HB 89: BOROUGH ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT DAVID DIERDORFF, REVISOR OF STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, said that HB 89 had been introduced to respond to a unique problem within the statutes. He stated that in 1980, there had been a significant revision of the apportionment rules, because of Supreme Court rulings and because 1980 was a census year. He commented that a free conference committee had produced the predecessor to what later became AS 29.20.070-110. He noted that during the "heat" of the free conference committee, rational thinking had gotten lost. The result was that statutes which were written by the free conference committee were unreadable, he said. MR. DIERDORFF explained that the year before, an obvious error had been discovered within the apportionment statutes. In the process of correcting that error, he continued, numerous other errors were discovered. The result of those discoveries was HB 89, he said. He noted that officials from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) and the Department of Law (DOL) had reviewed the bill. Everyone had agreed that the effect of HB 89 was to make the law much easier to interpret, without changing the law. He noted that HB 89 affected eight boroughs at the most. MR. DIERDORFF was not aware of which of the eight general- law boroughs had apportioned assemblies. He added that it was possible that none did. He commented that every ten years, after a census was conducted, non-home-rule boroughs which had apportioned assemblies were required to reapportion their assemblies, or at least review their apportionment. Number 146 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked if Mr. Dierdorff was aware of the Alaska Municipal League's (AML's) position on HB 89. Number 150 MR. DIERDORFF was certain that the AML was aware of HB 89, but he had not heard what its position was. He stated that there were eight general law boroughs in Alaska, including the Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough. He did not know whether any of those eight general-law boroughs had apportioned assemblies. Number 164 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the Kenai Peninsula Borough had reapportioned its assembly the year before. Number 169 MR. DIERDORFF commented that the Municipality of Anchorage was a home-rule municipality. Number 178 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked why the statute had not been corrected until this time. Number 184 MR. DIERDORFF responded that either the people who had to use the statutes knew what they meant and did not bother to read them carefully, or the statutes had been enacted and never reviewed. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER noted that the committee's legal counsel had reviewed HB 89 and found that it did not change the effect of the present statutes. Number 206 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 89 out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 92 next.