03/17/2005 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB117 | |
| HB74 | |
| HB160 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 74 | ||
| * | HB 160 | ||
| = | HB 117 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2005
8:17 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux (via teleconference)
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Woodie Salmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 117
"An Act relating to the liability of the state and
municipalities for attorney fees in certain civil actions and
appeals; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 117(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 160
"An Act limiting the use of money of the state and its political
subdivisions to affect an election."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 117
SHORT TITLE: STATE/MUNI LIABILITY FOR ATTORNEY FEES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/28/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/05 (H) CRA, JUD
02/07/05 (H) STA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER CRA
02/17/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/17/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: 911 SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
01/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/05 (H) CRA, L&C
03/03/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/03/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/17/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 160
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) STOLTZE
02/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/05 (H) CRA, STA
03/17/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 74, on behalf of
Representative Holm, sponsor.
LINDA FREED, Manager
City of Kodiak
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
JIM ROWE, Director
Alaska Telephone Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 74.
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager/911 Administrator
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 74, urged the
committee to pass legislation this year.
BILL DOOLITTLE, 911 Project Manager
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to support HB 74.
TIM ROGERS
Alaska Municipal League
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74, but
expressed the need for smaller communities to be able to charge
in excess of $2.00.
WALT MONEGAN, Chief
Anchorage Police Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 160.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed some concerns with HB 160.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that APOC is neutral with regard
to HB 160.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:17:00 AM.
Representatives Olson, Thomas, Kott, LeDoux (via
teleconference), and Neuman were present at the call to order.
Representatives Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 117-STATE/MUNI LIABILITY FOR ATTORNEY FEES
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 117, "An Act relating to the liability of the
state and municipalities for attorney fees in certain civil
actions and appeals; and providing for an effective date."
8:17:26 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved that the committee adopt the following
amendment:
Page 2, line 5;
Delete "cost or fees"
Insert "attorney fees"
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that this amendment was requested by the
sponsor.
CO-CHAIR OLSON, upon determining there were no objections,
announced that the amendment was adopted.
8:17:49 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to report HB 117, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 117(CRA) was
reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 74-911 SURCHARGE
8:18:17 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act relating to enhanced 911
surcharges."
8:18:49 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt CSHB 74, Version L, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version L was
before the committee.
8:19:02 AM
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that enhanced 911 allows the exact
location of a caller [to be provided to the 911 center]. The
surcharge would pay for the technology, the software, and the
dispatch related to enhanced 911. This proposed committee
substitute (CS) eliminates the current statutory provision
specifying that a municipality, through the telephone bill, may
charge $.50-$.75 based on population, and replaces it with a
provision that would allow a surcharge of up to $2 regardless of
the city's size. The legislation further specifies that if a
municipality wants to implement a surcharge higher than $2.00,
it must go to a vote of the people. The legislation also
mandates that municipalities set the same rate for wire line,
hard line, and wireless phones. Mr. Rudig turned attention to a
recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling, which he
characterized as a truth-in-billing order. He acknowledged
that there was concern that this FCC ruling could impact [the
state's] ability to authorize an enhanced 911 surcharge on
wireless telephones, although it has been learned that the
formal ruling will impact the [state's] ability regarding how
the surcharge is listed on the wireless bill, but not the
ability to assess the surcharge. The same notice specifies that
the state can authorize a surcharge for wireless phones, but
[the state] can't legislate how the surcharge appears on the
subscriber's bill. Therefore, the state can't require a
separate line item to be listed. Mr. Rudig then related a
statement from Kathleen Abernathy, FCC Commissioner, as follows:
"We also narrowly defined our preemption to address only those
state regulations that either require or prohibit the use of
line items. The item makes clear that nothing in our action
today limits the state's ability to assess taxes." In order to
ensure that the state is in compliance with the FCC ruling, an
amendment to eliminate the current statutory requirement that
the 911 surcharge be listed separately was prepared.
8:23:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern with situations in which
a family has one billing [address] while each family member has
a separate phone number. He inquired as to whether the
surcharge would apply to fax and Internet lines as well.
MR. RUDIG confirmed that the surcharge would be applied per
line.
8:24:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT continued with Representative Neuman's
earlier situation and asked if one number is billed and the
others are tacked on, or is each number billed separately.
MR. RUDIG deferred to wireless representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that one of the provisions in
the legislation specifies that there will be a fee on each
wireless telephone number billed to an address. However, the
legislation also includes a provision specifying that each wire
line number would receive a surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN informed the committee that he receives
one bill for a wireless family with three lines. However, this
legislation seems to mean that each line would receive a
surcharge. Representative Neuman pointed out that the
legislation specifies that the governing body or municipality
can review the surcharge annually to determine whether it's
adequate or insufficient.
MR. RUDIG pointed out that the language to which Representative
Neuman is referring is existing statutory language and the
legislation refers to the surcharge being up to $2.00.
8:28:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN opined that it seems that government
agencies try to provide the best they can, which costs money.
Therefore, he said he believes the $2.00 surcharge would be
charged because the more money that could be utilized for the
system, the better the system. He reviewed the various items
that this would cover from Internet, phone, fax, and cellular
service. He indicated that he could live with a $2.00 per
billing family surcharge.
MR. RUDIG pointed out that the existing statute already refers
to a per line [surcharge]. He also pointed out that communities
are losing money providing these enhanced 911 services under the
current fee, which is illustrated in the document entitled "E-
911 Dispatch Center Costs and Revenues Selected Alaska Cities."
He explained that what's happening is cities such as Fairbanks
are taking money from property taxpayers to finance the enhanced
911 system. Therefore, this legislation attempts to raise the
surcharge such that less money is taken from the property
taxpayers.
8:31:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that no
municipality or borough would be able to charge the enhanced 911
service if such service isn't offered in that area.
MR. RUDIG said that's correct, and informed the committee that
the FCC code specifies that the surcharge can only be charged
for enhanced 911 service.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether those areas that don't
receive any 911 service are charged a fee.
MR. RUDIG replied no.
8:32:58 AM
LINDA FREED, Manager, City of Kodiak, spoke in support of HB 74.
Ms. Freed opined that legislation [such as HB 74] needs to pass
this session. She informed the committee that the City of
Kodiak spends approximately $600,000 a year on its enhanced 911
system and dispatch system. Without an individual to answer the
911 call and dispatch the appropriate response group, the system
is incomplete. Current statute only allows the enhanced 911
surcharge to be used for the enhanced 911 services. Therefore,
she requested changing the statute to allow the surcharge funds
to be used for the entire emergency response dispatch system
because it would allow communities to offset the true cost of
the larger system. She opined that local government has the
best ability to set the amount of the surcharge. However, if
the legislature feels the $2.00 cap is appropriate, Ms. Freed
said she would support it because the current $.75 cap isn't
coming close to paying for the system. Ms. Freed informed the
committee that the City of Kodiak is effectively the regional
emergency dispatch system for the entire Kodiak area. Because
of Kodiak's regional perspective, it's important for [the City
of Kodiak] to be able to help pay for the system through the
surcharge. In conclusion, Ms. Freed encouraged the committee to
move this legislation or some other amendment [to statute]
forward this session.
8:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if Ms. Freed supported a $2.00 cap
per billing address or per line.
MS. FREED specified that the billing is per line, and therefore
if the surcharge is based per billing [address], the [City of
Kodiak] would lose money based on what's being collected now.
[Implementing the surcharge per line] is of particular
importance for wireless phones that could be in separate
locations.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if Ms. Freed would support a higher
surcharge cap, such as $4.00-$6.00 per line per billing
[address].
MS. FREED reiterated that it would be most appropriate for the
local community operating the system to establish the amount of
the surcharge through a local hearing process. Ms. Freed said
that if the legislation is changed such that communities were
required to bill on a billing address basis, she could analyze
that and offer some suggestions.
8:39:03 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS inquired as to who receives the surcharge when
911 is called from wireless service that is roaming.
MR. RUDIG answered that the surcharge, that is if there is such
service in the billing address area, would go to the billing
address.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS surmised then that when an individual with a
billing address in Haines calls 911 in Anchorage, Anchorage
wouldn't receive the surcharge.
MR. RUDIG replied that's correct.
8:40:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN questioned how [the emergency dispatch
system] would know the location of the cell phone.
MR. RUDIG explained that [tracking would be possible] under
Phase II technology, which is just [beginning to be used].
Currently, [the emergency dispatch system] can't track the
location of a call made from a cell phone.
