SENATE BILL NO. 88 "An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to establishment of a metropolitan planning organization for the Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for an effective date." Senator Phillips, sponsor of SB 88, explained that basically the bill added two members, one from the House side and one from the Senate side, to the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) policy committee. Co-Chair Kelly wondered how many Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) would be created under SB 88. Senator Phillips replied that there would be just one. He explained that under the federal/state agreement there was only one over 200,000; therefore, if a community in the North Star Borough reached 200,000 they would be under the MPO created under SB 88. He stated that the reason he introduced the legislation was the frustration that his community had with the process, specifically, when a constituent requested that a road be improved the policy committee would continue to change their meeting dates and times and their priorities. He pointed out that this had created confusion and distrust of the AMATS process by the public. He said that he was getting blamed for this when he did not even have any say in the process. Senator Phillips added that the State of Hawaii had a similar AMATS process and they allowed for the legislature to be involved in that process. Co-Chair Kelly clarified that the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibited dual office holdings for profit and noted that this would not be a profit making enterprise. He wondered if they were creating a situation where a few legislators would be crossing the boundary with regards to the issue of separation of powers; therefore, gaining too much power over the process. Senator Phillips explained that essentially the AMATS policy committee would come up with a five-year plan and the legislature would be unable to change it. He noted that of the five members on the policy committee one would be the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and one would be the commissioner of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. He indicated that they would be appointed and not elected. He pointed out that the mayor would be a representative, as well as, two assembly members. Co-Chair Kelly requested clarification. Co-Chair Donley clarified that what the bill proposed to do was set into statute what federal law already required, which would be that new MPOs would have to be done by an act of the legislature. He noted that when those MPOs did come along it would give the legislature the opportunity to address specific membership. He summarized that SB 88 would leave up to the legislature the creation of future MPOs and what their membership would be. Senator Hoffman referred to the resolution passed by the Anchorage assembly opposing the bill and he wondered what the tally was on the vote. Co-Chair Donley explained that it was not voted on, rather it was put on the consent calendar and nobody objected. Senator Phillips affirmed that Co-Chair Donley was correct. Senator Leman stated that the Department of Law's opinion was consistent with what they said in their ruling about local emergency planning committees. He disagreed with the assessment about ten years ago when former Representative Eileen MaClean and former Representative Gail Phillips and himself were appointed to local emergency planning committees. He pointed out that federal law specifically stated that elected officials would be apart of the membership; therefore, the municipalities rightfully put some state elected officials on those committees. He noted that the attorney general then came out and said that it would be considered dual office holding, which he believed was ridiculous. Co-Chair Kelly asked George Utermohl to comment on the constitution and also address the separation of powers issue. GEORGE UTERMOHL, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, indicated that the Department of Law was consistent in addressing this legislation in previous years before the legislature that the service of legislators on MPOs would constitute dual office, which was consistent with the statute and the constitution. He added that there was also a good argument that a legislator could not hold an office or position "of profit." He believed that they were construing the term "of profit" to modify not only position, but also office. He pointed out that this legislation attempted to avoid that particular concern that the Department of Law had raised, but nonetheless that issue was still out there. Co-Chair Donley said that the "of profit" seemed to modify both office and position. He wondered why they would have that there otherwise. Mr. Utermohl answered that it was a matter of interpretation. SFC 01 # 53, Side B 06:52 PM Mr. Utermohl continued that there were other possible constructions of that language. Co-Chair Donley wondered why, if they were going to construct it so that they were standalones, would they even need to say "position of profit." He said that it seemed like unnecessary language as a standalone. He pointed out that they could just say "any other office." He could not think of an example where it would include "profit" where it did not already include "office." Mr. Utermohl replied that he could see where there could be an office without compensation. Co-Chair Donley wondered why they would have to go on and say "position of profit" if they were going to ban all office with or without compensation. He pointed out that they would have covered everything under the first clause, which was a ban on dual offices. He said that it would just be extra wordage not needed in the constitution. DEL CUMMINS, Office of the Attorney General, said that it was his second time testifying on this concept and the facts were very similar that people wanted to put legislators on the AMATS board. He noted that this bill was a radical departure from what presently existed on the AMATS board. Currently, the AMATS board was a creature of municipal government. He pointed out that there were three voting members and two non-voting members. Co-Chair Donley replied, "I don't think that's true." He argued that the two commissioners did vote. Mr. Cummins stood corrected. He continued, explaining that the municipal representatives currently controlled the board. He pointed out that they would be changing it so the governor and the legislature would be appointing people. He further noted that the difficulty in appointing legislators would be that they would not be concurring with the constitution where it states that they cannot hold a dual office. Co-Chair Donley wondered why they would add the words "of profit" after "position." Mr. Cummins explained that "position of profit" in combination with the word "office" just broadened the coverage of what it applied to. Co-Chair Donley wondered what function the term "of profit" served if they had already covered all positions. Mr. Cummins explained that legal language was not always economical. He opined that it was merely a broader definition of what they were regulating. Co-Chair Donley said that the essential issue was in the interpretation of the first sentence; there was no function of the words "of profit." Co-Chair Kelly said that they could probably get into an esoteric debate on this subject, but he believed that it would be challenged. Senator Phillips commented that Hawaii allowed for dual office holding and pointed out that their constitution was very similar to Alaska's constitution on dual office holding. Senator Hoffman referred to the resolution and wondered if the assembly actually voted on it. Senator Phillips indicated that they did. Senator Leman stated that the interpretation borders on the ridiculous. He urged that the law and the constitution needed to be interpreted with some common sense. Co-Chair Donley made a motion to move SB 88, 22-LS0132\F, from Committee with the accompanying zero fiscal note. Senator Hoffman objected. He commented that the assembly voted in opposition to this legislation and pointed out that the community of Anchorage elected all the assembly members. He believed that it was a local issue and the assembly should be responsible for what happens in that community. He withdrew his objection, but noted that his recommendation would be "do not pass." Co-Chair Kelly asked if there were any further objections. There was no further objection and the bill was reported from the Committee.