He noted the zero fiscal note attached to the legislation and that the board was set to sunset from the year 1998 to 2002. He opened the floor to comments or questions. Senator Pearce noted the auditors' request to further extend the sunset date to 2004. The reason they gave was that there had been no problems with the operation of this board. The division would thus be spared from doing another audit in two years. She said the report also pointed out the lawmaker's ability to pass legislation to change the sunset date back to the year 2002 if it became necessary. She then moved to amend page 1, line 6; replace "2002" with "2004" as per the recommendation of the Legislative Auditors. There was no objection, and the amendment was adopted. Senator Pearce moved Senate Finance Committee Substitute for SB 234 with accompanying zero fiscal note and individual recommendations, out of committee. There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 180(RES) "An Act relating to state rights-of-way." BRETT HUBER, staff to Senator Halford, the prime sponsor of the bill, came to the table to testify. He explained the RS2744 rights-of-way had been a long-standing issue and was complex. He offered to address his comments to first, give a brief history of the issue then give a brief overview of previous action and then address the bill before the committee. Mr. Huber said, "RS2477 was a right granted to the states by the US Congress with the passage of the Mining Act of 1866. The purpose of the law was to provide for and to guarantee the public's right to establish access across federal land. Subsequent congressional action and more that 100 years of case law recognize the state's authority to determine and define RS2477 rights-of-way. Although Congress repealed RS2477 in 1976 when they adopted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, they specifically acknowledged the legal existence of previous RS2477 rights- of-way that were established prior to the repeal. Current federal regulation explicitly provides that any rights conferred by the RS2477 grant shall not be diminished." He continued, "Mr. Chairman as you are aware, this important state's rights issue has received legislative attention in the past. Beginning with appropriations in 1992 and 1993, which funded the research and compilation of the historical information regarding the rights-of way. The Legislature has taken the lead in moving the issue forward. In undertaking the legislatively designated projects, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed some 117 potential RS2477 routes. The review resulted in them coming up with 582 routes they believed were accepted prior to the extinguishment of RS2477 grant process and that they have enough research and documentation to support." "Last year the Legislature passed SJR 13. That was a resolution that reiterated the position regarding RS2477, and it made clear the objection of the Department of the Interior's proposed policy last year. Basically changing the entire playing field on how RS2477's are defined. You should have a copy of the policy memo from Secretary Babbitt in your packet. Information that came forward during that process and also during the joint oversight hearing last year with the House and Senate Resource Committees resulted in SB 180." "SB 180 codifies 582 documented rights-of-way, requires them to be recorded, and provides a process for, and limitations on their vacation as well as setting out liability limitation for the state. While the RS2477 rights-of-way codifies in this bill have already been accepted by public use and deemed supportable by the state, it is likely the federal government will dispute the state's ownership on some or perhaps all of these routes." "Although the current federal administration is attempting to limit the state's rights regarding RS2477, over 100 years of case-law on point recognizes stated law as controlling on the issue. We feel that by codifying these routes in statutes will strengthen the state's position for possible subsequent court action and provide the affected landowners and general public clear notification that these RS2477 rights-of-way are out there and available for use." "Mr. Chairman RS2477 rights-of-way are an existing state right. This bill doesn't make any new rights, it just asserts those rights statutorily." This concluded Mr. Huber's presentation on the bill. Senator Phillips referred to the numbers assigned to the trails. He noticed they were not in sequence and wondered if there was a reason for that. Where there other trails that were not considered for this legislation, he asked. Mr. Huber explained the numbers were the RST numbers from the Historic Trails Atlas. DNR actually started with about 1800 routes as possibly qualifying. They brought 582 forward that were included in the bill. The reason all the RST numbers were not listed; was because they didn't all qualify for designation under RS2477, he said. Senator Phillips looked for the Iditarod Trail on the list. Mr. Huber conceded that he had not memorized all the trails included, but guessed that the Iditarod Trail was included. Senator Adams had a question about easements. He wanted to know what size of easement was proposed in the bill. He said that many of the trails in his area