Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/24/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 1994
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Al Vezey, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Fran Ulmer
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 351: "An Act relating to the issuance of permits for
the carrying of a concealed weapon."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HJR 40: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the individual right
to keep and bear arms.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 378: "An Act relating to the Older Alaskans Commission
and staff of the commission; changing the name of
the Older Alaskans Commission to the Alaska
Commission on Aging and extending the termination
date of the commission; relating to the Alaska
Pioneers' Homes Advisory Board; relating to
services and programs for older Alaskans; and
providing for an effective date."
HELD OVER
HB 394: "An Act relating to limited partnerships; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 436: "An Act prohibiting the Department of
Environmental Conservation from adopting or
enforcing a regulation that establishes an ambient
air quality standard or emission standard that is
more stringent than a corresponding federal
standard; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 501
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSHB 351
THOMAS THEISEN
P.O. Box 212
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Phone: 895-4850
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351
MARK CHRYSON, State Representative
Gun Owners of America
2140 Wolverine Circle
Wasilla, AK 99654
Phone: 376-8285
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351
ROY BRITTAIN
HC60 Box 330-M
Copper Center, AK 99573
Phone: 822-3051
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351
LYMAN NICHOLS
P.O. Box 783
Cooper Landing, AK 99572
Phone: Not given.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351
MICHAEL GEBHART
P.O. Box 677
Cooper Landing, AK 99572
Phone: Not given.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351
NANCY USERA, Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-5671
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351
TIM BENINTENDI, Staff
Representative Carl Moses
Alaska State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 394 on behalf of prime
sponsor
ART PETERSON
Dillon & Findley, P.C.
Uniform Law Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Laws
350 N. Franklin
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 394
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 436
MICHAEL L. MENGE, Director
Environmental Quality Division
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave. Ste. 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Phone: 465-5260
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 436
TOM CHAPPEL, Coordinator
Stationary Source Program
410 Willoughby Ave., Ste. 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Phone: 465-5102
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 436
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Bunde,Olberg,Sanders
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/07/94 2019 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2020 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/12/94 2043 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
01/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/22/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/12/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 40
SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS,Olberg,Green,Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/13/93 1178 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/13/93 1178 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
04/20/93 1387 (H) CORRECTION TO ORIGINAL
SPONSORS:
04/20/93 1387 (H) SANDERS, OLBERG
04/22/93 1449 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
05/01/93 1641 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
01/18/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/18/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/29/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/12/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 378
SHORT TITLE: REVISE OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/94 2072 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/94 2072 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE
01/14/94 2072 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/14/94
01/14/94 2073 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 394
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT UPDATE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE,STATE AFFAIRS,
FINANCE
02/03/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/03/94 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/04/94 2252 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 2NR
02/04/94 2252 (H) DP:GREEN,WILLIAMS,SITTON,PORTER
02/04/94 2252 (H) DP: HUDSON
02/04/94 2252 (H) NR: MULDER, MACKIE
02/04/94 2252 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2252 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/24/94 2517 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1NR
02/24/94 2517 (H) DP:VEZEY,KOTT,G.DAVIS,ULMER,
SANDERS
02/24/94 2517 (H) NR: OLBERG
02/24/94 2518 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(DCED) 2/4/94
02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 436
SHORT TITLE: STRICTNESS OF AIR QUALITY REGS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY,Sitton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2255 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2255 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
02/07/94 2291 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SITTON
02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-18, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR AL VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:01 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS was present at the call to order;
the rest of the members were expected shortly. CHAIR VEZEY
stated version U of CSHB 351 would be open for discussion.
CSHB 351: "An Act relating to permits for the carrying of a
concealed weapon; relating to the authority of a court to
prohibit persons convicted of certain misdemeanors from
applying for, receiving, and possessing a permit to carry a
concealed weapon; and relating to the possession of
weapons."
(REPRESENTATIVES OLBERG and KOTT joined the meeting at 8:04
a.m.)
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked a question regarding
exemptions in CSHB 351.
Number 058
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS stated that exemptions started on
page 10, and it was his understanding that the statutes
referenced on pages 15-19 are in reference to active police
officers.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS joined the meeting at 8:05 a.m.)
Number 067
CHAIR VEZEY replied AS 11.61.220 referred to persons in
their home, persons engaged in hunting or fishing or
otherwise allowed to carry a concealed weapon. He said page
10, paragraph (B), could be reread to clarify the other
exemptions.
Number 089
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS opted for the CSHB 351 subcommittee
members to inform him if there was any discussion relating
to retired police officers which may be rolled into the
permit process.
Number 098
CHAIR VEZEY believed CSHB 351 addressed retired police
officers on page 7, line 14. He said a person who has
completed a law enforcement firearms safety and training
course meets the requirements of eligibility.
Number 124
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS repeated there have been some
concerns on this issue.
Number 125
CHAIR VEZEY said he understood, and noted page 3, Section 3,
line 3, where peace officers are automatically qualified to
carry a concealed weapon and are exempt from the necessity
of having a concealed weapon permit. When a peace officer
retires, he stated, they are required to obtain a permit,
but are qualified by virtue of their training.
Number 159
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS stated that with the training peace
officers have already had, they should perhaps have a less
stringent permit process than other individuals without
training.
Number 166
CHAIR VEZEY stated peace officers would be prequalified, but
they would have to pay a $50 initial fee and $25 every five
years. He noted in Section 3, a provision of AS 11.61.220
which reads, "prohibitions of carrying a concealed weapon",
does not apply to a peace officer. He stated the words,
"acting within the scope and authority of the officer's
employment," had been deleted so that peace officers may
carry a concealed weapon off-duty or out of their
jurisdiction.
CHAIR VEZEY recognized REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, prime
sponsor of CSHB 351, and asked her to join the committee
table in REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS's seat. He said
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS would not be attending the meeting.
CHAIR VEZEY stated CSHB 351 still did not have a fiscal
note. The intent has been, by including the fee structure,
to have CSHB 351 be revenue neutral. A fiscal note would
have to be received before it could be transmitted to the
Clerk's Office.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER joined the meeting at 8:10 a.m.)
Number 203
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commended the committee for
all of the hard work put into CSHB 351. She said she was
pleased with the results.
Number 218
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG moved to adopt CSHB 351. He
then made a motion to pass CSHB 351, with fiscal note, from
committee with individual recommendations, asking for
unanimous consent.
Number 224
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the split motions and the committee
secretary called the roll to adopt CSHB 351. The committee
adopted CSHB 351. The committee secretary called the roll
to pass CSHB 351 from committee. CHAIR VEZEY announced that
CSHB 351 passed unanimously from committee with individual
recommendations.
CHAIR VEZEY allowed for teleconference sites to enter
comments on CSHB 351, beginning with Delta Junction.
Number 253
THOMAS THEISEN testified he was in favor of HB 351.
Number 258
CHAIR VEZEY moved to the Mat-Su teleconference site.
Number 262
MARK CHRYSON, STATE REPRESENTATIVE GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA,
thanked the committee for passing CSHB 351. He asked if HJR
40 would be considered today.
Number 268
CHAIR VEZEY responded that HJR 40 would be the next item on
the agenda, and moved to the Kenny Lake teleconference site.
Number 290
ROY BRITTAIN testified in favor of CSHB 351. He knew of two
vicious attacks on elderly people in Fairbanks and felt
carrying concealed weapons was imperative for elderly
persons. MR. BRITTAIN said he had been approached twice
while carrying night deposit bags and he believed carrying a
concealed saved him from getting harmed.
Number 306
CHAIR VEZEY moved to the Cooper Landing teleconference site.
Number 308
LYMAN NICHOLS thanked the committee for passing CSHB 351 and
felt it was much needed.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS left the meeting at 8:15 a.m.)
Number 319
MICHAEL GEBHART testified in favor of CSHB 351 and felt it
would benefit the law enforcement in his community.
HJR 40 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Number 324
CHAIR VEZEY opened HJR 40 for discussion and asked the
pleasure of the committee.
Number 333
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT believed there had been numerous
amounts of testimony on HJR 40 and moved to pass it out of
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 337
CHAIR VEZEY recognized REPRESENTATIVE KOTT's motion. The
committee secretary called the roll, and HJR 40 passed from
the House State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations.
CHAIR VEZEY notified committee members that their packets
for each meeting would be available in their respective file
drawers before each meeting.
HB 378 - REVISE OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION
Number 360
CHAIR VEZEY opened HB 378 for discussion.
Number 368
NANCY USERA, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
testified in favor of HB 378. She stated Governor Hickel
has submitted a package of three bills to the legislature in
an effort to strengthen the safety net and provide a better
continuum of care for seniors in Alaska. She said HB 378
follows through on an administrative order, having gone into
effect earlier in 1994, which merged the Division of Pioneer
Benefits and the Division of the Older Alaskans Commission
into one administrative division.
MS. USERA explained that HB 378 establishes a more
centralized delivery system for senior citizens and one
point of entry for seniors into the system. A concern,
expressed by seniors throughout the state, is that it can be
very confusing trying to access available services because
of the wide variety of divisions.
MS. USERA said both the Older Alaskans Commission and the
Division of Pioneer Home Advisory Board will remain
virtually intact as they were before. The Older Alaskans
Commission becomes the Alaska Commission on Aging, being
more consistent with interfacing federal funding and actions
in other states.
MS. USERA stated HB 378 reduces the mandatory number of
meetings for the Pioneer Home Advisory Board and the
Commission on Aging because it is very difficult to get them
to meet on a regular basis.
MS. USERA said an interchange of information will be created
by HB 378 when the chairman of one commission will be a
member of the other board, and vice versa.
MS. USERA noted that HB 378 provides a term limit whereby
current members will be allowed to serve up to eight more
years and then it transitions to staggered terms. MS. USERA
noted the Pioneer Home Advisory Board is very supportive of
term limits.
MS. USERA said the chairperson of the pioneers' home board
and the commissioner of Health & Social Services, Community
and Regional Affairs administration, are made voting members
of the Commission on Aging, rather than non-voting.
MS. USERA said the governor will be empowered to appoint the
chairman of each of the boards. She noted this provision is
probably the only one out of all three bills with opposition
to it. Both of the boards would prefer to elect their own
chairman among the members because they feel they are better
suited to determine who would be the best to perform
chairmanship duties.
MS. USERA explained the opposite view, whereby the
Commission on Aging, "which has a statutory mandate to also
be an advocate for those programs, to have a chairman
personally appointed by the governor, it strengthens that
board's access to the executive office and provides better
conduit for advocacy." She felt it would be in the best
interest of the boards to establish this relationship with
the governor.
MS. USERA noted HB 378 includes language to clarify the
executive director of the commission carries out the
policies and decisions of the board. MS. USERA said HB 378
allows the commission the flexibility to reduce, or waive,
or match requirements for grantees, when the waiver is in
the public's interest.
MS. USERA introduced CONNIE SIPE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
DIVISION OF SENIOR SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
AND FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OLDER ALASKANS
COMMISSION, to offer her testimony to the committee. She
stated the committee should have letters of support from
both boards, the AARP, and other seniors organizations with
regard to the governor's initiative. They are, however,
opposed to the one provision which states the governor will
appoint the chairman.
Number 453
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS believed MS. USERA's explanation of
Section 7, which states, "the governor shall designate the
chairman of the commission", implied she wanted access
easier for the governor, as opposed to easier for the
commission. REP. DAVIS said he had been approached with
this concern and the commission would be more comfortable
choosing their own chairman.
Number 468
MS. USERA responded that all of the appointees on the
commission are appointees of the governor. She noted each
person is appointed by the governor in any case. She and
the people who have worked with boards and commissions have
observed that when there is a close working relationship
between the chairman of a commission and the governor's
office, the issues before that commission raise the level of
attention it gets. She stated her intention was to make
sure senior's program issues maintain a high policy level
profile.
MS. USERA responded to REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS that Section
7 was not for the purpose of easing the relationship for the
governor, it is to provide better advocacy and more policy
consideration to senior's issues.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS continued it was his understanding
that HB 378 is merging two commissions; however, it still
talks about the Pioneers' Home Advisory Board. He did not
see where it was eliminated.
Number 496
MS. USERA replied the two divisions are not merged. She
said HB 378 maintains both boards separately, but houses
them in a single division administratively. The Older
Alaskans Commission has a name change and the Pioneers' Home
Advisory Board stays virtually as it is.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS questioned if they could be merged.
Number 503
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER recollected Governor Hickel, when
first elected, went through a proces of merging and
eliminating commissions, and she thought the Older Alaskans
Commission and the Pioneers' Home Advisory Board were slated
for a merger. She then asked why they are not, and is it
because their missions are so distinctly different.
Number 509
MS. USERA responded that at one time the Older Alaskans
Commission was banned from discussing anything that
pertained to the Pioneers' Home Advisory Board. She said HB
378 would be a huge step in bringing senior's programs
together and merging them. The primary function of the
Pioneers' Home Advisory Board is to conduct annual reviews
of the homes by interfacing with local councils and doing on
sight reviews. Bonding the commissions administratively
will create more consistent policies. The Department of
Administration felt the pioneers still had a real need to
have their own identification.
Number 529
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER felt HB 378 was more housekeeping and
administrative action, rather than a policy question. She
asked what the senior citizen's perspective was of the
difference HB 378 will make.
CHAIR VEZEY interrupted and asked the teleconference
operator to disconnect the teleconference if she could
determine the source of the technical difficulties.
Number 539
MS. USERA agreed HB 378 is primarily housekeeping. She said
HB 378 is necessary to clean up the statutes as the result
of the administrative order, which merged the two divisions.
The adult protection functions and assistant living
licensing will move into this division.
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that the division would be
"sort of like one stop shopping."
Number 555
MS. USERA agreed.
Number 556
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired how the chairperson is selected
presently for the two boards. Internally from the
membership? Or is the governor determining the chairperson?
Number 560
MS. USERA answered that the governor appoints the members of
the commission and then the members elect their chairman
among themselves.
Number 561
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if this process was not working
well.
Number 562
MS. USERA said the question is not whether HB 378 would be
fixing something that is "broken," rather it is a question
of implanting something that may do a better job at
providing policy development and focusing on senior's
issues. The commissions need not just give advice to the
administrators, but actually have a real role in developing
policies affecting the senior constituency in Alaska. When
her department looked at things to help senior's policy
advance, having the governor designate the chairperson was
one of the recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS clarified there had been opposition
to this action.
MS. USERA responded, not the seniors particularly, but the
boards themselves prefer to elect their own chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG questioned if a provision making an
all senior services needs base would be a simple addition to
HB 378.
MS. USERA answered no, it would be a simple addition.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG clarified it would be complicated.
MS. USERA said it would be very complicated.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if it would be worth
considering.
Number 588
MS. USERA responded it would not be the intent of HB 378.
Number 589
CHAIR VEZEY asked for further questions from the committee.
Having no more questions from the committee, he stated it
was not necessary for CONNIE SIPE testify.
Number 595
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS recalled COMMISSIONER USERA to ask
her another question. He asked how objectionable the
Department of Administration would be if the committee
allowed the commissions to elect their chair.
Number 599
MS. USERA replied that the "governor certainly would not
veto the bill if that were to occur."
Number 602
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there were any further
witnesses to testify on HB 378.
Number 605
CHAIR VEZEY said there were additional witnesses by
teleconference; however, all teleconference sites had been
disconnected.
Number 606
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what CHAIR VEZEY's intent was on
HB 378 and if he intended to move it to Health & Social
Services.
Number 608
CHAIR VEZEY responded that HB 378 could be amended, held in
committee, or passed on as is. He noted he had reviewed it
and felt COMMISSIONER USERA had explained it well.
Number 612
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to amend page 3, Section 7, with
language to ensure the commission members would determine
their own chairman. He could see the rationale to have the
governor appoint the chair; however, a dominating
chairperson may cause problems in the future.
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the amendment and stated the
amendment would probably be just to delete Section 7. He
asked for the committee aide to hand him Title 44. CHAIR
VEZEY stated the "current statute provides that the
commission shall elect one of its members as chairperson,
and may select other officers if considered necessary." He
asked REPRESENTATIVE KOTT if deleting Section 7 would be his
motion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said deleting Section 7 would be the
motion.
Number 642
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the motion to delete Section 7.
Number 643
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated Section 7 only deals with the
Commission on Aging, not the chairmanship of the Pioneers'
Home Advisory Board. Deleting Section 7 would only be half
of the amendment. She suggested deleting subsection (c),
line 17, on page 2.
Number 659
CHAIR VEZEY noted the section would have to be reworded.
Number 661
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER believed deleting subsection (c), line
17, on page 2, would be enough and the section could be left
as is.
Number 664
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated Amendment 1 one would be to
delete line 17, Section 3, subsection (c), on page 2, and
also Section 7, lines 11-13, on page 3.
Number 670
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the motion to amend HB 378. The
committee secretary called roll, and Amendment 1 passed by a
simple majority.
CHAIR VEZEY said he preferred to have the committee
substitute before the committee before passing it out.
Hearing no more questions or comments, HB 378 was held over
in committee.
CHAIR VEZEY called for a short recess at 8:47 a.m.
TAPE 94-18, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR VEZEY called the meeting back to order at 9:02 a.m.
and opened discussion on HB 394.
HB 394 - UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT UPDATE
Number 018
TIM BENINTENDI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, Prime
Sponsor of HB 394, presented the sponsor statement. He said
HB 394 completes the upgrade of the Uniform Limited
Partnership Act, Title 32, by adopting the recommended
uniform rule of the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Law. He said HB 394 regards the form of
registration or certification of limited partnerships.
Section 1 reduces the amount of information which must be
provided.
MR. BENINTENDI stated the language currently on the books
dates back to 1917 and needs to be upgraded; the bulk of
Title 32 was upgraded in 1992. The legislature, at the
time, adopted the National Conference's 1976 rewrite of
Limited Partnership Law with amendments made to it from
1985. This process was done except the portion dealing with
certification because of a conflict between the use of the
long form, currently being used, or the short form. The
sponsor of the bill did finally agree to the short form;
however, it was too late to amend the bill.
MR. BENINTENDI stated in 1993, HB 112 was submitted, which
upgraded the certification requirements, passing both
houses. At the end of session, however, Senator Steve
Rieger amended HB 112 based on personal experience. Legal
Services and House Rules determined the amendment would not
hurt the bill, and HB 112 passed with the amendment.
MR. BENINTENDI found out, over time, that the amendment
would have caused problems. He referred to a letter from
David Shaftel, dated January 10, 1994, which articulated the
two main problems the amendment created. (A copy of this
letter is on file.) First, he said, the amendment would
have caused the elimination of some creditor protection
benefits. Secondly, there would have been a denial of the
state tax reduction for those limited partnerships that are
formed to manage estates. He stated Mr. Shaftel reiterated
support for the original HB 112 from the 1993 session and
also the reintroduction of that bill in the 1994 session, HB
394.
MR. BENINTENDI said HB 394 had been introduced to complete
the upgrade of the Limited Partnership Act, without the
Rieger amendment from 1993. He stated the House Labor &
Commerce Committee has successfully passed HB 394 out of
that committee.
MR. BENINTENDI urged the passage of HB 394 from the House
State Affairs Committee. He noted ART PETERSON, UNIFORM LAW
COMMISSIONER, was also present to answer more technical
questions from the committee.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned if MR. BENINTENDI had spoken
with Senator Rieger to ensure he would not offer the same
amendment again.
Number 129
MR. BENINTENDI responded yes, Senator Rieger would not amend
HB 394 again. In 1993, there had not been a problem until
meeting with the Bar Association, which specifically deals
with these issues, and they noted problems for their
clients. MR. BENINTENDI noted that Senator Rieger does have
concerns; however, he understands his amendment got beyond
what he was hoping to do. He said Senator Rieger does
support HB 394.
Number 152
CHAIR VEZEY introduced ART PETERSON as the next person to
testify.
Number 158
ART PETERSON, DILLON & FINDLEY ATTORNEY, UNIFORM LAW
COMMISSIONER, stated the members of the National Conference
range from private practitioners, to government attorneys,
judges, law professors, etc. He said HB 394 would complete
the update of current law, which has not been altered since
1917. The main point of HB 394 is the simplification of
what appears on the certificate of limited partnership. The
partnership agreement and the certificate are the two
significant documents in a limited partnership. The
agreement creates the entity of the partnership, papers are
filed, and the certificate is received. The current long
form certificate requires information which is no longer
feasible. When limited partnerships began, they were
contemplated as a small entity with a limited number of
people; a compromise between the corporation concept and the
partnership concept. Corporation concept means all the
share holders have a limited liability. Partnership concept
means all the partners have general liability. Limited
partnership combines both general partners, whose name is
important to lenders and investors, and limited partners.
The general partners will continue to appear on the
certificate, but oftentimes thousands of limited partners
who trade their shares daily will not be.
MR. PETERSON stated there is no way all of these limited
partners can possibly be transferred to the certificate. He
said HB 394, Section 20, states the information will be
located at partnership headquarters. For a foreign limited
partnership, Section 18 requires the information. The only
concern of the state in HB 394 would be the simplification
of the amount of filings the state has to keep track of. He
understood HB 112 passed overwhelmingly in 1993 by both
Houses and the only reason for the veto by the governor was
the addition of Senator Rieger's amendment. Because of the
possibility the courts or the IRS might rule differently
than the intent of HB 112, the practitioners who examined HB
112 felt the public may be disadvantaged by a bill which
should provide a great deal of business benefit. The
governor, therefore, vetoed HB 112 while still in favor of
its' intent. The governor, executive branch, practicing
attorneys throughout Alaska, and the Uniform Law
Commissioners for Alaska all support HB 394. MR. PETERSON
urged the committee to pass HB 394 from committee.
Number 244
CHAIR VEZEY asked the full name of the National Conference.
Number 248
MR. PETERSON answered the full name is the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).
The NCCUSL produces universally accepted things, such as
Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act, both of which govern the law in all
jurisdictions. Alaska has enacted 64 uniform acts.
Number 257
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS responded that HB 394 sounded like a
definite must.
Number 263
CHAIR VEZEY reiterated MR. PETERSON was endorsing HB 394.
He stated he had not received any negative comments on HB
394.
CHAIR VEZEY asked if Alaskans had an advantage in having a
limited partnership act in conformity with other states.
Number 274
MR. PETERSON responded that Alaska would have an advantage.
Alaska is currently under an antiquated system, even with
the amendments, and not having the certification process
upgraded puts Alaska behind. He stated, "outside money is
not going to come into a state that has an antiquated system
of such significance. Secondly, Alaskans who want to ...
get the benefit of this form of business entity, will not be
able to do so. They can go down to Seattle [and] create
their limited partnership." He said HB 394 will promote
activity in Alaska and the interstate exchange because
partnerships, limited partnerships, and corporations do not
live within single state boundaries.
Number 288
CHAIR VEZEY clarified it was MR. PETERSON'S opinion that
because of the state of Alaska's laws, the state has not had
a lot of limited partnership formations or participation.
Number 291
MR. PETERSON said he was not an expert, but he was sure the
laws have been a deterrent. He felt HB 394 would benefit
Alaskans substantially.
Number 299
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified that HB 394 is exactly the
same bill as HB 112, which passed unanimously on the House
floor in 1993.
Number 302
MR. PETERSON replied there are four changes, all of which
are time changes.
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified there are no substantive
policy changes.
Number 305
MR. PETERSON said REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was correct.
Number 306
CHAIR VEZEY understood there had been changes.
Number 307
MR. PETERSON replied with examples of a few changes. The
lead in lines are all different because the anticipated
effective date of the comprehensive amendment, which read
July 3, 1993, is now in the past. The effective date is now
immediate. He repeated all the changes are related to the
fact that the comprehensive revision has already taken
effect, whereas in 1933 it was still in the future.
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the committee had a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER moved to pass HB 394 from committee
with individual recommendations, asking unanimous consent.
Number 331
CHAIR VEZEY recognized the motion and announced HB 394 had
passed from the House State Affairs Committee with
individual recommendations. CHAIR VEZEY noted
REPRESENTATIVES B. DAVIS and SANDERS were absent and all of
the other committee members were concurring.
HB 436 - STRICTNESS OF AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS
CHAIR VEZEY announced himself as the sponsor of HB 436 and
passed the gavel to VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT.
Number 341
VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT accepted the gavel and asked
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY for his sponsor statement.
Number 342
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY began an overview of HB 436. He said
HB 436 states the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) may not set up air quality standards that are more
strict than the federal standards. He felt HB 436 was a
very important political policy decision. REPRESENTATIVE
VEZEY introduced HB 436 because if the state is going to
impose more strict standards, it should be done through the
legislature, and not through the Administrative Procedures
Act. He pointed out the governor's task force on regulatory
reform has made a "blanket recommendation in this same
general area."
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if there was an imminent reason
to believe standards will rise or if there has been an issue
in REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY's district she was not aware of.
Number 367
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he was not personally aware of the
pending regulations, but he had heard talk of some
considerations.
Number 371
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noted the DEC position paper (on file)
references the Healy Clean Coal Project, Kenai Plant, and
the Marine Terminal in Valdez. He understood the DEC paper
to say that if it had not been for their ability to more
strictly regulate air quality at the Healy Clean Coal
Project, because the National Park Service thought they had
veto power over the project, it may not have gone ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated the DEC wants to reserve a case
by case ability to regulate air quality in a specific
location, but he felt the legislature should have that
ability and not the DEC.
Number 384
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not mean to mislead
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER because he was aware of the permitting
process at the Healy Clean Coal Project. He had thought the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Park Service
had the permit, not the DEC.
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG responded that the Park Service had no
authority over the project, other than the Park is across
the highway from the plant. The Park Service forced the air
quality standards down so low that the plant is no longer
allowed to emit visible smoke because it may destroy Denali
National Park and a large portion of the Park Service's
budget.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated, after reading the DEC position
paper, that one sentence leaped out at her stating,
"Retaining authority to responsibly address pollution issues
of local concern is at its center of states rights issue."
She felt it was funny that HB 436 was saying, "if the feds
make us do it, it's okay, but we can't do our own thing, or
we don't trust DEC to have the flexibility to do their own
thing even if it may result in economic development like the
Healy Clean Coal Project moving forward more expeditiously."
She felt the committee should have the DEC testify for the
committee to show how the permitting process has worked.
Number 411
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG felt the DEC ought to testify before
the Resources Committee, noting today's meeting was not
secret.
Number 416
VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG was
correct and, in looking over the witness register, he did
not see anyone signed up to testify from the DEC. He noted
two men from the DEC were in the audience and invited them
to testify.
Number 422
MIKE MENGE, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION, DEC,
testified in opposition to HB 436 for two reasons. First,
having the legislature create "regulatory hurdles" for the
DEC was a concern; therefore, they have built a lot of
checks and balances into legislation over the past two
years. He said they have talked about the creation of a
panel for review or public hearing. Administrative burdens
have been placed in the pathway of the DEC, now and in the
future, to act indiscriminately. Secondly, at times there
is a great advantage to negotiate with a permit entity,
being special interest groups, citizens groups, and state
government, to create an acceptable package to meet all of
their basic needs. With primacy, the EPA has the authority
to overrule an action by the state. If the EPA is
petitioned to set a standard for a particular area, the time
it takes to complete the process is measured in years. He
believed there is a great advantage to being able to
negotiate with all the parties, whereby an acceptable
decision for all parties may be made, rather than not
involving or deferring the DEC from such action.
Number 455
MR. MENGE stated that TOM CHAPPEL was present to testify for
the committee.
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked, with regard to the Healy Clean
Coal Project, how does the flexibility of current law enable
the permitting process to go more quickly and how would HB
436, if adopted, slow it down?
Number 463
MR. MENGE deferred REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's question to TOM
CHAPPEL.
Number 464
TOM CHAPPEL, PROJECT MANAGER, PERMITS PROGRAM, DEC, answered
specifically that the Healy project wanted to expand by
putting in a new high technology demonstration project.
Current emission levels at the plant, however, were
relatively close to meeting ambience standards. The
addition of the new plant's pollution would, in summation,
violate an ambient public health standard. The new plant
would have been adjacent to the existing plant, not in the
park area.
MR. CHAPPEL noted a provision in HB 436 would have prevented
the DEC from entering into an agreement where the existing
emissions would have been cut back to counterbalance the new
emissions; therefore, the total increase would still be
within public health standards. The DEC is driven to
maintain public health standards, and he recalled an
application from Healy itself requested the cut back of the
existing emissions to suit the standards. The Healy project
had estimated the additional emissions when they developed
the project. He stated this example was not driven by Park
Service concerns.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked MR. CHAPPEL to clarify how the
flexibility of the interplay between the federal and state
requirements made it easier for Healy to go forward.
Number 499
MR. CHAPPEL replied ambient public health standards (APHS)
set upper-level concentrations which people breath. The
tool which guides whether a specific level is within or
exceeding the standard is setting out-of-stack standards.
The EPA will not allow the APHS to be exceeded. DEC can,
however, set emission standards that are more stringent that
federal emission standards. The emission standards of the
new plant in Healy were set more stringent than federal
emission standards. The DEC also changed the emission
standard for the existing plant so the combination of both
plants would stay below the federal and state APHS.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG submitted public health was less of a
driving force than aesthetics in the Healy project. He
understood MR. CHAPPEL, but he thought the Park Service was
a "big player" and questioned whether their concerns were
not about public health, but aesthetics.
MR. CHAPPEL responded that concerns generated from the Park
Service were not about sulphur emissions, rather visible
emissions. Federal law requires a high protection of
existing good air quality, such as that in Denali National
Park. Federal law sets stringent standards for pollution
increases in those areas, of which there are few left in
Alaska. The Park Service, or federal land manager, has a
role, through the Clean Air Act, to review permits the state
issues and has the ability to object, even though the state
has primacy.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER left the meeting at 9:20 a.m.)
Number 540
MR. MENGE added that MR. CHAPPEL's example was a good
illustration of how complex the interaction is for the
state. He said Stack emission standards are an important
tool for the state. Without them, mediation would have to
take place in Seattle. He noted the process should not be
so time-consuming so patience and money does not run out and
the project does not go away. He felt the state could step
in and react quickly. The Park Service may have been
demanding, but the resolution was fast and it suited both
parties.
Number 556
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS interpreted that the Healy project
as it relates to the wording in HB 436 is that the DEC
worked on stronger emission standards than federal law so
the ambient air quality would be within federal standards.
He asked if he was correct.
Number 563
MR. CHAPPEL said REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS was correct.
Number 565
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG clarified the Park Service's primary
interest was in visible smoke.
Number 567
MR. CHAPPEL responded yes, but also what pollution levels
would pass within the park itself. The technical
assessments were resolved in the beginning. Visible
emissions are more difficult to estimate because the
arguable factors are inexact and subjective. The DEC
heavily debated what assessment tools would be the best with
the Park Service. He felt the state had the advantage to
decide and debate which tools would be used.
Number 583
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated HB 436 only removes the final
decision making authority of the DEC relating to the
negotiation of standards more strict than EPA standards.
Number 589
MR. CHAPPEL believed REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG's statement was
the intent of HB 436.
Number 592
MR. MENGE pointed out the Healy project is a good example of
having all the parties involved satisfied with the end
result. If the DEC was required to go to the legislature,
there may be a significant impact because the issue of time
may not be addressed.
Number 599
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the Healy Clean Coal project
had been in permitting process since 1988 or 1989.
Number 603
MR. CHAPPEL responded that the project had been under the
design phases since then; however, the DEC received a permit
issue one and one-half to two years ago and the permit was
issued in the March of 1993. The permit decision was
appealed by the Parks Service, a settlement was found, and
the process is in the final stages of a permit change now.
The facility was lawful to build since March 1993. Usually
a large process takes several years to complete the detailed
engineering design and one to two years to complete the
permitting design, depending upon the particular nature of
the plant's emission and where it is located.
Number 616
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified it has been legal to build
the Healy project since March 1993. He had the impression
from sources at Usibelli Coal that they could start the
project, but they knew they would get shut down. He also
understood they did not believe they had a permit until very
recently.
Number 622
MR. CHAPPEL stated that once the permit is issued it is
fully lawful to build the project. There is a 30 day time
limit, after the permit is issued, so anyone can request an
adjudicatory hearing on that permit. There was a request
submitted by the Park Service and another public interest
group inside Alaska. The project applicants were reluctant
to build the plant until the appeal was resolved. He noted
there was not an action preventing the partners in the
project from beginning construction. In December 1993 the
Park Service entered into an agreement, found fair by the
DEC, with the project applicants and the DEC is now
incorporating that into the permit. The permit should
probably be out next month, although the public interest
group has not yet released their appeal and the DEC is
working on it.
Number 644
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt he was technically correct, but
asked him if he would put $200 million into a project under
such litigation.
Number 646
MR. MENGE responded, "Certainly not." The risk of having
the permit challenged in court and having it reversed would
be a strong deterrent. Once construction has begun,
however, the departments and agencies signing onto the
permits become "permit defenders" as opposed to "permit
issuers." After the public interest group backs off the new
permit, Healy and Golden Valley, he felt, will feel
comfortable proceeding with the project. MR. MENGE stated
more than half of the Environmental Quality Division's
efforts throughout the state are in the defense of existing
permits.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS returned to the meeting at 9:27 a.m.
from another committee commitment.)
Number 667
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he has heard the misconception
that projects are legal to start many times, and they are,
if one wants unduly to risk everything put into it.
Number 672
MR. MENGE noted REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY's statement as a very
crucial point and stated the DEC's records for water and air
permits throughout the state is with the permittee and the
outside groups to resolve the issues and allow the company
to proceed forward. He felt more than half his job was in
permit defense.
Number 677
VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the times REPRESENTATIVE ULMER
departed and REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS rejoined the committee.
Number 684
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that HB 436 be passed from
committee with individual recommendations.
Number 685
VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT recognized the motion. Hearing no
objection, HB 436 passed from the House State Affairs
Committee with individual recommendations.
Seeing no more business before the committee, VICE-CHAIRMAN
KOTT adjourned the meeting at 9:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|