Legislature(1997 - 1998)

05/01/1998 05:11 PM RLS

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ 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                                                                   
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,                  
 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                     
 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                    
 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                 
 5/09/97      1923     (S)  IN THIRD READING ON RECONSIDERATION                
 5/09/97      1923     (S)  RTN 2ND RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION UAN                
 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,                  
 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                                                                   
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:                      
 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,                    
 3/04/98      2491     (H)  HUDSON                                             
 3/04/98      2492     (H)  5 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, F&G, LAW, DEC,                
 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,                  
 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.                
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             
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              
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                      
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                  
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              
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                    
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                  
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                  
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                
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                 
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                  
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               
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.                           
Number 700                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Rules Standing Committee meeting             
at 6:00 p.m.                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects