02/22/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB14 | |
| HB100 | |
| HB62 | |
| HB48 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2005
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Elkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to municipal initiative and referendum
elections."
- MOVED HCS SB 14(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 100
"An Act relating to a lease-purchase agreement for the
construction, equipping, and financing of a state virology
laboratory in Fairbanks, on land provided by the University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, to be operated by the Department of Health
and Social Services; relating to the issuance of certificates of
participation for the laboratory; relating to the use of certain
investment income for certain construction and equipment costs
for the laboratory; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 100(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 62
"An Act relating to prohibiting automated telephone calls for a
political advertisement to telephone numbers listed as not
wanting telephone solicitations; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act relating to a determination of costs attributable to
relocating the legislature or the state capital or of
constructing a new capitol building in the present capital city,
and to a determination of all costs of retaining the existing
capitol building and keeping the state capital and legislature
in the present capital city; relating to voter approval of
certain bondable costs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 14
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS G
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) CRA
01/26/05 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
01/26/05 (S) Heard & Held
01/26/05 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
01/31/05 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/31/05 (S) Moved SB 14 Out of Committee
01/31/05 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/02/05 (S) CRA RPT 5DP
02/02/05 (S) DP: STEVENS G, WAGONER, KOOKESH,
STEDMAN, ELLIS
02/02/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/02/05 (S) VERSION: SB 14
02/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/05 (H) CRA, STA
02/10/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/10/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/10/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/11/05 (H) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR
02/11/05 (H) DP: LEDOUX, KOTT, NEUMAN, THOMAS;
02/11/05 (H) NR: SALMON
02/22/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 100
SHORT TITLE: STATE VIROLOGY LABORATORY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, HES, FIN
02/22/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 62
SHORT TITLE: AUTOMATED POLITICAL TELEPHONE CALLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) OLSON
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, JUD
02/22/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 48
SHORT TITLE: EXPENDITURE FOR CAPITOL CONSTRUCTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE, GATTO
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/05
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, FIN
02/22/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 14.
SHERRY BIGGS, Deputy Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Alaska Association of Municipal Clerks
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 14.
DOUG LETCH, Staff
to Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Amendment 1 to SB
14.
BONNIE WILLIAMS, Member
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 14.
RICHARD MANDSAGER, M.D., Director
Division of Public Health
Alaska Department of Health & Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented background information regarding
HB 100.
DEVEN MITCHELL, Debt Manager
Treasury Division
Alaska Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding funding for HB
100.
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff
to Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Olson,
sponsor of HB 62.
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as sponsor of HB 62.
RANDY RUEDRICH, Chair
Alaska Republican Party
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 62.
JOE SONNEMAN, Ph.D.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 62.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 48.
AVRUM GROSS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 48.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:09:52 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Lynn, Ramras, Gardner, and Seaton.
Representatives Gatto and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
8:10:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON reported on the subcommittee meeting that met on
Saturday, February 19, regarding the Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System
(TRS).
8:12:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked that amendments be offered ahead of a bill
hearing.
SB 14-MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to municipal initiative and
referendum elections."
8:13:05 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB
14, noted that the bill is a companion bill to HB 50. The bill
was introduced at the request of the borough and city clerks, he
explained, who found that initiatives and referendums often
force them to have special elections. He remarked that special
elections are often very expensive and have a poor turnout.
This bill, he said, would allow more latitude and flexibility to
the local municipalities; if there is an issue that they think
is of urgency, they can schedule a special election. If the
issue is not of great urgency, they can put it off until the
next regular election. He pointed out that the Fairbanks
Northstar Borough at one point had 46 petitions in a four-month
period, which theoretically could have lead to 46 elections.
However, there was only one election, which cost around $60,000.
He reiterated that the purpose of the legislation was to allow
the local municipalities to have more flexibility in order to
cut costs and to improve the turnout.
8:15:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to changes in the language in
Sections [1] and 3 of the bill, which specify that an election
not occur sooner than 60 days after the certification of a
petition. He surmised that the intent of this was to give ample
time for petitioners to campaign.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS responded, "That's certainly the idea." He
suggested that they speak with one the borough clerks to get a
clearer understanding of what those changes mean.
8:18:18 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg asking why recalls are not included in
the bill, explained that he wouldn't want to include recalls,
because the bill allows the local municipalities to make the
decision to delay initiatives and referendums if they're not
urgent. He stated his belief that a recall is urgent and should
be dealt with immediately.
8:19:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 1, line 11,
and page 2, line 9, where the bill states that if no election is
scheduled to occur within 75 days after certification and the
governing body determines it's in the best interest of the
municipality, an ordinance may be passed ordering a special
election be held on the matter before the next election that's
already scheduled. He asked, "Do you only want ... the
ordinance to allow the matter to be scheduled prior to the next
election? How about if they decided they wanted to do it after
the next election that's regularly scheduled?"
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said that he could see no reason why anyone
would want to postpone an initiative or referendum beyond the
next election. He clarified that the idea behind the bill is
not to delay referendums and initiatives unless it is an issue
that is not timely.
8:21:31 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, in response to Representative Gardner,
said that a similar bill was introduced in the Senate last year
and passed the Senate with an amendment, but did not pass the
House.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the bill passed through the
committees and made it to the floor of the House, and then went
back to the House Rules Standing Committee.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said, "I believe the reason it failed in
the House was because of the amendment that had been added in
the Senate, which I was not supportive of, and ... this is the
clear, cleaner version of that bill."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed support for the bill.
8:23:14 AM
SHERRY BIGGS, Deputy Clerk, Kenai Peninsula Borough, on behalf
of the Alaska Association of Municipal Clerks, stated support of
SB 14. She said:
We'd like to stress that this legislation does not
prohibit the local governing body to conduct a special
election if they so choose, but it just removes the
mandate to often hold an unbudgeted election.
Typically municipalities ... would plan for their
first Tuesday of October election, and anything else
has to come from other sources.
MS. BIGGS said the borough has conducted by-mail elections. She
indicated that the effort has been is made towards "hitting
every targeted voter in an area," but that often people just
don't contact the Division of Elections every time they move.
As a result, Ms. Biggs said, there is a lot of returned mail -
ballots that never make it to the intended voter. The borough
gets a special mailing rate when it sends out ballots, but
ballots, by law, cannot be forwarded. The borough has to pay a
higher charge when those ballots that cannot be delivered are
"returned to sender."
MS. BIGGS continued as follows:
In speaking to the idea of putting a special election
after a regular election, if I may, at that point
you'd have to order a separate ballot for everyone.
You'd need to hire the precinct board and the canvas
board all over. You'd have to establish polling sites
if they're available. Typically we use schools and
local buildings. We'd need to make sure they were
available at some time other than our October dates.
And the idea of having to conduct an election [within]
45 days: we often have ... to order ballots, to get
workers lined up; 60 days is definitely needed and
gives us a much better window of work time [for
ourselves].
8:25:50 AM
MS. BIGGS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, stated that
it is a federal law that ballots cannot be forwarded.
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2, lines 1-5, as well as page 1,
lines 7-12, and asked Ms. Biggs if the intent of the bill is
that there be at least 60 days [between certification of a
petition and the election].
MS. BIGGS answered affirmatively and commented that an election
requires considerable time for setting up as well as supplies.
She said:
I think it is the intent of the governing body to
still conduct a timely election. I don't believe they
would try and hold it off month after month. But I
know that if we tried to hold a special election here
in July on the Kenai Peninsula, I think it would be
utter chaos and our assembly may choose to pick a
better day. So I think it still leaves the control
with the governing bodies in the local areas where it
needs to remain.
8:27:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "But you wouldn't have a problem with
reinserting the words, 'but not sooner than 60 days after the
certification' at the end of that paragraph to clarify ... that
[an] election couldn't be held ... [in] 20 days ... and not give
people time to campaign?"
MS. BIGGS agreed with Chair Seaton.
8:28:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that he didn't understand
what would happen if there were a regular election that has
already been scheduled to occur between 60 and 75 days after
certification of the petition. He said, "There seems to be that
15-day gap. Why is that?"
MS. BIGGS responded that this just allows for the necessary time
for them to advertise and notify voters that they must be a
registered voter 30 days before an election. She said, "I think
it's just a basic timeline of how things have to fall into
place."
8:29:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the bill says "no sooner than
60 days" rather than 75 days.
MS. BIGGS said that originally it was 45 days, "so I think that
they're just changing it to 60 to still add additional time for
preparation."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "It seems that if you're
talking about 75 at one hand and 60 at another, shouldn't there
be either one or the other? That's my question."
MS. BIGGS replied, "I do believe that maybe 'no sooner than 75
days' if you wish."
8:30:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, "It seems to me that the 60 days is
when there's already a special election scheduled, 75 days when
there's not. And there's less preparation to add something to
an existing schedule.... It's only a matter of getting it on the
ballot. So it wouldn't take as much time."
8:30:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked the 60-day minimum was to ensure that
there is enough time for campaigning. He said, "If you don't
have an election scheduled within 75 days then you can go ahead
and do the other [have a special campaign]. If you have an
election scheduled within 75 days then the election would occur
then."
8:31:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered [Amendment 1] as follows:
On page 1, line 12:
After: "before the next election that is already
scheduled"
Insert: "but not sooner than 60 days after the
certification"
On page 2, line 10:
After: "before the next election that is already
scheduled"
Insert: "but not sooner than 60 days after the
certification"
8:32:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
8:33:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Gruenberg, clarified
that previously the bill said that there had to be an election
within 75 days. He said that the purpose of this bill is to
allow municipalities to wait until the next regular election
unless the issue is important enough to schedule a special
election.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
8:33:39 AM
DOUG LETCH, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature stated that Senator Gary Stevens would support
[Amendment 1].
8:34:07 AM
BONNIE WILLIAMS, Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly,
testified in support of SB 14. She stated that she feels it is
appropriate to exclude recalls because those need to be
conducted quickly. She commented:
[Fairbanks] is a community where people like to bring
initiatives, people like to debate stuff, [and] people
always have very independent opinions.... The last
time that we had a special election it cost us roughly
$60,000. It would have been very helpful if we could
have held that with the regular election, both for the
cost and also for the number of participants involved
in voting on that issue. Special elections get very,
very small turnouts, and so you don't get ... the best
possible representation of the community's desires on
it.
8:36:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. He announced that
Amendment 1 [text provided previously] was adopted.
8:37:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report SB 14, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objections, HCS SB 14(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 100-STATE VIROLOGY LABORATORY
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 100, "An Act relating to a lease-purchase agreement for
the construction, equipping, and financing of a state virology
laboratory in Fairbanks, on land provided by the University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, to be operated by the Department of Health
and Social Services; relating to the issuance of certificates of
participation for the laboratory; relating to the use of certain
investment income for certain construction and equipment costs
for the laboratory; and providing for an effective date."
8:38:32 AM
RICHARD MANDSAGER, M.D., Director, Division of Public Health,
Alaska Department of Health & Social Services, presented HB 100.
He clarified that the word "virology" refers to the study of
viruses. He directed attention to "slides" printed in a handout
available in the committee packet. He offered details from the
first slide on page 2, regarding the Alaska State Virology
Laboratory, where the state has its laboratory capacity to make
viral diagnoses. The most common virus that [the laboratory]
deals with on a yearly basis, he said, is influenza. He
commented that the laboratory in Fairbanks is what the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls a sentinel
laboratory; there are 23 of these labs around the world in which
types of influenza are identified.
DR. MANDSAGER stated:
Our laboratory in Fairbanks, because of the air
traffic from Southeast Asia, is an important
laboratory to the United States.... [The influenza]
virus mutates every year as it moves around the world,
and the flu vaccine that we get every fall and every
winter is based on the type of influenza virus that is
in Southeast Asia and in the southern hemisphere....
In the last week or so CDC has been finalizing the
components to next fall's vaccine.... Another example
of an important virus to us is rabies. For example,
right now [Fort] Wainwright is under an animal
quarantine because of rabies in fox up there, and that
pretty much is an annual occurrence in our state, that
some part of the state will have rabies in animals.
Thankfully, because of immunization of dogs and cats,
because of surveillance, and ... because of our
diagnostic capabilities in the state, rapidly we can
adjust and isolate animals in different parts of the
state, and [we] have not had a human case now for
many, many decades.
When SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] arrived
in the United States in the spring of 2003, ... one of
the first tasks for the World Health Organization and
the CDC was to develop [an] identification test, and
the laboratory here in Alaska was one of the first
where that technology and competency was put in place
because of the aircraft back and forth to Southeast
Asia.
8:42:28 AM
DR. MANDSAGER continued:
[This is] important as background, and what's also
important to know [is] that the kind of viruses we
deal with in the Fairbanks lab should be handled in
what's called a Biosafety Level 3 [BSL3] Laboratory.
We don't have that in Fairbanks; they have a Level 2
lab, and use what the laboratorians call Level 3
Practices. So far, they've done really well. But
[the slide on page 3 shows] how crowded it is up
there.... Last summer we had a review by people from
the Association of Public Health Laboratories in the
United States looking at our laboratory capacity in
our state.... Their comment was [that the crowded lab
is] an accident waiting to happen.
... The space we have is in one of the university
buildings. We've been on the Fairbanks campus now
since '67, and you can see all of the problems with
the building and capacity space that exists up there
at present [on page 3].... One of the recommendations
of this laboratory review is that our virology
functions should be managed in a ... BSL3 ... because
of the potential problems with the viruses that they
look at.
DR. MANDSAGER turned attention to [the slide on page 4], showing
the building in which the lab currently resides. He reiterated
that the lab is important for the rapid identification of known
and new viruses. He said that the review team recommended that
because of the state's earthquake potential, it is important to
have redundant capacities in Alaska by having labs in two
cities. He pointed out that the staff at the lab in Fairbanks
are superb virologists. He told of an incident in McGrath last
year in which a number of people became sick. He said that
because the lab had neurovirus diagnostic capacity in Fairbanks,
the diagnosis was made quickly and many people were warned early
so that the outbreak was stopped. Three years ago such a sample
would have been sent to Atlanta and the diagnosis would have
taken two to three weeks.
DR. MANDSAGER told another anecdote: In the late 1990's doctors
in Juneau thought that a girl might have had measles. A sample
was sent to Fairbanks and the diagnosis was completed within a
day. He commented, "Days can make a big difference with viral
disease in stopping outbreaks."
8:45:59 AM
DR. MANDSAGER turned to the slide on page 5, which showed that
the estimated cost for the design, construction, and equipping
of a state public health virology lab in Fairbanks is $24.2
million. He said that building laboratories is expensive due to
air-handling redundancies, special spaces, special equipment,
and so on. The governor's proposal is that a new lab be
financed with Certificates of Participation, he explained. Page
6 is a map showing where the proposed lab would be located on
the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) campus. He noted that
UAF is building a human biology mission and a genetics mission,
and having a BSL 3 lab on the campus would be very important to
the biologists.
8:47:23 AM
DR. MANDSAGER addressed two amendments, included in the
committee packet. The first one would clarify that the
Department of Health and Social Services would own the building
but the land would be leased from the university. The second
amendment would make a change to page 2, line 18, adding the
words "cost of" before the word "acquisition".
8:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Dr. Mandsager how big a danger avian
flu is and whether the proposed new lab would be able to
diagnose it.
DR. MANDSAGER responded that avian flu is currently the biggest
topic of discussion in public health. He remarked that the
people from CDC have said that it is not a question of if, but
when [there is an avian flu outbreak]. He explained that avian
flu is very lethal, with a 70 percent death rate in Southeast
Asia, and it attacks young, healthy people as well as elders.
He pointed out that at first it appeared to be a disease that
was transmissible only from birds to humans, however there now
appear to be cases where the disease was transmitted from human
to human. He said that this disease is one of the reasons that
the proposed lab is important; the lab staff will be able to
diagnose avian flu. He pointed out that birds migrate from
Southeast Asia to Alaska for the winter and there is also a lot
of airplane traffic between the two regions. Therefore he
concluded that Alaska will be one of the first places to be
impacted, so it will be very important for the state to have the
ability to quarantine and isolate quickly.
8:51:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how long it would take to have an
operational lab.
DR. MANDSAGER replied that the proposed lab would be operational
in fiscal year (FY) 2009.
8:51:42 AM
DR. MANDSAGER, in response to Representative Gardner, clarified
that the bill had passed out of the Senate Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee, but not the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
8:52:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Dr. Mandsager to explain the Certificates of
Participation.
DR. MANDSAGER deferred to the Debt Manager at the Department of
Revenue.
8:52:34 AM
DR. MANDSAGER, in response to Representative Ramras, stated that
the proposed new lab would have a gross area of about 24-25,000
square feet and a net area of about 11,500 square feet. He
explained that due to the air handling systems, the gross area
is much bigger than the net area.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS commented that $100 per gross square foot
and $200-250 per net square foot is a good price.
8:54:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that when the governor signed
the version of Senate Bill 65 that passed last year, he included
a letter that stated his intention in bonding future
indebtedness. Representative Gruenberg read from the letter as
follows:
I have made a commitment to the rating agencies that
the state will not incur additional debt until
recurring revenues match expenditures.
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg to hold his comment
for the Department of Revenue.
8:55:09 AM
DR. MANDSAGER, in response to Representative Ramras, stated that
there are 15-16 staff at the current laboratory and there would
be 18-20 staff at the proposed lab.
8:55:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "Will this fulfill all anticipated Homeland
Security-type issues that might be assigned to ... our facility
here in the state?"
DR. MANDSAGER replied:
Between the public health laboratory in Anchorage and
this facility in Fairbanks, we then have capacity for
diagnosis of biology and chemical agents in Anchorage,
viral agents in Fairbanks, and between the two
facilities, our state meets the Homeland Security
intents and requests of all the states, at least for
present agents. And I would assume there would be
enough potential for future agents as they become
identified.
CHAIR SEATON commented that the state just authorized building
another lab for testing biological samples, and he asked if that
lab is similar to the proposed lab.
DR. MANDSAGER responded that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) facility will be testing food and animal
samples and it is a complementary lab. He said:
The partnership between that laboratory ..., the
biology and chemical laboratory in Anchorage, and the
virology facility in Fairbanks works very well. For
example, when a dead crow shows up in our state right
now, because of concerns about West Nile virus, the
state veterinarian decides [if it should be] tested
for West Nile virus, and then it's sent up to the
virology laboratory in Fairbanks. The new [DEC]
laboratory that is under construction will not have
virology capacity. However, the state veterinarian
will be able to do a necropsy and look for other
causes besides that kind of a viral cause. And the
same thing happens with food agents too, so there's a
partnership between these three facilities that one
should think of ... as part of our continuum for
protection of public health.
8:58:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if the proposed lab would be a
magnet for the university for research funds and if there are
expenses that will be picked up by the federal government
through grants. He stated that he'd like more information about
the costs of ongoing operations.
DR. MANDSAGER answered that the university expects that the
proposed lab will be a big part of their research capacity
building, and that as they attract more federal funds and grants
the lab will be an important component. He said:
What amount of this laboratory space would be used for
a given grant and how much cost will be shifted to a
grant will depend grant-to-grant and year-to-year....
My expectation is that, as the university builds its
mission, with the capacity growth on the facility
side, then yes, we will see some off-shifting. How
much, I think, is impossible to say. The biologists
view it as a critically important part of building
that capacity.
8:59:58 AM
DEVEN MITCHELL, Debt Manager, Treasury Division, Alaska
Department of Revenue, explained that a Certificate of
Participation [COP] is a means of financing discrete capital
projects of the State of Alaska. Facilities that the state has
funded portions of or all of recently are the Alaska Psychiatric
Institute (API) and the Seafood and Food Safety Laboratory. He
continued as follows:
How [the Certificates of Participation] work is the
state provides a title interest to a trustee bank and
then leases the facility back from that trustee bank,
and that lease payment stream is securitized, meaning
that that becomes the amount of money that's paid to
folks that purchase these certificates; they become
participants in that lease. Those are structured so
that we obtain a rating based on the State of Alaska's
credit, a subject-to-appropriation credit of the
state. It's a AA/AA- type of a credit out there. We
typically insure that to AAA and obtain ... market
rates for a publicly offered debt at those ratings.
9:01:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the Certificates of Participation are the
same thing as a bond.
MR. MITCHELL answered affirmatively.
CHAIR SEATON asked for an explanation of the differences between
a COP and a General Obligation Bond.
9:02:23 AM
MR. MITCHELL explained:
With a General Obligation Bond, ... the state would
have pledged its full faith and credit to the folks
that would be buying them - the investors. In this
case, the investors have a lesser security of
repayment. They are accepting risk that what they're
participating in is subject to annual appropriation,
and that there could be a failure to appropriate.
They're banking on the legislature and the
administration's recognition that a failure to
appropriate would backlash on the State of Alaska's
credit rating and cost the state in other ways - both
from a reputation perspective as well as financially -
when there were other obligations of the state that
were floated in the market.
9:04:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how much more it would cost the state to
build a new virology lab using Certificates of Participation
instead of a General Obligation Bond.
MR. MITCHELL said that multiplying the full principal amount by
a tenth of a percent would equal the impact in year one. He
explained:
In the first year the impact would be $24,000 and then
it would be a declining impact from that date forward.
So your total impact on a present value-base, just
because those future payments would be worth less,
might be in the $200,000 range, because we're talking
about a 15-year amortization. It would be $200,000 or
less, I would guess.
9:05:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the Certificates of Participation are
quicker, and if that is why they are being discussed for this
project.
MR. MITCHELL responded that this is a discrete, stand-alone
project that lends itself well to the Certificates of
Participation structure. It's also a time-sensitive project, he
noted, and for a General Obligation Bond the state would have to
wait until the next general election to put this project on the
ballot.
9:07:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS emphasized that he feels strongly about
the state maintaining a fiscal conservative approach. He said
that he supports all the benefits of the proposed lab. However
he expressed concern that the Department of Health and Social
Services would be the lessee and the state would be the lessor.
MR. MITCHELL replied that the lessee would be the Department of
Administration, and the department would enter into a lease with
the trustee bank.
9:08:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if the state is moving from
something that has no mortgage and now contemplating something
that has a $2.4 million obligation by the State of Alaska
through the Department of Administration or through the
Department of Health and Social Services payable to the State of
Alaska or to the bondholders. He continued, "Is this a ...
brand new obligation, this $2.4 million in rental obligations
along with the increased ... annual operating costs?"
MR. MITCHELL answered affirmatively.
9:09:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the state pays for the current virology
lab.
DR. MANDSAGER answered that the lab pays a maintenance agreement
to the university but pays no lease fees.
9:10:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said:
In the fiscal notes it says it's $150,000. The
operating increases for this project would be another
$200,000, and then the lease obligation would be
$2,375,000 per year for 15 years, at attractive terms:
4.9 percent, [with a] 15-year amortization.... That's
as good as it gets in this world, but nevertheless, it
is a new obligation for the state, and the merits
speak for themselves, but so does the cost side of the
ledger.
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 1, labeled 24G-1,
2/4/2005, (11:02 AM), which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 2-3:
Delete "on land provided by the University of
Alaska, Fairbanks,"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "provided"
Insert "leased from"
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "by"
CHAIR SEATON announced that, there being no objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
9:11:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 2, [which is encompassed
in a letter from Theresa Bannister, Legislative Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, in which Ms. Bannister
recommends the following, original punctuation provided]:
So I suggest that the phrase, "cost of construction,
acquisition, and other costs," be replaced with the
phrase, "cost of construction, cost of acquisition,
and other costs."
CHAIR SEATON announced that, there being no objection, Amendment
2 was adopted.
9:12:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS reiterated that he was concerned that the
state would be obligating itself to additional new debt service
without sufficient means of meeting ongoing operating expenses.
9:13:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 100, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
100(STA) moved out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 62-AUTOMATED POLITICAL TELEPHONE CALLS
9:14:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to prohibiting automated telephone
calls for a political advertisement to telephone numbers listed
as not wanting telephone solicitations; and providing for an
effective date."
9:14:23 AM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 62 on behalf of Representative Olson,
sponsor. He said HB 62 would prohibit automated political
advertising telephone calls to telephone numbers listed in the
national "do not call" registry. He clarified that it would not
prohibit personal calls by the candidates, parties, volunteers,
or paid staff, and it would not limit polling by parties or by
candidates. He pointed out that HB 62 had a zero fiscal note.
He said, "81,606 Alaskans chose to participate in the national
"do not call" registry during the first year of the program.
This bill will help reduce the political spam reaching them in
the future."
9:15:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that AS 15.13.065 refers to political
parties and asked for further explanation regarding how HB 62
would not restrict political parties to conduct polls or other
solicitations.
MR. JACKSON clarified, "That's just a reference to a definition
- a different subsection." He said that the bill is directed
specifically at political advertisement; polling by candidates
and political parties is not included.
9:17:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 62, said that the bill's intent was "to limit it strictly
to the calls to people on the [national] "do not call" registry
from ... automated machines."
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to a question from Chair
Seaton, stated that a political party would not be able to use
an automated dialing machine.
9:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to the language on
page 2, beginning on line [8], and ending in the middle of line
11, which read as follows:
the purpose of the call is to communicate a message
made to convince potential voters concerning the
outcome of an election of a candidate or made to
influence the outcome of a proposition
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned why the verb "to convince"
was used concerning the outcome of an election, but the verb "to
influence" was used regarding the outcome of a proposition. He
suggested that "influence" would be more appropriate in both
cases. He asked, "Was there an attempt to be different in those
verbs?"
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that he would have to defer that
question to the drafter.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he would like to work on
that language with the sponsor and his staff.
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a comment by Representative
Gruenberg, clarified that the intent of bill was to stop
messages that would be intended to influence an election.
9:21:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that in going door-to-door during
the last election cycle, the number one complaint he heard was
regarding the number of calls received, mostly in the federal
elections. He noted that this bill would probably not address
the federal elections.
9:21:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON confirmed that he had intended the bill to
be limited to the people who didn't want to receive the calls in
the first place; it would not have an impact on those people who
are not on the national "do not call" registry.
9:22:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that he understands the frustration
that people feel, but he said that the phrase "political spam"
could be expanded to include radio, television, and mail, as
well as phone calls. He commented that this might have a
chilling effect on democracy in action and free speech. He
stated that he was not sure why the bill covers candidates but
not political parties.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON noted that it was not his intent to address
anything other than the automatic phone calls. He commented
that the word "spam" may have been a bit strong.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the bill includes automated phone
calls by whoever makes them, including political parties.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he understands that the bill
does not address mail and television. However, he observed that
the principle is almost the same - there is an attempt to
communication to as wide a variety of voters as possible.
9:25:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to Representative Ramras,
stated that this bill would not apply to federal elections, but
only to state elections.
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Olson if he had gotten a legal
opinion on whether the bill would infringe on free speech.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that he had not, but that he would do
so.
9:26:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to work on that
issue. He stated that his understanding of the national "do not
call" registry is that a person cannot separate out whether
he/she wants to take only political calls. He suggested there
may be people who actually want the political calls.
9:27:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that the national "do not call" registry
is for all unsolicited calls; however it does not apply to
political and charitable calls. He said, "As I understand it
the intent of this bill is to say that the 'do not call' list is
being augmented to say that ... anyone using an automated dialer
cannot call someone who's name is on the 'do not call' list."
9:28:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that currently, a person is
allowed to make an automated call to ask people to come speak
out against a certain issue at, for example, a municipal
meeting. He asked if the proposed legislation would prohibit
that.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON responded, "I don't believe it would."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated his concern is in regard to
the language, "notwithstanding the exemption from the definition
of telephone solicitation in (g)(4)(B)(iii) of this section",
specifically the word, "notwithstanding". He explained that
"those are calls limited to soliciting the expression of ideas
or opinions."
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that he is not an attorney and
therefore is hesitant to answer the question.
9:29:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if the automated telephone polls
would be prohibited under this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that it was not the intent of bill to
impact polling. He added that a push poll would probably be
prohibited since it would be an attempt to influence a person.
9:31:08 AM
RANDY RUEDRICH, Chair, Alaska Republican Party, commented that
HB 62 is an unfortunate attempt to solve a problem that can't be
solved "by ourselves" in Alaska. He said that the bill bans
political speech, which is somewhat dangerous, and he opposes
the concept. He continued as follows:
One of the things we work at very hard in the
political process is to encourage our citizens to
vote. And the 2004 election was a wonderful example
in Alaska of political success. We had a turnout of
66.6 percent of the entire voter roll. When you
compare that to '96 and 2000 - the last two
presidential elections - we had a 10 percent increase
in turnout, from about 60 percent to 66 percent. [It
was] very dramatic. And I think the calls, regardless
of what you think of them, had a positive impact on
bringing voters to the polls.
... The '04 election was unique, and I don't think
we're likely to see anything like this occur in the
near future. Our candidates for United States Senate
spent more than three times as much as has been spent
in any recent Alaska election. The major parties
spent at least five times what they have spent in
prior elections. And the mysterious new federal
[Section 527 political groups] spent untold amounts of
money. A lot of this money was spent on making phone
calls that would be banned by this act, if it were to
apply at all, and it does not. These phone calls that
were made - many of them were improper since they did
not have any federal disclaimer on them. So we have a
violation of [an] existing law already.
Furthermore, all the calls that were made in
conjunction with the federal election are regulated by
federal law, and the "do not call" list was explicitly
not to be applied based on a federal law passed by
Congress a number of years ago. So political free
speech is not banned to folks on the "do not call"
list.
9:33:41 AM
MR. RUEDRICH continued:
Advocacy calls are very powerful. But if a candidate,
a party, or an interest group abuses that process, the
voters can [and] will [respond] - and I think we have
examples of where they already have responded -
adversely to excessive phone calls. And I trust that
the voters will continue to appropriately regulate
this process by not rewarding excessive ... calling
with a vote; they may be motivated to go vote for the
other person.
... Limiting free speech is always dangerous, and I
would suggest that if we make this a law today,
there's no telling where we will move to tomorrow. So
rather than even going in that direction, I urge you
to not pass this bill.
9:35:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Ruedrich:
Would you consider that if you called a certain
segment of voters to get them out to the polls, and
yet you were only looking at a targeted segment ...
that you thought were going to be voting for a
particular candidate or a particular side to a
proposition, would that fall under this "potential
voters concerning the outcome of an election"? Would
that, just in itself - because you're not calling
everyone but are targeting a certain group and
therefore are intending to increase a vote for a
certain proposition or candidate - ... fall under this
restriction?
MR. RUEDRICH answered affirmatively.
9:36:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS commented that one of his favorite
inefficiencies of the election cycle was when, in order to put a
mailer out to constituents, [candidates] had to fold the letter
and put it in an envelope by hand. He asked Mr. Ruedrich to
explain why [candidates] have to go through this process rather
than using an automated mailer.
MR. RUEDRICH responded that under federal law there is a
specific allowance for political parties to send mail on behalf
of a candidate, but it must be touched by a human doing
something that materially affects the successful delivery of the
mail. He continued:
That does not apply ... to state candidates or state
law. And of course the parties can make contributions
to candidates; the parties can make independent
expenditures on behalf of a candidate, but we cannot
do something like the non-allocable mail that is
present in federal law.
9:38:01 AM
JOE SONNEMAN, Ph.D., stated that he earned a Ph.D. in government
and then went on to law school where he was taught that the
highest and most protected form of speech is political speech.
Nevertheless, he noted, the legislature is allowed to regulate
the time, place, and manner of expression. He said:
I share the view that's already been expressed by
some, both on the committee and others testifying,
that this is a difficult area to begin legislating,
and may lead to unintended consequences. And I too
think that it would be a good idea not to do this as a
bill. There was a lot of negative reaction, I think,
to the number of calls that occurred during this last
election cycle, and I agree also that voters will act
appropriately if they dislike the manner in which
communications are made. So, to some extent, I think
there's self-regulation already that will occur. You
can add to that ... without violating free speech
principles if this were, instead of a law, ...
proposed as a resolution. In other words, you are
expressing the sense of the legislature that it was
not a good idea to do this. Or perhaps if you had a
law that ... directed [the] Division of Elections when
a candidate signs up, that they get a notice that says
that the legislature recognizes that candidates have a
right to communicate in this way, but nevertheless the
legislature recommends that candidates be aware that
voters may not appreciate such calls.... That might
enable you to walk the line in between voter
dissatisfaction against automated calls and yet not
trying to prohibit them by law.
9:40:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:40:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 62 was heard and held.
HB 48-EXPENDITURE FOR CAPITOL CONSTRUCTION
9:41:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 48, "An Act relating to a determination of costs
attributable to relocating the legislature or the state capital
or of constructing a new capitol building in the present capital
city, and to a determination of all costs of retaining the
existing capitol building and keeping the state capital and
legislature in the present capital city; relating to voter
approval of certain bondable costs; and providing for an
effective date."
9:41:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 48 as the bill sponsor. He explained that the idea for HB 48
came to him when he heard about a fast moving project to get a
capitol building built in Juneau. He commented that the capitol
building is not just another state building, and the location
has always been of intense interest to the public. He discussed
the FRANK Initiative [Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing
Knowledge], which was originally passed in 1978, and which
requires that voters know the cost of any capitol relocation.
This was repealed in 1982 and then reinstated in 1994. He said:
I think that FRANK Initiative, although fully endorsed
by the voters, is somewhat incomplete because it would
allow perhaps $100 million or, if you follow the
logical escalations that we've heard in every capital-
related campaign, it's always more expensive than you
think - two or three times more. So, $100 million,
$300 million - whatever it ends up - the public
deserves a voice in the process. [The proposed
legislation is] a very simple bill ... to amend the
FRANK Initiative to also require voter approval of
expenditure of rebuilding the capitol, even within the
same political jurisdiction, or even just down the
street a block or two.... [It is] certainly more
complicated than I've expressed here ... and I know
there are rather legal entanglements that we'll
probably get into.
9:45:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out the phrase "bondable costs" in the
bill's title as well as on page 2, line 22. He said:
The issue I think that this is also talking about, but
I don't know if it's fully addressed here, is if the
municipality of the current capital would bond for the
construction costs ... and the state would lease the
building back, how does that relate to this statewide
election to have an approved bond?
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that "this is a moving target,"
and he expressed his willingness to adapt to "whatever's thrown
at me." He said, "Certainly the legislature has a role in
whether or not to fund those. I think the City and Borough [of
Juneau] could go out on [its] own and fund the building. I
think they tried that mechanism a few years ago and it was
rejected."
9:47:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Stoltze to get back to the
committee with information on how the proposed funding mechanism
would relate to the language in HB 48.
9:48:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the capitol is a building
that the public will be paying for one way or another. He said
that in all fairness, if the public is paying the bill, then the
public ought to be the group that is entitled to vote on the
issue. The FRANK Initiative as amended, he said, would simply
say that the people rather than the legislature should make the
decision as to whether or not they want to fund a building and
how much they want to spend.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that the committee had earlier
discussed funding a university building and no one had made an
indication that the public should vote on that particular issue.
She asked why the capitol is different.
9:50:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that the public has not
expressed its opinion about buildings in the state with the
frequency and intensity as it has regarding the capitol. He
said that folks have a very intense opinion about the capitol,
and the way the FRANK Initiative has been marketed has made
people feel that they have a right [to an opinion]. He stated,
"I am trying to extend something in statute that they feel they
already have.... People do not view this as just any other
state building."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said it's common sense that people of Alaska
have some clue as to how much a capitol will cost no matter
where it is located. He commented that it's a matter of full
disclosure and fiscal responsibility. He offered to co-sponsor
the bill.
9:53:30 AM
AVRUM GROSS stated that he has been a resident of Alaska for 45
years and was formerly a practicing attorney. He said that he
served as Attorney General under Governor Jay Hammond for six
years. He noted that he was testifying on behalf of himself.
He stated:
HB 48 is an effort to amend the FRANK Initiative, and
the FRANK Initiative, of course, is a part of that
long-standing capital-move debate that we've probably
all been a part of forever.... The first campaign to
move the capital was going on in 1960.... The last
time ... was a few years ago, and it went down about
two to one [against it].... FRANK simply says that if
... the voters decide to move the capital, ... a
process is set up where a commission is appointed to
... figure out all the costs of the move. And then to
put it in a package where the voters can assess it and
vote on it.... All possible bondable costs of the
move, which basically means all capital costs which
would be accrued, ... have to be put into a bond issue
and then the ... people have to vote on it in a second
vote.
MR. GROSS pointed out that the one time the vote passed, in 1974
as he recalled, there was a commission, which cost a fortune for
architects, lawyers, and financial consultants, who arrived at a
figure that was close to $2 billion. He said that this figure
was put on the ballot and defeated.
9:56:41 AM
MR. GROSS said that the FRANK Initiative makes sense when
discussing moving the capital to a new city, which could saddle
the state with debt for years. However, he remarked, the
concept does not apply to a single building in the existing
capital city. He said:
The bill as I read it requires that we go through the
whole FRANK process once a decision is made to build a
new capitol building in Juneau, and that means the
commission and then the voters have to vote again on a
new bond issue for all the possible bondable costs of
construction, just like FRANK. But when you put it to
this one building, let me tell you the kind of
problems that show up. The first one is, of course,
the bill doesn't define what a capitol is. A capital
city ... is where Juneau is; that's the seat of
government. A capitol building ... is traditionally
where the legislature meets.... In Juneau, the
legislature performs its functions in at least two
buildings that I know of: this one and the Terry
Miller Office Building across the street. You have
committee meetings there, you have chambers there,
[and] you have staff there....
MR. GROSS continued:
It's not clear to me just how far this bill is meant
to go. For instance, does it require a statewide vote
on a new building to house new legislative chambers,
and staff, and library? That's part of the
legislative function. Would that be required? Would
you need to set up a commission, do the bondable cost
and such? Would it apply to a new building which was
built for the governor and the attorney general?...
What does it mean when you say that it has to be new
when you're talking about an existing government city?
For instance, would a major renovation of this
building be considered a new building without a
statewide vote? How big would the renovation have to
be? Would you use the same kind of test as people use
for building permits, where if you renovate so much of
a building that it becomes ... treated as a new
structure? What kind of rules would govern that?...
Where does it have to be geographically to be a new
building? Suppose the legislature decides that it
wants to build out over the parking lot and connect to
the Terry Miller Building with a skyway, for instance,
and you build a new structure over there but it's
connected to this building. Is that a new capitol
building or is that just simply a renovation of the
old capitol building...?
10:00:45 AM
MR. GROSS continued:
Finally, the bill requires that you ... figure out all
of the bondable costs, and then put them on a GO
[General Obligation] bond issue for the people to vote
on. But what if there are no bondable costs?... What
happens if the City of Juneau builds it, and issues
bonds, and is liable for the bonds, and no state money
is used at all? Then what is it that you would put on
the ballot?... If the state isn't going to spend any
money, why would the state insist on a vote?
10:02:11 AM
MR. GROSS concluded that HB 48 would turn every effort of the
legislature to try to improve the conditions of the legislative
building and the capitol into lawsuits. "Until and unless the
people decide they want to move the capital," he commented, "the
legislature should make its decision on what buildings are
necessary for legislative work on its own and move from there."
10:02:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Gross to submit a written
copy of his testimony to the committee.
[HB 48 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:03:34 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|