Legislature(2003 - 2004)

04/30/2004 08:05 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         April 30, 2004                                                                                         
                           8:05 a.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair                                                                                             
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Paul Seaton                                                                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 461                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges and to emergency                                                                    
services dispatch systems of municipalities, certain villages,                                                                  
and public corporations established by municipalities."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 461(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 536                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to applications for permanent fund dividends by                                                                
certain individuals serving in the armed forces; and providing                                                                  
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 536(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 557                                                                                                              
"An Act regarding lobbyist prohibitions."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 460                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to absences to provide care for certain                                                                        
relatives for purposes of permanent fund dividend eligibility;                                                                  
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25                                                                                                  
Recommending that certain federal funding restrictions be eased                                                                 
so that more villages in Alaska would qualify for assistance                                                                    
relating to flooding and erosion.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SJR 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 227(STA) am                                                                                              
"An Act relating to municipal runoff elections and to municipal                                                                 
initiative and referendum elections."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 227(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 461                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
02/16/04       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/16/04       (H)       CRA, STA                                                                                               
03/02/04       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                             
03/02/04       (H)       Heard & Held <Subcommittee Assigned>                                                                   
03/02/04       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/27/04       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                             
04/27/04       (H)       Moved CSHB 461(CRA) Out of Committee                                                                   
04/27/04       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/28/04       (H)       CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 1DP 5NR                                                                             
04/28/04       (H)       DP: MORGAN; NR: ANDERSON, KOOKESH,                                                                     
04/28/04       (H)       SAMUELS, WOLF, CISSNA                                                                                  
04/29/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
04/29/04       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/29/04       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/30/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 536                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PFUND APPLICATION DEADLINES  FOR MILITARY                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF ECON DEV, INT TRADE & TOURISM                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
03/15/04       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/15/04       (H)       MLV, STA                                                                                               
04/06/04       (H)       MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                             
04/06/04       (H)       Moved CSHB 536(MLV) Out of Committee                                                                   
04/06/04       (H)       MINUTE(MLV)                                                                                            
04/07/04       (H)       MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 4DP 1NR                                                                             
04/07/04       (H)       DP: LYNN, MASEK, CISSNA, STEPOVICH;                                                                    
04/07/04       (H)       NR: DAHLSTROM                                                                                          
04/30/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 557                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: LOBBYIST PROHIBITIONS                                                                                              
SPONSOR(S): RULES                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
04/21/04       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/21/04       (H)       STA                                                                                                    
04/26/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
04/26/04       (H)       <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/30>                                                                       
04/30/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 460                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: ALLOWABLE ABSENCES AND PFDS                                                                                        
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
02/16/04       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/16/04       (H)       STA, FIN                                                                                               
04/01/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
04/01/04       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/01/04       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/30/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SJR 25                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: FLOODING AND EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) OLSON                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
02/06/04       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/06/04       (S)       CRA, STA                                                                                               
02/25/04       (S)       CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                          
02/25/04       (S)       Moved SJR 25 Out of Committee                                                                          
02/25/04       (S)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
02/27/04       (S)       CRA RPT   5DP                                                                                          
02/27/04       (S)       DP: STEDMAN, LINCOLN, STEVENS G, ELTON,                                                                
02/27/04       (S)       WAGONER                                                                                                
03/30/04       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/30/04       (S)       Moved  SJR 25 Out of Committee                                                                         
03/30/04       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/31/04       (S)       STA RPT 4DP                                                                                            
03/31/04       (S)       DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY, STEDMAN, GUESS                                                                 
04/16/04       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
04/16/04       (S)       VERSION: SJR 25                                                                                        
04/19/04       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/19/04       (H)       CRA, STA                                                                                               
04/27/04       (H)       CRA RPT 5DP                                                                                            
04/27/04       (H)       DP: ANDERSON, SAMUELS, WOLF, KOOKESH,                                                                  
04/27/04       (H)       MORGAN                                                                                                 
04/27/04       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                             
04/27/04       (H)       Moved Out of Committee                                                                                 
04/27/04       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/30/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 227                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL  ELECTIONS                                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS G                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
05/15/03       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
05/15/03       (S)       CRA, STA                                                                                               
02/18/04       (S)       CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                          
02/18/04       (S)       Moved  SB 227 Out of Committee                                                                         
02/18/04       (S)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
02/19/04       (S)       CRA RPT  4DP 1NR                                                                                       
02/19/04       (S)       DP: STEDMAN, LINCOLN, WAGONER,                                                                         
02/19/04       (S)       STEVENS G; NR: ELTON                                                                                   
02/24/04       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
02/24/04       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/24/04       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/26/04       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
02/26/04       (S)       Moved CSSB 227(STA) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/26/04       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/27/04       (S)       STA RPT CS FORTHCOMING 1DP 2NR                                                                         
02/27/04       (S)       DP: STEVENS G; NR: COWDERY, STEDMAN                                                                    
03/01/04       (S)       STA CS RECEIVED         SAME TITLE                                                                     
03/26/04       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
03/26/04       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 227(STA) AM                                                                              
03/29/04       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/29/04       (H)       CRA, STA                                                                                               
04/27/04       (H)       CRA RPT 1DP 4NR 1AM                                                                                    
04/27/04       (H)       DP: ANDERSON; NR: SAMUELS, WOLF,                                                                       
04/27/04       (H)       KOOKESH, MORGAN; AM: CISSNA                                                                            
04/27/04       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                             
04/27/04       (H)       Moved Out of Committee                                                                                 
04/27/04       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/30/04       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff                                                                                                            
to Representative Jim Holm                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on behalf of Representative Holm,                                                                
sponsor of HB 461.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
LINDA FREED, City Manager                                                                                                       
City of Kodiak                                                                                                                  
Kodiak, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 461.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager                                                                                                  
Kenai Peninsula Borough                                                                                                         
Kenai, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of increased local                                                                    
control over surcharge assessment and answered questions, during                                                                
the hearing on HB 461.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
STEVE THOMPSON, Mayor                                                                                                           
City of Fairbanks                                                                                                               
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 461.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
JIM HARPRING, Member                                                                                                            
National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA)                                                                                 
(No address provided.)                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified during the hearing on HB 461.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager                                                                                                 
Municipality of Anchorage                                                                                                       
(No address provided.)                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 461.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide                                                                  
Section Supervisor                                                                                                              
Torts and Worker's Compensation Section                                                                                         
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on behalf of the department                                                                      
during the hearing on HB 461.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JAMES R. JACKSON JR., Attorney at Law                                                                                           
General Communications Incorporated (GCI)                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Suggested a change of language for HB 461.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
JOHN FULLENWIDER, Fire Chief                                                                                                    
Municipality of Anchorage                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 461.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MARK MEW, President                                                                                                             
Alaska Chapter                                                                                                                  
National Emergency Number Association (NENA)                                                                                    
(No address provided.)                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified during the hearing on HB 461.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant                                                                                                        
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified  in support of  specific proposed                                                               
language in Section 1 of HB 461, Version Z.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JON BITTNER, Staff                                                                                                              
to Representative Cheryll Heinze                                                                                                
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION   STATEMENT:      Presented   HB  536   on   behalf   of                                                               
Representative  Heinze, sponsor;  answered  questions during  the                                                               
hearing on HB 557.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Answered questions,  as sponsor of  HB 536;                                                               
presented HB 557, as sponsor.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SHARON BARTON, Director                                                                                                         
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Permanent Fund Dividend Division                                                                                                
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Responded to  a question, on behalf  of the                                                               
department, during the hearing on HB 536.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HAROLD HEINZE                                                                                                                   
(No address provided.)                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on  behalf of himself  during the                                                               
hearing on HB 557.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying                                                                                           
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)                                                                                         
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Answered  questions on  behalf  of  APOC,                                                               
during the hearing on HB 557.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President                                                                                                       
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified during the hearing on HB 557.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AURORA HAUKE, Staff                                                                                                             
to Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified during the hearing on  HB 460, on                                                               
behalf of Representative Kerttula, sponsor.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HAVEN HARRIS, Staff                                                                                                             
to Senator Donny Olson                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Introduced  SJR 25  on  behalf of  Senator                                                               
Olson, sponsor.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  As sponsor, presented SB 227.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
DALE STRAUBE, Staff                                                                                                             
to Senator Ben Stevens                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  on behalf of Senator Ben                                                               
Stevens.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-74, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  BRUCE WEYHRAUCH  called the  House State  Affairs Standing                                                             
Committee meeting  to order at  8:05 a.m.   Representatives Holm,                                                               
Seaton, Lynn,  and Weyhrauch were  present at the call  to order.                                                               
Representatives Coghill, Berkowitz, and  Gruenberg arrived as the                                                               
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 461-EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE                                                                              
[Contains discussion of HB 499.]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0024                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that the  first order of  business was                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  461, "An Act relating to  enhanced 911 surcharges                                                               
and  to emergency  services dispatch  systems of  municipalities,                                                               
certain   villages,  and   public  corporations   established  by                                                               
municipalities."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0044                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding  that a motion had been                                                               
made at the  [4/29/04] meeting to adopt  the committee substitute                                                               
(CS) for  HB 461, Version  23-LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as  a work                                                               
draft  and an  objection  had  been made  to  that  motion.   [No                                                               
further  discussion  took  place regarding  that  objection,  the                                                               
committee treated Version Z as adopted.]                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0085                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  moved  to  adopt Amendment  1,  which  read  as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, Line 22                                                                                                            
          Delete "resolution or"                                                                                                
     Page 3, Line 31                                                                                                            
          Delete "resolution or"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected [for discussion purposes].                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0100                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MATTHEW  RUDIG, Staff  to Representative  Jim Holm,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  testifying   on  behalf  of   Representative  Holm,                                                               
sponsor of  HB 461, explained  the purpose  of Amendment 1  is to                                                               
clear up language in current statute.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0150                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  withdrew his  objection.    There being  no                                                               
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0169                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  moved to  adopt Amendment  2, which  read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, Line 26                                                                                                            
           Insert after company ", competitive local                                                                            
     exchange company"                                                                                                          
     Page 4, Line 21                                                                                                            
         Insert after company ", or a competitive local                                                                         
     exchange company"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that  Amendment 2 defines what [the                                                               
local companies] are.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0245                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG said Amendment 2  clarifies that all phone companies in                                                               
the state are covered under the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0281                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  removed his objection  to Amendment 2  and asked                                                               
if there was any further  objection.  There being none, Amendment                                                               
2 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0339                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  moved to  adopt Amendment  3, which  read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, Line 26                                                                                                            
       Insert   after   company   "competitive   exchange                                                                       
     company, wireless reseller,"                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG  clarified how the  language would read  with Amendment                                                               
3.  In response to a  question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed                                                               
that,  in  formulating  the  amendments  that  the  committee  is                                                               
considering today, he  had some contact with the  following:  the                                                               
Alaska Municipal  League (AML), the National  Emergency Numbering                                                               
Association (NENA),  [Alaska Communication Systems,  Inc. (ACS)],                                                               
and [General Communications Incorporated (GCI)].                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0495                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there  was any further objection.  There                                                               
being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0509                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 4, which read as                                                                   
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, Line 24                                                                                                            
          Delete "(1)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(6)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG directed that committee's attention to page 2, lines                                                                  
16-20, which read as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
               (6) is based on the exercise or performance                                                                  
     of  a duty  in connection  with  an emergency  services                                                                
     dispatch system  or an  enhanced 911  system, including                                                                
     providing,  maintaining,  or operating  any  toll-free,                                                                
     statewide  default public  safety answering  point, and                                                                
     is  not  based  on   an  intentional  act  or  omission                                                                
     amounting  to  misconduct  or on  an  act  or  omission                                                                
     amounting to gross negligence.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG explained that Amendment 4 is a cross-reference [to                                                                   
that language].  He added, "And that was the suggestion of                                                                      
[Gail] Voigtlander, [Department of Law]."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0587                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection.  There                                                                
being none, Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0608                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 5, which read as                                                                   
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, Line 28                                                                                                            
          Delete "address"                                                                                                      
          Insert "statement"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0644                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG offered  his understanding that Amendment  5 would help                                                               
phone  companies  delineate  between residential  and  commercial                                                               
properties.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0653                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked  if a series of  buildings rented out                                                               
as apartments would be considered commercial or residential.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG answered that "it would  be per residential line in ...                                                               
an apartment building."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH said  people get  a  statement in  the mail  and                                                               
numerous people may get statements within one address.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained  that he is trying  to figure out                                                               
if  there  are  any  situations   in  which  there  are  multiple                                                               
residents in one place with only one statement generated.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM clarified that  [the statement] would be sent                                                               
to the address.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  removed his  objection.  He  asked if  there was                                                               
any further objection  to Amendment 5.  There being  none, it was                                                               
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0738                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  moved to  adopt Amendment  6, which  read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, Line 24                                                                                                            
          Insert after company "or wireless reseller,"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG observed that Amendment  6 is similar to the previously                                                               
adopted Amendments 2 and 3; it is all-inclusive.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  asked if there  were further objections.   There                                                               
being none, Amendment 6 was adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0975                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that the  committee would  hear public                                                               
testimony.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0882                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LINDA FREED,  City Manager,  City of  Kodiak, emphasized  that HB
461 is  an important issue  to the City  of Kodiak, which  is the                                                               
regional  public safety  answering  point for  the entire  Kodiak                                                               
area.  She  said the city operates the enhanced  E-911 system for                                                               
the  Kodiak road  system.   She  stated that  the most  important                                                               
portion of  the bill is  [Section 4], which would,  by ordinance,                                                               
give the city the ability to  set a levy at the appropriate level                                                               
for the  community.   She said,  "We would  urge your  passage of                                                               
this legislation, so  that it may go on to  the [House] floor and                                                               
perhaps to the  Senate and get ... passed this  year."  Ms. Freed                                                               
offered to answer questions.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0960                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. FREED,  in response to questions  from Representative Seaton,                                                               
revealed that [the  City of Kodiak's] current charge is  at a cap                                                               
of 75  cents per month,  per line.   She predicted that  the city                                                               
would continue  to subsidize  with other  tax resources,  such as                                                               
its sales tax.  She said,  "I believe the city council would look                                                               
at trying  to recoup some  additional revenue from the  levy, but                                                               
would not levy the entire amount to pay for the whole system."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. FREED, in response to  a question from Chair Weyhrauch, noted                                                               
that another  portion of the bill  that [the city] likes  is that                                                               
it  would be  able to  "use the  funds to  help pay  for dispatch                                                               
services."  She continued as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     E-911  is only  the calls  coming into  the center;  we                                                                    
     actually have  a large infrastructure built  up to have                                                                    
     the  calls  go  out  of  the center.    So,  we  spend,                                                                    
     roughly,  $500,000 annually  to operate  our E-911  and                                                                    
     emergency  dispatch center.   So,  we bring  in roughly                                                                    
     $45-50,000 a  year from the  current levy.  So,  it's a                                                                    
     substantial  local  government subsidy,  through  sales                                                                    
     tax.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1061                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   directed   attention  to   page   4,                                                               
[beginning on line 16 through line 19], which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     The  municipality  may  [ONLY]  use  the  enhanced  911                                                                    
     surcharge  for  the enhanced  911  system  and for  the                                                                
     actual labor  and equipment  used to  provide emergency                                                                
     services dispatch,  but not for costs  of providing the                                                                
     medical,  police,  fire,  rescue,  or  other  emergency                                                                
     service, or for any other purpose.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked Ms.  Freed, "Do you  support that                                                               
limitation on your local power?"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. FREED  answered yes.   She said she interprets  that language                                                               
as allowing  a broader use  of the funds.   She added,  "We don't                                                               
intend to  use any of  the levy that we  might be able  to assess                                                               
for actual response activities."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1115                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID  GIBBS, Emergency  Manager, Kenai  Peninsula Borough,  told                                                               
the committee that  he is a resident of  Soldotna and administers                                                               
the 911  program for  the borough.   He  stated that  the borough                                                               
applauds  the   increased  local   control  over   the  surcharge                                                               
assessment, because  it will enable  the borough to  recover more                                                               
[money].  Currently, all the  municipalities in the borough run a                                                               
deficit of  approximately $1.8 million and  collect approximately                                                               
$650,000  in  surcharge  revenue.    The  cost  for  all  of  the                                                               
jurisdictions,  including all  of  the  cities, is  approximately                                                               
$2.5 million for 911 and dispatch services.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIBBS  noted  that  the   bill  does  not  define  the  term                                                               
"emergency services dispatch", and  therefore he suggested adding                                                               
a definition to AS 29.35.137,  based on the national standards of                                                               
either NENA  or the National Fire  Protection Association (NFPA).                                                               
The definition  should include computer-aided dispatch  and other                                                               
processes by  which an alarm  received at a  communication center                                                               
[is]  transmitted  to  an  emergency   response  facility  or  to                                                               
emergency response units in the field.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RUDIG  noted  that  there was  a  definition  of  "emergency                                                               
services dispatch" and he doesn't know why it was pulled out.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1260                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIBBS,  in  response  to   a  question  from  Representative                                                               
Berkowitz,  noted that  one of  the definitions  to which  he had                                                               
referred could be found in the NFPA standard 12.21.1221.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  asked how the  public would benefit  from having                                                               
that definition included in the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS answered as follows:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Well,  in   our  situation,  in  the   Kenai  Peninsula                                                                    
     Borough,  the borough  assumes  the responsibility  for                                                                    
     call-taking, E-911  services.  Many of  the cities, for                                                                    
     example,  Kenai, Homer,  and  Seward, actually  provide                                                                    
     dispatch services.   One  of the  ... concerns  we have                                                                    
     about  this  bill:   If  the  Act doesn't  clarify  how                                                                    
     revenues are  to be  collected and  disseminated, based                                                                    
     upon   the   differing   services   amongst   differing                                                                    
     municipalities.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  asked  why  it wouldn't  be  okay  for  the                                                               
municipalities to  "figure it out  themselves."   Furthermore, he                                                               
asked why the legislature would want  to "put it in state statute                                                               
to  tell  you   how  to  disseminate  the   funds  to  individual                                                               
municipalities within  a borough."  He  offered his understanding                                                               
that  the Kenai  Peninsula  Borough is  a  second class  borough,                                                               
which he said  is the same as the  Fairbanks [Northstar] Borough,                                                               
where the  dispatch center is run  by the City of  Fairbanks, not                                                               
the borough.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS  replied that  [the Kenai  Peninsula Borough]  runs the                                                               
centralized call-taking facility and  dispatch center.  He added,                                                               
"We also have  a borough-run dispatch center and  the cities also                                                               
run dispatch centers."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1352                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said he  hopes that definition  will be                                                               
included in  the bill.   He noted that  "all the other  terms are                                                               
defined under [AS] 29.35.137.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1365                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  asked Mr.  Gibbs if he  is saying  that he                                                               
would like to  see the revenues go to 911  receiving centers, but                                                               
that  he doesn't  want to  see them  funneled off  to fund  local                                                               
dispatch  systems, such  as "regular  police  and fire"  dispatch                                                               
systems.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS stated  his concern is that if  the revenue collections                                                               
are  not adequate  to cover  "the  total cost  of both  services,                                                               
we're  going to  be faced  with a  situation on  how to  allocate                                                               
those revenues between multiple jurisdictions."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1410                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the definition, which read as follows:                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          "emergency services dispatch" means a service                                                                         
     offered by a municipality  that provides continuous day                                                                    
     and night dispatch of  emergency medical, police, fire,                                                                    
     or rescue services using enhanced 911 facilities.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative  Berkowitz if he would offer                                                               
that as [Conceptual Amendment 7].                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said,  "I would offer that  if we strike                                                               
the term 'by a municipality',  because it's not always offered by                                                               
a municipality."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  clarified  that  [Conceptual  Amendment  7,  as                                                               
amended] would read:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
               "emergency   services   dispatch"   means   a                                                                    
     service offered that provides  continuous day and night                                                                    
     dispatch of emergency medical,  police, fire, or rescue                                                                    
     services using enhanced 911 facilities.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [to Conceptual  Amendment 7, as amended,                                                               
for discussion purposes].                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1450                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if  that definition comes from the                                                               
NFPA source previously referred to by Mr. Gibbs.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS answered he doesn't know.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG suggested  that the  committee look  at                                                               
the definition referenced by Mr.  Gibbs, because it is apparently                                                               
a well-defined term.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  said  he  would  like to  take  action  on  the                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered   his  understanding  that  if                                                               
["enhanced 911 system"] is defined in  Title 29, then it needs to                                                               
be referenced  in the amendment to  Title 9, in Sections  1 and 2                                                               
of  the bill,  otherwise  "they won't  necessarily  look back  at                                                               
Title 29 for the definition."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested a conforming amendment.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  removed  his  objection  to  Amendment  7,  [as                                                               
amended].  He asked if there was any further objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does that  require that it be an                                                               
enhanced  911  system, or  is  that  just  an option  under  that                                                               
definition?"                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1535                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted  that the title of the  bill deals with                                                               
enhanced 911  and 911 emergency  dispatch systems.   He suggested                                                               
that the word "enhanced" could be deleted.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  directed attention to page  2, line 17,                                                               
which  refers  to  "emergency  services  dispatch  system  or  an                                                           
enhanced 911  system".  He  said, "So, presumably, some  of these                                                           
places might not have enhanced systems."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM reiterated  that "emergency services dispatch                                                             
systems" is in the title of the bill.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  asked again if  there was any  further objection                                                               
to Amendment  7, [as  amended].  There  being none,  Amendment 7,                                                               
[as amended], was adopted.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1588                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS turned  to Section 4 of the bill,  which would amend AS                                                               
29.35.131(a)  by   authorizing  a  surcharge,  based   upon  each                                                               
exchange billing  statement for wireline telephones.   He stated,                                                               
"We, as  a borough, strongly  encourage the existing  language to                                                               
remain, where  the charge is  based on access lines  for wireline                                                               
telephones."    He  noted  that   many  addresses  have  numerous                                                               
wireline  telephones, and  the borough's  costs for  maintaining,                                                               
for  example, ALI  [automatic  location identification]  database                                                               
information are not reduced by  virtue of telephones' sharing the                                                               
same billing address.  He continued as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     By only authorizing one  surcharge per billing address,                                                                    
     the state is requiring  those people with one telephone                                                                    
     line to  subsidize those with  more than  one telephone                                                                    
     line to their billing address.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIBBS added  that imposing  a surcharge  based upon  billing                                                               
address is (indisc.) national practice.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  said,  "Basically,  ... this  is  a  motion  to                                                               
rescind  our  action  in  adopting  Amendment  5,  which  deleted                                                               
"address"   and   inserted   "statement".      He   offered   his                                                               
understanding  that  Mr. Gibbs  wants  the  word "address"  added                                                               
back.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS clarified, "Actually, we  would encourage the charge to                                                               
be based  on access line, which  is the language of  the original                                                               
bill version."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH observed  that Mr.  Gibbs was  referring to  the                                                               
language  on page  4,  lines  28-29, which  read:    "on a  local                                                               
exchange   billing  address   [ACCESS   LINE]   for  a   wireline                                                           
telephone."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1681                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG  said the point of  enhanced 911 is that  the responder                                                               
will  go   to  the  office   from  which  the   call  originates.                                                               
Therefore, it is  fairer for people in a  residence with multiple                                                               
lines to  only pay one  surcharge.  He  said it was  a compromise                                                               
worked out  with AML;  the intent  was not  to have  those people                                                               
charged for their modem and facsimile lines, for example.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1745                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   SEATON,   regarding   the   previously   adopted                                                               
Amendment 5, directed attention to  page 4, line 5, and suggested                                                               
that Amendment  5 be made  conceptual, to cover any  other places                                                               
in the bill where "billing address" should go.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH stated,  "So noted  for the  record, to  make it                                                               
consistent; I'll just write that on the amendment."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1766                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RUDIG,  in  response  to   a  question  from  Representative                                                               
Berkowitz, offered his understanding that  an access line is "any                                                               
line you can dial 911 from."   He noted that the definition could                                                               
be found in AS 29.135.137.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1824                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ sought clarification as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     I'm  sort of  seeing  three schemes  that are  emerging                                                                    
     here, and this is why I  wish this was over in the RCA.                                                                    
     Access lines -  pretty much every phone  gets a charge.                                                                    
     Statement means if you bundle  it, that could be like a                                                                    
     big bundling.   And, I  guess, in between those  two is                                                                    
     per  address.   So,  if you  want to  do  it [so  that]                                                                    
     everybody pays based on their  phone, it's access line.                                                                    
     If you want  to do it ... only per  customer, you would                                                                    
     do it  [by] statement, because whether  [or not] you're                                                                    
     ... the biggest  company in the world, you  can get one                                                                    
     statement.    And  if  you  want  to  do  something  in                                                                    
     between, you'd do address.  Is that right?                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RUDIG offered  his  belief  that it  is  the  intent of  the                                                               
sponsor that  each residential member  who has multiple  lines in                                                               
his/her home  pays one enhanced  911 surcharge.  A  business with                                                               
multiple lines would pay a surcharge on each line.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM added, "That's correct - up to 100."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  clarified   that  the  distinction  is                                                               
between residential and commercial,  but he said commercial could                                                               
still be on an access line basis.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG said he believes that's correct.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that  the discussion is in regard                                                               
to phone  lines, not phones themselves.   He said, "You  may have                                                               
10 phones in  your house ... accessing one line,  or you may have                                                               
three lines."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1896                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIBBS proffered  that the  borough  also pays  a charge  per                                                               
access   line   for   maintaining   the   database   information.                                                               
Presently, that charge is approximately  18 cents per line, which                                                               
comes off the  top of the 75-cent surcharge per  access line.  He                                                               
said the expectation  is that charge will rise  as new [automatic                                                               
location  identification (ALI)]  database maintenance  agreements                                                               
are made.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GIBBS  stated a  concern  regarding  billing statements  for                                                               
which  the  revenues  may be  improperly  distributed  among  the                                                               
municipalities.   For  example, in  the Kenai  Peninsula Borough,                                                               
many  residents   from  outside  of   the  cities  -   but  still                                                               
technically  in the  borough  -  use a  billing  address at  post                                                               
office boxes  inside the  city.  Mr.  Gibbs suggested  that there                                                               
may have to be a better  mechanism for distributing the costs and                                                               
collecting the revenue associated with delivering the services.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1939                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH asked  if there  is  any distinction  made if  a                                                               
business is operated out of a home.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RUDIG said  he  doesn't know.   He  surmised  that it  would                                                               
depend  upon   the  local   exchange  companies,   because  those                                                               
companies  have different  rates for  residential and  commercial                                                               
[lines].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1974                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GIBBS said:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Remember   that   telephone  companies   only   provide                                                                    
     telecommunications;  they  don't   inquire  as  to  the                                                                    
     purpose of  the occupancy.   Our jurisdiction  would be                                                                    
     severely  challenged, in  terms  of  resources, to  ...                                                                    
     compare  telephone  subscriber  records  with  business                                                                    
     licenses or building permits, to  determine the type of                                                                    
     occupancy.   So, we  would have  no way  of determining                                                                    
     whether  it's a  residential line  or business  located                                                                    
     within a residence.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG related that he  has been told that telephone companies                                                               
can make that distinction.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2018                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
STEVE  THOMPSON, Mayor,  City of  Fairbanks, emphasized  that the                                                               
city supports  HB 461,  Version Z, and  the amendments  that were                                                               
just adopted.   He said, "We  think this is really  going to help                                                               
pay for that  emergency dispatch and phone-taking  services."  He                                                               
noted that Version  Z would replace language,  which would result                                                               
in the  city being  able to  enhance its 911  system and  pay for                                                               
that service.   He added  that he  thinks it's important  for and                                                               
will help the  entire state.  He thanked  Representative Holm and                                                               
Mr. Rudig for their efforts in introducing HB 461.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2061                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JIM  HARPRING, Member,  National Emergency  Numbering Association                                                               
(NENA), directed  the committee's  attention to  page 4,  line 7.                                                               
He   mentioned  the   difference   between  residential   billing                                                               
addresses versus  large, industrial  areas, in terms  of revenue.                                                               
He  offered  an  example  of  a hospital  where  there  would  be                                                               
multiple lines, but  only one billing address.   He observed that                                                               
that  concept doesn't  "appear to  be  any place  in the  current                                                               
[bill version]."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG  stated that it would  be the purview of  the committee                                                               
whether to [allow] more municipal control regarding exemptions.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2156                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager,  Municipality of Anchorage, told                                                               
the  committee that  he  manages  the upgraded  911  system.   He                                                               
stated  his support  of HB  461, because  he said  it would  show                                                               
significant  improvements  for  911   programs,  statewide.    He                                                               
offered to answer questions.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2188                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GAIL VOIGTLANDER,  Chief Assistant  Attorney General  - Statewide                                                               
Section  Supervisor,  Torts  and Worker's  Compensation  Section,                                                               
Civil Division (Anchorage),  Department of Law, stated  that if a                                                               
definitional section  is added  for emergency  services dispatch,                                                               
it needs to  be consistent and have language that  ties it to the                                                               
service, rather than who provides that service.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER directed attention to  page 2, lines 16-22, [text                                                               
provided  previously],  and  said  that  she  supports  having  a                                                               
definition that "cross-references  whatever definition is adopted                                                               
for Title 29."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked  Ms. Voigtlander to look at  the bill again                                                               
when "the next  committee substitute of this bill  comes out," to                                                               
ensure that it addresses those issues.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2283                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  R. JACKSON  JR., Attorney  at Law,  General Communications                                                               
Incorporated  (GCI), stated  that GCI  supports a  bill that  can                                                               
help with  the provision  of E-911 service.   He  noted, however,                                                               
that there are  issues in [Version Z] that need  to be addressed.                                                               
First, he  emphasized that  it's important  that the  bill ensure                                                               
equal charges between wireless and  wireline phones.  The current                                                               
proposed  language, he  noted, says  that the  municipality "may"                                                               
impose  a  charge.   He  explained  that  since the  language  is                                                               
permissive, a municipality could  choose to charge only wireline,                                                               
and not wireless,  or vice versa.  He suggested  that language be                                                               
added  to require  that a  municipality that  elects to  impose a                                                               
charge must impose the same  charge on both wireless and wireline                                                               
phones.   In  response to  a  question from  Chair Weyhrauch,  he                                                               
offered his belief  that that language could be  added to Section                                                               
4.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2350                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RUDIG  responded  that  it  would  be  the  purview  of  the                                                               
committee to make that decision.   He added, "We may want to stay                                                               
back to  local control and  lobby that at the  municipality level                                                               
when they make the decision to impose a surcharge on both."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  JACKSON,  returning  to  his  testimony,  stated,  "We  are,                                                               
frankly,  quite  bothered  by  the  fact that  there  is  no  cap                                                               
whatsoever on the charge, at this point."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-74, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2368                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  JACKSON mentioned  the possibility  that some  jurisdictions                                                               
may try to impose charges of over  $6 per line.  He surmised that                                                               
that's  what would  be  needed  in Kodiak  and  perhaps Kenai  to                                                               
recover  all the  costs, "even  if  today they  don't think  they                                                               
would go  that high."   He  indicated that  charges that  go that                                                               
high would create a substantial  issue in imposing "this level of                                                               
cost on telephone service."   He posed:  "I guess  we have to, to                                                               
some  extent, question  the  underlying premise  that  this is  a                                                               
charge which  is appropriate to  collect entirely  from telephone                                                               
users."  He  said it's not that the telephone  system is imposing                                                               
these costs  on society.   In some  ways, he explained,  it's the                                                               
opposite of that; the telephone  system enables a valuable public                                                               
safety service to be provided.  He continued as follows:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Certainly, some of the costs  are related to a per line                                                                    
     basis.   And I think  Mr. Gibbs, from  Kenai, mentioned                                                                    
     that they pay 18 cents  per access line to maintain the                                                                    
     database.   So,  certainly, there  are some  costs that                                                                    
     are still on  a per access line basis, but  at the same                                                                    
     time,  in  large  part,  this  isn't  just  simply  [a]                                                                    
     valuable safety  service, which our society  has deemed                                                                    
     desirable, that should be paid  for through general tax                                                                    
     revenue.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     So,  we believe  that a  cap  should be  imposed.   The                                                                    
     amount   of   money   that  can   be   collected   from                                                                    
     approximately   ...  600,000   wireline  and   wireless                                                                    
     telephones  across  the  state   --  you  really  start                                                                    
     talking about  normal sums of money,  if you're talking                                                                    
     about charges  that start being  [$3-$5].  We  have, in                                                                    
     the past, supported the versions  of the bill that have                                                                    
     had caps of $1.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     As to the cap,  we do think it's a good  idea to have a                                                                    
     limit on  the number  of charges that  apply to  a user                                                                    
     that has  more than  100 access  lines, such  as exists                                                                    
     ...  under present  law.   It would  be, for  instance,                                                                    
     hospitals and  that type [of] thing  that was mentioned                                                                    
     previously.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. JACKSON,  regarding the  previous question  regarding whether                                                               
or not telephone [companies]  distinguish between residential and                                                               
business  users,  stated,  "It's  certain that  we  do  try  to."                                                               
People who run  businesses from home should be  paying a business                                                               
rate.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2253                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG mentioned  the "magic number" and trying  to figure out                                                               
what it  is.   He indicated that  the emergency  dispatch service                                                               
surcharge  system and  related costs  could change  from year  to                                                               
year and the legislature should revisit the issue each year.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2210                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  stated that one  of the problems  to rectify                                                               
through the  bill is  that the  control is  not at  the municipal                                                               
level,  because that  makes it  difficult  for municipalities  to                                                               
function.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  asked Mr. Jackson  to "provide language"  to the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2142                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOHN FULLENWIDER,  Fire Chief, Municipality of  Anchorage, stated                                                               
that  when people  in Anchorage  call 911,  they expect  that the                                                               
call  will  be  answered  and  the services  they  need  will  be                                                               
provided right away.   He stated, "This bill goes  a long ways in                                                               
allowing us to do just that.   In its current form, it will allow                                                               
local  government   to  place  the   expense  of   operation  and                                                               
maintenance squarely  where it belongs,  and that is,  of course,                                                               
on the  user."  He  said Representative  Holm and Mr.  Rudig have                                                               
done an excellent job with HB 461.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. FULLENWIDER noted that there  still is an issue regarding the                                                               
PBX system.   He added,  "However, I believe that  yesterday that                                                               
was covered, using the capitol as  an example."  He noted another                                                               
issue in regard  to telephone companies and  adding surcharges to                                                               
the  bill.   He  said,  "No  doubt  they  receive a  little  heat                                                               
concerning  these  charges,  but  this bill,  by  allowing  local                                                               
government to  set the surcharge,  should alleviate some  of that                                                               
concern."  Mr.  Fullenwider encouraged the committee  to move [HB
461] out of committee.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2083                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARK MEW,  President, Alaska  Chapter, National  Emergency Number                                                               
Association (NENA), regarding a  previously stated concern of Mr.                                                               
Gibbs over whether  or not 911 surcharge money could  be used for                                                               
a CAD [computer aided dispatch]  system, suggested looking at the                                                               
definition  of the  911  system  in existing  statute.   He  said                                                               
permissible costs are listed there.  He continued as follows:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     We changed  that in the statute  - I'm going to  say it                                                                    
     was  in '99  or 2000,  at the  same time  we added  the                                                                    
     wireless surcharge  for the first  time -  and expanded                                                                    
     what   was  in   the  definition   of  a   911  system,                                                                    
     specifically to  cover CAD systems.   At that  point in                                                                    
     time, we  weren't conceiving  of separate  dispatch and                                                                    
     911 centers,  necessarily, but that was  our thought at                                                                    
     the  time,  and  it  may be  that  that  definition  is                                                                    
     already  there   and  in  place  to   allow  for  those                                                                    
     expenses.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. MEW said  he's heard a lot of discussion  during the previous                                                               
testimony regarding whether billing should  be based upon a phone                                                               
bill, an  address, the  telephone itself,  or the  local exchange                                                               
access line.   He said  he thinks  there is some  confusion about                                                               
definitions, and he suggested that "we"  may be trying to solve a                                                               
nonexistent problem.  He noted  that NENA, on the national level,                                                               
has set  standards.  He revealed  that an access line  is not the                                                               
same as  "a telephone set  at the end."   He explained,  "You can                                                               
have a  few access  lines and a  lot of sets."   He  continued as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     The  national standards  are to  base  your billing  on                                                                    
     access lines  for the purpose  of landline  - wireline,                                                                    
     and  on   telephone  numbers,  for  [the]   purpose  of                                                                    
     wireless.   And  I think  we're not  the first  ones to                                                                    
     have  this debate,  and I  think I'd  encourage you  to                                                                    
     consider the  national standards; they're  well thought                                                                    
     out,  well  published,  and everyone  understands  them                                                                    
     around the country.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1936                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     When NENA  started working on legislation  about a year                                                                    
     ago,  we held  our  first meetings  with  the House  in                                                                    
     October, before the  session started - that  was with a                                                                    
     different committee.   But over the course  of the last                                                                    
     few  months, NENA  has identified  nine  items that  we                                                                    
     believe need addressing in our  statutes.  We filed our                                                                    
     version of  the bill -  that was  [HB] 499 -  and later                                                                    
     tried to get  [HB] 499 and [HB] 461 merged.   I commend                                                                    
     everybody's  work  on  this.   A  lot  of  things  have                                                                    
     happened in  the last  24 hours; a  lot of  concerns we                                                                    
     had yesterday  have been addressed,  and I do  hope the                                                                    
     bill moves in some form today.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     I would  like to  point out, though,  that of  the nine                                                                    
     things  that NENA  has tried  to accomplish,  this bill                                                                    
     takes up  three of  them head on  and deals  with them.                                                                    
     The other  ... five ...  this bill doesn't  conceive of                                                                    
     at all, and it seems to  be missing around the edges on                                                                    
     the  local exchange  access line  issue.   I think  the                                                                    
     state  needs to  deal with  the additional  issues.   I                                                                    
     don't know  if we'll get it  done in the Senate,  or if                                                                    
     we'll  have to  do it  next year,  but remaining  to be                                                                    
     accomplished [is]  dealing with the issue  of phase two                                                                    
     cost recovery.  That's mostly,  I think, going to be an                                                                    
     industry issue, and  if we don't deal with  it, I think                                                                    
     there'll be quite  a bit of friction and  a few battles                                                                    
     in the future.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1900                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MEW mentioned  "prepaid wireless."    He noted  that he  had                                                               
heard  today  that  wireless  resellers is  being  added  to  the                                                               
language of  Version Z.   He said he  doesn't know if  that would                                                               
cover  prepaid wireless,  or  not.   He added  that  it seems  it                                                               
would, but  he doesn't  know if there  is a  collection mechanism                                                               
there.  He  said the issue of statewide point  of contact has not                                                               
been addressed.   If it is  not addressed, the state  will not be                                                               
eligible  for   significant  federal   funding,  which   will  be                                                               
available soon.   He indicated  that the issue  of unincorporated                                                               
boroughs has been addressed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MEW said  the  last item  he would  address  is the  private                                                               
switch ALI.  He continued as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Mr. Fullenwider ... used the  capitol example.  I think                                                                    
     the situation is  worse than that.  I've been  told - I                                                                    
     can't confirm  it -  that you could  work on  the North                                                                    
     Slope,  call 911,  pass out,  and the  Anchorage Police                                                                    
     Department would get the call  and ... would send first                                                                    
     responders  to  Alyeska  [Pipeline  Service  Company's]                                                                    
     offices ...  in Anchorage.   What we would like  is the                                                                    
     ability  of local  jurisdictions  to be  able to  enact                                                                    
     legislation,  so  that  we can  correct  those  issues.                                                                    
     Right now,  the situation  is you  could spend  all the                                                                    
     money you wanted on building  a functioning 911 system,                                                                    
     and other people could  buy services that, essentially,                                                                    
     would negate what you've done.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. MEW  said the  aforementioned issues are  ones that  he hopes                                                               
[the  legislature] will  address in  the future,  and he  said he                                                               
hopes that "the bill moves forward in some form today."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1845                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ALLEN  STOREY, Lieutenant,  Central  Office,  Division of  Alaska                                                               
State  Troopers, Department  of  Public  Safety (DPS),  expressed                                                               
excitement about the  provisions of Section 1, on  page 2, [lines                                                               
16-20],  because  the  addition  of that  language  will  provide                                                               
"protection  to   the  state   that  ...   will  be   enjoyed  by                                                               
municipalities."  He indicated that  these are functions that the                                                               
state  already  performs.    In   response  to  a  question  from                                                               
Representative Holm, he  confirmed that the bill,  in its current                                                               
