Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/16/2002 02:14 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 16, 2002
2:14 P.M.
TAPE HFC 02 - 85, Side A
TAPE HFC 02 - 85, Side B
TAPE HFC 02 - 86, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:14 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski; Representative Harry
Crawford; Representative Gary Stevens; Margot Knuth,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Corrections; Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Marie Darlin,
Alaska Association of Retired Persons (AARP); Lauree
Hugonin, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; Dana Tindall, Senior Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs, GCI, Anchorage; Eric Yould,
Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (ARECA), Anchorage; Jim Rowe, Executive
Director, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA), Anchorage;
Crystal Smith, Department of Law; Jennifer Adzima, Staff,
Representative Harry Crawford; Nan Thompson, Director,
Alaska Regulatory Commission, Anchorage
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Lieutenant Julia Grimes, Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Public Safety, Anchorage; Jim Kubitz, Vice President,
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC); Cindy Drinkwater,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, Anchorage;
Dana Dodds, Anchorage; Diane Shanker, Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, Anchorage; Jim Kubitz, Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC); Linda Wilson, Executive
Director, Alaska Public Defender, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 317 An Act relating to stalking and amending Rule 4,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9,
Alaska Rules of Administration.
CS HB 317 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1
by the Department of Law, #2-indeterminent by the
Department of Corrections, #3-indeterminent by the
Department of Administration, and a new zero note
by the Department of Public Safety.
HB 333 An Act extending the termination date of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska; and providing for
an effective date.
CS HB 333 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1
by the Department of Community & Economic
Development.
HB 393 An Act relating to unfair and deceptive trade
practices and to the sale of business
opportunities; amending Rules 4 and 73, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 393 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal note
#1-indeterminent by the Department of Law.
HB 498 An Act expressing legislative intent regarding
privately operated correctional facility space and
services; relating to the development and
financing of privately operated correctional
facility space and services; authorizing the
Department of Corrections to enter into an
agreement for the confinement and care of
prisoners in privately operated correctional
facility space; and providing for an effective
date.
CS HB 498 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with new fiscal
notes by the Department of Corrections and the
Department of Revenue.
#HB393
HOUSE BILL NO. 393
An Act relating to unfair and deceptive trade practices
and to the sale of business opportunities; amending
Rules 4 and 73, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, noted that the bill
would create a new, comprehensive statute regulating the
sale of business opportunities. Business opportunities
commonly referred to, as "biz opps" are prepackaged small
business deals primarily targeted to novice entrepreneurs.
Although, some business opportunities offer consumers
legitimate methods for earning income, the field is fraught
with unfair and deceptive practices. Unwary consumers are
enticed by the promise of high earnings, which rarely
materialize. According to the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), buz opp scams bill customers across the country for
much money each year.
Representative Stevens advised that with HB 393, Alaska
would join approximately half of the other states in
regulating the sale of business opportunities. Persons who
want to sell or advertise business opportunities in Alaska
would be required to register with the State, to disclose
information to buyers, to use escrow accounts to assure
delivery of business assets, and to provide a 30-day right
of cancellation to the buyer. Violators would be subject to
civil and criminal penalties. The bill would provide
important consumer safeguards for entrepreneurial-minded
Alaskans.
CINDY DRINKWATER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHROAGE, reiterated
points made by Representative Stevens. She noted that the
Department of Law supports the legislation and thinks that
it is very important. Alaskans are frequently targeted by
the business opp scams. It is often vulnerable businesses
that are the target.
Ms. Drinkwater highlighted some important features of the
bill. The legislation would require business opportunities
that are conducting business in Alaska to register with the
State. The legislation provides a framework similar to a
couple of statutes already in place, the Telemarketing Sales
Act and the Charitable Solicitation Act, which both require
registration of the entity involved.
Ms. Drinkwater noted that the agencies would have to post a
bond and pay a registration fee. With that information, the
Department of Law would be able to provide information over
the Internet so that people will have a way to determine
that the opportunity is registered. She added that the
seller's of business opportunities would have to disclose to
the buyers, before making the sale, seller information.
They would have to make clear what services or products
would be provided and when deliveries would be provided.
Additionally, the consumers would have a 30-day cancellation
period. There would be an escrow account system that would
insure that the buyers receive delivery of services.
Ms. Drinkwater offered to answer questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Mulder asked what other state's experience had been
for adopting the regulations.
Ms. Drinkwater responded that the statutes have been useful
for allowing quick enforcement action. Once states become
aware of these business opps, they can make sure that they
are registered. To some extent, the fact that some states
have statutes reflects a decrease in fraudulent business
activities. That is the hope in Alaska.
Representative Hudson asked how would the Department
prosecute these people.
Ms. Drinkwater advised that it is more difficult to enforce
laws when people are out of state because the recourses do
not exist. The Department of Law works with other states
and with federal entities such as the Federal Trade
Commission, toward consumer protection work. Alaskans can
obtain judgments here in Alaska against out of state
companies that do business in Alaska. The question is how
to enforce the judgments. She explained that if those
companies were doing business in Alaska, they would be
prosecuted in Alaska.
MARIE DARLIN, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS (AARP),
JUNEAU, voiced support for the proposed legislation. She
noted that many times, it is the senior population that is
targeted and experience the consumer fraud. Ms. Darlin
noted that addressing consumer fraud is a top priority for
AARP.
DANA DODDS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
commented on a situation that happened to her in July 1999,
regarding consumer fraud and how dramatically that has
impacted her life.
Vice-Chair Bunde referenced Page 12, Line 25, and asked how
the difference between felonies and misdemeanors would be
determined.
Ms. Drinkwater advised that section is a critical part of
the bill. Sellers that violate the registration and bond
requirement would be guilty of a Class C felony. The fines
are similar to the Telephone Solicitation Act. Sub-section
(B), the misdemeanor penalty would cover situations where
the seller fails to buy a refund or to make prohibited
references.
Vice-Chair Bunde referenced Page 13, Line 2, and asked
further information regarding the exemption about franchise
and security registrations.
Ms. Drinkwater explained that the purpose of the exemptions
is to make sure that the State would not be regulating
something that is already being regulated.
Representative Lancaster voiced his support for the bill and
asked how the message could get out to the public.
Representative Stevens explained that the businesses that
are currently operating would no longer be able to in Alaska
until they comply with the registration requirements.
Representative Davies asked about #(1), Page 13, which
exempts business opportunities if the total amount of
payment made by the buyer was less than $250 dollars.
Ms. Drinkwater advised that there are many types of fraud.
Scam artists sometimes take advantage of a large number of
people for a small amount of money because they believe that
there is less chance enforcement resources would be devoted
to that. In regards to the $250 dollar amount, that was
settled upon strictly as a policy question. In statutes
from other states, there is a point which the enforcement
amount involved is minimal. The $250 dollars is only a cut-
off amount.
Representative Davies asked if there was any way to consider
the aggregate affect of a wide spread scam.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 393 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Vice-Chair Bunde OBJECTED in
order to make a comment that the concern voiced by
Representative J. Davies should be further discussed by the
sponsor.
Representative Stevens explained that the Department of Law
has indicated that the State cannot protect everyone from
"everything". There must be a point at which you determine
that the cost of correcting the action is too high. The
numbers do move and change.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that the sponsor had misunderstood
his intent. It would not be to reduce the amount, but
rather if someone purposely scammed $200 dollars from 1000
people, it would then rise to a different level. Vice-Chair
Bunde WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative J. Davies interjected that it was his intent
to pursue this issue on the House Floor.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 393 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Law.
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
An Act relating to stalking and amending Rule 4, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, SPONSOR, spoke in support of
the legislation. He noted that HB 317 would close a
loophole in the Alaska statutes, by allowing unacquainted
victims of stalking to enjoy the security of a judicial
protective order. Current law provides protection to those
in domestic situations and minor children, but enjoins the
victims of strangers from equal protection of the law. HB
317 would allow the victims of stalking to seek and obtain a
protective order in cases of stalking that are not crimes
involving domestic violence. The bill would streamline the
process for public safety and judicial practioners by
harmonizing the warrant and notification procedures to
mirror those already in place for domestic violence
situations. It would add the crime of violation of a child
protective order and of a violation of a stalking protective
order.
JENNIFER ADZIMA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD,
provided a sectional analysis of the bill.
