Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/12/1996 03:03 PM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE March 12, 1996 3:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair Representative Gary Davis Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Caren Robinson Representative Tom Brice Representative Al Vezey MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 93 "An Act relating to the duty-free mealtime for teachers in certain school facilities." - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 474 "An Act relating to violations of municipal ordinances and regulations; and amending the definition of the jurisdiction of the superior court and the Department of Health and Social Services over delinquent minors to add a further exclusion from that jurisdiction for a minor's violation of a municipal ordinance or regulation that is punishable as an infraction or violation, and making a related technical amendment to that jurisdictional definition." - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 480 "An Act relating to physician assistants, including the treatment of their services under group health insurance policies." - PASSED CSHB 480(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 528 "An Act relating to applications for certificates of need and licensing of nursing homes; amending the standard of review for certificates of need for health care facilities in the state; establishing a moratorium with respect to new applications by prohibiting the issuance of a certificate of need or a license for additional nursing home capacity in the state until July 1, 1998; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 465 "An Act relating to employment of teachers and school administrators and to public school collective bargaining." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 512 "An Act establishing English as the common language and related to the use of English in public records and at public meetings of state agencies." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 451 "An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 93 SHORT TITLE: TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/18/95 69 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/18/95 69 (H) HES, FIN 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/27/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 474 SHORT TITLE: VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES & REGS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Kelly JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/07/96 2648 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/07/96 2649 (H) CRA, HES, JUDICIARY 02/28/96 2944 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY 02/29/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 03/07/96 (H) CRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124 03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 03/08/96 3024 (H) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 4NR 03/08/96 3025 (H) DP: IVAN 03/08/96 3025 (H) DNP: ELTON 03/08/96 3025 (H) NR: MACKIE, AUSTERMAN, VEZEY, KOTT 03/08/96 3025 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, DCRA, DPS) 03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 480 SHORT TITLE: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/09/96 2686 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/09/96 2686 (H) HEALTH,EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES 03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 528 SHORT TITLE: NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/26/96 2884 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/26/96 2884 (H) HES, FINANCE 03/07/96 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3743 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 93 CARL ROSE, Executive Director Association of Alaska School Boards 316 West 11th Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510 Telephone: (907) 586-1083 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director NEA-Alaska, Inc. 114 Second Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3090 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93 DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief Anchorage Police Department 4501 South Bragaw Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: (907) 786-8552 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474 BOB BAILEY, Member Board of Directors Anchorage Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 91598 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Telephone: (907) 279-3511 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474 DIANE WORLEY, Director Division of Family & Youth Services Department of Health & Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 474 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney Legislative Legal and Research Services Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street, Suite 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 474 MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney City of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Telephone: (907) 343-4545 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474 WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Gene Therriault Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 421 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4797 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 480 JEANNE CLARK 479 Slater Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-4117 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 480 KIM DUKE, Researcher Representative Mark Hanley House Finance Committee Capitol Building, Room 507 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-6872 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 528 CHRISTINE CULLITON Juneau, Alaska Telephone: (907) 463-6131 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 528 JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner Department of Health & Social Services P.O. Box 110601 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601 Telephone: (907) 465-3030 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 528 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-24, SIDE A Number 001 The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 3:03 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Robinson and Rokeberg. Members absent Representatives Davis and Brice. HB 93 - TEACHER DUTY-FREE MEALTIME Number 120 JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor, said House Bill 93 eliminates the time designated in the middle of the day as duty-free mealtime. It allows that teachers be provided with one-half hour duty-free mealtime, but removes the time designation "between 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m." in current statute so there is more flexibility for school districts to determine when it's possible to give the duty- free mealtime to teachers. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVES GARY DAVIS and TOM BRICE joined the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Number 170 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON thought there had been some discussion at the last meeting about leaving the designated hours in the legislation and inserting language which would indicate something to the effect "unless the union could work out another agreement." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there had been an amendment presented for her perusal which would have allowed the teachers 30 minutes between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., but allowed for other arrangements to be made. It appeared to her that if they were going to be allowed to make other arrangements, there was no point in having the 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. time designation. She believed that unions have the opportunity to make that arrangement with the students districts currently. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired why the bill was needed if they can already do that. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded they can't do it unless the time designation is removed. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if a person shouldn't be given an opportunity to eat between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. in most cases? REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believed that everyone should be allowed to have some duty-free mealtime, but she doesn't believe it belongs in statute. If she had her way she would delete it, because she believes the unions have the opportunity to negotiate this at the local level. She would not want to deprive anyone of duty-free mealtime, she just doesn't think it belongs in state statute. She is, however, willing to leave the provision in the statute, if the time designation can be deleted. Number 341 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, testified in support of HB 93. School districts need to be more innovative due to the increased mandates and HB 93 allows flexibility at the local level. For example, if a school is thinking about double shifting, the time lines set forth in statute are a major obstacle and HB 93 would provide some latitude. Number 397 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Inc., said NEA had offered an amendment to the sponsor which provided that other times could be prescribed as the bargaining unit and the school would agree to. He felt that would address some of the current issues in many school districts, including the Fairbanks problem. He understood there were teachers eating lunch after 1:00 p.m. in the Fairbanks district because the teachers and the Fairbanks School District agreed at the local level to deal with the issue in such a way. He said HB 93 sets aside the 30 minutes that is finite in the time period, and he thought the amendment would give the school districts the latitude to deal with the issue, and give employees an opportunity for a lunch period within a reasonable period of time. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if NEA-Alaska had drafted the amendment in the committee packets? MR. MARSHALL replied that NEA-Alaska offered the language "between such other hours as the two groups could agree to" which he felt in effect memorialized in state law what many districts are currently doing. It wouldn't be a disruption or cause a lot of anxiety for people who had some concern about what time they actually would have lunch if the time designation was deleted. He believed the amendment addresses the issue in the spirit of involving people in the decision and accommodates a scheduling problem, if one exists. Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected for the purpose of moving the amendment. She made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON believed the amendment would allow there to be an understanding that most lunches would be 30 minutes during the time period of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. but could be allowed at other times if agreed upon by the school district and the teachers. She felt this was a win/win situation in that it would address the situation in the Fairbanks School District and also give teachers a pretty good understanding of when they would have a lunch break. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he was not going to support the amendment because of the persuasive arguments of the sponsor. Number 693 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he didn't see any reason for the amendment in that everyone has equal opportunity to eat when they want or to negotiate, if desired, over when they want to eat. The amendment limited that to some degree. Number 738 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked how lunch schedules were established for teachers and if it was a set time so they could plan their lunch time? If so, to what degree could that time be changed by the administration and how often? CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that his wife's lunch time was established by the school. He added that different schools have different lunch times, but he assumed they were all established at the local level. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if a teacher could take a 15-minute break in the morning and another 15-minute break in the afternoon and call that 30 minutes of duty-free mealtime? Number 847 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said the language in the amendment sounds as if there is no confidence in local school districts. He didn't agree with that and didn't see any reason why the local school districts and school boards should be handcuffed anymore than they already are. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to Representative Brice's question regarding the two 15-minute breaks, and said although the language does not state a contiguous 30 minutes, it does say "a mealtime." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that larger school districts like Anchorage have various starting times for their schools because of the utilization of the buses. He supports the bill because it allows school districts the flexibility in managing schools that start and end at different times during the day. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt Amendment 1. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Brice and Robinson. Voting against the motion were Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 93 out of committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected and asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion to pass HB 93 out of committee were Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Rokeberg and Davis. Voting against the motion were Representatives Bunde, Brice and Robinson. Co- Chair Bunde announced that HB 93 had passed out of the House HESS Committee. HB 474 - VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES & REGS Number 1004 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY, Sponsor, said it is known that the juvenile justice system has had some great problems for a long time. Too often young offenders are finding there is no meaningful consequences for their delinquent behavior. This is particularly true for those who commit minor offenses since the justice system is already overwhelmed with serious offenders. Knowing this, juvenile offenders have become increasingly dangerous and blatant regarding their offenses since they know the overloaded system can do very little to them. House Bill 474 would allow municipalities to respond to less serious juvenile behavior by expanding its jurisdiction to include the ability to subject juvenile offenders to civil infractions and/or misdemeanors. This would allow the juvenile justice system to focus on the more serious criminal activity, while assuring that juvenile offenders of less serious offenses receive more immediate consequences for their action. This bill is supported by the Municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce. She noted there were three zero fiscal notes and announced that Mary Hughes from the Municipality of Anchorage was available on teleconference to address the bill, Jack Chenoweth, Division of Legal Services, was available to answer questions, Deputy Chief Duane Udland from the Anchorage Police Department and Bob Bailey from the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce were also on teleconference to testify. Number 1114 DUANE UDLAND, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified he believed HB 474 would help the Anchorage Police Department address juvenile problems early on. It deals with minor infractions that kids commit that currently are not being handled by the juvenile justice system. The sooner kids are dealt with and know there are consequences for their actions, the better off the community will be. He said he normally testifies before the legislature requesting that legislation not be passed that has an impact on the community as an unfunded mandate; however, in this particular case, he is testifying that the Municipality of Anchorage is willing to help relieve some of the burden on the state as far as juvenile prosecution is concerned. There have been a number of concerns expressed about this bill in both the Senate and House as to who should be in control of juveniles, the cities or the state. He said if the state was able to handle all these cases, they wouldn't be asking for jurisdiction to prosecute these minor offenses, but the fact is the state does not have the resources. Those resources seem to be more limited as time goes on, particularly as the system gets overcrowded with more serious offenders. It is their intent to set up a hearing officer concept with a maximum fine of $300, with the child going before the hearing officer with the parents and the issue is dealt with at the local level as opposed to being sent to juvenile intake, where historically, juvenile intake has not dealt with it because of their workload. He said that concern had been expressed about the record keeping and that records would get lost because cities would be doing one thing and the state would be doing another. He suggested that police departments be required to notify juvenile intake of any enforcement action taken, which could be easily done and something they were willing to do. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Deputy Chief Udland. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how this system would work in relation to the different types of diversion programs like youth courts for example? DEPUTY CHIEF UDLAND said he didn't think those decisions had been made yet. They were very interested in the youth court concept, it had the backing of the mayor's office and the assembly, and they are looking forward to working out the details as to what offenses would go before the youth court as opposed to what would go before a hearing officer. It is the intent of the Anchorage Police Department to fully support the youth court. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that when this bill was heard in the Community and Regional Affairs, it was stated that up to 50 percent of the juveniles who have committed minor offenses slip through the cracks because nobody wants to handle them. They are not hard core criminals; they are kids that know they can get away with it, because no one wants to bother with them. Number 1308 BOB BAILEY, Member, Board of Directors, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, testified that he is also the co-chair of the Chamber's Crime Prevention Committee. He said several months ago, the Municipality of Anchorage brought a package of legislation before the Chamber's Crime Prevention Committee to address law enforcement problems in their city and state. Early on in the meeting process, it quickly became apparent that juvenile crime is a serious problem in Anchorage. Due to the lack of jurisdiction however, the city has been helpless to address the problem. He said there are juveniles who actually shoplift intentionally at Dimond Center in south Anchorage, so they can get a free ride downtown with the police department, knowing full well that juvenile intake is too busy to do anything. He commented that HB 474 certainly doesn't solve the problem of juvenile crime, but allows the local municipalities to use their resources to the first line of defense. It has been shown time and time again that juveniles will commit crimes because they know they won't be prosecuted. When they get away with it once, they have no hesitation to offend again. While fines certainly don't deter serious criminals, the Chamber's Crime Prevention Committee and the business community in Anchorage strongly feel that a fine may stop a juvenile first time offender from becoming a repeat offender if they realize there are indeed consequences for their actions. Mr. Bailey stated the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce board of directors passed a resolution supporting HB 474 and urged its passage out of committee. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions of Mr. Bailey. Hearing none, he asked Diane Worley to come forward to testify. Number 1400 DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services, testified the department is opposed to HB 474, but agrees with the concept. She said the department realizes that something needs to be done early on with kids inasmuch as their workload prevents them from intervening with early juvenile violations, but they have concerns with the process and a number of related issues. One of the department's main issues is the automatic waiver of juveniles to adult court; district court is adult court, not juvenile court. It opens a whole new area and she felt it was something that needed to be looked at in a very comprehensive approach with the entire juvenile justice system. The department also has concern that when municipalities have the ability to set their own ordinance violations, depending upon what community picks which violations, children and youth will receive disparate treatment. For example, in one community they could go to district court, in another community there may be nothing, yet in still another community, they may go into the juvenile justice system. She also expressed concern about the parameters of a municipal ordinance. MS. WORLEY further stated the department has concern about the Division of Family & Youth Services receiving notification. For example, if a child had received 10 citations and had gone to district court 10 times for those various violations, and then committed a more serious crime and came into the DFYS system, it would be considered a first time offense, not the 11th offense. She felt there needed to be a process whereby the whole scope of the youth's activity is looked at. Number 1540 MS. WORLEY stated another concern is if a child in the DFYS probation system goes to district court for a violation, the division won't hear about it. In a sense, the juvenile has broken their probation, but the division wouldn't receive notification of it because the child would have gone through a different system. She concluded that a number of the department's concerns are system type problems they would like to have considered. She reiterated the department supports the concept and would like to have more immediate consequences for juveniles' activities, but it is the department's belief these issues can be addressed through the juvenile process if they really work at them. She added the department would like to see many of these issues wait for the recommendations of the Governor's Conference on Youth & Justice so a comprehensive approach can be put together. Number 1600 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented the bill drafter, Mr. Chenoweth was available for questions. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired which of the communities with ordinances, would actually be able to utilize this legislation. She thought that Kodiak had done away with their city ordinances so everything could be charged at the state level. Number 1642 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said that any municipality has the authority to draw ordinances and enforce them. There is a general provision in the law that allows them to penalize up to $1,000 and 90 days jail time, which is stated on page 2, lines 2-3. This legislation tries to get at conduct that a municipality chooses to punish only by imposition of a fine with no jail time or no other stigma or punitive element attached. It was done that way so it would be defined as a minor offense, as that term is understood in the district court rules and should prevent the court system from having to give the defendant a trial by jury or to supply the defendant with court-appointed counsel or counsel at public expense. Neither of those requirements attaches to a minor offense. He said the Municipality of Anchorage had asked for a bill that would allow them to charge more conduct criminally so they could take over the disposition, and that did not require the municipality to provide a trial by jury or court-appointed counsel. Mr. Chenoweth believed that had been accomplished. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if municipalities would only charge for misdemeanors and would not be able to charge for felony offenses. MR. CHENOWETH said the penalty referred to in the legislation, the $1,000 and 90-day imprisonment which is the maximum for municipalities, is the equivalent of a class B misdemeanor. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked about the disparity issue in terms of constitutionally. For example, one community could charge a juvenile through the adult system, while another community could charge a juvenile through the juvenile system. MR. CHENOWETH did not believe there was any protection argument that necessarily attaches. He used the example of littering where it is so bad in one municipality they may decide to address it in a municipal ordinance and impose a fine of not to exceed $300. Another community may decide it is not a problem and not have any ordinance for littering whatsoever. If a juvenile is engaged in littering and charged, he/she would be charged under the state statute, if there is one and prosecuted, or if appropriate, handled through the adjustment and disposition process of the DFYS. The fact that some municipalities have in some cases stepped in and taken responsibility for prosecution but other municipalities haven't, doesn't particularly raise an equal protection issue. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it would be the responsibility of the municipalities to bear the associated costs. MR. CHENOWETH responded in the normal scheme, municipalities would have to pick up the cost of enforcing their own ordinances. For about the last two years, Anchorage has used its authority as a home rule municipality, and instead of criminalizing a lot of the conduct that many people regard as appropriate for enforcing through a criminal ordinance, they made the violation of those activities a civil matter and prosecuted before their own hearing officers. In other words, they have internalized it, kept it out of the court system and put the representation of the civil action before their own hearing officers. Also, the enforcement of a judgment given by the hearing officers is handled by their own hearing officers. He commented that he had no idea if it had been successful or not, but in the early discussions of HB 474 and how it would be used in Anchorage, there was some indication the municipality would expand upon the civil enforcement model they have and perhaps make use of that. If they do, there would probably be less demand on the DFYS system because there would be fewer referrals of minors and probably little or no demand on the court system because it would all be internalized within the Anchorage court hearing system. Number 1890 MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, City of Anchorage, stated that Mr. Chenoweth's comments were correct. She added that Deputy Chief Udland had alluded to the fact that if this bill passes, it was the intent of the Municipality of Anchorage to make these civil infractions and the entire process would be handled in-house. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the disparity issue and asked Mr. Chenoweth if different community standards were recognized by the courts. MR. CHENOWETH responded the courts will enforce the ordinance as it comes to them. He explained that Anchorage is a unified municipality, but in the Fairbanks area there are at least three jurisdictions, the borough, the city of Fairbanks and the city of North Pole, and all three may decide to address the same issue. There may be three separate defendants, one prosecuted by the borough, one by the city of Fairbanks and one by the city of North Pole. The judge will take each ordinance as it is written and will look at the circumstances under which the person is being prosecuted. It doesn't necessarily have to be uniform either in the definition of the offense or in the penalty attached, if the court finds the individual guilty. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is nothing that speaks to public disclosure of juveniles in the legislation. He asked if there were any conflicting statutes? MR. CHENOWETH said the theory of the legislation is that if a minor commits a minor offense in a municipality that has chosen to establish an ordinance and prosecute under the ordinance, the municipality would present the matter before the district court instead of having an automatic referral of the matter through the DFYS system. The fact that the minor appears before the district court means the minor is in open court and those records are public records. The legislation is drafted in such a way that the minor would be prosecuted as an adult. Through a prosecution in the district court of an ordinance of this kind, that information could become public. The record itself would be treated as the court records are, but the fact that the minor was in front of a judge or a jury is something that might appear in the newspaper the next day. Number 2026 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that attempts have been made in the past to address the juvenile disclosure issue but as soon as the child becomes a child in need of aid under the DFYS system, the federal government does not allow the records to be disclosed. In effect, if the prosecution of these juveniles is kept out of the DFYS system, the access to records is allowed. MR. CHENOWETH said in the last two hearings on the bill, he had not heard any objection from the DFYS to the release of the information. While he personally has not gone back to fit this legislation into the federal act referred to by Co-Chair Bunde, he felt the DFYS would have cited that as one of the objections to this approach. He commented this takes the theory of traffic offenses, which municipalities may now bring before the district court, and expanding it to other things that municipalities may decide they want to enforce as criminal actions. Number 2087 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to the concern expressed by the DFYS regarding the lack of notification of repeat offenders who have been before the court a number of times and asked Mr. Chenoweth if this legislation could be amended to require municipalities to notify the DFYS. MR. CHENOWETH responded yes, he thought it would be a good idea. If it is critical for DFYS or any other state agency to have this kind of information, then there should be a requirement that a report or the outcome of the offense be submitted to DFYS, released to DFYS upon request, or whatever is felt would not be so onerous as to discourage the municipalities from taking advantage of this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she wanted to ensure that if there is a need for intervention, the division has some level of power to intervene for such things as treatment, counseling, etc. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought that if a youth was being tried in adult court by a municipality, the information would be public and available to the DFYS. Number 2209 DEPUTY CHIEF UDLAND thought it would be easy enough to do inasmuch as the police department has an excellent relationship with the division and youth intake. Even if it is not inserted in statute, he thought it could be worked out with juvenile intake to ensure that information is exchanged. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed her desire that it be in statute. Number 2260 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, said it was difficult to take a position of opposition to the bill because the goal to have swift consequences and early intervention for children who disobey the law is a good one. However, the department does oppose it. There is no oversight in the bill as to what ordinances a municipality could adopt. While shoplifting may be an area of concern to Anchorage, if a person is tried in adult court for shoplifting, that person would receive an adult record. That would be an unequal situation compared to a person outside the municipality of Anchorage who would be tried as a juvenile and not receive an adult record. Although page 2, lines 14-16, state there should be no consequences beyond that of a fine, a child would end up with an adult record and if it's for a violation such as shoplifting, the conviction would be for an offense involving dishonesty and would make it more difficult to get a job, into the military, etc. As a matter of fact, there would be consequences to receiving an adult record. MS. CARPENETI said generally the department opposes automatic waiver of juveniles to adult court, except for the most serious offenses, because the mission of juvenile justice is early intervention for children to guide them away from committing more crimes. The argument presented by Ms. Hughes that the waiver would be to a civil process is not specified in the bill. If a child is waived to district court for a minor offense, the child will receive a fine, but there would be no supervision of the child because there is no probation supervision in district court in our state. There would be no probation officer to try to help the kids. TAPE 96-24, SIDE B Number 001 MS. CARPENETI continued to explain there is no restitution provided for victims, which means the court would not have the power to order restitution for a conviction for shoplifting. In conclusion she said the Governor's Commission on Youth and Justice was established to address difficult issues such as this. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned which ordinance would supersede which in a situation where there was a borough and a city government. MS. CARPENETI wasn't certain, but she assumed the child would be charged under the law of the authority that arrested or stopped the child. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if she thought the bill could be amended to allow for restitution. MS. CARPENETI said that was an interesting question. The legislation was trying to cover offenses that don't give rise to the right of court-appointed counsel and a jury trial. There was a possibility of authorizing the court to order restitution, depending on the amount. Number 123 MS. HUGHES said it would be the preference of the municipality of Anchorage not to include any type of restitution in the bill. The reason for the current language was to avoid any of the criminal prosecutorial concerns for the defendant in a criminal process. She said with regard to the issue of shoplifting, nothing would change inasmuch as there is no restitution now. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further testimony on HB 474. MS. HUGHES stated she would like to testify at this time. She said HB 474 is fundamental as far as she is concerned, particularly with respect to the juvenile crime issue. As is evidenced from the Public Safety Partnership Program packet furnished to committee members, the municipality of Anchorage believes the long term approach to the juvenile issues Anchorage is currently facing is to put together a task force, as the Governor has done, and look at every aspect of how juvenile crime is handled, including the authority of the DFYS to handle a particular juvenile crime. The municipality applauds the Governor's efforts in that respect; however, situations still have to be handled in the interim. Even though the task force has set their goal as September to come out with some type of overhaul of the juvenile code, she is expecting this process to extend far beyond September. She said one of the things this particular provision does is allows the city to handle certain criminal conduct under the same code as the city's own littering and loitering type conduct. In essence, these juveniles, many of whom never even get into the system now, can at least be fined on site for their crime. As Deputy Chief Udland indicated, the municipality is willing to take on some responsibility and see if it will help get a handle on the situation. MS. HUGHES further stated she did not believe there was any problem with the equal protection, primarily because many local governments within the state handle varied matters differently and as long as it doesn't rise to the standpoint of an equal protection argument. She also believes that depending on how it is decided to handle certain offenses, it is possible the Anchorage Police Department can report to the DFYS, if deemed necessary, or the hearing officer could provide information with respect to civil fines for various conduct. With respect to the repeat offender concept, Ms. Hughes said that no one knows who the repeat offenders are now, because they don't even get into the DFYS system. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Hughes if going to court and being treated as if the crime was very serious would be considered as intervention. MS. HUGHES said it has been the city's experience that it is a form of intervention. They also have used juvenile's mediation with the victim, which has been very successful. She believed that attention being paid to the act was very important because the juveniles feel they can get away with their activities with no consequences. Number 467 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what happens if a child doesn't pay the fine? Would they be sent to adult court, sent to prison or given another ticket? MS. HUGHES said she thought it would be handled on the civil side, as it is currently. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood there could be imprisonment up to 90 days based on the language on page 2, lines 2-3. MS. HUGHES said the municipality may by ordinance prescribe a penalty not to exceed $1,000 or 90 days imprisonment, but the municipality doesn't do that. They would provide a penalty of $300 as is currently done and no imprisonment. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her concern was that if a decision was made to imprison the child, where would they go and who would pay for it. While page 2, line 12, says that a person charged with a violation is not entitled to appointment of a public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense, what about the person who has money available for counsel? MS. HUGHES said a person could be represented by counsel in front of a hearing officer. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if her interpretation was correct that a person who doesn't have money wouldn't be able to use a public defender or other counsel. MS. HUGHES said the stature of this particular infraction is such that it doesn't call into question the use of a public defender. Currently, the (indisc.) the misdemeanor in the municipality of Anchorage, and prosecute them all. The municipality pays for their own public defender and is considered within their current system. If an infraction rises to the point that a public defender is required under the law, then one would be appointed and the municipality of Anchorage would pay for it. CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that page 2, line 4, clearly states that a violation cannot result in incarceration. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented this does not deal with serious criminals; it's the spray paint kids and the infractions so minor that no one wants to deal with them, including the DFYS. She suggested the municipality of Anchorage work with the Division of Family & Youth Services and the Division of Legal Services in resolving these issues. Number 725 MS. WORLEY asked to clarify the issue of imprisonment raised by Representative Robinson. A concern she forgot to address in her testimony was if a child does not pay the fine, the judge can file a contempt of court, and the child could be sent to the local youth facility for a certain number of days. This could impact the overcrowding situation, particularly in Anchorage at the McLaughlin Youth Facility. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there was a mandatory jail time for contempt of court fines? MS. WORLEY said she didn't know if it was mandatory. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any other public testimony. Hearing none, he closed public testimony. Number 781 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass HB 474 out of committee with zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected. Based on the discussion he believed there had been a consensus that an amendment should be considered to include a requirement that notice be passed on to the DFYS. CO-CHAIR BUNDE believed testimony had indicated that notice would be given to the division. He asked the sponsor, Co-Chair Toohey to address that issue. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like for the Division of Family & Youth Services, Ms. Carpeneti, Mary Hughes and Deputy Chief Udland to come up with an amendment that could be introduced in the Judiciary Committee, which is the next committee of referral. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections to moving HB 474 from committee. Hearing none, it was so ordered. HB 480 - PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS Number 855 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the next bill to come before the committee was HB 480. He asked Representative Therriault's Legislative Assistant to come forward to address the bill. WILDA WHITAKER, Legislative Administrative Assistant, said Representative Therriault's top priority was Sections 1, 2 and 3 of HB 480. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to adopt Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey to speak to her amendment. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she totally supported the basis for the bill, which allows a physician assistant (PA) to have their nomenclature made simple. Apparently there are some insurance companies that will not pay physician assistant fees because the statute indicates that physician assistants are registered rather than licensed. Her concern is with Section 4, which allows a physician assistant to receive physician fees. It as her belief that it would be irresponsible for the legislature to pass a bill allowing a physician assistant to collect and bill at the same rate as a physician. She acknowledged that physician assistants are needed, but they should not be allowed to charge the same rate as a physician. It is her belief that Section 4 should be totally deleted from the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the information in the bill packet regarding the Blue Cross federal insurance issue. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY explained that in some cases Blue Cross federal insurance would not reimbursement for physician assistants, but the nomenclature change in Sections 1, 2 and 3 would address that problem. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives Davis, Rokeberg, Vezey, Toohey and Bunde. Voting against the amendment were Representatives Robinson and Brice. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it had been brought to his attention by a constituent that phlebotomist should be added to the list of people authorized under Section 3, lines 17-18, to draw blood. He wondered if phlebotomists were certified differently than the other categories listed, or if there was some reluctance to include phlebotomist? MS. WHITAKER responded it was her understanding this referred to withdrawing of blood for a test under AS 18.15.300 - 18.15.320 which dealt with blood tests for persons charged with sex offenses. She understood that a phlebotomist draws blood as a therapeutic measure, so for the purpose of AS 18.15.300 - 18.15.320, a phlebotomist did not fit into that category. Number 1171 JEANNE CLARK testified via teleconference that Ms. Whitaker was correct. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had before them House Bill 480, as amended. He asked for the wishes of the committee. Number 1198 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved to pass HB 480, as amended with zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. HB 528 - NURS.HOME MORATORIUM/CERTIFICATES OF NEED Number 1251 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this bill had been heard in committee previously and she had two amendments to distribute to committee members. Co-Chair Toohey moved to adopt Amendment 1. Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey to explain Amendment 1. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she is requesting the language in Section 2, page 2, line 19 be changed from "may" of the original language to "shall" with a specific moratorium so a specific plan can be established at the end of two years to address the existing concerns. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment returned the language to the original language. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY raised an objection. He didn't understand why the committee wanted to make it mandatory that the Administration approve every request for a new facility. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Kim Duke to respond to Representative Vezey's question. Number 1442 KIM DUKE, Researcher to Representative Mark Hanley, House Finance Committee, explained there were different items the Department of Health & Social Services had to take into consideration before a recommendation was approved and Section 2 expands that so the statewide financial need for additional beds would also be considered. She added that Representative Hanley is not opposed to the amendment, as written. CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained the amendment would reflect existing statute and it had been determined that hospitals or nursing homes can't be built without a certificate of need. MS. DUKE said, "Right. They have expanded language in this area to take other -- language is expanded to allow the department, if they find a lack of available health care resources in this state, and also take into consideration services that are more cost effective, which is the point of this whole bill, is to allow the department time to explore more community based services and this will be one of the considerations they have to take into -- before they approve a CON (Certificate of Need). It expands that." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that several years ago Project Choice came to Alaska, which allowed senior citizens to go into community nursing assisted living care in lieu of a nursing home. The cost of assisted living care is $13,000 per year, whereas a bed in a nursing home is $80,000 per year. This legislation expands the assisting living services in the communities. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he still didn't understand why the use of "shall" was better than "may." MS. DUKE said she believed the nursing association was concerned that once all the requirements were met, the department still had leeway to not approve their certificate of need. She believed with the expansion of the criteria, there would be enough restrictions before they are required to approve a CON (certificate of need). REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY disagreed. He explained the use of "shall" would give people a position to sue the state for not funding a program. There are all kinds of need, but there's the question of a lack of money to fund all of the needs. MS. DUKE say there is a requirement to take into consideration the state and federal financing available for these services before determining that a certificate be granted. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY didn't see where a lack of funds is grounds for saying the need doesn't exist. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor to adopt Amendment 1 were Representatives Robinson, Davis, Rokeberg, Toohey and Bunde. Voting against the adoption of Amendment 1 were Representatives Brice and Vezey. CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Amendment 1 had been adopted. He asked Co-Chair Toohey to explain Amendment 2. Number 1745 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY stated that Amendment 2 establishes a working group to study the issues and report on long-term care. The Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Association and the Department of Health & Social Services felt there were some major concerns that needed to be addressed as this is a large growing segment of our population. The department has assured there would be no cost for the working group. The report would be worked on during the interim and delivered to the legislature by the first day of the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature. At the end of two years when Sections 1 and 3 sunset, it is hoped that some of the questions and concerns can be answered. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a reason why no one from the legislature was involved in the working group. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY responded there was no particular reason. Number 1851 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would like to consider an amendment to the amendment by changing "1998" to "1997". He commented that last year there was a long range fiscal planning group that accomplished a lot of work in one year. He assumed there were statistics and data already available, so he felt the group could have their work completed in a year. Representative Davis made a motion to amend the amendment by changing the date in the title from July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1997. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented she had no objection to the amendment to the amendment. CO-CHAIR BUNDE inquired if there was any objection to Amendment 2. Hearing none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1985 CHRISTINE CULLITON testified her daughter, Courtney, was born in Alaska 11 years ago, before home and community based services were available. What was available to her family was to divorce, (indisc.) institutionalize or give their daughter up to foster in order to get Medicaid benefits to keep her with them. The family ultimately ended up in bankruptcy trying to keep Courtney in their home, but she ended up in an institutional setting. As a result of OBRA 87, her daughter was able to come back to the state of Alaska, but not to their home. Courtney was what Ms. Culliton considers to be one of the victims of a hospital association bed. The money was tied up in that bed and her cost in the institution was $178,000 for one year of care. Because there were no home and community based services available, Courtney went into foster care in Alaska, which cost the state $57,000 per year, and kept her out of her home and away from the family that loved her. After three years of being in foster care, the family found out that Courtney is terminally ill. Courtney and her family lost the opportunity to be together as a family during the four years she spent in a hospital bed and state money went to hospital bed services. Ms. Culliton remarked that she sat on Project Choice from the conception of the project and helped with the TEFRA Option. When she hears and sees what community based services are currently doing in the state, she brims with pride. She encouraged the committee to support this bill for a two-year moratorium. She commented the state of Alaska has only had the opportunity for home and community based services for two years, the first of which was a rough year because it was a new philosophy for the state. She agreed with Mr. Knudson's comment made a few days previous that this issue has made friends from opposite sides of the fence. She said it's unfortunate because ultimately the goal for everyone is to look out for the best interest of individuals in the state and how best to meet those needs. She asked committee members to walk the two blocks up and two blocks over to St. Ann's Nursing Home and ask anyone of the individuals in the beds if that was their choice. If they had been given the opportunity to stay in their home with their loved ones and receive community based services, would they have chosen that bed? Of course the answer would be no. Ms. Culliton said not one of us is more than a walk across the street away from needing home and community based services or an institutional bed, if that's all that is available. Given the reductions proposed by the House to home and community based services and the administrative costs that have been proposed, in addition to looking at this certificate of need bill, people like her daughter will be forced back into institutional care, and the cost will not just be monetary. She encouraged the committee to allow the state to continue with the success currently experienced with home and community based services. Courtney has been living at home for two years and is receiving the services she needs at a cost to the state of less than $30,000 per year. TAPE 96-25, TAPE A Number 001 MS. CULLITON continued to not allow that moratorium, to have the certificate of need continue, to have those beds be built, will reduce adult funding for services under Medicaid. She commented that adults in the state have already taken a severe reduction in dental, vision, physical therapy and other services from the optional listing in the face of budget reductions. It's disheartening to see those services removed and to think of spending money for a facility that will not support the people in their homes and communities. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify and again urged the committee to pass the bill. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Jay Livey to come forward to testify. Number 152 JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health & Social Services, said he understood the effect of Representative Davis' amendment to Amendment 2 was to change "1998" to "1997" on line 1 of the amendment, which changes the date in the title of the bill. He said Section 5 of Amendment 2 sets the time of the subcommittee's report back to the legislature as the first day of the Twentieth legislature, which is next January. He believed that what Representative Davis wanted to accomplish with his amendment to the amendment, was already done in Amendment 2. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said with the committee's permission, the amendment to the amendment would be withdrawn, and the committee would have then adopted Amendment 2 unamended. According to Deputy Commissioner Livey's testimony, the amendment moves the report up to the Twentieth Legislature, which is next January. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought the amendment was to move the period of moratorium from two years to one year. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was his intent. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had already adopted Amendment 2, as amended and he assumed Representative Davis would object to removing his amendment to the amendment. Number 307 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "My desire was to have -- I think the study group when it comes back with its report, would have any basis for establishing this statute - this bill. If the bill is valid and there is a concern and the study recommends an extension to another year as initially indicated in the bill - they wanted a two-year moratorium - I want a one-year moratorium with the understanding that the working group is going to go out and analyze the situation as it stands now which will then verify the need for this legislation. If it says yes, we need this protection from additional expenses, then we would come back and extend the moratorium at that time. That was my intent. That's what I see the task of the working group is to determine whether there is a need for this legislation for two years." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Livey to comment. Number 415 MR. LIVEY said the department believes a two-year moratorium was more reasonable for what was trying to be accomplished, which is to create an atmosphere where more home and community based services can develop. That will more likely occur if individuals know that for two years there is a moratorium and during those two years work will be done on developing a home and community based system, instead of a one-year moratorium with maybe a second year. It was the department's desire that the two-year moratorium be retained. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented it was her understanding the goal was to look at the big picture regarding long term care. She asked if Mr. Livey perceived that the working group would determine if there was a need for a two-year moratorium? MR. LIVEY responded the purpose of the working group was to determine the number of individuals who could be served in the community or in a nursing home, what the relative costs were between the home and community based services and the nursing home and to do some long term planning that would predict where individuals would have to go in the system as they get older. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the department would need to come back before the legislature in order to go to a one-year moratorium if the working group decided the need for a two-year moratorium did not exist. MR. LIVEY thought it would depend on how Section 4 of the current bill was rewritten, because Section 4 contains the moratorium language and states that the moratorium will survive until July 1, 1998. Number 618 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that for the information of the committee, some committee members thought the amendment changed one date, but a more significant part of Amendment 2 had been changed. Therefore, the committee needed to move to rescind Amendment 2, then rescind amending Amendment 2, if desired. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that he agreed with Representative Davis on going back to July 1, 1997, because it would require the next legislature to address the issue. He believed it would benefit the long care system if discussions continued and that plans to move ahead in this area should be based on need and cost, as well. He thought a one-year moratorium was the appropriate way to go. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed with Mr. Livey's argument for wanting two years to pursue long term care and assisted living alternatives, but Representative Davis thought it could be done in one year. He pointed out that with Amendment 2 in place, the date in Section 4 would need to be changed to July 1, 1997. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 to change the date in Section 4 to July 1, 1997. CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted it was a clarifying amendment. An objection was raised. Number 810 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood Section 4 was the two- year moratorium section, so Amendment 3 would change it to a one- year moratorium. CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified the amendments. The date of the report back to the legislature was amended in the amended Amendment 2. Amendment 3 reduces the moratorium from two years to one year. A vote against Amendment 3 is a two-year moratorium with an interim report to the legislature. A vote for Amendment 3 is a one-year moratorium with a one year report to the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked when the report would be coming to the legislature? It was his understanding that it changed back to the original language of the first day of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature, so there would be 120 days in which to act to extend the moratorium. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said as the bill exists currently, the report will be provided on the first day of the Twentieth Legislature, but the moratorium will still exist for two years. If Representative Davis' amendment is adopted, the report would be due to the legislature on the first day and the moratorium would cease on the first day. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interjected on July 1. CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that was correct; it would be July 1, 1997. Number 913 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said to further complicate matters, if the amendment is voted down, they would need to go back and fix the title, because they had amended it in Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON repeated her earlier question of whether or not the department could lift the moratorium without legislative action. Number 974 MR. LIVEY asked Representative Robinson to clarify her question. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the bill is left as it currently exists with the report coming back in one year and working group decides a two-year moratorium is not what should be done, can the department lift the moratorium on their own at that point? MR. LIVEY said it was understanding, based on committee action taken, the department could not grant a moratorium or license a long-term care bed until July 1, 1997. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON interjected her question was based on the bill as it currently exists, and based on his response she assumed it would be July 1, 1998, instead of July 1, 1997. MR. LIVEY responded that was correct. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the moratorium is in effect until 1998 as the bill exists right now, with the second amendment. The effect of Amendment 3 would be a report in one year and the moratorium would last for one year. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked where does it state that the moratorium would sunset in July 1, 1997. CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied in Section 4. He asked if committee members were clear on Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied no. Amendment 2 was adopted by the committee so Section 4 is now Section 6 in the original bill. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "So now we revert back to Amendment 2 which says in Section 5, `Section 4 of this Act is repealed on the first day of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature.' So what calendar date would that be?" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he did not like that. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "Mr. Chairman, we need to relate the actual date of the First Regular Session of the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature with July 1, 1997." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it should be July 1, 1997? REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded affirmatively. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS withdrew Amendment 3. CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted without objection, it was so ordered. Number 1140 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out the new Section 6 needed to read July 1, 1997. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2 of Amendment 2, and said Section 5 of the Amendment should be amended to read, "Section 4 of this Act is repealed on July 1, 1997." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the new Section 4 is the study group. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested the committee review the legislation before any further action is taken. CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public discussion and announced he was placing HB 528 in a study group headed by Co-Chair Toohey. ADJOURNMENT CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education & Social Services Committee at 5:00 p.m.