Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/31/1994 08:00 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                         March 31, 1994                                        
                            8:00 a.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Al Vezey, Chairman                                            
  Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman                                      
  Representative Gary Davis   (arrived at 8:03 a.m.)                           
  Representative Jerry Sanders                                                 
  Representative Fran Ulmer   (arrived at 8:23 a.m.)                           
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Representative Bettye Davis                                                  
  Representative Harley Olberg                                                 
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  CONFIRMATION HEARING:                                                        
                 State Public Offices Commission                               
                 James I. Adams                                                
                 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE FOR JOINT SESSION                      
  HB 226:        "An Act relating to interest rates and                        
                 calculation of interest under certain                         
                 judgments and decrees and on refunds of                       
                 certain taxes, royalties, or net profit                       
                 shares; and providing for an effective date."                 
                 HELD IN COMMITTEE                                             
  *HB 541:       "An Act providing for an advisory vote of the                 
                 people concerning a preferred alternative for                 
                 increasing revenue available to support state                 
                 government; and providing for an effective                    
                 FAILED TO MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                              
  HB 345:        "An Act relating to the preservation of                       
                 public facilities and to appropriations for                   
                 annual maintenance and repair, periodic                       
                 renewal and replacement, and construction of                  
                 public facilities."                                           
                 MOVED FROM COMMITTEE AS CSHB 345(STA) WITH NO                 
  HB 430:        "An Act requiring certain applicants for a                    
                 driver's license to take a driver training                    
                 MOVED FROM COMMITTEE AS CSHB 430(STA) WITH NO                 
  HB 531:        "An Act relating to the existence and                         
                 functions of certain multimember state                        
                 bodies, including boards, councils,                           
                 commissions, associations, or authorities;                    
                 and providing for an effective date."                         
                 DISCUSSED AMENDMENT                                           
  HB 420:       "An Act relating to limited liability                          
                companies; amending Alaska Rules of Civil                      
                Procedure 20 and 24; and providing for an                      
                effective date."                                               
                NOT HEARD                                                      
  (* First public hearing)                                                     
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  JAMES I. ADAMS                                                               
  P.O. Box 1048                                                                
  Nome, AK  99762                                                              
  Phone:  443-3422                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave background information                             
  DEBORAH VOGT, Assistant Attorney General                                     
  Department of Law                                                            
  P.O. Box 110300                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811                                                            
  Phone:  465-3603                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Addressed HB 226                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES                                               
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Alaska State Capitol, Room 501                                               
  Juneau, AK  99811-0460                                                       
  Phone:  465-3743                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor of HB 345                                 
  NANCY BEAR USERA, Commissioner                                               
  Department of Administration                                                 
  P.O. Box 110200                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99811-0200                                                       
  Phone:  465-2200                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on HB 345                                     
  ROGER PATCH, President                                                       
  Alaska State Facility Administrators                                         
  P.O. Box 5-549                                                               
  Ft. Richardson, AK  99505                                                    
  Phone:  428-6670                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 345                                        
  KIT DUKE                                                                     
  Alaska State Facility Administrators                                         
  303 K St.                                                                    
  Anchorage, AK  99501                                                         
  Phone:  264-8238                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported CSHB 345                                      
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN                                                     
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Alaska State Capitol, Room 114                                               
  Juneau, AK  99811-0460                                                       
  Phone:  465-4931                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 430                                       
  JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services                                    
  Division of Motor Vehicles                                                   
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P.O. Box  20020                                                              
  Juneau, AK  99802                                                            
  Phone:  465-2650                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 430                            
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 226                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/12/93       620    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/12/93       620    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE                  
  03/12/93       620    (H)   -4 ZERO FNS(ADM, ADM, REV,                       
                              DOT) 3/12/93                                     
  03/12/93       621    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  04/03/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  04/03/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/31/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 541                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): FINANCE                                                          
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/23/94      2937    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/23/94      2937    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                    
  03/31/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 345                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES                                          
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/07/94      2018    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                 
  01/10/94      2018    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/10/94      2018    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                           
  01/25/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  01/25/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  02/08/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  02/08/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/08/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/08/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/31/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 430                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Foster                                   
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/02/94      2220    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/02/94      2220    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                           
  03/03/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/17/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/17/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/31/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  BILL:  HB 531                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                    
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   -7 ZERO FNS (DCRA, 2-DCED,                       
                              CORR, 2-DOE                                      
  03/11/94      2728    (H)   DNR) 3/11/94                                     
  03/11/94      2729    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  03/29/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/29/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  BILL:  HB 430                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES                                     
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT,Mulder,James                        
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/31/94      2206    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/31/94      2206    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY, STATE AFFAIRS                    
  02/24/94      2522    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE                               
  02/24/94      2522    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY, STATE AFFAIRS                    
  03/08/94              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   L&C RPT  1DP 3NR                                 
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   DP:  MULDER                                      
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   NR:  WILLIAMS, SITTON, HUDSON                    
  03/09/94      2676    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/9/94                  
  03/09/94      2703    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  MULDER                            
  03/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/21/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/23/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/30/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/31/94      3106    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  JAMES                             
  03/31/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-41, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN AL VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.                   
  Members present were REPRESENTATIVES KOTT and SANDERS.  He                   
  announced REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG would be absent.                             
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened the Confirmation of James Adams for                    
  Number 018                                                                   
  JAMES ADAMS joined the committee from an offnet                              
  teleconference site in Nome.                                                 
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if MR. ADAMS knew what he was getting                   
  MR. ADAMS responded he was new to the operation and he will                  
  find out.                                                                    
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, as a former Alaska Public Offices Commission                 
  member, stated it will be a very educational experience.                     
  (REPRESENTATIVE KOTT left the meeting at 8:03 a.m.)                          
  (REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS joined the meeting at 8:03 a.m.)                    
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS had joined the                  
  meeting.  He noted a quorum was not present, therefore the                   
  committee would wait a few minutes to take the vote.                         
  CSHB 226:  "An Act relating to the rate of interest and                      
  service charges in the state; relating to interest rates and                 
  calculation of interest under certain judgments and decrees                  
  and on refunds of certain taxes, royalties, or net profit                    
  shares; and providing for an effective date.                                 
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 226 for discussion.  He recognized                  
  the committee substitute, version E, before the committee                    
  and asked if there was a motion to adopt it for                              
  Number 073                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS so moved.                                          
  Number 076                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no objection, adopted CSHB 226,                      
  version E.                                                                   
  Number 087                                                                   
  DEBORAH VOGT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, addressed HB 226                   
  requested by the Governor.  She had not had access to CSHB
  226, therefore she addressed the original HB 226.   She                      
  stated the Governor requested HB 226 to address two                          
  problems.  First, the interest rates of both pre and                         
  postcivil judgments are a set statutory 10.5 percent.  This                  
  10.5 percent does not fluctuate with market, therefore it is                 
  sometimes grossly disproportionate to what the state, a                      
  corporation, or an individual can earn to represent the time                 
  value of money while litigation is pending.  The                             
  Administration believes interest on judgments should not be                  
  an incentive for one party to settle, or for the other party                 
  to delay the litigation.  The rate should fluctuate with the                 
  market and represent the time value of the money.                            
  MS. VOGT stated the second purpose of HB 226 is to address                   
  the problem with back taxes and royalties.  She noted the                    
  interest rate for those payments was amended in the 1991                     
  legislative session to be a floating market interest rate,                   
  with an 11 percent floor.  The interest rate on underpayment                 
  is the same as the interest rate on overpayment.  Therefore,                 
  if a company overpays its taxes or royalties, it will be                     
  entitled to the same interest today from the state that the                  
  state would have collected, had the party underpaid.  She                    
  believed the considerations for interest are substantially                   
  different for taxes and royalties from civil litigation.                     
  She noted concern that the legislation has had the                           
  unintended effect of setting up the possibility that an                      
  individual or corporation might overpay their taxes or                       
  royalties, thereby entitled to an interest payment on a                      
  refund disproportionate to what the market would support.                    
  MS. VOGT commented the state is interested in these interest                 
  rates because it is a common litigant, much more as a                        
  defendant than a plaintiff.  HB 226 proposes that both pre                   
  and postjudgment interests will be a floating market rate                    
  tied to the coupon yield equivalent of the sales of treasury                 
  bills.  This market indicator was chosen because it is used                  
  by the federal courts and lawyers are at least partially                     
  familiar with it.  Their intent was to find an indicator                     
  that was reasonably reflective of the true market and                        
  adopted into civil litigation.  Interest rate simplicity is                  
  a concern with civil litigation.  There needs to be an                       
  indicator that tracks the market and is simple enough that                   
  civil litigants understand and apply it.                                     
  MS. VOGT stated the Administration chose the coupon yield                    
  equivalent as of January 1 for the preceding 52 weeks.  The                  
  indicator would change each year, not each month.                            
  MS. VOGT addressed the amendments proposed by the                            
  Administration to the original HB 226.  Regarding civil                      
  litigation, they suggest an amendment to the effective date                  
  making those parts of HB 226 effective as of January 1,                      
  1995, rather than immediately.  This would ease both the                     
  private sector and the state court system.                                   
  MS. VOGT referred to a sentence regarding the tax and                        
  royalty provisions in both the committee substitute and the                  
  original HB 226, which reads, "However, if the overpayment                   
  is the result of a correction made by the department, the                    
  amount overpaid bears interest at the rate, and in the                       
  manner provided in (d) of this section."  This language was                  
  intended to make a distinction between overpayments which                    
  are the fault of Department of Natural Resources or the                      
  Department of Revenue, versus the fault of the tax or                        
  royalty payer.  She stated this language would be extremely                  
  difficult to apply; therefore, it should be omitted from                     
  both the tax and royalty sections.                                           
  Number 258                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked MS. VOGT to clarify which version she                   
  was referring to.                                                            
  MS. VOGT clarified she was addressing the original HB 226.                   
  She stated the Administration would oppose CSHB 226 because                  
  it does fulfill the intentions of the Administration.                        
  Referring to CSHB 226, the market indicator chosen for civil                 
  litigation is five points above the federal reserve discount                 
  rate.  This would be significantly higher than the rate set                  
  out in the original HB 226.  She distributed and outlined a                  
  comparison chart for the committee. (A copy of the chart is                  
  on file.)                                                                    
  Number 293                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the federal discount rate has been                  
  constant since July 1, 1992 at three percent.  He noticed                    
  her report showed the rate at 3.5 percent in 1992.                           
  Number 297                                                                   
  MS. VOGT responded she received the figures from the                         
  Department of Revenue and they had simply conveyed the                       
  figures were from "January."  Therefore, she assumed they                    
  meant "January, 1, 1992."  She did not dispute that the rate                 
  changed to three percent in July.                                            
  MS. VOGT redirected to the report and examined the                           
  difference between the middle column, portraying the CSHB
  226 discount rate plus five percent and the far right                        
  column, portraying the HB 226 coupon yield equivalent.  She                  
  submitted that the coupon yield equivalent numbers were more                 
  reflective of the time value of money.                                       
  MS. VOGT addressed CSHB 226 as it deals with provisions on                   
  taxes and royalties.  She stated CSHB 226 raises the                         
  interest rate the state would pay on overpayments back up to                 
  five points above the federal discount rate.  Except for the                 
  11 percent floor, it would be the same rate the state                        
  charges for royalty and taxpayers for underpayment.  The                     
  point of the original HB 226 was to make a difference                        
  between underpayment and overpayments; similar to federal                    
  procedure.  The 11 percent floor is also removed from the                    
  interest on overpayments in CSHB 226.                                        
  MS. VOGT pointed out the tort reform legislation which has                   
  been proceeding through the legislature, also has interest                   
  on judgments provisions in it.  She noted those provisions                   
  were more similar to CSHB 226, except that they are three                    
  percent, instead of five percent above the federal discount                  
  rate.  The legislature would have to choose which type of                    
  legislation it would like to follow since there are two                      
  similar pieces flowing through the process.                                  
  Number 345                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked her to clarify which two pieces of                      
  MS. VOGT clarified the tort reform legislation with interest                 
  on pre and postcivil judgment provisions.                                    
  Number 351                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented "the Governor's proposal to tell                    
  people that their money is worth 3.49 percent, or slightly                   
  above that discount rate, is license of steel."  Therefore,                  
  he held CSHB 226 in committee for further consideration.                     
  HB 541 - ADVISORY VOTE REGARDING STATE REVENUE                               
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 541, proposed by the House Finance                  
  Committee, for discussion.  Seeing no one present from the                   
  House Finance Committee, he asked for questions from the                     
  Number 369                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked why the statement "none                   
  of the above" was not on the bill, and if it was possible to                 
  add it.                                                                      
  (REPRESENTATIVE KOTT returned to the meeting at 8:22 a.m.)                   
  Number 372                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY replied it could be added.  If "none of the                   
  above" was added, he believed the title would have to be                     
  changed.  HB 541 was not intended to propose a total                         
  solution to the state's fiscal problems.  The intent of HB
  541 is to ask, if revenues are going to be increased, how                    
  should it be done.  He noted if "cut spending" was included                  
  in the title it would probably be the largest vote getter.                   
  (REPRESENTATIVE ULMER entered the meeting at 8:23 a.m.)                      
  Number 392                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated he felt if "none of the above"                 
  or "cut spending" was put on HB 541 and there was a strong                   
  vote, it would give the legislature a lot of credibility in                  
  its attempt to cut spending.  He added the legislature had                   
  not done very much to cut spending in the last few years.                    
  Number 397                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated, from polls he had seen, the public                    
  indicates they are very strongly in favor of cutting                         
  spending.  He recognized the budget cannot be balanced                       
  simply by cuts nor strictly by tax increases.  The intent of                 
  HB 541 is to determine which vehicle, either tax increases                   
  or permanent fund dividend reductions, would be preferred to                 
  help balance the budget.                                                     
  Number 407                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS expressed the fact that HB 541 is an                 
  advisory vote; it leaves open all options.  HB 541 does                      
  state a tax will be imposed.  He related to the difficulty                   
  in making cuts and the fluctuations in revenue in the past.                  
  He noted the differences in the legislature after each                       
  election.  He did not believe the "none of the above"                        
  section was necessary.  He believed people were more                         
  concerned about which option the state should take.  The                     
  question is "when" and "if."  He explained, with the                         
  dividends the state has been giving money, yet taxing                        
  through different fee schedules.                                             
  Number 433                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 541 was up to the committee and                     
  they could propose amendments.  He interpreted                               
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS's remarks as HB 541 being a                          
  referendum, recognizing at some time state revenues would                    
  have to be increased, noticing the balance of the budget                     
  cannot be reached solely by cuts.                                            
  Number 440                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER questioned if there had been any                   
  thought about indicating in HB 541 as to what levels the                     
  changes would have to be at to raise equivalent amounts of                   
  money.  The public might think of a sales tax being between                  
  two-four percent; however, they would not know how high it                   
  would have to be to generate the same level of revenues as                   
  the permanent fund dividend reductions would.  She suggested                 
  not putting the information on the ballot itself, but                        
  perhaps presenting it in the discussion part included with                   
  the ballot.                                                                  
  (REPRESENTATIVE KOTT left the meeting at 8:26 a.m.)                          
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS agreed with REPRESENTATIVE ULMER.                    
  He believed a key factor of a ballot measure is simplicity;                  
  therefore a "findings section" could be included to indicate                 
  projected levels over the next ten years.  He reflected on                   
  what he had seen, in relation to the constitutional budget                   
  reserve, in the packet on HB 58 which showed pros and cons.                  
  A large feedback response from different groups was likely.                  
  A "findings section" to be transmitted publicly, but not on                  
  the ballot, would be optimum.                                                
  Number 487                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER added at local elections usually long                   
  descriptions are put on the ballot for either sales tax                      
  proposals or bond proposals.  She attributed this to the                     
  theory that a lot of people who attend the polls may not                     
  have had the opportunity to read through the information                     
  before hand.  She referred to HB 541 as "spare" and felt it                  
  may not elicit an appropriate response.                                      
  Number 498                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out in the late 20s when putting                      
  federal income tax in statute was being considered, it was                   
  considered that it never exceed 10 percent.  At the time,                    
  the politicians felt this would scare people from voting on                  
  a constitutional amendment to ratify an income tax.                          
  Therefore, it was left blank with no ceiling.  He noted the                  
  present rate of nearly 40 percent.  He believed it began at                  
  three percent.                                                               
  Number 510                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS questioned if HB 541 did pass, would                 
  the Lt. Governor's office put the wording together, or does                  
  it read as stated in the bill.                                               
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the Lt. Governor's office is                        
  supposed to word a ballot proposition in keeping with the                    
  statute.  He noted HB 541 states the question shall appear                   
  substantially in the following form, which he believed would                 
  preclude extraneous information.                                             
  Number 521                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER explained they usually seek for a                       
  supporter and an opponent to prepare the pro and con                         
  statement.  She noted HB 541 was a little different because                  
  it listed options.                                                           
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER suggested a letter of intent from the                   
  committee to the Lt. Governor's office asking for a layout                   
  of numbers in the background material of the voter's                         
  Number 530                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he believed the committee was                          
  confusing the issue, because HB 541 was not addressing a                     
  level of taxation or how much revenues the state is short                    
  over its current spending pattern.  HB 541 asks which                        
  vehicle the public feels is more appropriate for increasing                  
  moneys available to the general fund.                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded she understood.  She brought                  
  up a situation, whereby a sales tax of 15 percent was                        
  necessary to equal revenue generated by a state income tax                   
  of two percent, as an example.  She believed data regarding                  
  the choice of limiting permanent fund earnings should be                     
  available to state what kind of limit would equal what                       
  percentage of sales tax.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she did not have an amendment to                 
  Number 546                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the pleasure of the committee.                          
  Number 549                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS moved to move HB 541 from committee                  
  with individual recommendations.                                             
  Number 550                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  IN FAVOR:      REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, ULMER, G. DAVIS.                       
  OPPOSED:       REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS.                                       
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES KOTT, B. DAVIS, OLBERG.                       
  MOTION FAILED                                                                
  (REPRESENTATIVE KOTT returned to the meeting at 8:39 a.m.)                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY brought up the Confirmation of James Adams to                 
  take the vote.  He moved the committee forward the                           
  nomination of James Adams to the Alaska Public Offices                       
  Commission without any specific recommendations, for the                     
  consideration of the Joint Session.  He asked the committee                  
  secretary to call the roll.                                                  
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES B. DAVIS, OLBERG.                             
  CSHB 345:  "An Act relating to the maintenance of and art                    
  requirements for certain public buildings and facilities and                 
  to the art in public places fund; and providing for an                       
  effective date."                                                             
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 345 for discussion.   He asked if                   
  there was a motion to adopt CSHB 345, version E.                             
  Number 588                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT so moved.                                           
  Number 589                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  IN FAVOR:      REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, G. DAVIS,                        
  OPPOSED:       REPRESENTATIVE ULMER.                                         
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES B. DAVIS, OLBERG.                             
  MOTION PASSED                                                                
  Number 595                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, prime sponsor of CSHB 345,                   
  gave a brief statement.  She commented the committee had                     
  heard HB 345 two other times.  She expressed there really is                 
  a problem with the deferred maintenance of public                            
  facilities, therefore it was her intent to gain awareness                    
  for the problem.  She noted 1,717 buildings with a value of                  
  $2.3 billion, excluding the University of Alaska, will                       
  estimate $251 million in deferred maintenance.  She believed                 
  this number was conservative.  The problem is critical.                      
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained CSHB 345 is simple, easy to                   
  digest, and workable, as compared to her original HB 345.                    
  She stated CSHB 345 would set up a fund for deferred                         
  maintenance, whereby one percent of construction costs, on a                 
  one time basis, would be put into it.  A committee is then                   
  set up to determine life costs and criteria to make up a six                 
  year plan.  CSHB 345 would determine an amount, per foot, of                 
  assessment on those agencies who are in state facilities                     
  owned by the state.  That allocation would then go to take                   
  care of the deferred maintenance.  CSHB 345 would repeal the                 
  statutes affecting the one percent for art program.  She                     
  stated this is because buildings are falling down around us                  
  and the luxury of art cannot be afforded when the roof is                    
  leaking.  The proceeds of the general obligation and revenue                 
  bonds would also go into the fund.  Any federal funds,                       
  additional appropriations and interest on the fund would                     
  remain in the fund.  She noted the appropriations into the                   
  fund would be continuing; therefore, they would not lapse.                   
  She proposed in the future, enough money would be in the                     
  fund so as not only regular maintenance could be taken care                  
  of, but also a portion would be set aside for components.                    
  She offered to review the sectional analysis for the                         
  Number 636                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY noticed the committee did not have the                        
  sectional analysis in their packets.  He clarified HB 345                    
  had a zero fiscal note because it is all subject to                          
  Number 638                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES corrected there was a small fiscal note                 
  of $151,300 from the Department of Administration (DOA)                      
  because they would be assigned the task of putting together                  
  the criteria to establish the six year plan and the                          
  administrative duties of the committee.  She noted the DOA                   
  fiscal note would not be for the current year.                               
  Number 650                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked where the duties of the committee were                  
  spelled out.                                                                 
  Number 653                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied it is defined that the                          
  committee will establish the criteria on the life costs                      
  Number 657                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked under which duty of the committee would                 
  the establishment of a maintenance fund fee formula be.  The                 
  per square foot formula.                                                     
  Number 660                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered under establishing the                         
  criteria for the major maintenance needs of the state                        
  buildings.  She noted number 7 in the list of duties is to                   
  review the life cycle costs.                                                 
  Number 662                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY recognized the sectional analysis was                         
  distributed and stated REPRESENTATIVE JAMES could go through                 
  Number 663                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES outlined the sectional analysis.  She                   
  began with Section 1.  Section 1 creates the state building                  
  major maintenance fund consisting of appropriations and bond                 
  proceeds.  This fund operates separately and parallels the                   
  system set up for the university, as stated in AS 35.50.020.                 
  Nonlapsing appropriations are addressed so the                               
  appropriations are not for one year.  One percent of                         
  construction costs of a state building are put into the                      
  fund.  The review committee is created consisting of the                     
  Commissioners of Administration, Transportation and Public                   
  Facilities, and three other departments selected by the                      
  Governor on a two-year rotating basis.  The Commissioner of                  
  Administration would serve as the chair, reviewing all                       
  covered entities except the university.  The committee of                    
  the Board of Regents may employ or contract for the                          
  expertise needed to accomplish the required duties.  The                     
  committee's duties are established, which the Board of                       
  Regents' duties will parallel.  The Board of Regents however                 
  will apply to university buildings.  By January 15 each                      
  year, the Commissioner of Administration will give the                       
  legislature the committee's list of all current major                        
  maintenance needs, a report of the committee's activities                    
  for the previous fiscal year, and a prioritized list of                      
  projects recommended for the next fiscal year.  Parallel                     
  requirements exist for the Board of Regents.  The major                      
  maintenance fee is addressed, existing parallel for the                      
  Boards of Regents.  The rate per square foot is used by the                  
  Governor to prepare the annual budget.  Section 1 includes                   
  definitions for Board of Regents, building, committee,                       
  department, state agency, state building, state fund,                        
  university, university building, and university fund.  The                   
  definition for construction costs is included in AS                          
  TAPE 94-41, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued.                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated Section 2 states the Alaska                      
  State Council on the Arts remains in effect.  However, the                   
  council's authority over the art in public places fund is                    
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated Section 3 states memorials                       
  constructed under AS 44.35.030 are no longer subject to the                  
  artworks in public buildings and facilities statute.                         
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated Section 4 repeals statutes                       
  relating to Art Works in Public Buildings and Facilities,                    
  the responsibility of the Alaska State Council on the Arts                   
  to manage the art in public places fund, and the fund                        
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated Section 5 states Art Works in                    
  Public Buildings and Facilities continues in effect for                      
  works under contract if the contract is entered into before                  
  the effective date of Section 4.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated in Section 6 all provisions are                  
  effective immediately except for the payment of the major                    
  maintenance assessment fee, which becomes effective July 1,                  
  Number 030                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted REPRESENTATIVE JAMES's office had done                  
  a lot of work on CSHB 345.                                                   
  Number 032                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she believed CSHB 345 was very                   
  important, and deferred maintenance must be addressed.                       
  Number 044                                                                   
  on CSHB 345.  She noted CSHB 345 calls for the DOA to be the                 
  lead agency for implementation.  The DOA believes the                        
  maintenance and protection of the state's assets have been                   
  grossly neglected, therefore a mechanism needs to be found.                  
  She stated they have been trying to find a method for                        
  several years and of all of the approaches, CSHB 345 makes                   
  the most sense.                                                              
  MS. USERA explained at the first sight of CSHB 345, she did                  
  not like the emphasis on the DOA as the source of                            
  implementation.  She stated she now feels it makes sense.                    
  The DOA would be most suitable because of its                                
  responsibilities in providing overhead services to all state                 
  agencies.  The DOA would have the most "global" view of the                  
  needs of the departments.  The balance of the committee                      
  would be very representative.                                                
  MS. USERA pointed out the six year plan and a funding source                 
  that transcends from year to year would aid in the long term                 
  approach.  They have had difficulty with deferred                            
  maintenance projects because when the funds lapse every                      
  year, there is no carry forward.  She noted with the                         
  constraint of operating budgets, people use money which                      
  otherwise might go for daily operational maintenance issues.                 
  She recollected deferred maintenance on 2,500 buildings, so                  
  an estimation of 1,700 might be low.  She explained the                      
  state has buildings as small as mobile homes in Bethel that                  
  serve as the employment service office that need to be                       
  MS. USERA stated DUGAN PETTY, Director of the Division of                    
  General Services, would be the key person for developing the                 
  project work on CSHB 345.  She explained their fiscal note                   
  depicted a professional project approach to assessing the                    
  needs of state buildings and devising the criteria.  The DOA                 
  would be able to prioritize the $251 million worth of                        
  deferred maintenance projects.                                               
  Number 113                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the rate of how much the list of                        
  deferred maintenance was growing each year.                                  
  Number 116                                                                   
  MS. USERA stated she did not know specifically.                              
  Number 119                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded the fiscal note from the                      
  original HB 345 was $61 million a year required to just meet                 
  the life costs formula for existing maintenance of the                       
  state's buildings.                                                           
  Number 126                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he thought $61 million had included                    
  Number 127                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified the $61 million did include                   
  utilities.  She noted utilities are a very important part of                 
  the process because as less maintenance is done, utilities                   
  increase.  She estimated a third, to a half of the $61                       
  million might have been for utilities.  She noted at least a                 
  $30 million a year deficit in deferred maintenance.                          
  Number 136                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if the fund CSHB 345 was creating would                 
  not pay utilities.                                                           
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered the fund would not.                            
  Number 146                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Anchorage teleconference site.                   
  Number 150                                                                   
  (ASFA), commented on CSHB 345.  He stated ASFA is a                          
  voluntary organization composed of facility representatives                  
  from each of the agencies, the court system and the                          
  university system.  They have been studying the backlog of                   
  deferred maintenance for the past five years.  Deferred                      
  maintenance is their largest common problem and biggest                      
  concern.  He expressed if the backlog was not addressed in                   
  the immediate future, Alaska will be faced with rebuilding                   
  facilities, as opposed to trying to preserve them.  ASFA                     
  supports CSHB 345.  He stated ASFA is currently refining all                 
  of its statistics to give the committee some updates on the                  
  current value of the backlog.                                                
  Number 180                                                                   
  KIT DUKE supported CSHB 345.  She testified that she agreed                  
  with the testimony of MS. USERA and MR. PATCH.  She worked                   
  on the issue of deferred maintenance in 1993 and had                         
  testified for the committee on Executive Order 89.  She                      
  expressed she was disappointed EO 89 was withdrawn; however,                 
  she was pleased CSHB 345 was chosen to be addressed by the                   
  MS. DUKE stated she believed CSHB 345 was an important step                  
  towards resolving the deferred maintenance issue.                            
  Therefore, she urged the passage of CSHB 345 from committee                  
  with do pass recommendations.                                                
  MS. DUKE explained CSHB 345 contains two elements address                    
  how to eliminate the backlog, and how not to continue to                     
  create it.  She noted the nonlapsing fund and creating a                     
  committee to take action by developing a six year plan.  She                 
  volunteered her time to ensure the six plan would be                         
  prepared, if CSHB 345 were to pass.                                          
  Number 210                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS inquired about AS 35.50.060,                         
  committee duties as referred to in CSHB 345.  He asked how                   
  the function was performed now.  Does each building have a                   
  building maintenance supervisor that submits a list of                       
  problems and cost estimates to his supervisor, or is it done                 
  on an individual basis.                                                      
  Number 226                                                                   
  MS. DUKE replied the process was not well organized.  Major                  
  institutions (e.g., correctional facilities, hospitals)                      
  usually have a maintenance superintendent.  A major combined                 
  office facility will have a Department of Transportation                     
  person, not responsible for only that building, that will                    
  put together information about what work needs to be done.                   
  The information will then proceed up through the chain of                    
  command, whereby it may or may not get addressed by the                      
  Governor's office or the legislature.  She stated presently,                 
  there is no comprehensive plan for buildings to be evaluated                 
  Number 243                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS questioned if current procurement                    
  policies and procedures get in the way of small repair                       
  MS. DUKE stated she did not believe that they need to.  She                  
  felt they can work within procurement regulations to                         
  accomplish what needs to be done.  Most importantly, there                   
  needs to be a single point of focus and a plan for action.                   
  She supported CSHB 345 in this effort.                                       
  Number 266                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER moved an amendment to delete Section 4                  
  from CSHB 345.                                                               
  Number 277                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  IN FAVOR:      REPRESENTATIVES ULMER, G. DAVIS.                              
  OPPOSED:       REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, SANDERS.                         
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES B. DAVIS, OLBERG.                             
  MOTION FAILED                                                                
  Number 280                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS commented a lot of work had been                     
  done on CSHB 345, and there was no question that something                   
  needed to be set up.  He noted the similar process he has                    
  experienced from the municipal level.  CSHB 345 would save                   
  the state money in the future.                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS moved to pass CSHB 345 from                          
  committee with individual recommendations.                                   
  Number 307                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES B. DAVIS, OLBERG.                             
  MOTION PASSED                                                                
  HB 430 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS                                  
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 430, sponsored by REPRESENTATIVE                    
  JOE GREEN, for discussion.  He recognized a new committee                    
  substitute was before the committee.  He asked if there was                  
  a motion to adopt CSHB 430, version E.                                       
  Number 332                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS so moved.                                            
  Number 335                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no objection, adopted CSHB 430.                      
  Number 337                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, sponsor, addressed CSHB 430.  He                   
  stated at the previous hearing regarding HB 430 there had                    
  been a question about young persons who might be employed                    
  after the one o'clock curfew.  He directed the committee to                  
  page 2, beginning line 25, which addresses this question.                    
  So long as the person who may have been driving is driving                   
  to or from, on the most direct route, his place of work to                   
  his place of living, he/she would be excluded.                               
  Number 357                                                                   
  VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS), answered                        
  questions on CSHB 430.  She directed the committee to a                      
  letter of March 18, 1994, which was written to her by the                    
  Trauma Registry Coordinator, Emergency Medical Services                      
  Section, Department of Health & Social Services.  The letter                 
  stated the average cost of hospitalization for a person                      
  under the age of 21 involved in a serious accident is                        
  $25,984.  This cost does not include rehabilitation costs or                 
  costs to the physicians themselves.                                          
  MS. HENSLEY reviewed a second table entitled, 1992 ALASKA                    
  DRIVERS IN TRAFFIC CRASHES, prepared by the roadway and                      
  accident file from DPS.  This table states the number of                     
  licensed drivers in Alaska, their ages, and the percentages                  
  of those drivers.  She pointed out the age group that CSHB
  430 addresses only comprises 6.2 percent of all licensed                     
  drivers in the state of Alaska.                                              
  MS. HENSLEY compared that percentage to the next chart                       
  entitled, ALASKA YOUTH CRASH STATISTICS - 1979 THRU 1992.                    
  The 16-20 age group is over-represented in the number of                     
  crashes, and the number of injury and fatal crashes, they                    
  have.  She noted in 1992, Alaska had a total of 89 fatality                  
  crashes including all ages.  Of these 89 crashes, 21                         
  involved youth.  Therefore, they represented 23.6 percent of                 
  the total fatal crashes in Alaska.  In 1992, Alaska had a                    
  total of 50 alcohol crashes, of which nine involved youth.                   
  Therefore, 42.9 percent of youth crashes involved alcohol.                   
  MS. HENSLEY examined the third chart entitled, ALASKA YOUTH                  
  CRASH DEATH STATISTICS - 1979 THRU 1992.  This chart stated                  
  of the 89 total crashes in 1992, there was a total of 108                    
  deaths.  Of the 108 deaths, 25 or 23.1 percent were youth.                   
  Of the 89 total crashes, there were 61 alcohol fatalities,                   
  10 of which involved youth.                                                  
  Number 417                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified 41 percent of alcohol related                       
  accidents involved people under 21.                                          
  MS. HENSLEY corrected 40 percent.                                            
  MS. HENSLEY referred to another pie chart entitled, 1992                     
  INJURY AND FATAL CRASH DRIVERS, which breaks down two hour                   
  segments of time in a day.  She pointed out in 1992, 32                      
  percent of injury and fatal youth crashes were between 8                     
  p.m. and 6 a.m.  She repeated the 16-20 age group is only                    
  6.2 percent of the licensed drivers, as opposed to the other                 
  92 percent which are over the age of 21.  In comparison of                   
  the two age groups, the 1992 injury and fatal crashes                        
  between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. involve 32 percent of youth,                       
  whereas only 23 percent involve those 21 or older.                           
  Number 446                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if he could assume all of the                        
  fatalities involving youth occurred between the hours of 8                   
  p.m. and 6 a.m.                                                              
  MS. HENSLEY answered of the 32 percent, yes.                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified not all teenage deaths occur                  
  during those hours, just a propensity.                                       
  Number 451                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if was correct in assuming that all of                  
  the alcohol related teenage fatalities occurred between 8                    
  p.m. and 6 a.m.                                                              
  MS. HENSLEY replied she had not done that chart; however,                    
  she could get that information transmitted from Department                   
  of Transportation.                                                           
  MS. HENSLEY commented the injuries and fatalities are                        
  basically the same for youths and those over 21, even during                 
  mid-day for the same amount of drivers.  She emphasized the                  
  youth only make up 6.2 percent of drivers, therefore they                    
  are over-represented in the statistics.                                      
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified 6.2 percent.                                        
  Number 462                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY stated 12.9 percent of the overall crashes in                    
  Alaska involved youth under the age of 21.   She noted 12.9                  
  percent was quite high for only comprising 6.2 percent of                    
  the licensed drivers.                                                        
  MS. HENSLEY referred to an article entitled, STATUS REPORT,                  
  March 19, 1994, by the Insurance Institute For Highway                       
  Safety.  This report addresses the intent of CSHB 430 and                    
  how it proposes to reduce crash rates and fatalities.                        
  MS. HENSLEY referred back to the letter sent to her by the                   
  EMS which showed the average hospitalization cost is $25,984                 
  for each individual, per accident.  She did not know what                    
  percentage did not involve insurance or what the societal                    
  cost to the state was.  She believed, however, it would be                   
  quite substantial.  She stated 184 patients were in this                     
  category where the average cost of hospitalization was                       
  $25,984 per patient.  The physician fees and rehabilitation                  
  costs were not included in this average.  She noted 21                       
  patients, or 11.4 percent, were discharged with                              
  disabilities, and 11 patients were discharged to a                           
  rehabilitation center.                                                       
  Number 497                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the group of drivers under the age                  
  of 21 represented 6.2 percent of the driving population.  He                 
  stated 32 percent of the total injury and fatal crashes,                     
  between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. involved youth.  He                   
  inquired if the statistic meant injury and fatality, or                      
  injury and/or fatality.                                                      
  MS. HENSLEY answered injury and/or fatality.  She compared                   
  that number to individuals over 21 who are involved in 23                    
  percent of the crashes.                                                      
  Number 530                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what percentage of fatalities youth                     
  were involved in.                                                            
  MS. HENSLEY replied 42.9 percent were involved in fatal                      
  crashes.  Youth deaths were 40 percent of the 108 fatalities                 
  in 1992.  She emphasized they only represent 6.2 percent of                  
  all the licensed drivers.  She pointed out this trend is                     
  nationwide.  She hoped to be able to present a chart                         
  examining the statistics based on the days of the week.  For                 
  example, were Friday and Saturday nights higher than Monday                  
  through Thursday.                                                            
  Number 547                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she believed the numbers were                    
  very convincing and she moved to pass CSHB 430 out of                        
  committee.  She complimented MS. HENSLEY on the charts.                      
  Number 552                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked where the charts came from.                        
  MS. HENSLEY responded they were developed from information                   
  received from the Highway Safety Planning (HSP) agency.  The                 
  Governor's representative for HSP put together the pie                       
  chart.  The information for the pie charts was received from                 
  DOT's roadway and accident files.  She noted DOT has a                       
  complete database of all the accidents occurring in Alaska.                  
  Number 559                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired about the non-pie charts.                       
  MS. HENSLEY answered the non-pie charts were also put                        
  together by HSP.                                                             
  Number 561                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented the numbers represented for                    
  the total fatalities for those drivers under 21 did not                      
  explicitly prove to him that youths were behind the wheel                    
  driving.  They could have only been in the vehicle.                          
  MS. HENSLEY replied REPRESENTATIVE KOTT was correct;                         
  however, statistics broken down by the age of the driver,                    
  show teenage drivers are usually behind the wheel.                           
  Number 572                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT gave the example of a 17 year old                        
  fatality involved in an accident where the parents were                      
  driving.  He noted this type of fatality would be included                   
  in the chart.  He questioned the statistics given.                           
  Number 576                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN believed the debate was going from                      
  "statistics to fantasy..."  He suggested, by the same                        
  example, that a mature driver could be driving whereby a                     
  teenager was killed, or the reverse.  He believed the                        
  question was not germane to CSHB 430.  He reminded the                       
  committee of the rates insurance companies charge for                        
  drivers in the under 21 category, versus the mature driver.                  
  He noted there is a reason the cost for young drivers was                    
  more than twice as much.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he was trying to draw some                        
  correlation between a youthful driver and their action.  He                  
  stated this was the key to CSHB 430.  If 80 percent of the                   
  statistics before the committee dealt with fatalities of                     
  those under 21 who were passengers, then the data is skewed                  
  and disproportionate.  He questioned if the 40 percent of                    
  youth involved in fatalities actually reflected their                        
  driving habits.                                                              
  Number 600                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY directed REPRESENTATIVE KOTT to the ALASKA YOUTH                 
  CRASH DEATH STATISTICS and pointed out of the 108 deaths, 10                 
  involved alcohol.  She emphasized 40 percent of youth                        
  accident deaths involved alcohol.  She believed this was an                  
  awful high percentage.                                                       
  Number 606                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned what the 10 alcohol youth deaths                   
  represented 40 percent of.                                                   
  Number 616                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY corrected she had meant 40 percent of the total                  
  number of teenagers killed involved alcohol deaths.  There                   
  was a total of 61 alcohol related accident deaths in 1992.                   
  She clarified 10 alcohol youth accident deaths out of 61                     
  total would be 16.4 percent.  There were a total of 25 youth                 
  Number 619                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned if the alcohol related                        
  fatalities were taken out, would there still be a                            
  disproportionate number of crashes involving those under 21.                 
  Number 622                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY believed the statistics would still be as high.                  
  She referred to the pie chart which states during the                        
  daytime, 32 percent of youth are involved in injury and                      
  fatal crashes.  She compared this to the adult evening                       
  statistic of 23 percent. She estimated about 36 percent of                   
  adults were involved in crashes during the daytime.                          
  Number 635                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated there was a motion before the                          
  committee, however, he would hold the motion until next week                 
  because a fiscal note was not provided with the committee                    
  Number 638                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER withdrew her motion.                                    
  Number 640                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated they do not get fiscal notes                     
  until there is a reason for them.  He asked if CSHB 430                      
  would be killed.                                                             
  Number 645                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY replied he did not believe there would be                     
  amendments to CSHB 430.                                                      
  Number 646                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he might want to offer an amendment                 
  to page 2, line 3, which raises the age of those that can                    
  accompany a permit driver from 19.  He stated he would be                    
  more inclined to make the accompaniment a parent or legal                    
  Number 654                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY addressed REPRESENTATIVE KOTT's proposed                         
  amendment.  If the provision was made a parent or legal                      
  guardian, then those individuals would be excluded from                      
  being able to take professional driver training.                             
  Number 656                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT felt an allowance could be made.                         
  Number 659                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER remembered there was a deadline for                     
  personal sponsored bills in House Rules, and noted CSHB 430                  
  was also referred to Finance.  She wanted to move it out of                  
  Number 663                                                                   
  MS. HENSLEY stated she believed CSHB 430 would have a zero                   
  fiscal note.  She mentioned the High Risk Drivers Act                        
  presently in Congress which has passed one house and is in                   
  the other, would give the states $1.2 million to implement                   
  the CSHB 430 program.  She said it was their intention to                    
  apply for Section 402 grants for any costs of                                
  Number 670                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified CSHB 430 would have a zero fiscal                   
  note.  With the assurance of a zero fiscal note and                          
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's annotation that CSHB 430 be moved                     
  from committee, he stated there was no reason CSHB 430 could                 
  not be moved from committee.                                                 
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the                     
  ABSENT:        REPRESENTATIVES B. DAVIS, OLBERG.                             
  MOTION PASSED                                                                
  (REPRESENTATIVE KOTT left the meeting at 9:36 a.m.)                          
  HB 531 - ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER BODIES                             
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, under bills previously heard, opened HB 531                  
  to discuss an amendment REPRESENTATIVE ULMER proposeD.                       
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated the amendment allows the                         
  committee meetings to be held by teleconference to avoid                     
  travel costs, it raises the jurisdiction of the committee                    
  from $1,000 to $5,000, and adds language in Section 6 to                     
  clarify the Museum Collections Advisory Committee (MCAC)                     
  general duties pertain to acquisition and disposition, which                 
  was recommended by the Karen Crane, Department of Education,                 
  for clarity.  The last line on page 1 deletes those sections                 
  of HB 531 which had deleted the MCAC.                                        
  Number 692                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred to Section 6 which states, "the                      
  committee shall act in an advisory capacity to the board."                   
  He could not remember what the board was.                                    
  Number 696                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she guessed the Board of                         
  TAPE 94-42, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what Section 6 was doing.                               
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified "acquisition and disposition"                 
  is the language being added.  The statute presently                          
  reads,"the committee shall act in an advisory capacity to                    
  the board as the general policies and programs of the state                  
  museum."  She stated Karen Crane suggested the change.  She                  
  reminded the committee most of the testimony received                        
  pertained to MCAC's role in overseeing how money was spent                   
  to either acquire or disposition of assets.  The scope of                    
  the MCAC's jurisdiction is narrowed by this additional                       
  language.  She stated she was imparticular about the change,                 
  but it made DOE more at ease with HB 531.                                    
  Number 028                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the amendment would narrow the                      
  scope of the MCAC.  He commented they used the word                          
  "deaccession," and asked if "disposition" would be the                       
  correct word to use.                                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded "disposition" was recommended                 
  by Karen Crane and Terri Lauterbach.                                         
  Number 047                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was clarifying in                 
  Section 4 that a meeting could be held by teleconference.                    
  In Section 5, the limit would be raised from $1,000 to                       
  $5,000.  He asked about raising the limit to $10,000.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied she did not have any                            
  information about how many acquisitions were within various                  
  categories.  She referred to previous testimony which stated                 
  there are a number of small acquisitions under $5,000 which                  
  would be freed up.  She had no preference for $5,000 or                      
  Number 069                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he remembered the testimony to state                   
  they have a $50,000 acquisition budget, which they make 10-                  
  11 acquisitions per year with.  The average was about                        
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said she just did not know.                             
  Number 080                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS commented he tended to support the                   
  amendment even though he had concerns about the number of                    
  boards and commissions.  He felt the $5,000 level as                         
  compared to $10,000, was questionable.  He pointed out how                   
  valuable a piece is to a collection might be more of a                       
  Number 101                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he believed the impetus for the change                 
  was to remove fairly minor acquisitions from the purview of                  
  the MCAC.  He questioned the dollar value of a major                         
  Number 113                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER offered to get a list from the museum                   
  as to the costs of acquisitions.                                             
  Number 117                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated a list would not be as important as                    
  determining value.  What is a major acquisition versus a                     
  relatively minor acquisition made probably more out of                       
  opportunity.  Something to fulfill a collection would have a                 
  lot a value, thereby costing a lot of money.                                 
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no further questions, stated a                       
  committee substitute would be drafted that adopts                            
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's proposed amendment.  He felt the                      
  $5,000 could still be adjusted, if necessary.                                
  Number 134                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if HB 531 would be rescheduled                    
  for Thursday or Tuesday of next week.                                        
  Number 136                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY believed Tuesday.                                             
  CHAIRMAN VEZEY, having no more business before the                           
  committee, adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.                                
  BILLS CANCELLED FROM THE SCHEDULE                                            
  HB 420 - LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects