Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/23/1995 08:00 AM House STA

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects