Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/07/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                          April 7, 1993                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                   
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Cliff Davidson                                                
                                                                               
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  HB 122    "An Act eliminating a requirement that a court                     
            consider the findings and recommendations of a                     
            neutral mediator when awarding shared child                        
            custody."                                                          
                                                                               
            PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION                           
                                                                               
  HB 119    "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a                 
            sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of                    
            imprisonment on a defendant convicted of a                         
            misdemeanor; directing the Alaska Supreme Court to                 
            develop and implement a day fine plan; requiring                   
            the Department of Corrections to report to the                     
            legislature on the use of day fines; amending                      
            Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; and                          
            providing for an effective date."                                  
                                                                               
            CSHB 119 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                           
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 65     "An Act relating to the improvement of state                       
            finances through reduction of operating costs of                   
            certain state agencies and establishment of                        
            certain fees; and providing for an effective                       
            date."                                                             
                                                                               
            CSHB 65 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                            
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 128    "An Act relating to early acknowledgement of                       
            paternity for the child of an unmarried mother."                   
                                                                               
            CSSSHB 128 (HES) PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL                        
            RECOMMENDATIONS                                                    
                                                                               
  SB 105    "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers and to                   
            agents for motor vehicle buyers; and providing for                 
            an effective date."                                                
                                                                               
            CSSB 105 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                           
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 188    "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain                          
            property; and providing for an effective date."                    
                                                                               
            NOT HEARD                                                          
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  CHRIS CHRISTENSEN                                                            
  Staff Counsel                                                                
  Alaska Court System                                                          
  303 K Street                                                                 
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  Phone:  264-8228                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported HB 122                                        
                                                                               
  ART SNOWDEN                                                                  
  Administrative Director                                                      
  Alaska Court System                                                          
  303 K Street                                                                 
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  Phone:  264-0547                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported HB 119                                        
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Court Building, Room 601                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-4947                                                             
  Position Statement:  Prime sponsor of HB 119                                 
                                                                               
  CHERYL FRASCA, Director                                                      
  Division of Budget Review                                                    
  Office of Management and Budget                                              
  Office of the Governor                                                       
  P. O. Box 110020                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-4681                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65                                         
                                                                               
  MARY LOU MADDEN, Assistant Director                                          
  Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education                                 
  Department of Education                                                      
  P. O. Box 110505                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-6744                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65                                         
                                                                               
  DONALD G. STUDY, Acting Director                                             
  Division of Labor Standards and Safety                                       
  Department of Labor                                                          
  P. O. Box 20630                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  Phone:  465-4855                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65                                         
                                                                               
  SHARON BARTON, Director                                                      
  Division of Administrative Services                                          
  Department of Administration                                                 
  P. O. Box 110208                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-2277                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65                                         
                                                                               
  DAVID STEPHENS, Chief                                                        
  Planning Operations/Services                                                 
  Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation                                     
  Department of Natural Resources                                              
  P. O. Box 107001                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska 99510                                                      
  Phone:  762-2653                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65                                         
                                                                               
  JANICE ADAIR, Assistant Commissioner                                         
  Department of Environmental Conservation                                     
  410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-5010                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65                                         
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel                                            
  House Judiciary Committee                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 120                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-6841                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained HB 65 and SB 105                              
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS                                                  
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Court Building, Room 600                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3875                                                             
  Position Statement:  Prime sponsor of HB 128                                 
                                                                               
  JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide                                                
    to Senator Robin Taylor                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 30                                                       
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3873                                                             
  Position Statement:  Explained SB 105                                        
                                                                               
  STEVEN ALLWINE                                                               
  Alaska Auto Dealers                                                          
  8725 Mallard Street                                                          
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  789-1386                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported SB 105                                        
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 122                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES                                       
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   JUDICIARY                                                      
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act eliminating a requirement that a court                        
  consider the findings and recommendations of a neutral                       
  mediator when awarding shared child custody."                                
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/03/93       215    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/03/93       215    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY                                   
  03/17/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/17/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/19/93       703    (H)   HES RPT  8DP  1NR                                
  03/19/93       704    (H)   DP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS, BUNDE,                       
                              OLBERG                                           
  03/19/93       704    (H)   DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,                   
                              BRICE                                            
  03/19/93       704    (H)   NR: KOTT                                         
  03/19/93       704    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE  (COURT)                       
                              3/19/93                                          
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 119                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES                      
  BILL VERSION: CSHB 119(JUD) AM                                               
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,B.Davis,Davies,Brown,                 
  Larson                                                                       
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a                    
  sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of imprisonment                 
  on a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor; directing the                     
  Alaska Supreme Court to develop and implement a day fine                     
  plan; requiring the Alaska Court System to report to the                     
  legislature on the use of day fines; amending Alaska Rule of                 
  Criminal Procedure 32; and providing for an effective date."                 
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/03/93       214    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/03/93       215    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,                        
                              FINANCE                                          
  03/11/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/11/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/12/93       611    (H)   STA RPT  3DP  3NR                                
  03/12/93       611    (H)   DP: ULMER, B.DAVIS, KOTT                         
  03/12/93       611    (H)   NR: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS                       
  03/12/93       611    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (COURT)  3/12/93                   
  03/12/93       611    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE  (LAW)                         
                              3/12/93                                          
  04/05/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/06/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 65                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT.                        
  BILL VERSION: CSHB 65(FIN)                                                   
  SPONSOR(S):   RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to licenses, certificates, and                       
  permits administered and fees charged by the Alcoholic                       
  Beverage Control Board, the office of public advocacy, the                   
  Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, the Department                 
  of Fish and Game, the Department of Labor, the Alaska Police                 
  Standards Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and                  
  the Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to                    
  the administration of the state insurance catastrophE                        
  reserve account; relating to the provision of group life or                  
  group health insurance for state employees; authorizing the                  
  Department of Natural Resources to accept certain donations                  
  for parks and recreation; relating to fiscal reporting and                   
  accounting by the Department of Administration; extending                    
  the suspension of certain tax credit provisions; and                         
  amending Alaska Rule of Probate Procedure 16(d); and                         
  providing for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/15/93        75    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/15/93        75    (H)   L&C, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,                   
                              FINANCE                                          
  01/15/93        75    (H)   -8 FNS(2-DEC, 2-DHSS, LABOR,                     
                              DNR, DPS                                         
  01/15/93        75    (H)   ADM)  PUBLISHED 1/15/93                          
  01/15/93        75    (H)   -5 REVENUE FNS(DPS, 2-LABOR, 2-                  
                              DOE)1/15                                         
  01/15/93        75    (H)   -5 ZERO FNS (3-ADM, LABOR, REV)                  
                              1/15/93                                          
  01/15/93        75    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  02/01/93       201    (H)   -REVISED FN  (DNR) 2/1/93                        
  02/08/93       251    (H)   -CORRECTED FN (DNR)  2/8/93                      
  02/09/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/09/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  02/11/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/23/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  03/01/93       478    (H)   L&C RPT  CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 3DP                   
                              1NR                                              
  03/01/93       478    (H)   DP: PORTER, SITTON, GREEN                        
  03/01/93       478    (H)   NR:  HUDSON                                      
  03/01/93       479    (H)   -REVENUE FN (DPS) 3/1/93                         
  03/01/93       479    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE  (ADM) 3/1/93                  
  03/01/93       479    (H)   -7 PREV FNS (2-DEC, 2-DHSS,                      
                              LABOR, DPS                                       
  03/01/93       479    (H)   ADM) 1/15/93   PREV FN (DNR)                     
                              2/8/93                                           
  03/01/93       479    (H)   -5 PREV REV FNS(DPS, 2-LABOR, 2                  
                              -DOE)1/15                                        
  03/01/93       479    (H)   -5 PREV ZERO FNS(3-ADM,LABOR,                    
                              REV) 1/15/93                                     
  03/12/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/16/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/16/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/20/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/23/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/23/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/24/93       754    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA)  NEW TITLE                      
                              3DP  4NR                                         
  03/24/93       755    (H)   DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS                       
  03/24/93       755    (H)   NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS, G.DAVIS,                     
                              KOTT                                             
  03/24/93       755    (H)   -14 PREVIOUS FNS (SEE ABOVE)                     
  03/24/93       755    (H)   -6 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (SEE                        
                              ABOVE)                                           
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 128                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  EARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY                             
  BILL VERSION: SSHB 128                                                       
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Toohey                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to early acknowledgement of                          
  paternity for the child of an unmarried mother."                             
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/05/93       235    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/05/93       235    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  03/08/93       569    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-                   
                              REFERRALS                                        
  03/08/93       569    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  03/15/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/15/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/16/93              (H)   HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/17/93       691    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY                             
  03/17/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/17/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/19/93       704    (H)   HES RPT  CSSS(HES) 6DP 2DNP 1NR                  
  03/19/93       704    (H)   DP: G.DAVIS, BUNDE, B.DAVIS,                     
                              NICHOLIA                                         
  03/19/93       704    (H)   DP: TOOHEY, BRICE                                
  03/19/93       704    (H)   DNP: KOTT, VEZEY                                 
  03/19/93       704    (H)   NR: OLBERG                                       
  03/19/93       705    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (DHSS)  3/19/93                    
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 105                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS & BUYERS' AGENTS                         
  BILL VERSION: HCS CSSB 105(JUD) AM H                                         
  SPONSOR(S):   SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Duncan; REPRESENTATIVE(S)                    
  Phillips                                                                     
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers and to                      
  agents for motor vehicle buyers; and providing for an                        
  effective date."                                                             
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/08/93       284    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/08/93       284    (S)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                      
  02/25/93              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM                  
                              203                                              
  02/25/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  02/26/93       501    (S)   L&C RPT  1DP 4NR                                 
  02/26/93       501    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                           
  03/10/93              (S)   JUD AT 02:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  03/10/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/11/93       736    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  2DP 2NR      SAME                   
                              TITLE                                            
  03/11/93       736    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS                   
                              (DPS)                                            
  03/15/93              (S)   RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM                  
                              203                                              
  03/15/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/16/93       824    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3/16/93                       
  03/16/93       826    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/16/93       827    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  03/16/93       827    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FAILED                    
                              Y11 N9                                           
  03/16/93       827    (S)   THIRD READING NEXT CALENDAR                      
  03/18/93       851    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 105                    
                              (JUD)                                            
  03/18/93       852    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN                  
                              CONSENT                                          
  03/18/93       852    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN                        
                              CONSENT                                          
  03/18/93       852    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                   
  03/18/93       852    (S)   PASSED Y18 N- E2  CSSB 105(JUD)                  
                              AM                                               
  03/18/93       853    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS                      
                              PASSAGE                                          
  03/18/93       858    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF                                
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  03/18/93       858    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  DUNCAN                            
  03/18/93       858    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY  UNAN                    
                              CONSENT                                          
  03/18/93       859    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18                    
                              N- E2                                            
  03/18/93       859    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS                      
                              PASSAGE                                          
  03/18/93       864    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/19/93       702    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/19/93       702    (H)   JUDICIARY                                        
  03/19/93       717    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):  PHILLIPS                      
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 188                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY                                 
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;                   
  and providing for an effective date."                                        
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/01/93       489    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/01/93       490    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/01/93       490    (H)   -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,                      
                              LAW) 3/1/93                                      
  03/01/93       490    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  04/05/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/06/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-56, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to                 
  order at 2:10 p.m., on April 7, 1993.  A quorum was present.                 
  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would address                   
  HB 122 first.                                                                
                                                                               
  HB 122:  CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES                                            
                                                                               
  Number 028                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,                       
  stated that the House Judiciary Committee had introduced                     
  HB 122, at the request of the Supreme Court.  He said that                   
  the bill was a very simple, non-controversial piece of                       
  legislation.  He commented that in 1988, the legislature had                 
  directed the court system to investigate potential benefits                  
  of mediation.  A task force was formed, he added, and issued                 
  a report in 1990.  The report recommended a change, which                    
  was contained in HB 122, he said.                                            
                                                                               
  MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that present statutes required that                    
  the court, when determining whether or not to grant shared                   
  custody of a child, consider among other things, the                         
  findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator.  House                   
  Bill 122, he stated, would eliminate that requirement.  He                   
  said that the task force had concluded that this particular                  
  requirement endangered the mediation process and ran counter                 
  to the view that mediation proceedings should be kept                        
  confidential.                                                                
                                                                               
  MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that the present accepted view of                  
  mediation did not envision a mediator making recommendations                 
  about the resolution of a dispute, should mediation                          
  terminate without an agreement.  The mediator's role, he                     
  added, was to guide parties to a mutual decision, not to                     
  impose a decision on them, even in the form of a                             
  recommendation.                                                              
                                                                               
  MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed his opinion that when the statute                  
  in question was first drafted, the terms "arbitration" and                   
  "mediation" had been confused.  An arbitrator, he said, was                  
  supposed to listen to both sides of a dispute, and then make                 
  a recommendation to the parties or a judge.  A mediator,                     
  however, was supposed to help two parties come to a mutual                   
  agreement.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 090                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND commented that a requirement                     
  that the court merely consider the findings of a mediator                    
  did not seem like a huge imposition.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 098                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that the problem was that the                        
  statute required the court to consider a list of things, one                 
  of which it was not appropriate to consider.  An ethical                     
  mediator, he noted, would not make a recommendation.  He                     
  said that current law confused both mediators and judges.                    
                                                                               
  Number 115                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that current law set up an                   
  impossible task.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 122                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 122                  
  out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero                 
  fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 119 next.                                                                 
                                                                               
  HB 119:  AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES                           
                                                                               
  Number 153                                                                   
                                                                               
  ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,                   
  mentioned that his agency had researched day fines and                       
  written a report on them.  He said that the concept of day                   
  fines was not new, particularly in Europe, but was new to                    
  Alaska.  He noted that HB 119 envisioned using fines, rather                 
  than incarceration or other sanctions, as punishment for                     
  certain non-violent misdemeanors.  He said that day fines                    
  were based on both the seriousness of a crime and the income                 
  of the offender.  He added that day fines were the primary                   
  penalty used in Germany, Sweden, and other European                          
  countries.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 168                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN noted that the Court System believed using day                   
  fines would have several advantages.  Unlike incarceration,                  
  he said, fines would generate revenue for municipalities and                 
  the state.  Also, he said, fines would be inexpensive to                     
  administer, compared to jail time or other sanctions.                        
  Additionally, fines were already used in some form in most                   
  courts, he said, so the additional burden of day fines would                 
  be small.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 183                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN indicated the Court System's support for HB 119.                 
  He stated that it currently took the Court System eleven                     
  months to get a misdemeanant into jail in Anchorage, due to                  
  prison crowding.  He said that such unsure punishment would                  
  not deter anyone from doing anything.  He said that the                      
  judicial system was frustrated in trying to carry out the                    
  laws passed by the legislature.  However, he said that the                   
  judicial branch felt that not every crime demanded                           
  incarceration.                                                               
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN mentioned that the use of day fines was being                    
  experimented with in several counties in the United States.                  
  He said that Alaska was facing a prison crisis, and should                   
  look into using day fines.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 237                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 119, stated                   
  that the bill would provide an additional option to                          
  sentencing judges.  She said that day fines would be used                    
  for misdemeanors other than crimes against a person.  She                    
  noted that one rationale behind HB 119 was to get money                      
  flowing into the treasury, instead of out of the treasury                    
  and into the correctional system.  She mentioned the current                 
  bed shortage in Alaska's prisons, and said that ten out of                   
  twelve of the state's prisons were full.  The state had to                   
  do many things to relieve the pressure, she said.  The                       
  imposition of day fines was one of those things, she stated.                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that European countries had                   
  employed day fines for years.  Those countries incarcerated                  
  less, and had stiffer fines than the United States did, she                  
  said.  She commented that day fines would teach individuals                  
  that crime did not pay.  She questioned whether                              
  rehabilitation was accomplished by incarcerating an offender                 
  for several months.  She expressed her opinion that day                      
  fines were especially appropriate for non-violent, first                     
  offenders.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 302                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN believed that day fines would have                  
  a deterrent effect.  However, he expressed concerns about                    
  how day fines would work for unemployed or cyclically-                       
  employed offenders.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 312                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER thought that day fines would work,                      
  regardless of when a person was employed.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 321                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Snowden to address what would                 
  happen if a welfare recipient received a day fine.                           
                                                                               
  Number 325                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN responded that day fines were so named because                   
  they were tailored to a particular individual's income.  The                 
  current system imposed similar fines on offenders for                        
  specific offenses regardless of their ability to pay.                        
  Consequently, he said, many fines now went unpaid.  He said                  
  that for welfare recipients, community service could be                      
  performed, in lieu of a monetary fine.                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that the Court System's study                 
  of day fines found them to be effective, even for low-income                 
  offenders.                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked Representative Ulmer if                   
  the state had attempted to implement a day fine program in                   
  the past.                                                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied in the negative.                                
                                                                               
  Number 352                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND thought that day fines were a good                   
  idea.  He expressed his opinion that static fines were                       
  ineffective.  He questioned whether the Court System would                   
  be able to collect the day fines.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 363                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN noted that the Court System was currently not                    
  very successful in its efforts to collect fines.  Many                       
  people were unable to pay fines, he said, especially when                    
  they were incarcerated.  He said that the Department of Law                  
  now employed an attorney whose job it was to collect fines                   
  of over $250.  He noted that some day fines would definitely                 
  fall into that category.  Additionally, he said that the                     
  Court System was attempting to impose "electronic                            
  executions," whereby fines of even less than $250 could be                   
  paid through electronic transfers, reducing collection                       
  costs.                                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN believed that the Court System would be more                     
  successful in collecting day fines than it currently was in                  
  collecting other types of fines.  He commented that in one                   
  study, researchers had found that 85% of day fines were paid                 
  in full, compared with 70% of other types of fines.  He                      
  hoped, if the day fine experiment worked, in the future non-                 
  violent class C felonies might be added to the list of                       
  crimes covered by day fines.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 404                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that day fines                 
  were a very good idea.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 409                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER called the committee's attention to a                   
  PROPOSED AMENDMENT, dated March 10, 1993, included in their                  
  bill packets.  She said that the amendment would try to                      
  address a concern that the legislature was giving too much                   
  latitude to the Court System in devising the day fine                        
  system.  The amendment would create a two-tiered day fine                    
  system, to reflect class A and class B misdemeanors.  She                    
  commented that she was willing to leave creation of the                      
  program up to the Court System's discretion, but she did not                 
  oppose adoption of the amendment.                                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER noted that the amendment addressed                      
  questions raised by the Legislative Affairs' Agency's                        
  Division of Legal Services.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 434                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN stated that the Court System supported the                       
  amendment.  He said that any new pilot project should have                   
  strict guidelines, which could be loosened in the future.                    
                                                                               
  Number 440                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated March                   
  10, 1993.  There being no objection, the AMENDMENT WAS                       
  ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 452                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Court System would be precluded                 
  from employing other sanctions, if it chose to use day                       
  fines.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 456                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN hoped day fines would be used as a primary                       
  penalty, but said that the Court System would not be                         
  precluded from employing other sanctions as well.                            
                                                                               
  Number 467                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that a day fine would be an                   
  option for a judge, and part of a long list of sentencing                    
  options.  She stated that if the day fine option was chosen,                 
  it was envisioned as a "stand alone" sentencing choice, as                   
  opposed to being in addition to another type of sentence.                    
                                                                               
  Number 480                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER understood that day fines were intended to                   
  serve as an alternative to jail time.  He could, however,                    
  see day fines working in concert with community work                         
  service.                                                                     
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said that such a combination would not                  
  be precluded.                                                                
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN commented that other types of fines would not be                 
  precluded, either.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 487                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed concerns about imposing day fines                  
  on "youthful offenders," aged 18-25.  He commented that in                   
  many cases, parents paid fines for these youthful offenders.                 
  He asked if the Court System could assess such situations                    
  and make day fines commensurate with a parent's income,                      
  instead of the youthful offender's.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 495                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN did not know the answer to the Chairman's                        
  question, but suspected that the Court System could not                      
  impose a day fine commensurate with a parent's income in                     
  that situation.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 510                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that HB 119 required that                  
  fines be paid within 180 days of their imposition.  He                       
  commented that, for very large fines, 180 days was a pretty                  
  short period of time.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 518                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN replied that the Court System wanted the day                     
  fines to "hurt."  Spreading a fine out over a longer period                  
  of time would make it hurt less, he said.                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 119 (JUD)                    
  out of committee, with individual recommendations and                        
  attached fiscal notes.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 532                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that HB 119 required the                           
  Department of Corrections (DOC) to submit an annual report                   
  on the day fine system.  He asked why the DOC was being                      
  asked to submit the report.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 538                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied that the Court System might be                  
  a more appropriate agency to write the report.  She also                     
  suggested requiring that the first report be filed two years                 
  from the bill's enactment, instead of one year, as it would                  
  take some time for results to be known.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 548                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN agreed with changing the reporting agency from                   
  the DOC to the Court System and delaying the date of the                     
  first report until two years after enactment of HB 119.                      
                                                                               
  Number 553                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER OFFERED A CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT making those                  
  two changes.                                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER and MR. SNOWDEN expressed their                         
  support.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 555                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT.  There being no                 
  objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any problem with the                 
  amendment showing 365 day units as a possible fine which                     
  needed to be paid within 180 days.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 568                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN replied that, in his opinion, the language did                   
  not present a problem.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 571                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that Representative Green was                      
  referring to the formula used for calculating day fines.                     
                                                                               
  Number 579                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 119                       
  (JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual                         
  recommendations and attached fiscal notes.  There being no                   
  objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                                
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 65 next.                                                                  
                                                                               
  HB 65:  FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT.                              
                                                                               
  CHERYL FRASCA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE                   
  OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB), OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,                      
  commented that when the governor's office was working on the                 
  budget, a number of different departments suggested                          
  repealing out-of-date statutes and changing certain fee                      
  amounts.  She said that HB 65 pertained to many different                    
  state agencies.  She called the members' attention to a                      
  sectional analysis in their bill packets.  She stated that                   
  the bill had been heard by the House Labor and Commerce                      
  Committee and later the House State Affairs Committee.                       
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA urged the committee to return to the House Labor                  
  and Commerce version of the bill.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 632                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that Ms. Frasca explain                    
  HB 65, section by section.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 646                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA first referred to sections 1-32 of the House                      
  State Affairs Committee substitute for HB 65, which related                  
  to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board.  She said                     
  that currently liquor licenses were issued annually.  House                  
  Bill 65 proposed to change that so that licenses would be                    
  issued biennially.  The change, she said, would result in                    
  the ABC board's workload evening out.  License fees would be                 
  doubled, she noted, because they would only be issued every                  
  two years.  The bill did not increase the license fees, she                  
  added.  She indicated that she was not requesting the                        
  committee to make any changes to these sections of the bill.                 
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA then addressed sections 33-35 of the House State                  
  Affairs Committee's version of HB 65.  She said that those                   
  sections would allow the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to                  
  charge fees for public guardian services, based on an                        
  individual's ability to pay.  The OMB was not requesting any                 
  change to these sections, either, she noted.  She stated                     
  that section 36 was also added by the House State Affairs                    
  Committee.  Currently, she said, receipts from the sale of                   
  fish and game licenses were deposited into the fish and game                 
  fund.                                                                        
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA added that vendors were then paid for the sale of                 
  the licenses from the general fund.  Section 36 provided                     
  that the fish and game fund both received the proceeds from                  
  license sales and be used to make payments to vendors.  The                  
  OMB was requesting no change to this particular section, she                 
  said.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 680                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concerns with section 36,                     
  from an accounting standpoint.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 686                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that each vendor kept $1 from the sale of                  
  every fish and game license.  Accounts were adjusted                         
  quarterly, she added.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 694                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued to express concerns with the                  
  program's budgeting and accounting procedures.                               
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that the effect of section 36 was simply                   
  to change the fund source from the general fund to the fish                  
  and game fund.  She said that she would have a                               
  representative from the Department of Fish and Game contact                  
  Representative James to discuss the matter further.                          
                                                                               
  Number 707                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED to section 36, for accounting                  
  reasons.  She called the accounting "deceptive."                             
                                                                               
  Number 718                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the ability to discern the                       
  difference between vendor payments and revenues still                        
  existed.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 720                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman, but said that                 
  expenses taken out of the proceeds were not recognized in                    
  the budget process.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 727                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA noted that the House State Affairs Committee had                  
  eliminated two sections from HB 65, which authorized the                     
  Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) to                       
  assess a 1% loan guarantee fee.  This, she said, would help                  
  to offset losses resulting from student loan debt                            
  cancellation due to the death, disability, or bankruptcy of                  
  the student.  She asked the House Judiciary Committee to                     
  reinsert these provisions.  She said that the provisions                     
  were estimated to generate approximately one-half of the                     
  revenues lost every year by the ACPE.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 738                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the ACPE had not set the                   
  fee at an amount commensurate with the anticipated losses.                   
                                                                               
  Number 745                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARY LOU MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ACPE, said that because                 
  the ACPE historically had charged no fees at all, it was                     
  felt that a 1% fee would be fair.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 753                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that she would like to see                 
  the section reinstated.  She added that the ACPE should be                   
  notified that if it wished to increase the fee at a later                    
  date, it should alert the legislature.                                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what the House State Affairs                           
  Committee's rationale for deleting the section had been.                     
                                                                               
  Number 759                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA replied that there had been no discussion on the                  
  matter.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 762                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that it was standard                       
  operating procedure for loan funds to include a fee to cover                 
  losses.  She said that it was responsible of the ACPE to                     
  institute the 1% fee.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 767                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Phillips                     
  that most loan programs implemented a fee to cover losses.                   
  However, she said, student loans were very small, and every                  
  dollar counted.  In that light, she said, it was unfair to                   
  make students who paid back their loans pay for those who                    
  did not.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 775                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. MADDEN commented that students could increase the amount                 
  of money they requested from the ACPE, in order to cover the                 
  cost of the 1% fee.  She pointed out that federal student                    
  loan programs instituted a 6% fee to cover losses.                           
                                                                               
  Number 792                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA commented that sections 39-43 in the House Labor                  
  and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 contained a                        
  similar 1% fee provision, but for other programs operated by                 
  the ACPE.                                                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections                  
  36-38 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version                  
  of HB 65.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                      
                                                                               
  Number 795                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if recipients of loans addressed                  
  in sections 39-43 of the House Labor and Commerce                            
  Committee's version of HB 65 could also increase the amount                  
  of their loans to cover the cost of the 1% fee.                              
                                                                               
  MS. MADDEN replied in the affirmative.                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 39-                 
  43 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of                    
  HB 65.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                         
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-56, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA called the members' attention to sections 44-46                   
  of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of                       
  HB 65, which had been deleted by the House State Affairs                     
  Committee.  She asked the committee to reinstate all three                   
  of the sections.  Those sections pertained to the Department                 
  of Labor's (DOL's) ability to adopt regulations to establish                 
  fees for the issuance of certain certificates.                               
  Additionally, she said, the sections would change the time                   
  cycles for issuing the certificates.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 020                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that section 44 would allow the DOL to set                 
  a fee for administering examinations and processing                          
  applications for special boiler and pressure vessel                          
  inspector commissions.  Currently, she said, there was no                    
  charge for these services.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 028                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN PROPOSED an AMENDMENT to section 44,                    
  but subsequently WITHDREW it after he realized that his                      
  amendment did not pertain to the section under discussion.                   
                                                                               
  Number 068                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA mentioned that the DOL currently issued plumber                   
  and electrician certificates for one or three years, as                      
  provided in statute.  Section 45, which was deleted from the                 
  House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, would give                 
  the DOL the authority to set the time period by regulation.                  
  The DOL's intent was to issue the certificates every two                     
  years, she said.  The effect of reinstating section 45 would                 
  be to even out the revenues taken in by the DOL, she noted.                  
                                                                               
  Number 082                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification of the effect                   
  of reinstatement of section 45.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 102                                                                   
                                                                               
  DON STUDY, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND                  
  SAFETY, DOL, stated that reinstatement of section 45 would                   
  even out the flow of program receipts into the DOL.                          
                                                                               
  Number 122                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to compare the change                  
  proposed in section 45 with the change made to the ABC                       
  licensing procedures.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 124                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA commented that section 46 of the House State                      
  Affairs Committee substitute to HB 65 provided for a phased-                 
  in implementation of the ABC license provisions, so that                     
  revenues would flow evenly into the general fund.                            
                                                                               
  Number 136                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the House State Affairs                    
  Committee had deleted sections 44-46.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 140                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY did not have any idea why the sections had been                    
  deleted.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 143                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT indicated that, as a member of the                  
  House State Affairs Committee, he knew that many of the                      
  changes made to HB 65 were part of a policy to limit the                     
  agencies' regulatory authority.  Members of the House State                  
  Affairs Committee had expressed concern that agencies might                  
  establish unreasonable fees for certain services.                            
                                                                               
  Number 165                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that specific dollar and                       
  percentage amounts were included in HB 65, thereby limiting                  
  the latitude granted to the agencies.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 176                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that there was a philosophical debate                      
  regarding whether fees should be set in statute or by                        
  regulation.  Recent trends had been to establish fees by                     
  regulation, she said.  She noted that the regulatory process                 
  included public participation.  She said that it was up to                   
  the House Judiciary Committee to decide whether fees should                  
  be set by regulation or in statute.  She noted that the                      
  Senate Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65                       
  established the fees in statute.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 195                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY commented that, if the committee decided to set                    
  fees in statute, a transition period should also be provided                 
  for in statute.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 205                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported phasing in programs, as it                    
  would level out workloads and revenue flows.  She mentioned                  
  that setting fees in statute would make it more difficult to                 
  change those fees later.  On the other hand, she said, the                   
  legislature did not have the authority to repeal                             
  regulations.  Until that happened, she was inclined to                       
  establish fees in statute.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 223                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Frasca to explain what the House                   
  State Affairs Committee had done to sections 44-46.                          
                                                                               
  Number 226                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA replied that the House State Affairs Committee                    
  had deleted everything.                                                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the Senate's version of HB 65                    
  set fees in statute.                                                         
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA noted that DOL Commissioner Charles Mahlen had                    
  submitted proposed language for the committee's                              
  consideration.                                                               
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY commented that the AMENDMENT would put language                    
  into HB 65 that was nearly identical to language included in                 
  the Senate version of the bill.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 265                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment would allow the                    
  DOL to set fees by regulation.                                               
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that the first amendment in Commissioner                   
  Mahlen's submission appeared to be similar to section 44,                    
  which enabled the DOL to set fees for special inspector                      
  commissions, for which there currently was no charge.                        
  Language would have to be drafted to put the fee in statute,                 
  she said.  The amendment pertaining to section 38 would take                 
  the place of section 45, she noted.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 272                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed his support for the resolution                     
  allowing the legislature to repeal regulations.  He                          
  preferred leaving the House State Affairs Committee's                        
  substitute for HB 65 as it was, realizing that it would have                 
  to eventually be melded with the Senate's version of the                     
  fees' bill.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 288                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman.  She                          
  commented that setting fees by regulation would be more                      
  efficient than setting them in statute.  However, she said,                  
  without legislative oversight for regulations, she preferred                 
  to set them in statute.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 303                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY commented that the fees set forth in sections 44-                  
  46 were included in the DOL's FY 94 budget.  He mentioned                    
  the impact of budget cuts on the DOL's programs, and said                    
  that if the fees included in sections 44-46 were disallowed,                 
  elevator and amusement ride inspections would probably be                    
  discontinued.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 326                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Study to comment on the Senate's                   
  proposals regarding the DOL fees.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 330                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY replied that the Senate had proposed an additional                 
  cut to the Division of Labor Standards and Safety.                           
                                                                               
  Number 333                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA commented that the Senate's version of the fees'                  
  bill would set fees in statute, thereby generating the fees                  
  which Mr. Study was discussing.  She added that the DOL                      
  faced a different reduction, from a cut made by the Senate                   
  Finance Committee.                                                           
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Senate version of the fee bill                  
  would put the DOL back at the appropriate funding level for                  
  certain programs.                                                            
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA replied in the affirmative.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 346                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY stated that his division dealt with public safety                  
  and worker safety issues.  Budget cuts would, at some point,                 
  increase injuries and fatalities, he said.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 358                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections                  
  44 and 45 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's                      
  version of HB 65.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                       
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 375                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA noted that section 46 pertained to the generation                 
  of program receipts, and would allow fees to be set by                       
  regulation.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 383                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about rushing through                 
  the sections of HB 65.  She was uncomfortable with section                   
  46's authorization for the DOL to charge a new,                              
  nonrefundable application and examination fee.                               
                                                                               
  Number 400                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that both the House and Senate                     
  leadership wanted to pass an omnibus fees' bill.  He said                    
  that there would be a meeting of the House version of the                    
  bill and the Senate version.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 407                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the Chairman's comments had                 
  given her some comfort; however, she still wanted to give                    
  HB 65 adequate consideration.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 412                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative James' concerns.                   
  But, he said, no matter what the committee did to HB 65, he                  
  knew that the bill would be subsequently discussed and                       
  perhaps amended in a conference committee.  For that reason,                 
  he did not want to put an inordinate amount of effort into                   
  working on the bill, knowing that it would be tinkered with                  
  later.  He expressed his support for maintaining the House                   
  State Affairs Committee's deletion of section 46.                            
                                                                               
  Number 424                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recommended that the committee                       
  reinstate section 46.  He said that, as the state cut back                   
  paying for services out of the general fund, important                       
  safety services needed to continue, and had to be paid for                   
  somehow.  He made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 46.                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 436                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Nordlund that                 
  certain services could not be continued forever, without the                 
  state charging fees for those services.  He questioned what                  
  amount the state should charge for certain services, given                   
  that there had been no fees in the past.  He was                             
  uncomfortable referring to fees without knowing the amount                   
  of those fees.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 451                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that there were dollar                       
  figures in section 46.  She supported for Representative                     
  Nordlund's motion.  She cited the public process inherent in                 
  the regulation adoption process.  She noted that the                         
  agencies knew how much to charge for services, as they were                  
  directly involved in the provision of those services.                        
                                                                               
  Number 463                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the effect of the lengthy                    
  regulation writing process on the DOL's budget.                              
                                                                               
  Number 472                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA commented that section 59 of CSHB 65 (L&C)                        
  allowed departments which would be promulgating regulations                  
  to get a "head start" on the regulation writing process.  A                  
  roll call vote on reinstatement of section 46 was taken.                     
  Representatives Nordlund, Phillips, and Green voted "YEA."                   
  Representatives Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY."  And                    
  so, the MOTION FAILED.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 491                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that section 47 of the House Labor and                  
  Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 authorized the Alaska                  
  Police Standards Council to issue regulations to establish                   
  fees for processing applications for state certification of                  
  police, probation, parole, and correctional officers.  The                   
  fee was expected to be $50, she said.  She indicated that                    
  this provision was also included in the House State Affairs                  
  Committee's version of HB 65.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 498                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Frasca who would pay the                   
  $50 fee.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 499                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA replied that the individual applicants would pay.                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that a municipality could pay the                  
  fee, if it so desired.  There being no objection, section 47                 
  REMAINED in the bill.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 505                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that section 48 of the House Labor and                  
  Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 had been deleted by                    
  the House State Affairs Committee.  Currently, she said,                     
  there was a $10 permit application filing fee for employment                 
  agencies.  Section 48 would increase that fee to $100, she                   
  added.  She was not aware of why the section had been                        
  deleted by the House State Affairs Committee.                                
                                                                               
  Number 515                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that the House State Affairs                   
  Committee had discussed the exorbitant increase contained in                 
  section 48.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 519                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STUDY commented that the fee had not been increased in                   
  40 years.                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER added that the House Labor and Commerce                      
  Committee had agreed that it would be impossible to process                  
  an application for $10.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 523                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the fees suggested in                    
  HB 65 were not out of line.  But, she expressed concern that                 
  those fees could be increased later.  She believed that $100                 
  was a fair fee for employment agency permit applications.                    
  There being no objection to reinstating section 48, IT WAS                   
  SO ORDERED.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 534                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that section 49 in the House Labor and                  
  Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 amended the definition                 
  of "program receipts."  Currently, she said, Aetna                           
  reimbursed the state for administering the state employee                    
  health insurance program.  Those reimbursements had been                     
  previously defined as "general fund program receipts."                       
  Section 49 would change the definition to "benefit systems                   
  receipts," she said.                                                         
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained the effect of sections 50 and 51 of the                 
  House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65.  She                  
  said that currently, the federal government paid the state                   
  monies which the state used to pay risk management premiums.                 
  She added that the federal government had criticized the                     
  state because the state deposited some of the monies into                    
  the general fund and some of the monies into a reserve                       
  account.  Sections 50 and 51 would have the effect of                        
  complying with the federal government's requirements.  If                    
  they were not included in HB 65, she said, the state might                   
  have to give some of the federal money back.                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to clarify her                         
  remarks.                                                                     
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that the federal government wanted the                     
  state to put more of the money into the catastrophe reserve                  
  account than it had been.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 571                                                                   
                                                                               
  SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE                          
  SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (DOA), said that                      
  these monies currently all flowed into the general fund.                     
  The monies were then appropriated for various purposes.                      
  But, she said, the federal government had appropriated those                 
  monies for insurance purposes and wanted the monies to go                    
  back into the state's insurance program.  By putting the                     
  monies into the catastrophe fund, they would be used for the                 
  settlement of extraordinary claims in the future.                            
                                                                               
  Number 591                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained section 52 of the House Labor and                       
  Commerce Committee's version of HB 65.  She said that the                    
  section clarified the Department of Natural Resources'                       
  (DNR's) ability to accept cash or other donations to support                 
  parks.  Section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce                           
  Committee's version of HB 65 was deleted by the House State                  
  Affairs Committee, she said.  It would authorize the DNR to                  
  promulgate regulations to set fees for day use of state                      
  parks, admission to visitor centers, sale of firewood, and a                 
  number of other activities.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 602                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a document                  
  in their bill packets which pertained to this section.                       
                                                                               
  Number 605                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about whether the DNR                 
  would need to hire personnel to go out and collect these                     
  fees.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 613                                                                   
                                                                               
  DAVID STEPHENS, CHIEF, PLANNING OPERATIONS/SERVICES,                         
  DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, commented                     
  that such fees would be collected by an "iron ranger"                        
  (collection box), on an honor system.  Volunteer campground                  
  hosts exerted subtle pressure on park users to deposit their                 
  fees in the "iron ranger."  Very little staff time would be                  
  devoted to the emptying of the "iron rangers."  He said that                 
  the existing system enjoyed good compliance.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 629                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if reinstating this section                    
  would take care of the concerns addressed by Neil Johannsen,                 
  Director of the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.                    
                                                                               
  MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 634                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE section                   
  53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of                    
  HB 65.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                         
                                                                               
  Number 637                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA commented that section 54 of the House Labor and                  
  Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 pertained to the                       
  Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).  She said                    
  that the section would allow the DEC to charge fees for                      
  services which it currently provided, but for which it did                   
  not currently have the authority to charge fees.                             
                                                                               
  Number 644                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER had heard concerns expressed that the DEC                    
  would use this particular section to recover monies lost to                  
  budget cuts.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 647                                                                   
                                                                               
  JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEC, stated that her                   
  agency could not receive and expend the funds to which                       
  section 54 pertained, without legislative authority.  She                    
  said that her agency currently had no plans to establish                     
  fees authorized under section 54.  But, she said, if it came                 
  down to a choice between losing general funds or losing                      
  "primacy" for the solid waste program, the DEC might opt to                  
  establish fees.  She indicated that a similar situation                      
  might exist for the hazardous waste program.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 668                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if fees would flow back to                   
  the DEC, or if they would go into the general fund.                          
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR replied that all of the fees would be deposited                    
  into the general fund.  The DEC would then identify them in                  
  their budget submission to the OMB as "general fund/program                  
  receipts."                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 673                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA commented that while the DOL's budget anticipated                 
  program receipts, the DEC's present FY 94 budget did not                     
  reflect receipts anticipated, under this particular section                  
  of HB 65.  She reiterated Ms. Adair's comment that the DEC                   
  would need to come back before the legislature to request                    
  the authority to receive and expend the funds.                               
                                                                               
  Number 681                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the legislature had, the                    
  year before, authorized the DEC to increase permit fees.                     
  She had received comments from constituents regarding these                  
  increases.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 687                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR explained that when permit fees had been                           
  increased, the DEC had held numerous public hearings, and                    
  had sent out thousands of pieces of mail on the subject, in                  
  addition to running advertisements in newspapers.                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why section 54 was necessary,                  
  since the DEC had increased its permit fees last year.                       
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR stated that the fees to which Representative                       
  Phillips was referring were for restaurant inspections and                   
  seafood inspections.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 693                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the fees in section 54                    
  were for.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR replied that section 54 expanded the fees program,                 
  so that the DEC could establish fees for solid waste permits                 
  and hazardous waste permits.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 697                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS recommended that the DEC, when                       
  sending out bills for permit fees, include an explanation of                 
  what the fee was for.                                                        
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-57, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 003                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR acknowledged that there had been some problems                     
  with billings for restaurant inspections.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 020                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that several                          
  departments might be charging the public for work on a                       
  single permit.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 040                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR replied that no department other than the DEC had                  
  authority to assess fees on the permits under discussion.                    
  She added that a municipality could undertake some of the                    
  permitting activities; if a municipality chose to do so, she                 
  said, then the DEC was statutorily precluded from charging a                 
  permit fee, as it would not be issuing the permit.                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the DNR would charge any fees                  
  for the permits under discussion.                                            
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR responded that the DNR would not charge any fees                   
  for these particular permits.                                                
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the permitted entities would                   
  require business licenses.                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR replied that certain facilities would probably                     
  require business licenses.                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that sections 42 and 43 of the House                    
  State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 should be                         
  deleted, as amendments to other sections of HB 65 made the                   
  sections moot.                                                               
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42                  
  and 43 from the bill.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 103                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about a boat                          
  launching fee on a river in her district.  She made a MOTION                 
  to RESCIND the committee's action on reinstating section 53                  
  of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of                       
  HB 65.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 162                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that section 53 would allow the DNR to set                 
  fees by regulation.  She noted that the House State Affairs                  
  Committee had taken existing regulation fees and put them                    
  into statute.  Additionally, she said, that committee had                    
  reduced boat launching fees.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 172                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred to have a particular portion                  
  of the House State Affairs Committee's section 42 included                   
  in HB 65.                                                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, on the grounds that if the                 
  state maintained a boat launching ramp, someone needed to                    
  pay for that maintenance.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 195                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the ramp she was                         
  concerned with had been built by private individuals, but                    
  was maintained by the state.  The people who built the ramp                  
  objected to having to pay to use it, she said.                               
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative Phillips that,                    
  because the state maintained the ramp, user fees should help                 
  to pay for that maintenance.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 214                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on charges for                   
  visiting historic sites.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 224                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STEPHENS replied that the state park system maintained                   
  only a handful of historic sites.  He said that historic                     
  sites along the side of the road were not administered by                    
  the state park system.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 237                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that the language in HB 65 was                      
  unclear as to which historic sites were covered.  He asked                   
  if the DNR intended to put its temporary fees in regulation.                 
                                                                               
  Number 250                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. STEPHENS replied that it was the DNR's intention to add                  
  the temporary fees to existing regulations.  The temporary                   
  fees would allow the DNR to get a head start on collecting                   
  the fees, before the regulation writing process was                          
  completed.                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it was the DNR's intention to                   
  turn the temporary fees into permanent fees.                                 
                                                                               
  MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 275                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA mentioned that public input would influence the                   
  amount of fees set by the DNR.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 290                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there was a big                          
  difference between the House Labor and Commerce Committee's                  
  section 53 and the House State Affairs Committee's section                   
  42.                                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 314                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative James that the                    
  two sections were very different.                                            
                                                                               
  A roll call vote on rescinding the committee's action on the                 
  House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 53 was taken.                   
  Representative James and Kott voted "YEA."  Representatives                  
  Nordlund, Phillips, Green, and Porter voted "NAY."  And so,                  
  the MOTION FAILED.                                                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42                  
  and 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of                     
  HB 65.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that deleting sections 42                  
  and 43 was essentially a conforming action.                                  
                                                                               
  A roll call vote on deleting sections 42 and 43 from the                     
  House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 was taken.                  
  Representatives Phillips, Green, Kott, Nordlund, and Porter                  
  voted "YEA."  Representative James voted "NAY."  And so,                     
  sections 42 and 43 were DELETED.                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE the House                 
  Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54.                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 380                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OFFERED an AMENDMENT relating to page                   
  15, lines 7-8 of the House State Affairs Committee's version                 
  of HB 65.  He said that his amendment would implement a user                 
  fee for oil spill contingency plan review of $1 per gallon                   
  based on the realistic maximum oil discharge described in a                  
  contingency plan, but not to exceed $2,500.  He expressed                    
  support for amending his amendment to include a minimum fee,                 
  also.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 436                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR commented that the House State Affairs Committee's                 
  section 44 took existing DEC authority to set fees by                        
  regulation, put those fees in statute, and lowered them                      
  significantly.  Due to this section, she said, the DEC had                   
  submitted a $789,000 general fund fiscal note to HB 65.  She                 
  said that contingency plans were based on barrels, not on                    
  gallons, and that only facilities with more than 10,000                      
  barrels of oil had to have a contingency plan.  She                          
  indicated the DEC's opposition to Representative Green's                     
  amendment, as the revenue generated would not cover the                      
  agency's costs.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 485                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if the amendment would                       
  assist the DEC, in the event that HB 238, Oil and Hazardous                  
  Substances Release Response Fund, passed.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 491                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR replied that it would not.  She expressed concerns                 
  about the amendment's impact on small businesses.                            
                                                                               
  Number 501                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the amendment would not be of                  
  assistance to small operators, as fees were on a sliding                     
  scale.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 505                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR reiterated her concern that Representative Green's                 
  amendment would not cover her agency's costs.                                
                                                                               
  Number 512                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if it would be possible for                    
  the DEC to review like oil spill contingency plans together.                 
                                                                               
  Number 520                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR noted that there were some similarities in some                    
  plans.  However, she said that the DEC was very sensitive to                 
  criticisms that it did not adequately review contingency                     
  plans.  In that light, she said, the DEC would still need to                 
  review each plan separately.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 534                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he was not suggesting that                    
  the DEC short-circuit the review process.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 548                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR commented that regulations developed to implement                  
  former HB 567 had set out a format for contingency plans.  A                 
  contingency plan, she said, was a total document, and needed                 
  to be thoroughly reviewed by the DEC.                                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the issue before the                          
  committee was whether to set these fees in statute, as the                   
  House State Affairs Committee had done, or to allow the DEC                  
  to set them by regulation, as the House Labor and Commerce                   
  Committee had done.                                                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that he had made a motion to                   
  reinstate the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section                   
  54.  OBJECTION was heard.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 600                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND AMENDED his MOTION to REINSTATE the                  
  House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54 to also                      
  INCLUDE the DELETION of the House State Affairs Committee's                  
  section 44.                                                                  
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR said that even if section 44 was deleted, the DEC                  
  already had the authority in current law to establish fees                   
  for contingency plan review.  That, she said, would not                      
  change.  It was her understanding that Representative                        
  Green's amendment would reestablish the DEC's authority to                   
  set contingency plan review fees in regulation.                              
                                                                               
  Number 638                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN WITHDREW his AMENDMENT.                                 
                                                                               
  A roll call vote on Representative Nordlund's motion was                     
  taken.  Representatives Green, Nordlund, and Porter voted                    
  "YEA."  Representative Kott voted "NAY."  And so, the MOTION                 
  PASSED.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 680                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA asked the committee to reinstate the House Labor                  
  and Commerce Committee's section 55, which would authorize                   
  the DEC to set fees to recover its indirect costs of                         
  administering the air quality permit program.  She noted                     
  that this change was required by the federal government.                     
  Currently, she said, the DEC could recover direct costs, but                 
  not indirect costs.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 686                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR stated that a similar provision was contained in                   
  HB 167, Air Quality Control Program, but was also included                   
  in HB 65, as a "safety net" in the event that HB 167 did not                 
  pass the legislature this year.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 693                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if section 55 would not be necessary,                  
  if HB 167 did pass.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 699                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR said that the Chairman was correct, but said that                  
  the DEC wanted to be safe rather than sorry.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 709                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if, in the event that HB 167                   
  did not pass, section 55 would in some manner satisfy                        
  federal requirements.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 711                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR replied that it would satisfy the federal                          
  government to a great extent.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 721                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if section 55 would conflict                   
  with comparable provisions in HB 167, in the event that both                 
  became law.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 723                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. ADAIR expressed an opinion that, if both bills passed,                   
  HB 65's section 55 would simply become moot.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 730                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee should write a letter                 
  of intent which said that if HB 167 passed, section 55 of                    
  HB 65 would not be enacted.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 732                                                                   
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY                           
  COMMITTEE, stated that could be accomplished through an                      
  additional section in HB 65.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 735                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section                   
  55 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of                    
  HB 65, and to add a section to the House Judiciary Committee                 
  substitute for HB 65 that stated that if HB 167 passed,                      
  section 55 would be repealed.  There being no objection to                   
  the motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 755                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce                       
  Committee's section 56 was retained in the House State                       
  Affairs bill, and included technical amendments related to                   
  the OPA and the DOA's accounting system.  She asked that the                 
  Committee not make any changes to this area of HB 65.                        
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that another component of the House                     
  Labor and Commerce Committee's section 56 was retained by                    
  the House State Affairs Committee in section 45 of its                       
  version of HB 65.  This section repealed the DNR's authority                 
  to promulgate regulations to set fees for park use.  She                     
  asked that the committee delete this particular provision.                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE section 45                   
  of CSHB 65 (STA).                                                            
                                                                               
  An "at ease" was called at 4:20 p.m.                                         
                                                                               
  The committee reconvened at 4:22 p.m.  There being no                        
  objection to Rep. Nordlund's motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                      
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce                          
  Committee's section 57 established the DNR's temporary fee                   
  schedule for parks, which the committee had discussed                        
  earlier.  The House State Affairs Committee had deleted this                 
  section from the bill; Ms. Frasca requested that the                         
  committee reinstate it.                                                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section                   
  57 of HB 65.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                   
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce                       
  Committee's section 58 was a conforming amendment regarding                  
  ABC licenses.  This section was also included in the House                   
  State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, she said.  The                   
  committee had no objection to maintaining that section.                      
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce                          
  Committee's section 59 (the House State Affairs Committee's                  
  section 47) allowed agencies which would be promulgating                     
  regulations to get a head start on that process, instead of                  
  waiting for the effective date of HB 65.  The committee had                  
  no objection to maintaining this section of the bill.                        
                                                                               
  MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce                       
  Committee's section 60 (the House State Affairs Committee's                  
  section 48) pertained to the OPA.  She said that this                        
  section stated that the amendments which authorized the OPA                  
  to charge fees for public guardians have the effect of                       
  amending a court rule.  The committee had no objection to                    
  maintaining this section.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 825                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the House Labor and Commerce                  
  Committee's sections 61-64 (the House State Affairs                          
  Committee's sections 49-51) included the effective dates of                  
  HB 65's provisions.  There being no objection to including                   
  the effective dates, they were MAINTAINED in the bill.                       
                                                                               
  Number 830                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee had before it a                 
  Judiciary Committee substitute, which was an amended version                 
  of the House Labor and Commerce Committee substitute.                        
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-57, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 019                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested amending an existing statute                   
  which pertained to section 43 of the House State Affairs                     
  Committee's version of HB 65.  He said that it might be                      
  better to offer his amendment on the floor.  He noted that                   
  the DNR currently issued, free of charge, a state camping                    
  permit to disabled U. S. veterans.  He said that his                         
  amendment would change that policy to offer that benefit to                  
  Alaska residents only, rather than all U. S. citizens.                       
                                                                               
  Number 090                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment could be more                      
  easily made in committee than on the floor, as a Judiciary                   
  Committee substitute had to be drafted anyway.                               
                                                                               
  Number 100                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that Representative Kott                   
  could bring the amendment to the attention of the House                      
  Finance Committee.                                                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that he would do that.                         
                                                                               
  Number 128                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that a Judiciary Committee                         
  substitute for HB 65 was now before the committee.                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED to PASS CSHB 65 (JUD) out of                   
  committee, with individual recommendations and attached                      
  fiscal notes.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 128 next.                                                                 
                                                                               
  HB 128:  EARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY                                  
                                                                               
  Number 197                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 128,                        
  explained that the intent of HB 128 was to assist the state                  
  in its efforts to collect child support payments.  She read                  
  a sponsor statement, a copy of which is on file in the House                 
  Judiciary Committee, Room 120, Capitol Building.  In                         
  summary, she said that non-support of children was a                         
  national epidemic.  She said that her bill would require a                   
  paternity acknowledgement form be used at the time of birth.                 
  She stated that there was a very small fiscal note attached                  
  to HB 128, for a one-time upgrade of certain forms.                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that passage of HB 128 would allow                 
  the state to apply for federal funds for the Child Support                   
  Enforcement Division (CSED).  She mentioned that the                         
  Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) supported                    
  the bill.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 282                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to PASS CSSSHB 128                     
  (HES) out of committee, with individual recommendations and                  
  attached fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                   
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  SB 105 next.                                                                 
                                                                               
  SB 105:  MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS & BUYERS' AGENTS                              
                                                                               
  Number 321                                                                   
                                                                               
  JOE AMBROSE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, PRIME                 
  SPONSOR of SB 105, testified that SB 105 had been introduced                 
  in response to a constituent concern.  In early January, he                  
  said, an auto broker had abruptly shut down his business and                 
  left customers without vehicles for which they had paid, or                  
  without titles, or being dunned by automobile dealers when                   
  they thought they had already paid for their cars.  He                       
  stated that SB 105 differentiated between a dealer and a                     
  buyer's agent.                                                               
                                                                               
  MR. AMBROSE said the bill required that any car sold as new                  
  include the manufacturer's certificate of origin.  That                      
  would prevent a car from being sold a second time while                      
  being represented as new, he said.  This was important for                   
  warranty reasons, he added.  He mentioned that SB 105                        
  required purchase agreements which fully disclose warranty                   
  terms between buyer's agents and buyers.  Warranties would                   
  remain with the vehicle and pertain specifically to the                      
  vehicle, he said, resulting in consumer protection.                          
                                                                               
  MR. AMBROSE noted that SB 105 created a "paper trail" of any                 
  transaction between a buyer's agent and a buyer, with                        
  specific records' retention requirements.  He noted that the                 
  bill increased penalties for violation of the law from a                     
  current $300 fine to a class B misdemeanor, or up to a                       
  $1,000 fine.  He indicated that the sponsor had reviewed a                   
  House Judiciary Committee draft committee substitute for                     
  SB 105 and supported it.  He added that SB 105 would not                     
  result in a fiscal impact to the state.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 362                                                                   
                                                                               
  STEVEN ALLWINE, representing the ALASKA AUTO DEALERS,                        
  testified in support of SB 105.  He mentioned that there had                 
  been a significant number of instances in which customers                    
  purchased automobiles, but received cars different than what                 
  they had expected.  Additionally, he said, customers                         
  sometimes bought cars that were supposed to be new, but in                   
  fact were used.  These situations resulted in warranty                       
  problems for the customers and for auto dealers.                             
                                                                               
  MR. ALLWINE commented that manufacturers had expressed                       
  concern over this method of car distribution, particularly                   
  in relation to warranty coverage, product safety, and recall                 
  issues.  He noted that the Senate had unanimously passed                     
  SB 105.  The draft committee substitute provided an                          
  additional safeguard for consumers, by implementing a                        
  bonding requirement for buyers' agents.  He urged support                    
  for the bill.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 418                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a draft                        
  committee substitute for SB 105 dated April 6, 1993.  She                    
  said that the draft committee substitute took SB 105, as                     
  amended on the Senate floor by Senator Al Adams, and added                   
  new material which had been suggested for inclusion by the                   
  Alaska Auto Dealers.  She noted that Senator Adams'                          
  amendment could be found on page 2, lines 3-5, and addressed                 
  situations in which a car was purchased and subsequently                     
  shipped to a rural area.  In such a situation, she said, it                  
  might not be feasible to have a dealer perform warranty                      
  work.  The language allowed a buyer and a dealer to reach                    
  agreements regarding repairs and payment.                                    
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that new language began at line 31 on                 
  page 2, and continued through line 25 of page 4.  She said                   
  that this new language required registration and bonding of                  
  buyer's agents.  She noted that the amount of the bond was                   
  the same as the amount that automobile dealers had to put up                 
  under existing law.  She stated that language on page 4,                     
  lines 26-28 was also new, and added a requirement that                       
  before a buyer's agent negotiated on behalf of a buyer the                   
  purchase of a motor vehicle from a dealer, the buyer's agent                 
  had to have a written contract with the buyer.                               
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that in reviewing SB 105, she did not find                 
  any legal problems.  She called the members' attention to a                  
  potential problem on page 2, line 28, which made changes to                  
  existing law relating to penalties.  She said that a                         
  reference to class B misdemeanors was added.  Also, she                      
  said, the old statute used the culpable mental state of                      
  "willfully," which was no longer a part of the Alaska                        
  criminal code.  For that reason, she asked the drafters to                   
  change the term "willfully" to "knowingly," which was the                    
  closest equivalent culpable mental state.                                    
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 6, line                   
  7, where a new penalties section referred to "criminal                       
  negligence."  That, she said, was a different culpable                       
  mental state than that on page 2, and resulted in the law                    
  containing different culpable mental states for buyer's                      
  agents and dealers.  She stated that the committee could                     
  either leave the language as it was, or change it to make                    
  the required culpable mental state the same for both dealers                 
  and buyer's agents.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 499                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested making the two culpable mental                     
  states the same.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 505                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI reviewed the four culpable mental states in                     
  criminal law, from least serious to most serious:  criminal                  
  negligence, recklessly, knowingly, and intentionally.                        
                                                                               
  Number 521                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER recommended using "knowingly" for both                       
  dealers and buyer's agents in SB 105.                                        
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE "with                        
  criminal negligence" from page 6, line 7 of SB 105 and to                    
  INSERT "knowingly."                                                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED.  He asked to hear from the                     
  sponsor's representative.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 532                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. AMBROSE stated that the sponsor would concur with the                    
  change.                                                                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT REMOVED his OBJECTION.  Then, without                    
  further objection, the AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.                                
                                                                               
  Number 550                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 105                      
  (JUD), as amended.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                      
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 554                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked the members if they felt that                      
  buyer's agents should put up a larger bond than dealers.  He                 
  said that $10,000 seemed like a very small amount.                           
                                                                               
  Number 569                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES echoed Representative Kott's concern.                   
  She said that dealers were usually stationary, whereas                       
  buyer's agents were more transient, creating more risk for                   
  buyers.  However, she said that dealers were probably much                   
  more able than buyer's agents to come up with $10,000.                       
                                                                               
  Number 585                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. AMBROSE stated that the bill's sponsor did not intend to                 
  make SB 105 punitive.  He said that there were many                          
  communities within Senator Taylor's district which did not                   
  have auto dealerships.  He said that the bill simply made                    
  buyer's agents comply with the same requirements as                          
  automobile dealers.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 600                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that $10,000 would not go far                  
  to help a consumer who had purchased a $25,000 car from an                   
  unscrupulous buyer's agent.  But, he understood Mr.                          
  Ambrose's desire not to place too many restrictions on                       
  buyer's agents.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 608                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that a "crooked" individual                      
  would not be able to get a bond at all, unless they put up                   
  cash for the bond.  She thought that the bonding                             
  requirements in SB 105 were sufficient.                                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 105 (JUD), as                 
  amended, out of committee with a zero fiscal note and with                   
  individual recommendations.                                                  
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, and then REMOVED her                       
  OBJECTION.  There being no further objections, CSSB 105                      
  (JUD) MOVED OUT COMMITTEE.                                                   
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects