Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/09/1995 09:10 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 9, 1995
9:10 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-95, #3, Side 1 (260-end)
SFC-95, #3, Side 2 (575-end)
SFC-95, #5, Side 1 (000-403)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:10 a.m.
PRESENT
All committee members (Co-chairs Halford and Frank and
Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff) were
present.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senate President Drue Pearce; Speaker of the
House Gail Phillips; Senator Duncan; Representative
Finkelstein; Pat Pourchot, Legislative Director, Office of
the Governor; Former Juneau Mayor, Jamie Parsons; Chuck
Achberger, Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce; Pam Neal,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce; Dave Hutchens, Executive
Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association;
Chip Wagoner; Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly; and aides to
committee members and other members of the legislature.
ALSO PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE: Don Schroer, Alaska
Public Utilities Commission, Anchorage; Bob Lohr, Executive
Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, Anchorage; and
Jimmy Jackson, Attorney for GCI, Anchorage.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
The meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Barrow,
Glennallen, Nome, and Valdez.
HCR 1 - LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Discussion was had with Senator Pearce,
Representative Phillips, Pat Pourchot, and Pam
Neal. An amendment suggested by the
administration was moved by Senator Donley but
failed on a vote of 5 to 2. SCS CSHCR 1 (STA) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a $51.3 fiscal note
from the Legislative Affairs Agency.
HJR 7 - EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
Brief testimony was presented by Representative
Finkelstein. CSHJR 7 (O&G)am was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a zero fiscal note from the Dept.
of Natural Resources and a note from the Dept. of
Revenue showing potential revenues of $80 million.
SB 19 - LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO BE IN ANCHORAGE
Testimony was presented by Jamie Parsons, Chuck
Achberger, and Chip Wagoner. The sponsor directed
attention to a proposed committee substitute
adding a relocation commission. The bill was HELD
in committee for continuing work on fiscal notes.
SB 47 - APUC EXTENSION AND REGULATORY COST CHARGE
Testimony was presented by Josh Fink, Don Schroer,
Bob Lohr, Jimmy Jackson, and Dave Hutchens. The
bill was HELD in committee for scheduling on next
week's agenda.
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7(O&G) am
Supporting the lifting of the ban on the export of
Alaska North Slope crude oil, requesting the President
of the United States to present to the United States
Congress a recommendation that it is both in the
national interest to lift the ban on the export of
Alaska North Slope crude oil and discriminatory to the
state to maintain the ban, and endorsing passage of
H.R. 70 and S. 70, companion federal legislation to
remove restraints on the export of that oil.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHJR 7 (O&G)am be brought
on for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN, sponsor,
came before committee. He noted that the proposed lifting
of the ban on export of Alaska North Slope crude oil had
been before previous legislatures. The climate in
Washington, D.C., at this time, however, appears right for
favorable consideration. Language in the resolution is
straightforward. Projected revenues reflect figures from
reports over the past few years.
Co-chairman Halford called for comments or questions from
committee members. None were forthcoming. Senator Phillips
MOVED that CSHJR 7 (O&G)am pass from committee. No
objection having been raised, CSHJR 7 (O&G)am was REPORTED
OUT of committee with a zero fiscal note from the Dept. of
Natural Resources and a note from the Dept. of Revenue
showing projected revenues of $80 million. All members
signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation.
CS FOR HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(FIN)
Creating the Long Range Financial Planning Commission.
SENATE PRESIDENT DRUE PEARCE came before committee and
directed attention to SCS CSHCR 1 (STA). She referenced a
recommendation from Commonwealth North for a statewide
effort involving Alaskan citizens in long-range financial
planning. She further stressed need for a "soft landing" as
Prudhoe Bay revenues fall and the state faces "huge budget
deficits over the next ten years."
The resolution would create a balanced, statewide
commission. Pages 2 (lines 25-29) and 3 (through line 24)
present specific areas of commission review. The Senate
State Affairs' version calls for nine public members:
1. Three chosen by the Speaker of the House
2. Three chosen by the Senate President
3. Three chosen by the Governor
The House-passed version required unanimous consent by the
Governor, Speaker, and Senate President for all nine
members. Concern arose that that type of consensus would
involve a difficult and lengthy selection process and not
provide the needed wide range of diversification. Senate
State Affairs added a provision requiring that legislative
appointments by both the House and Senate consist of one
member of the majority and one member of the minority.
Senator Pearce acknowledged that work to be undertaken by
the commission should be done by the legislature. She then
added that a long-range plan could probably not be developed
without participation by the public. The resolution would
allow the legislature to work with the public on development
of new ideas for future budgeting. Senator Pearce spoke to
constituent concern that the state does not presently have a
budgetary plan. She referenced the Cremo Plan and the "safe
landing plan" proposed by ISER. There has been no
opportunity for review and discussion of these plans by the
public.
The resolution passed the House on a vote of 37 to 1.
Senator Pearce noted support by the Alaska Municipal League,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Common Sense for Alaska,
the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Resource
Development Council, etc.
Senator Zharoff referenced fiscal note information
indicating that public members would be selected from
Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Southeast. Senator Pearce
explained that since there is no way to anticipate where
public members might come from, a regional diversity was
simply set forth by Legislative Affairs. She said she
expected rural members would participate and advised that
the fiscal note could be revised to show membership from the
four judicial districts, if that would provide a greater
level of comfort. Senator Zharoff stressed need for
participation by people from rural Alaska.
Discussion followed regarding identification of anticipated
fiscal gaps and recurring revenue and expenditures. Senator
Pearce spoke to projections by the administration,
Legislative Finance Division, the Oil and Gas Division with
the Dept. of Revenue, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, sponsor, came before
committee. In response to a question from Senator Zharoff,
she spoke to need for involvement of more public than
legislative members. A total of nine was selected to "keep
the committee from getting too big." Senator Zharoff asked
how the public members would be selected. Representative
Phillips referenced lists of people who have been involved
in state financial planning for some time as well as experts
and volunteers.
Senator Halford expressed his hope that membership would not
be weighted toward direct or significant indirect
beneficiaries of state spending. More general beneficiaries
should be well represented.
Senator Rieger voiced support for the resolution, saying
that it would create a mechanism for protecting state
reserves such as the earnings of the permanent fund, AHFC,
AIDEA, etc.
PAT POURCHOT, Legislative Director, Office of the Governor,
next came before committee. He voiced support for the idea
of a long-range fiscal planning commission, but noted
disagreement regarding composition of the members. All
members must have equal involvement in the process to ensure
both the function and credibility of the commission. The
Governor's position is that commission members should work
toward consensus and avoid vote count situations. The
proposed fifteen-member commission could lead to an eight to
seven configuration. Mr. Pourchot proposed that the
commission consist of a structure that does not include the
typical tie-breaking vote. He noted that when the vote is
eight to seven, the credibility of commission work is
greatly weakened. He pointed to an even number of members
on the PERS and TRS investment board and even representation
of management and employee interests. In that situation,
members are forced to work together to reach consensus. Mr.
Pourchot suggested addition of another public member,
appointed by the Governor, for a sixteen-member commission,
including ten public members: four appointed by the
Governor, three by the Senate, and three by the House. He
cautioned that lessening the Governor's role in selection of
commission members might force him into a "less proactive
role in the ultimate recommendations of the commission."
PAM NEAL, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, next came before
committee. She told the committee that the chamber
represents approximately 700 businesses, employing 80,000
people. She voiced support for the resolution and said that
reduction in state spending and long-range financial
planning are the first priorities on the chamber's
legislative agenda. The chamber is less concerned by
composition of the commission than the requirement that it
include:
1. Statewide representation.
2. Representatives of beneficiaries of state
spending.
3. Representatives of providers of state revenue (the
business community).
Speaking to questions regarding need for the commission, Ms.
Neal stressed that it would "help get this process rolling .
. . get something on the table that everybody can look at."
Referencing commission costs, Ms. Neal noted that planning
is a necessary and beneficial process in the business
community. It thus justifies the expense. The $51.3 fiscal
note is a small price to pay for a solution to state
deficits.
Co-chairman Halford called for additional testimony on the
resolution. None was forthcoming. Senator Donley MOVED for
adoption of the amendment suggested by the administration:
Page 2, Line 6:
Change "nine members of the public" to "ten
members
of the public"
Page 2, Line 8:
Change "three" to "four" appointed by the
Governor.
Page 2, Lines 7 and 8:
Include language specifying appointment of three
public members, each, by both the Senate and
House.
End: SFC-95, #3, Side 1
Begin: SFC-95, #3, Side 2
Senator Rieger voiced support for the resolution without the
proposed amendment. Senator Zharoff spoke in support of the
change, stressing need for the sixteen-member commission to
reach consensus. Co-chairman Halford called for a show of
hands on the motion. The motion FAILED on a vote of 2 to 5.
Senator Rieger MOVED that SCS CSHCR 1 (STA) pass from
committee with individual recommendations. No objection
having been raised, SCS CSHCR 1 (STA) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a $51.3 fiscal note from the Legislative
Affairs Agency. Co-chairman Frank and Senators Rieger and
Sharp signed the committee report with a "do pass"
recommendation. Co-chairman Halford and Senators Donley and
Zharoff signed "no recommendation." Senator Phillips signed
"do not pass."
SENATE BILL NO. 47
An Act relating to the extent to which the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission may exercise its powers
when regulating utilities; establishing a regulatory
cost charge on public utilities and pipeline carriers;
relating to the allocation of costs in hearings before
the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to the
method by which utilities are exempted from and made
subject to regulation by the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission; relating to the monetary threshold for
regulation of certain kinds of utilities by the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission; extending the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission; relating to staggered
terms for members of the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission; and providing for an effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 47 be brought on for
discussion. JOSH FINK, aide to Senator Kelly, came before
committee. He directed attention to a sectional analysis
prepared by Senator Kelly, sponsor, and a separate sectional
prepared by Legislative Legal Services. He explained that
SB 47 reflects reintroduction of SB 213 from the previous
legislature. It accomplishes two goals:
1. Extension of the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission
currently scheduled to sunset the end of June,
1995.
2. Reenactment of the regulatory cost charge that
expired
December 31, 1994.
Given the unknown and potentially serious ramifications of
expiration of APUC, SB 47 was introduced as consensus
legislation. All provisions have been extensively debated
and are either unopposed or the result of compromise by all
concerned parties, in the best interest of consumer
protection. SB 47 is almost identical to the version that
reached the House floor last May and failed to pass prior to
adjournment.
A separate bill including further APUC amendments has also
been introduced. It is Senator Kelly's hope that SB 47 will
remain unamended as it travels through the legislative
process.
Mr. Fink provided a review of the sponsor's sectional
analysis (copy on file in the SFC file for SB 47) and
highlighted the following provisions:
1. Sec. 1 replaces language granting the commission
"liberally construed" powers with language
allowing the commission to do "all things
necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and
exercise the powers expressly granted or
reasonably implied." The foregoing reflects
compromise language developed last year.
2. Secs. 2, 3, 10 and 11 reenact the regulation cost
charge
for utilities and pipelines. Reenactment does not
include sunset provisions. The RCC should be
considered when the commission "comes up for
sunset."
3. On Page 3, Lines 11-13, provisions adjust
allocation of
the RCC for electric utilities by subtracting the
cost of power from gross revenues.
4. On Page 2, Line 27 and Page 6, Line 4, the ceiling
on the
RCC for utilities and pipeline carriers is raised
from .61 % to .8 %. The RCC has never reached the
ceiling. If the cost of power is subtracted from
gross revenues for electric utilities, the ceiling
for other utilities must be increased or
sufficient program receipts will not be generated
to cover the commission budget.
5. Page 3, Lines 20-24 and Page 6, Lines 15-19,
contain language requiring the Dept. of
Administration to earmark regulatory cost
charge collection overages for possible
appropriation by the legislature for the
commission's next fiscal year, thus lowering
the RCC for that year. That charge is passed
directly to consumers and averages $10
annually, for all utilities.
6. Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the result of audit
recommendations. Secs. 4, 8, and 9 permit
subscribers of small utilities or utilities exempt
from regulation to petition for regulation under
the same procedures used by subscribers of a
regulated utility to petition for removal from
regulation.
7. Sec. 12 extends the sunset date for the commission
to
June 30, 1999.
8. Sec. 13 staggers the terms of commission members.
Two
terms presently expire at the same time. The new
provision will not impact the terms of current
commissioners.
9. Secs. 14 and 15 provide for new language enacted
in
Sec. 1 (changing language from "liberally
construed" to "reasonably implied") to become
effective July 1, 1996.
10. Sec. 16 provides an immediate effective date for
all
provisions with the exception of Sec. 1.
Senator Donley voiced concern over the above-noted language
change in Sec. 1, suggesting that it would lead to increased
litigation over the meaning of the new standard. Consumers
will pay the cost of that litigation through increased
utility bills. He then inquired concerning why the change
was made. Mr. Fink deferred to APUC staff. He briefly
referenced situations in which utilities felt the commission
overstepped its authority and made policy decisions beyond
its statutory mandate. Alternatively, other utilities were
pleased that the commission had authority to grant temporary
operating permits, a function for which it does not have
express authority. Compromise language is "a shade more
restrictive." Senator Sharp attested to the fact that
under "liberally construed," commission philosophy often
swung in accordance with the make up of the commission.
Administrative and court challenges are expensive.
"Necessary and proper" is better, particularly in light of
provisions which allow the commission to levy the RCC to
cover its budget expenses. Senator Rieger voiced support
for the more moderate language. Senator Donley cautioned
that new language appears "ripe with potential for
litigation."
Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that should the
proposed bill not pass, utility bills would decrease
because the RCC would not be applied. Mr. Fink concurred
that individual bills would decrease by approximately $10.
He pointed, however, to federal mandates associated with
utilities and suggested that staff from APUC speak to
potential problems should APUC cease to exist.
Senator Donley next addressed statements by Mr. Fink that
reenactment of the RCC reflects a compromise, noting that
while it might represent a compromise among utilities, it is
not a compromise "among the consumers." He then attested to
constituent complaints over new charges on utility bills.
The situation is worsened by the proposed legislation which
enacts the "first, new tax bill of this year." Further,
restructuring increases the tax for urban residents more
than for those in rural Alaska.
DON SCHROER, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, next spoke
via teleconference from Anchorage. He stressed the
importance of early action on SB 47, and noted the audit
recommendation for a ten-year extension, since the
commission is fulfilling its public purpose. During the
past two years, no one has testified in favor of APUC
sunset. Mr. Schroer acknowledged that SB 47 contains
provisions the commission could "live without." It is,
however, supported in its present form, in the interest of
the impending time crunch.
Mr. Schroer further spoke to investigative delays and
uncertainty in APUC hire as a result of scheduled sunset.
He thanked utilities for their cooperation through early,
lump-sum payment of the RCC prior to expiration of
commission authority to levy the charge. He urged passage
of SB 47 without amendment.
In response to a question from Co-chairman Halford
concerning areas of the bill the commission does not look
favorably upon, Mr. Schroer replied that while the
commission sees no need to change "liberally construed" to
the proposed new language, the change is acceptable.
Discussion followed regarding ability of a utility to opt
out of APUC regulation. BOB LOHR, Executive Director,
Alaska Public Utilities Commission, testified from
Anchorage. He explained that a number of utilities may not
opt out of economic regulation because of size. Proposed
changes in the bill would increase the number of utilities
allowed to do so, but maximum size prohibitions would
remain. Cooperatives may opt out regardless of size, and
municipal utilities are exempt from regulation by law,
unless the municipal utility competes with a privately owned
utility. If one of a number of utilities owned by a
municipality elects to compete with a private utility, all
of the utilities owned by the municipality are automatically
subject to economic regulation by the commission.
Senator Zharoff commented upon the amount of paperwork and
duplication in state and federal filings for small
utilities. Mr. Schroer attested to recent regulations
allowing simplified rate filings for both electric and
telephone utilities.
JIMMY JACKSON, Attorney for GCI, next spoke from Anchorage.
He voiced support for passage of the legislation as quickly
as possible, without amendment. The present state of
"limbo" is undesirable and imposing an adverse affect on the
agency.
DAVE HUTCHENS, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, next came before committee, voicing
support for the legislation. He attested to the fact that
the commission should be extended for the same reasons it
was initially created: to prohibit territorial utility
wars, which are both wasteful and destructive, and bring
peace in the electric utility industry. Mr. Hutchens
reiterated previous testimony asking that SB 47 be passed in
its present form, without amendments.
Speaking to language in Sec. 1, Mr. Hutchens advocated the
change from "liberally construed" to "necessary or proper .
. . or reasonably implied." In response to a question from
Co-chairman Halford, Mr. Hutchens voiced his understanding
that new language means that the commission cannot embark on
new kinds of regulation which "liberally construed"
previously allowed. As an example, he cited application by
the community of King Cove and the resulting three-to-two
vote by the commission regarding whether environmental
issues and regulations should be included in deliberations.
The community and AIDEA prevailed, but the vote was close.
With different members on the commission, the vote could
easily have gone the other way. The supreme court supported
the commission exclusion, but the ruling was accompanied by
a long dissenting opinion. That is the type of situation
the new language seeks to prevent. If there is to be an
expansion of commission powers, that decision should be made
by the legislature rather than the commission and the
courts.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the APUC would come under
standard statutory language (reasonably necessary to
implement the statute) if there was no specific language
relating to regulatory standards for the commission. Mr.
Hutchens responded affirmatively and said that was what he
originally proposed. Changes within Sec. 1 reflect
compromise language modeled on wording from the state of
Wisconsin.
Mr. Hutchens next addressed adjustments to the regulatory
cost charge. He voiced concurrence in comments by Senator
Donley and agreed that utilities do not enjoy serving as tax
collectors. However, if the decision is that utilities
should play that role, the burden of collection should be
equitably distributed. An adjustment was the primary
recommendation of legislative audit. The proposal was to
allocate the RCC based on time records evidencing how
commission time is expended on regulation. That approach
was determined to be too time consuming. The present
formula keys the RCC to retail revenues, but revenue dollars
have no real relationship to commission activities. While
electric utility regulation comprises 30% of commission
activity, electric utilities were paying 45% of the cost of
the commission. The proposal contained within SB 47 was
crafted by Senator Sharp as a means of providing equity in
allocation of regulatory costs.
Co-chairman Halford asked if cost charges would increase in
Anchorage while decreasing in other locations. Mr. Hutchens
responded, "Perhaps, very slightly . . . ." Reallocation
could have that effect because of availability of heat from
a regulated natural gas utility. In other areas, providers
of heat are unregulated and thus not taxed to support the
commission.
Senator Zharoff sought clarification of the impact of
increasing the RCC rate. Mr. Lohr explained that the effect
of allowing the cost-of-power exclusion for electric
utilities shifts approximately 45% of the cost of the
commission to all other utilities. Since the commission is
mandated to collect its operating budget from all sources
subject to the RCC, a reduction for one type of utility
requires a commensurate increase for others. RCC rates for
utilities other than electrical will increase by roughly 31%
to offset the 45% reduction to electric utilities. The
commission is only authorized to collect the amount
necessary to cover its budget. Mr. Lohr reiterated that the
RCC has never hit the existing ceiling. The initial rate
equivalent of .45% has dropped since inception. It was .42%
last year. While the trend has been downward, the
commission seeks to maintain latitude within the ceiling,
in light of proposed changes in levies upon electric
utilities.
Discussion followed between APUC staff in Anchorage and
Senator Rieger regarding activity (brush clearing and tree
removal)
in utility right-of-ways.
End: SFC-95, #3, Side 2
Begin: SFC-95, #5, Side 1
Co-chairman Halford called for additional testimony on the
bill. None was forthcoming. He then advised that the
testimony portion of committee review was concluded and
directed that SB 47 be HELD in committee and available for
further consideration during the coming week.
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19
An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in regular session.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SSSB 19 be brought on for
discussion. Senator Randy Phillips explained that he
introduced the proposed bill to move the legislature from
Juneau to Anchorage to improve access to the capital. The
move would be concluded by January, 1998. Senator Phillips
referenced a draft CSSSSB 19 (9-LS0288\F, Cook, 2/3/95) and
explained that it provides for establishment of a state
government relocation commission. By March 1, 1996, the
commission would submit a report of relocation costs,
including the amount of bondable costs subject to voter
approval under AS 44.06.055. Senator Phillips stressed that
the main purpose of the bill is access. Proposed movement
of the legislature, alone, should not devastate the economy
of Juneau. The Senator further stressed the importance of
face-to-face rather than teleconference access by
constituents. He then said he would request that the bill
be held in committee pending additional work on fiscal notes
as well as a comparison of costs of retaining the capital in
Juneau versus moving it to Anchorage.
JAMIE PARSONS, former mayor of Juneau, came before committee
in opposition to SSSB 19, which he termed "nothing more than
a back door capital move." Three months ago, Alaskan
residents voted by a 9.4% margin against movement of the
capital from Juneau to Wasilla. Mr. Parsons pointed to
Juneau's efforts to provide excellent health, police, fire,
emergency, and recreational services. He acknowledged that
the recent capital move campaign pointed out improvements
that should be made to make government work better for all
Alaskans. The statewide Alaska Committee, which led the
campaign to keep the capital in Juneau, is in the process of
converting to a statewide, nonprofit organization to follow
up on those improvements. Mr. Parsons asked that the
legislature give Juneau a few years to address issues such
as housing, electronic and telecommunication access,
improved air and land access. He next spoke to more
important issues facing the state: budget deficits,
declining revenues, reduced Prudhoe Bay production,
increasing demand for services as a result of population
growth, crime, educational standards, etc.
CHUCK ACHBERGER, Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce, next
came before committee in opposition to the bill. He
attested to access to legislative activity through
telecommunications. The electronic data base allows
Alaskans free telephone access to the status of bills,
committee action, etc.
Mr. Achberger advised that he accessed fiscal notes
accompanying SSSB 19. He then spoke to past experience with
the fiscal note associated with movement of the Governor's
office from the capitol building to the Court Plaza
Building. The initial note was $400.0. Six months later,
the note for what was essentially a move across the street
had escalated to $2 million.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Achberger advised that Juneau
residents fought hard to retain the capital, and the
community made a number of promises for improvements. He
asked that Juneau be given time to fulfill those promises.
Mr. Achberger took exception to the statement that the
proposed move would not have an adverse economic impact on
Juneau. He noted that legislative housing and other
residential and commercial construction would not occur
while SSSB 19 remains a threat.
Senator Phillips voiced his recollection that escalating
costs associated with the proposed move of the Governor's
office resulted from needed code upgrades at the Court Plaza
Building.
Co-chairman Halford asked Mr. Achberger if he would prefer
the bill to go to the floor for a definitive vote or remain
in committee where it would be potentially viable. Mr.
Achberger said that his first choice was for the bill to
cease to exist. He then expressed his second choice: that
the bill remain in committee until final adjournment. That
would give Juneau time to work on access problems and other
improvements.
Senator Phillips stressed that the proposed legislation does
not represent a personal crusade. He attested to
constituents in his district who continually complain about
lack of access. They voted "two out of three" to move the
entire capital. A number of those constituents are not
happy with the proposed move of only the legislature. Lack
of access is a valid concern. Mr. Achberger replied that he
did not view the proposed legislation as a personal attach
on Juneau. However, those whose jobs are impacted are not
likely to feel the same. He again asked that Juneau be
given time to work on access. Mr. Achberger stressed that
legislators are within their districts seven months of the
year. It is not difficult for constituents to get
appointments during that time.
CHIP WAGONER next came before committee, advising that he is
both a republican and a Juneau resident. He acknowledged
that the proposed legislation does not represent a personal
crusade concerning Juneau but a crusade for access. Mr.
Wagoner stressed, however, that access is not a "burning
issue." Voters dealt with the issue in the last election
when movement of the capital was defeated. He observed that
the proposed bill represents a capital move regardless of
how it is characterized. Other issues are of much greater
importance to Alaskans. Mr. Wagoner stressed that as a
republican he seeks success for the current republican
leadership in both the House and Senate. To accomplish
that, the leadership must deal with issues of concern to
Alaskans. The first of those concerns is the budget. Less
time should be expended on bills such as SSSB 19 and more
effort devoted to deferred maintenance at the university,
fishing issues, mining, timber, tourism, etc. He urged that
the republican caucus focus on voter concerns and ignore the
proposed legislative move. Mr. Wagoner next attested to
electronic filing of legislation, and access thereto, at the
national level. He suggested that the average voter does
not want to physically come before committee so much as to
be able to access the legislature from his or her own home.
He urged support for increased electronic access. Senator
Phillips again stressed the importance of access to his
constituents. Mr. Wagoner reiterated that there are issues
of much greater importance facing the present legislature.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|