were very small dog trails in nature. Mr. Huber said he and Senator Halford shared that concern and had decided to address the whole scope and management aspect in this legislation and not address the easement portion at this time. He explained that the department had a regulatory process that could be applied later. DNR, when it had been accepting an RS2477, had been asserting them at a 100-foot easement width, he noted. This bill did nothing to require a specific easement width, a specific scope or a specific use. The sponsor believed that individual trails would probably need individual decisions. He gave examples, saying that, some of the trails were dog sled routes, some trails led to burial grounds located one hill away from the village. Senator Adams clarified that the decision would be left up to the department to make the width determinations. Mr. Huber affirmed that. He suggested there would be another possibility where a court would make a specific width determination if there were subsequent court action. Senator Adams told the committee had an amendment to offer and he spoke to that amendment. He said he felt that basically the Legislature needed to require the department to survey the rights-of-ways before they were recorded. He asked the sponsor's opinion of the amendment. Mr. Huber responded, thanking the senator for prior notification of the amendment. In his opinion however, of the 588 trails listed in the bill, not all had potential conflicts. Some crossed state lands only, some crossed federal lands only; some crossed a mix of state, federal, Native corporations' lands. To go out and survey all 582 trails would be a tremendous project. It would be difficult to prioritize. He anticipated the priority to be set when an affected landowner had a dispute. The bill included a process the landowner could follow to work with the department to vacate a portion of the route if an alternate was established. The other option the landowner had would be to take the case to court and have the judge make a clear determination. Mr. Huber summarized that when a conflict came up; DNR would do a survey. Senator Adams asked if there was a timeline for implementation of this legislation. Mr. Huber replied the only time limit in the bill required the recording of these routes no later than January 1, 1999. He continued saying it was important to note that the routes listed in the bill were not the only RS2477 that existed. Others could be added, and the bill also directed DNR to continue its efforts to identify new routes. The committee then invited JANE ANGVIK to testify on behalf of DNR. She showed the committee a map showing the routes referred to in this legislation. She noted that the RS2477 routes were identified on the map. She spoke of the research the department did in determining which routes qualified. She spoke to a problem the department had with this bill. She said, that while the map had lines depicting the trails, the department did not know exactly where the trails were on the ground. While the department completely supported the effort of the sponsor to assert ownership of the trails, she felt that if DNR recorded the trail locations today, they would unduly cast shadows on title. The problem was not with determining ownership on state or federal lands, the question would be with private lands, she warned. Senator Phillips asked for a copy of the map. Ms. Angvik gave him the map she had and told the committee she would provide additional copies for each member. Ms. Angvik said the map was a product of the capital improvement project the Legislature funded three years ago, which provided the department with the funding to actually do the research and do the historical identification. There were over 1000 routes that were originally proposed. This legislation represented those ...(tape unintelligible due to paper-shuffling of the map in question.) Ms. Angvik explained the steps the department had taken to certify the routes. She mentioned public participation. She said they had only done the certification process on 11 of the trails in question, and of that they had taken one to court with respect to ownership of the federal government. She spoke to the importance of letting the public know of the trails' existence. She said DNR had concerns about actually recording the routes before their location had been actually identified on the land. Therefore, she said the department supported Senator Adam's amendment requiring the trails be surveyed before they were actually recorded. That would give proof positive of the location. The downside, she admitted would be the expense and the fiscal note would be large. She gave the committee an estimate of the cost to survey just the 11 trails that had already been certified. (This amount was in written form, and not stated on the audio record.) Senator Parnell speculated there were a lot of private property owners who would love to have the state pay for surveys. If the title was already clouded by assertion of the rights, and if someone wanted to transfer or use property, whether the trails were recorded or not, the individual would have to file an "Action to Quiet Title" or pay for a survey. Therefore, he agreed with Mr. Huber and felt that to require a survey before recording would not accomplish anything. Ms. Angvik agreed that they believed that the right-of-way existed and was out there somewhere. What DNR was concerned about was asserting that ownership without knowing exactly where it was. She would not anticipate doing surveys strictly for private interests. What they would be doing would be finding a centerline of the state's own easements. She used a possible example, "There's a road going through your land, and we would like to let you know exactly where it is. Right now we don't know exactly where it is. What that does is make if difficult for people to know. They can say, 'OK, I've got an encumbrance on my land, but you can't even tell me if it goes through the middle of my house or not.'" Senator Parnell said that would take years and suggested it would be better to put them on notice now and then start working the survey process. Ms. Angvik responded that there was no question that the state should tell the public if there was an easement on their land. However, generally speaking, the RS2477 question was cast as the federal government versus the State Of Alaska. It was the State Of Alaska trying to provide access the conservation districts that were created as a result of ANILCA. The big fight was with the federal government. Senator Phillips referred to the identification of historic trails, which he surmised this legislation was all about, and asked how the identification was arrived. He noted that during the Gold Rush there had been another trail north of Yakutat that miners used that was not marked on the map. He saw the trail marked on the Canadian side of the border. Ms. Angvik responded that the original design of the RS2477 law was to allow people to get from point A to point B, on their way to someplace else. The requirement for the trial designation was that some government somewhere needed to have stated that the trail was real. In the case of Alaska, the government entity was often the Territorial Highways. There may be many trails that exist, but there was never a time when a government indicated such for that trail, she said. When the division reviewed the historical records, they looked at not only if the trail had been used, but also whether there was any government acknowledgement of the trail. Mr. Huber interjected that his understanding that no government action was required to create an RD2477 route. They could be accepted by public use so long as that use pre-dated the extinguishment of the act in 1976. Pre-dated public use constituted acceptance. He noted there was a lot of case law to support that. Senator Pearce asked why a route such as the Copper River Railroad did not appear as a historic transportation route. Co-Chair Sharp answered that was because the route was already an existing right-of-way that has been established. Ms. Angvik added that many routes are actively managed by a government or, as in the case of the railroad, by the railroad entity. Senator Pearce pointed out many other trails the government manages that were in fact included in the designation. Ms. Angvik responded the trails included a historical record that indicated they could be provable, with respect that they exist and there are entities that recognize that they exist. Senator Pearce asked if the railroad didn't exist. Senator Phillips commented (undecipherable). Senator Phillips questioned how the division arrived at "historical trails". Ms. Angvik replied that the definition was established both in the federal law and in regulations that had been adopted. One way to demonstrate qualification, is by going through records of government use and individual use that had been provided. In cases such as the Copper River Railroad, the route had been established but is not an RS2477 under the terms of this law. It exists as a separate easement that already exists. Mr. Huber pointed out that it was important to remember that this exercise of establishing these rights-of-way was not to show all state rights-of way, but to identify these historic rights-of-ways that were accepted by public use that aren't already a part of the state's right-of-way or transportation system. Co-Chair Sharp invited Senator Halford to join the committee at the table if he so desired. Senator Pearce said the reason she asked the question, was because there was some dispute over the Copper River right- of-way and who owned part of it. The original railway bed is gone because it was over a glacier and the land it now occupies belongs to one of the Native corporations, not to the State Of Alaska. Mr. Huber told her that while he didn't have a specific answer on this right-of-way, it was certainly possible that is would apply under the portion of the law that reads, "lands that are not already reserved." If there was a federal reservation of that right-of-way initially, that was not previous to public use, then it would not be acceptable by public use because it was already reserved ground. He qualified by saying that was a possibility, but he didn't know the particulars on the Copper River corridor. Senator Parnell wanted to know if there was any more public testimony to be heard on this bill. Co-Chair Sharp said there was one more person signed up. Senator Adams indicated that he needed to leave for another meeting and requested the committee take up his amendment first. Co- Chair Sharp granted the request stating that the public testimony left to be heard probably wouldn't be affected by the passage or failure of the amendment. Senator Adams moved to adopt Amendment #2. Senator Torgerson objected. Senator Adams spoke to the amendment. He acknowledged the enormous cost of implementing the provision of the amendment, which would require all of the surveys done prior to recording. He still felt it was a necessary issue. Co-Chair Sharp asked for roll call on the amendment. The amendment failed 1-5 (Senator Adams, yea.) Senator Torgerson moved to adopt Amendment #1, a technical amendment. Mr. Huber spoke to the amendment, which would add 20 additional routes to the original 182 routes listed in the Resources Committee version of the bill. Those routes had been supplied to the sponsor by DNR as routes researched and documented to a level the department was comfortable with their validity. Senator Torgerson had a question on Page 22 Line 13; changing the word "shall" to "may" and asked for explanation. Mr. Huber responded that the change was purely a drafter recommendation. It would not change what the bill was trying to do. There was some discussion as to the meanings of "shall" and "may". There were no objections and Amendment #2 was adopted. Co-Chair Sharp called PAM LA BOLLE to testify. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supported the research and mapping of RS2477 rights-of-way on federal lands and the state's assertion of those rights on federal lands, she told the committee. However, they had concerns about the private property issue and urged the committee give careful consideration. Another concern dealt with liability. She said her group supported the state's efforts to assert its rights and do the mapping. There were no questions by committee members. There was no other public testimony. Senator Halford was asked if he had anything more to offer. Co-Chair Sharp had one more question of Ms. Angvik about the fiscal note. He wondered if the documents' existence on magnetic form might excellorate the process at a lower cost that the fiscal note quoted. He pointed out the 3200 man-hours needed for copying paper files. Ms. Angvik replied that unfortunately the Recorder's Office had no capacity to receive electronic files. DNR would happily give them a disk, but the process of recording had stringent requirements. Paper size must be exact. The department is even facing challenges of how to submit the maps themselves since they cannot be larger than legal size. Co-Chair Sharp voiced his opinion that the state should at least assert its rights over routes that had been documented and proven. He felt that to do any less would do more harm to private citizens that might be purchasing or acquiring land. Those people should be put on notice that there may be an RS2477 right-of-way on their land. Without that information on file, it would be nearly impossible for them to be aware of the encumbrance. If surveying needs to be done later, then that could be a focus. Senator Pearce moved Senate Finance Committee Substitute for SB 180 with individual recommendations and appropriate fiscal note. There were no objections and the bill moved out of committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 254(JUD) "An Act relating to the exemption from levy, execution, garnishment, attachment, or other remedy for the collection of debt as applied to a permanent fund dividend." MIKE PAULEY, staff to Senator Leman, addressed this legislation. His testimony was as follows: "This bill would significantly enhance the ability of Alaskan businesses and other private parties to collect from debtors who are in a state of default in their financial obligations. Existing state law provides that 45% of a person's annual Permanent Fund Dividend check is exempt from collection to pay an outstanding debt. In other words, even though a person may have a court judgement stipulating that they owe a certain amount of money, almost half of their dividend check is exempt from collection at least when its a private party that seeking to collect the debt. There are some exceptions to this general rule. Child support obligations, defaulted student loans and any debts to an agency of the state are not covered by the 45% exemption. So on those cases; the state can garnish 100% of a dividend check in order to satisfy its financial obligation. But small businesses and other private parties do not enjoy that ability to collect 100% of the check." "When businesses are not able to collect funds from those in default, it increases the cost of doing business. Ironically, those costs are passed on to honest consumers in the form of higher costs for goods and services. So, in a very real sense, the majority of Alaskan consumers are paying for the financial irresponsibility of a small minority." "As originally introduced, SB 254 proposed to completely eliminate the 45% exemption. However, and amendment adopted in committee, restored the exemption but lowered it from the current 45% to 30%. This means that the percentage of a dividend available for garnishment by private parties would increase from 55% to 70% as the bill currently stands. State agencies would continue to collect at a rate of 100%." As currently structured, SB 254 significantly narrows the gap between what private parties and the State are able to collect." That concluded Mr. Pauley's prepared statement. Senator Donley agreed that while he felt the 100% garnishment would work because people would not have the incentive to actually file for their PFD, he did think the higher percentage was appropriate here. He said he would like to see it around 25% or less so people would still have the incentive to file, but still benefit anyone who went through the effort to get a court judgement. Co-Chair Sharp's comment was that he wanted to keep the incentive and leave enough to pay the taxes on the dividend. There was further discussion by Co-Chair Sharp and Senator Donley about the taxes and the efforts the debtor makes in obtaining a judgement. Co-Chair Sharp requested the sponsor's view of the Judiciary version. Mr. Pauley qualified that he must be careful in speaking his office's opinion. The Labor and Commerce Committee, who he was here representing, voted to restore, but lower, the exemption, which the original bill eliminated. Therefore, he felt he could not comment. Co-Chair Sharp noted the L&C version added a fee schedule based on five-percent of the dividend rather that five- percent of the amount collected. Mr. Pauley explained the L&C change from imposing a $2 fee to a fee of five-percent of the total value of the PFD. This was because the existing $2 fee was not covering the division's expenses. The Judiciary committee then voted to remove the five- percent fee, which eliminated the actions of the L&C Committee. He recalled the Permanent Fund Division testified that they were opposed to the five-percent fee. Co-Chair Sharp noted that the division had a representative present at this meeting to answer questions. He anticipated the committee would have a few questions. Senator Torgerson was under the impression that court- ordered restitution was already at 100%. He gave an example: "If I did a small claims action, and took it through the court process, and the case was found in favor of my claim, I would now have a court order for re-payment of that amount of money as long as it was under $5000. What you're saying is that under current law, I could only collect 55% of that even though it was under court order?" Apparently, he said, he had a different explanation of what court-ordered restitution means. Mr. Pauley shared that to his understanding that language did not apply to private debtors. He spoke of a car dealership with a customer who defaulted on their car loan. Even if the dealership had the court statement saying they were entitled to that money, that didn't entitle them to 100% of the PFD. Senator Donley interjected; pointing out that "restitution" usually applied to criminal situations. Senator Torgerson said he thought part of this legislation dealt with criminal actions. Senator Donley explained how the court usually assigns restitution to be paid by the criminal to the victim of the crime. Senator Torgerson asked what form the garnishment would come to the PFD. Did the collection agency submit a copy of the credit card statement showing the balance owed and substantial documentation, or was a court order necessary, he asked. Mr. Pauley told him there was a process that must be followed. He deferred to NANCY JONES of the division who had more knowledge of the mechanics. Co-Chair Sharp called Ms. Jones to come to the committee to testify. She started by answering Senator Torgerson's last question. The court must certify all claims, she stated. The division would not accept any private claims. The garnishment request would come to PFD through a court order that states this was a legal dept. Co-Chair Sharp restated the earlier question concerning the $2 fee and whether that was adequate to cover processing costs. Ms. Jones told of the division's the collection staff, which also does data processing. April 1 would be the first time they would be accepting any claims. They would accept claims from April 1 through the payment period in October. Of a staff of four, one person worked 100% on processing these claims. Other staff worked varying parts of the process. Including data entry time and computer use charges, the total cost of processing the claims was a little more that $154,000. The $2 fee adequately reflected the cost, summarized Ms. Jones. She spoke about the allocation of those funds by the Legislature, which required the charges be collected before the money could be spent. Therefore, she said, if the division did not receive the anticipated number of collections, they could not spend the $154,000 operating appropriation. Because of this, they had kept the projections conservative. Co-Chair Sharp asked about the record of federal government agencies, namely the Internal Revenue Service, as far as paying the processing fee. He wanted to know if the division had gotten any static from the IRS attempting to have the fees waived. Ms. Jones recounted that prior to her tenure with the division, there had been some battles fought over this matter. The IRS did not allow any other institutions to collect a processing fee before dispersing funds. They had come to an agreement that said if at any time the IRS could collect up to $21 million from the PFD fund, they shouldn't quibble about the meager $2 fee. She said the division was working together with the IRS regional directors. Senator Donley wanted to know if the $2 fee was currently set in statutes. Ms. Jones responded, no. The statutes just provided the authority for the division to charge a fee. The amount was set in regulation. Senator Phillips and Ms. Jones had further discussion about the fee and whether it was adequate at covering the processing costs. Senator Torgerson asked to make it clear that if the department's costs started to exceed that, which was covered by the $2, that the fees would be increased. Ms. Jones assured him that when the overhead exceeded the collected amount the fees would be raises. She said it was difficult to breakdown and to determine the exact cost to process each claim. Senator Torgerson said he just wanted reassurance that the division had the ability to raise the fee if needed to cover the costs. Co-Chair Sharp brought up the issue of the different versions of the bill and asked the committee which they would like to address. Senator Donley suggested the simplest bill version to work from would be the Judiciary version. Co-Chair Sharp agreed. Senator Donley considered changing the current 30% to 20 or 25%. Senator Adams responded by asking how low the percentage retained could drop and still maintain the incentive for the individual to file. He wondered if the current 30% was determined to be that amount. Senator Donley spoke to the logic of a desire to pay off one's dept to be the incentive needed. He felt that if the court told an individual they owed a debt, they ought to have the moral fortitude to pay off that debt. By using the PFD, they are getting the advantage of having the dividend pay toward that debt. He acknowledged there should remain a percentage to allow the incentive to file. Senator Donley made a motion to change Page 1 Line 5 from 30% to 20%. Co-Chair Sharp objected for discussion purposes. Senator Phillips wanted to know the sponsor's opinion on the amendment. Mr. Pauley spoke saying they had heard an enormous amount of testimony on this issue as to what the right percentage should be to still give an incentive to apply. He made an observation, if there was a concern that garnishing 100% would be a disincentive for people to apply, then the argument should be made to take the state agencies current 100% and lower it to whatever percentage was set for private party collection. The question was posed to the Administration asking if they had data showing that individuals were not applying because they knew that 100% of their dividend would go toward their child support or student loan obligation. The response was anecdotally, they had heard of cases where this was the case, but it was extremely difficult to quantify. He continued, saying that the current stipulation allowing for 55% of the dividend to be collected was determined at a time when the dividend was a significantly lower amount. He predicted that if next year's check was $1500, and Senator Donley's amendment was adopted, Mr. Pauley's guess would be the recipient would still receive $300. Speaking for himself, he would still apply for the "free" $300. That was a lot of money to him, and he felt it would be a lot of money to most people. Co-Chair Sharp removed his objection and Senator Adams maintained the objection. Roll call was taken, with the vote tally 4-2 (Senator Adams and Senator Phillips nay). The motion passed. Public testimony was heard from Ms. LaBolle. Her organization supported the legislation and the change in the percentage from the Judiciary version. She added their desire to keep the amount of the processing fee to remain set in regulation rather than statutes. Senator Donley referred to language deleted in lines eight through eleven and asked for an explanation. Mr. Pauley spoke to the change in Workdraft F as a technical correction suggested by the Department of Law. The change gives a definition of "after" in relation to the amount of the exemption taken. Senator Donley moved the Senate Finance Committee Substitute for SB 254 from committee with a new, zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. There were no objections and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 255(STA) "An Act establishing the Joint Committee on Military Bases in Alaska; and providing for an effective date." TIM BENINTENDI, staff to Senator Tim Kelly, spoke to this bill. His statement was as follows: "SB 255 would establish a joint House, Senate and citizen committee to take up issues strictly dealing with military base closures in Alaska. It would focus upon, but not be limited to, activities of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the so-called BRAC Commission, which is a federal entity that periodically reviews all military facilities in the United States. The attention by BRAC given to Alaskan bases in the past presents a considerable challenge and necessitates a strong and vigilant response from the Legislature. As it now stands, a formal BRAC reactivation is being debated in Washington DC. However, Defense Department officials have said that they would perform a base review and closure exercise even if BRAC isn't reinstituted later in the year." "The military establishment in Alaska accounts for approximately $1.7 billion annually throughout our economy. In addition, the base closures experienced to date, that is Adak Naval Air Facility and Fort Greely have shown that the process requires considerable amount of attention on the part of state government to monitor the economic impact and reuse potential of such base closures. This joint committee would provide that critical focus." "We have included public members in this joint committee to draw the participation of individuals from the state's primary military base localities, Anchorage and Fairbanks. We have invited participation from the state's Commissioner of Military and Veteran's Affairs department." "The bill before you reflects a correction made in the Senate State Affairs Committee to more clearly indicate the inclusion of three public, non-legislative members of the committee. "The amendment you also have would change the indicated amount of value the military presence hold for Alaska from $2.7 billion to $1.7 billion. This revision comes from Institution for Social and Economic Research, which updated that value for us. It modifies the higher number, which was previously used by our congressional delegation. The revised figure reflects past troop reductions and previous base closures and does not include the value of retired military personal." "We ask your support for that amendment. I understand the teleconference won't take place, so Mr. Chris Nelson, who's had experience with this in the past, won't be joining us, but I would be happy to take any questions or discuss the fiscal note." Senator Adams noted the fiscal note added another Legislative assistant. Senators Hoffman and Adams had volunteered their staff for this. Senator Adams felt it would be more objective to have representation coming from a rural area rather than hiring a new staff member. He said this would save $73,600, by eliminating the personal services. Senator Pearce said her intention had been to zero out the fiscal note with the exception of the travel and per diem for the public members, which she felt they did have to pay. She thanked Senator Adams for the offer his staff support. She added that she had been supportive of earlier efforts on BRAC commissions. She noted they had tried this before and enjoyed success. Alaska occupies a unique position on the globe that makes it a top priority for the Department of Defense, she observed. She still felt the need for concern about losses perhaps of some of their armed forces, particularly in Anchorage and Fairbanks. She was troubled, because she felt it was time for others to step forward. It shouldn't always have to be the Legislature that brings forward the support and the effort to stop these closures. She would have expected some sort of commitment from the Governor and from the local communities. She didn't see any money contributed from the local communities who would be affected. She did see where they were recommending people to serve on the task force, but thought they should also contribute money. She felt the approach should be broader than just a small Legislative committee. She also thought there was plenty of staff available during the interim to support the group and that no new positions should be funded. She stated that she casts a dim view of staff travel as a general rule and particularly to staff traveling to Washington DC to represent the Legislature of the State Of Alaska. She felt that only Legislatures could do an adequate job of meeting with the appropriate people and making that effort count. She then moved to adopt a Senate Finance Fiscal Note that would not fund staff especially for this task force. It also would not fund travel for the legislators or staff. It would fund travel and per diem for the members of the public who would serve on the task force. She added they could look at contracting supplies, but would need funding for advertising. She asked that the bill be held until the afternoon meeting, while the new fiscal note was prepared. She said this would only hold up the bill one day, and there were adequate votes to pass the legislation. Senator Adams asked about the Legislator travel costs for this task force. Would the funds come from the Leadership funds for each body, House and Senate, he asked. Senator Pearce affirmed that. He then asked about the sunset of the task force and if it would be a three-year committee. Mr. Benintendi told the committee they had no problem removing the provision for new staff. The intent had been just to show what the cost would be if the Legislature decided to add a special position. There was further discussion about different military sites in the state. Senator Phillips moved Amendment #1, which updates the economic value to the state, deleting $2.7 billion and inserting $1.7 billion. The sponsor concurred with the amendment. There was no objection and the amendment was adopted. There was no further discussion on the bill at this time. Co-Chair Sharp ordered the bill held in committee until 4:30pm when a new fiscal note would be presented. He announced the committee would re-convene at 4:30 to address SB 255 and the Results Based Budget Worksession on the Alaska State Troopers. ADJOURNMENT  Co-Chair Sharp recessed the meeting at approximately 10:45 a.m.