Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/01/1998 05:11 PM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 1998
5:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Brian Porter
Representative William K.(Bill) Williams
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 122(L&C)
"An Act relating to unfair discrimination under a group health
insurance policy for services provided by marital and family
therapists; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCSCSSB 122(RLS) FORWARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 474
"An Act relating to correctional officers."
- MOVED CSHB 474(RLS) FORWARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments
because of those repeals."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 122
SHORT TITLE: INS.COVERAGE:MARRIAGE & FAMILY THERAPIST
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/06/97 597 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/06/97 597 (S) L&C, HES
4/08/97 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/08/97 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
4/09/97 1049 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE
4/09/97 1049 (S) DP: LEMAN; NR: KELLY, MACKIE, MILLER
4/09/97 1049 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS (DCED)
4/16/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
4/16/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
4/16/97 1164 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR (L&C)CS
4/16/97 1164 (S) DP: WARD, LEMAN, ELLIS NR: GREEN,
WILKEN
4/16/97 1164 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
4/21/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/21/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/21/97 1331 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/21/97
4/21/97 1344 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/21/97 1344 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED Y15 N4 E1
4/21/97 1344 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/21/97 1344 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 122(L&C)
4/21/97 1345 (S) PASSED Y13 N6 E1
4/21/97 1345 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y15 N4 E1
4/21/97 1345 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/22/97 1420 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/22/97 1420 (S) PLACED AT BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
4/22/97 1429 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/23
CALENDAR
4/23/97 1452 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION
4/23/97 1452 (S) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE
5/08/97 (S) RLS AT 8:25 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
5/08/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
5/09/97 1891 (S) RULES TO CAL ON RECONSIDERATION IN
3RD
5/09/97 1923 (S) IN THIRD READING ON RECONSIDERATION
5/09/97 1923 (S) RTN 2ND RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION UAN
CONSENT
5/09/97 1924 (S) RESCINDED ADOPTING L&C CS Y13 N6 E1
5/09/97 1924 (S) FAILED TO ADOPT L&C CS Y4 N15 E1
5/09/97 1924 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING SB 122
5/09/97 1925 (S) LETTER OF INTENT FAILED Y7 N12 E1
5/09/97 1926 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N4 E1
5/09/97 1926 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/09/97 1932 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
5/09/97 1786 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/09/97 1786 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, WTR
2/19/98 (H) STA AT 9:05 AM CAPITOL 102
2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/23/98 2403 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) 4DP 2NR
2/23/98 2403 (H) DP: JAMES, ELTON, BERKOWITZ, DYSON;
2/23/98 2403 (H) NR: IVAN, HODGINS
2/23/98 2403 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
3/02/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/02/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/09/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/09/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/11/98 2597 (H) L&C RPT HCS(STA) 2DP 3NR
3/11/98 2597 (H) DP: COWDERY, HUDSON; NR: SANDERS,
BRICE,
3/11/98 2597 (H) ROKEBERG
3/11/98 2597 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 2/23/98
4/27/98 3295 (H) WTR REFERRAL WAIVED
5/01/98 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 474
SHORT TITLE: CERTIFY MUNICIPAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/27/98 2770 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/27/98 2770 (H) JUDICIARY
4/08/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/08/98 MINUTE(JUD)
4/09/98 2940 (H) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR
4/09/98 2940 (H) DP: BUNDE, GREEN, PORTER; NR:
ROKEBERG
4/09/98 2940 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
5/01/98 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) THERRIAULT, Kelly
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/13/97 34 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
1/13/97 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/13/97 35 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
2/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/22/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/22/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/25/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/23/97 (H) RES AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 120
4/23/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/24/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/24/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/19/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/26/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/26/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/27/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/03/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/04/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/04/98 2491 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 2DP 1DNP 2NR 3AM
3/04/98 2491 (H) DP: BARNES, OGAN; DNP: NICHOLIA;
3/04/98 2491 (H) NR: DYSON, MASEK; AM: WILLIAMS,
GREEN,
3/04/98 2491 (H) HUDSON
3/04/98 2492 (H) 5 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, F&G, LAW, DEC,
DNR)
3/04/98 2492 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (C&RA)
3/06/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/09/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/09/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
3/11/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/11/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
3/20/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/27/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/28/98 (H) FIN AT 2:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/30/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
3/30/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
4/01/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/01/98 2829 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 3DP 2DNP 3NR
4/01/98 2829 (H) DP: THERRIAULT, MULDER, KELLY;
4/01/98 2829 (H) DNP: DAVIES, GRUSSENDORF; NR: HANLEY
4/01/98 2829 (H) MARTIN, DAVIS
4/01/98 2830 (H) FISCAL NOTE (H.FIN/LAW)
4/01/98 2830 (H) 4 ZERO FNS (DCRA, DEC, H.FIN/LAW,
F&G)
4/01/98 2830 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
4/01/98 2830 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
5/01/98 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ROBERT PEARSON, Intern
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HCSCSSB 122(RLS) on behalf of the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained CSSB 474(RLS) on behalf of the House
Judiciary Committee.
LADDIE SHAW, Director
Alaska Police Standards Council
P.O. Box 111700
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4378
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 474(RLS).
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 511
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6876
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained CSHB 28(RLS) on behalf of
Representative Therriault.
DIANE MAYER, Director
Governmental Coordination
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
Telephone: (907) 465-8800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSHB 28(RLS).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-10, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Phillips, Porter, Williams and Elton.
Representative Nicholia arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CSSB 122(L&C) - INS.COVERAGE:MARRIAGE & FAMILY THERAPIST
Number 019
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business would be CSSB
122(L&C), "An Act relating to unfair discrimination under a group
health insurance policy for services provided by marital and family
therapists; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. He noted there is a proposed
committee substitute (CS) dated 4/30/98, Ford, Version L.
Number 023
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed
House CS for CS for SB 122, Version L. There being no objection,
Version L was before the committee.
Number 029
ROBERT PEARSON, Intern to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to explain the proposed CS. He said the
legislation would provide equity for marital and family therapists
on a par with a number of other health professionals, including
mental health professionals, in what might be described as equal
opportunity or protecting them from unfair discrimination in
insurance policy matters.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked if the only change is the effective
date.
MR. PEARSON responded in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN KOTT explained that it would give the insurance companies
time to make the necessary changes to conform to the (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further witness to testify.
There being none, he asked what the wish was of the committee.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved and asked unanimous consent to move
HCSCSSB 122(RLS), Version L, out of committee with individual
recommendations and with the zero fiscal notes. There being no
objection, HCSCSSB 122(RLS) moved out of the House Rules Standing
Committee.
HB 474 - CERTIFY MUNICIPAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
Number 078
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 474, "An Act
relating to correctional officers," sponsored by the House
Judiciary Committee. He indicated there is a proposed CS.
Number 086
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, came before the
committee. He explained that Mr. Shaw, representing the Alaska
Police Standards Council, asked the House Judiciary Committee to
introduce legislation that would allow the Alaska Police Standards
Council to regulate and require training of municipal corrections
officers. Mr. Jardell said the House Judiciary Committee heard and
moved the bill. After moving the bill, there were concerns raised
that what the committee had done was required the municipal
corrections officers to meet the same standards as all state
corrections officers. He stated that standard is too high to allow
for a sufficient hiring pool in some of rural areas of Alaska. Mr.
Jardell referred to the proposed CS and said they redrafted the
approach so that there is new classification created of municipal
corrections officers that is separate and distinct from the normal
corrections officers. That was placed under the authority of the
Alaska Police Standards Council. By doing that, it would allow the
council to create specific training programs and hiring
requirements that met the needs of municipal corrections. He
explained that the idea was to allow the council to begin setting
some standards and to oversee the municipal corrections officers.
The CS does that in a more appropriate manner than the original
version of the bill.
Number 135
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
474, dated 4/15/98, Luckhaupt, Version E. There being no
objection, CSHB 474(RLS) was before the committee.
Number 140
LADDIE SHAW, Director, Alaska Police Standards Council, came before
the committee. He explained that the changes would allow the
council to specifically regulate the municipal corrections
officers. The standards that they originally set were equal to the
level state correctional officers. Those were adjusted
accordingly. Mr. Shaw pointed out they would still receive the
same amount of training, but they would be under municipal
authority versus state authority.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if they would be certified by the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
MR. SHAW responded that they would be certified through the
council, but it will be a separate certification than the state
correctional officers. They will be certified as municipal
correctional officials.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked if the correctional officers in
the community jail system will still fall under the state
standards.
MR. SHAW responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what communities would the new
classification affect.
MR. SHAW explained that it would affect any of the communities with
small jails.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked how many are not part of the
community correction facilities.
