Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/26/2004 08:17 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2004
8:17 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 523
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, voter
registration, voter residence, precinct boundary modification,
recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated with political
parties, early voting, absentee voting, ballot counting, voting
by mail, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 351(FIN)
"An Act requiring the Alaska Public Offices Commission to accept
documents by nonelectronic means, and specifying the manner of
preparing the forms that are provided by the commission."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 351(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 327
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and repealing a
requirement that public facilities comply with energy standards
adopted by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 375
"An Act relating to consideration by the legislature of the
executive budget and other bills affecting appropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 379
"An Act providing that public members of the Board of Trustees
of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation may be removed only for
cause; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 392
"An Act relating to the expenses of investigation, hearing, or
public advocacy before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, to
calculation of the regulatory cost charge for public utilities
and pipeline carriers to include the Department of Law's costs
of its public advocacy function, to inspection of certain books
and records by the attorney general when participating as a
party in a matter before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 557
"An Act regarding lobbyist prohibitions."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 4/30
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 523
SHORT TITLE:VOTERS/VOTING/POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/04 2748 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/04 2748 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/26/04 2748 (H) FN1: ZERO(LAW)
02/26/04 2748 (H) FN2: (GOV)
02/26/04 2748 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/08/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/21/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/21/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/22/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 351
SHORT TITLE: APOC REPORTS: FORMS & ELECTRONIC FILING
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
02/18/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/04 (S) STA, FIN
03/04/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/04/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/09/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/09/04 (S) Moved SB 351 Out of Committee
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/10/04 (S) STA RPT 1DP 2NR
03/10/04 (S) NR: STEVENS G, STEDMAN; DP: COWDERY
04/05/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/04 (S) RESTITUTION
04/06/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/06/04 (S) FIN AT 4:15 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/04 (S) Moved CSSB 351(fin) Out of Committee
04/06/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/07/04 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR NEW TITLE
04/07/04 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, STEVENS B;
04/07/04 (S) NR: DYSON, BUNDE, HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/16/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/16/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 351(FIN)
04/19/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/19/04 (H) STA, FIN
04/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 327
SHORT TITLE: POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
05/16/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/16/03 (H) TRA, STA
02/19/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/19/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/26/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/26/04 (H) Moved CSHB 327(TRA) Out of Committee
02/26/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/01/04 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 4DP
03/01/04 (H) DP: MASEK, OGG, STEPOVICH, HOLM
03/16/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/26/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE SONNEMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 523.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 523,
Version W.
KIMBERLY CARNOT, Staff
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 351 on behalf of Senator
Green, sponsor.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 351.
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 351.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 351.
TODD LARKIN, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 327 on behalf of
Representative Holm, sponsor.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 327.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-69, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Lynn, Berkowitz, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at the
call to order. Representative Holm arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 523-VOTERS/VOTING/POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTIONS
Number 0049
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 523, "An Act relating to qualifications of
voters, voter registration, voter residence, precinct boundary
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with political parties, early voting, absentee voting, ballot
counting, voting by mail, initiative, referendum, recall, and
definitions; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0096
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 523, Version 23-GH2021\W, Kurtz, 4/22/04,
as work draft. No objection was stated; therefore, Version W
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he would offer two
alternative amendments regarding a rolling ballot, labeled W.7
and W.8 [moved as Amendment 1]. The former [proposes] a rolling
ballot precinct by precinct and the latter [proposes] a rolling
ballot that will roll each individual ballot. He explained that
rolling each individual ballot means that each person in line to
vote would get a different order of candidates on his/her
ballot.
Number 0215
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt [Amendment 1], labeled
23-GH2021\W.8, Kurtz, 4/24/04, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 5, following "absentee voting,":
Insert "ballot design,"
Page 4, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 15.15.030(6) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(6) For each contested office, the division
shall rotate the order in which candidates' names
appear on the ballot to ensure, as much as reasonably
possible, that each candidate's name appears at the
top of the list an equal number of times on the
ballots that are distributed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 15.15.040 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(d) Every sample ballot containing the names of
candidates must also include the following statement:
"Candidates' names may appear in a different order on
the actual ballot.""
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 3:
Delete "secs. 21 - 43"
Insert "secs. 23 - 45"
Page 22, line 6:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 9"
Number 0239
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would consider W.7 as a
friendly amendment. He stated, "I'm just doing the one versus
the other."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "So, you're saying W.7 would be a
friendly amendment to W.8?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered yes. [W.7 read as follows:]
Page 1, line 5, following "absentee voting,":
Insert "ballot design,"
Page 4, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 15.15.030(6) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(6) The order in which candidates for each
office are placed on the general election ballot shall
be randomly determined by the director for the lowest
numbered precinct in the house district in which
candidates are running. The order of placement shall
be rotated for each successively numbered precinct.
Absentee ballots in each house district shall be
printed as though they were for an additional precinct
in the house district and that precinct were the
highest numbered precinct in the house district."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 15.15.040 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(d) Every sample ballot containing the names of
candidates must also include the following statement:
"Candidates' names may appear in a different order on
the actual ballot.""
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 3:
Delete "secs. 21 - 43"
Insert "secs. 23 - 45"
Page 22, line 6:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 9"
Number 0300
JOE SONNEMAN reminded the committee that he had testified at a
previous hearing on HB 523 regarding ballot rotation, which he
noted is also known as the rolling ballot. He said it's the
traditional method that was used in Alaska for approximately 70
years. He said he had felt strongly enough about continuing
that method of "breaking up the rotation, essentially by voter,"
that he took the issue to court. He said the Division of
Elections argued that that method may confuse voters, because
the sample ballot and the actual ballot may differ. He reported
that the supreme court minority wrote that a simple, clear
disclaimer would cure any confusion, and he noted that both
Amendment 1 and W.7 have such a clear disclaimer.
MR. SONNEMAN said the supreme court noted another possible
source of confusion. He explained that the division, at the
time of the court case, only had a drawing for the first letter
of a candidate's last name. One way to fix that, he said, is to
have a rolling ballot where each candidate is in a different
position and each voter gets a different ballot. Mr. Sonneman
suggested the committee have a letter of intent to express the
intent that any positional bias that does exist be distributed
equally.
MR. SONNEMAN offered his belief that Representative Lynn had [in
a prior hearing of HB 523] expressed hesitation about the
precinct method. Mr. Sonneman offered an example showing that
that method is still a lottery system. He emphasized his
preference for the ballot rotation system. He said he thinks
Representative Coghill had expressed concern that things not be
changed too much. He proffered that if consistency is desired,
the rotating ballot that was in effect for 70 years should be
used.
Number 0679
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the Division of Elections
foresees any hurdles in implementing a full rotational ballot.
Number 0694
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, stated for the record, "If the question is,
'Can we implement it?,' the answer's yes." She reminded the
committee that implementing this plan is not about improving
voters' access, but about a candidate's placement on the ballot.
In response to a question from Representative Seaton, she
confirmed that the rotation would be built into the ballots for
any house district, and "that amount of ballots would be given
to each absentee voting station." In response to a question
from Representative Lynn, she confirmed that the alphabet has
already been drawn [for the upcoming 2004 election ballots] and
is posted on the division's website.
Number 0842
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN observed that his name is currently placed
before any of his opponents' names; therefore, it would be to
his benefit to "keep it the way it is." Notwithstanding that,
he indicated that he was shocked to hear about the "2.5
percent," which, in a close election could mean "one fellow as
compared to the other fellow, which has nothing to do with the
qualifications or issues."
Number 0873
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his understanding that Representative
Gruenberg wanted to discuss "W.8 in the context of W.7."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG announced that he would only offer
Amendment 1, W.8, without W.7 as a friendly amendment.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to a question from Representative
Lynn, clarified that the amendment called W.8 is Amendment 1,
and it is the amendment that [proposes] rolling the candidates'
names.
Number 0924
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Lynn,
Berkowitz, and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representative Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
1 was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
Number 0973
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 23-
GH2021\W.5, Kurtz, 4/24/04, which read as follows [with one
handwritten change]:
Page 4, line 1, following "confidential.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, line 3, following "voter's":
Insert "age or"
Page 4, following line 9:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) In addition to the information in (a) of
this section, the name and address of a voter who has
been the victim of domestic violence shall be
confidential and not open to public inspection if the
voter requests in writing that the voter's name and
address not be released.
(c) Notwithstanding other provisions, and in
compliance with federal law, information made
confidential by this section may be released by the
division
(1) to a local, state, or federal
government agency, including to the child support
enforcement agency created in AS 25.27.010 or the
child support enforcement agency of another state; the
agency receiving information under this paragraph may
use the information only for governmental purposes
authorized under law;
(2) in compliance with a court order;
(3) to a person holding a writ of execution
against the person or property of the voter; or
(4) if the voter about whom information has
been requested has provided written consent to the
release."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG brought attention to [paragraph 4] of
Amendment 2, which, before the handwritten changes, had
originally read: "(4) if the voter who is the subject of the
information has provided written consent to the release."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if [Amendment 2] relates to telephone
numbers, an issue which he indicated had been brought up at a
previous hearing on HB 523.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4, [lines 1-
2], which read: "The following information set out in state
voter registration records is confidential and is not open to
public inspection:". He noted that the voter's telephone number
is included in the ensuing list. He explained, "And the only
way it could be opened under here would be if it comes in under
subsection (c) [in Amendment 2]."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that he wants to protect anyone
who's been the subject of abuse [from having his/her phone
number listed]. He explained that he would like candidates to
be able to use [the division's] records to contact potential
voters, so that the issues can be discussed by phone. He
emphasized that, just like with the phone book, a person should
be able to provide his/her name to the Division of Elections or
choose to keep that information private.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that it's an issue that has
not been addressed thus far in Amendment 2. He pointed out once
more that the phone number is made confidential on page 4, line
6. He said the issues Representative Lynn discussed would
require an amendment. He asked if it could be an amendment
separate from Amendment 2, which he offered to bring before the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed to work with Representative
Gruenberg.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested Representative Lynn make the amendment
to Amendment 2 now.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 2, on page 4, line 6, to make voters' telephone
numbers available to candidates and voters, with the exception
of instances in which there has been specific requests for the
number not to be available.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for discussion purposes. He asked Ms.
Glaiser how she would administer that.
Number 1245
MS. GLAISER replied that the new voter system that will be
purchased by the division has a screen that prevents access "to
those voters." Currently, she said, the division has to code
the database, which she said protects that information. She
said, "We don't have a great deal of requests, but we do have
several, and those people are hidden in a voter list."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Is this amendment necessary?"
MS. GLAISER answered yes. She said it would give the division
the legal platform to "do what we've done." She said, "If we're
going to build this confidentiality clause in - which we didn't
ever have before - then we need a place where [state government]
can access it if they need it for court records or law
enforcement, or for any other reason." She added, "Now, I don't
know whether you're talking about the conceptual part of the
amendment yet."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said the conceptual amendment is just "making
the telephone available."
Number 1311
MS. GLAISER, in response to questions from Representative
Seaton, confirmed that currently a candidate has access to a
voter's past voting history, name, and address, but the division
does not reveal the voter's place of birth, social security
number, or driver's license number, for example. She revealed
that she knows of one private company named, Motznik (ph), that
blends many public documents together, compiling information
from hunting and fishing records, for example. That company
makes a list that has more data on it than the division
provides, she said. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Seaton, she said it's her understanding that the
only change effected by the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2
would be to release the telephone number with the address and
voting history.
Number 1386
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that this issue was addressed
regarding a permanent fund matter last week. He said he sees a
situation materializing in which "we serially address releases
of [domestic violence] victim information, depending on what it
is." He stated that there ought to be some blanket provision in
state law that precludes release [of that information] and
protects confidentiality rather than [addressing the issue on a
bill-by-bill basis].
Number 1421
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the issue not be
addressed in a conceptual amendment right now, but rather be it
worked on at a later point.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that a motion is on the
floor to adopt the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "The reason it's not a simple
amendment is people have to opt in and opt out of it and will
have to look at how they did that on the telemarketing bill, ...
and that took a lot of crafting."
Number 1463
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question from Representative Lynn,
explained that [asking for] phone numbers on the voter
registration began a long time ago. She indicated that on a
voter application a person can check that he/she wants to be an
election worker, and supplying a phone number helps the division
contact that registered voter.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to the conceptual amendment [to
Amendment 2]. He indicated his disagree with "putting out to
the general public everybody's telephone numbers."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he is willing to vote on the conceptual
amendment to Amendment 2 now, or address the issue later in the
next committee of referral.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:45 a.m. to 9:08 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN advocated for more information to
candidates. He said nothing takes the place of a candidate
going door to door. He said that only second to that is having
a telephone contact in order to discuss issues. He said he
wants to assist that, but would work with Representative
Gruenberg on the issue.
Number 1654
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew the conceptual amendment to
Amendment 2.
Number 1695
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH drew attention to the handwritten change on
Amendment 2 [text provided previously] and suggested that
Amendment 2 be made a conceptual amendment so that "the drafters
can take the language and put it [in] whatever form that
comports with that handwritten note."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 2.
He clarified that he is now calling the entire Amendment 2,
Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
Number 1726
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
Conceptual Amendment 2. There being none, Conceptual Amendment
2 was adopted.
Number 1746
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 3, labeled
23-GH2021\U.2, Kurtz, 4/20/04, which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 18 - 23:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) by publication three times in a
newspaper of general circulation in the precinct; or
(B) if there is not a newspaper of general
circulation in the precinct, by posting written notice
in three conspicuous places as close to the precinct
as possible; at least one posting location must be in
the precinct;"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [for discussion purposes].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment
3 as follows:
In subparagraph (A)
Between "a" and "newspaper"
Insert "local"
In subparagraph (B)
Between "a" and "newspaper"
Insert "local"
Number 1820
MS. GLAISER said [Amendment 1 to Amendment 3] would be helpful
to the division and would get notices in the papers where the
most voters will be able to read about them.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection and announced that
Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that a memorandum is attached to
Amendment 3.
Number 1872
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 3, as
amended. He asked if there was further objection. There being
none, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.
Number 1885
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 23-
GH2021\W.6, Kurtz, 4/24/04, which read as follows:
Page 11, line 30, through page 12, line 18:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 26. AS 15.45.130 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.45.130. Certification of circulator.
Before being filed, each petition shall be certified
by an affidavit by the person who personally
circulated the petition. In determining the
sufficiency of the petition, the lieutenant governor
may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly
certified at the time of filing or corrected before
the subscriptions are counted. The affidavit must
state in substance that
(1) the circulator signing the affidavit
meets the residency, age, and citizenship
qualifications for circulating a petition under
AS 15.45.105;
(2) the person is the only circulator of
that petition;
(3) the signatures were made in the
circulator's actual presence;
(4) to the best of the circulator's
knowledge, the signatures are those of the persons
whose names they purport to be;
(5) the signatures are of persons who were
qualified voters on the date of signature;
(6) the circulator has not entered into an
agreement with a person or organization in violation
of AS 15.45.110(c);
(7) the circulator has not violated
AS 15.45.110(d) with respect to that petition; and
(8) if the circulator has received payment
or agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, before circulating the
petition, the circulator prominently placed, in the
space provided under AS 15.45.090(5), the name of each
person or organization that has paid or agreed to pay
the circulator for collection of signatures on the
petition."
Page 14, line 29, through page 15, line 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 34. AS 15.45.360 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.45.360. Certification of circulator.
Before being filed, each petition shall be certified
by an affidavit by the person who personally
circulated the petition. In determining the
sufficiency of the petition, the lieutenant governor
may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly
certified at the time of filing or corrected before
the subscriptions are counted. The affidavit must
state in substance that
(1) the person signing the affidavit meets
the residency, age, and citizenship qualifications for
circulating a petition under AS 15.45.335;
(2) the person is the only circulator of
the petition;
(3) the signatures were made in the
circulator's actual presence;
(4) to the best of the circulator's
knowledge, the signatures are the signatures of
persons whose names they purport to be;
(5) the signatures are of persons who were
qualified voters on the date of signature;
(6) the circulator has not entered into an
agreement with a person or organization in violation
of AS 15.45.340(b);
(7) the circulator has not violated
AS 15.45.340(c) with respect to that petition; and
(8) before circulation of the petition, the
circulator prominently placed, in the space provided
under AS 15.45.320(6), if the circulator has received
payment or agreed to receive payment for the
collection of signatures on the petition, the name of
each person or organization that has paid or agreed to
pay the circulator for collection of signatures on the
petition."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 17, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 39. AS 15.45.570 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.45.570. Statement of warning. Each
petition must [AND DUPLICATE COPY SHALL] include a
statement of warning that a person who signs a name
other than the person's own to the petition, or who
knowingly signs more than once for the same
proposition at one election, or who signs the petition
while knowingly not a qualified voter, is guilty of a
class B misdemeanor."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 18, lines 5 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 43. AS 15.45.600 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.45.600. Certification of circulator.
Before being filed, each petition shall be certified
by an affidavit by the person who personally
circulated the petition. In determining the
sufficiency of the petition, the lieutenant governor
may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly
certified at the time of filing or corrected before
the subscriptions are counted. The affidavit must
state in substance that
(1) the person signing the affidavit meets
the residency, age, and citizenship qualifications for
circulating a petition under AS 15.45.575;
(2) the person is the only circulator of
the petition;
(3) the signatures were made in the
circulator's actual presence;
(4) to the best of the circulator's
knowledge, the signatures are the signatures of
persons whose names they purport to be;
(5) the signatures are of persons who were
qualified voters on the date of signature;
(6) the circulator has not entered into an
agreement with a person or organization in violation
of AS 15.45.580(b);
(7) the circulator has not violated
AS 15.45.580(c) with respect to that petition; and
(8) before circulation of the petition, the
circulator prominently placed, in the space provided
under AS 15.45.560(5), if the circulator has received
payment or agreed to receive payment for the
collection of signatures on the petition, the name of
each person or organization that has paid or agreed to
pay the circulator for collection of signatures on the
petition."
Page 22, line 3:
Delete "secs. 21 - 43"
Insert "secs. 21 - 44"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "When we saw this in its previous
version, it only dealt with Section 15.45.130." Kathryn Kurtz,
Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, saw that
there were three statutes involved - one on initiatives, one on
referendums, and one on recalls - and she made the conforming
amendment to AS 15.45.360 and AS 15.45.600. Representative
Gruenberg said Ms. Kurtz set the sections out much more clearly
and drafted them in current style.
Number 1981
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 4 is basically
technical, except that, substantively, it will allow "things on
the petition to be corrected before the subscriptions are
counted." He said if somebody makes a mistake, the petition
shouldn't be thrown out, because that affects hundreds of people
who have signed the petition in good faith.
Number 2018
MS. GLAISER indicated that [Amendment 4] addresses some of the
court's concerns. She said, "If we find ... a circulator hasn't
filled out the affidavit, we can make that correction and then
count all those signatures in the books, rather than casting
them aside due to a technical failure by the circulator." In
response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, she stated that, in
current law, it's a misdemeanor for someone to sign a petition
who is knowingly not a qualified voter.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the basis for Amendment 4 is.
MS. GLAISER answered that Amendment 4 was Representative
Gruenberg's idea. She suggested it falls into place with the
Hinterberger v. State of Alaska, which she explained was in
regard to a hemp petition that was heard in superior court.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the Hinterberger case was on appeal.
MS. GLAISER answered no. She said the lieutenant governor held
a press conference to say that [the division] would "address all
of the concerns." She stated, "The judge was clear about
accountability reports, and that's within ... the original
version of the bill and it still remains. This is just
additional -- we certainly could include that as an improvement
to the process." She continued as follows:
What the judge was addressing was that government
doesn't create barriers to the people petitioning the
government; that it's a reasonable -- and that they
understand that right out in front, which is also why
the division then went and picked up referendum and
recall and made them very similar in this bill, so
that when people do petition their government on
either three of those occasions, that they're all
similar and they're held to the same standards:
circulators are the same; affidavits are the same; a
misdemeanor's a misdemeanor; because you're always
petitioning your government.
Number 2139
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection [to Amendment 4]. He
asked if there was further objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 2146
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from Chair
Weyhrauch, indicated that he had one or two more amendments to
offer, but would prefer to wait until there was a full committee
at the next hearing on HB 523.
[HB 523 was heard and held.]
SB 351-APOC REPORTS: FORMS & ELECTRONIC FILING
Number 2216
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 351(FIN), "An Act requiring the Alaska
Public Offices Commission to accept documents by nonelectronic
means, and specifying the manner of preparing the forms that are
provided by the commission."
Number 2229
KIMBERLY CARNOT, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 351 on behalf of Senator Green,
sponsor. She stated that [SB 351] would expand the Alaska
Public Offices Commission's (APOC) authority to continue to
accept filing that is not electronic, including standard paper
filing.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if [SB 351] is a "fix-it" bill from what
the legislature passed the previous year.
MS. CARNOT answered yes. She said the bill is, essentially,
limited to filings that a candidate for an election or incumbent
would file and would not deal with lobbyist reports, for
example.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH recalled that Representative Lynn had testified
at length regarding part of the related legislation heard last
year.
Number 2261
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that the discussion had been in
regard to publishing any donations made to a candidate on the
Internet, thus providing instantaneous disclosure of how much
has been contributed to a candidate and by whom. It would
eliminate the number of reports that have to be made by
candidates, as well as the possibility of being late on reports.
Number 2325
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, stated that
APOC does not support SB 351 and does not view it as cleanup
legislation from last year. Conversely, she stated, APOC views
[SB 351] as reversing one of the primary components that passed
last year: mandatory electronic filing.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that on page 1, [line 9], the bill
requires that black ink be used. He asked about blue ink.
TAPE 04-69, SIDE B
Number 2359
MS. MILES responded that the commission did not suggest this
language and accepts any color ink; it does not accept pencil.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed concern that "some clerk at a counter"
would reject information submitted in a color of ink that was
not black. He asked if specifying dark ink would be a good
idea.
MS. MILES agreed that "dark ink" would be better, or even just
"ink".
Number 2305
MS. CARNOT explained the reason for using "legible black
typeface or hand-printed in black ink" was because of concerns
raised by APOC that many of the forms submitted are illegible.
She said [the sponsor] would not object to APOC's suggestion
that a form could be submitted in any color ink.
Number 2275
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related personal experience with having
used the wrong color ink on a form. He suggested that
eliminating [the specification of] the color of ink may keep
somebody on the ballot.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mirrored Representative Gruenberg's story with
one of his own.
MS. CARNOT noted that APOC forms can be sent by facsimile and
some colors of ink do not show up well when sent in that manner.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks requiring "dark" [ink would
suffice].
MS. CARNOT responded, "My suggestion would be that it's not
really necessary, but I understand what you're trying to
address, so I'm not going to fight it any more than that."
Number 2210
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, suggested that
the bigger problem is illegibility.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that "legible" appears in the bill.
Number 2195
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that one of the points that is made
for [SB 351] is that communities don't have access to Internet
service. He stated his understanding that all the village
schools have Internet services that's available for people in
the area to use if they don't have commercial Internet service
available. He said he's trying to figure out if the basis for
this is a reality in the villages, or a "convenience to
candidates."
MS. CARNOT replied that [the sponsor] was trying not to
discourage people from running for office, simply because they
are not comfortable on a computer or don't have full access to
one.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that all his forms are handwritten.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated his concern is in regard to the
availability of the information to the public. He compared the
speed of the Internet with sending a form by mail from a
village. He asked if there would be any restriction on a
candidate running for office using the Internet provided through
the school system to file the required reports. He added, "If
that Internet access, which is the only Internet access in the
village, would be, for some reason, restricted because it's
state subsidized, ... then I see a need for the bill.
Number 2054
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to changing
"black" to "dark". He explained that it appears in "four or
five places."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks that in the phrase
"legible black typeface" [on page 1, line 9], the word "black"
should remain.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
confirmed that his intent was to change "black ink" to "dark
ink", [by means of Conceptual Amendment 1 on page 1, line 9, and
page 2, lines 7 and 22].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that no objection was stated;
therefore, [Conceptual Amendment 1] was adopted.
Number 2003
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN observed that one candidate who files
electronically gives his/her information instantly, while
another who files by mail does not; therefore, some candidates
may have an advantage of seeing that information sooner than
others. He opined that everyone should either send his/her
forms in electronically or by mail, in order to level the
playing field. He said he believes there are some candidates
who would play games and would deliberately submit handwritten
forms to defeat timely disclosure.
Number 1965
MS. CARNOT offered her belief that only six states require
electronic filing.
MS. MILES clarified that 22 states currently have mandatory
electronic filing.
MS. CARNOT noted that the online application for the Alaska
permanent fund dividend (PFD) is a three-page form, which people
had trouble filing out. The APOC reports, which are difficult,
are lengthy reports. She pointed out that a difficult situation
would be if a person were to experience a transmission problem
in the process of filing. In reference to Representative Lynn's
previously voiced concerns, she noted that currently it is
possible to get photocopies or facsimiles of filings. She
admitted that it's a difficult task for APOC to take the
information off of paper form and enter it into a computer,
which is why attempts are being made to clean up the forms and
make them as user-friendly as possible. She said she
understands the concern about a candidate potentially writing in
an illegible manner to shield contribution for whatever reason,
but she asked the committee to remember that APOC has a dual
role of being user-friendly to the people filing, as well as
being able to get the information out to the public. She
stated, "I don't think one role should trump the other, as the
current statute would have it."
Number 1887
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he thinks the integrity of the
electoral process is more important than convenience to the
candidates. He asked what the statistics have been regarding
how many have filed electronically and those who have filed
nonelectronically during the House and Senate races.
Number 1872
MS. MILES noted that in 1998, 7 percent of filers voluntarily
filed electronically; in 2000, 12 percent; and in 2002, 15
percent. The rest of the forms filed must be entered manually.
She continued as follows:
This is complicated ...,.because when you passed this
legislation last year, it was anticipated that when
electronic filing came online - which is a three-year
project - ... our agency could realize some
efficiencies. However, the legislature didn't wait
for that, but cut our budget by $100,000, which -
because our budget is small and all of our money is in
personal services - resulted in a 20-percent loss of
staff. Instead of ten, we're now eight. So, there
are fewer people to conduct the data entry and, in
addition to that, we prioritize - as we primarily
spoke to - the public service. So, we always
prioritize the assisting of filers before conducting
data entry.
Looking at this scenario, we're fairly certain that we
will not be able to have information published for all
candidates before election day in 2004, and, if this
legislation passes, then that goal is probably lost
until such time as we get a much higher degree of
voluntary filing electronically.
Number 1805
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that a person who is
computer illiterate who runs for office may have to hire someone
[to fill out electronic forms]. He said he thinks poor people
should be able to run for office, and he said he thinks that may
prevent them from being able to run for office.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a win-win situation. He said
if the language is kept basically as it is [in SB 351], but add
a provision that says if someone submits an illegible form, APOC
may require that person to submit a legible copy and may impose
a civil penalty for repeated offenses, or take any other
disciplinary action necessary. He offered to help draft
language [for an amendment].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "Well, not on this bill."
Number 1725
MS. MILES responded that that wouldn't have anything to do with
solving the data entry problem. She said the primary concern is
not that people don't want to file electronically, but it is
that the agency is not funded to lead its mission without
electronic filing.
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved [to report CSSB 351(FIN), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note]. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 351(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted for the record that Senator Green had just
arrived, and he recapped the amendment that had been adopted to
SB 351.
Number 1660
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, as sponsor of SB 351, offered her
understanding that some shades of blue ink don't copy well. She
said she didn't think an APOC clerk would turn away an
application based on the color of ink.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH emphasized that the intent was to have APOC
accept applications.
HB 327-POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF
Number 1530
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 327, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and
repealing a requirement that public facilities comply with
energy standards adopted by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted there were two committee substitutes:
Version S, labeled 23-LS1135\S, Utermohle, 4/22/04; and Version
U, labeled 23-LS1135\U, Utermohle, 4/24/04. [Regarding Version
U], he said, "Neither you, nor the sponsor, nor I had ... a
chance to look at this until now, so we didn't want to do
anything without getting input here."
Number 1576
TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of Representative Holm,
sponsor. He indicated that he is more familiar with Version U
and offered to present that version by section.
Number 1533
The committee took a brief at-ease.
MR. LARKIN noted that Section 1 changes the requirement for a
long-range plan to be developed by the Department of
Transportation from every year to "periodically". He explained
that the plans "reach out 10-20 years," thus there is no reason
to "be constantly revamping that."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated that the changes that had been made
to Version S now show in Version U and are being seen by
everybody for the first time. He added, "So, we're both playing
a little bit of catch-up, and I apologize for that." He noted
that the amendments that currently exist are to Version U, with
the exception of one, from Representative Holm, which correlates
with Version S.
MR. LARKIN said Representative Holm's amendment, if offered,
could be changed to [fit] Version U. In response to an
observation by Chair Weyhrauch, Mr. Larkin confirmed that the
large intent language section was withdrawn.
MR. LARKIN directed the committee's attention to page 2,
beginning on line 1, which read as follows:
program shall become part of the state transportation
plan developed under AS 44.42.050
MR. LARKIN explained that's the major section of statute that
"we will be amending." He added, "The section changed, the
power did not."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Section 1 has no substantive changes
from the original bill version.
MR. LARKIN noted that Section 2 addresses requirements to the
department. He highlighted one change in [paragraph (11)],
where the requirement to "[ANNUALLY]" evaluate "[NATURAL GAS]"
has been changed to "periodically" evaluate "alternative fuels".
In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed
that the intent of the bill is to include electricity as an
alternative fuel.
Number 1302
MR. LARKIN noted that [paragraph (13)], which had been deleted
in [CSHB 327(TRA), Version 23-LS1135\Q] had been reinserted.
Paragraph 13 read as follows:
(13) complete and maintain a current
inventory of public facilities, including a projection
of the serviceability of the facilities and
projections of replacements and additions to
facilities needed to provide the level of services
programmed by the various user agencies, for
municipalities with populations of less than 12,000
and for unincorporated communities, and perform those
duties on a cooperative basis with larger
municipalities;
MR. LARKIN, in response to a questions from Chair Weyhrauch,
confirmed that the reason that language was reinserted was
because of concern that there be an inventory for projects that
occur in the Bush. He added, "These are more in the area of
cleaning up the statute of what was the department doing and
what weren't they doing, that's been handed off to other
departments in the state. Hopefully, the section that we're
coming to wouldn't have affected that."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Would that be like [the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)] handing off to [the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)] for water?"
MR. LARKIN said that's an excellent example.
Number 1219
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
explained that the department had asked for the [requirement
listed in paragraph 13] to be deleted, because it does not have
the budget to fulfill it. He stated that when the Department of
Highways and the Department of Public Works merged, "this was a
duty that came to us as part of public works." He explained
that the Department of Public Works used to be the builders of
public facilities for local governments, but today facilities
are being built by governments at the local level, so DOT&PF is
no longer involved.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the figure of 12,000 was in statute at
statehood.
MR. OTTESEN answered, "Probably statehood, or shortly after."
In response to a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, he
said he doesn't believe that number is currently relevant, and
he suggested that the number be [lowered]. He stated, "Local
governments have just become far more capable than they were 30
years ago."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he is not certain what number would be
appropriate.
MR. OTTESEN suggested that number should be in the range of
2,000-3,000. He said he would like to look at communities by
population, and he said he would get back to the committee
regarding this issue.
Number 1127
MR. LARKIN continued reviewing Version U. He explained that
paragraph 14 is being deleted because it relates to performance
standards that have been replaced by more current building
codes; it's not DOT&PF's job to dictate building codes for the
rest of the state. Paragraph 15 relates to planning assistance,
and is being deleted for "housecleaning" reasons. He clarified
that "they're duties that have been handed off to other entities
in almost every case."
MR. LARKIN explained that [paragraph (16)] makes an annual
requirement of the report of the activities of the department.
He said he imagines it would be a lengthy report.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH confirmed that it was his idea to add [paragraph
(16)], but he suggested that the report could be a summary.
Number 0993
MR. LARKIN turned to Section 3, which he said addresses "how
that plan will be broken up." He offered examples. He said it
would put requirements on the commissioner more in line with the
current standard practice. He highlighted a sentence [on page
4, beginning on line 19], which read as follows:
The commissioner shall include the estimated costs of
projects described in the plan and, if the
commissioner determines appropriate, an estimate of
the benefits of the project.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH requested that Mr. Larkin provide a copy of 23
U.S.C. 135 to the committee.
MR. LARKIN said he would, but emphasized that it is a document
of considerable length.
MR. OTTESEN assured the committee that the document is not that
long. He said, "Title 23 is the whole enchilada for the
department; Part 135 is the part that speaks to transportation
planning. He estimated it to be 20-30 pages in length.
MR. LARKIN, returning to the aforementioned language on page 4,
line [19], said the intent is to allow the commissioner to
estimate the benefits of a project, when he/she deems it is
appropriate to do so. Mr. Larkin added, "In the following
sections, we're going to lay out how those regulations would be
written to cover projects."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Ottesen if use of the term "the plan"
refers to the "comprehensive, intermodal, long-range
transportation plan."
Number 0833
MR. OTTESEN answered that he believes that's correct. He said,
"This is very similar language to what's now required by 23
U.S.C., which requires a statewide transportation plan that's
intermodal ...." In response to a question from Chair
Weyhrauch, he indicated that intermodal includes: road, air,
rail, marine, and trails. In response to a follow-up question
from Chair Weyhrauch, he explained that [the plan], at one time,
was a single document, but now it's comprised of many documents.
He noted that the state is divided up into three regions. Area
plans are made, which look mostly at parts of the state that
don't have a complete road system.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the draft of the Southeast Alaska
transportation plan is one of the intermodal long-range
transportation plans.
MR. OTTESEN described it as a piece of the larger plan. He
added, "The larger plan is never really seen; it's really
flushed out by all its individual components. ... It would be
a geographic area of the state."
Number 0724
MR. LARKIN turned to Section 3, which he noted would delete the
recommendation of the now defunct Alaska Transportation Planning
Council and "THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF NEW TRANSPORTATION MODES
AND FACILITIES." In its place would be language allowing
discretion [to the commissioner].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that the
administration developed two entities to address issues
regarding air and roads, as well as "some advisory committee for
the ferries." He asked, "Does this have sort of an integrated
support from those entities?"
MR. OTTESEN responded that "this language" reflects what the
department is doing and "what these boards have been
overseeing." He explained, "Rather than having a single
document, where we're trying to do everything at once, with all
these ... different areas of the state ..., we realized that,
practically speaking, we have to do our planning ... at a
subcomponent level." He offered examples. He noted that the
regional plans have been a good vehicle; they have been
geographically based and have had advisory committees made up
primarily of local officials in each of the regions.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked where the strategic vision for the
Southeast Alaska transportation system exists.
MR. OTTESEN answered that it exists in the Southeast plan. He
defined the Area Transportation Plan as being the strategic
vision for the state. He stated that the last four or five area
transportation plans have caused the department to rethink
things and come up with new ways of doing things. One example,
he said, are the fast ferries. Another example is the complete
change of the way airports are designed in Southwest Alaska, as
a result of the plan.
Number 0536
MR. LARKIN directed attention to Section 4, which is language
that would require the commissioner to periodically develop a
list of the projects in a plan that are on deck to be done.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the difference is between "annually"
and "periodically".
MR. LARKIN defined the former as a plan that would have to be
submitted or renewed every year, and the latter as the
requirement to update a plan when something new occurs. In
response to a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, he
confirmed that the effect of this language will be to change
from annually to a period of not less than two years.
Number 0488
MR. OTTESEN explained that "the program" is essentially what is
thought of as the list of projects. He said the federal term
for that list is the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), and it essentially is a multi-year capital
budget. He stated that federal law requires that the STIP must
have a minimum two-year horizon. He noted that bills currently
before the House and Senate would make that requirement a four-
year horizon, and he indicated that that change could be in
effect in four weeks. He clarified, "Essentially, we're trying
to make state law here conform to federal law so that we don't
end up with things that are inconsistent or, basically, make us
do things twice."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked, "This is that 23 U.S.C. 135 again."
He asked how often that is amended. He noted that [United
States Representative Don Young] just passed a bill - "this huge
omnibus transportation." He asked, "Is that 23 U.S.C. 135, is
that amended in that?"
MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He explained that Title 23 is the
full law that applies to surface transportation and 23 U.S.C.
135 is one chapter in that law. He noted that there was also a
bill passed by the Senate, known as SAFETEA [Safe, Accountable,
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004]. He
said, "Both will address, in part, 135, and there are many, many
changes in those two bills."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he knows there were a number of projects in
Alaska that were in at least "the House version of the bill."
He asked, "How does the State of Alaska act quickly to
incorporate the funds for projects in that bill, so the state
can move forward in conjunction with the federal government to
start on those projects?"
MR. OTTESEN replied that is the crux of the issue before the
committee. He explained, "We can't quite formally put them in
the STIP yet, because they're not real, but we can put them in
the capital budget, and have done so." In response to a
question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that he meant in the
capital budget for the State of Alaska for this year.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about authorizing language to receive the
funds.
MR. OTTESEN responded as follows:
It's partly by project capital budget authority.
We're tracking those projects very carefully, as are
many other people in the state. There's over $450
million-worth of projects in the Young version of the
bill - just in earmarks.
Number 0284
MR. LARKIN stated that the assumption is that there are people
presently in the department constantly "watching Title 23." He
added, "And what we'll allow them to do by statute is, rather
than proposing changes to our statute all the time, they can
continue to watch [Title] 23 and just comply."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH observed that the statute has been around a long
time, and [HB 327] would only now incorporate it into Alaska
law.
MR. OTTESEN said that is formally correct; however, he explained
that "it's one of the rules we've had to follow if we want to
use federal dollars, since the federal aid program began." In
response to questions from Chair Weyhrauch, he explained, "There
isn't anyone in our department in a responsible job that doesn't
have a copy of Title 23 on their bookshelf."
MR. LARKIN stated that Section 4 also provides that the
commissioner will provide specific information to the governor
and to the legislature for review.
Number 0119
The committee took an at-ease from 10:15 a.m. to 10:24 a.m.
TAPE 04-70, SIDE A
Number 0096
MR. LARKIN directed the committee's attention to Section 5,
which would provide guidelines for the regulations that the
commissioner adopts. Section 6 contains housecleaning measures.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mentioned language that had been deleted [from a
prior version of the bill], regarding energy performance
standards, energy audits, standards for design, and energy
conservation measures. He asked Mr. Ottesen, "If [DOT&PF] is
doing a project in a locality, do they have to comply with local
building standards, energy conservation measures, et cetera?"
MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He noted that there is another
statute that also requires that [the department] go through
local government approval for every project. He offered
examples.
Number 0128
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked why the language [on page 6, lines 7-9]
was being deleted. That language read as follows:
[(i) BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES UNDER AS
44.42.020(a) FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES; OR
MR. OTTESEN explained as follows:
This is kind of language that's pointing back to
standards that we have earlier in this draft bill,
Section 2, I believe. ... In the late '70s there was
an energy crisis, [and the] price of fuel was spiking.
At the time, the department was the constructors of
public facilities across the state, and so we were
given a lot of authority to adopt standards and to
deploy them in our buildings. And, over time,
standards now have evolved to local governments; they
now have building officials and building codes. We're
no longer the predominate builder of public
facilities. We build our own facilities and a few
others, but many agencies now are kind of going it
alone, as well as certain school districts and [Rural
Education Attendance Area] REAAs, and the like. So,
really, both the responsibility for constructing
public facilities and the responsibility for
establishing standards for public facilities is no
longer on our shoulders.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the lighting and energy standards
aren't also developed by local entities.
MR. OTTESEN replied that a national standard is almost always
adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Why make this so specific?"
MR. OTTESEN explained that it is just latent language that is
currently in statute.
Number 0258
MR. LARKIN indicated that the repealer in Section 7 simply
refers to the thermal and lighting energy standards. He added,
"Those were the standards that were adopted under the previous
requirement of the statutes." In Section 8, Mr. Larkin noted,
language has been added in Version U outlining how and when the
new regulations can be implemented and who has to be notified.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that the committee needs to take time
to read the language.
[HB 327 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0403
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:32
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|