8:41:51 AM
JIM ROWE, Director, Alaska Telephone Association, commented that
Version L is an improvement over earlier legislation. Mr. Rowe
informed the committee that the companies he represents are
rural carriers. Mr. Rowe expressed concern that there is no
cap. He expressed the telephone companies' interest in having
as many people in the state having access to telecommunications
as possible. However, as the rates and costs of owning a
telephone rise, whether it be a wireless or land line, that
places pressure on people to not have a telephone.
MR. ROWE related his understanding that most people believe that
telephone companies are the cause of enhanced 911 systems.
However, this is a matter of emergency response, which is of
great use to a municipality. Mr. Rowe clarified that telephone
companies aren't the cause of 911, but facilitate the
opportunity for response. He said the notion that perhaps the
cost for emergency response shouldn't be funded with property
taxes and should only be a burden on those paying for telephone
service doesn't make good sense to him. With regard to the
earlier mentioned FCC ruling, he related that there is much
confusion regarding what the decision did. The earlier
mentioned FCC news release also says, "The commission clarifies
that state regulations requiring or prohibiting the use of line
items for CMRS [commercial mobile radio services] constitute
regulation and are preempted." From the "Wireless Week", March
10, 2005, article entitled "FCC Holds Wireless To New Standard",
Mr. Rowe quoted the following:
The most controversial portion of the agency's truth
in billing action today, however, was its pre-emption
of state utility commissions over the "line items"
included on wireless bills. Items such as E 911
surcharges, universal service fund items, primary
carrier surcharges and other cost recovery mechanisms
that appear on customers' bills separated out from the
main service charge and mandated by some states,
weren't valid. The FCC preempted state utility
commissions' authority to mandate such line item
charges ....
MR. ROWE informed the committee that he had called the senior
legal advisor [for the FCC] and inquired as to the [FCC's]
intent with its ruling. The legal advisor specified that the
intent wasn't to exclude these items, but until it's all written
up the final decision is unknown. Mr. Rowe agreed with Mr.
Rudig in that he didn't believe 911 surcharges will be
preempted, although some experts writing for telecommunications
press believe otherwise. Therefore, Mr. Rowe said that he is in
a quandary regarding what is applicable even if legislation is
passed.
8:47:10 AM
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager/911 Administrator, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, said that he would echo many of Ms. Freed's
comments. The current surcharge level doesn't adequately
support the [emergency response] services. He informed the
committee that the [Kenai Peninsula Borough] is in the process
of attempting to do the planning to implement wireless Phase I
and II. He urged the committee to pass legislation this year,
and said he would support an increase in the surcharge. He
echoed Ms. Freed's earlier comment that local government
officials are in the best position to determine the level of
funding for the services provided.
8:48:06 AM
BILL DOOLITTLE, 911 Project Manager, Municipality of Anchorage,
encouraged the committee's support of the legislation. Although
there has been discussion of concern with regard to FCC
rulemaking, he opined that the FCC will eventually allow state-
mandated surcharges such as 911 surcharges. The current
surcharge and the proposed $2.00 cap are both insufficient for
most communities. From the urban area perspective, agencies who
have elected to create 911 programs have found the surcharge
insufficient. However, the communities in rural areas may find
the surcharge is now sufficient to actually create the programs
and thus new enhanced 911 systems may come into existence.
8:49:30 AM
TIM ROGERS, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated that this
legislation is important to ensure the continuation of
improvements and operations of the emergency response systems
throughout the state. Mr. Rogers related that legislation
enabling a surcharge has changed over time. Such legislation
was first passed to help local government upgrade its 911 system
to an enhanced system, which allows the [dispatcher] to identify
the location of the call from a land line. In the case of a
cell phone [the dispatcher] receives the number of the caller,
but doesn't know the location of the caller. Mr. Rogers
explained that one of the purposes of the proposed increase in
the surcharge is to help fund Phase II of the enhanced 911
service, which would allow [the dispatcher] receiving a wireless
call to know the location of the caller. The location of the
caller is imperative in an emergency, he remarked. Phase II
will either entail a global positioning system [GPS] in the unit
or triangulation on the cell towers by the telephone company.
He opined that [enhanced 911] is a vast improvement and will
save many lives. However, many local governments need help to
accomplish such an upgrade. Many of the programs, such as
revenue sharing, that were used to fund 911 service in the past
have disappeared. He highlighted that it's important to note
that this legislation doesn't impact those communities that
don't have an enhanced 911 system. Furthermore, the [surcharge]
can't be implemented unless the proceeds are to support or
acquire an enhanced 911 system. Mr. Rogers related that AML
does support the legislation, although it would like to see a
differential for smaller communities such that they could
authorize a surcharge higher than $2.00.
8:53:32 AM
WALT MONEGAN, Chief, Anchorage Police Department, announced his
support or HB 74, and urged its passage. Chief Monegan
explained that out of the current surcharge of $.50, with the
100 line cap, [the municipality] must pay the 911 provider $.21
per line for the 911 provider's cost and database management.
He highlighted that with the 100 line cap, the [municipality] is
still paying for many lines for which no surcharge is being
received, not to mention those visitors using [the 911
services]. Chief Monegan informed the committee that all told
the [enhanced 911 system in Anchorage] is approximately $4
million in the red, and therefore money has to be taken from
elsewhere. He further informed the committee that about 50
percent of all of [the Municipality of Anchorage's] 911 calls
come from cell phones. With the expectation of Phase II
wireless, he predicted that there will be a further increase in
911 calls from cell phones.
8:56:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern that Phase II would
possibly allow the government to obtain records of the location
of cell phone users.
CHIEF MONEGAN interjected that in order to provide such
information, a subpoena is necessary, particularly in criminal
investigations. However, in the case of an emergency, there may
be ways to respond to a request for help.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that perhaps an emergency
locator beacon may be more appropriate to place in a cell phone
than GPS.
CHIEF MONEGAN reiterated that under Phase II, either GPS or
triangulation will provide the location of the cell phone
caller. With regard to the earlier discussion about being
billed per address, Chief Monegan informed the committee that
[the Municipality of Anchorage] is being billed per line and
thus any other proposal would result in a loss of funds. He
then related that the $2.00 cap will work for Anchorage for a
number of years.
8:59:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if Chief Monegan would support a
change in statute to remove the 100 local exchange lines
restriction.
CHIEF MONEGAN replied yes, because [the municipality] is already
paying for many of those. Lifting the cap would make the
revenue [coming in to pay for the enhanced 911 system] more
realistic.
9:01:25 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that HB 74 would be held over.
CO-CHAIR OLSON passed the gavel to Co-Chair Thomas.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:01:41 AM to 9:08:42 AM.
[HB 74 was taken up again later in this meeting.]
HB 160-PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES
9:08:44 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 160, "An Act limiting the use of money of the
state and its political subdivisions to affect an election."
9:08:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 160 as a modest campaign finance reform measure, which will
prohibit local governments from using money to influence ballot
measures. He noted that there are already prohibitions in place
with regard to campaigns involving candidates. Representative
Stoltze opined, from the conversations that he has had, that the
public generally supports this measure. In fact, most people
thought it was already illegal. If people already believe
something is in law, then it's probably best to ratify it, he
stated. This legislation protects municipalities, smaller ones
in particular, from political pressures. He related his belief
that the legislation includes enough protections to allow the
dissemination of neutral information.
9:11:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether HB 160 would limit those on
school boards from actively promoting school bonds. He related
his understanding that this legislation merely limits spending
municipal funds on the aforementioned.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that he didn't believe HB 160
would prohibit one, such as a school board member, from
attending community forums, although it may prohibit such an
individual from [using municipal funds] to travel to another
community [to promote/oppose a particular issue].
CO-CHAIR THOMAS turned attention to page 1, lines 13-14, and
asked if the language refers to employees [of the entities
specified on page 1, lines 9-12].
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE clarified that the distinction would be
whether [the employee] is present as an individual or a
representative of the entity [by which the individual is
employed].
CO-CHAIR THOMAS related his understanding that although
municipalities can't use [municipal funds to influence ballot
measures], a member of the assembly can campaign and create a
group for a ballot measure.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE recalled that during the last two
elections [in Anchorage] the superintendent of the Anchorage
School District was involved in an independent entity to
[influence the outcome of a ballot measure]. He opined that the
aforementioned was [funded outside of municipality funds], which
was appropriate. He opined that government entities shouldn't
be involved in expending public funds to influence elections.
9:14:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised then that the intent of HB 160 is
to ensure that municipal funds aren't spent to influence
[elections], while allowing people the freedom to speak so long
as they aren't spending government funds to promote any
political activities.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied yes, adding that he didn't want
to stifle anyone's Second Amendment rights. Although an
assembly member, for example, may maintain a strong voice for
his or her community, [that member] shouldn't dip into the
government treasury to do so. There are enough mechanisms, such
as a political action committee (PAC), available through which
an effort could be put forth. Representative Stoltze
characterized this as an issue of public trust, which often
backfires when one uses taxpayers' money [to influence an
election].
9:16:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled passage of legislation to promote
hunting, trapping, and fishing as one of the commissioner of
Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) duties. She further
recalled Representative Kelly discussing when outside interests
enter the state. The laws seem to prohibit the state from
taking a position on ballot propositions and this legislation
seems to make it even more difficult for the state or the
municipality to take positions against some of the outside
interests that want to make changes in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE specified that this legislation wouldn't
prohibit the ADF&G commissioner from stating a position of state
policy. However, the state wouldn't run advertisements,
although another group could use the department's statements in
its own private campaign.
9:20:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern that one could argue
that someone being paid a salary is using [government] resources
to advocate a matter or position if that individual, in the
course of his or her duties specifies that the state doesn't
like something.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE clarified that it's not his intent for a
commissioner of ADF&G to be barred from attending a public forum
of a public interest. This legislation closes a loophole that
municipalities can use funds by passage of a simple ordinance.
He said he would ferret out a legal opinion on that matter.
9:21:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised then that HB 160 would prohibit the
Permanent Fund Corporation from advocating the percent of market
value (POMV) with state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE related his belief that currently the
Permanent Fund Corporation would be prevented [from advocating,
with the use of state funds, a specific methodology]. This
legislation only speaks to closing the municipal loophole.
9:22:57 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), agreed with the sponsor in that good government is the
issue and how good government is implemented is key. He
commented that good government is dependent upon the flow of
information between elected officials and residents [of the
area]. The [language in the legislation] that speaks of only
disseminating the time and place of meeting would be ripe for
litigation, he mentioned. Mr. Ritchie provided the following
example of what he characterized as good government in which a
municipality felt the need to raise its sales tax in order to
provide adequate services. Very seldom will there be a local
advocacy group for raising a sales tax. Because one size
doesn't fit all, it would be nice to specify what is appropriate
for municipalities to do or not do. For example, it would be
appropriate to have a series of meetings around the community
regarding the situation of the community and what might be done
with a proposed sales tax. Often, good government also includes
sending out a brochure on the matter. There is a gray line with
regard to what is appropriate or not and often people who feel
"had" vote against the measure or don't re-elect those involved
with the measure. Mr. Ritchie indicated the need to clarify
this gray line without taking away the ability of local
government to have a conversation with the public on the policy.
9:27:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if Mr. Ritchie could make any
suggestions and work with Representative Stoltze on this matter.
MR. RITCHIE answered that he would try to work with the sponsor.
However, he said that he hasn't determined how to define the
gray line. He noted agreement with the bright line this
legislation draws regarding the inability for public money to be
used to influence the outcome of an election of a candidate.
However, a ballot issue could be a critical area of public
policy and for the municipality not to have the broad ability to
participate in the public policy discussions may cause a problem
in some areas.
9:28:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a municipality has ever used public
funds to support or endorse a candidate for office.
MR. RITCHIE said not that he knew of, adding that it would be
illegal.
9:29:19 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated that APOC takes a neutral position on
HB 160. Current law prohibits the state and its political
subdivisions from spending its money in efforts to support or
oppose a candidate. However, current law permits the
expenditure of public money to support or oppose a ballot
proposition if the funds are appropriated specifically for that
purpose by state law or municipal ordinance. Since the
aforementioned provision has been in effect since January 1997,
the state hasn't appropriated funds to support or oppose a
ballot measure. However, APOC did have substantial discussions
with the Permanent Fund Corporation last election year as the
corporation considered what it would do if POMV was on the
ballot. The APOC issued some complex informal advice. Ms.
Miles highlighted that many municipalities and school districts
have appropriated and spent money to support local issues such
as school bonds and capital improvement projects.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that HB 160 would be held over.
HB 74-911 SURCHARGE
9:31:41 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS returned the committee's attention to HOUSE BILL
NO. 74, "An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges."
9:32:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that the committee rescind its action
in adopting CSHB 74, Version L. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
9:32:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt CSHB 74, Version 24-LS0043\S,
Cook, 2/25/05, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version S was before the committee.
[HB 74 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:32:53 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|