MINUTES  SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE  5 May 1998  9:23 A.M.  TAPES    SFC-98, Tapes 157 & 158, Sides A and B CALL TO ORDER    Senator Bert Sharp, Co-chair, convened the meeting at approximately 9:23 a.m. PRESENT    In addition to Co-chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Phillips, Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, and Adams were present at the meeting. Also present: Representative Jeannette James; Angela Salerno, Executive Director, National Association Of Social Workers, Alaska Chapter; Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; Representative Mark Hodgins, Sponsor; Joel Lounsbury, Staff, Representative Brian Porter, Sponsor; Senator Gary Wilken; Danny Dewitt, Director, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Alaska Chapter; Ralph Bennett, Staff, Senator Robin Taylor; Wendy Redmond, Executive Vice-President, University Relations, University of Alaska; Carol Carroll, Director, Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources; aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature. Via teleconference: Jane Angvik, Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources; Jules Charleston, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources. SUMMARY INFORMATION SB 340 INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA   CSSB 340(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no recommendation" and attached fiscal notes by the Department of Natural Resources and the University of Alaska. CSHB 206(FIN)am PERS FOR VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS CSHB 206(FIN)am was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation and attached indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Administration.   CSHB 313(FIN) PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT CSHB 313(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and attached fiscal note and zero fiscal note by the Department of Education. CSHB 315(FIN) OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE CSHB 315(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and two new zero notes by the Department of Education and the Office of the Governor.   CSSSHB 349(FIN) REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation and fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.   CSHB 473(FIN) FIRE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION CSHB 473(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation and attached fiscal note by the Department of Public Safety.   SENATE BILL 340 "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land, and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state land." RALPH BENNETT, STAFF, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, stated that the provisions of SB 340 would allow the University of Alaska to select 250,000 acres of state land, subject to approval by the legislature. Land approved for transfer would include interest in minerals and oil and gas (subject to certain limitations). He noted that land subject to a coal lease or with a pending lease application would not available for selection. The university would bear the cost of selection, platting, surveying, and conveyance. All land selections had to be made by December 31, 2012, and 20 percent of income derived from selected land had to be used at the campus closest to the income-generating parcel or parcels. All lands conveyed under the program would be exempt from municipal taxation. Mr. Bennett reported that SB 340 was compatible with Senator Murkowski's SB 660, legislation pending in Congress that would convey additional public lands to the University of Alaska. The Alaska system was created under federal authority as a land-grant institution to provide for the higher-education requirements of Alaska's people in perpetuity. Most colleges established under the land-grant program were endowed with sizeable land bases from which to generate income to be used for operating purposes. Unlike most institutions in the Lower 48, the University of Alaska did not have a large population base and proximity to other beneficial support services. The University of Alaska also suffered from a smaller pool of alumni and other normal sources of endowment income, which many institutions relied on to help support operations, especially subsidies for teaching positions. In the past decade, several legislators had introduced legislation allowing the university to select additional lands from the state. The purpose of all such legislation had been to provide more lands for the university's state-wide system and to provide more income- producing assets where monetary resources were more scarce and unpredictable. Mr. Bennett maintained that SB 340 would continue the effort to give the university a larger and more productive land-base. The bill would also provide clear expectations that land conveyed be used for the development of value- added industries where appropriate. Mr. Bennett provided a sectional analysis of SB 340: · Section 1: Findings and purposes section, including that the University of Alaska should own income- producing land to provide income for the support of higher education. · Section 2: Legislative intent language for the university to encourage the development of in-state, value-added industries in developing the land conveyed to it. · Section 3: Technical amendment, adding that the provisions grant the Board of Regents the care, control, and management of other university lands. · Section 4: Technical amendment to account for the land conveyed under the bill. · Section 5: A major section adding new subsections dealing with new land selections: · Subsection 14.43.65: Would allow the university to select 250,000 acres of state land. The list of land proposed to be conveyed by the state would be periodically submitted to the legislature; the legislature could approve or disapprove the list. The section would also set requirements for the land that could be selected. Transfer of ownership of the land to the university would include the interest of the state in minerals and to oil and gas, but only related to land selected at least five years after the effective date of the bill. The subsection describes the power of the state to manage the land selected but not yet conveyed, and lists types of land that could not be conveyed, including land the conveyance of which was determined by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources not to be in the best interests of the state. The university would bear the cost of selecting, platting, surveying, and conveying the land; the state would pay costs of recording patents and documents of interim conveyance. The university must make all selections by December 31, 2012. Land would revert to the state if the commissioner found the university was not actively managing the land to provide income on the tenth anniversary of the conveyance. · Subsection 14.43.66: Provides that