Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/23/1995 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
March 23, 1995
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Joe Green
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 2: An Act allowing courts to require certain offenders as
a special condition of probation to complete a boot camp
program provided by the Department of Corrections;
making prisoners who complete the boot camp program
eligible for discretionary parole; providing for
incarceration of certain nonviolent offenders in boot
camps operated by the Department of Corrections;
allowing the Department of Corrections to contract with
a person for an alternative boot camp program; creating
the Boot Camp Advisory Board in the Department of
Corrections; and providing for an effective date.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 239: "An Act declaring the dragonfly as the official state
insect."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 46: "An Act relating to the practice of architecture,
engineering, and land surveying."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 243: "An Act relating to licensure of landscape architects."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 238: "An Act excluding certain direct sellers of consumer
products from coverage under the state unemployment
compensation laws."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HB 267: "An Act relating to review and expiration of
regulations; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 218: "An Act relating to the payment of certain trucking
operators."
BILL POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4640
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 2
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4527
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 239
RUTH BRADFORD, Teacher
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
BRUCK CLIFT, 7th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
RAINY DIEHL, 8th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
DANA DIEHL, 6th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
DEIDRE BUSH, 8th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
RACHEL BOELENS, 7th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
ANDREA GUSTY, 6th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
DEREK ALUIA, 7th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
MELANIE MATTER, 5th grade student
Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School in Aniak
P. O. Box 29
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: 675-4487
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 239
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 46
DAVID L. BENNETT, Employee
PTI Telecommunications
3940 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 564- 3005
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46
JIM ROWE, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association
4341 B Street, Suite 304
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 563-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46
GEORGE FINDLING, Manager of Government Relations
ARCO Alaska
Box 100360
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: 263-4174
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46
COLIN MAYNARD, President
Alaska Professional Design Council
1400 W. Benson, Suite 500
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 274-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 46
DAVID ADAMS, President
Adams, Morgenthaler & Co.
3333 Denali, No. 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: 279-0431
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 46
DOYLE CARROLL, Representative
Anchorage Telephone Utilities
600 Telephone Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 279-0543
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46
WILLIAM MENDENHALL, Board Member
Alaska State Board of Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors
1907 Yankovich Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: 479-2786
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 46 and provided information on
HB 243
MIKE TAURIANEN, Member
Alaska State Board of Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors
Box 937
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: 262-4624
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 46
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 243
DWAYNE ADAMS, Representative
Land Design North
510 L Street, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: 276-5885
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 243
LINDA CYRA-KORSGAARD, President
Alaska Chapter of Ground Management Society Landscape Architects
1509 P Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: 279-0543
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 243
KEN MORTON, Landscape architect
Alaska State Parks
3942 Turnagain
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: 248-4999
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 243
BEVERLY WARD, Representative
ARCO Alaska
134 North Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 586-3680
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 243
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 2
SHORT TITLE: BOOT CAMP FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIS,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 20 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 239
SHORT TITLE: DRAGONFLY AS STATE INSECT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 641 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 641 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 33 (H) LABOR AND COMMERCE, STATE AFFAIRS
03/08/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/15/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/15/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/17/95 768 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 4NR 3AM
03/17/95 768 (H) NR: KUBINA,PORTER,SANDERS,MASEK
03/17/95 768 (H) AM: KOTT, ROKEBERG, ELTON
03/17/95 768 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, DNR)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 243
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 644 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 644 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 238
SHORT TITLE: NO UNEMPLOYMENT COMP FOR DIRECT SELLERS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 641 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 641 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 779 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 779 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/20/95 825 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: PROMPT PAYMENT OF TRUCKING SUBCONTRACTORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION,
JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-34, SIDE A
Number 000
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter, and
Willis. Representative Robinson arrived at 8:26 a.m.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES stated there was a quorum present. The
meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Barrow, Fairbanks,
Juneau, Matanuska Valley, and Kenai/Soldotna. Chair James
announced the first bill scheduled for testimony was HB 239. She
called for bill sponsor, Representative Irene Nicholia, to come
testify. Representative Nicholia was running late, and so it was
decided to hear testimony on HB 2 while waiting. Chair James
called for bill sponsor, Representative Ed Willis, to testify on
behalf of his bill.
HSTA - 03/23/95
HB 2 - BOOT CAMP FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS
Number 015
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS stated they had heard testimony on HB 2
in an earlier meeting, and during the discussion, there was
concerns expressed by the Administration, which have been
remedied by the proposed committee substitute for HB 2 presented
to the committee at this time. Changes from the original bill
included placing an age cap of 26 years on those who would be
eligible for the program and allowing the Department of
Corrections to select candidates for the boot camp program.
Representative Willis stated it was not his intention to allow
the boot camp program to be a bargaining chip during trial.
Also, the Administration was concerned about the language
alternative boot camp in the bill, and so this was deleted and
replaced with the term contract boot camp. Finally, in the
proposed committee substitute, the Superior Court Judge was
eliminated from the boot camp advisory board. He thought Jerry
Shriner, Special Assistant to Commissioner Pugh of the Department
of Corrections, would be able to explain the changes better, and
so would like to hear his testimony.
Number 112
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant to Commissioner Pugh of the
Department of Corrections, stated the Department of Corrections
was in favor of this bill. They thought the bill sponsor has
been very cooperative in taking the departments concerns into
consideration. There were a few changes they would like to see,
but thought they were trivial and could be dealt with at a later
time. As an example, they would have liked to see the age cap of
26 years on candidates a little higher, but were reassured this
could be amended at a later time. With reference to the issue of
contracting out a boot camp facility, he wanted to assure the
committee the department was not against the idea of contracting
this facility, but was concerned the original language of
alternative could be interpreted as meaning the department
could operate its own boot camp facility and be required to also
operate a private alternative boot camp program. The department
wanted to avoid having to run two boot camp facilities. They
were not trying to limit this bill to allowing only a state run
boot camp facility. He added earlier, he had mentioned a
computer program the department was getting, which would allow
them to get some ideas on how to best operate and staff this
facility, how long candidates should be held in this facility,
and the type of parole conditions that should be on them. He
said they had this program now and had run some scenarios for
this proposed facility. One thing this program had demonstrated,
was that the sponsor was correct in not allowing the boot camp
program to be used as a condition of parole by the courts. This
was because the department was trying to use the boot camp
program as a means of reducing the prison population. If the
intent is to use the boot camp program as a means of reducing
prison population, then you must be careful to insure that
candidates for the program would have gone into prison otherwise.
He thought the state must be extremely careful to not allow this
facility to become a plea bargaining tool to expand our prison
population. The department was still gathering data to find out
how many prisoners would qualify for the program. He said the
department would have this information available later as the
bill continues through the committee process. He stated he would
be glad to answer any questions from the committee.
Number 188
CHAIR JAMES asked whether there was any economic conclusions from
their computer model or other studies.
MR. SHRINER replied there were not any economic conclusions
specifically, but the program does allow for some extrapolation
of calculations for cost savings. He said the computer program
does provide information, such as whether there will be a net
increase or decrease in the prison population and the results
arising from this. In their use of the program, the department
has found it would take approximately two years to realize a 100
bed reduction in the prison system. From information such as
this, the department can make some extrapolations as to the cost
savings of the program. He wanted to clarify though, that their
preliminary research indicated the normal day to day operation of
a boot camp facility was more expensive than that of a normal
prison facility. The savings from a boot camp program result
from the fact they are designed to be short duration programs.
Cost savings are realized from the ability to move people into
the system and provide the training, punishment, and reformative
factors in a much shorter period of time with a hopefully lower
recidivism rate. Finally, he wanted to state that research
indicated that simply holding someone in a boot camp program does
not lower the recidivism rate without coordinating this detention
with other educational programs. The benefit only results from
placing a candidate in a boot camp program, which then allows
them to more successfully complete other programs, such as
educational training or substance abuse programs.
Number 263
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if they had looked at the
federal model of boot camp facilities, operated by the Army
National Guard. He pointed out that they do not go through a
period of discipline and then follow it up with an educational
program, but rather combine it.
MR. SHRINER agreed, saying he did not mean to imply the programs
would have to be operated consecutively, but rather would be run
simultaneously.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked about the expected duration of the
boot camp program.
MR. SHRINER stated it was an expected duration of approximately
150 days.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER realized this was within the parameters of
a municipal misdemeanor sentence and wondered whether the program
could accept misdemeanor offenders from municipalities.
MR. SHRINER stated the program could accept misdemeanor
offenders, but this would have to be weighed depending upon the
goals of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER verified whether the federal youthful
misdemeanor offender classification went up to about 26 years of
age.
MR. SHRINER said he was not sure.
Number 299
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked for an explanation of why a boot
camp program would cost more to operate than the typical hard bed
prison facility.
MR. SHRINER explained the operating costs were higher, because it
takes additional staff to facilitate the additional discipline
and educational programs associated with a boot camp program.
Because you were doing a larger amount of program management and
discipline, you needed a higher staff to prisoner ratio. Thus,
the costs of operating a boot camp facility on a daily basis was
higher. He wanted to reiterate though, that the cost of the
physical facility for housing the program was lower, because
these were minimum to medium security prisoners.
Number 336
CHAIR JAMES noted the arrival of Representative Robinson at 8:26
a.m. She said she thought the advantage of this type of program
was the lower recidivism rate. She asked if he had any data on
this from any of their computer models or studies.
MR. SHRINER stated they had not completed their studies of this
issue, but the information they had gathered showed mixed
results. They were still trying to determine why some programs
were successful and others were not.
CHAIR JAMES commented her other question was whether there was a
point where, based on the volume of prisoners in the facility,
there was a cost-savings to the state, based upon the size of the
facility.
MR. SHRINER thought her implication that the larger the facility,
the more efficient it might be, was probably correct. He said
there was a limited number of people who would currently qualify
for this program, of about 230-245 prisoners. He said he was not
sure of how fast the turnover rate of prisoners in the program
would be. At this point, they were estimating a program of about
50-100 prisoners. In terms of cost savings, he thought it was
probably more efficient to run a facility of about 200 inmates,
but did not see this volume as feasible in Alaska. Even with the
smaller facility, the Department of Corrections estimated a net
savings to the state over a two year period. Thus, he thought
they could operate effectively, if they were careful in designing
the program, who they selected as candidates for the program and
consistently applied the other educational programs as a follow
up to the boot camp facility. He said they were still examining
how they could reconfigure populations in their other facilities
across the state, after selecting inmates for the boot camp
program. He mentioned there was some federal money available for
construction of boot camp facilities, with the theory of
detaining minimum to medium security prisoners in these programs
and allowing more room for incarcerating higher risk prisoners in
other facilities. While agreeing with this concept in principle,
he felt it was difficult to achieve this with our small
population.
Number 409
CHAIR JAMES commented this was typical of the economics of this
state, where you had a large state with a small population. She
mentioned to Representative Willis, the bill sponsor, that there
was earlier a rather large fiscal note for construction of the
boot camp facility and wondered whether it was still applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER was curious whether there was the
possibility of partnering with the existing boot camp facility of
the Army National Guard. He said he would be interested in the
answer to this question if the Department of Corrections would
not mind researching to find out. He said he had personally
observed this program and thought it was very effective.
Number 439
CHAIR JAMES said she would like to pass this bill out of
committee. She asked if the a committee member would make a
motion to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN supported the concept of a boot camp
facility, feeling this would help to teach discipline to younger
offenders. He said his only concern, was the large fiscal note
attached to the bill. He wondered where we would make cuts to
fund this bill.
CHAIR JAMES answered that this committee needed to concern itself
with whether it would be to the benefit of the state to have this
option in the statutes. She noted that if the fiscal note was a
problem, this bill probably would not receive a hearing on the
floor of the House. She thought that there was some real
potential in the option of contracting such a facility out.
Number 476
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN concurred with the comments and concerns of
Representative Ogan. He wondered whether there had been any
consideration of using any of the recently abandoned military
locations as a site for this facility.
CHAIR JAMES said she was sure there had been some consideration
of this, and also wanted to point out that in the past, when a
statute was signed into law and not funded, the tool was still
there at a later date for implementation when the funds were
available. She thought this might be the case with this bill.
If the option is not in the statutes, then it is not available
even if the funds are found. She thought this was another reason
to justify passing this out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned he would like to see a similar
program for juvenile offenders. He thought this might be the
most cost-effective use of this type of program.
CHAIR JAMES commented this also would have a large fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought this need had already been met and
available in the form of the Army National Guard program.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a committee member to make a motion to
adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 2, version F,
dated 3-16-95, as the working document for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS moved to adopt the committee substitute.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections from the committee.
Hearing none, the motion passed. She asked for a motion to pass
this bill out of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN commented that he agreed with the
philosophical concept of this bill, but with the states current
financial situation, he would be forced to vote in opposition to
this bill.
Number 541
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON responded that the legislature was
putting more laws on the books to toughen penalties for crime,
and somewhere in the future, they were going to have to look at
options for incarceration and building new prison facilities.
Thus, even with the tight budget, she thought it was a good idea
to get this option in the statutes as an alternative. She
expected the state was going to have to build more prison
facilities to deal with the growing inmate population, and
thought this was the best approach.
MR. SHRINER wanted to mention there was research by the
Department of Corrections to use existing facilities at Fort
Richardson and Fort Greely. He said there was nothing definite,
but there was some real possibilities. They were also sending
representatives out for training in operating these types of
facilities at the expense of the federal government. They were
not expecting to receive additional funding, but thought they
would gain some extra knowledge. They thought they might learn
of ways to build cheaper facilities and gain access to federal
funding.
Number 566
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass CSHB 2 out of committee with
unanimous consent, individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections. Hearing none, the
bill was moved. She called Representative Irene Nicholia to
testify on HB 239 as the bill sponsor.
HSTA - 03/23/95
HB 239 - DRAGONFLY AS STATE INSECT
Number 579
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said HB 239 amends Alaska statutes
to declare the dragonfly as the official state insect. This
suggestion was first brought to the attention of the legislature
by a group of students from Aniak, Alaska, she said. She stated
nominations for the official state insect first started being
collected in 1992. Besides the nomination for the dragonfly,
there were nominations for the mosquito, the butterfly, and the
bumblebee. Following the nomination process, ballots were sent
to every public school in the state. The winning nomination was
the four spot skimmer dragonfly by 3,941 votes. This nomination
won by a margin of 868 votes. She recognized many Alaskans may
feel the mosquito would be a wiser choice for state insect, but
encouraged support for the dragonfly, as it was a predator of the
mosquito, was one of the largest insects in the largest state,
the ability of the dragonfly to hover was reminiscent of Alaskas
bush pilots, and its large eyes reflected the diversity of
culture and beliefs in our state. Thus, the dragonfly is the
most appropriate candidate. She encouraged the committee to
support the choice of Alaskas students.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned there was eight students and one teacher
wishing to testify from Aniak. She called for them to testify.
Number 621
RUTH BRADFORD, Teacher at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School,
informed the committee the students had short presentation to
explain their cause to make the dragonfly the official state
insect.
While recognizing the important concerns facing the legislature,
they wanted to emphasize this was a grassroots effort from the
students of this state.
BRUCK CLIFT, 7th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary
School, stated the dragonfly had been around since prehistoric
times. By outlasting the dinosaurs, they show Alaska has more
than a history of snow and ice.
RAINY DIEHL, 8th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary
School, argued the dragonfly is unique, because of its colors and
is larger than most flying insects. He thought it was
unfortunate there was not enough to destroy all of the mosquitoes
in Alaska.
DANA DIEHL, 6th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary
School, said she voted for the dragonfly, because they eat
mosquitoes. She thought Alaska was better with fewer mosquitoes.
DEIDRE BUSH, 8th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary
School, metaphorically mentioned she flew high as a four spot
skimmer dragonfly. She said she represented Alaska, because
shes an awesome guy. Shell eat mosquitoes until the day she
dies.
RACHEL BOELENS, 7th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli
Elementary School, says she likes mosquitoes, but they are a
pest. Because they eat mosquitoes, dragonflies are the best.
ANDREA GUSTY, 6th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary
School, thought the dragonfly deserves to be the state insect,
because it is slender and graceful, and was the choice of most
Alaska students.
DEREK ALUIA, 7th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary
School, thought that any insect as big and beautiful as the
dragonfly and can survive Interior Alaskas winters, deserves to
be the official state insect.
MELANIE MATTER, 5th grade student at Auntie Mary Nicoli
Elementary School, said she worked hard on this project. She
promised not to stop working until the dragonfly was the official
state insect.
Number 694
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER confessed he was one of those who had
originally been a supporter of the mosquito. Having heard the
testimony, he was persuaded and is switching his vote.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed with Representative Porter. He
mentioned he had drafted an amendment to change the word
dragonfly to mosquito, but had been persuaded by the testimony of
the Dragonfly Lobby Team to support the dragonfly. He said he
would hate to be accused of being a mean spirited Republican."
He thought the students were doing a good job.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to pass this bill out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he was overwhelmed by the
forcefulness of the argument by the Dragonfly Lobby Team, and
would move the committee pass this bill out of committee.
TAPE 95-34, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES was pleased the students used this as an educational
process to learn how government works. She asked if there was
any objection to passing this bill out of committee, but was
reminded there was a proposed committee substitute for HB 239.
She explained the committee substitute clarified that it was the
four spot skimmer dragonfly intended as the official state
insect.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would withdraw his previous motion
to allow the committee substitute to be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt CSHB 239 version C, dated
3-17-95, as the working document.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, the
committee substitute was adopted.
Number 036
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to pass CSHB 239, version C, with
unanimous consent out of committee with individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS thought maybe the motion should say the
committee shoos the dragonfly out of committee.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections. Hearing none, the
bill passed out of committee.
HSTA - 03/23/95
HB 46 - ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
Number 099
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to bill sponsor, Representative
Green, said before he gave his sponsor statement, he wanted to
verify the committee had before them proposed committee
substitute for HB 46, version K. He passed out copies of this
version to the committee. He said there was an error in which
version of HB 46 was transmitted. He thanked the committee for
the opportunity to present HB 46 to the committee and stated he
would like to explain the different sections of the bill to the
committee.
MR. LOGAN explained that Section 1 of HB 46 regulates when a
document must have the stamp of a professional engineer or
surveyor. He argued the sponsor had rewritten Section 1 in a
more active sense to make it more compatible with the rest of the
bill. He stated the committee may hear testimony citing
substantial differences between the sponsor's language and that
being deleted, but said they disagreed with this argument. He
argued the new language clarifies when a registrant has to stamp
or seal a document. He stated the intent of the sponsor was to
clarify this section.
MR. LOGAN continued, Section 2 of HB 46 is the prohibitive
practice section of the bill. He stated this section was
included at the request of a constituent, who saw there was a
conflict in the statutes between AS 48.281 and AS 48.331. Under
this conflict, when the Department of Commerce, Division of
Occupational Licensing inspectors find a person not in
compliance, because of this conflict, there was difficulty in
motivating the Department of Law to prosecute these cases because
of the loophole. This section of HB 46 attempts to close that
loophole, by deleting the words a registered which requires all
engineers to be qualified to have that title.
MR. LOGAN said Section 3 is the meat of the bill. This section
reinserts an exemption from the requirements of the chapter.
This section was deleted from the statutes in 1990, but had
existed previously. Since the removal, it has become apparent to
the bill sponsor, Representative Green, that a lot of companies,
workers, and Alaskans in general, depend on and need this
section. After reviewing the entire record, Mr. Logan said he
found that no members of the public testified at the hearing. He
was not sure why representatives affected by this did not testify
at these hearings. It turns out, this exemption does affect a
large number of Alaskans, and so the bill sponsor is attempting
to reinsert it with HB 46. This exemption essentially says that
an employee working for a company who does engineering services,
need not be a licensed engineer. He felt it was likely the
committee would hear comments on both sides of the issue, but was
confident the committee would be persuaded to reinsert it into
Alaskas statutes.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted to clarify that under Section 2, the
wording a registered was deleted was an attempt to tighten the
legislation that prohibits an individual from claiming to be an
engineer for hire, unless appropriately registered. He said the
intent was to tighten the statutes, not make them broader.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why, according to public record,
the exemption was removed in 1990.
MR. LOGAN replied the reason given was that the language was too
broad. He said there was testimony from the Division of
Occupational Licensing, that there had been a case where a large
bank with engineers on staff, claimed to be exempted under the
current law. He did not know if the building was ever built.
This was the only reason listed in the public record.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any other questions or comments
from the committee. She said there were people wanting to
testify on teleconference. She asked if there was anyone wanting
to testify on HB 46 from Anchorage. She stated she had not
received the list of names of those wanting to testify, and so
those testifying would have to be clear in stating their names
and addresses to the committee. She asked that testifiers limit
their testimony to about two minutes.
Number 251
DAVID L. BENNETT, employee for PTI Telecommunications, stated the
company and their customers had a vested interest in HB 46. He
said they were in the business of designing their own
telecommunications infrastructure to service their customers. He
emphasized they were not in the business of designing systems for
other companies or the public. They were not aware of any public
safety issues related to telecommunications utility systems
design. He wanted to say they supported HB 46.
JIM ROWE, Executive Director of the Alaska Telephone Association,
said their company was representing 22 local exchange companies
in the state, who deliver local telephone service. They were
very supportive of the passage of this bill through the
legislature. He claimed the exemption was removed without their
knowledge or participation. He wanted to point out the language
was taken out, not as a result of public outcry and without
anyone asking for protection. He claimed there was no indication
of any substandard buildings. He said the company does yield
completely to national safety standards and building standards.
Thus, they did not feel the need for the seal of a licensed
engineer on their projects. He argued this would not improve
safety standards, as they were already historically good. With
this exemption, the company would still be liable for any
damages. Furthermore, he wanted to point out that the customers
would bear the extra cost of this requirement, should the
exemption not be reinstated. He said he would be available for
questions from the committee.
Number 327
GEORGE FINDLING, Manager of Government Relations for ARCO Alaska,
said they did support the proposed committee substitute for HB
46. He said ARCO found Section 1 of HB 46 to be a technical
clarification of existing law. He thought the improvement came
when the statute was switched to the active voice, as required by
the manual of legislative drafting. The new language defines who
is to comply with this statute. He said several parties he had
been in contact with felt it might be prudent to seek an
expedited legal opinion from either legislative or administrative
attorneys, regarding whether Section 1 changes existing statute
or not. He also wanted to point out, that in the case of a
general exemption, ARCO has been on record as supporting this.
He said 37 other states currently have broad exemptions. When
Alaska had its exemption before 1990, they saw no major
disadvantage to it. Having listened to the public record
himself, he also found no reason for the change of 1990. By
choosing to restore this exemption, he felt Alaska would see an
increase in costs and a loss of competitiveness. He wanted to
clarify that ARCO was not trying to avoid meeting legitimate
safety concerns, but pointed out that they were already a highly
regulated industry. In their discussions, he said no one has
identified any specific concerns over their operations. Should
any arise, he reassured the committee they would address them
through the agency that dealt with that activity.
Number 377
COLIN MAYNARD, President of the Alaska Professional Design
Council, said he and other individuals of the engineering
community had met with representatives of the oil, telephone, and
cable television industries to attempt to come up with a
compromise on this bill. The result was a memo before the
committee, which showed general agreement for an approach
acceptable for all parties involved. This approach would allow
specific industries to be exempted, rather than giving broad
exemptions, such as existed before 1990. He argued the exemption
was removed in 1990, because of its broad nature. Reinstating it
does not solve the problem, he argued. They suggested
automatically exempting industries where there was no safety
problem, and then allow the board to exempt other industries, as
necessary, where public safety was not at risk. He thought this
was the intent of the repeal in 1990. He pointed out that the
electric utilities industry had been exempted last fall, and by
regulation, some of their work was removed from the licensing
requirements. Section 3 of their memo, he said, provides the
committee with the exact wording of those regulations. He said
the point of contention with the telecommunications industry was
whether an Alaska licensed engineer should approve REA standards,
and it was his belief that someone who knew local conditions
should approve those standards. He said they hoped this bill
would be amended by the committee to follow the intent of the
exemption repeal of 1990.
DAVID ADAMS, President of Adams, Morgenthaller and Company, an
engineering firm in Anchorage, argued the exemption was deleted
in 1990, because it was too broad. The current statute, he
thought, allowed for accountability for performance, but agreed
that the exemption was entirely too sweeping of a change. He,
too, thought the oil and telecommunications companies needed
relief. He argued they had been spending a lot of time to try to
find a compromise. He also suggested the language provided in
Colin Maynards memo. He thought the requirement of a licensed
engineer to sign off on a project with a stamp of approval, was
better than if the exemption was reinstated, because it made the
engineer personally accountable and not the company. Thus, he
thought engineers would be more careful in signing off on a
project. He thought a sweeping exemption, as proposed in HB 46
was reckless.
CHAIR JAMES stated that before the committee took any further
testimony, she wanted to give an opportunity for Representative
Ogan to testify, as he had to leave.
Number 452
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned he had some reservations on HB 46
and concurs that the exemptions are a little too broad. He
thought that in certain situations, it might be appropriate, but
was concerned about exempting people such as architects and
electrical engineers. He urged the committee to take his
comments into consideration when they voted.
DOYLE CARROLL, Representative of Anchorage Telephone Utilities,
said he concurred with the statements of Dave Bennett, saying
they also designed telecommunication systems for its customers
and did not offer their services to the general public. He said
his company only used equipment accepted by the Federal
Communications Commission, and that their network was designed
according to national industry specifications. Designs are done
in conforming with the National Electrical Safety Code. Most of
their network, he said, was low voltage of about 48 to 130 volts.
He estimated the engineers on their staff had about 15 years
experience, and said to his knowledge the company had never
experienced any safety concerns in any of its designs. ATU is
concerned about the availability of engineers with experience in
the telecommunication plant construction. After a recruitment
period of six to eight weeks, they had only found two licensed
engineers available. Thus, he felt they would be unable to find
enough licensed engineers for their operations. He said ATU
supports HB 46 as written.
Number 502
WILLIAM MENDENHALL, Board Member of the Alaska State Board of
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS) stated he was
speaking in opposition to this HB 46 and mentioned he was a
member of the Alaska State Board for Registration for Architects,
Engineers and Land Surveyors. He said he was speaking only for
himself and not as a representative of the board. He wanted to
focus on Section 10 of the bill, which allows exemptions. He
felt this bill would allow someone to design anything they
wanted, as long as it doesnt involve the design or construction
of a structure with walls and a roof. The bill allows for anyone
to design a bridge, pipeline, or similar structure without being
registered. He felt the exemption was simply too broad. He
argued that, in the past, the board had worked quite closely with
private industry to provide for individual exemptions. Examples
of these exemptions were low-voltage electrical systems and
things that meet standard code. Thus, he was confident that the
board could work with individual industries to provide
appropriate exemptions. He opposed HB 46, as written, and urged
the committee not to pass it to the next committee of referral.
Number 547
MIKE TAURIANEN, registered engineer and AELS board member, also
expressed his opposition to HB 46. He said many of his comments
paralleled those of Mr. Mendenhall. He was frustrated that the
legislative information office had the wrong version to provide
to him, which made it hard to testify.
CHAIR JAMES offered to fax him a copy of the proper version.
MR. TAURIANEN said he would appreciate this and the chance to
testify after receiving this copy. In the meantime, he had some
comments on the version he had. He found that little testimony
had been offered regarding Section 2 of the bill and wanted to
offer his support for this section. He agreed that a trained
engineer should be able to use the title, whether or not they
were registered with the state. Regarding Section 3, he felt
this bill was being rushed and the result would be bad
legislation. He felt the exemptions provided in Section 3 were
too broad and would like to see the AELS board given some
latitude to facilitate those exemptions. He wanted to clarify he
was in support of minimal regulation, but was concerned HB 46 was
too broad in the exemptions it provided. He said he would like
the opportunity to speak again after receiving the updated
version of the bill.
CHAIR JAMES reassured him the information was being faxed to him
and asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify from the
teleconference on HB 46. Hearing none, she asked if anyone in
the audience wished to testify on this bill. Again, there was no
one present to testify. She called for Mr. Logan to respond to
some of the concerns raised.
Number 596
MR. LOGAN wanted to clarify for those on teleconference, that the
difference between Version K of the bill and earlier versions,
was the last sentence of the bill, which had been modified in
language. In Version K, the last line ended with the word
public. In earlier versions, line 28 continues with the wording
and if the engineering does not involve the design or
construction of a structure with walls or a roof. Thus, if you
have an earlier version, he said they needed to simply put a
period after the word public and they would have the equivalent
of Version K.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments from
the committee.
Number 608
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had heard this bill in an earlier
committee. He said during the discussion in that committee, the
same two positions on this bill were discussed. He had the
impression that the concerns were mainly of nonregistered
engineers designing and constructing buildings that would be open
to the public. He had not gotten the impression that those
asking for the exemption were interested in doing those types of
activities. He understood that bill sponsor, Representative
Green, had an amendment to offer, dealing with that topic. He
wanted to state for the record, that in dealing with an
individual in the field of engineering, the registration process
was necessary to allow for accountability. In the case of the
in-house employee who provides these kind of services, the
responsibility and liability for those services falls on the
employee. Thus, he felt there was protection for the public. He
felt this was the difference and was not concerned about leaving
the public unprotected by not requiring these people to be
registered with the state.
Number 633
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented she was leaning strongly in
favor of this bill, but was concerned about seeing the amendment
for the first time. She was also concerned about those people
speaking in opposition, who might not have this amendment. She
said she was hoping the sponsor would be willing to hold this
bill in committee, considering she thought this was the last
chance for a public hearing on the bill before being heard on the
floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded the amendment was to try to find a
solution to the controversial Section 10 of the bill. He stated
they were sympathetic to the concerns of the AELS board, but felt
their suggestions to amend this section, as stated, puts a couple
of pages of regulations into statute. He could not agree with
this suggestion. He said he would like to offer this amendment
to the committee for their consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered to move for adoption, the proposed
committee substitute for HB 46, version k.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections. Hearing none, the
motion passed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested the amendment also be faxed off
to the legislative information office for public review and
comment from those on teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated after hearing some of the testimony,
he would like to modify the proposed amendment with an added
sentence.
Number 679
MR. LOGAN mentioned the proposed amendment had already been faxed
to the Anchorage LIO and was in the process of being faxed to
Fairbanks and Soldotna. He explained the amendment as being as
follows: On the fifth line, after the word "only," the amendment
inserted the words and further. At the end of the bill, after
the last word public, add the sentence Exclusion under this
subsection do not apply....
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN corrected Mr. Logan on the proper wording
and offered to read the new language to the committee. He said
his handwriting was hard to read. He said the intended language
was suppose to read Exclusions under this subsection do not
apply to buildings or structures, whose primary use is public
occupancy.
TAPE 95-35, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES verified whether they had received the amendment in
Soldotna. They had not and she reassured them it was on its way.
She asked Representative Green to make a motion to adopt the
amendment, to allow for committee discussion.
Number 009
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that amendment number three be adopted
by the committee as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his approval of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS verified this amendment would not affect
the telephone utilities, who had testified.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied they would be excluded, as they were
prior to 1990.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER clarified this amendment would provide them
with the same exemption as they had in 1990, with the exception
they could not design a building open to the public.
CHAIR JAMES questioned whether they had a copy of the amendment
in Soldotna. As they did not, she offered to read the proposed
amendment to them. She said the amendment would delete the
existing Section 10 and read, An officer or employee of an
individual firm, partnership, or employee of an individual firm,
partnership, association, utility, or corporation, who practices
engineering involved in the operation of the employers business
only, and further provided that neither the employee nor the
employer offers engineering services to the public. Exclusions
under this subsection do not apply to buildings or structures
whose primary use is public occupancy.
MR. TAURIANEN expressed concern that this does not address
structures such as dams, bridges, high voltage lines, generators
and similar structures not designed for public occupancy. He
thought this was still too broad.
Number 076
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the certification process
for the state of Alaska for registering engineers, would
appropriately determine the qualifications for building a
pipeline.
MR. TAURIANEN thought it addressed standards for the civil,
mechanical, and electrical aspects for building a pipeline, dam,
or high voltage line that definitely affect the public. He said
if it does not do this, then maybe the state should not have a
registration process in the first place. If we have a
registration process, he felt we should have a level playing
field and uniform rules affecting everyone equally. He was
concerned that the legislature was still rushing this bill
unnecessarily.
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the problem with trying to get so
specific, is that you can get into the situation of injecting
several pages of regulations into statute, which still do not
specifically define the various types of structures included. He
thought this could get so far out of hand as to be absurd. He
said this bill was trying to attempt to return the situation to
the way it had been and was currently in 36 other states,
allowing for in-house design by nonregistered engineers. He said
there could be no end to the number of places a person of the
public might be, and the entire situation could get entirely out
of hand. He said they were attempting to streamline the
operation and still protect the general public. He thought this
bill did that, certainly as amended.
Number 155
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was objection to the motion of passing
the amendment to HB 46. Hearing none, the motion was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass CSHB 46, Version K, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented the committee had not heard
from Mr. Mendenhall to question his opinion of the amendment.
CHAIR JAMES asked if he had any comments on the amendment. She
reiterated the new language proposed by the sponsor in committee.
MR. MENDENHALL said the amendment was an improvement, but he was
still not satisfied his concerns had been met and urged the
committee to delete Section 10 of HB 46.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion to
move CSHB 46, Version K, as amended, out of committee. Hearing
none, the motion passed.
HSTA - 03/23/95
HB 243 - LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Number 214
CHAIR JAMES announced the next bill on the agenda was HB 243.
She called for the bill sponsors, Representative Pete Kott,
spokesman to testify on behalf of the bill.
Number 214
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
explained that HB 243 modifies the State Board of Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors into a new board with expanded
responsibilities. He said it would be restructured into the
State Board of Registration of Architects, Engineers, Land
Surveyors and Landscape Architects. The expanded
responsibilities would concern the licensing and regulation of
landscape architects. He stated Representative Kott felt this
was justified as landscape architects must, in the performance of
their duties, have extensive knowledge of scientific and
engineering principles Furthermore, they were in a position, if
they were delinquent in their duties, to cause extensive harm to
the public. Thus, he felt licensing and regulation was
justified.
CHAIR JAMES commented she had a hard time finding where there was
a danger from landscape architects that justified licensing and
regulation of their activities. She asked if he could give
examples of where this was the case.
MR. DOZIER thought he could give a few examples, but felt
testimony from landscape architects on the teleconference might
provide more details.
Number 250
MR. MENDENHALL stated he was neutral on whether there was a
justified need for this legislation. However, if this was the
case, he thought the State Board of Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors was the proper place for the regulating of this
activity. He also wanted to insure the bill would not be so
restrictive to prevent the architects and engineers, who have
traditionally constructed drainage ditches and similar structures
from continuing with those activities.
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone else on teleconference was interested
in discussing HB 243.
MR. MAYNARD supported this bill and landscape architect
registration. He thought many more agencies are requiring this
licensing of landscape architects working on their projects.
Thus, he would prefer a program for licensing landscape
architects in Alaska, so these projects were not forced to look
for people outside of the state who were properly registered. He
thought someone licensed in this state would know the local
conditions better.
Number 290
DWAYNE ADAMS, representative of Land Design North, thought this
bill was justified in that landscape architects work on many
projects, such as schools and playgrounds, and are trained in the
many safety guidelines necessary to protect the public. He
argued no other licensed profession was required to have these
skills. Even in areas where other licensed professionals do have
these skills, they are usually not as qualified as landscape
architects, who deal with parks and playgrounds on a regular
basis. Other examples of areas where accountability is necessary
for landscape architects is with structures such as sidewalks
that are not necessarily under the inspection of civil engineers.
His greatest fear was that without a proper licensing program,
many projects would be given to outside landscapers, who were
licensed.
LINDA CYRA-KORSGAARD, President of the Alaska Chapter of Ground
Management Society Landscape Architects, requested the committee
support HB 243. She thought this was necessary to support the
safety and welfare of Alaskans and would put Alaskan landscape
architects on an equal footing with those of other states doing
work in Alaska. She said she appreciated the committees
consideration of this bill and would be happy to answer any
questions they might have.
KEN MORTON, landscape architect with Alaska State Parks,
supported HB 243 for the above-mentioned reasons and said he
would like to state a few other comments. He stated the
education of landscape architects was comparable to that of
engineers and architects, with professional degree programs at
several universities. He thought this bill would insure the
public was getting a landscape architect whenever they tried to
hire one. He said currently anyone may call themselves a
landscape architect, without necessarily being qualified. Thus,
they wanted to insure that when the public tried to hire a
landscape architect, they were getting one that was qualified to
do the job.
CHAIR JAMES questioned whether there was anyone else on
teleconference who wished to testify.
Number 362
MR. TAURIANEN wanted to express his opposition to HB 243, saying
he did not think it would protect the health and safety of the
public. He thought the burden should be on the public to check
into the qualifications of a landscaper before they hire them.
He thought the state would be better served by not adding to the
current number of regulations and felt the current process had
functioned well.
CHAIR JAMES verified everyone who wished, had testified from the
public. She asked if the committee had any questions or comments
on this bill.
Number 381
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his concern of when there would
be the requirement of hiring a licensed landscape architect and
when someone could hire an unlicensed individual to plant a few
bushes in the flower garden.
MR. ADAMS thought this separation would come with the situation
of design of major public facilities, where there would be
concern for public safety and welfare. He thought that in the
case of smaller projects, such as yardwork, where there was less
of a concern for public welfare, this would not be necessary. It
would not be in the best interest of the public to do so. He
said about 50 percent of the major projects he was discussing,
are done by outside contractors, who are registered and
licensed. He stated this was what they were trying to protect.
Number 411
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked whether this was the same bill on
this topic that had been introduced into the legislature last
session.
MR. DOZIER stated he had not examined that bill, and so could not
say whether they were the same.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned why this was not put under an
existing board, rather than creating a new one.
CHAIR JAMES confirmed it was to be placed under the current
architect, engineer and land surveyors board.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS wanted verification of whether this would
interfere with civic projects, such as by the Boy Scouts.
MR. ADAMS said it would not.
Number 444
BEVERLY WARD, representative of ARCO Alaska, was concerned if
this would place requirements on ARCO to use a licensed landscape
architect when doing site restoration, or if they would be
exempted and allowed to use in-house staff to do these projects.
MR. DOZIER stated the exemption was not in this bill and did not
know if HB 46, should it pass, would cover the landscape
architects covered under this bill.
CHAIR JAMES said she was uncomfortable with this bill, in that
she was not quite sure of what they were excluding or setting up.
She reiterated that she sympathized and supported the idea of
having licensed landscape architects in this state, so that we
did not have to import them from out of state when required to
have them. Thus, she thought there should be a mechanism for
licensing these people, but was concerned if this would require
people not currently required to be licensed, to get a license,
in order to practice their profession. This made her
uncomfortable with passing this bill without that answered.
Number 481
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought these questions could be answered
better in the next committee of referral, Labor & Commerce.
Because of this, she moved that HB 243 be passed out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
CHAIR JAMES verified whether the sponsor would be willing to take
these concerns into consideration and address them at the next
committee.
MR. DOZIER said they would.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections to passing HB 243
out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing none,
the bill passed.
CHAIR JAMES said they would roll over HB 238 and HB 267 to next
Tuesdays meeting, March 28th.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs committee meeting
at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|