MR. SHAW pointed out that there are 17 community jails.
Number 182
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA referred to the fiscal note and asked
if the cost of $1,500, per officer, would come from the Alaska
Police Standards Council training fund.
MR. SHAW said that is true. He informed the committee that they
are already under the Alaska Police Standards Council's budget.
Mr. Shaw noted that they have already trained a class and in the
existing fiscal note, there is no additional dollars for this
program.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if the funds will come out of the
funds for police officer training.
MR. SHAW indicated they will.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if there would be an impact on that
fund.
MR. SHAW responded, "Yes, because our budget primarily is to
support police and correctional training statewide. Bringing on
the municipal correctional officers will be part of the funding
that exists under our budget."
Number 206
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the municipalities match the
training money.
MR. SHAW stated that there isn't a direct match. The sur charge is
supported by each municipality in the state, but there is not a
match to the sur charge.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "Is this currently under the
regulations now that the correctional officers can take money from
those funds?"
MR. SHAW responded in the negative. He said they are already under
the council's regulatory authority and the council's budget
supports them, primarily in in-service training. They have not
historically supported the correctional officers.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "You haven't offered training for
$1,500 before? This is a new item - $1,500?"
MR. SHAW responded that the council has supported one class and
graduated 13 municipal correction officers in September that they
funded out of the existing budget.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further questions or witnesses
wishing to testify. There being none, he closed the public
hearing.
Number 241
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS made a motion to move CSHB 474,
Version E, out of committee with individual recommendations and
with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection CSHB
474(RLS) moved out of the House Rules Standing Committee.
HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM
Number 251
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 28, "An Act
repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Alaska
Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments because of
those repeals," sponsored by Representative Therriault.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 5:25 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 5:27 p.m.
Number 261
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene
Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
explain the proposed CS in comparison with the Finance Committee
version. She said the language regarding the coastal zone boundary
was changed. There was an amendment introduced in the House
Finance Committee that wasn't adopted and Representative Therriault
wanted her to continue working on it. The amendment addressed some
concerns regarding the boundary issue and would change Section 4 of
the bill. She stated that it requires that a consistency
determination outside of the coastal zone is not required unless
the activity is on federal land and affects the zone. It also
clarifies that the area of the coastal zone that went beyond the
1979 established boundary is not required unless there is a direct
effect on coastal waters or if the activity requires a Title 16
permit. Ms. Fisher-Goad explained the proposed CS doesn't repeal
the Coastal Zone Management Program as the original version of the
bill did. Each version of the bill does less and less. There is
a few specific things that the bill addresses.
Number 292
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS moved that the committee adopt the proposed
CS for HB 28, Version Z. There being no objection Version Z,
Glover, dated 4/30/98, was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what caused a Interior Alaska
legislator to introduce legislation on coastal zone management.
MS. FISHER-GOAD stated that Representative Therriault has told the
House Resources Committee and the House Finance Committee that
although he represents Interior Alaska, he has become familiar with
the resource agencies and their budgets for the last six years. He
has to look beyond the boarders of his district in looking at
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Fisher-Goad to summarize the
input from the coastal communities regarding the legislation.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said, "Obviously, the repeal was not well received
and so we went back to the drawing board and tried to look at some
distinct areas. There has been some concern, and I did receive a
copy of this 'Cook Inlet Keeper' fax that was given to me a few
minutes ago. There has been a lot of, I think, misunderstanding on
the various versions of the bill and one of the problems that I've
found is that the short title of the bill still says 'repeal.' And
so Mr. Shavelson's letter on one of their concerns is - one of his
concerns is that it guts the program. The bill does not gut the
program. There is no such threat of federal takeover mainly
because this is a voluntary federal program that we adopted back in
the '70s, so there is no threat of a federal takeover. It's not
like a primacy for the air program. I can outline the sections of
what specifically the bill does now. We probably -- I think we've
answered and responded to most of the concerns of individuals
regarding their concerns on the process. And I think what we have
left, I think it does restrict the program a little bit, but it
doesn't repeal the program. I think Representative Therriault has
had a concern as far as how far the boundaries can go inland and
what permits and regulates them or what type of duplication this
program has caused over the years."
Number 345
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "Could you enlarge on why there is a
difference between whether boarders are involved in federal lands
as opposed to state or municipal private land?"
MS. FISHER-GOAD explained that when the federal program was
implemented, they specifically stated that federal land could not
be within the zone. So regardless of how you drew your boundaries,
any patch of federal land would never be in your zone. She said
that somehow had to be addressed. You can still require
consistency determination if it's on federal land, but it has to
have some type of spill-over impact into the zone. She said you
could have a patch of federal land where there is some activity
that does affect it, but you could never draw your boundaries to
include it. She stated, "We just needed to clarify that because
one of the things that Representative Therriault wanted to do is
see that districts set their zones and once a zone is set and we
have the coastal area, he didn't' think it was appropriate for a
consistency determination to be required outside of the zone or
district. There was a supreme court case that had kind of
highlighted this that these people waited to get their trapping
cabin permit on state land for years, finally received it, but they
had to go to the supreme court to do it. And then the point of
contention was with the coastal district and it was I believe about
100 miles inland."
Number 376
DIANE MAYER, Director, Governmental Coordination, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, came before the
committee. She explained that her office is responsible for
overseeing the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management
Program in Alaska. She stated there are two sections of the bill
that warrant just opposition. One section is Section 4 regarding
the standard of review and how different areas of the coastal zone
are treated based on the boundary conditions built in the
legislation. The second is the repeal of petitions to the Coastal
Policy Council which hasn't been mentioned. She said she would
respond to the question, "What have coastal districts said about
this bill?" She stated that she has formal resolutions against the
bill, but obviously not the current version. The resolutions are
against elements of the version before the committee that have been
in previous versions. They have been specifically cited. The
resolutions of opposition range from Anchorage, Sitka, North Slope
Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough. Ms. Mayer explained Alaska has
34,000 miles of coastline, and when Alaska bought into the Coastal
Program 20 years ago, we created an interim boundary. It was
called "interim" because coastal districts were going to do
separate programs more specific to their area. As coastal
districts came online examining their coastal zone, they modified
those boundaries to be sensitive to resource values within their
specific area. Ms. Mayer said, "What this bill does is say when
those districts expanded the boundary from that initial interim
boundary, it was expanded because coastal districts felt there were
coastal resources, largely anadromous fish, but we can use that as
a good example because it's the simplest one, where spawning areas,
rearing areas, fresh water areas that were beyond that interim
boundary definitely affected the important coastal resources of
anadromous fish to Alaska. What this bill does is say, 'In those
cases where a local community fine tuned its boundary and expanded
it,' what this legislation says is they can't work the process of
coastal management unless the project effects all the way down to
salt water. So you're skipping over managing that spawning and
rearing area that you were concerned with."
MS. MAYER continued, "The bill does provide if you're in the upper
regions and you need a Title 16 permit from [Department of] Fish
and Game or you're actually building something right in the creek
or stream, that you can work with the project. But there are
issues of sedimentation, water discharge, a lot of ways to affect
that important fish resource without actually ... working in the
stream. So what we've set up here is a case in this bill where
coastal districts get taken - coastal districts have taken from
them the opportunity to interact on projects through coastal
management that affect important resources that they've identified
in their program. The other issue of state and federal land is an
important one. The amendment that was just adopted tried to solve
the problem, as Sara described it where federal lands within the
coastal zone were deleted in the last version. But the amendment,
as it's set up, now sets up a deal where federal lands outside of
the coast area but affecting it are subject to coastal management.
But the identical project on state land, which might be immediately
adjacent to it, would not be in. So we have a double standard
where we'd have to go back to the federal funding agency and say,
'Well, we have a new deal in coastal management now and the state
is not holding itself accountable to the same standard of review
with the local governments that the feds will be held accountable
to.' So we have double standards, we have review procedures built
in where you have to prove affect on coastal waters rather than
anadromous steams to have the program go into effect. And
essentially what we try to do in coastal management is timely - get
in there, figure out what permits are needed and run a review, but
under this system we're going to have to do initial analysis just
to try to determine if projects in the upper reaches of the coastal
boundary are even subject to the program and we consider that
unnecessary."
Number 456
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the fiscal note from Ms. Mayer's
office dated March 4, 1998, and asked if it is relevant to the
current version of the bill before the committee.
MS. MAYER referred to the fiscal note that was submitted to the
House Finance Committee and said the committee amended it. She
noted that she hasn't received any paperwork, but it was reduced
substantially. She said money that her office had asked for
coastal districts to engage in this was deleted from their
request. Ms. Mayer explained the narrative would be relevant, but
what came out of the Finance Committee was not what they asked for.
It was substantially cut.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if he would be correct to say there is
a process of review available to the local area, and under the
current version of the bill, that review would not then be
available. He asked if there are any other mechanisms for that
review.
MS. MAYER responded that there will be areas within coastal
districts that will not be eligible for the benefits of coastal
management, but that was designed to be, so there is a reduction.
She said the review they would get is unique in two ways. One,
coastal management consolidates applications for federal and state
agencies. It brings the applicant together with the local
community and it actually runs a more holistic look at a project
where people can do it once. So you would lose the opportunity to
bring the players to the table to problem solve. Ms. Mayer pointed
out that the second thing that would be lost is when the local
communities design their coastal programs, they identify
enforceable policies that they want, from the local perspective, to
be applied to projects that affect their coastal zone. So if you
unplug the program from project reviews in the coastal zone, as the
bill does in the areas where the districts have expanded that
boundary, you lose both the ability for them to have their standard
of review on the table and you unplug the players.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to a main river system such as the
Copper River and asked who the local group would be.
MS. MAYER responded the Kenai River is an example where the Kenai
Peninsula Borough is the coastal district; it is the government
entity. She explained there are a couple of gaps in coastal Alaska
where you don't have a district and only the state piece of the
program applies. Generally, if there is a local government they
are the coastal district. Ms. Mayer said the exception is when
you're in Western Alaska as it is an unorganized area, but people
have organized into coastal districts. Current state statute
allows people to elect a board and create a coastal resource
service area and then become the entity you talk to in the
unorganized area. She noted you have to follow the rules of the
Alaska Coastal Management Act that sets out exactly what you have
to do to become a coastal resource service area. You actually have
a local election and during that election, they elect people in the
unorganized area to the board.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how it is determined whether he can
vote on that or not.
MS. MAYER indicated they are within the rural education attendance
areas (REAA). She said those are the initial boundaries and they
can vote to subdivide them, but they start with something that is
on the books. Ms. Mayer said the Kenai River is a good example
because there the local community did expand the interim boundary
to take in the fishery resources of the Kenai River.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the linear process Ms. Mayer
described and said if someone has any concerns about any particular
economic development project or trapper's cabin having an effect on
one of the resources there, there are still mechanisms, if this was
not in effect, to pursue that.
MS. MAYER explained that there are other permits that would apply
to the project and would continue to apply. The significant shift
is the standing of the local community is simply that you can just
comment. Coastal management really gives a local district, that
has an approved plan, standing in the process to be a stronger
player.
Number 543
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the current version of the bill eliminates
the petition process that is currently available to the policy
council for those specific projects.
MS. MAYER responded in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked what impact would that have on the communities
or the projects that may be considered.
MS. MAYER responded that in 1994, the legislature took on the
question and they changed the law. She said, "The law, as it
currently stands, has communities or citizens of districts who have
commented in the process, who feel their comments weren't fairly
considered, they can go to the council and say basically,
'Government isn't hearing me.' the council's authority is simply
to remand it if they believe that the record shows there was not
fair consideration of comments. They simply remand it for further
consideration. If they do believe there was fair consideration or
comments, they just deny the petition." Ms. Mayer explained that
since 1994, that process has been used seven times under 2,100
project reviews they've done in Alaska. Ms. Mayer pointed out that
people argue that it has rarely been used and it doesn't make a
difference if we get rid of it. The other side of the argument is
because it's there, communities do get that extra attention because
nobody likes petitions. Ms. Mayer said the truth of the matter is
because nobody likes them, that extra consideration is given and
districts enjoy the leverage it gives them to be heard. She said
it is effective. Even though they have this authority, it has only
been used seven times in 2,100 project reviews and it means that
they've been given satisfaction out of the process. Ms. Mayer
said, "So I say keep it. Why get rid of it? There has not been a
record of abuse."
Number 573
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 4, lines 19 and 20, "(A)
outside and inland of the coastal zone unless the use or activity
is on federal land and affects the coastal zone area, uses, or
resources;" and asked whose responsibility is it to make the
determination on whether or not the activity affects the coastal
zone area.
MS. MAYER explained her office would determine it if it wasn't
obvious. Usually it is pretty obvious and not disputed. She said,
"If it required some thinking, we would talk to the coastal
community, as well as experts within the resource agency and get a
feel from the technical expertise that's out there to help us."
Ms. Mayer referred to the wording, "outside and inland of the
coastal zone," and said you're basically above the coastal zone.
She stated that it says that you may not adopt regulation
procedures unless you're outside and inland of the coastal zone
unless the use or activity is on federal land. She pointed out
that if it is federal land outside, then you can do it, but the
same project on state lands or private lands right next to it you
can't. It creates a problem when you go to the federal government
and tell them, "We have a program that gives equal treatment to
coastal impacts." Ms. Mayer stated that the change was made to
address the problem of federal lands inside the coastal zone. That
problem was fixed, but then it created a problem with lands above
the coastal zone.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the net effect is that you could have two
similar projects, one located on federal land and the other not
located on federal land and they would be treated differently.
MS. MAYER responded in the affirmative.
Number 608
MS. FISHER-GOAD explained said that Representative Therriault
believes that there has been a potential for abuse with the current
petition process. She pointed out that the sponsor statement
does address the concern on the petition process. She said there
is a seat at the table with the local program and it should address
the concerns of the local government and the individuals of that
district. If the district, as a voice of its constituents,
disagrees with the proposed consistency determination for a
project, they may elevate the proposed decision through the
resource agencies, their directors and their commissioners. Ms.
Fisher-Goad stated that there is still that avenue for districts to
have the project reviewed. She said she doesn't think there is any
other program in the state that as an individual citizen, if she
has a difference of opinion with her local government that she can
petition a state entity to have that decision reviewed.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said, "The other portion of the bill that does
address the concerns of the actual program is we do allow, in the
bill, a section where regulations may be adopted to periodically
review the program and also allow for revocation if a district does
not address deficiencies in their programs. So a program can be
reviewed. The state can set up a procedure to do that and address
deficiencies in the program. The other issue I wanted to address
is the two-tiered system or the double standard. The one thing
that's been a little bit difficult to kind of -- how to fashion
this is regardless of where you draw your boundaries, you're never
going to be able to include federal land. But if there is - if
there adjacent state project and a federal project, you could
always have your district boundaries include that state project.
So once the district boundaries are set up, that would include all
the state land. It would never include the federal land. So in
some respects, the federal program handed us a program with double
standards and we'd never be able to have -- federal land is never
treated the same way."
Number 641
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to Section 8, which requires
modifications in a one-year time period, and asked who pays for
those modifications. He asked if the districts pay for those
modifications.
MS. FISHER-GOAD responded that the modifications that the
legislation addresses is specifically if an entity or a district
adopts statutes and regulations by reference, those are the
modifications that need to be addressed within a year. That has
been an identified issue and the Administration supports that
section of the bill. If there are statutes and regulations that
are adopted by reference, those should come out of the programs.
She noted the federal dollars and the state match pays for the
entire program.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Fisher-Goad if she is saying that
she doesn't think any additional money is needed (indisc.)
districts or for the state to accomplish what they have to do
within a year.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said, "No."
Number 658
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 7 and said there are several
repealers. He asked if they are solely associated with the
petition process.
MS. FISHER-GOAD responded in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there were no further witnesses to testify
and closed the public hearing.
Number 664
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that she is going to oppose the
legislation based on the fact that her history with coastal zone
management on the Kenai Peninsula is longstanding and the coastal
zone management policy and programs have been a way for the people
on the Kenai Peninsula to participate in the decisions affecting
our coastline for many years. She stated that the program has a
critical effect on the Kenai Peninsula, not only on the coastline,
but also on one of the most strategically important rivers in
Alaska, the Kenai River. She explained it affects many of the
cities in the borough and also the lands of the borough. The Kenai
Peninsula Borough Assembly is opposed to the legislation as they
believe the current program is the best representative program for
the local people. She read the following section of a resolution
from the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly: "The Kenai Peninsula
Borough supports the Alaska Coastal Management Program and opposes
the committee substitute to House Bill 28 and other legislative
efforts to reduce local option." Representative Phillips point out
that recently there was a bill in the House Rules Committee
effecting another community where the committee didn't take action
because the action would have been perceived to reduce local
option. She reiterated she is opposed to the legislation as it
would reduce local option.
Number 683
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA indicated she wouldn't be supporting the
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he agrees with everything
Representative Phillips has said. He said coastal communities in
Southeast Alaska have the same kind of issue to deal with. He said
that getting rid of coastal zone management actually slows down
economic development projects. It is a pattern and system that
Southeast Alaska communities are comfortable with.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that there probably aren't the votes to move the
bill forward, so the proposed CSHB 28(RLS) was held.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 700
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Rules Standing Committee meeting
at 6:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|