· Section 1. Amends AS 04.11.494(e)(1) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 2. Amends the existing crime of violating
a protective order, AS 11.56.740(a), by adding
violations of stalking protective orders, Sec. 5
of the committee substitute and child protective
injunctions under AS 47.17.069 as alternative ways
to commit the crime.
· Section 3. Amends AS 12.25.030(b) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 4. Amends AS 18.65.530(a) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 5. Amends AS 18.65 by adding new sections
that provide for the issuance of protective orders
in cases of stalking, that are not crimes
involving domestic violence.
· Section 6. Amends AS 18.66.990(3) to provide a
conforming change to the change made in Sec. 2 of
the committee substitute.
· Section 7. Provides notice that Sec. 5 includes an
indirect amendment to a court rule.
Representative Croft questioned why the legislation was
warranted.
Representative Crawford explained that a constituent in his
community was involved with an "unknown" stalker. Current
law only protects those people that are being stalked by
someone that there has been a prior relationship with.
Representative Croft commented that without the legislation,
it puts the person in a situation where they either have had
a relationship with the stalker or waiting until an actual
crime has occurred.
Vice-Chair Bunde inquired the number of people that the
legislation would affect and how many regular restraining
orders are issued each year.
LIEUTENANT JULIA GRIMES, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTEMNT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, clarified that the legislation is
important. She noted that the new version had removed a
requirement for the Department of Public Safety to maintain
the central registry. Lt. Grimes advised how the central
registry facilitates law enforcement in relationship to
violent protective orders. The State knows that the law
enforcement agency in the area where the respondent abides,
is required to enter protective orders within 24-hours.
That entry then becomes the federal registry. The
conditions of the order and/or dismissals of the order,
would be similar to tracking in the central registry and
that the respondents tend to hide from service of those
orders. The central registry provides that when a police
officer attempts to contact a respondent that is trying to
avoid a service, then the action could result in the officer
serving that person and they could no longer avoid that
service.
Lt. Grimes added, an additional benefit would be that the
victims of the orders do not usually carry their papers on
themselves. If there is a registry, it would provide all
the details needed by the law enforcement officers. If
there was a violation, the law enforcement officer would
know the information on the spot. The central registry
definitely enhances the ability of the law enforcement to be
effective in serving the orders and then enforcing them.
Lt. Grimes claimed that without a central registry for
stalking orders, they could then go into absence, as
previously handled. The officers would be alerted because
there would be a note in the system about that person.
Representative Croft questioned why the registry had been
removed.
Lt. Grimes responded that there was a fiscal note for $7,600
dollar included to write the program.
Vice-Chair Bunde addressed the fiscal note and asked the
number of restraining orders that would be run through the
system and how much it would be expanded with passage of the
legislation.
Representative Crawford replied that twenty-two cases
occurred in Anchorage last year. He did not know the
statewide numbers.
TAPE HFC 02 - 85, Side B
Representative Crawford was surprised that that the registry
had been removed.
DIANE SHANKER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA STATE
TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE, offered to
answer questions of the Committee.
Representative Davies asked why there needed to be a
distinction made between domestic and non-domestic in terms
of the programming.
Ms. Shanker explained that the programming was set up to
look like the original court order, which makes the data
easier to view.
Representative Davies understood that would be the best of
all possible worlds, however, he asked if it would be
possible to enter the data into the existing computer
program.
Ms. Shanker replied that would not be possible. The
proposed screen follows the wording of the protective order.
It could still be placed into the computer in the general
text section, but it would not be preformatted and would not
match the court order.
LAUREE HUGONIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, voiced support for the
legislation. She noted that there have been several
situations in which people have needed that type of
protection. She referenced situations of "stalking" and how
it affected residents. At this time, there is only a "snap-
shoot" of protective orders in the registry. Last year,
there were 11,000 orders and to date there has been around
200 emergency orders. It is possible to contact the
Department of Public Safety to provide the number and she
offered to gather that information.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, offered to
answer back ground questions for the legislation. She
understood that the central registry had been removed which
was a cautionary approach to a new type of protective order.
She pointed out that already there is a provision for an
emergency order and for that reason, it was determined not
to be included that in the central registry.
Representative Croft asked about the three different types
of orders:
· Regular
· Ex parte
· Emergency
Ms. Carpeneti advised that emergency orders usually come
after really stressful circumstances and expires in 72-
hours. She added that HB 317 was similar to the Domestic
Violence Protective order statutory scheme but the relief
was limited to restraints from stalking and communication
with the victim or the members of the family. That is where
relief comes from. The domestic violence scheme has much
broader parameters.
Representative Hudson clarified that the emergency
protective order for stalking for a crime not involving
domestic violence was a new element of the proposed
legislation. He asked if the language indicates what will
be required.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the petitioner has to prove that
the stalking has occurred. She noted that stalking is a
complicated statute. It requires that the defendant place
the victim in fear by repeated acts of criminal conduct with
reckless disregard for that fear. She added that the
problem with stalking is that much of the conduct can be
normal. The person has to know that what they are doing is
knowingly placing the victim in a state of fear that the
acts are frightening the victim. A judicial officer issues
all protective orders.
LINDA WILSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, ANCHORAGE,
testified on the bill. She noted that normally the agency
does not support a bill that is in response to a single
case. However, the agency does not have any strong
objections to HB 317. She made suggestions to improve the
bill, referencing Page 5, Section 4, Line 27 that amends the
definition of domestic violence. That language would need
to have the additional qualifier of AS 11.56.740 (a)(1),
because of the redefinition of Section 1. That section
would then become the domestic violence order. She stressed
that it is important to narrow that language.
Ms. Wilson pointed out that on Page 3, Lines 16, the
sentence in question references AS 18.65.850©. There are
three sections listed in that section and the third section
is the one that is problematic. It does not allow ordering
the respondent to stay away from their home, residence or
school, unless they are provided actual notice. By
including all of Section ©, it becomes confusing regarding
what is allowed. She thought that "provided" should be
replaced by "allowed".
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be acceptable to insert
(1) & (2), after AS 18.65.850©.
Ms. Wilson agreed that would work. She pointed out that the
same language occurs again on Page 3, Line 29. She noted
that in an emergency order, only probable cause must be
proven, which is a lesser standard.
Representative Croft asked about the language in the first
part of (3). He thought it would provide problems for the
remaining portion of (3).
Ms. Wilson agreed it was problematic and that changing the
word to "allowed" would avoid that problem. A sub-section
(4) could be added to address that concern.
Representative Croft clarified an alternative recommendation
which would change "provided" to "allowed".
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that "allowed" would be clearer than
the current language. The language in the last half of (3)
modifies and clarifies it.
Co-Chair Mulder asked Ms. Carpeneti about the reference to
Page 5, Line 26, adding AS 11.56.741(a)(1).
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that would be a good change.
Representative Davies proposed to amend Amendment #1, Page
3, Line 16, delete "provided" and insert "allowed"; Page 3,
Line 29, after "protection" delete "provided" and insert
"allowed"; Page 5, Line 27 after "AS 11.56.740" insert
"(a)(1)". (Copy on File).
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the amended
Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. (Copy on
File).
Ms. Wilson stated that the change would make the bill track
the language in the domestic violence protective order
statutes. In that statute, no charge can be implemented and
there can only be a seeking the relief from filing in the
chapter. She added that having that language tracked would
be appropriate. It would also limit the extension for the
filing fee.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to report CS HB 317 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 317 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Law, #2 by the Department of Corrections, #3
by the Department of Administration and a new zero fiscal
note by the Department of Public Safety.
HOUSE BILL NO. 333
An Act extending the termination date of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-Chair Mulder explained the committee substitute would
extend the termination date for the Alaska Regulatory
Commission (ARC) to 2006. It would also provide deadlines
for the Commission to take action on the petitions.
NAN THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA REGULATORY COMMISSION, spoke
in support of the legislation. She commented that the bill
was the product of discussion between herself and the
member's of industry who expressed concerns before the House
Labor and Commerce Committee. She stated that it was a good
effort and fairly represents the productive changes made to
the bill.
Ms. Thompson stated that the committee substitute sets
deadlines for prosecuting different types of cases. It
would allow for exemptions or exceptions to the rule
requiring the agency to explain the exceptions when the
deadlines are not met. She indicated that would provide
more predictability for the industry and accountability for
the agency.
She added that with those tools, the arguments raised in
support of the two-year extension would be weakened. She
claimed that the Legislature would be able to get
information from the Legislative Budget and Audit (LBA)
Committee regularly regarding performance. She noted that
the Regulatory Commission should be spending their time
working on cases.
Ms. Thompson voiced concern having a shorter extension,
which prohibits the agency from being able to hire and
keeping good staff to work. She applauded the four-year
extension recommended by the committee substitute.
Ms. Thompson provided the Committee with the auditor's
updated recommendations. The audit report was approved for
public release in January 2002 and recommends that the
agency be continued for four years. Auditors found that
most of the consumer complaints had been resolved within
thirty days and that most of the tariff filings were
processed within the required forty-five days.
She noted that the Regulatory Commission has begun the
important transitions to the MIS system as requested by the
Legislature. It has been extension successful.
The auditor did have three recommendations:
· The Regulatory Commission should provide small
water and sewer utilities to be certificated or
exempt. The Commission addressed that item at a
recent meeting and asked for industry comments
regarding the scope of exemptions. The industry
has been working on an application to make the
process easier. She noted that they hope to
expand and institutionalize the regulations.
· Adoption of regulations on the roll of the Public
Advocacy section, which was newly created in 1999.
The Commission has regulations that were submitted
by that section and the Commission voted at a
public meeting to put them out for comment. That
process will be concluded after the notice period
has expired.
· Better monitoring publications and notices. She
noted that was a complicated process as the
regulations require that the Commission notice,
however, sometimes the utilities place the notice.
The Commission is working on a way to be able to
keep better track of the notices in the future.
Ms. Thompson offered to answer questions of the Committee
and urged passage of the committee substitute.
Representative Davies referenced Pages 1 & 2, the list of
specific applications. He recommended that "any
application" be inserted.
Ms. Thompson acknowledged that the application terminology
could be confusing. The intent of that section was to grant
applications for renewing utility service and that she would
not object to deleting them. She recommended consulting Mr.
Yould.
Representative Davies pointed out that the substance was
included in the first four sections.
Ms. Thompson explained that the new application would
transfer the amendment. An application requiring a
controlling interest would be similar to a transfer and that
she would not object to deleting #4 & #5.
Representative Davies referenced Page 3 and asked about the
language that had been added.
Ms. Thompson explained that those standards identify whether
the settlement has rates that are "just and reasonable".
The Commission has the obligation to guarantee that the
rates are not discriminatory. Reference to those statutes
requires application of the same general rule.
Representative Croft commented on whether or not to
eliminate #5.
Ms. Thompson responded that deleting #5 would be best as
there are other items that are processed and handled that
could be characterized as applications. That section was
intended to address the authority to offer new service, if
competition was expanded. The alternative to delete, as
recommended by Representative Davies, would be the best.
Representative Croft mentioned that current language leaves
it open to the unintended consequences and that it needs to
be fixed. He pointed out that Page 3, Section 2, would
allow them the opportunity to approve a settlement, which
meets certain legal standards without having to base it on
recorded facts.
Ms. Thompson acknowledged that was true, however, the
sponsors of the amendment are attempting to allow more
flexibility for the Commission. The complaints are that
they would have to go through the same "standards of proof"
that they would at a hearing in order for it to be approved.
In the course of settling, sometimes they compromise and if
they were forced to put in the evidence, they could not be
able to agree. She pointed out that would undermine the
terms of the settlement. The concern of the Commission is
that there is enough for the record that would not undermine
their efforts for settlement. It is important to have
enough of a record to use as a basis. The language
represents a compromise that would allow the Commission to
do what it needs to do in order to decide things that are
important.
Representative Croft agreed that concern was valid, however,
asked if it was fair to the other unrepresented public
parties.
Ms. Thompson agreed commenting on the difference between the
Commission and the Court when the settlements are approved.
Often what occurs happens is a conflict between two
utilities. It is the work of the Commission to look at the
interest of the industry and the public so that both are
protected. That is why it is important that the Commission
not approve just any settlement. The Court could have
different interests. It is important that the settlement be
consistent with the statute which protects other interests.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT committee substitute #22-
LS1289\F, Craver, 4/16/02, as the draft before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
ERIC YOULD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA RURAL ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (ARECA), ANCHORAGE, testified in
support of the legislation. He noted that all of the
utilities associated with ARECA work closely with the Alaska
Regulatory Commission (RCA). In 1999, the Legislature
changed the regulatory Commission of Alaska and through SB
133, the Legislature recreated the current form. At that
time, when the statutes were moving through the Legislature,
ARECA took it seriously. He acknowledged that the current
form of the bill is significantly better than it was before.
Mr. Yould voiced his concern with how long it takes to "get
things done". He pointed out the caseload backlog, which is
frustrating to the industry. He pointed out that the
Legislature had authorized nine new positions to the
Commission to address that backlog. A year later, five new
positions were authorized. As of January 2002, with all the
new cases coming in, there still remains 608 that are
unaddressed.
He added that the time-lines that have been proposed are
achievable. At the same time, the current time-lines
provide a standard that RCA can work with. He reiterated
that ARECA supports the proposed time-lines. The only thing
that ARECA does not agree with in the bill is the portion
that extends the sunset of 2006. He added that ARECA's
Board of Directors believe that it is important to bring
them back before the Legislative Body in 2004.
Representative Davies referenced Page 2, Line 3, and asked
if Mr. Yould would object to deleting that language.
Mr. Yould agreed that it was appropriate to delete it.
DANA TINDALL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
GCI, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the legislation.
She noted that GCI was active in the legislation that
created RCA. Ms. Tindall stated that no utility is in favor
of letting the Commission sunset. Once an order is issued,
the industry is free to appeal to a higher court. The four-
year sunset extension would be a compromise. She mentioned
that GCI would like to see the sunset extended to 2010.
Every sunset provides an opportunity for amendments. Ms.
Tindall voiced support for the committee substitute.
TAPE HFC 02 - 86, Side A
Ms. Tindall noted the importance for the State to have a
Regulatory Commission. Without RCA, there would be no one
to enforce consumer issues, pointing out that in the
telephone industry, there are many consumer issues.
Competition creates many issues that need to be negotiated
by RCA. Without that entity, the consumers will suffer.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Ms.
Tindall noted that GCI supports the Committee substitute and
the reauthorization of RCA. She urged that the bill be
passed from Committee. She added that GCI does not object
to the deletion of subsection 5.
JIM ROWE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
(ATA), ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the legislation.
He commented that the Commission was comprised of ethical
individuals and is a professional group of people. This
year, telephone companies in the State received around $72
million dollars for services. Each year, there should be a
State Commission to declare that the companies requesting
the funding are eligible tele-communication carriers. They
also have to declare that the companies are utilizing that
funding in a way that it should be utilized. He spoke in
support of the committee substitute.
Representative Croft asked when the expiration date should
be.
Mr. Rowe responded that he would like to see a four-year
sunset date.
Representative J. Davies MOVED an amendment to Page 2, Line
3, deleting the language "(5) any other application required
or permitted under this chapter." There being NO OBJECTION,
the amendment was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED an amendment to Page 1, Line
3, inserting "to June 30, 2006", after the word "date".
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment was adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 333 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 333 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by Department
of Community & Economic Development.
HOUSE BILL NO. 498
An Act expressing legislative intent regarding
privately operated correctional facility space and
services; relating to the development and financing of
privately operated correctional facility space and
services; authorizing the Department of Corrections to
enter into an agreement for the confinement and care of
prisoners in privately operated correctional facility
space; and providing for an effective date.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT committee substitute
#22-LS1345\O, Luckhaupt, 4/16/02, as the working draft
before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Representative Harris advised that a State operated facility
had been added in Bethel to the Yukon Kuskokwim Center, and
that the Whittier facility would be reduced to 1000 beds.
The amended bill consists of those two changes and would
move forward as a compromise with the Administration.
Representative Harris believed that the amended bill would
be "stronger" than the original version. He pointed out
that Bethel was supportive of the proposed change and would
address needs throughout the State.
Representative Davies questioned the land status material.
JIM KUBITZ, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA RAILROAD
CORPORATION (ARRC), explained that it would consist of a
long-term lease and that there would be a master lease with
the City of Whittier. He pointed out that there is an
agreement in place regarding how to proceed with Whittier.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to report CS HB 498 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying new fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CS HB 498 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with new fiscal notes by
the Department of Corrections and the Department of Revenue.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:13 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|