form, would have a zero fiscal note.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1806                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced  that public testimony was  closed.  He                                                               
mentioned a letter of intent.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1794                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred  to the second line  in the letter                                                               
of  intent and  asked, "Are  we talking  about [the]  Division of                                                               
Homeland  Security,   within  the  Department  of   Military  and                                                               
Veterans' Affairs?"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH   suggested  that  "the  Division   of  Homeland                                                               
Security"  could be  left  out,  in order  to  keep the  language                                                               
generic.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. RUDIG said that would be fine.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that  "we simply say,  'It is                                                               
the   intent  of   the  legislature   that  the   Coordinator  be                                                               
established to coordinate'."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added, "to coordinate and facilitate".                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1682                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  clarified that  the amendment  to the  letter of                                                               
intent would read as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
      It is the intent of the legislature that a state 911                                                                      
     Coordinator be established to coordinate.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  asked  if  there   was  any  objection  to  the                                                               
amendment to the  letter of intent.  There being  none, it was so                                                               
ordered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1660                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  removed  his  previously  stated  objection  to                                                               
Version Z.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1649                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  moved to  report  CSHB  461, Version  23-                                                               
LS1633\Z,  Cook,  4/28/04, as  amended,  out  of committee,  with                                                               
individual  recommendations,   attached  fiscal  note,   and  the                                                               
[amended]  letter of  intent.   There  being  no objection,  CSHB
461(STA) was  reported out  of the  House State  Affairs Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 536-PFUND APPLICATION DEADLINES  FOR MILITARY                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1628                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that  the next  order of  business was                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  536,  "An  Act  relating  to  applications  for                                                               
permanent fund  dividends by certain  individuals serving  in the                                                               
armed forces; and providing for an effective date."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[Before the committee was CSHB 536(MLV).]                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1588                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JON  BITTNER,  Staff  to Representative  Cheryll  Heinze,  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature,  presented HB 536 on  behalf of Representative                                                               
Heinze, sponsor.   He stated that HB 536 was  drafted in response                                                               
to several calls received by  Representative Heinze from those in                                                               
the  armed services  serving in  Iraq and  Afghanistan, who  were                                                               
either  shipping  out  or  oversees  in a  war  zone  during  the                                                               
application period  for the Alaska permanent  fund divided (PFD).                                                               
The  proposed  legislation  would   allow  an  extension  of  the                                                               
application period for members of  the armed services who receive                                                               
"hostile fire imminent  danger pay."  The bill  would allow those                                                               
people  90  days,  after  getting out  of  that  situation  where                                                               
communications are inaccessible,  to apply.  If  passed, the bill                                                               
would take effect 90 days  after passage and would be retroactive                                                               
to 2003.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1525                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH questioned the retroactivity date.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BITTNER   said  the   sponsor  wants   the  bill   to  apply                                                               
specifically to  members of the  armed services who  "are serving                                                               
in the  last Iraqi  war and  in Afghanistan."   In response  to a                                                               
question from Representative  Lynn, he said the  bill would still                                                               
apply in the future.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1476                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CHERYLL  HEINZE,  Alaska  State  Legislature,  as                                                               
sponsor of HB  536, explained that the first group  of marines to                                                               
Baghdad did not receive their PFDs.  She offered an example.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1431                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  moved to adopt  Amendment 1, [to add  a] Section                                                               
4, which  would provide  that "this Act  sunsets on  December 31,                                                               
2004".                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1427                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.  He  stated, "This is going to                                                               
go  into   permanent  law  and,  unfortunately,   ...  countries,                                                               
including this  country, seem  to find  themselves in  harm's way                                                               
from time to  time - not just  this year."  He  said young people                                                               
have  no choice  about going  [to  war] and  should "receive  the                                                               
protection of this law."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred with Representative Gruenberg.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1383                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON   expressed  concern   regarding  allowing                                                               
people to  apply for  PFDs retroactively and  said he  thinks the                                                               
Permanent Fund Dividend Division should be consulted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  stated a  point of order;  he suggested                                                               
Representative Seaton's concerns were  not expressly to the point                                                               
of the amendment.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1341                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG withdrew  [his  objection to  Amendment                                                               
1].                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1304                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  Representative  Heinze  if  she                                                               
supports Amendment 1.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE indicated that she  can see both sides, and                                                               
suggested  that Ms.  Barton,  Permanent  Fund Dividend  Division,                                                               
could address the question.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  explained that  he had  proposed Amendment  1 to                                                               
correlate with the previously stated  intent of the bill to cover                                                               
those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE  reiterated  that the  language  could  go                                                               
either way.   She stated that  she believes in the  men and women                                                               
who fight  [for the  United States],  and [without  Amendment 1],                                                               
the bill would cover those serving in future wars.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that  this is an important issue.                                                               
He explained,  "Because if  you're only  going to  do it  for two                                                               
years, this should go in a temporary Act."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his  understanding that the sponsor                                                               
had  indicated that  "they've  cleared this  situation  up so  it                                                               
won't be happening in the future."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  said there  is hope  that it  won't happen                                                               
again, but it could.  She  noted that Ms. Barton had talked about                                                               
spending some money to get the  message to these folks that "this                                                               
is out there."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1212                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he  feels  strongly  about  this                                                               
issue.   He  explained, "I'm  not a  great fan  of expanding  the                                                               
permanent fund [dividend] to everybody,  but these are people who                                                               
need it."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  asked Representative  Heinze if  "individuals in                                                               
this situation" couldn't get power of attorney.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE answered that they could.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1171                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  offered  his  understanding  that  it  is                                                               
possible to  apply for  a PFD online.   He asked  if part  of the                                                               
problem that Representative  Heinze is addressing had  to do with                                                               
delayed mail.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE  responded,  "That is  exactly  the  first                                                               
thing that we looked  at, is ... if this is  online, why was this                                                               
young marine not able [to get  his PFD]."  That marine had access                                                               
to nothing, not even a place to sleep.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1118                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SHARON BARTON, Director, Central  Office, Permanent Fund Dividend                                                               
Division,  Department of  Revenue, in  response to  the issue  of                                                               
whether or  not to  have a  sunset clause,  said it  would appear                                                               
that [the United States] is  involved in "short-term events" with                                                               
the  military,  but  it  would  be  a  policy  decision  for  the                                                               
committee to make.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he  has  been  in  war,  and  he                                                               
emphasized that  those in war do  not know where they  will be at                                                               
any  given time.   He  opined  that [the  legislature] should  be                                                               
going out of its way to help [those in the service].                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1060                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives Holm,  Seaton, and                                                               
Weyhrauch  voted  in  favor  of  Amendment  1.    Representatives                                                               
Gruenberg, and  Lynn voted  against it.   Therefore,  Amendment 1                                                               
was adopted by a vote of 3-2.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1014                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  moved to report  CSHB 536(MLV),  as amended,                                                               
out  of  committee,  [with  individual  recommendations  and  the                                                               
attached fiscal notes].                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  asked if there  could be  reconsideration of                                                               
the previously recorded roll call vote.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  the current  motion  before  the                                                               
committee would first have to be withdrawn.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked  Representative Holm what he  would like to                                                               
do.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he was maintaining his motion.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked  if there was any objection  to moving CSHB
536(MLV),  as   amended,  out  of  committee,   [with  individual                                                               
recommendations  and the  attached  fiscal notes].   There  being                                                               
none, CSHB 536(STA)  was reported out of the  House State Affairs                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB 557-LOBBYIST PROHIBITIONS                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0930                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that  the next  order of  business was                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 557, "An Act regarding lobbyist prohibitions."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated, "We have CS  for HB 557, Version U.  This                                                               
is a work draft."  [No motion was  made at this time to adopt the                                                               
committee  substitute  (CS)  for  HB  557,  Version  23-LS1921\U,                                                               
Craver, 4/26/04, as a work draft].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0920                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CHERYLL  HEINZE,  Alaska  State  Legislature,  as                                                               
sponsor of  HB 557,  stated that the  bill would  protect people,                                                               
legislators,  and  legislative  employees  from  threats  and  or                                                               
bullying,  in relation  to their  testimony  before a  committee.                                                               
She  said  99  percent  of lobbyists  are  sophisticated  people;                                                               
people who are welcome into  her office and whose perspective and                                                               
knowledge  she values.    She indicated  that it  is  only a  few                                                               
lobbyists who push the envelope on their code of ethics.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE said  she had  looked into  the lobbyists'                                                               
code of  ethics and  found "it was  virtually nonexistent."   She                                                               
noted that in working with  [the Alaska Public Offices Commission                                                               
(APOC)], she  has diligently  tried to keep  the language  of the                                                               
bill specific and  "very narrow."  She emphasized  that she views                                                               
lobbyists as a  valuable part of the [legislative]  process.  She                                                               
also  emphasized   that  "it   is  the   process  that   we  must                                                               
collectively  protect."   Representative  Heinze,  [in regard  to                                                               
bullying],  stated  that  intimidation and  fear  of  retribution                                                               
works.   She  said she  strongly  believes that  there should  be                                                               
freedom  of speech  without  retribution;  legislators should  be                                                               
able to introduce bills and  follow them through, without fear of                                                               
retribution.     Furthermore,  she  said  that   any  person  who                                                               
testifies  before a  committee or  via  teleconference should  be                                                               
allowed  to do  so, without  fear  of retribution.   She  stated,                                                               
"Just  as there  is sanctity  in the  court room,  there must  be                                                               
sanctity  in the  legislative process."   She  said it  is up  to                                                               
legislators   [to  protect   that  sanctity].     She   said  the                                                               
legislative code of ethics was used  as a guide, as well as "some                                                               
language of some of the other states."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0700                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HAROLD  HEINZE,  testifying  on   behalf  of  himself,  told  the                                                               
committee that he  is a 30-year resident of Alaska.   He revealed                                                               
that   he  has   testified  before   municipal  assemblies,   the                                                               
legislature, and the  U.S. Congress.  He  mentioned an Associated                                                               
Press  (AP)   article  carried  by  the   Anchorage  Daily  News,                                                             
regarding  [HB  557].   He  said  he  was  surprised not  to  see                                                               
reflected in that  article, any outrage by legislators.   He said                                                               
it seems to him that this issue  goes far beyond free speech.  He                                                               
stated,  "When  I  read  this  article, I  sort  of  felt  I  was                                                               
[hearing] a  judge in a  courtroom saying,  'Well, it was  only a                                                               
little bit of  jury tampering - nothing really  to worry about.'"                                                               
He indicated  that it's  hard enough for  most folks  to testify,                                                               
without having  any feeling that  something could happen  to them                                                               
for  expressing their  thoughts to  the legislature.   He  stated                                                               
that he's not certain that the  bill goes far enough, in terms of                                                               
penalties.   He rated this issue  on par with the  seriousness of                                                               
jury tampering  in a  courtroom.  He  concluded, "I  think that's                                                               
the way  you should  look at  the process here  and how  it would                                                               
impact  the  people  that  are  before  you."    He  thanked  the                                                               
committee for the opportunity to present his views openly.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  said some  legislators don't  call the  press to                                                               
comment, so, the fact that  there was no outrage from legislators                                                               
is not  that surprising.   He  also noted that  no one  [from the                                                               
press] called  him.  Notwithstanding  that, he said, "I  think we                                                               
share your concern."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0460                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAMMY  KEMPTON, Regulation  of  Lobbying,  Alaska Public  Offices                                                               
Commission  (APOC), Department  of  Administration, stated  that,                                                               
currently, the  commission does  not have a  position on  HB 557,                                                               
and it has submitted  a zero fiscal note.  She  said there may be                                                               
a fiscal impact on the commission  as a result of "this amendment                                                               
to the  lobbying law";  however, it would  be impossible  at this                                                               
point to quantify what that impact  might be.  She explained that                                                               
if there are  dozens of complaints filed, there will  be a strong                                                               
fiscal impact.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON continued,  by reading  from  her written  testimony                                                               
[included in the committee packet], as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     The fiscal note we submitted  was based on the original                                                                    
     version  of HB  557, not  on the  committee substitute.                                                                    
     The original  version did  not include  civil penalties                                                                    
     for violations of Section 121  and current law does not                                                                    
     provide civil penalties for such  violations.  The only                                                                    
     penalties  currently   are  criminal.     Thus,   if  a                                                                    
     violation did  occur, the commission would  be required                                                                    
     to conduct  a full investigation, hold  a hearing, make                                                                    
     a determination,  and then, if  a violation  was found,                                                                    
     report  the violation  to the  Department  of Law,  who                                                                    
     then  would  make a  determination  whether  or not  to                                                                    
     proceed.    This  is  a  time-consuming  and  expensive                                                                    
     process.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The   committee   substitute   gives   the   commission                                                                    
     authority to impose civil  penalties against a lobbyist                                                                    
     who violates any of the  provisions of AS 24.45.121 and                                                                    
     this is  a very positive  change.  The  commission will                                                                    
     be  able   to  conduct  an  investigation   and,  if  a                                                                    
     violation is  found, they would suspend  the violator's                                                                    
     lobbyist registration and/or impose  a fine of not more                                                                    
     than $5,000.   The  ability to  impose a  civil penalty                                                                    
     will enable  the commission to  stop the  behavior more                                                                    
     quickly  and with  less cost  than imposing  a criminal                                                                    
     penalty.     And  the  criminal  penalties   are  still                                                                    
     available for the most egregious cases.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     We  do, however,  have a  concern with  this bill,  and                                                                    
     that is that  it's not going to  accomplish its intent.                                                                    
     Because  of the  change  to the  lobbying statute  last                                                                    
     year, an employee lobbyist is  not required to register                                                                    
     until he  or she has lobbied  for 40 hours in  a 30-day                                                                    
     period.    So, an  employee  lobbying  for his  or  her                                                                    
     employer,  who engages  in this  type  of behavior,  or                                                                    
     thinks they might,  will simply not register.   And the                                                                    
     commission  has no  authority  over employee  lobbyists                                                                    
     who  have   not  yet   triggered  the   requirement  to                                                                    
     register.      This    legislation   will   prevent   a                                                                    
     professional lobbyist  from engaging in  such behavior.                                                                    
     Presently,  we have  60 professional  lobbyists and  66                                                                    
     employee  lobbyists [registered].   Last  year at  this                                                                    
     time  ...  we had  72  professional  lobbyists and  114                                                                    
     employee lobbyists.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON offered to answer questions from the committee.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0204                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, [beginning                                                                  
on] line 8 [of Version U], which read as follows:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                    (i) will take or withhold or will cause                                                                 
     another  person  to  take or  withhold  a  legislative,                                                                
     administrative, or political  action, including support                                                                
     for or  opposition to a bill,  employment, nominations,                                                                
     or appointments;  in this  sub-subparagraph, "political                                                                
     action" has the meaning given in AS 24.60.990; or                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in regard to this language, asked if not                                                                 
supporting a person in an election would be a criminal offense.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON said  she has not read Version U  and is not familiar                                                               
with the term  "political action" and how it  is defined, because                                                           
the  definition  is  in  the legislative  ethics  code,  not  the                                                               
lobbyists' code.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated for the record that the committee is                                                                     
"speaking to" Version U.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0085                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  noted that the definition  is [within] AS                                                               
24.60.990, and read as follows:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          (13) "political action" means conduct in which                                                                        
     public officials, including  legislators or legislative                                                                    
     employees,  use their  official  position or  political                                                                    
     contacts  to  exercise  influence on  state  and  local                                                                    
     government employees  or entities;  it includes  but is                                                                    
     not  limited  to  endorsing  and  pledging  support  or                                                                    
     actively  supporting a  legislative matter,  a nominee,                                                                    
     or a candidate for public office;                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  said,  "I  wonder  how  you  would  hold                                                               
somebody  accountable for  that  as a  lobbyist,  under this  ...                                                               
rule."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  said political action is  what takes place                                                               
in the legislature.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-75, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned  again whether political support                                                               
would be a violation.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0039                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON  responded,  "Lobbyists aren't  allowed  to  support                                                               
candidates,  in  terms  of giving  political  contributions,  and                                                               
they're  not allowed  to fundraise  or serve  on their  campaign.                                                               
And they  can only give  contribution to those candidates  ... in                                                               
the district in which they're eligible to vote."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  noted that  what [lobbyists] can  do is  talk to                                                               
political   action  committees,   groups,   or  individuals   and                                                               
encourage  support  and  contributions   to  one  candidate  over                                                               
another.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0094                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  remarked that  she has  tried to  keep the                                                               
bill  narrow,  so  that  it  only  applies  to  "testimony  in  a                                                               
committee."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0132                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said,  "If  there was  an implication  on                                                               
record, that  it might involve  some political action,  then they                                                               
would be in violation."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH said,  "You could  imply a  political threat  to                                                               
oppose one  bill, in exchange  for a  vote for another,  and that                                                               
happens a lot."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0182                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL responded,  "Your  example  is good,  and                                                               
especially  if they  are substantive  issues that  have political                                                               
ramifications that would be legitimate  for a lobbyist to comment                                                               
on."                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0194                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JON  BITTNER,  Staff  to Representative  Cheryll  Heinze,  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, sponsor, clarified  that the provisions of the                                                               
bill would  only kick in  if a threat  was used to  influence the                                                               
way someone testifies or whether or not he/she testifies.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  indicated that  "hidden in  the language"                                                               
is the problem that would  exist in substantiating such a threat.                                                               
He indicated  that APOC would have  to be involved and  it may be                                                               
one person's word against the other's.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BITTNER offered his understanding  that a civil hearing would                                                               
be held.   He said the burden  of proof would not be  as heavy as                                                               
it  is  in  criminal  law,  although it  would  still  be  fairly                                                               
substantial.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0331                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON asked  [about  a situation  in which]  the                                                               
bullying  or  intimidation wasn't  "solely  in  the mind  of  the                                                               
person that's being intimidated or bullied."                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BITTNER said  that although  he  agrees with  Representative                                                               
Seaton,  the sponsor  felt  that  "by tying  it  to  the way  you                                                               
testify before a committee ... would  make it a little more clear                                                               
- a  little more substantial."   He  added, "You can  be bullied,                                                               
but it  would be  difficult to  think you  were being  bullied to                                                               
change your testimony, without some sort of proof."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  said he  doesn't  see  the narrowness  of                                                               
"this."   He directed attention  to [page 3], lines  14-16, which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
               (B) bully or intimidate with the intent of                                                                   
     influencing  a  legislator,  legislative  employee,  or                                                                
     member of the public in  regard to taking a position on                                                                
     an issue, voting, testifying, or lobbying.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said,  "This is not narrow  on testimony to                                                               
a committee.   I mean, this is  any time that they  were going to                                                               
...  talk  to a  legislator,  and  you  don't  want them  to  say                                                               
something on that.   And if they felt intimidated,  that would be                                                               
a charge  to this ethics violation,  as I see it."   He suggested                                                               
asking for APOC's opinion.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0452                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how he  would defend himself if he were                                                               
a lobbyist who was accused.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0482                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA  LaBOLLE,  President,  Alaska State  Chamber  of  Commerce                                                               
(ASCC),  indicated  that the  language  is  so  broad that  if  a                                                               
lobbyist were  to state his/her disagreement  with something, for                                                               
example, he/she  may be open to  civil fine and lose  the ability                                                               
to lobby.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  asked, "Have  you  ever  appeared before  a                                                               
committee and have a legislator do a variety of bullying you?"                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. LaBOLLE answered  yes.  She noted that  in the aforementioned                                                               
article, she did  say that legislators have a  greater ability to                                                               
bully lobbyists than lobbyists do legislators.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated  that the aforementioned language                                                               
on  page 3,  lines 14-16,  would include  lobbyists arguing  with                                                               
lobbyists.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE said  there are  bullies in  school yards,                                                               
but  they  are not  allowed  to  continue  their bullying.    She                                                               
remarked that some  of those bullies grow up to  bully as adults.                                                               
She said  she wants  "those sideboards,"  and indicated  that she                                                               
wants  committee input  and also  to see  the bill  moved out  of                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH stated  that he  had  made a  commitment to  Ms.                                                               
LaBolle to hear HB 557 and to "ask  if there was a motion to move                                                               
this bill today."  He told  Representative Heinze that it was her                                                               
call whether she wanted  him to ask for a motion,  or to hold the                                                               
bill for further study.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0754                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he  is not prepared to vote to                                                               
move the bill today.   He said he appreciates what Representative                                                               
Heinze is trying  to do; however, he stated that  if a person has                                                               
a serious disagreement  with somebody, one person  may think they                                                               
are being  intimidated.  He  said he  doesn't know "how  we could                                                               
get down  to proving that, even  when it's in testimony  before a                                                               
committee."   He revealed that  he has had some  heated exchanges                                                               
with  people during  testimony,  because "we  got  caught in  the                                                               
moment of  a discussion."  He  admitted he has even  gotten angry                                                               
with people who have not liked his position.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative  Heinze again whether or not                                                               
she wanted the committee to make a motion to move the bill.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  clarified that the  bill is not  about "he                                                               
said, she said";  there has to be a "mountain  of evidence."  She                                                               
credited APOC as being smart enough  to know that.  She expressed                                                               
her  willingness to  work with  each member  of the  committee to                                                               
tighten up  the language  of the  bill as it  moved to  the House                                                               
floor.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH   reiterated  his  question   to  Representative                                                               
Heinze, and asked if there was a motion to move HB 557.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated his  recommendation to hold the                                                               
bill, because  the issue is  a huge one.   He indicated  that the                                                               
bill needed to be narrowed down.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said, "I can do that."                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0900                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   WEYHRAUCH,  in   response   to  Representative   Coghill,                                                               
clarified  that his  intention had  been  to take  action on  the                                                               
bill, but he wants to leave that decision up to the sponsor.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  reiterated her  idea of working  with each                                                               
of  the  committee members  before  the  bill "hits  the  [House]                                                               
floor."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "That sounds like committee work."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN said  he thinks  the committee  is "nibbling                                                               
around the  edge of a  serious issue,"  and he has  problems with                                                               
the way the bill is currently written.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0068                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated his intention to hear HB 557 again.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[HB 557 was heard and held.]                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 460-ALLOWABLE ABSENCES AND PFDS                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0985                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that  the next  order of  business was                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 460, "An Act  relating to absences to provide care                                                               
for  certain relatives  for purposes  of permanent  fund dividend                                                               
eligibility; and providing for an effective date."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[From this  point forward, the  committee substitute (CS)  for HB
460, Version  23-LS1700\D, Cook,  4/1/04, was treated  as adopted                                                               
and before the committee as a work draft.]                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0999                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
AURORA  HAUKE,  Staff  to Representative  Beth  Kerttula,  Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature,   testifying  on  behalf   of  Representative                                                               
Kerttula,  sponsor, explained  that  the intent  of the  original                                                               
bill was  to allow people to  provide care for critically  ill or                                                               
injured  family  members,  no matter  where  that  family  member                                                               
became ill.   She indicated  that when the sponsor  discussed the                                                               
bill with  the Permanent Fund  Dividend Division, it  was pointed                                                               
out that the language may  imply that [the individual started out                                                               
being ill inside of  the state and then had to  go outside of the                                                               
state for care].                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  HAUKE directed  attention to  page 3,  beginning on  line 9,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
         (d) For purposes of (a)(6) and (7) [(a)(7)] of                                                                     
     this section, "family member" means a person who is                                                                        
             (1) legally related to the individual                                                                              
     through marriage or guardianship; or                                                                                       
         (2)   the   individual's   sibling,   parent,                                                                          
      grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,                                                                      
     uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1115                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, "So, the  intent of this is if there                                                               
is an Alaskan who has  someone who's a non-Alaskan who's injured,                                                               
they  can  leave for  how  long  and  still continue  to  collect                                                               
dividends?"                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  HAUKE offered  her  understanding that  the  length of  time                                                               
would  be the  same  as for  any other  allowable  absence.   She                                                               
guessed five years.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON said,  "So,  it's under  the 10-year  time                                                               
frame, so  it starts in  2008, if  that's the cutoff  that you're                                                               
talking about."   In response  to a question  from Representative                                                               
Gruenberg,  he  clarified  that the  10-year  window  "starts  in                                                               
2008," but is not "from 2008."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1202                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked  if "critical life-threatening" is                                                               
defined in statute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. HAUKE said she doesn't know.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   said  he  has  a   problem  with  the                                                               
broadness of  the language regarding  the definition of  a family                                                               
member.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HAUKE noted  that the sponsor chose to leave  the language as                                                               
it currently is in statute.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1289                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that he  doesn't have  a problem                                                               
with  the   language,  "[PARENT,   SPOUSE,  SIBLING,   CHILD,  OR                                                               
STEPCHILD]".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1303                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  said he has  an amendment that would  change the                                                               
sunset  to "January  1, 2006",  so that  the legislature  has the                                                               
opportunity to "come back and look at it."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he  thinks the language is broad.                                                               
He questioned the inclusion of "first cousin".                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1355                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  in response  to  a  request by  Chair                                                               
Weyhrauch, moved [to  adopt the committee substitute  (CS) for HB
460, Version 23-LS1700, Cook, 4/1/04, as work draft].                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1385                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     On page 2, lines 10-11:                                                                                                    
     Delete "family member"                                                                                                 
    Retain   "[PARENT,    SPOUSE,   SIBLING,    CHILD,   OR                                                                     
     STEPCHILD]"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     On page 3, lines 8-14:                                                                                                     
     Delete Section 2 of the bill                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected to Amendment 1.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1394                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  asked  if  a grandparent  is  considered  a                                                               
parent.  He also asked, "And what about an aunt or an uncle?"                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered, "No,  it's not."  He clarified                                                               
that "the terms are used differently here."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1406                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON   recalled  a   floor  debate   last  year                                                               
regarding  this  issue.   He  said  he  thinks the  committee  is                                                               
getting into  something that  is not  proposed in  the bill.   He                                                               
turned  attention to  [page 2],  line 11,  which read,  "critical                                                               
life-threatening  illness  or injury",  and  he  said he  is  not                                                           
certain whether "critical life-threatening" applies to "injury".                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   clarified   that   "critical   life-                                                               
threatening" would modify both "illness" or "injury".                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would like to add "grandparent".                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he would consider  that a friendly                                                               
amendment [to Amendment 1].                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  clarified that  the  amendment  to Amendment  1                                                               
would  add "grandparent"  to the  list [on  page 2,  lines 10-11,                                                               
text previously provided].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1498                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  asked  if   the  committee  realizes  the                                                               
following:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     We  are no  longer  talking about  an  Alaskan who  was                                                                    
     injured; we  are talking about  someone who  is injured                                                                    
     who is Outside, and we have  an Alaskan who goes out to                                                                    
     care for  them.   Now, if ...  it's a  [critical] life-                                                                    
     threatening  illness, and  they become  a dependent  on                                                                    
     that person,  then, under  other portions,  that person                                                                    
     may ...  - having never been  here - be eligible  for a                                                                    
     [permanent  fund  dividend  (PFD)], because  they're  a                                                                    
     dependent  of  the  Alaskan   who's  out  on  allowable                                                                    
     absence.   If  ... we  create this  as an  ... extended                                                                    
     allowable absence,  anyone who's a dependent  upon that                                                                    
     person  can  also  receive a  permanent  fund  dividend                                                                    
     check.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  responded that that's a  good point and                                                               
may be a problem in current law.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1533                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN said  he has  kids Outside,  but they  don't                                                               
receive a permanent fund.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that  Representative Seaton had pointed                                                               
out  that "we're  opening it  up for  everybody."   He said,  for                                                               
example,  "Why don't  we just  give permanent  fund dividends  to                                                               
every relation to the member who lives in Alaska?"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN said  he doesn't  think  the amendment  does                                                               
that.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1553                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     The  way this  works, if  you look  at the  statutes as                                                                    
     what's allowed:   If  you're a  dependent, such  as the                                                                    
     military, if  you have children  that are  dependent on                                                                    
     somebody that's  on active duty  that rotated  up here,                                                                    
     ... was here,  and leaves, all of  those dependents are                                                                    
     accompanying  a  person  ... that's  got  an  allowable                                                                    
     absence.    And so,  they  are  under the  accompanying                                                                    
     allowable absence person - the person on active duty.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     And my  question here is  that we're going to  have the                                                                    
     same thing where  we're going to have  somebody with an                                                                    
     allowable absence,  and a  dependent on  that allowable                                                                    
     absence, and then qualify for the PFD.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[HB 460 was heard and held.]                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1605                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was recessed at 10:09 a.m. to a call of the chair.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-76, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  called the  meeting back to  order at  2:08 p.m.                                                               
Present  at the  call back  to order  were Representatives  Holm,                                                               
Seaton, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SJR 25-FLOODING AND EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Contains discussion of HB 327.]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1040                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that  the next  order of  business was                                                               
SENATE  JOINT  RESOLUTION  NO.   25,  Recommending  that  certain                                                               
federal funding  restrictions be eased  so that more  villages in                                                               
Alaska  would qualify  for assistance  relating  to flooding  and                                                               
erosion.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0059                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HAVEN  HARRIS,  Staff  to  Senator   Donny  Olson,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  on  behalf  of Senator  Olson,  sponsor,  read  the                                                               
sponsor statement, as follows:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Senate Joint  Resolution 25 is a  resolution requesting                                                                    
     the  Army Corp  of  Engineers ease  their cost  benefit                                                                    
     analysis for projects in rural Alaska.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Senator Olson has proposed  this resolution in response                                                                    
     to  many  concerns  voiced   by  my  constituents  with                                                                    
     regards  to  the  erosion and  flooding  problems  that                                                                    
     plague  Western   Alaska.    Currently,  many   of  the                                                                    
     villages  in  Western  Alaska  are  not  receiving  the                                                                    
     assistance  needed  for  the  protection  of  life  and                                                                    
     property.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     On  November  8,  2003,  a  winter  storm  hit  western                                                                    
     Alaska.    This  storm caused  considerable  damage  to                                                                    
     Unalakleet, Shishmaref, and  some of Nome's surrounding                                                                    
     areas.   While  the governor  has declared  a state  of                                                                    
     disaster   because  of   this   storm,  the   continued                                                                    
     effect[s] of erosion on the  villages of Alaska are not                                                                    
     going to be solved  by emergency disaster declarations.                                                                    
     A  more comprehensive,  coordinated effort  is required                                                                    
     by the  Army Corps of  Engineers and other  federal and                                                                    
     state agencies.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Senator  Olson and  our office  respectfully urge  your                                                                    
     support for this resolution to  focus attention on this                                                                    
     serious problem.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HARRIS noted that although  the sponsor statement talks about                                                               
erosion  in Western  Alaska, it  is  a serious  problem in  other                                                               
parts  of the  state, as  well; therefore,  the "BE  IT RESOLVED"                                                             
section of the  resolution [on page 2, lines  14-18] includes all                                                               
communities in the state.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0194                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM,  for the record,  characterized HB 327  as a                                                               
companion  bill  to SJR  25,  because  it  also deals  with  cost                                                               
benefits  analyses  that [are  not  economically  feasible].   He                                                               
expressed his  appreciation for SJR 25  and said he hopes  it can                                                               
be supported.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0265                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON, [in  regard to  the section  of the  bill                                                               
addressing sending "COPIES"  of the resolution, on  page 2, lines                                                             
19-26],  suggested   that  the  copies  be   sent  by  electronic                                                               
transmission to avoid possible problems of sending them by mail.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0306                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  moved to  report SJR  25 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  [and the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes].   There being no  objection, SJR  25 was reported  out of                                                               
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SB 227-MUNICIPAL  ELECTIONS                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0335                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the  last order of business was CS                                                               
FOR SENATE  BILL NO. 227(STA)  am, "An Act relating  to municipal                                                               
runoff  elections  and  to municipal  initiative  and  referendum                                                               
elections."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[Before the committee was CSSB 227(STA)am.]                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0353                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State  Legislature, as sponsor of SB
227, told the committee that  the bill basically has two separate                                                               
parts.  He said  he would first speak to the  last half, which is                                                               
Sections 4, 5, and 6.   He explained that he introduced the bill,                                                               
at the  request of  local governments, in  order to  avoid costly                                                               
initiative elections and referendums.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   GARY   STEVENS   noted    that   current   law   forces                                                               
municipalities  to hold  initiatives  and  referendums within  75                                                               
days.   Normally, municipalities  hold their annual  elections in                                                               
October; often, having  a special election would  be costly, time                                                               
consuming, and a  real burden on municipalities.   He offered the                                                               
example of the Fairbanks Northstar  Borough's having 46 petitions                                                               
filed in  a four-month period.   He reported that the  result was                                                               
only one  special election,  but it could  have been  much worse.                                                               
He explained,  "Each special election  costs them  about $35,000;                                                               
plus they  need additional volunteers; plus  there's the workload                                                               
on municipal employees."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS continued as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     The goal of this bill is to ... result in cost-savings                                                                     
     to the municipalities, if they chose to wait until the                                                                     
     next regular election.  The  key thing is, you realize,                                                                    
     this gives them the option;  it doesn't force them.  If                                                                    
     there's an  issue that  can wait,  they can  wait until                                                                    
     the next election.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS directed attention  to the first part of the                                                               
bill, Sections 1, 2, and  3, deal specifically with Anchorage and                                                               
the requirement that the mayor have  over 50 percent of the vote.                                                               
He concluded,  "So those  two were amended  on the  Senate floor,                                                               
and that's why you have this bill in front of you."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0513                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated  that [the content in]  Sections 4, 5,                                                               
and 6 is  essentially what was going  to be put forth  as a House                                                               
bill.  He expressed appreciation for [SB 227].                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0621                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  stated his support  of Sections 4,  5, and                                                               
6.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0683                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN asked  if this  is  the same  bill that  has                                                               
resulted  in many  e-mails  being sent  to  his office  regarding                                                               
local control.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  GARY STEVENS  replied  that he  suspects  it's the  same                                                               
bill.  He clarified, "The  portion I introduced was [Sections] 4,                                                               
5, and  6; the portion introduced  on the floor of  the Senate by                                                               
Senator Ben  Stevens amended it  in Sections  1, 2, and  3, which                                                               
essentially has to do with the Anchorage ... mayoral election."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  said the "very  hot" e-mails had to  do with                                                               
the state  telling a city what  to do after the  city had already                                                               
taken a  vote on  "how to  do it."   He stated  concern regarding                                                               
"less  than  50 percent  for  mayor";  however,  he said  it's  a                                                               
municipal concern, rather than a state concern.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0749                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH remarked  that there  seems to  be a  vague line                                                               
between local versus state [issues].                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS  stated that the principle  of local control                                                               
is a  valid one, and  Sections 4, 5,  and 6 would  allow enormous                                                               
local control.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  asked,  "What  about  the  40  percent  for                                                               
mayor?"                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY  STEVENS reiterated that  was an amendment  that was                                                               
made on  the Senate  floor; he voted  for it and  it passed.   He                                                               
noted that both distinct issues of the bill fit under the title.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN asked  for guidance  regarding [the  mayoral                                                               
issue].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY  STEVENS explained that  the motion on  the [Senate]                                                               
floor was to  require the mayor of Anchorage to  have ... over 50                                                               
percent of the votes.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN said  he agrees  with that  philosophically,                                                               
but  he's not  sure he  agrees that  the state  ought to  mandate                                                               
that.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0928                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  stated that  the  committee  would now  address                                                               
Sections 1, 2, and 3.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0935                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention  to an e-mail that he                                                               
received from  David Ramseur [included in  the committee packet],                                                               
expressing  concern  regarding  the   amendment  by  Senator  Ben                                                               
Stevens and the  [Voting Rights Act of 1965].   He asked if there                                                               
was a  legal opinion contrary to  what Mr. Ramseur stated,  or if                                                               
he may assume  that "there are going to be  serious problems with                                                               
that."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
DALE  STRAUBE,  Staff  to  Senator   Ben  Stevens,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  answering  questions  on   behalf  of  Senator  Ben                                                               
Stevens,  told Representative  Gruenberg that  this is  the first                                                               
time he has heard of the issue.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the  real question is "whether it's                                                               
fair to  minority voters."   He  said he  thinks that's  an issue                                                               
that's as important as anything else.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1050                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON,  in  response   to  a  request  by  Chair                                                               
Weyhrauch, moved to adopt CSSB 227(STA)am, as a work draft.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. STRAUBE  said he doesn't  see anything in  the aforementioned                                                               
e-mail that  gives any factual background  or case law.   He said                                                               
he  doesn't understand  how requiring  "50 plus  1" violates  the                                                               
Voting Rights Act [of 1965].                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  responded that  it was never  said that                                                               
the law  is logical.  He  explained that what the  federal Voting                                                               
Rights Act [of  1965] requires is "pre-clearance"  by the justice                                                               
department,  "with an  eye to  determining  whether ...  whatever                                                               
change  it is  may significantly  affect the  voting rights  of a                                                               
minority population."   He said  Mr. Ramseur is making  the point                                                               
that  raising  the   requirement  from  45  to   50  percent  may                                                               
negatively effect minority voters.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. STRAUBE  noted that prior  to the  change to 45  percent, the                                                               
requirement  was  50  percent.     Furthermore,  he  offered  his                                                               
understanding  that  the  charter   amendment  that  dropped  the                                                               
requirement to  45 percent  had not been  cleared by  the justice                                                               
department prior to being enacted and "it was after the fact."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it's  not a question of what                                                               
it  was  before, but  of  what  the change  is.    He offered  an                                                               
example.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1244                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to  adopt an amendment, which read                                                               
as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 12 to Page 2, Line 6: delete all material                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber sections accordingly                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he wanted  to make changes  to the                                                               
amendment,  to delete  "12" and  insert "4",  and to  delete "all                                                               
materials" and insert "Sections 1-3".                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH clarified  that  the amendment  would be  called                                                               
Amendment 1 and  would include the changes.  Amendment  1 read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 4 to Page 2, Line 6: delete Sections 1-3                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber sections accordingly                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1288                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   offered  three  reasons   to  support                                                               
Amendment 1:   One, there's  a significant problem with  the U.S.                                                               
Voting  Rights  Act and  the  federal  district court  says  such                                                               
changes require  pre-clearance with the justice  department; two,                                                               
as Representative Lynn  said, the amendment [to SB  227] was done                                                               
at the  state level, but it  is a matter of  local elections; and                                                               
three, "this  was passed by  a significant majority  of Anchorage                                                               
voters and this  legislature should give deference to  that."  He                                                               
added, "If we  can do this to Anchorage,  then every municipality                                                               
in the state is at risk."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM maintained his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1359                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS  responded that the State of  Alaska laws do                                                               
control  elections   throughout  the   state.    He   noted  that                                                               
traditional  American voting  has  always been  50 percent,  plus                                                               
one;  that appears  in  Robert's  Rules of  Order.    He said  he                                                               
doesn't see how  requiring over half of the public  to vote for a                                                               
candidate disenfranchises  any element of  the public.   He spoke                                                               
for  leaving this  language in  the  bill.   He said,  "It is,  I                                                               
think, perfectly  within our  right to  establish those  rules as                                                               
state legislature."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1439                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. STRAUBE said that Anchorage,  as the largest community in the                                                               
state,  has the  financial means  to hold  runoff elections.   He                                                               
said one  of the arguments  to drop the  number to 45  percent to                                                               
avoid a runoff  had to do with the cost  of running the election.                                                               
He noted,  "Well, most recently,  the Anchorage assembly  and the                                                               
mayor proposed to put on a  ballot question that raised a tax, so                                                               
it's obviously well  within the means of  the Anchorage community                                                               
to afford to pay for the democratic process."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  STRAUBE noted  that the  aforementioned  e-mail has  today's                                                               
date marked  on it and  was not sent to  the sponsor or  to other                                                               
members of  the committee.   He said he  doesn't want to  hold up                                                               
the bill,  but he thinks "you  would want to get  a legal comment                                                               
from the Department  of Law, or at least something  else a little                                                               
more specific,  in writing,  other than just  an e-mail  from Mr.                                                               
Ramseur."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted  that there is no  policy that the                                                               
governor  of the  state be  elected by  a majority.   He  said it                                                               
looks like the  operation of Section 3 of the  bill would allow a                                                               
community with  less than 100,000  residents to "opt out  of this                                                               
by ordinance."  He indicated  that this constitutes serious equal                                                               
protection arguments here.   He question why  the municipality of                                                               
Anchorage should be "disallowed from opting out."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY  STEVENS stated his  concern that if the  bill fails                                                               
it  would mean  more  cost  to communities.    He encouraged  the                                                               
committee to pass the bill as it is.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1635                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON stated  that  he thinks  it's poor  public                                                               
policy  for  the legislature  to  be  overriding votes  of  local                                                               
communities.   He noted that  half of the representatives  in the                                                               
House are  representing the  communities that  "this specifically                                                               
deals with," but he is not  one of them; therefore, he is willing                                                               
to "let them decide on the floor of the House."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1660                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Gruenberg voted in                                                               
favor  of  Amendment  1.     Representatives  Holm,  Seaton,  and                                                               
Weyhrauch voted against  it.  Therefore, Amendment 1  failed by a                                                               
vote of 1-3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1685                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved  to adopt Amendment 2,  which read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 8,                                                                                                            
     After the words "no candidate receives..."                                                                                 
     Delete the word "over"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 14                                                                                                            
     Delete "over"                                                                                                            
     Insert "more than"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 3,                                                                                                            
     Delete the word "over"                                                                                                   
     Insert the words "more than"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  explained that  the  term  "over" is  not                                                               
defined in statute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he has no objection to Amendment 2.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. STRAUBE stated that he has no objection to Amendment 2.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1730                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed  his objection to Amendment 2.   He asked                                                               
if there was any further  objection.  There being none, Amendment                                                               
2 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1758                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report  CSSB 227(STA)am, as amended,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1770                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1780                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Seaton, Lynn, Holm,                                                               
and  Weyhrauch  voted in  favor  of  moving CSSB  227(STA)am,  as                                                               
amended,  out  of  committee.    Representative  Gruenberg  voted                                                               
against it.   Therefore,  HCS CSSB 227(STA)  was reported  out of                                                               
the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1811                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
State Affairs  Standing Committee  meeting was adjourned  at 2:41                                                               
p.m.                                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects