MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE April 29, 1994 9:20 a.m. TAPES SFC-94, #78, Side 1 (000-end) SFC-94, #78, Side 2 (575-end) SFC-94, #80, Side 1 (000-317) CALL TO ORDER Co-chairman Steve Frank convened the meeting at approximately 9:20 a.m. PRESENT In addition to Co-chairs Pearce and Frank, Senators Kelly and Sharp were present when the meeting began. Senators Rieger and Kerttula arrived moments after the meeting commenced. Senator Jacko arrived as it was in progress. ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Leman; Senator Lincoln; Representative James; Nancy Slagle, Director of Budget Review, Office of Management and Budget; Helvi Sandvik, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities; C. W. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety; Kate Tesar, representing the City of Haines; Portia Babcock, aide to Senator Leman; Mike Greany, Director, Legislative Finance Division; Fred Fisher, fiscal analyst, Legislative Finance Division; and aides to committee members and other members of the legislature. SUMMARY INFORMATION SB 363 - ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECT MATCHING GRANT FUNDS AND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS Discussion of CSSB 363 (Finance) work draft "J" was had together with Amendments 1 through 14 which were reviewed for possible offering on the floor of the Senate rather than incorporation within the Senate Finance bill. CSSB 363 (Finance) was then REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass" recommendation. HB 351 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS;WEAPONS POSS. Representative James, Portia Babcock, and C.W. Swackhammer came before committee to speak to the bill. It was subsequently HELD in committee for further discussion. SB 363 SB 363 - ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECT MATCHING GRANT FUNDS AND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS [The first portion of the meeting on tape SFC-94, 78, Side 1, did not record. Minutes reflect transcription of shorthand notes.] Upon convening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 363 (Act making appropriations for capital project matching grant funds and for capital projects; and providing for an effective date) be brought on for discussion. She then referenced work draft CS SB 363 (Finance) (8-GS2043\J, Cramer, 4/27/94) which she explained had earlier been distributed to members. Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of work draft "J." No objection having been raised, the "J" version of CSSB 363 (Finance was ADOPTED. Co-chair Pearce next directed attention to a packet of amendments which she explained would be discussed in committee for possible offering on the floor of the Senate. She advised that all amendments have the approval of the House Finance Committee. Senator Kerttula indicated he also had amendments he wished to offer. Amendment No. 1 and 1A (Sen. Pearce/OMB) Co-chair Pearce initially referred to Amendment No. 1 listing a series of increases and offsetting decreases totaling $665.0 in general funds. The original Amendment No. 1 was subsequently replaced with Amendment 1A which effected the following increases and decreases: Increases DNR-State Land Acquisition $ 265.0 DF&G-Mgmt. under ANILCA 200.0 + 200.0 F&G Funds DNR-Forest Practices 200.0 Decreases DH&SS-API Repairs 400.0 DNR-RS 2477 300.0 DF&G-Statewide Maintenance 300.0 DOTPF-Central Region Def.Maint. 1,680.0 Northern Region Def. Maint. 1,610.0 Southeast Def. Maint. 1,085.0 Dalton Highway Def. Maint. 890.0 (See pages 7, 8, and 9 of these minutes for further discussion of Amendment 1A.) Amendment No. 2 (Sen. Pearce) Co-chair Pearce explained that the amendment would add "or from another lender" to language relating to construction of the Port Chilkoot cruise ship dock at Haines. (See pages 5 and 6 for further discussion of Amendment No. 2) Amendment No. 3 (Sen. Sharp) Co-chair Pearce indicated that funding within the Dept. of Revenue slated for public housing (AHFC) should be appropriated separately under the federal grants and special needs housing program and affordable housing and energy efficiency programs. Separate appropriation provides accountability and instruction to the corporation regarding legislative intent. The Co-chair further directed attention to a tabulation listing specific projects and appropriations therefor. She added that the agency came to the legislature with the $41 million request. (See page 6 for additional comments on Amendment No. 3) Amendment No. 4 (Sen. Pearce) Amendment No. 4 would add funding for Central Region programs and Anchorage International Airport equipment purchases. It also inserts a new allocation under Southeast Region programs. Co-chair Pearce explained that the latter insertion is necessary because funding for Sitka Airport lighting improvements was inadvertently left out of the Senate draft. The insertion does not change the match. Amendment No. 5 (Sen. Pearce) Co-chair Pearce said that Amendment No. 5 effects a change in intent language relating to RuralCap, requiring a report to the legislature on use of CSBG funds for the economic development catalog "before grant funds are released" rather than in the next fiscal year. An additional change substitutes "will provide" for "has provided" in enumerated requirements the catalog must meet. Amendment No. 6 (Sen. Pearce/OMB) Co-chair Pearce indicated that funding and language changes for municipal matching grants and unincorporated community matching grants set forth on Amendment No. 6 were requested and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. Amendment No. 7 (Sen. Pearce/OMB) Co-chair Pearce indicated that projects in Amendment No. 7 were requested and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. In response to questions from Senator Rieger, NANCY SLAGLE, Director of Budget Review, Office of Management and Budget, came before committee. [The remainder of the minutes reflect transcription from a tape recording of the meeting.] Mrs. Slagle explained that communities listed in the amendment identified projects for which additional moneys are needed. The amendment makes funding adjustments for communities with remaining balances in their accounts. Senator Rieger questioned whether funding from FY 94 would already have been appropriated to another federal matching grant. Mrs. Slagle indicated that transitional procedures allow OMB to provide moneys to communities until the end of the fiscal year. The proposed amendment could provide both FY 94 and 95, together, so that communities would have the funding available for next year. She further explained that moneys set forth on the amendment would flow from the capital matching grant fund rather than the general fund. Amendment No. 8 (Sen. Pearce/DOE, Postsecondary) Co-chair Pearce noted that intent language relating to appropriation of $100.0 in corporate receipts for a cost benefit analysis of contracting out Alaska Student Loan Program servicing to a third-party, private contractor was requested by the Postsecondary Education Commission. Such an arrangement has been discussed for many years. The board approached local banks with the prospect, but banks have declined interest. The new director of Postsecondary Education feels there may be an opportunity to "get some national firm to come in." Amendment No. 9 (Sen. Adams) Co-chair Pearce pointed to amendment language, requested by Senator Adams, for capital grant projects for the cities of Mountain Village and Unalakleet. Dollar amounts remain the same. Amendment No. 10 (Sen. Pearce) Co-chair Pearce explained that the amendment contains language effecting changes in descriptions of election districts to fit projects in the proper districts. She noted movement of major highways into statewide designation within ED 99 and need to change the Seward Highway Canyon Creek project from Anchorage areawide to statewide. Co- chair Pearce further pointed to page 18, lines 23 and 24, of the draft capital budget and noted that land acquisition for the Galbraith Airport is not on the priority list from municipalities. It should thus be deleted from the bill. The same is true for land acquisition for the Prospect Creek Airport shown on page 19, lines 14 and 15. Amendment No. 10 also inserts the word "roof" to language relating to funding for the Ryan Middle School at Fairbanks. Amendment No. 11 (Sen. Kerttula) Senator Kerttula explained that rural districts have requested increased funding for public broadcasting. He then directed attention to the list of stations to receive portions of the $590.6 request. Amendment No. 12 (Sen. Kerttula) Senator Kerttula explained that the requested $119.4 relating to the potato seed virus study was originally requested by the governor. The project is statewide in nature. The studies would be conducted by a scientist in Fairbanks. Co-chair Pearce subsequently advised that, in an effort to keep the capital budget below $100 million--the agreement between the House and Senate--she would oppose both Amendments 11 and 12 when they are offered on the floor of the Senate. Senator Kerttula subsequently advised that he would withdraw Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 2 Senator Rieger asked that discussion revert to Amendment No. 2 and raised questions regarding proposed construction of the Haines dock. He voiced his understanding that the proposed $1 million loan would be matched by a "term loan of some sort." He said he was uneasy with language within the bill and requested additional information. Reading from backup material, Co-chair Pearce explained that grant funds would combine with city funds and loan proceeds to provide an estimated $2.3 million in total construction costs. That would build a 120 foot extension, seaward from the existing dock. The City of Haines and Haines Chamber of Commerce have spent $35 for preliminary engineering and permitting. The city has expended an additional $17.0 for lighting. Preliminary analysis shows that dock revenue, after operating expenses supplemented with local tax revenues, will service debt of $600.0 to $800.0. Senator Rieger asked what would happen should the project be redesigned to cost $1.1 million. Would the city only have to borrow $100.0 while the $1 million would flow from the state? KATE TESAR, came before committee on behalf of the city of Haines. She explained that language requested in Amendment No. 2 was proposed as a result of efforts between the city and the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development to develop a funding plan for submission to AIDEA, once the $1 million is in place. That is the reason for the contingency language. The loan would not flow to Haines if the total funding package does not materialize. The wording "or from another lender" was added to allow the project to expand to other lenders in the event total funding is not provided by AIDEA, and the city must seek other sources. Current language only allows for procurement of funding from AIDEA. The city seeks the flexibility of obtaining moneys elsewhere. Senator Rieger asked if the arrangement would involve a term loan. Ms. Tesar responded affirmatively and indicated a term of twenty or thirty years. Directing attention to page 3, line 12, Senator Sharp voiced concern that "$900,000 or another amount" could be construed as a lesser amount. He then voiced his understanding that the amount would commence at $900,000 and increase rather than decrease. Kate Tesar explained that the present funding package calls for a total of $2.2 million. Plans have been in place for a number of years, and the city does not foresee spending more than $2.2 million. Senator Sharp suggested addition of "at least" before the $900,000 figure in the bill. He said that would allay fears that city participation might decrease substantially. Kate Tesar responded that she did not foresee the amount decreasing below $900,000 because that amount would be needed to fund the plan now in place. Senator Rieger and Senator Sharp advised that they would work on possible amendment language to apply when Amendment No. 2 is offered on the floor of the Senate. Amendment No. 3 Redirecting attention to Amendment No. 3, Senator Rieger noted earlier concerns pertaining to the Cedar Park Housing project in Juneau. He questioned expenditure of $8 million to rebuild 39 units. Senator Sharp explained that in discussions of low-income, rental housing with AHFC, the corporation assured it would receive $4.5 million in federal funds for the project. That is a major change. The amount of needed corporate receipts was thus reduced from $8 million to $3.5 million. Those receipts will leverage the federal moneys. Senator Rieger voiced concern that total funding of $8 million for 39 units equates to $200.0 per unit. That appears out of line for a multifamily housing project. Co-chair Pearce voiced her understanding that even if the project is not rebuilt, the old project contains asbestos and would have to be torn down. A large portion of the $8 million funds removal of the old building. Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be briefly recessed pending receipt of two additional amendments from the Office of Management and Budget. RECESS - 9:50 A.M. RECONVENE - 10:05 A.M. Amendment No. 13 (Sen. Miller) Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce directed attention to Amendment No. 13 by Senator Miller. She explained that the Tanana River road, located in Nenana, is in need of stabilization. The proposed amendment contains the proper description change. Amendment No. 14 Amendment No. 14 was not presented for discussion. Amendment No. 15 (Senator Jacko) Senator Jacko explained that Amendment No. 15 would reduce the amount of funding flowing from the power cost equalization endowment for small utility improvements from $2 million to $500.0. In response to a question from Senator Rieger, Senator Jacko explained that the $66 million endowment funds PCE throughout the year. There is concern that withdrawals will quickly diminish the principal. The original intent was that the endowment last for 20 years. Amendment No. 1A (Office of Management and Budget) At this point in the meeting, attention reverted to the tabulation set forth on Amendment 1A. Co-chair Pearce pointed to page 9, lines 37 and 38 of the bill and the $100.0 for statewide advanced project definition. She explained that the Office of Management and Budget earlier requested that the $100.0 be deleted and added to other projects. OMB has since determined it needs the funding because it provides for preliminary work on projects that do not fit federal requirements. In order to reinstate the project, $25.0 was taken from deferred maintenance in each of DOTPF's four regions. Other changes on the tabulation include increasing DNR state land acquisition from zero to $265.0. Alaska has provided the federal government a list of all lands selected under state entitlement. Efforts must continue, however, on that acquisition, classification, and assessment. The original request was for $650.0. The legislature proposed zero. The new legislative proposal provides $265.0. For Dept. of Fish and Game efforts in protecting Alaska's right to manage its resources under ANILCA, the administration sought $500.0 for the second year of the project. The legislature proposed zero. The Office of Management and Budget and the department returned with a request for $200.0 in general funds plus $200.0 in fish and game funds. That has been provided. The Dept. of Natural Resources further requested $300.0 for forest practices act effectiveness research. Again, the legislature proposed zero. The department, Office of Management and Budget, and the timber association requested that funding be increased as much as possible. A total of $200.0 had thus been provided. In addition to the $25.0 decrease for deferred maintenance in each of DOTPF's four regions, further decreases consist of a reduction of funding to the Dept. of Health and Social Services for API repairs from $1,032.5 to $400.0, reduction of Dept. of Natural Resources RS 2477 moneys from $400.0 to $300.0, and a reduction in statewide maintenance for Dept. of Fish and Game facilities from $650.0 to $300.0. Co-chair Pearce reiterated that the foregoing increases and reductions have been approved by both the House and the Office of Management and Budget. Senator Sharp voiced concern over reductions in Dept. of Natural Resource RS 2477 moneys. He stressed that if rights-of-way associated with state trails are not asserted, they will be lost forever. He voiced further concern over the quality and usefulness of forest practices act research. Co-chair Pearce advised that CS SB 363 (Finance) reflects a capital budget utilizing general funds of $99,996,600, including amendments proposed for the floor, with the exception of Senator Kerttula's amendment for the Alaska Public Radio Network which would boost the capital budget beyond $100 million. Federal funds total $567,601.6 million. Authorizations for DOTPF stem from the department's construction season list for 1994 and 1995. SENATOR LINCOLN pointed to funding for Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities projects, noted deletion of the Denali project and addition of funding for improvements and rehabilitation of the Steese Highway and Chena Hot Springs Road, and raised questions concerning whether the Steese Highway project was ready to proceed. Co-chair Pearce explained that the Denali project was deleted because of public outcry over proposals to pave a road that is only open a portion of the year. She then noted that Chena Hot Springs is on the department's Priority I list. While improvements to the Steese Highway show as Priority II, the project has been on the six-year list for approximately five years. HELVI SANDVIK, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before committee. She concurred that Steese Highway improvements are presently Priority II and have been under design for some period of time. The project is thus design ready. It is listed as Priority II rather than Priority I because current maintenance efforts have enabled the department to "keep the roadway in pretty good shape." While the design stage is complete, the public involvement process to get the project on the three year state transportation improvement program (STIP) has not yet occurred. The Chena Hot Springs project has not undergone planning and design and cannot be construction ready in the next two years. Senator Lincoln voiced her understanding that although the legislature is providing $3.7 for Steese Highway improvements and $3 million for Chena Hot Springs Road rehabilitation, the Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities will not be able to implement the projects. Ms. Sandvik said that the Steese Highway project could commence upon conclusion of the public involvement process. It is unlikely, however, that the Chena Hot Springs Road will be in a position to go forward in the next two years. In response to a further question from Senator Lincoln concerning the availability of other projects, Ms. Sandvik said that projects on the construction season forecast reflect work the department believes it can get done within the prescribed time frame. End, SFC-94, #78, Side 1 Begin, SFC-94, #78, Side 2 Further discussion followed between Ms. Sandvik and Senator Rieger regarding the scheduling of other department projects. Co-chair Pearce voiced committee concern that moneys allocated to statewide enhancement, statewide rural village roads and trails, safety, or contingency might instead be applied to the Copper River Highway. Ms. Sandvik responded that that was not the department intent. Discussion regarding use of contingency funding followed between Ms. Sandvik and Senator Rieger. Co-chair Pearce called for further discussion of proposed amendments. None was raised. She then queried the audience for public testimony. None was forthcoming. Senator Rieger MOVED that CS SB 363 (Finance) pass from committee with individual recommendations. No objection having been raised, CSSB 363 (Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee. All members present signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation with the exception of Senator Kerttula who signed "no rec." [Senator Jacko was temporarily absent from the meeting and did not sign.] Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be briefly recessed prior to proceeding with the agenda. RECESS - 10:20 A.M. RECONVENE - 10:40 A.M. HB 351 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS;WEAPONS POSS. Co-chair Pearce directed that CSHB 351 (Fin)am (efd add) be brought on for discussion and noted that file material consists of the bill transmitted by the House, the Senate State Affairs version, three fiscal notes, a list of groups supporting the bill, an analysis of both the House and Senate State Affairs versions, a sponsor statement, policy briefing, and various articles. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, sponsor of the legislation, came before committee. She noted that the bill was extensively rewritten as it made its way through the House, and additional changes were effected by Senate State Affairs. She attested to support for the legislation which she said balances the issue and provides that law abiding citizens will be able to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, after having taken training to ensure that they are knowledgeable about the firearm. Senator Kerttula asked who would provide required training. Representative James explained that the bill presently calls for provision by private industry, per approval by the department. Discussion followed between Senator Kerttula and Representative James regarding the type of container needed for transport of a firearm. PORTIA BABCOCK, Senate State Affairs committee aide, came before committee to provide a section-by-section analysis of bill provisions and changes effected by Senate State Affairs: Sec. 1. Allows a permit to carry a concealed weapon as an affirmative defense to possession. Sec. 2. Provides that transport of a firearm in a closed container designed for transporting firearms does not constitute carrying a concealed weapon. Sec. 3. The Senate State Affairs bill effected a change clarifying the difference between a loaded and unloaded firearm. The Dept. of Public Safety has no opposition to the change. Sec. 4. Makes provisions for permits to carry concealed handguns and delineates criteria an applicant must meet to receive a permit. Fingerprints must be taken by individuals qualified by the department to take fingerprints. Language in the House bill required action on applications for permits within 30 days of receipt of background information. The Senate bill requires approval or rejection within 15 days of receipt of "permit eligibility information." The House bill provided for licensing for three years while the Senate version provides for a five-year license. The Senate bill adds a requirement that the holder complete a full handgun training course every five years. The House bill required only a refresher course for alternate renewals (every six years). Ms. Babcock pointed specifically to statutory citations on page 4 of both the House and Senate versions and explained that they relate to misdemeanor offenses. If one or more of those misdemeanors is committed by an applicant within five years immediately preceding application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the applicant will not qualify for the permit. The Senate bill also adds subsection (5) language requiring that the applicant not have been "convicted of two or more class A misdemeanors of this state or similar laws of another jurisdiction within the five years immediately preceding the application. The Dept. of Public Safety has no problem with the addition. In response to a question from Senator Kerttula, Ms. Babcock advised that illegally carrying a concealed weapon constitutes misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree, a class A misdemeanor. Ms. Babcock referenced interaction with the Dept. of Health and Social Services regarding access to mental health records, alcohol treatment program records, etc. That discussion lead to development of Senate State Affairs language at page 5, subsections (14) and (15). Speaking to information which must be contained within the application to carry a concealed handgun, Ms. Babcock noted a change in the Senate bill at page 5, line 15, whereby the applicant must provide information concerning the city and state of each place the applicant has resided in the five years immediately preceding application. That allows the Dept. of Public Safety to check misdemeanor records for the previous five years. Ms. Babcock next directed attention to page 6, line 1, and noted that the Senate bill changes language relating to permit eligibility from "may" to "will." Subsection (b) at the top of page 6 was part of previous House versions of the bill although it was not included in the version transmitted to the Senate. Senate State Affairs reinserted provisions prohibiting demand for information beyond that set forth on the application, including information on firearms owned by the applicant. Referencing provisions relating to demonstration of competence with handguns, Ms. Babcock explained that the House bill, in describing the weapon, referred to type and size. Senate State Affairs did not feel that was clear. Language was thus changed to refer to action, type, and caliber. A permittee may carry as a concealed handgun only the caliber of the action type for which the permittee has demonstrated competence, or any lesser caliber of the same action type. The department shall approve the personal protection course offered by the National Rifle Association and any other handgun course that tests the applicant's (1) knowledge of Alaska law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force (2) familiarity with the basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns; (3) knowledge of self-defense principles; and (4) physical competence with each action type of handgun the applicant wishes to carry under the permit. Senator Kerttula asked how competence would be demonstrated and approval garnered in rural areas. Representative James voiced her understanding that most individuals carrying concealed weapons in rural Alaska would be protected under existing law. That is not going to change. She further pointed to options allowing communities to opt out of concealed weapon permitting. Representative James further voiced her belief that, upon passage of concealed weapon legislation, more handgun courses by which an individual may demonstrate competence would become available to a wider number of people in both urban and rural areas. Ms. Babcock stressed that, under present law, an individual can carry a concealed weapon if involved in a lawful outdoor activity. Senator Rieger pointed to Senate language stating that the department "shall approve the protection course offered by the NRA," noted that it represents a change from the House version and asked why it was included. Ms. Babcock said it was inserted at the request of certified instructors who now offer personal protection courses sponsored by the National Rifle Association. It is intended to provide a measure of comfort to instructors who fear they might not be approved in deference to a state-sponsored or alternative program. Pointing to page 6, line 29, Ms. Babcock noted that the Senate bill removes House language relating to refresher courses and substitutes completion of a handgun course every five years. At page 7, line 11, Senate State Affairs established a cap on fees. Thirty-four states have some form of concealed weapon permitting system with fees set in statute. The fee for Alaska is established at $125 with a renewal fee not to exceed $50. Those costs are in addition to the cost of the personal protection course, the cost of fingerprinting, pictures, etc. Alaska's fees are at the higher end of the spectrum. Page 7, lines 17, contains provisions and criteria for permit renewal, including a $25 late fee. A new subsection (d) at page 8 applies restricted information provisions for the original application to renewal as well. Ms. Babcock next spoke to provisions allowing for suspension rather than revocation of permits. She further pointed to language at page 9 relating to revocation of the permit if a permit holder is convicted of two class A misdemeanors within a five year period. Pointing to page 9, line 24, Ms. Babcock noted a language change from "The department, and its officers and employees, are not liable" to "The state, and its officers and employees, are not liable." The court system requested the change since the Dept. of Public Safety is not the only state agency that will be dealing with permits and permittees. That language was included in an earlier House bill but was not in the version transmitted to the Senate. The House bill provides that failure to carry the concealed weapon permit and proper other identification when carrying a concealed weapon constitutes a class B misdemeanor. Senate State Affairs changed that to a violation. House legislation provides that failure of a permittee to inform a peace officer that the permittee is carrying a concealed weapon when the permittee is contacted by police constitutes a class B misdemeanor. The Senate bill changes that to a class A misdemeanor. Pointing to language allowing a peace officer to secure a handgun, Senator Rieger asked if that means the gun could be taken away. Ms. Babcock answered affirmatively, advising that it could be "secured" for the duration of contract between police and the permittee. A peace officer could not take the handgun and not give it back if the permittee is not arrested or taken into custody. Provisions are intended to assist peace officers in situations where they feel uncomfortable. Senator Rieger asked if an individual would be required to yield an unconcealed weapon to an officer as well. Ms. Babcock said she did not know. Senator Rieger voiced concern that, under bill provisions, a peace officer might be required to return a concealed weapon to an individual who continues to be agitated following a confrontation. C. W. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety, came before committee in response to the question. He explained that a police officer would take the weapon, regardless of whether it is concealed or not, if the officer believes the gun holder is dangerous to himself, herself, or other people. A permit holder who refuses to surrender his or her concealed weapon when requested to do so by a police officer could be arrested for violation of a class A misdemeanor. Ms. Babcock next directed attention to page 10, line 21, and noted reinsertion of language from earlier House versions of the bill. It prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon into a courthouse or courtroom unless the permittee (A) is a judge; or (B) has been authorized to possess a concealed handgun by a judge presiding at the courthouse or courtroom. Co-chair Pearce asked why judges were singled out. Ms. Babcock explained that language was lifted from Florida statutes. It responds to increased instances of weapons brought into courthouses and threats against judges and prosecutors. End, SFC-94, #78, Side 2 Begin, SFC-94, #80, Side 1 Ms. Babcock next attested to additional areas where possession of a concealed handgun is prohibited, noting specifically: state and federal offices and offices of political subdivisions, airline terminals, a vessel of the Alaska marine highway system, financial institutions, etc. She also noted that municipalities or established villages could prohibit possession of concealed handguns through opt-out provisions of the legislation. Page 11, lines 12 through 21, speak to misuse of permits and penalties therefor. The Senate bill splits out and places in separate subsections language relating to penalties for displaying an expired permit and possession and display of a suspended or revoked permit. Those displaying an expired permit are guilty of a violation with an associated $100 fine while display of a suspended or revoked permit constitutes a class A misdemeanor. Discussion followed between Senator Jacko, Representative James, and Ms. Babcock regarding application of the proposed bill to fish camps, etc. Ms. Babcock noted need to review the definition of "established village" in present law. Opt-out provisions at page 12, line 16, speak to both municipalities and established villages. Ms. Babcock referenced new Senate language at page 12, lines 13 - 15, relating to a municipal preemption. She explained that state law would apply unless prohibited by the municipality through the opt-out election. Senator Jacko asked if the reverse approach had been considered whereby a municipality would have to opt-in to allow the carrying of concealed weapons. Ms. Babcock said that while that approach was considered, it became evident it would be impractical in that every municipality or established village would have to have an election. That was neither popular nor feasible and did not provide for uniform state law. Directing attention to page 13, line 30, Ms. Babcock referenced the meaning of "derringer" and said that the definition was included at the request of the Dept. of Public Safety. The Senate State Affairs bill provides for an effective date of October 1, 1994. The effective date of the House version is January 1, 1995. Discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Ms. Babcock regarding definitions relating to derringers and miniature handguns as well as competency testing for firearms. Ms. Babcock advised that the National Rifle Association course consists of 12 hours of classroom time plus two, two-and-a- half hour instruction periods at the shooting range. In response to further questions from Senator Rieger, Ms. Babcock summarized Senate changes to the House bill as: 1. Clarification of what type of firearms permittees will be allowed to carry (action, type, and caliber). 2. Narrowing the description of permit eligibility. 3. Changing the permit approval or denial period from 30 to 15 days. She stressed that this time period is flexible. When an application is received, the department must submit the applicant's fingerprints for tracking within 5 days of receipt of the application. Once information from the computerized record search is received, the department has 15 days to respond. 4. Removal of misdemeanor driving offenses as a cause for permit suspension or revocation. 5. Rewording and clarification of sections relating to mental health and alcohol program involvement by permittees. 6. Requiring the retaking of the entire handgun competency course every five years for renewal rather than a refresher course every six years. 7. Establishment of caps on fees. Ms. Babcock stressed that the department is required to charge only for the actual cost of processing the application. She then voiced her hope that the cost would be less than the $125 cap. 8. The narrowing of information required of the applicant. 9. Addition of the municipal preemption. 10. Change of the effective date to October 1, 1994. Senator Kerttula attested to concerns raised by a grocery store owner that, under the proposed bill, he would be forced to carry a weapon because shoplifters could be carrying concealed weapons. He further attested to worries associated with permittees who might carry concealed weapons into bars and other areas where alcohol is involved. Deputy Commission Swackhammer explained that being in possession of a firearm in an establishment that is selling alcoholic beverages for retail is against current law. Co-chair Pearce called for additional questions on the legislation. None were forthcoming at this time. She then advised of a number of people who wished to testify on the bill and directed that it be HELD for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:35 a.m.