the Board of Regents must establish procedures substantially similar to state procedures for mineral leasing on the conveyed lands. The board must prepare an annual plan for the management of the land and seek public comment on the plan. At least 20 percent of the income derived from the management of selected land must be used at the campus closest to the land from which the income was derived. · Subsection 14.43.67: A new section in Section 5 that would deal with confidential records; Mr. Bennett noted that the section did not appear in the committee's copy of the sectional. · Subsection 14.43.67: Provides for land conveyed that would be subject to certain types of agreements (leases, claims, permits, and so on); the state would be entitled to receive the income and the management would be turned over to the university only after the terms of the agreement expired. · Subsection 14.43.69: Provides that before conveying or disposing of interest in selected lands, the university would be required to manage the land in a manner that would permit customary and traditional uses of resources to the maximum extent practical. · Sections 6 and 7: A new section related to torte immunity on unimproved land. He noted that the section did not appear in the committee's sectional. Section 6 was a renumbered Section 7 and would provide an income derived from the management of selected land in the endowment trust fund. · Section 8: Previously Section 7; exempts the university lands from municipal taxation. Senator Parnell referred to Section 6 related to torte immunity for personal injury. He noted that the state already had some immunity from certain actions on state property. He asked whether the doctrine applied to the university and university actions; if so, he questioned making torte immunity for the university higher than the immunity of state property in general. WENDY REDMOND, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, answered that the language in the bill was exactly the language used for state immunity. She emphasized that the language was not the university's preference, and was not the torte immunity language that had been in the bill previously. She wanted the previous language, which took the immunity to a slightly higher level. The higher level was the result of a previous section (14.43.69) requiring the continued provision of customary and traditional use on all university land until transferred to a third party; the university felt it was important to have the higher level of torte immunity. Senator Parnell asked whether the level requested was the same level as granted the state of Alaska on other unimproved land. Ms. Redmond replied yes; she noted that the Resources Committee had lifted the language directly out of statute. Co-chair Sharp asked whether there was a section dealing with returning the land if it was not used appropriately. Ms. Redmond replied that there were still a few sections of the bill that were troubling to the university. One of the sections had been referred to as the "use it or lose it" clause, and was found on page 9, beginning on line 17 and extending to page 10, line 9. The clause stipulated that the university would have ten years to actively manage the property for income or the land would revert to the state of Alaska. Co-chair Sharp stated concerns about another item (page 10, lines 30 to 31 to page 11, lines 1 and 2). Ms. Redmond agreed that the clause was even more troubling. The section was new and stipulated that 20 percent of the income from the management of the land had to go to the closest campus. She detailed that currently, all of the income from the land-grant trust went into the Natural Resources fund, established in statute to generate income to support resource development in Alaska. The fund was inflation- proofed and the university spent the earnings through grants; approximately $3.7 million had been given out in the current year. Ms. Redmond continued that the language would target money to the campus closest to where the money was generated regardless of need, in addition to diverting the money before it got to the endowment. She did not think the clause was in the best interest of the university and did not accomplish what the trust fund was set up to do, which was to support resource development in the state. Senator Torgerson queried language that had previously been suggested to address the issue. Ms. Redmond replied that she had suggested broadening the language to use the money within the region and linking it to the purpose of the fund. Senator Torgerson asked how she would define "region." Ms. Redmond did not have the answer. She conjectured that it would be broader than an election district. Senator Torgerson believed Senator Taylor had intended to work on the language. Mr. Bennett replied that a work draft had been prepared dealing only with the 20-percent issue; it did not address the problem of broadening the regions. He had not been instructed to bring the changes before the committee and did not have suggested changes. CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, wanted the committee to have the department's opinion of the bill. JANE ANGVIK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), testified that the department opposed the bill for seven reasons: 1. While the state owned a great deal of acreage, only a very small amount of the land produced revenue. The university would most likely select the most productive land, which would remove it from state management and decrease revenue to the general fund; currently, 85 percent of all general-fund revenues came from state-owned land. 2. It would be difficult to find 250,000 acres of suitable state lands for the university to select. In addition, there would be a large public outcry resulting from the transfer of specific parcels. She noted that the department had witnessed such a response when it had tried to reconstruct the Mental Health Trust. 3. It would be costly to transfer titles for the amount of land; it could cost over $800,000 per year for ten years to convey the amount of land to the university. 4. The municipalities would be in competition with the university for the same land. The state currently owed the municipalities over 600,000 acres under the municipal-entitlement program. There were a limited amount of revenue-generating lands that both the municipalities and the university wanted. While the legislation would protect existing selections, most municipalities found it necessary to modify their collections over time as their priorities changed and land-ownership patterns evolved due to federal conveyances to the state and to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations. Furthermore, about one-half of Alaska was in unorganized boroughs. When those areas organized, the state would have an obligation to convey 10 percent of certain state lands within the municipal boundaries, but much of the best land might have already gone to the university. 5. Timber harvesting could be negatively impacted by the bill. The university would most likely select the most productive timber lands, reducing the state's timber base used to calculate the sustained yield and limiting the state's current efforts to establish timber sales that supported local value-added processing. As a trust, the university would manage its lands for maximizing revenue, and therefore would sell timber for export. She argued that the Department of Natural Resource's ability to offer sales for local value-added processing would be decreased if the university selected timber lands. 6. The university would be exempt from most state land laws adopted by the legislature to protect the public interest. For example, Title 38 requirements for public notice and the state's best-interest findings process would not apply to the university lands. The university forest operations were not subject to public review for the forest land-use plan and five- year schedule. Also, university land was not subject multiple-use management requirements and the lands would be exempt from conformance in CNR area plans. 7. The bill lacked a method by which to resolve disagreements between DNR and the university regarding what lands should be submitted to the legislature. Without supervision, disagreements could result in no land list being submitted or the state and university could end up in costly litigation. She thought the bill needed a provision to allow the governor to make the final decision and submit the land list to the legislature if there was disagreement between DNR and the university. Senate Bill 340 would require DNR to re-enter and re-convey title back to CNR if the university was not managing lands to generate revenue. She argued that the provision was unreasonable, since most state land did not generate revenue. Furthermore, enforcement would be costly and was likely to result in litigation. The department recommended that the provision be deleted. Ms. Angvik referred to amendments that had been recommended and conveyed to the committee through a May 1 letter. She noted that the director of the Division of Mining, Land and Water was available to answer questions about the effect of the bill on mining in Alaska. Senator Phillips reported that the members did not have the letter with the proposed amendments. Ms. Angvik offered to get a copy to the committee. JULES CHARLESTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (testified via teleconference), stated that SB 340 (Version F) had significant potential to damage the enthusiasm of mining companies to invest in the mineral wealth of Alaska. He reported that for the past two years, the mining industry had created value totaling over $1 billion. He referred to the "we are open for business" message from both the governor and the legislature. He noted that DNR anticipated about $1.7 million in direct revenue to the state treasury during FY 99 from mineral rents, royalties, and application and administrative fees from state-owned, locatable minerals. The department projected a total of about 50,000 mineral properties and about 1,000 ownerships (mining claims, mining leases, mill-site leases, prospecting sites, and prospecting permits); about 1 million acres of state- owned or state-collected land would be encumbered. Mr. Charleston emphasized that the version as drafted would create financial and legal uncertainties for the mining industry similar to those experienced during the Mental Health Trust lands litigation, which would not be resolved until after 2012. He pointed out that the language in Section 5 of the bill (dealing with minerals on state properties) was difficult to understand; Sections 14.40.365(a)(3) and (4) appeared to exempt only certain state lands associated with state oil, gas, and coal leases. The language of Section (a)(4), line 5 on page 5 and lines 3 through 7 stipulated that the university could select any of approximately 40,000 mining claims, as well as any of about 5,000 prospecting sites (covering about 650,000 acres). He referred to another kind of prospecting site that the state did not have at the present time, but could in the future. The university could also select any of approximately 100 mineral leases covering abut 100,000 acres, or any of five existing or pending mill-site leases. In addition, the university could select any land that was slated for both intensive and extensive mineral inventory for the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, thereby excluding the public and the industry from a fair chance to locate mining claims and prospecting sites under existing Alaska laws covering mines and mining. Mr. Charleston continued that Section 14.40.365(b)(1) on page 5, lines 19 to 20 reaffirmed that state-owned coal, ores, minerals, geothermal resources, and fossils would be under the exclusive ownership and management of the university for the sole benefit of the university. He believed there would be substantive questions about who must deal with whom for continued operation of new development of mineral property (not in the Mental Health Trust) to the extent that SB 340 authorized university selection of mineral properties other than certain oil, gas, and coal leases. He listed properties the version would permit the university to select, including parts of Fort Knox Mine, Golden Zone Mine, Red Dog Mine, True North Mine at Fairbanks, and any of more than 200 small- or medium-sized placer mines and claims. Mr. Charleston argued that if SB 340 authorized the selection of mineral properties including oil, gas, and coal (which were not expressly excluded), the requirements of Section 6(i) of the Alaska Statehood Act in its reversionary provisions as well as revenues to the permanent fund would raise substantial legal issues that could further delay any mineral development on state land that the university selected. He claimed the stigma that influenced adverse investment by the mineral industry during the Mental Health Trust litigation would be reinstituted. In addition, there could be a handle for litigation that was otherwise prudently and environmentally responsible when there was opposition to some oil, gas, and coal projects. Mr. Charleston maintained that questions could be raised about severing the surface from the sub-surface mineral estate. In addition, there would be adverse impacts from added costs resulting from fees the university would have to charge in order to avoid relinquishment of the property, even if minerals were not selectable by the university. The fees could stop marginally economical projects and cause delay for others waiting for better world-market conditions; the end result could be the loss of local jobs and otherwise prudent and timely economic development. Mr. Charleston questioned whether meeting the proposed requirements for timely economic development of university lands could cause other economic uses such as the subdivision for homes, commercial lodges, business sites, or recreational cabins, which could then become non- conforming land use that the mineral property development had to buy. He feared there could be other additional costs to an otherwise prudent development. The mineral lease could last as long as 55 years; the average lease was currently about 20 years. Mineral leases had a right for renewal when other conditions were met. He asked what the university would gain from selecting mineral properties if the existing lease income continued to go to the general treasury and permanent fund for the life of the mine. Mr. Charleston noted that under Alaska mining law, mineral property owners had the exclusive right for regular renewal of property rights as long as they otherwise complied with the law; under SB 340, he questioned the period the annual rental fees would come to the general treasury. He questioned whether the university could select the Red Dog mine loading facilities on a DNR lease or select a small tract across the new road to Fort Knox mine and then charge a trespass fee and reduce income. He worried that there could be charges against Fort Knox mine vehicles and reduce income to the Mental Health Trust or to the Fairbanks North Star Borough. He did not think the bill answered any of his questions. He pointed out that unanswered questions in the mineral industry automatically meant a delay. Mr. Charleston concluded that SB 340 would send a strong message to the mineral industry that until sometime after the year 2012, state mineral property should be considered as having significant investment risk because of uncertainty about who the landlord would be, prospective litigation over deposits to the general treasury and permanent fund, and adverse impact similar to the Mental Health Trust litigation. He strongly recommended that SB 340 be amended by the Senate Finance Committee to expressly exclude selection of any state minerals: coals, ore, minerals, and other materials, as well as oil and gas that were presently in mining claims, mineral leases, mill-site leases, or other mineral property rights under Alaska law, the Alaska Statehood Act, and the Alaska Constitution. He also recommended that land selected by the state for its mineral value be excluded, whether encumbered or not, as well as land that the legislature had authorized to the Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey to conduct mineral-related studies as a result of suspected mineral potential. SB 340 was SET ASIDE until later in the meeting. HOUSE BILL 349 "An Act prohibiting the use of the title 'social worker' without a license; relating to social workers, licensure of social workers, and the Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, SPONSOR, presented the bill to the committee, explaining that the legislation would provide two additional levels of licensing for social workers in the state. Currently, the law required the level of Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners, which required a doctorate degree in clinical social work. The two levels added by HB 349 would be a bachelor's degree level and a master's degree level of social work. Representative James maintained that she had filed the legislation because she believed some of the social workers working for the state lacked credibility. She believed that licensing would help avoid the lack. She thought social workers made important decisions related to vulnerable children and adults that could affect the individuals for the rest of their lives and she wanted social workers to have the qualifications to make those decisions. Representative James referred to a handout indicating that the state had 179 social-work positions; 70 of the positions were filled by individuals with degrees in social work. Some of the individuals in the positions had other bachelor and graduate degrees and 18 had no degrees at all. She noted that HB 349 would not become effective until July 1, 2000 because it was necessary to negotiate with all of the affected parties in order to get a piece of legislation without a huge fiscal note and that would cooperate with the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), which housed most of the social-work positions. After the effective date, all people currently working as social workers in their original position would be exempted. The person would not have to have a license until they changed positions or employers. The bill also had a provision for those with other bachelor's or graduate degrees; it would allow two years for those people to prepare for and pass the examination to get a license for social work. Representative James concluded that the legislation was important to protect the public and to make sure people making decisions for vulnerable Alaskans were fully qualified. In addition, consumers would have recourse in case a mistake was made by a social worker who was either not qualified or who behaved unethically. The license could be challenged; without a license, the individual could no longer do social work. Senator Adams asked how the provision would apply in rural Alaska, where there were people who qualified as social workers, even though they had not received a degree in social work. He believed such a person could be more qualified than a person who had gone to college. Representative James replied that there had been discussion about the issue related to rural areas. She explained that people currently doing social work would be exempted from the law. However, the social worker's association was planning to provide education in rural areas so that people could be brought up to speed. She stressed that the bill would only affect people who came into the field after July 2000. She added that DHSS had been setting up an academy through the University of Alaska so that there would be more training available. She agreed that workers could have much insight and cultural knowledge, but she believed they would welcome the opportunity for additional education and licensing, which could provide pride in the job done as well as additional credibility. Senator Torgerson asked whether board meetings would increase from one to two per year. Representative James replied that the licensing board would extend the current process for clinical social workers into the bachelor's and master's degrees. The activity the board would cover would be enlarged. She referred to changed licensing rates and the fact that there would be less administration and the need for one board. Senator Torgerson pointed to page 3, lines 14 through 17. He asked where in the state a person could get training for professional ethics and cross-cultural education. Representative James replied that the training was currently being provided by the National Association of Social Workers for licensed clinical social workers. The training was available nationally as well as adapted for local education. She stressed that the requirement for 45 hours of continuing education every two years to renew the license was an important part of the licensing process. The training was being organized and would be available through long-distance learning as well as in classrooms. Senator Torgerson referred to the top of page 3, related to the board having the right to examine a person with physical or mental problems to obtain credible evidence. He questioned whether the provision would overstep the power of a board. He wondered who would make the determination regarding credible evidence. Representative James replied that the professionals in the field could recognize whether the evidence was credible. She reported that she had not heard fears about the subject from anyone working in the field, including those who were not licensed. Senator Torgerson did not recall any other board having the described powers. He believed the Department of Law (DOL) would end up defending board actions against some claim about a mental problem. He stated concerns about opening the state to lawsuits through board actions. Representative James replied that the issue had not brought up concerns throughout all the negotiations conducted about the subject. She referred to a representative from the association of social workers who possibly had more information. Senator Adams stated concerns about the legislation, which reminded him of a limited-entry permit system. He referred to items related to social workers that were in the operating budget in conference committee. He referred to Section 33 of the bill and the 2000 effective date. He asked whether people without licenses could be hired up until the effective date. Representative James responded in the affirmative. She detailed that the provision was in the bill because DHSS was in the process of filling social-work positions and did not have time to change the system and job description until the proposed effective date. She emphasized that the department would be working toward the goal and she did not think there would be a problem. Senator Adams asked whether a person without a degree and without a license who was hired as a social worker would be laid off on July 1, 2000. Representative James replied that the person would not be laid off. She noted that she supported limited entry when it came to the psyches of vulnerable children and adults. Senator Phillips pointed out that the bill had been around since 1975 and that the issues had been raised before. Representative James acknowledged that there had been difficulties and that there had been times when she felt the goal could not be reached. She stated that the bill was crafted carefully to get all the interested parties to agree and to keep the fiscal note low. ANGELA SALERNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, ALASKA CHAPTER, testified that HB 349 was about consumer protection, accountability, and public and private social services. She explained that the people who come into contact with social workers in the state (primarily the clients of the Division of Family and Youth Services [DFYS] in DHSS) did not have a choice about who provided child protective services. She believed the bill would ensure that social workers were well qualified to do their job. Ms. Salerno addressed confusions about provisions of HB 349, beginning with Senator Adams's concern about social work in the rural areas, especially within tribal entities. She maintained that the bill was a title-protection act, not a practice-protection act; the bill would not define what social work was and prevent a person from doing the work without a license. The bill would stipulate that a person could not call themselves a social worker unless they had a license. In other words, those individuals currently doing social work or social services without a degree would not be impacted by the bill at all. Those individuals could continue to doing their work if they chose to practice under the title "social work." She referred to Tlingit and Haida in Juneau as the sole example of a tribal entity that used the title "social worker" as a job title. Tlingit and Haida felt confident that it would either hire professional social workers or change the job title if necessary. Ms. Salerno noted past confusions about exemption versus "grandparenting" a measure in. She explained that no one would automatically get a license. Individuals currently working under the title who did not hold the degree would be exempt and would never need to get the license, as long as they remained at the job they were in. The individuals would have the option to get the license if they had the background, education, and experience to take the test. Ms. Salerno referred to concerns about where the state would get all the social workers it needed. She noted that Representative James had mentioned the Child Welfare Academy, a new partnership being developed between the University of Alaska and DFYS. The program would create a "career ladder" into social work with the assistance of federal dollars that would allow the university to hire faculty and develop curriculum to bring Child Protective Services into the classroom and create the career ladder to social work. Ms. Salerno addressed questions asked by Senator Torgerson related to increasing the number of board meetings. She explained that part of the work that formed HB 349 was done by a task force developed in response to an audit of statutes related to social work, psychology, and marriage and family therapy. One of the areas the auditors cited was the need for additional board meetings. She noted that one of the board meetings was often teleconferenced. Ms. Salerno responded to concerns about where workers would obtain continuing education in social work. She believed that staying current through continuing education was a very important part of being a professional. She stated that there were many ways to have access to continuing education in Alaska; opportunities were fewer in rural areas, but still existed. The National Association of Social Workers had begun to provide training statewide. She highlighted distance education, including the use of video and audio tapes. She did not think anyone in the state would be barred from getting continuing education. Ms. Salerno addressed concerns about the physical and mental exam described at the top of page 3. She asserted that two forces had brought the issue to the attention of the task force working on the bill. [SFC-98, Tape 157, Side B] Senator Torgerson noted concerns that DOL would have to become involved, resulting in a potentially high fiscal impact. The individuals would be asked to pay $319 in fees, which they were not currently paying, and to pay to have tests done. Ms. Salerno responded that the Social Work Board was charged to act in an ethical manner. Senator Torgerson stated that he had not seen other boards being subjected to the issue. Senator Adams queried Sections 26 and 27 (related to repealers). Ms. Salerno replied that Section 26 would repeal permission to use the title "social worker" if an individual was not licensed. When the current statute was passed ten years prior to license clinical social workers, nearly everyone was exempt; the section would repeal that global exemption. Section 27 was a repealer related to qualifications. CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), addressed concerns by Senator Torgerson related to the involvement of the DOL because of an order to submit to examination. She explained that DCED would be involved; the Division of Occupational Licensing staff would initiate the order, rather than the board. The division would go to DOL and show credible evidence why the examination was warranted. The procedure would be similar to filing an accusation that someone had violated any licensing law; DOL would review the evidence, and agree or disagree with going forward with charging an individual. The Department of Law would act as the check on the division's order for the examination. She explained that the reason was partly because DOL would have to defend the state if there was not credible evidence. She stated that a person could possibly refuse to submit to testing, and there could be legal action on both sides. Ms. Reardon detailed that the item was not reflected in the fiscal note because the division had a reimbursable services agreement (RSA) with DOL to provide a given amount of legal services to the division; the fiscal note anticipated that the necessary legal services would come out of that. Senator Torgerson was concerned that someone would claim that an individual had a mental problem and then the individual would have to have an examination. He had a problem with the way the measure was worded. He asked whether any other board had the authority to require a mental examination for occupational licensing. Ms. Reardon responded that there was at least one other board, a medical board and perhaps another board. She stated that HB 349 would not be the first granting the described authority. Senator Torgerson asked whether she had a problem with the provision in the bill. Ms. Reardon responded that she did not have a problem with the provision, because it was difficult to charge a person with incompetence and take away their license if there was not a professional assessment of the person. The section related to the process of evidence-gathering necessary before taking away a license. An incapacitated person might not submit to the examination and the state could not prove its claim. She acknowledged fear that the state could abuse the power, but she felt that credible evidence would be gathered through witnesses and other means before a person would be accused of having a problem. Senator Torgerson noted that the board made the decision. He asked whether the board reported to the division. Ms. Reardon replied that the function was listed as a duty of the board. Her understanding was that generally it was the duty of boards to investigate and take action. The board delegated the investigation to the division staff because the board had to ultimately sit in judgment in the cases. The division rather than the board received and investigated complaints against people. She anticipated that the division would have to gather the credible evidence, get it through the attorney general's office, and bring it to the board. The division would only bring cases before the board that met the legal test. Senator Torgerson stated that he did not like the provision and proposed an amendment to take it out. The amendment would be to delete the top of page 3, lines 1 through 3. He did not want the option to be available based on no explanation of "credible evidence" or "reasonable physical or mental examination." Senator Torgerson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1: Delete lines 1 through 3 on page 3. There being no OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted. Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered. SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation and fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. HOUSE BILL 473 "An Act relating to training and certification of fire services personnel; relating to certification of fire services training programs; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, SPONSOR, reported that HB 473 would set up a fire safety council similar to the police safety council. There had been communication problems between the firefighting association and the fire chiefs association. He noted that there had been dramatic changes, particularly related to powers. He highlighted page 2, line 27, which read "the council may" instead of "the council shall." Another important change was on page 3, line 22, related to certification being optional. He stated that the most important change was on page 4, Section 3, stipulating that the act would take effect July 1, 2000. Representative Hodgins informed the committee that the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association brought the proposal to him and he had explained to them that there could be no fiscal notes in order for it to work. The association wanted the 2000 effective date as it would give them two years to get all the rural fire departments together and to develop standards everyone could agree upon. The main emphasis was that a Firefighter I designation in Bethel was not necessarily the same designation in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, or any of the other place. There was a desire for standardization. Representative Hodgins reported that during the course of the committee process, it was pointed out that duty aides had standards, but not firefighters. Testimony had revealed that there was approximately one death every eight days on average. Most of the rural fire departments had been brought on board; some saw the bill as more big government. An "opt out" option had been put in. In addition, the membership was brought more in line with the firefighters association and fire chiefs association. Senator Torgerson pointed to the bottom of page 3, regarding the fire service personnel fund. He asked what the fund was. Representative Hodgins replied that there had to be a state mechanism to funnel the dollars in order to pay for needed materials such as books and costs such as certification. The funds would be appropriated through the legislature under the Department of Public Safety. The department had been adamant about not taking on an extra spending liability. He stressed that he had clearly told the firefighters that they would have to come up with their own funding, which would enter the general fund to be disbursed as appropriate by the legislature. Senator Adams asked whether Legislative Finance agreed that the operation could be funded through statutory designated receipts. Representative Hodgins replied that the process was set up along the lines of the police standards council, which had been in existence for many years. Senator Adams asked to have the issue checked out. Co-chair Sharp listed people who were available by teleconference and who were in favor of the legislation, including Fire Chief Jason Elson and Scott Walden from Kenai. Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 473(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 473(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation and attached fiscal note by the Department of Public Safety. HOUSE BILL 206 "An Act relating to credit under the Public Employees' Retirement System for service as a village public safety officer." JOEL LOUNSBURY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, SPONSOR, informed the committee that HB 206 would allow a village public safety officer (VPSO) to get credit for service through the state Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). He noted that throughout the state, the VPSO program had provided an important means of maintaining peace and harmony in the villages. Most of the individuals serving had not been covered by a retirement program; some former officers were currently working for other organizations that were covered by the state PERS program. The work experience obtained by participating in a VPSO program had proven to be an invaluable asset. The bill would allow the individuals to obtain retirement credit for service rendered under the VPSO program. Eligible participants would receive credit for up to five years of service; once the service had been verified, indebtedness would be determined and the vested employee would have to arrange to buy the time back in the state PERS system. Mr. Lounsbury reported that the provisions of the bill would help in recruitment and retention of participants in the VPSO program in the villages. He noted that high turnover and a lack of qualified applicants had historically been a problem with the program. Senator Parnell queried how the time served would function for a person who had worked five years for the program. Mr. Lounsbury replied that the person would receive up to five years of credit. Senator Parnell asked whether the credit was retroactive. Mr. Lounsbury replied in the affirmative. He added that the individual would have to buy into the system. Senator Adams MOVED to REPORT CSHB 206(FIN)am out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 206(FIN)am was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation and attached indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Administration. HOUSE BILL 313 "An Act relating to preventive maintenance programs required for certain state grants; and providing for an effective date." SENATOR GARY WILKEN informed the committee that he had served on the preventative maintenance task force during the summer and fall before the legislative session. The task force had traveled around the state and listened to people; it became evident that there was an opportunity provided by technology and collected knowledge that could allow preventative maintenance to be put in place for a minimal amount of money. He argued that the preventative maintenance programs were important and were lacking in many different areas. He noted that HB 313 would require that school districts, Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAAs), and municipalities would have preventative maintenance programs in place before being given money through state grants. Senator Parnell asked why there was a delayed effective date. DANNY DEWITT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES, ALASKA CHAPTER, replied that there had been discussions (primarily with the Department of Education); there was a concern that the short time-frame between the present time and July 1, 1998 would not be enough time for a number of entities to get a preventative maintenance program in place. The House State Affairs Committee had elected to delay one year so that entities could have enough time to proceed without too much disruption. Senator Torgerson summarized that the bill would require that funds be withheld until a preventative maintenance plan was in place that included a computerized maintenance management program. He agreed with the idea. He questioned the impact to municipalities and REAAs in terms of financial output. Senator Wilken responded that many had had the same question until Roger Patch gave a presentation in Anchorage. Mr. Patch described what he had done in the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and had suggested that a municipality or agency could put a qualifying preventative maintenance system in place for $10,000, given current technology. He did not think the process would be a burden. Mr. DeWitt directed attention to a written description of a program to track maintenance. He encouraged the use of a computerized system with built-in reminders of what needed to be done and when. He referred to different levels of systems that could give most agencies an easy opportunity to comply with the law. Senator Torgerson was concerned about smaller REAAs, since the smallest had only 21 people. He noted that the fiscal note included a request for an assistant architect to evaluate and conduct the systems. He questioned why the department did not just track maintenance on a centralized and consolidated basis for smaller REAAs. Mr. DeWitt thought the option would be available for smaller districts, but the district would have to have the plan. There was not a requirement to create a new department in any given operation. Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 313(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 313(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and attached fiscal and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Education. HOUSE BILL 315 "An Act relating to operating appropriations for facility operations, maintenance and repair, and renewal and replacement for components of public buildings and facilities; and providing for an effective date." SENATOR GARY WILKIN informed the committee that the preventative maintenance task force had issued recommendations in a report; item 5(a) was addressed in the presentation on HB 313, the required preventative maintenance programs. Item 5(b) required separate operating budget appropriations for routine and preventative maintenance. House Bill 315 would amend the Executive Budget Act to require that the proposed budget from the department have a separate line-item for maintenance so that the legislature could discuss, argue, and agree upon what amount would be provided for maintenance in the upcoming budget and then measure the results of the effort at the end of the budget cycle. The bill would make the item a single request for appropriation. Co-chair Sharp noted that the item would be segregated. Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 315(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ruled. CSHB 315(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and two new zero notes by the Department of Education and the Office of the Governor. AT EASE RECONVENED SENATE BILL 340 "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land, and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state land." Senator Torgerson MOVED Amendment 1: Page 10, line 30, subsection (c): Delete line 30 through 31, and lines 1 and 2 on the top of page 11. Insert new language: Subject to appropriation of the income, the Board of Regents shall have an amount up to 20 percent of the income derived from the management of university land selected under AS 14.43.65 for the campus of the university that is located closest to the land from which the income is derived, if the borough or unified municipality within which the campus is located agrees to provide a match for the same amount to the campus. Senator Torgerson MOVED amendment 1 to Amendment 1: Page 11, line 2 Delete the word "unified" Senator Parnell OBJECTED. He asked for clarification regarding the amendment to the amendment. He queried whether the intent was to broaden the word municipalities to include cities as well. Senator Torgerson responded that the existing language would not include home-rule, first-class, or second-class cities. Deleting the word "unified" would open the provision up to municipalities, including unified municipalities. Senator Parnell REMOVED his OBJECTION. Senator Adams clarified that there was an Alaskan campus in Barrow (Ilisagvik College) not related to the University of Alaska. He queried the revenues that would be available to the Barrow institution. Senator Torgerson did not think SB 340 would apply to a campus that was not attached to the University of Alaska. There being no further objection, the Amendment 1 as amended was ADOPTED. Senator Torgerson MOVED Amendment 2: Page 9, line 17 through page 10, line 9 Subsection (m): Delete in its entirety Senator Adams OBJECTED. He asked whether the work would be done (by the Department of Natural Resources) to issue the documents necessary to convey the land. Senator Torgerson believed the issue was covered. He wanted to take out the parts related to land not developed in ten years that would then revert back to the state. He thought the land-selection process and the duties and responsibilities of both the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska and the Division of Land would remain intact. Senator Adams MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. A roll call was taken on the amendment. In favor: Parnell, Phillips, Torgerson, Sharp, Pearce Against: Adams Senator Donley was absent from the vote. The motion FAILED (5/1). Amendment 2 was adopted. Co-chair Sharp informed the committee that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had just faxed several pages of amendments. He believed the DNR amendments would be addressed on the floor of the Senate. Co-chair Sharp stated that he did not like the fiscal notes attached to the bill. He referred to a $1.5 million request; he did not know how it would be used. Senator Pearce opined that the bill could not be reported out with the fiscal notes. She believed the item could be addressed in Conference Committee. She did not want to give the university $1.5 million each year. In addition, DNR was asked for another $800,000 in inter-agency receipts. WENDY REDMOND, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, thought there might be an error. She stated that the university fiscal note should be university receipts and not general funds. Co-chair Sharp noted that the fiscal note said general funds, so there could be an error. Ms. Redmond agreed that the item should be university receipts. She added that the land development would be paid from the proceeds from the fund. Senator Pearce commented that the item was showing as interagency receipts; it was expected that the university would pay those. Ms. Redmond responded that there had been agreements in past land bills about how interagency receipts would be handled; the department would pay the costs for surveying and platting, and would share the conveyance cost. She offered to get a corrected fiscal note for at least the university's portion to make sure it was university receipts. Senator Torgerson asked whether the department would be in favor of university receipts to DNR. Ms. Redmond responded that it would not be university receipts but would appropriately show as interagency receipts if they received some university receipts to handle the costs of the platting. Senator Torgerson asked whether the impact to the general fund would be zero. Ms. Redmond answered in the affirmative. JANE ANGVIK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), added that the department's understanding of the DNR fiscal note was that it was to be paid by the university for all costs associated with the conveyance. Senator Torgerson agreed. Senator Pearce opined that there was still a problem, as the budget would increase. The interagency receipt account was general funds. She thought the issue could be worked on in Conference Committee. Co-chair Sharp asked for the fiscal note from the university to be changed from a fund source of general funds to university receipts. He wanted it to be clear on the DNR fiscal note that the interagency receipts would be from university receipts upon agreement and request from the university for services desired. He noted that it would not be dictated by DNR. Ms. Angvik clarified that the University of Alaska would pay all costs associated if the bill was adopted. Co-chair Sharp agreed. Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT CSSB 340(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. Senator Adams OBJECTED. He believed the bill was being set up to be vetoed because it would appropriate resources of the state that would hurt the economic development of the state. He also believed the bill would hamper the process of organizing for unorganized municipalities. He thought the economic development and selection of non-oil-and-gas properties would be hampered as well as mining and timber harvesting. He asserted that the bill would create an exemption from most state law. He noted past allowance of Mental Health Trust selection of lands. He did not think the selection would be known with the University of Alaska. He argued that the bill would set bad public policy. A roll call was taken on the motion. In favor: Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips, Sharp, Pearce Against: Adams Senator Donley was absent from the vote. The motion PASSED (5/1). CSSB 340(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no recommendation" and attached fiscal notes by the Department of Natural Resources and the University of Alaska. ADJOURNMENT  Co-chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.