05/01/2003 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 2003
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- MOVED CSHJR 4(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 215
"An Act repealing statutes that relate to art works in public
buildings and facilities and that require a set percentage of
construction costs to be spent on art."
- MOVED CSHB 215(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Relating to the Alaska-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord,
to annual legislative exchanges, and to continuing
intergovernmental work on matters of joint concern and mutual
interest.
- MOVED CSHJR 24(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 149
"An Act requiring nonprofit corporations under the Alaska Net
Income Tax Act to provide prior public notice of lobbying
expenditures and an annual report of lobbying expenditures to
the Department of Revenue; providing for a civil penalty for
failure to provide the notice; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
transferring campaign, public official, and lobbying financial
disclosure record-keeping duties to the division of elections;
relating to reports, summaries, and documents regarding
campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure;
providing for enforcement by the Department of Law; making
conforming statutory amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones
when operating a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective
date."
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SAMUELS, ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0025 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0025 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/17/03 0566 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/19/03 0593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOLM, ANDERSON,
MEYER,
03/19/03 0593 (H) MCGUIRE
04/24/03 1110 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/30/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/30/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
05/02/03> Mtg. Postponed to
after Maj. Caucus
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 215
SHORT TITLE: ONE PERCENT FOR ART
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/03 0640 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/03 0640 (H) STA, FIN
04/03/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/03/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
4/24/03>
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 24
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA-YUKON INTERGOV RELATIONS ACCORD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GRUENBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/14/03 0964 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/14/03 0964 (H) STA
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 149
SHORT TITLE:LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WOLF
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0395 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0395 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0395 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
4/24/03>
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE APOC
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0426 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0426 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0426 (H) FN(S): FORTHCOMING
03/05/03 0426 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV) RECEIVED
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN2: (ADM) RECEIVED
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN3: (ADM) RECEIVED
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HJR 4.
BARBARA BITNEY, Staff
to Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
215, Representative Stoltze.
KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HB 215.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 215.
JOCELYN YOUNG, Curator
1 percent for art program
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related some concerns with CSHB 215,
Version H.
MIKE ANDERSON
Cordova Visual Artists
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 215.
JOAN JACKSON, sculptor
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 215, expressed the
need for the 1 percent for art program to be run under the
Alaska State Council on the Arts.
ALYSSA KLEISSLER
Cordova Arts & Pageants
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the changes
encompassed in Version H of HB 215.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY WOLF
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 149.
STEVE CONN
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 149 and HB 157.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 157, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-47, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton, Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Gruenberg were
present at the call to order. Representative Berkowitz arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of
a regular session. [Before the committee is CSHJR 4, Version
23-LS0178\D, Cook, 3/28/03.]
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
the sponsor of HJR 4. He informed the committee that it should
have a copy of [Version 23-LS0178\H, Cook, 4/29/03].
The committee took an at-ease from 8:11 a.m. to 8:12 a.m.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
Number 0495
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that the change encompassed in
Version H specifies that after a gubernatorial election there
would be a 110-day session. He noted that this change was per
the committee's amendment at the prior hearing of HJR 4. In
response to Representative Seaton, Representative Samuels
related that Section 2(b) reads as follows:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the
first regular session held after a gubernatorial
election is limited to one hundred ten consecutive
calendar days. The session may be extended as
provided in (a) of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that it was generally the
policy of the drafters to not use "Notwithstanding" language.
Number 0624
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHJR 4 [Version 23-
LS0178\H, Cook, 4/29/03] as the working document. There being
no objection, [Version H] was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHJR 4 [Version 23-
LS0178\H, Cook, 4/29/03] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 0671
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He remarked that the
constitution should only be amended when there's no other
alternative. He said that there are other alternatives that
would lead to a 90-day session or a shorter session. Therefore,
he viewed the truly conservative avenue to vote against any
amendment to the constitution unless there is a compelling
reason to do so and all other remedies have been exhausted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that [a shorter session] hasn't
been done since 1959. He believes legislators will perform
better by having the stricture of the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that he doesn't view this as a
[partisan] issue. Furthermore, a shorter session would possibly
increase the pool of people who would be willing to run for
office. Representative Samuels pointed out that 120 days was an
arbitrary number and thus 90 days is also an arbitrary number.
If the length of the session isn't going to be limited, then
don't. However, he suggested that a session without a specified
length would result in legislators working in July. Therefore,
if the desire is to choose an arbitrary number, then choose one
that is shorter.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ highlighted that this is a
constitutional amendment and it's important to have dialogue
regarding the sponsor's and the committee's intent. With regard
to changing the constitution because it might increase the pool
of potential legislators, Representative Berkowitz remarked that
he didn't believe the constitution should be changed on the
basis of supposition and conjecture; there need to be more
concrete reasons. Although he agreed that there is a likelihood
that more people would run for office, there have been no
studies to determine whether that's true nor has the experience
of other states with shorter sessions been reviewed.
Representative Berkowitz reiterated that there are other ways in
which to achieve a shorter session, such as statutorily or not
starting until the 30th day. Because there is no evidence that
shortening the session to 90 days would improve government, it
seems arbitrary to act in support of a constitutional amendment.
"The balance of power argument is significant," he said. He
recalled that when BP and ARCO merged it was a major issue for
the state and because the legislature wasn't in session, there
were some severe problems for the state's response to the issue.
However, he agreed that having an indefinite length of session
would probably result in the expansion to meet that indefinite
length. There hasn't been a showing that a 120-day session has
lead to too many bad things. Furthermore, no matter the length
of the session, there will be the flurry of activity at the end.
Number 1105
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that it has been postulated that the
legislature did nothing for the six weeks. However, he recalls
being very busy serving his constituents, introducing
legislation, and working with the [Salmon Industry Task Force]
and people to draft legislation for senior citizen legislation.
Representative Seaton said he didn't view [the notion that the
legislature did nothing for the first six weeks] as a
justification for going to a 90-day session.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he would like to associate
himself with Representative Berkowitz's comments.
Number 1280
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection to reporting
Version H from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his motion to report Version H
from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern regarding the use of
the "Notwithstanding" language and offered the removal of that
language as a conceptual amendment upon the review of
Legislative Legal and Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if he promised to have Legislative
Legal and Research Services review the use of the
"Notwithstanding" language, would Representative Gruenberg
withdraw his motion and the matter could be addressed in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHJR 4, Version 23-
LS0178\H, Cook, 4/29/03, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holm, Seaton,
Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Weyhrauch voted in favor of reporting CSHJR
4, Version H. Representatives Berkowitz and Gruenberg voted
against it. Therefore, CSHJR 4(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:26 a.m.
HB 215- ONE PERCENT FOR ART
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 215, "An Act repealing statutes that relate to
art works in public buildings and facilities and that require a
set percentage of construction costs to be spent on art."
Number 1464
BARBARA BITNEY, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska
State Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 215,
Representative Stoltze. She explained that the sponsor has been
working with committee members and the Alaska State Council on
the Arts to try to make the changes requested at the last
hearing on HB 215. Ms. Bitney pointed out that one of the
changes encompassed in [the committee substitute (CS)] is a
tighter title. Another change can be found on page 2, line 3,
where language that clarified the 5 percent set aside for
maintenance would come from the 1 percent for art program.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 215, Version 23-
LS0605\H, Kurtz, 4/30/03, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version H was before the committee.
MS. BITNEY returned to her review of the changes encompassed in
Version H. She directed attention to page 2, lines 7-11, and
said:
It's for the 1 percent applying to projects under
$250,000 or not subject to substantial public use.
Requiring a 1 percent deposit in the Art in Public
Places fund.
MS. BITNEY pointed out that on page 3, lines 1-2, is a change
that merely requires that photo identification be added to the
list of monitoring. On page 4, lines 1-3, the change clarifies
that the original total construction costs doesn't include cost
overruns. Basically, this simplifies the monitoring and
applicability of the statute. On page 4, line 31 through page
5, lines 1-4, the change again clarifies that the 5 percent for
maintenance is coming from the 1 percent for art program.
Number 1729
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to the definition of
"construction cost" in Section 6 and asked if it includes total
costs, including federal funds, donated funds, (indisc.), or
state appropriated funds. If so, he asked if it also includes
state (indisc.).
MS. BITNEY answered that the specifics that the sponsor has been
working with have been strictly general funds and general
obligation bonds.
Number 1810
KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
informed the committee that she is the drafter of HB 215. In
response to Representative Gruenberg's question regarding
whether this definition of "construction cost" is limited to
state funding and exclusive of federal funding, Ms. Kurtz
pointed out that the definition of state funding is specified in
Section 7 where the language discusses the appropriation of
state funds by the legislature as well as general obligation
bond proceeds. Therefore, Ms. Kurtz asked if that would cover
[Representative Gruenberg's concerns]. She explained that the
specific reference to state funds carries the intention [that
"construction cost" is limited to state funds].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his belief [Section 7] would
cover his [concerns]; however, he emphasized the need to ensure
that there are no unintended consequences. He then turned
attention to page 4, lines 29-30, which he characterized as
ambiguous. He asked if this language is specifying that the
money deposited in the art in public places fund doesn't lapse
in a particular year or that it never lapses.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
the sponsor of HB 215. He related that his intent was to have
continuity and not be subject to reappropriation and lapsing
[agreements].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if this is a fund that will be
project-specific or will it be one fund. If it's project-
specific, then presumably at the end of the project the fund
would end. However, if it's a general accounting fund, then it
wouldn't go away.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE clarified that it's not intended to be
project-specific. He explained that some projects won't ever
need maintenance and might help those projects that do require
maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the language would be
more clear if on page 4, lines 29-30, after "lapse", a "," was
inserted and "at the end of a fiscal year" was deleted.
MS. KURTZ remarked that such a change could be made.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that this is all subject to
appropriation, and therefore he suggested inserting a period
after "lapse".
MS. KURTZ said that she wouldn't take out the language "unless
otherwise provided by an appropriation." due to the nature of
the fund and its structure. This is an existing fund and the
change is to the lapse state. Arguably, the lapse state isn't
changing because there is the issue of the funds getting into
the fund as an implied term of the appropriation of capital
funds. Therefore, because this fund is related to capital
appropriations, it's important to keep the link to the original
capital appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment:
Page 4, lines 29-30, after "lapse":
Insert ","
Delete "at the end of a fiscal year"
Number 2170
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is any lapse that doesn't
occur at the end of the fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the language was ambiguous
because of the use of "a" before "fiscal year". Normally,
[funds] don't lapse until five years after being appropriated.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that these are construction
projects that don't end on a fiscal year basis.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that the lapse is a
statutory lapse that runs from the date of the appropriation,
not the completion of the project.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE pledged to review this in the House
Finance Committee where much more expertise in this area is
available.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his amendment.
Number 2277
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
[Amendment 1], as follows:
Page 1, lines 6-7:
Delete "or, in the case of a rural school
facility, at least one-half of one percent"
Page 1, lines 9-10:
Delete ", or in the case of a rural school
facility, one-quarter of one percent"
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the aforementioned isn't an issue he
cares about. He noted that the one-half percent language was
inserted by rural Democratic legislators back in the 1970s.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2332
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 215, Version 23-
LS0605\H, Kurtz, 4/30/03, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that at this time he would turn to
public testimony before the motion is completed.
Number 2385
JOCELYN YOUNG, Curator, 1 percent for art program in Anchorage,
informed the committee that she had just received a copy of
Version H. Ms. Young commended most of the additions to the
legislation because she believes they clarify some aspects and
authority of the program. However, the caps placed in the
legislation are complicated and, in some ways, seem to defeat
the purpose of the program. She suggested that the cap could be
done on a case-by-case basis. For example, the 1 percent for
art budget for a large construction project is generally for a
project such as an airport, which would have extensive corridors
where art work is needed. With regard to working on a
corrections institute, Ms. Young related her experience with the
public art in the Anchorage jail. She explained that those who
really use the facility daily are employees and those employees
have often commented on their enjoyment of the art in the staff
and public areas of the facility. She highlighted that the
program used its own formulas and created a partial exemption
for the Anchorage jail and thus artwork was only placed in
public and staff areas. Ms. Young viewed the aforementioned use
of good sense as a better approach to the project.
MS. YOUNG recalled that at the last hearing there was discussion
of changing AS 35.27.020(c) from "rural school facility" to the
correct term.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH advised witnesses that HB 215 will be heard in
the House Finance Committee where issues of concern that haven't
been addressed in the CS from this committee could be brought
up.
MS. YOUNG continued by pointing out that the language in the
legislation referring to the commissioner may need some work due
to the changes in the state's procurement code, which allows
various commissioners responsibility over their own construction
of facilities. She suggested that perhaps the aforementioned is
an area in which the authority could go the Alaska State Council
on the Arts.
Number 2629
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Ms. Young's concern
regarding the references to the commissioner highlighted page 2,
line 26, of Version H. He also highlighted the language on page
4, lines 25-28.
MS. BITNEY commented that one of the ways in which the [1
percent for art program] was strengthened was by requiring it to
report to the Alaska State Council on the Arts for the funding,
artwork, and location. With regard to the reference to the
commissioner, Ms. Bitney agreed that each commissioner has
control, however she pointed out that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has the expertise in
building and thus [the sponsor] likes [the current construct].
She noted that [Ms. Jocelyn's notion] was discussed during work
on this CS, but it would require further scrutiny.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM related his belief that the reference to
[the commissioner of DOT&PF] has to do with the architectural
cleanliness of a project.
Number 2724
MIKE ANDERSON, Cordova Visual Artists, said that he likes a lot
of what Version H does.
JOAN JACKSON, sculptor, expressed her desire for the 1 percent
for art program to be run under the Alaska State Council on the
Arts because she has seen schools and public buildings that have
"twitched" out of putting in artwork. She said she didn't
believe the aforementioned would happen if the program was under
the Alaska State Council on the Arts. She viewed the other
changes to the legislation as improvements.
ALYSSA KLEISSLER, Cordova Arts & Pageants, said that she likes
the changes encompassed in Version H and is happy that the
legislation is no longer a repeal of the program.
Number 2865
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
reminded the committee that before it was a motion to report
Version H, as amended. He asked if there were any objections.
There being no objection, CSHB 215(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 24-ALASKA-YUKON INTERGOV RELATIONS ACCORD
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24, Relating to the Alaska-Yukon
Intergovernmental Relations Accord, to annual legislative
exchanges, and to continuing intergovernmental work on matters
of joint concern and mutual interest.
Number 2890
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as the sponsor, explained
that this resolution grew out of the recent exchange between the
Alaska State Legislature and the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
The committee packets should include a copy of the Alaska-Yukon
Intergovernmental Relations Accord. The agreement will expire
on September 8, 2003, and therefore the purpose of the
resolution is to urge the continued extension of accord between
the Alaska State Legislature and the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
In the past, there have been times when the Northwest
Territories of Canada have participated as well. He said he
would appreciate the support of the committee.
TAPE 03-47, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that during the
exchange there was an informal discussion with the premier of
the Yukon, regarding continuing the accord. However, there was
no discussion of [the Yukon Legislative Assembly] passing a
resolution.
Number 2940
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, speaking as a co-sponsor, related that
during conversations with the Yukon Legislative Assembly there
was positive sentiment and verbal commitments to continue to
address concerns and issues with Alaska. She related her
feeling that Alaska will have a positive working relationship
with the premier and the rest of the parliament.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that he felt that it was an
extremely positive exchange and the Yukon Legislative Assembly
wants to work with Alaska.
Number 2904
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved that the committee adopt the following
conceptual amendment:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "Pat Duncan"
Delete "Tony Knowles"
He explained that including specific names in government from a
specific point in time doesn't blend with the notion of two
governments attempting to solidify their relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted his support of that. However, he
proposed that the language on page 1, lines 10-11, be changed
such that it would read, "WHEREAS the Premier of the Yukon and
the Governor of Alaska, signed ...".
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM mentioned that she and Representative
Gruenberg had this conversation previously and she is
comfortable with that change.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reviewed some of the very important connections
Alaska and the Yukon Territory share, such as the Yukon River
and the U.S.-Canada Salmon Treaty. Chair Weyhrauch announced
that there was no objection to Representative Holm's conceptual
amendment, and therefore it was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 24, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, CSHJR 24(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 149-LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 149, "An Act requiring nonprofit corporations
under the Alaska Net Income Tax Act to provide prior public
notice of lobbying expenditures and an annual report of lobbying
expenditures to the Department of Revenue; providing for a civil
penalty for failure to provide the notice; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that before the committee is SSHB 149,
Version 23-LS0354\H. [Although this document is entitled and
referred to as a sponsor substitute, it was not officially such
and thus the document only exists in the committee packet.]
Number 2712
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY WOLF, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
the sponsor of SSHB 149. Representative Wolf began by
explaining that a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization is a
charitable organization to which one can contribute funds and
the [contributor] can deduct the contribution from their taxes.
There are various types of nonprofit organizations throughout
Alaska and the nation, nearly 5,000 501(c)(3) nonprofits within
Alaska and 850,000 nationwide. Representative Wolf explained
that [this legislation arose from his concern] that when one
contributes to a 501(c)(3), the contributor is contributing to
support a specific purpose, such as saving cutthroat trout. The
contributor is entrusting an organization governed by a board of
directors to use contributions to promote the mission of the
organization. This legislation would require that 501(c)(3)
organizations that choose to lobby the legislature or take up
legislative activity, which is limited under the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) code to those efforts classified as
insubstantial lobbying efforts, to post a public record within
14 days before or after the lobbying effort. Representative
Wolf noted that there were some concerns with the original
legislation and thus he introduced the sponsor substitute
because he didn't want to restrict 501(c)(3) organizations,
which are allowed to lobby. However, the lobbying efforts can
only amount to an insubstantial amount, as specified by the IRS
which has the authority to governor 501(c)(3) organizations. He
clarified that he didn't want to infringe on the constitutional
amendment of freedom of speech. However, he stressed the need
to maintain full disclosure and public trust with individual
contributions to nonprofits.
Number 2515
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF acknowledged that there are many sources
from which a contributor can review where the contributions to
nonprofits are being spent. One can even request this
information from the IRS. He said he was sure that everyone was
aware how wonderful it is to work with the IRS and how speedy it
is. Therefore, this legislation allows the public to have an
understanding of a nonprofit's budget, the effort being
proposed, and the list of [contributors]. He mentioned that to
place a notice in the Anchorage Daily News would cost about $100
or so.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this legislation would
require two notices be printed within eight days. Therefore,
each time an organization flies someone to Juneau, $200 would
have to be added to that individual's expenses to cover the
notice requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF nodded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Version 23-
LS0354\H for discussion purposes. There being no objection, it
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF, in response to Representative Berkowitz,
said that he didn't have a list of 501(c)(3) nonprofits in
Alaska, but that information could be garnished from the
Department of Commerce & Economic Development (DCED).
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that he asked because he has
received a letter from AARP who is in opposition to this
legislation. Therefore, he wanted to know what organizations
would be impacted by this legislation. He asked if
Representative Wolf had the federal definition of "lobbying
expenditure" that is referenced on page 2, lines 26-27.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that although he didn't have the
federal definition with him, [it should include] travel and
lodging expenditures incurred when lobbying. He mentioned that
the definition could be clarified in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF informed the committee that AARP is a
501(c)(4) nonprofit that operates a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. He
explained that a 501(c)(4) nonprofit is a social welfare
organization whereas a 501(c)(3) nonprofit is a charitable
organization. He pointed out that contributions to a 501(c)(4)
nonprofit aren't tax deductible, and furthermore a 501(c)(4)
nonprofit is specifically designed for lobbying efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that members of the [State]
Chamber of Commerce are present and he wondered if any of the
members are going to testify on this legislation. He recalled
that members of the State Chamber of Commerce have been
outspoken with regard to the requirements for lobbyists of for
profit organizations. Therefore, he wondered if the chamber had
similar concerns when adding a burden to nonprofits.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that members of the State Chamber of
Commerce haven't signed up to testify.
Number 2252
STEVE CONN, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG),
informed the committee that he is standing in for Steve Cleary,
Executive Director of AkPIRG, a 501(c)(3), and Director of
AkPIRG Lobby, a 501(c)(4). Mr. Conn suggested that the public
notice provision that would cost, what he estimated to be more
than $200 for every $500 expenditure when visiting legislatures
and speaking directly in support of opposition to legislation,
would be a tremendous hardship on a 501(c)(3). The consequence
of HB 149 is that it places onerous restrictions on the right to
petition in exceptional circumstances by typical charities. The
legislation really won't impact entities that are ongoing in
terms of their interest in public issues because most of those
are organized both as a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) and perform
most of the work that would fall under the IRS definition of
lobbying under the 501(c)(4). Of course, these entities would
have the motivation to perform all of their work under that
definition.
MR. CONN noted that he was just in the hearing on HB 293, which
is about the statewide sales tax. During that hearing, he said
he could see a range of issues that will impact members of a
typical charity in this state. For example, exemptions for
food, prescription drugs, and businesses. He highlighted that
these are things that directly and indirectly impact elders,
children, and others. Mr. Conn characterized this as an
unanticipated consequence. Therefore, Mr. Conn urged the
committee to reject HB 149 for two reasons. Firstly, the notice
requirement is so punitive that it'll block simple lobbying
activities that aren't even covered under [HB 157], but do fall
under the IRS definition. In exceptional cases, charitable
lobbying would be more regulated than other forms of lobbying.
Secondly, one needs to think of this in context and with regard
to one's constituents. He hoped that the sponsor from the Kenai
will think about the fact that elders' groups and many
charitable groups will be concerned with regard to the impact
and equity of a statewide sales tax on their livelihood and
economics. Should this legislation pass, the aforementioned
groups may find it as a tremendous barrier to their ability to
reach out to the lawmakers.
Number 1972
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the following nonprofits would
be impacted by this legislation: Native nonprofits, the Outdoor
Council, the NRA, the American Diabetes Association, the
American Heart Association, the Alaska Municipal League, the
Boys and Girls Club, the Boy and Girl Scouts, religious
organizations, the YMCA, and veterans' groups.
MR. CONN answered that to the best of his knowledge all of the
above referenced groups are nonprofits. However, the above
referenced groups illustrates that this impacts various
charitable and public education endeavors on all sides of the
political spectrum.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted a conflict of interest and
disclosed that he is a member of a board of directors for Alaska
Common Ground, a 501(c)(3) corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted a conflict of interest and disclosed
that he is a member of the Alaska Right to Life, a 501(c)(3)
organization.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related that some of the organizations
that Representative Gruenberg mentioned earlier are actually
501(c)(4) organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted a conflict of interest and disclosed
that he is a member of a 501(c)(3) organization.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted a conflict of interest and
disclosed that he is a member of a 501(c)(3) organization.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted a conflict of interest and disclosed that
he is a member of various 501(c)(3) organizations.
There was objection to all of the above disclosures, and
therefore all members were required to vote.
Number 1770
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF reiterated that under the IRS code a
501(c)(3) can only spend an insubstantial amount [when
lobbying]. He related his understanding that the insubstantial
amount is 5 percent or less of their entire annual budget, which
is the concern that led to the introduction of this legislation.
The legislation doesn't intend to prevent these organizations
from lobbying, it merely maintains the public trust.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems constitutionally
problematic that this legislation proposes to establish
different standards for nonprofits. For example, he wasn't sure
that the ExxonMobil Corporation would be required to perform
public notification that it was coming to Juneau to lobby
whereas a 501(c)(3) would be required to do so. He asked if
this disparate treatment creates a constitutional question.
MR. CONN replied that he was sure that a 501(c)(3) will
challenge this legislation as a potential violation of the
organization's right to petition.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF highlighted that many 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organizations have 501(c)(4) organizations with which they work.
He emphasized that this legislation doesn't address 501(c)(4)
organizations because they are a lobbying organization. He also
emphasized that those funds contributed to a 501(c)(4)
organization aren't tax deductible whereas those contributions
to a 501(c)(3) are.
Number 1583
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that the more he thinks about
this, the more problematic it becomes. If the state was to
impose these requirements on businesses in this state, it would
add substantial costs to the businesses and nonprofits of the
state. Furthermore, Representative Berkowitz said that he
didn't see a great public good being advanced by this
requirement. He asked if there is a particular problem or
anecdote that is driving this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF explained that one of the concerns is that
when predator control issues have been brought up in Alaska,
nonprofit organizations, under the guise of a 501(c)(3), have
raised large amounts of revenue on an emotionally charged issue
of saving the wolves in Alaska. The public trust is at the
heart of this matter; full disclosure isn't something that true
501(c)(3) organizations should fear. He pointed out that this
legislation focuses on a nonprofit organization not a business.
Number 1436
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 2, lines 17-23,
which specifies that every 501(c)(3) nonprofit shall file a
annual report of all its lobbying expenditures in the previous
year whether the organization spends over $500 or not.
Representative Seaton questioned how there could be a zero
fiscal note when this requirement will result in the Department
of Revenue processing an additional report from each 501(c)(3)
in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF explained that currently 501(c)(3)
nonprofits are required to file an annual tax report with the
IRS declaring expenditures for the year. Therefore, the state's
report would be a duplicate of that.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that the
language in the legislation refers to a detailed report of "all
lobbying expenditures" rather than a composite of the
expenditures. Therefore, he said he believes it will be quite
an onerous report.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that isn't the intent. The report
required in the legislation is supposed to be a composite of the
organization's total lobbying efforts, a duplicate of what the
501(c)(3) issues to the IRS. Therefore, he remarked that he
would accept an amendment to change that to reflect the intent.
Number 1209
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed interest in having someone from the
Department of Revenue present at the next hearing in order to
discuss the zero fiscal note and the filing of this report. He
related his belief that there will have to be agency time spent
reviewing these reports. Chair Weyhrauch asked if currently a
501(c)(3) nonprofit has to report lobbying expenditures to the
federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related his further understanding that if
501(c)(3) nonprofits don't report their lobbying expenditures or
spend more than a substantial portion on lobbying efforts, those
nonprofits would be subject to federal prosecution.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied yes. However, he said that verbal
comments from IRS representatives have been that the IRS doesn't
have the time or funds to pursue such [prosecutions] when there
are 850,000 501(c)(3) nonprofits.
Number 1137
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that if the federal government
doesn't have the funds or the time and Alaska has about 1,000
501(c)(3) nonprofits, then seemingly there will be an
expenditure of time and funds to do this in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF explained that originally the intent of the
legislation was for 501(c)(3) nonprofits to pursue public notice
in order to have full disclosure. However, Legislative Legal
and Research Services felt that a report should go to the
Department of Revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that he would entertain a friendly
amendment to eliminate the report to the Department of Revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ returned to the notion that those
expending more than $500 would become entangled in the lobbying
laws. He asked if Representative Wolf would be willing to
extend that universally in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF expressed concern with such an expansion.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented, "If it's good for the goose,
it's good for the gander."
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF explained that the concern [that lead to
this legislation] is that a 501(c)(3) is using other people's
money on a trust issue and the contributors write that
contribution off of their taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ characterized that as a matter between
the contributor and the 501(c)(3). Shouldn't the government
stay out of that relationship, he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF reiterated that his original intent was to
avoid involving the Department of Revenue. He highlighted that
in Alaska there is a growing distrust with regard to what
501(c)(3) nonprofits do with their funds.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 149 would be held over.
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the final order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act eliminating the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; transferring campaign, public official, and
lobbying financial disclosure record-keeping duties to the
division of elections; relating to reports, summaries, and
documents regarding campaign, public official, and lobbying
financial disclosure; providing for enforcement by the
Department of Law; making conforming statutory amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the short title of HB 157, "Eliminate
APOC", which he viewed as a misnomer because this legislation
doesn't eliminate the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
Chair Weyhrauch announced that he wanted to limit public
testimony at this hearing, which he said would be a work session
on a large number of amendments that will result in a committee
substitute (CS). After a CS is [drafted], the committee will
review the CS before reporting it from committee.
Number 0820
STEVE CONN, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG), said
that he wanted to connect HB 157 to the proposed statewide sales
tax. He highlighted that the legislature passed the campaign
finance law after 80 percent of the public said, if polled they
would pass an initiative on campaign finance reform. Much of HB
157 deals with amendments to the campaign finance law. These
are amendments that loosen restrictions on lobbyist
contributions outside their district and substantially raise the
contribution limit. Given the debate and issues that will be
driven by the proposed statewide sale tax related to who
receives exemptions, this isn't a time to present an impression
to the public that money drives political decision-making in the
legislative process. This is a time when the public is very
concerned with regard to the role of lobbyists and the
lobbyist's role to drive a message. Mr. Conn pointed out that
the work on HB 157 will now be read against the concerns held by
the elders on the longevity bonus and the statewide sales tax.
Mr. Conn concluded by informing the committee he is retired from
AkPIRG and the University of Alaska and is a member of the AARP,
and a resident of Seward. He noted that that city will have a
lot of concern with regard to the statewide sales tax.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that before it is CSHB
157, Version HB 157.doc, 4/24/2003. He explained that the
amendments have been organized such that they will be taken in
order of the section impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG announced that he wanted to hold
Amendments 1 and 1-A.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that his Amendment 1-B,
which would eliminate Section 1, is the most universal approach
and if it passes, it would eliminate the need for Amendments 1
and 1-A.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 1-B, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 7 - 9:
Delete "amending the campaign finance and public
official financial disclosure laws to allow
municipalities to choose whether they apply to
municipal elections and municipal officials;"
Page 2, lines 1 - 21:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, lines 6 - 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 33"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 35"
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was Representative Dahlstrom's objection to Amendment
1-B.]
TAPE 03-48, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response to Representative
Dahlstrom's objection, explained that he is offering Amendment
1-B because "we" don't know the consequences if the format of
the system is changed. He noted that everyone at this table
lives in an area that has "opted in," although there are areas
in the state that have not. The cost shifted to the
municipality will come at a time when there is declining state
support for municipal revenues. He characterized this as a pass
through to the taxpayers of the communities that "opt in".
Furthermore, this adds cost due to the election and the
establishment of local interface with APOC. Moreover, there is
no knowledge with regard to the result if communities that are
currently in move out. Therefore, this will result in a
patchwork quilt of different approaches to APOC. As the system
currently exists, there is a lot of benefit to having uniformity
in the local and state elections and [this legislation] runs the
risk of using that uniformity. With regard to the fees that
municipalities would be required to pay under this legislation,
he related his experience with fee creep in which the fee far
exceeds the cost and becomes a profit center for the state.
Therefore, he suggested keeping the state paying its share and
maintain as small a bureaucracy as possible.
Number 0245
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to the document provided by Ms.
Miles entitled, "Municipality Status Under Campaign Disclosure &
Public Official Financial Disclosure Laws." He inquired as to
what this document relates. He also inquired as to the meaning
of "Exempt" in the Public Official Financial Disclosure column.
Number 0465
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Department of Administration, explained that the
exempt designation is because the voters in the community listed
voted to exempt themselves from AS 39.50. In further response
to Representative Holm, Ms. Miles explained that under the
Campaign Disclosure column the term "Required" means that the
community hasn't exempted itself as permitted under the statute.
The term "Opted Out" means that the community has exempted
itself as permitted by the statute. If the Campaign Disclosure
column is blank it's because the community's population is less
than 1,000 citizens and thus isn't required to be subject to the
law.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM related his understanding of Ms. Miles'
memorandum that the total cost for all of these municipalities
was under $100,000, specifically $61,760. He recalled that
APOC's budget is $753,000 and thus the $61,760 is a small
portion of APOC's budget.
MS. MILES said it would seem to be. However, she pointed out
that APOC doesn't have staff that is dedicated only to working
with municipalities. The APOC staff works with municipalities
and the state with both financial and campaign disclosures. The
lobbying law only applies to the state. Therefore, it was
difficult to determine the funds required to service
municipalities. She explained that the $61,760 came from the
percentage of personal services time on the staff working on
those laws. However, those costs don't include when a complaint
is filed at the municipal level. She pointed out that
complaints are filed under both financial disclosure law and the
campaign disclosure law and those add to APOC's costs,
particularly if an Administrative Procedures Act hearing is
required. Ms. Miles apologized for not being able to present a
more solid number.
Number 0140
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that he was thinking in terms of
shifting the cost back to the municipalities, if they choose to
not exempt their personnel elected. Because of the
aforementioned, he objects to Amendment 1-B. If this rewrite is
to occur, then [the language being deleted by Amendment 1-B]
should remain in the legislation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed his comments to Representative
Berkowitz and said that he understands that currently a
municipality has to opt in to this, which would result in a fee.
However, he understood Representative Berkowitz to explain that
a municipality would have to pay a fee and in these times of
taking money away, there isn't the desire to do that.
Therefore, he thought that [Amendment 1-B] met the above concern
by meaning that the municipality would be out unless it opted
in, at which time the municipality would pay the fee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that many entities are in
[the state system] now and [with this legislation] he questioned
whether those entities will be out and have to "pursue a
question," which means that there would be hearings at the local
level, attorney time, and a potential election, resulting at
some point in someone being tasked with interfacing with APOC.
Therefore, there would be costs as well as unanticipated
consequences associated with changing the status quo.
Representative Berkowitz said upsetting the infrastructure for
relatively small amounts of money with uncertain benefits
doesn't seem to be a risk worth taking at this point. However,
if the costs are far greater than the $61,760, then this is
simply a "pass-along" to local communities. Representative
Berkowitz said:
If we want to systematically look at services the
state provides that we think the municipality ought to
provide, then let's do that. But, if we're doing this
on an ad hoc basis, that raises all kinds of problems.
I think there are real efficiencies that are gained
across the state and the overall cost to the citizens
of the state are reduced when the state provides these
services rather than requiring each community to
provide those services. There are economies of scale
that will not be met if we require municipalities to
pick up these services, and there's also efficiencies
that we lose by requiring these municipalities that
have already asked the question [and] already given an
answer to re-ask those questions.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if, under Version HB 157.doc, 4/24/2003,
those communities that have already opted in will be kicked out
and have to opt in again through a new election.
MS. MILES replied no. She related her understanding that under
the current version of the bill, those municipalities that have
already opted in would now be required by election to opt in.
Perhaps, one could view this to mean that everyone already in is
considered in and thus discussion of the fee could occur, or the
municipality could opt out.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that Amendment 1 would accomplish
what Ms. Miles presented above.
Number 1060
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he doesn't see that it's
necessary to go through all this change. There is a system in
which many cities have opted in. With the elimination of
[Section 1], then all the municipalities that have opted in will
continue to receive the services they already receive and will
be in APOC and provide reports. He surmised that [this
legislation] eliminates a change and the system will stay the
same.
MS. MILES responded that such would be the case if the committee
adopts Amendment 1-B.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that there are two issues
that need to be reviewed separately. The first issue is whether
the intent is to impose a fee on the municipalities. If there
is no desire to impose a fee on the municipalities, then
Amendment 1-B should be adopted because it retains the status
quo. If the desire is to impose a fee on the municipalities,
the question becomes whether the municipalities should have to
opt out or opt in. If the decision is to have the
municipalities opt out and impose the fee, then Amendment 1-B
should be adopted. If the decision is to have the
municipalities opt in and impose the fee, then he suggested
rejecting everything, leaving Section 1 as it is currently
written.
Number 1182
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to what would happen to
pending issues related to municipal elections if the legislation
passed "as is."
MS. MILES answered that pending issues would go through their
normal course of business, under the authority of the law under
which the issues began.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his belief that the fee structure
is probably one of the basic parts of revenue sharing that there
is. He further related his belief that the current system seems
to work well for the municipalities and APOC. Therefore, he
viewed [the legislation] as a "funny way" to recoup a small
amount of money from municipalities. He announced his support
of the amendment to retain the system as it exists.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that the motion to adopt
Amendment 1-B is pending.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Dahlstrom,
Lynn, Berkowitz, Gruenberg, and Holm voted in favor of Amendment
1-B. Representative Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1-B was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
[HB 157 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
The House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was recessed
at 10:01 a.m. to a call of the chair [The meeting was
reconvened May 5, 2003, at 8:20 a.m.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|