Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/27/1998 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 1998
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Joe Ryan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 458
"An Act relating to establishing a golf course alcoholic beverage
license to allow sales of beer and wine; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 458(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of
Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing
agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development;
adjusting the membership of certain multi-member bodies to reflect
the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of
departments; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 304
"An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in regular session; repealing provisions relating to
student guests of the legislature; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELLED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 458
SHORT TITLE: GOLF COURSE BEER/WINE LICENSE
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/18/98 2363 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/18/98 2363 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
02/27/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 400
SHORT TITLE: DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Austerman, Barnes,
Cowdery, Hodgins, Kelly, Mulder, Ogan, Ryan, Therriault, Vezey
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/98 2307 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/98 2308 (H) L&C, FINANCE
02/23/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/25/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/27/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF BARNHART, Manager
Palmer Municipal Golf Course and
Russian Jack Springs Municipal Golf Course
231 West Evergreen Avenue
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4653
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 458.
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director
Governor's Advisory Board on
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
P.O. Box 110608
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0608
Telephone: (907) 465-8920
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 458.
FRED JAMES
P.O. Box 499
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 586-6459
POSITION STATEMENT: In favor of HB 458; testified in support of
HB 400, suggested additional changes.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 350
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 458.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on Section 65 of HB 400 which would
move the Job Training Partnership Act
Program into the Department of Labor from
the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs.
MIKE KRIEBER, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6863
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 400.
SUSAN RODEHEAVER
P.O. Box 1128
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-7064
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 400, specifically against
changes to the Head Start Program.
ROBERT HALL
P.O. Box 871906
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 892-6557
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony to Mr. Gifford supporting
HB 400.
DAN GIFFORD
P.O. Box 874803
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-5606
POSITION STATEMENT: Read Mr. Hall's testimony; testified in
support of HB 400.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 400.
SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President
Alaskans for a Just Society
P.O. Box 2684
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-3729
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 400.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery, Hudson
and Ryan. He noted the committee would be hearing HB 458 and HB
400; HB 400 had also been scheduled for Friday, March 6.
HB 458 - GOLF COURSE BEER/WINE LICENSE
Number 0093
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first item of business
was HB 458, "An Act relating to establishing a golf course
alcoholic beverage license to allow sales of beer and wine; and
providing for an effective date." He stated HB 458 was coming in
as a committee bill. He referred to information in the committee
members' packets and explained that the City of Palmer and its golf
course ran into a problem after the course's establishment a few
years ago. Chairman Rokeberg said he believed what occurred was
that approximately concurrent with the establishment of the Palmer
Municipal Golf Course, a regulation was passed by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) Board for a municipal golf course license in
15 AAC 104.670, providing that a beer and wine license could be
obtained by a municipal golf course with a minimum of nine holes
covering 1,200 yards ["120 yards" stated on tape] for a biennial
fee of $400. He indicated he believed the ABC Board had no real
authority to do that, commenting there was a provision in the
statutes which "gave them a little bit of a wrinkle there."
Chairman Rokeberg said the problem with the license is that the
beer and wine could be served in the building but not taken
outside, which he indicated is a traditional golf course practice.
He said that beverages are traditionally available at the "turn"
between the ninth and tenth holes, and, in the more luxurious golf
courses, beverages are often sold from a cart driven around the
course.
Number 0326
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated a golf course would have to have a
"package store license" to sell alcohol to be taken outside, and
therefore, in Alaska, a golf course would be required to have both
a beer and wine license and a package store license to allow these
traditional functions which revolve around a recreational golf
course area. He believed the testimony would show the difficulties
the City of Palmer has had with this particular issue, noting the
issue first came to his attention almost two years ago; he had
hoped something could have been worked out in the interim but it
has not been. Chairman Rokeberg also commented on the
proliferation of golf course development and planned golf course
development in Alaska and worldwide. He said golf is a growing
sport because of changing demographics and aging populations, and
he indicated the bill, in addition to clearing up the statute to
help out the municipal golf courses, is also designed to encourage
the development of golf courses throughout the state which meet
minimum standards. He said, "Also to make sure that it didn't come
in the population count. ... As you all know, there are certain
restrictions on the number of types of licenses that relate to
population, so this bill exempts that." He stated a course had to
be "championship in nature." Although only nine holes are
required, half of a true championship course, he said it has to be
a long course, referring to Version K and indicating the committee
might want to adjust those standards slightly. Chairman Rokeberg
noted it was questionable whether the Mendenhall golf course in
Juneau would qualify.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON commented the new one would though.
Number 0556
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to information in the packets,
commenting that the Weeping Trout Sports Resort in Haines would
also be too short to qualify because it wasn't championship in
nature. He stated that it usually required a capital investment of
well in excess of a million dollars to develop a true championship
golf course of at least nine holes, noting HB 458 would be helpful
to the economic development of the area and the building of golf
courses. He stated there were approximately three witnesses
waiting to testify.
Number 0613
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY confirmed that all the laws governing
the sale of alcohol, including sale to minors, would still apply.
Number 0623
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative. He indicated Mr.
Griffin from the ABC Board was available for questions via
teleconference.
Number 0631
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY confirmed that possible existing
restrictions regarding things like liquor licenses being close to
schools had been considered.
Number 0654
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted those restrictions did exist and had been
considered.
Number 0671
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN said that it appeared on the surface that
anyone who consumes alcohol and plays golf would have a conflict of
interest, noting that he did not do either and was declaring a non-
conflict but was going to keep an eye on everybody else.
Number 0682
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he was a golf aficionado but could not
imbibe alcoholic beverages and play golf simultaneously, noting he
therefore had no direct conflict of interest.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted he had to go a House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee meeting for a bill.
Number 0715
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee had a proposed committee
substitute (CS) before it.
Number 0721
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved the adoption of Version L, proposed CS
for HB 458, labeled 0-LS0507\L, Ford, dated 2/27/98. He asked
unanimous consent.
Number 0729
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Representative Ryan return to the
meeting at some point, commenting that it was the chairman's
intention to move HB 458 that day unless there were substantial
problems. He stated the proposed CS had been adopted, and
indicated the change from the original bill was on page 2, line 31,
where the golf course size had been increased from 2,500 to 2,950
yards. He said they believe the new Muskey Meadow golf course in
Wrangell is 3,035 yards, indicating they want to make sure that
this is adequate to make a distinction between a true golf course
and a smaller "pitch and putt (indisc.)" or executive course.
Number 0783
JEFF BARNHART, Manager, Palmer Municipal Golf Course (Palmer Golf
Course) and Russian Jack Springs Municipal Golf Course, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He referred to his letter which
was in the bill packet, noting that the Palmer Municipal Golf
Course had run into many financial difficulties until the current
year, and had become a drain on the City of Palmer's finances. He
said the course was turned over to a management group and is slowly
turning around financially. Mr. Barnhart commented on the liquor
restriction; beer and wine can be sold but cannot leave the
building. In the situation of tournaments, noting they have had
nearly 60 tournaments a season, beer, wine and sodas have been
provided for entertainment and fund-raising purpose. However, he
indicated, he cannot sell any beer or wine on the course and people
end up bringing their own because of the way the law is currently
written. He noted the alcoholic beverages are on the golf course,
but he is not able to benefit or add any profit situation to the
golf course.
Number 0896
MR. BARNHART also indicated he cannot sell alcoholic beverages to
the course's weekend or mid-week players who would like to take a
beer or two with them out onto the course or buy one at the turn
shack. Again, he has found these players simply bring it
themselves without restriction from the golf course, noting that is
how these players enjoy their golf and he certainly wants them to
continue to enjoy their golf. However, he indicated this has put
some economic strain on the golf course. Mr. Barnhart said there
is another problem, although not as significant, which he sees as
a control problem. He indicated he has no way of knowing, besides
the standard indications of intoxication, how many alcoholic
beverages a person may have consumed on the course if that person
then goes into the building to drink after a golf game. He said
they would have a better "handle" on alcohol consumption rates if
they were the ones that were able to sell alcoholic beverages to
these people, noting, again, that people are bringing it
themselves. His understanding of the package store license is that
(indisc.) could buy one, step outside the door and drink it with it
still being lawful. He said that if he's capable of selling beer
or wine to people, he can prohibit people from bringing it or
introducing it to the golf course as is done at the state fair,
noting introducing alcoholic beverages to the fairgrounds or
leaving the partitioned premises with it is not allowed.
Number 1013
MR. BARNHART said the other thing (indisc.) is that the bill is
more open than just to municipal golf courses, indicating the sale
of alcoholic beverages is such a large area of profit, and such an
expected part of a golf course out of state or for golf course
development in Alaska. He commented, "You'd definitely want to be
able to sell the beer and wine. If you really, really had the
investment, you'd probably take it beyond that, which would make a
large investment into a much more expensive liquor license." Mr.
Barnhart noted the cost of golf course development, commenting that
the Palmer Golf Course was built for a little over $2 million and
the land did not have to be purchased. He said a large development
could easily run $5 million dollars and every avenue to generate
the income would certainly be needed, noting that was generally his
concern. He said he has had meetings with the Municipality of
Anchorage regarding its desires for the Russian Jack Springs Golf
Course, and does not know if it would ever be pursued, but he said
if it was available, it could certainly become more of an issue for
them to deal with. Mr. Barnhart stated the Palmer Golf Course
definitely needs it, commenting that the golf course has probably
drained off nearly $2 million dollars out of the city's funds and
has created problems for many years. He said they have turned it
around but will need help to continue growth as other golf courses
are developed in the area, indicating Fort Richardson is expanding
to an 18-hole course. He noted they need to be able to compete, or
at least keep their heads above water, so that the golf course will
be able to pay for itself and the Palmer taxpayers won't have to
continue to support it. He commented that this was the ultimate
goal.
Number 1130
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this problem could be solved if the golf
course could purchase a package store license.
Number 1137
MR. BARNHART replied in the affirmative. However, he said Palmer's
demographics are so small and the political arena is such that the
city's government does not want to compete against a private
citizen for that particular license if it became available. He
said the golf course had been rezoned and the boundaries of the
city limits redrawn so the golf course would have to pay sales tax,
indicating the city was very growth-oriented and did not want to be
in competition with the public for the "growth money."
Number 1183
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how many yards the Russian Jack Springs
Golf Course was.
Number 1200
MR. BARNHART replied that the Russian Jack course was "just shy" of
3,000 yards, depending on tee position.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if it would qualify at 2,950 yards from the
tips.
MR. BARNHART responded that length would require some
reconfiguration, indicating a 2,500 yard requirement would allow
the course to qualify. He noted that measurement is a tough one,
as they had previously discussed, questioning what set of tees is
the yardage measurement taken from.
Number 1216
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he would say for the maximum yardage, to
the benefit of the course.
Number 1221
MR. BARNHART stated he thought 2,500 yards would be a very
comfortable yardage for any developer, even for a nine-hole,
executive-style course which he said is a popular style of course
because of the lower amount of land needed. He indicated he thinks
any developer would build a nice golf course if the minimum yardage
was 2,500.
Number 1241
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that the limits had been raised in the bill
to 2,950 yards.
MR. BARNHART said he thought that the tee configuration at the
Russian Jack Springs Golf Course could be conformed to that.
Number 1254
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the intention was to only have truly
real golf courses qualify rather than executive or "pitch and putt"
courses.
Number 1261
MR. BARNHART indicated the "mom and pop" backyard courses would be
eliminated by this legislation, noting he thought that was the way
to go. He said there wasn't the developmental money, for one. Mr.
Barnhard indicated he thinks they need to use this as a pro-
development tool. He said he thinks when they want to build more
tourist attractions or more things for tourists to do, that these
tourists should be going to a better-quality, nicer golf course,
indicating he doesn't think a "mom and pop" backyard, four-hole
course should be able to sell beer and wine. Mr. Barnhart said he
thinks this is designed correctly and is pro-development.
Number 1297
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Barnhart if he was a member of the
Professional Golfers' Association of America (PGA).
MR. BARNHART answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that Mr. Barnhart was a golf "pro." He
noted the committee would go first to the two witnesses in Juneau.
Number 1335
DON DAPCEVICH, Executive Director, Governor's Advisory Board on
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, came forward to testify. He said he has
been instructed by the board to speak in opposition to HB 458. He
noted he was an avid golfer and he speaks personally and
professionally against this. He stated they just keep finding new
ways to get new outlets to sell alcohol in Alaska. He said Alaska
would have to increase its population to 1,575,000 people to
conform to the existing rules with regards to distilled spirits.
He reiterated that they keep finding more ways to sell more alcohol
in Alaska, and they "keep burying the fruits of those sales by all
the problems" they have in the criminal justice and court systems.
Mr. Dapcevich noted his other concern was that this bill appears to
limit access to golf by youth, if golf courses become one large
beer and wine license facility. He said, from a public policy
standpoint, he thinks this is poor public policy and would speak
against the bill.
Number 1416
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Mr. Dapcevich's statement that he was
an avid golfer and asked him if all the real golf courses he has
played have served alcoholic beverages.
Number 1426
MR. DAPCEVICH replied that most do serve alcoholic beverages.
Number 1431
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if he could name one that didn't.
Number 1435
MR. DAPCEVICH recalled he has played several courses in Arizona and
California that do not allow alcohol on the course but do sell it
in the bars.
Number 1446
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Mr. Dapcevich indicated the Governor's
Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Abuse had instructed him to
oppose HB 458. He asked if the board had met on this very bill.
MR. DAPCEVICH replied that the board had considered all the bills
in its winter meeting, noting HB 458 was the last bill the board
had considered at its meeting in Juneau the previous week, on the
day this bill had been introduced.
Number 1468
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he was glad the board had a chance to look
at it. He asked Mr. Dapcevich if he drank alcohol.
MR. DAPCEVICH answered in the negative.
Number 1489
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called Fred James to testify, indicating Mr.
James had signed the witness register for HB 458 and was from
Palmer.
FRED JAMES indicated he wished to testify on HB 400, but said he
liked HB 458.
Number 1507
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the advisory board's control over
licenses was principally relating to population, and if that was
the biggest concern, that this does not relate to population or
proximity to schools and things of that nature.
Number 1536
MR. DAPCEVICH said the board's concern is that the number of
outlets for alcohol in the state keep growing "by leaps and bounds"
far beyond the intent or the spirit of the statute. He indicated
this is just another one of those special conditions making alcohol
even more accessible in Alaska, which already has a significant
alcohol problem.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted the outside recreational aspect of
golf, indicating he thought this seemed to be of less social harm
than many of the other situations where alcoholic beverages were
available.
Number 1585
MR. DAPCEVICH responded he would not suggest that a beer and wine
license was more detrimental than a distilled spirits license in
terms of the social harm it does.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said it was his observation that golfers
sometimes drive for good distances to play golf. He said golfers
could presently bring their own alcoholic beverages to the course,
asking if that was correct.
Number 1628
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied they could to the Palmer Golf Course but
he thought it varied, depending on the particular course's rules
and regulations, and it was very customary to restrict the use of
personal alcohol on courses. He referred to Mr. Barnhart's
testimony, indicating he believed that if the Palmer Golf Course
had this license, it would be able to better control alcohol
consumption on the course because the course management could
prohibit the importation of alcoholic beverages not purchased from
the clubhouse or golf course.
Number 1658
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated there seemed to be a freedom issue
as well. He noted he was not normally a beer consumer, mentioning
restaurants. He said if people go to the golf course and this is
what they want, it was more of a "freedom thing" and they should
give this ability to the course owners to enhance that.
Number 1701
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded: 1) that it was clear in their
statutory scheme that the state has a compelling interest to
regulate alcohol consumption; and 2) the rules and regulations of
a private, public or quasi-public premise rules of conduct
(indisc.) that each individual organization and private club, for
example, should be able to make up their own rules, noting he
didn't think there were any infringements on right here. He asked
Mr. Dapcevich if the advisory board had ever supported the creation
of a new type of liquor license.
Number 1741
MR. DAPCEVICH answered, "Absolutely not."
Number 1744
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, that the board's opposition to this
license was not inconsistent with its ongoing policy to oppose any
new outlets, et cetera. He asked if that was correct.
MR. DAPCEVICH answered in the affirmative.
Number 1753
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said then that the board did not make a
distinction as to whether this license would be less harmful vis- -
vis any other type of license.
Number 1758
MR. DAPCEVICH replied only with respect to the matter of youth
being served by golf courses and also being exposed to alcohol
under this scenario, noting that makes it somewhat different from
other licenses and more onerous.
Number 1778
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he hoped that in this society this would
not lead to further uncontrolled and improper abuse of alcoholic
beverages.
Number 1792
MR. DAPCEVICH clarified that the board was not prohibitionist; the
board is opposed to any new licenses or any licenses that go beyond
the spirit and the statute with regards to population base and
alcohol sales in the state.
Number 1806
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would take testimony next
from Doug Griffin, and appreciated any direction Mr. Griffin could
give the committee on this bill.
Number 1824
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage [NOTE: FURTHER TESTIMONY SHOWS
MR. GRIFFIN'S INITIAL STATEMENTS WERE BASED ON THE ORIGINAL VERSION
OF HB 458, NOT THE PROPOSED CS]. He said the best way for him to
approach it was from a technical, then policy, side. He said the
city manager of the City of Palmer had come to the ABC Board in
approximately August of 1996 addressing this issue, and the board
at that time suggested the purchase of a package store license. He
indicated, given the local politics and the availability of
municipal funds, that may not have been an option. Mr. Griffin
said there was no question that the board was "at loggerheads" with
the Palmer Golf Course and the City of Palmer on that point. Based
on that situation, he would have to say that the board still thinks
a package store license is the best option for the golf course,
commenting that it would also be in opposition to creating a new
license and license type. He said the board tries to accommodate
the needs of people to have access to alcoholic beverages within
the existing license structure and it tries very much to use the
current general license structure to meet needs as these needs
arise. Mr. Griffin noted the authority in the regulation for
creating a municipal golf course license had been mentioned. He
indicated that license was created somewhat in response to a
request from the City of Palmer when it started its municipal-type
golf course, which was unique at time. He noted he was not the
director of the ABC Board at that time, nor did he believe any of
the current members were serving, but the statutory authority he
would cite for that action by the board was AS 04.06.100,
subsection (14), "creation of classifications of licenses or
permits not provided for in this title;" which basically says that
the board, by regulation, can create classifications of licenses or
permits not provided for in that title. He noted, therefore, that
the board has a fairly broad mandate in the creation of new
licenses and probably could have done so when so requested by the
City of Palmer a couple of years ago. He said the board had not
chosen to do so because it felt that the licenses were out there.
He indicated the board thought that if the City of Palmer felt this
was necessary as a business decision, the license would be
purchased, and he understood the financial hardship associated with
this Mr. Barnhart mentioned. Mr. Griffin said he thought the board
would be opposed to HB 458 just because it does create an
additional license and a new type of license.
Number 1972
MR. GRIFFIN indicated there were some real problems from a
technical point of view. He said the board thinks an unintended
consequence of the bill is that the entire golf course would become
the licensed premise, and he thinks it is very clear that is what
the bill does. He said, in effect, the area of the whole golf
course was being made into a bar, and all kinds of statutes from
Title 4 would come into play. However, he said, most importantly,
anyone under the age of 21 would be legally prohibited from
entering and remaining on the premises of the golf course unless
accompanied by a parent or legal guardian - it would be the same as
a minor entering and remaining in a bar. So, even though the ABC
Board has the policy concerns, he said that is why the board, in
its discussions with Palmer's city manager and others, thought the
package store approach made the most sense. He noted this was what
was used at the Anchorage Golf Course on O'Malley Road; a person
could go in, buy a couple of beers and consume them on the course,
and he commented that there is no legal prohibition in Alaska
against consuming alcohol in public, assuming the person is of
proper age and not creating any other kind of nuisance in doing so.
He said that from a technical standpoint this solution would be
less problematic for the people they were trying to assist. Mr.
Griffin emphasized the board was opposed from a policy point, but,
he said, if the committee really wanted to do this, in order to
make this thing work better, he recommended the establishment of
some type of municipal golf course package store license. He
indicated limiting the license to beer and wine might make it a
little easier. Mr. Griffin said he was available for questions,
noting Bill Roche, Enforcement Supervisor, Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board, was also available.
Number 2128
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated it had not been the committee's intent to
limit youth golfing and he indicated clarification had been
requested from the drafter to make certain the bill did not do
these very things brought to the committee's attention by Mr.
Griffin and Mr. Dapcevich. Chairman Rokeberg indicated he was
asking Mr. Griffin if language replicating the beer and wine
license and package store license would make him more comfortable.
Number 2167
MR. GRIFFIN said that would accomplish what the committee was
trying to accomplish; the board would still be opposed to it, but
would be a lot less opposed. He noted a good point had been made,
giving the example of a recreational site license approved by the
ABC Board for the racetrack not too far from the Palmer Golf
Course. He noted part of the rationale used was the same issue Mr.
Barnhart had raised, the management of the premise would have more
control. He indicated, however, he did not think it would be
enough to convince the board to create another type of license. He
said that aspect does make some sense if it went hand in hand with
prohibiting people from bringing their own alcohol onto the course,
noting he thinks management could do this as a matter of policy if
they provided through their own package store.
Number 2221
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated Mr. Griffin said the board would oppose
this on the policy it did not want to create another license but he
suggested that they would not really be creating another license;
they would be replacing an existing regulation that specifies a
municipal golf course license which this bill would terminate. He
said basically the regulatory license promulgated by the board
would be replaced by a statutory license.
Number 2247
MR. GRIFFIN said that was a good point. He noted the scope of the
existing license the board created through regulation was being
expanded, indicating he was not sure how the board would look on
that.
Number 2281
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "I also suggest to you, sir, that by
raising the yardage requirements up that -- the municipal
regulation now is only 1,200 yards, we're - we're raising it up to
a real substantial investment and a ... major construction-type
project which would be intended to generate tourism and (indisc.)
be an amenity to a community, and would - would necessitate the
scope of activities including environmental impact statements and
full public hearings before a course could even be built, and
therefore would have a lot of public input on it." He indicated it
would not be somebody's back yard "pitch and putt" ["20 acres"
stated on tape]. Although he noted Mr. Griffin was correct in that
HB 458 expanded the scope of the license from the municipality to
anybody in the public or private sector and he appreciated Mr.
Griffin's testimony. Chairman Rokeberg stated they had requested
the bill drafter, Mike Ford, to inform the committee of his
intentions in the drafting of the bill. Chairman Rokeberg noted
the instructions had been given to draft the bill in such a manner
that it would meet the criticisms which have been raised, and he
said, either Mr. Ford would convince then all, or the bill would be
held over until the language was corrected, because they did not
want the bill to contain anything which would restrict the use of
a recreational facility by youth. Chairman Rokeberg indicated to
Mr. Ford that Version L had been adopted by the committee but
concern had been raised by page 2, new section 04.11.115, "(a) A
golf course license authorizes the licensee to sell and serve beer
and wine for consumption on licensed premises located on a golf
course." The chairman noted it went on to say in subsection (c) on
line 21 "... and a detailed diagram that clearly identifies a
proposed area that constitutes the licensed premises. ...", and
testimony from the ABC Board and other sources states that a
boundary is being delineated which would be analogous to one big
bar.
Number 2428
MR. GRIFFIN stated that they had just received a copy of the
proposed CS and he thinks it may address those issues. He
requested a minute to review the current version.
Number 2443
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Ford what he did to fix this.
TAPE 98-20, SIDE B
Number 0007
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Service,
Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward to testify. As he
understands the problem, they do not want to describe licensed
premises as being the golf course, so in this version he has
attempted to restrict the licensed premises to a building or a
motor vehicle on the golf course, not to the entire course. He
said if that has not been achieved, changes can be made, but he
believes the proposed CS should solve that problem of having an
entire golf course become off limits to people under age 21.
Number 0052
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that then the problem becomes that all good
golfers want to encourage walking, not riding golf carts, and he
asked what happens to the walking golfer under Mr. Ford's
definition on page 3.
Number 0070
MR. FORD replied he didn't see that as being a problem. A person
could still walk up to the motorized vehicle and partake if the
person chose, but the person would not be required to ride a cart.
Number 0085
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if a person could carry an open container
down the fairway and consume it.
Number 0102
MR. FORD confirmed that Chairman Rokeberg was referring to walking
with a can of beer. He said he would like to hear what the ABC
Board thought of that, commenting that if it was necessary, new
language could be created.
Number 0131
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was a constituent element everyone saw
there, indicating the situation where the entire boundaries of the
golf course is described as the licensed premise because of the
impact on underage people.
Number 0150
MR. FORD clarified that they were talking simply about sales of
beer, not possession. He noted Chairman Rokeberg was speaking of
possession walking on the course. Mr. Ford said possession is
currently allowed and that shouldn't be a problem.
Number 0180
MR. GRIFFIN stated that was correct. He indicated they had looked
the proposed CS over and it appears the committee has addressed the
board's concern about the licensed premise issue, noting he thinks
Mr. Ford has clearly done that. He stated he thinks this is okay
and the technical aspect has been addressed.
Number 0224
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted there had been earlier testimony stating
there was no prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, with the
restriction of no open container in a motor vehicle.
Number 0248
There was a brief discussion between Chairman Rokeberg, Mr. Ford
and Mr. Griffin regarding the term "motor vehicle," and whether it
was necessary to add the language "unlicensed" to indicate that the
motor vehicle in question on the golf course would most likely be
a motorized golf cart.
Number 0368
MR. GRIFFIN stated he did not think there was going to be a
problem, noting he did not think they need to call it an unlicensed
vehicle. He indicated the vehicle clearly needed to be operated
safely and in way that was not hazardous to anyone.
Number 0432
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Ford for his testimony. He stated
that concluded the testimony on HB 458; the committee would hold
the bill over for a short period and proceed with the meeting
agenda.
HB 400 - DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Number 0451
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next item of business
would be HB 400, "An Act combining parts of the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development and parts of the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs by transferring some of their duties
to a new Department of Commerce and Rural Development; transferring
some of the duties of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs to
other existing agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs; relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural
Development; adjusting the membership of certain multi-member
bodies to reflect the transfer of duties among departments and the
elimination of departments; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0459
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor (DOL), came forward to testify. He noted the
committee had heard a great deal of testimony over the last few
days and he had prepared a statement on behalf of the DOL to read
into the record:
In Section 65 ... of HB 400 it states that the Department
of Labor shall operate the federally-funded employment
and training programs under 29 U.S.C. 1501 through
1792(b), the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA]. The
impact of this section would be to transfer the JTPA
Program from Department of Community and Regional Affairs
to Alaska Department of Labor. Alaska Department of
Labor ... has had a long and productive partnership with
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, and as
Alaska Department of Labor has not administered this
program, the transition would protract the coordination
and distribution of the JTPA grants, as well ... as the
impact in close employer relationships that have been
generated by the JTPA. Additionally, a mere program
transfer would promulgate new leases for working space,
remodeling and furniture and supply costs. In conclusion
... the Department of Labor envisions ... no immediate
benefit to the public recipients of these services, both
job seekers and employers, nor do we see any monetary
savings from the JTPA transfer to Labor.
MR. PERKINS noted that concluded his prepared statement. In
addition, he indicated many people are under the impression DOL is
in the business of job training, stating the department really is
not. He said that when a person is unemployed, it is the DOL's
mission to get that individual back into the workforce as soon as
possible to avoid depletion of the unemployment insurance (UI)
trust fund. He referred to previous testimony, noting that, as
they have heard, the missions are considerably different.
Commenting on the relationship DCRA has with the rural communities
throughout the state, Mr. Perkins said the DOL feels it would
probably be in the best interest for JTPA to remain where it
currently is.
Number 0664
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the Human Resource Investment Council
was administered by the DOL.
MR. PERKINS replied, "That is under the governor's office and they
oversee the training programs, but that is not under the purview of
the Alaska Department of Labor ...."
Number 0695
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned Representative Kohring whether HB 400
affected the Human Resource Investment Council.
Number 0715
MIKE KRIEBER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Vic Kohring, came forward to testify. He replied HB
400 does not do anything with the council except change the names
of the commissioners to the new department.
Number 0742
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins if the DOL had any job training
programs.
MR. PERKINS responded that the department did not. He clarified
the department did not do job training, it put people to work. He
said DOL is the "dispatcher" getting requests from employers and
providing qualified applicants to those employers. Mr. Perkins
stated these other programs are about job training.
Number 0770
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted JTPA was under DCRA, but he questioned
whether there were other job training programs in the Department of
Health and Social Services (H&SS).
Number 0780
MR. PERKINS responded that was getting outside his realm of
expertise, noting he thought there might be some job training
associated with the Division of Public Assistance but he was not
sure.
Number 0797
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thought there were job training
programs related to monies from unemployment compensation funds
(indisc.) surcharge tax.
Number 0818
MR. PERKINS said he believed Chairman Rokeberg was referring to the
State Training Employment Program (STEP) which he said will sunset
this year, noting there is legislation that will hopefully be seen.
He stated the department's role in that program is to collect the
funds the employer sends in on employment security tax and transfer
those funds to DCRA for distribution to training programs.
Number 0845
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that program was administered by DCRA.
He asked if it was under JTPA.
Number 0853
MR. PERKINS answered in the negative, stating it was a separate
program.
Number 0887
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked where and to whom DCRA distributed that
money.
Number 0900
MR. PERKINS asked which type of money Representative Ryan was
referring to.
Number 0903
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN clarified he was referring to the employment
security tax money collected by DCRA and transferred to DCRA.
Number 0907
MR. PERKINS explained that was through the STEP Program. He noted
the program is up for sunset review this year and that there is
legislation which would extend it. He said .1 percent of the
unemployment tax from working Alaskans goes into a fund for job
training. He indicated Alaskans who have had a direct connection
to the workforce within the previous three years qualify to receive
these funds for employment training. However, Mr. Perkins
indicated, that is all administered through the private industry
councils, the vocational education technical schools, and labor
organizations who qualify for those funds to train these
individuals, upgrading their skills.
Number 0963
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated he would like to look into that bill
when it came up.
Number 0969
MR. PERKINS noted he would be happy to discuss it further if
Representative Ryan wished.
Number 0978
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the committee was disappointed to see
the DOL was not in the job training program.
Number 0997
SUSAN RODEHEAVER testified via teleconference from Kodiak. She
stated, "I have been a Kodiak "representative" for 26 years. ...
I have been aware of the Head Start Program for many years, but
only recently become involved. I have a 3 1/2 year old daughter in
(indisc.) home-based program. I am calling in concern to ... House
Bill 400. I feel that consolidating these two departments is not
the solution. The DCRA works with community-based development
along with Head Start, nurturing all aspects of family life, not
just education. Head Start's goal is to support the family with
physical, mental and emotional support to keep our children health
and safe. The DCED supports the community with job-training
programs and works to maintain fair and consistent business
regulations. Let's compare the departments saying, as an old
fashioned married couple, with the husband contributing to
financial support while the wife takes care of the household
engineering department. Suddenly the husband dies, leaving the
wife totally responsible for financial and household tasks. The
wife has to do it, but the end result lacks the same quality and
efficiency obtained when both did their separate jobs. The DCRA
and the DCED support each other, they have the same goal of
improving the community life but have different methods of reaching
this goal. ... The DCRA provides physical, mental and emotional
support for families; the DCED provides job training programs.
Both of these departments are needed, if we try to heap the
responsibility on one department, the workload will become too
heavy and the important tasks will be shuffled aside. The
Department of Commerce and Rural Development may not have much
responsibility, but what about the Department of Health and Social
Services to which day care assistance and Head Start will be
shifted, and the Department of Labor to which the job training
program [JTPA] will be added. How would these departments bear up
under the extra load? Will more employees be hired for those
departments, in the end not saving any money on labor costs? We
are considering our children's future with this bill, so my
question is, why should we change the system that works so
successfully on the possibility that we may save money?"
Number 1138
ROBERT HALL had to leave the Matanuska-Susitna Legislative
Information Office (Mat-Su LIO) before he was able to testify. He
left his testimony with Mr. Gifford.
Number 1159
DAN GIFFORD testified next via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO.
He read Mr. Hall's handwritten statement supporting HB 400 to the
committee. Mr. Gifford mentioned at various times that parts of
Mr. Hall's statement were unreadable or difficult to make out.
HB 400 represents a wonderful opportunity for the
legislature to make a statement government is important
to the people of Alaska. In these days of diminishing
revenues the legislature has a clear option of protecting
constituencies that support big, ineffective government
and cut programs that help citizens, or you can reduce
upper-level bureaucracy, rearrange government to more
efficiently and effectively deliver services and programs
which, in this case, would result in protecting $1
million worth of programs that have a clear benefit to
the people. The Department of Commerce and DCRA are
ideal candidates for this merger. In the days when the
state had large revenues, this was a luxury the states
could afford. No longer can any state (indisc.) agency
stand on its own merits of whether or not it is a good
idea. In the absence of budget cutting and budget
deficits, legislatures must make tough comparative
decisions. How does protecting entrenched bureaucracy
compare to cutting funding for the actual programs? When
any legislative effort suggests reducing funding, there
is always opposition from those affected. In this case,
the upper-level bureaucracy may make an impassioned plea
to protect their camp. As legislators, you're (indisc.--
sentence). Good government is not glamorous. The people of Alaska
has an interesting view. We have good, dedicated state employees
that are hamstrung by a (indisc.) bureaucracy. The view point of
"it's not broke, don't fix it" ignores the benefits of efficient
and effective government. Yet, HB 400 delivers better services but
allows other programs the financial freedom not to be cut. This
bill, in some small way, also allows the "legislator" to restore
credibility to state government.
Number 1364
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted to Mr. Gifford that the committee would be
happy to have a typed copy of Mr. Hall's testimony for the written
public record.
Number 1386
MR. GIFFORD said he would contact Mr. Hall about this, and he
continued with his own testimony. Mr. Gifford said HB 400 looked
like a very good bill from his limited amount of research. There
might be some structural problems which might need to be addressed,
but, overall, he thought that combining DCED and DCRA would be a
very good thing since there was duplication in the areas of rural
economic development; rural small business development and
fisheries; rural tourism; infrastructure scoping, planning and
funding; rural sanitation projects and funding; energy development;
electrical utility assistance; and also assistance to economically-
distressed regions. He noted these were all duplications that
could be put into one agency, and, from just doing some rough math,
he understands that would save at least $1 million a year by
cutting upper management. Mr. Gifford said it would still be
manageable for one commissioner, indicating the new department
would have less than 500 people and he thinks there are several
departments in state government larger than that. He commented the
benefit was that programs would not have to be cut, and perhaps
even more money might be made available for those same programs.
He said HB 400 seems to simply streamline government and make it
more efficient.
Number 1487
MR. GIFFORD noted dropping oil prices, revenue and oil production
on the North Slope. He said if things went badly for oil prices,
and other things, state agencies might have to cut services and
positions in a "meat-axe" type of way. It made more sense to him
to economize in an orderly, slow, careful way, to say nothing of
what it might do to Alaska citizens depending on those programs for
assistance. Mr. Gifford indicated HB 400 would be advantageous to
rural development in the DCRA if rural development was in the same
department with DCED which currently handles most of the funding
processing. He noted it would make a lot of sense to have that
money available in the same department, indicating this would tend
to streamline things and make them work better. Mr. Gifford stated
he had a question for Mr. Perkins from the DOL, "I was under the
impression that this basically keeps JTPA right where it is with
the Department of Labor, or either adds the Department of Labor to
- to do this, and I'm - I'm a little mystified as what the problem
is, because I just read over Section 65 and it quite clearly states
that the Department of Labor runs JTPA ...." Mr. Gifford noted
that concluded his testimony.
Number 1584
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he had asked Commissioner Irwin
from DCRA at the February 23 hearing if he would possibly take a
cut in pay to come into the new department and help with the
transition. Representative Cowdery said he thought the
commissioner had stated there was no one in the other department
who could do what Commissioner Irwin was doing. Representative
Cowdery said the impression he received was that the commissioner
would not be interested in any salary cut to assist with this
consolidation. Representative Cowdery stated that was what he
thought this bill was about: management and this consolidation.
He stated he would hope that both departments would give and take
a little bit to end up with what was best for the public, noting
that was more or less an editorial comment and he had only been
present for part of that previous meeting.
Number 1650
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would go back to testimony
in Juneau.
Number 1664
FRED JAMES came forward to testify in Juneau. He said he
completely supported HB 400, with one interesting qualification.
Mr. James said it was a wonderful bill, he thinks it was consistent
with the reason most of the Republicans were placed in office in
1994 all over the country, which he said was the just cry to cut
government. He stated government was too big and bloated and they
needed to get rid of some of it, and in many peoples' opinions, a
lot of it. Mr. James commented that, while this process of cutting
$50 or $60 million a year has been slow, he understood from gossip
that the incentive to cut was being "piddled away" this year
because of the prospect of the election. He commented that,
therefore, HB 400 was excellent because it gave them a means of
trimming and didn't remove any of the services provided. He said
he really liked the bill and noted it was because of two deep
impressions he received as a younger man. The first was an example
of government waste he saw while doing his army basic training. He
watched a large amount of ammunition shot off for no purpose
because a second lieutenant was too lazy to go through the record-
keeping to log the unshot ammunition.
Number 1774
MR. JAMES said his second deep impression was several years later
at the University of Hawaii when he was studying economics. He
learned about the notion of "make do, make work" - the theoretical
idea of one person digging holes and another one, always employed
by the government, filling those holes up. He said one digs, one
fills, and it is photographed with the big show that this is taxes
in action, and the fact that it is "make work" is concealed. Mr.
James said those two notions of "make-work" and government waste
have stayed with him ever since, stating, "And as a taxpayer, I ...
represent all notions of conserving what our treasure is, and
that's what this bill is all about, so I - I completely back it,
with this exception. And that is, that instead of moving, or ...
taking all these little divisions within the departments, and the
bill calls for them simply to remain in place and be administered
by one commissioner instead of two. Well the notion is noble, but
I would think that it would be more proper to go further than that.
We should not just move them, but we should think very seriously
about cutting them, because some of them are very much like digging
holes and then filling them up."
Number 1842
MR. JAMES indicated one of the ones he had in mind was the Division
of Tourism, which he said takes government tax dollars, the
people's money, and gives it to one sector of the private economy
instead of another. He said the Division of Tourism was
functioning as a bank and he commented that the act of the
government giving out money to certain people for one reason or
another, which a lot of these little departments did, was crowding
out the proper function of banks and other private lending
institutions. He indicated this was why bank rates went up. Mr.
James also noted a secondary reason was that when private people
gave away money, they were more careful with it because they were
profit-oriented. He said the Division of Tourism could be phased-
out and its management could find honest jobs in the private
sector. He noted that then some of the complaints that were raised
could be averted, commenting that the problem of computer
compatibility had been brought up. Mr. James said that problem
became nothing when compared to the "Y-2000" problem which every
computer in the world was going to have to face in less than two
years, and which, he said, would have to be solved first. He
indicated this problem would be solved by someone in the private
sector.
Number 1931
MR. JAMES also referred to the complaint that certain buildings
were ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) incompatible. He stated
the solution was make the buildings compatible, using open
contracts so that it could be done efficiently. He commented that
another criticism had been that work would increase over a short
time because of reorganization. Mr. James said with the
abolishment of the Division of Tourism and the reduction of
"division of licensure" (Division of Occupational Licensing) by
eliminating a number of businesses requiring licensure such as
"haircutting" and he used the analogy of getting government off the
backs of the people, not as many bureaucrats would be needed to
administer all these programs. He commented he thought the
funniest complaint of all was about the full-time space organizer.
He indicated that, because of the trimming, the deputies would have
extra time, and said they should be assigned the task of
reorganizing the space, noting that if they cut and trim, there
would be space to organize.
Number 2009
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he believed the testimony had been for two
space planners.
Number 2013
MR. JAMES said he thought Representative Kohring had been dead
right when he commented two days previously that the commissioners
were like rabbits running scared in front of headlights. Mr. James
said he has seen it time and time again, indicating that all the
testimony against HB 400 was from people were benefitting from the
current system. He said they were complaining that their "cushy"
jobs were being cut, but they would get more productive jobs in the
private sector. Mr. James stated he would advise the committee to
think about cutting whole agencies or whole departments or trimming
others, noting they would have the everlasting thanks of many of
the people. He said the Governor's office, as Representative Ryan
commented the other day, has been noncommittal about HB 400, and he
said he would go further to say that it has been arrogant, noting
that those on the "third floor" are supposed to be public servants.
He indicated he suggests that the legislature, the people who make
the rules, ought to be the ones who call the shots, and the
Governor's office ought to administer what the legislature sets up.
Mr. James referred to a letter to the editor in the Anchorage Daily
News, February 27, 1998, which was distributed to the committee,
from a Palmer man, Jim Van Doren. Mr. James quoted, "His
[Representative Kohring's] latest bill, HB 400, will consolidate
two fat state government departments, get rid of their upper-
management hierarchies and deliver the same services for far less
cost. This should be music to our ears." Mr. James noted it was
music to his, he urged the committee to do it, and he congratulated
Representative Kohring for bringing it up.
Number 2123
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any questions for Mr. James.
Number 2125
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented that Mr. James had obviously heard
the testimony from the last hearing and he asked Mr. James if he
thought the departments were motivated to get behind this proposal
or motivated for their own salaries. He noted Mr. James discussed
reorganizations and the departments had talked about the
reorganization. Representative Cowdery indicated he thinks the
legislators do that every election and it seems to work out. He
asked Mr. James if he thought the department heads or the
departments were capable of making this merger, or did he think
they were not motivated, or not interested.
Number 2156
MR. JAMES said he thought, from the comments made by the
departments, that they were protecting their (indisc.). He said
their bottom-line motivation was higher salaries and good, fat
retirements with benefits. He indicated he couldn't say exactly
what the members of the departments or department heads thought,
but he could almost predict what they would say, noting he believed
they were conjuring up every single reason they could think of to
make it look as if HB 400 was impractical and would hurt people.
He referred to the two female witnesses who testified against
moving the Head Start Program to H&SS. He noted that, while
Representative Kohring did not want any changes, there might be
some administrative changes which could be worked out in the
details. He stated, "Already they're reading long prepared
documents, who - who do think ... gave them those documents? They
didn't think 'em up." He noted he had prepared his own documents
and stated he was saying this because that was the way he felt, and
that was his political philosophy. He said, "They're protecting
themselves and we should see clearly that this is the case."
Number 2221
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said there were two other witnesses signed up to
testify, but he indicated the committee would pause the public
hearing on HB 400 in order to bring HB 458 back before the
committee.
HB 458 - GOLF COURSE BEER/WINE LICENSE
Number 2236
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated HB 458 was back before the committee.
He stated he would entertain a motion on Version L, the proposed CS
for HB 458 labeled 0-LS0507\L, Ford, dated 2/27/98.
Number 2243
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move Version L.
Number 2245
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There being
none, he stated CSHB 458(L&C) was so moved with the attached zero
fiscal note and individual recommendations.
HB 400 - DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Number 2266
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would take HB 400 back
up. He noted Representative Kohring has been in attendance, and
Pat Poland, Director, Division of Municipal and Regional
Assistance, DCRA, had been standing by for questions in Anchorage.
Chairman Rokeberg called Mr. Ritchie forward, indicating the
committee had the Alaska Municipal League's February 25 letter.
Number 2280
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, came
forward to testify in Juneau. He noted the Alaska Municipal League
was not a state agency. He said it worked with municipalities,
many of which did work with DCRA, noting a lot of what the league
does is help with the same types of issues: savings, efficiency.
He indicated the league supported any effort toward efficiency in
that direction, but it cautioned the committee members to carefully
consider each one of the changes being recommended. He said many
of the members had obviously done things like this in private
business, noting it is not always quite as straight forward as it
seems. Mr. Ritchie referred to the Alaska Municipal League's
letter which had been made available to the committee, and
indicated the league is concerned on behalf of its members because
the Constitution of the State of Alaska mandates only one agency,
a local government agency [Article X, Section 14 of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska reads: "Local government
agency. An agency shall be established by law in the executive
branch of the state government to advise and assist local
governments. It shall review their activities, collect and publish
local government information, and perform other duties prescribed
by law."]. Mr. Ritchie said, according to his reading, since there
is only one agency mandated, the framers of the constitution felt
it was an extremely important function of government, and would be
in the long term. He said the only point he would make about a
local government agency was that government has become quite a bit
more complicated than it used to be, and the need for an agency to
provide advice and support to local governments is more and more
important. He commented on the need for support with federal
environmental rules, federal mandates of many kinds, state mandates
and personnel law. Mr. Ritchie suggested the committee talk to
some of the people involved in the constitutional discussions of
the necessity of a local government agency, noting that if this
agency was set aside in a separate department as a sub-program, it
was probably not going to get the same type of attention and
emphasis intended by the constitution.
Number 2360
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented on the low price of oil, and
indicated that times for cut-backs come up, and this is such a
time. He said the agencies the Alaska Municipal League deals with
would still be in place and the composition of upper management
really didn't matter, noting the league was more interested in the
programs, and he didn't think the programs would be impacted in
this change. He said he had asked Representative Hudson how many
departments had existed 20 or 25 years ago, noting there had been
fewer. Representative Cowdery said he hasn't done the research but
he stated, "The departments have split up and went just the
opposite of what we're trying to do it back into one now. And I -
I, just a question, do you, I just -- if you could elaborate on why
you think ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 98-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. RITCHIE stated, "... I used to - to be a city manager for a
fairly large organization, and having gone through that exercise a
number of times, some of the things that seem like they'll save
money may not particularly save money." He noted one example in
the late 1970s, where the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) had been
approached by a private management corporation who guaranteed the
assembly the company could save the CBJ $1 million in its
organization. Mr. Ritchie said the company did save $1 million in
organization, coming back for $35,000 or $40,000 with a list of
positions to eliminate, but he noted there were some significant
impacts beyond that. He said he would caution that it was a
difficult thing to do, but not that it couldn't be done. In terms
of whether or not the agency would be effective if made more of a
sub-program, he said he could not say what would happen, but he
noted that when a program was moved down the line in terms of
importance, it often received less organizational time. He said
the state constitution seemed to put a great deal of importance on
a local government agency from a policy as well as a service
standpoint, by saying there was only one real, constitutionally-
required agency, and this might be important for the committee to
think about in its deliberations.
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted he came from the private sector also.
He referred to his company and the changes that were necessary as
the economy changed. Representative Cowdery said his company
hadn't been very large, at times it had made $10 million a year in
the heydays. Different sections had dealt with different
functions: private houses, subdivision development, highway work.
As the economy changed, he said it was necessary to merge these
functions. He noted his company still performed these functions,
it did whatever it was competitive to do, but it had to merge to
remain competitive. He indicated he felt these were just necessary
things that needed to be done. Representative Cowdery commented
that he had been working for the Municipality of Anchorage during
the oil price collapse. He said when Mayor Fink took over, the
banks were failing, peoples' homes had depreciated, people couldn't
afford to pay for them, and some were leaving the state. However,
Representative Cowdery said, it struck him most that the city
employees he worked with didn't know there was a problem because
they were still getting paid. He indicated he believed the
majority of employees in the two merged departments would "dig
their heels in," noting that when they cut back in the municipality
they ended up with a better product, and served the public better.
He said Representative Kohring's idea was not new, it had been
thought out a couple of years previously. Representative Cowdery
indicated it was time to make some hard decisions which might not
be popular with everyone, recalling that some of the municipality
employees had said they didn't really care about lay-offs because
they were so far up on the seniority list. He stated he really has
strong feelings that this is proper, timely, and is something that
should be done.
Number 0536
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Mr. Ritchie's letter and testimony brought
the committee's attention to Article X, Section 14, of the Alaska
State Constitution. Chairman Rokeberg commented that it only said
"agency," not investing it with the importance of a department. He
asked Mr. Ritchie if he thought that if HB 400 passed, the
existence of an agency, not necessarily a division, within the
merged department would fulfill the constitutional mandate?
Number 0606
MR. RITCHIE answered he believed they had a lot of latitude to
interpret what the constitution says, noting he is certain it has
been done many times since its writing, and he thinks that agency
may have been moved around quite a bit. He stated the Alaska
Municipal League's point, and something that needed to be carefully
considered, was that does this agency still do the types of things
as well as or as envisioned by the framers of the constitution. He
indicated further research in this area might be worthwhile.
Number 0649
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would look at the minutes
of the constitutional convention.
Number 0667
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted there was an axiom in government that
when departments were merged, the bigger one usually ate the little
one. He asked Mr. Ritchie if the composition of the municipal
league, and how it was funded, had changed in the past ten years
since Representative Ryan had participated in it. He noted the
disparity in dues had been phenomenal, although each member had
only one vote. He said Fairbanks had been paying something like
$50,000 a year while Fort Yukon was paying $250, noting the smaller
communities were the majority.
Number 0720
MR. RITCHIE indicated this was not still the case.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked how the league was currently put
together.
Number 0723
MR. RITCHIE answered that the maximum dues paid by any organization
were $37,000 and that the minimum dues have come up considerably
for the smaller organizations. He said his bosses were the ten
regional representatives, noting it was much like the legislature
with population as one of the key factors. He commented that
Anchorage and Fairbanks both had their own seats. Mr. Ritchie
indicated the key decisions on policy matters were made by the ten
regional representatives, but he noted Representative Ryan was
correct in that the municipalities each received one vote, which,
he said, is the same as the vast majority of other municipal
leagues in the United States. He noted the reason for this is that
municipal leagues, by their nature, have to be consensus
organizations. He indicated that if an issue causes a significant
split between any configuration of the municipalities, it would not
really be an appropriate statewide issue to go forward with on a
consensus opinion.
Number 0798
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Ritchie for his testimony, noting the
committee would take testimony from one more witness in Valdez,
thanking her for her patience.
Number 0834
SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President, Alaskans for a Just Society, testified
next via teleconference from Valdez. She noted her patience ran
out about an hour ago and commented that her testimony would be
brief. She asked how many legislators were present.
Number 0880
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated there were four House members present. He
said the committee had received Ms. Sullivan's 13-page faxed
statement and it had been distributed to the committee members.
Number 0871
MS. SULLIVAN noted the fiscal note on HB 400 had been requested and
asked if it had been prepared.
Number 0880
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that the committee had not received the
fiscal note.
Number 0898
MS. SULLIVAN said she was not sure if the legislators had a chance
to read her letter. She stated she was a paralegal of 15 years,
noting her statement consisted of a six-page letter and the
documentation she was referring to. Ms. Sullivan stated HB 400 was
unconstitutional and believed she proved that in her letter. She
said every piece of legislation must pass constitutional muster.
Ms. Sullivan indicated the drafting attorney on HB 400 was Terri
Lauterbach, and said her letter indicates she called Legislative
Legal and Research Services to get the legal opinion on HB 400 but
was refused. She indicates she was told that Legislative Legal and
Research Services were confidential, which Ms. Sullivan said was
"baloney."
Number 0980
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Ms. Sullivan said she would (indisc.) a
legal opinion and he asked her what legal opinion she was talking
about.
Number 0989
MS. SULLIVAN said she found it was interesting that so many
legislators did not know there was a drafting manual for both the
drafting of regulations and the drafting of legislation. Ms.
Sullivan stated that, in the process of drafting legislation and
regulation, the attorneys at legal services are mandated by the
constitution and the Alaska Supreme Court to have a check-off list
to make sure that when they give legislation back to the
legislators it has passed constitutional muster, i.e. it is not
illegal or unconstitutional. She noted from her experience as a
paralegal she could see in two minutes that HB 400 was both illegal
and unconstitutional because: 1) there was one more than one
subject in this bill and a bill could not have more than subject;
2) page 11 of HB 400 listed a brand-new program, a brand-new
Section. She said it was a brand-new law and was not even noted in
the title. Ms. Sullivan said she stated in her letter that the
reason the Alaska Supreme Court said the attorneys with legal
services had to check-off the conformance of every piece of
legislation was so no one would try to include something in
legislation that should not be there. She noted that was illegal.
Number 1096
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he appreciated Ms. Sullivan's criticisms of
the legislative legal agency, noting many members might sometimes
share a lot of her opinions, but, given the time constraints, he
asked her to keep to the subject of the bill, not the drafting
manual.
Number 1120
MS. SULLIVAN replied that if it is not legal, then it is invalid.
Number 1125
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it was a matter of opinion and he
appreciated her opinion, and asked her to speak to the bill on its
merits.
Number 1133
MS. SULLIVAN stated she wanted to update the committee, indicating
she had received the two memorandums on HB 400 just before going to
the LIO. She noted that on both of these pages Ms. Lauterbach said
she had not checked for legal or technical review of the bill. Ms.
Sullivan stated the top of the February 10 memorandum said,
"Enclosed is your new final, ready-for-introduction bill." She
indicated the Legislative Legal and Research Services attorneys are
in trouble when they put a stamp of approval on the bill like that
because they did not follow the mandate. Ms. Sullivan stated her
association is absolutely against this, commenting that it has been
going on two years now. She said what affects her association in
particular is the business incentive training program, noting she
indicated this in her letter and backed it up with the applicable
federal law. She indicated federal monies cannot be used for the
state work and training programs if those people are assigned to
employers for training work, on the job training, or any of the
like, noting that 84,000 unemployed Alaskans need jobs. She stated
HB 400 was introduced so these employers could get free slave
labor, commenting that all the bill sponsors were business owners.
Ms. Sullivan asked if Representatives Brice or Kubina were present.
Number 1243
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted they were not there that day.
MS. SULLIVAN said they were the only two that were not in business,
and she said her organization was taking this farther because they
believed this was intentional fraud.
Number 1261
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected. He stated HB 400 did not speak to
any substantive changes in the law, noting those were already
existing laws. He indicated HB 400 merged various elements of
government currently in statute now and it seemed she was straying
from the title and subject matter of HB 400 because the merging of
different functions was what was before the committee, not the
merits of that particular program.
Number 1286
MS. SULLIVAN asked for clarification on page 11, which said Section
21 was amended by adding a new Section 3 and telling how a business
incentive training program would be set up.
Number 1302
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was in existing law and not before the
committee in terms of its substance.
Number 1308
MS. SULLIVAN said the entire bill was before the committee.
Number 1303
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that was true; he said that if the
committee chose to redraft any sections of the bill, it certainly
would. However, he noted that was not the intention of HB 400, nor
was it the intention of committee to review every element of
existing statute as it related to the two departments; the purpose
of this bill was to merge two departments and nothing else.
Number 1328
MS. SULLIVAN stated that was not what the bill was doing and she
commented that they would handle it from there, indicating she was
sure a judge would agree. She referred to the material she had
provided and the drafting manual, indicating she believed the bill
was totally illegal.
Number 1349
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Representative Kohring had no closing
comments. HB 400 was held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1354
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|