Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/01/1998 05:11 PM RLS
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE May 1, 1998 5:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Gail Phillips Representative Brian Porter Representative William K.(Bill) Williams Representative Kim Elton Representative Irene Nicholia MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Al Vezey COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 122(L&C) "An Act relating to unfair discrimination under a group health insurance policy for services provided by marital and family therapists; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HCSCSSB 122(RLS) FORWARD HOUSE BILL NO. 474 "An Act relating to correctional officers." - MOVED CSHB 474(RLS) FORWARD HOUSE BILL NO. 28 "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments because of those repeals." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 122 SHORT TITLE: INS.COVERAGE:MARRIAGE & FAMILY THERAPIST SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/06/97 597 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/06/97 597 (S) L&C, HES 4/08/97 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/08/97 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 4/09/97 1049 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE 4/09/97 1049 (S) DP: LEMAN; NR: KELLY, MACKIE, MILLER 4/09/97 1049 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS (DCED) 4/16/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 4/16/97 (S) MINUTE(HES) 4/16/97 1164 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR (L&C)CS 4/16/97 1164 (S) DP: WARD, LEMAN, ELLIS NR: GREEN, WILKEN 4/16/97 1164 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED) 4/21/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/21/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/21/97 1331 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/21/97 4/21/97 1344 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/21/97 1344 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED Y15 N4 E1 4/21/97 1344 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 4/21/97 1344 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 122(L&C) 4/21/97 1345 (S) PASSED Y13 N6 E1 4/21/97 1345 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y15 N4 E1 4/21/97 1345 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/22/97 1420 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 4/22/97 1420 (S) PLACED AT BOTTOM OF CALENDAR 4/22/97 1429 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/23 CALENDAR 4/23/97 1452 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION 4/23/97 1452 (S) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE 5/08/97 (S) RLS AT 8:25 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 5/08/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 5/09/97 1891 (S) RULES TO CAL ON RECONSIDERATION IN 3RD 5/09/97 1923 (S) IN THIRD READING ON RECONSIDERATION 5/09/97 1923 (S) RTN 2ND RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION UAN CONSENT 5/09/97 1924 (S) RESCINDED ADOPTING L&C CS Y13 N6 E1 5/09/97 1924 (S) FAILED TO ADOPT L&C CS Y4 N15 E1 5/09/97 1924 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING SB 122 5/09/97 1925 (S) LETTER OF INTENT FAILED Y7 N12 E1 5/09/97 1926 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N4 E1 5/09/97 1926 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 5/09/97 1932 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 5/09/97 1786 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 5/09/97 1786 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, WTR 2/19/98 (H) STA AT 9:05 AM CAPITOL 102 2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/23/98 2403 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) 4DP 2NR 2/23/98 2403 (H) DP: JAMES, ELTON, BERKOWITZ, DYSON; 2/23/98 2403 (H) NR: IVAN, HODGINS 2/23/98 2403 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/02/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 3/02/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 3/09/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 3/09/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 3/11/98 2597 (H) L&C RPT HCS(STA) 2DP 3NR 3/11/98 2597 (H) DP: COWDERY, HUDSON; NR: SANDERS, BRICE, 3/11/98 2597 (H) ROKEBERG 3/11/98 2597 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 2/23/98 4/27/98 3295 (H) WTR REFERRAL WAIVED 5/01/98 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 474 SHORT TITLE: CERTIFY MUNICIPAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/27/98 2770 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/27/98 2770 (H) JUDICIARY 4/08/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/08/98 MINUTE(JUD) 4/09/98 2940 (H) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR 4/09/98 2940 (H) DP: BUNDE, GREEN, PORTER; NR: ROKEBERG 4/09/98 2940 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 5/01/98 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 28 SHORT TITLE: REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) THERRIAULT, Kelly Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/13/97 34 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 1/13/97 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/13/97 35 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 2/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 2/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 2/22/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/22/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 2/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/25/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 4/23/97 (H) RES AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 120 4/23/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 4/24/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 4/24/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 2/19/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) 2/26/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/26/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) 2/27/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/03/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) 3/04/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/04/98 2491 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 2DP 1DNP 2NR 3AM 3/04/98 2491 (H) DP: BARNES, OGAN; DNP: NICHOLIA; 3/04/98 2491 (H) NR: DYSON, MASEK; AM: WILLIAMS, GREEN, 3/04/98 2491 (H) HUDSON 3/04/98 2492 (H) 5 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, F&G, LAW, DEC, DNR) 3/04/98 2492 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (C&RA) 3/06/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/09/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/09/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN) 3/11/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/11/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN) 3/20/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/27/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/28/98 (H) FIN AT 2:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/30/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 3/30/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN) 4/01/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519 4/01/98 2829 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 3DP 2DNP 3NR 4/01/98 2829 (H) DP: THERRIAULT, MULDER, KELLY; 4/01/98 2829 (H) DNP: DAVIES, GRUSSENDORF; NR: HANLEY 4/01/98 2829 (H) MARTIN, DAVIS 4/01/98 2830 (H) FISCAL NOTE (H.FIN/LAW) 4/01/98 2830 (H) 4 ZERO FNS (DCRA, DEC, H.FIN/LAW, F&G) 4/01/98 2830 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 4/01/98 2830 (H) REFERRED TO RULES 5/01/98 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER ROBERT PEARSON, Intern to Senator Loren Leman Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 115 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2095 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HCSCSSB 122(RLS) on behalf of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Joe Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4990 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained CSSB 474(RLS) on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee. LADDIE SHAW, Director Alaska Police Standards Council P.O. Box 111700 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4378 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 474(RLS). SARA FISHER-GOAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene Therriault Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 511 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6876 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained CSHB 28(RLS) on behalf of Representative Therriault. DIANE MAYER, Director Governmental Coordination Office of Management and Budget Office of the Governor P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030 Telephone: (907) 465-8800 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSHB 28(RLS). ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-10, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Phillips, Porter, Williams and Elton. Representative Nicholia arrived as the meeting was in progress. CSSB 122(L&C) - INS.COVERAGE:MARRIAGE & FAMILY THERAPIST Number 019 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business would be CSSB 122(L&C), "An Act relating to unfair discrimination under a group health insurance policy for services provided by marital and family therapists; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. He noted there is a proposed committee substitute (CS) dated 4/30/98, Ford, Version L. Number 023 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed House CS for CS for SB 122, Version L. There being no objection, Version L was before the committee. Number 029 ROBERT PEARSON, Intern to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain the proposed CS. He said the legislation would provide equity for marital and family therapists on a par with a number of other health professionals, including mental health professionals, in what might be described as equal opportunity or protecting them from unfair discrimination in insurance policy matters. REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked if the only change is the effective date. MR. PEARSON responded in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN KOTT explained that it would give the insurance companies time to make the necessary changes to conform to the (indisc.). CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further witness to testify. There being none, he asked what the wish was of the committee. Number 070 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved and asked unanimous consent to move HCSCSSB 122(RLS), Version L, out of committee with individual recommendations and with the zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCSCSSB 122(RLS) moved out of the House Rules Standing Committee. HB 474 - CERTIFY MUNICIPAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS Number 078 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 474, "An Act relating to correctional officers," sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee. He indicated there is a proposed CS. Number 086 KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He explained that Mr. Shaw, representing the Alaska Police Standards Council, asked the House Judiciary Committee to introduce legislation that would allow the Alaska Police Standards Council to regulate and require training of municipal corrections officers. Mr. Jardell said the House Judiciary Committee heard and moved the bill. After moving the bill, there were concerns raised that what the committee had done was required the municipal corrections officers to meet the same standards as all state corrections officers. He stated that standard is too high to allow for a sufficient hiring pool in some of rural areas of Alaska. Mr. Jardell referred to the proposed CS and said they redrafted the approach so that there is new classification created of municipal corrections officers that is separate and distinct from the normal corrections officers. That was placed under the authority of the Alaska Police Standards Council. By doing that, it would allow the council to create specific training programs and hiring requirements that met the needs of municipal corrections. He explained that the idea was to allow the council to begin setting some standards and to oversee the municipal corrections officers. The CS does that in a more appropriate manner than the original version of the bill. Number 135 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 474, dated 4/15/98, Luckhaupt, Version E. There being no objection, CSHB 474(RLS) was before the committee. Number 140 LADDIE SHAW, Director, Alaska Police Standards Council, came before the committee. He explained that the changes would allow the council to specifically regulate the municipal corrections officers. The standards that they originally set were equal to the level state correctional officers. Those were adjusted accordingly. Mr. Shaw pointed out they would still receive the same amount of training, but they would be under municipal authority versus state authority. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if they would be certified by the Alaska Police Standards Council. MR. SHAW responded that they would be certified through the council, but it will be a separate certification than the state correctional officers. They will be certified as municipal correctional officials. Number 160 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked if the correctional officers in the community jail system will still fall under the state standards. MR. SHAW responded in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what communities would the new classification affect. MR. SHAW explained that it would affect any of the communities with small jails. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked how many are not part of the community correction facilities. MR. SHAW pointed out that there are 17 community jails. Number 182 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA referred to the fiscal note and asked if the cost of $1,500, per officer, would come from the Alaska Police Standards Council training fund. MR. SHAW said that is true. He informed the committee that they are already under the Alaska Police Standards Council's budget. Mr. Shaw noted that they have already trained a class and in the existing fiscal note, there is no additional dollars for this program. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if the funds will come out of the funds for police officer training. MR. SHAW indicated they will. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if there would be an impact on that fund. MR. SHAW responded, "Yes, because our budget primarily is to support police and correctional training statewide. Bringing on the municipal correctional officers will be part of the funding that exists under our budget." Number 206 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the municipalities match the training money. MR. SHAW stated that there isn't a direct match. The sur charge is supported by each municipality in the state, but there is not a match to the sur charge. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "Is this currently under the regulations now that the correctional officers can take money from those funds?" MR. SHAW responded in the negative. He said they are already under the council's regulatory authority and the council's budget supports them, primarily in in-service training. They have not historically supported the correctional officers. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "You haven't offered training for $1,500 before? This is a new item - $1,500?" MR. SHAW responded that the council has supported one class and graduated 13 municipal correction officers in September that they funded out of the existing budget. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further questions or witnesses wishing to testify. There being none, he closed the public hearing. Number 241 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS made a motion to move CSHB 474, Version E, out of committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection CSHB 474(RLS) moved out of the House Rules Standing Committee. HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM Number 251 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 28, "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments because of those repeals," sponsored by Representative Therriault. CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 5:25 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 5:27 p.m. Number 261 SARA FISHER-GOAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to explain the proposed CS in comparison with the Finance Committee version. She said the language regarding the coastal zone boundary was changed. There was an amendment introduced in the House Finance Committee that wasn't adopted and Representative Therriault wanted her to continue working on it. The amendment addressed some concerns regarding the boundary issue and would change Section 4 of the bill. She stated that it requires that a consistency determination outside of the coastal zone is not required unless the activity is on federal land and affects the zone. It also clarifies that the area of the coastal zone that went beyond the 1979 established boundary is not required unless there is a direct effect on coastal waters or if the activity requires a Title 16 permit. Ms. Fisher-Goad explained the proposed CS doesn't repeal the Coastal Zone Management Program as the original version of the bill did. Each version of the bill does less and less. There is a few specific things that the bill addresses. Number 292 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS moved that the committee adopt the proposed CS for HB 28, Version Z. There being no objection Version Z, Glover, dated 4/30/98, was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what caused a Interior Alaska legislator to introduce legislation on coastal zone management. MS. FISHER-GOAD stated that Representative Therriault has told the House Resources Committee and the House Finance Committee that although he represents Interior Alaska, he has become familiar with the resource agencies and their budgets for the last six years. He has to look beyond the boarders of his district in looking at legislation. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Fisher-Goad to summarize the input from the coastal communities regarding the legislation. MS. FISHER-GOAD said, "Obviously, the repeal was not well received and so we went back to the drawing board and tried to look at some distinct areas. There has been some concern, and I did receive a copy of this 'Cook Inlet Keeper' fax that was given to me a few minutes ago. There has been a lot of, I think, misunderstanding on the various versions of the bill and one of the problems that I've found is that the short title of the bill still says 'repeal.' And so Mr. Shavelson's letter on one of their concerns is - one of his concerns is that it guts the program. The bill does not gut the program. There is no such threat of federal takeover mainly because this is a voluntary federal program that we adopted back in the '70s, so there is no threat of a federal takeover. It's not like a primacy for the air program. I can outline the sections of what specifically the bill does now. We probably -- I think we've answered and responded to most of the concerns of individuals regarding their concerns on the process. And I think what we have left, I think it does restrict the program a little bit, but it doesn't repeal the program. I think Representative Therriault has had a concern as far as how far the boundaries can go inland and what permits and regulates them or what type of duplication this program has caused over the years." Number 345 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "Could you enlarge on why there is a difference between whether boarders are involved in federal lands as opposed to state or municipal private land?" MS. FISHER-GOAD explained that when the federal program was implemented, they specifically stated that federal land could not be within the zone. So regardless of how you drew your boundaries, any patch of federal land would never be in your zone. She said that somehow had to be addressed. You can still require consistency determination if it's on federal land, but it has to have some type of spill-over impact into the zone. She said you could have a patch of federal land where there is some activity that does affect it, but you could never draw your boundaries to include it. She stated, "We just needed to clarify that because one of the things that Representative Therriault wanted to do is see that districts set their zones and once a zone is set and we have the coastal area, he didn't' think it was appropriate for a consistency determination to be required outside of the zone or district. There was a supreme court case that had kind of highlighted this that these people waited to get their trapping cabin permit on state land for years, finally received it, but they had to go to the supreme court to do it. And then the point of contention was with the coastal district and it was I believe about 100 miles inland." Number 376 DIANE MAYER, Director, Governmental Coordination, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, came before the committee. She explained that her office is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Program in Alaska. She stated there are two sections of the bill that warrant just opposition. One section is Section 4 regarding the standard of review and how different areas of the coastal zone are treated based on the boundary conditions built in the legislation. The second is the repeal of petitions to the Coastal Policy Council which hasn't been mentioned. She said she would respond to the question, "What have coastal districts said about this bill?" She stated that she has formal resolutions against the bill, but obviously not the current version. The resolutions are against elements of the version before the committee that have been in previous versions. They have been specifically cited. The resolutions of opposition range from Anchorage, Sitka, North Slope Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough. Ms. Mayer explained Alaska has 34,000 miles of coastline, and when Alaska bought into the Coastal Program 20 years ago, we created an interim boundary. It was called "interim" because coastal districts were going to do separate programs more specific to their area. As coastal districts came online examining their coastal zone, they modified those boundaries to be sensitive to resource values within their specific area. Ms. Mayer said, "What this bill does is say when those districts expanded the boundary from that initial interim boundary, it was expanded because coastal districts felt there were coastal resources, largely anadromous fish, but we can use that as a good example because it's the simplest one, where spawning areas, rearing areas, fresh water areas that were beyond that interim boundary definitely affected the important coastal resources of anadromous fish to Alaska. What this bill does is say, 'In those cases where a local community fine tuned its boundary and expanded it,' what this legislation says is they can't work the process of coastal management unless the project effects all the way down to salt water. So you're skipping over managing that spawning and rearing area that you were concerned with." MS. MAYER continued, "The bill does provide if you're in the upper regions and you need a Title 16 permit from [Department of] Fish and Game or you're actually building something right in the creek or stream, that you can work with the project. But there are issues of sedimentation, water discharge, a lot of ways to affect that important fish resource without actually ... working in the stream. So what we've set up here is a case in this bill where coastal districts get taken - coastal districts have taken from them the opportunity to interact on projects through coastal management that affect important resources that they've identified in their program. The other issue of state and federal land is an important one. The amendment that was just adopted tried to solve the problem, as Sara described it where federal lands within the coastal zone were deleted in the last version. But the amendment, as it's set up, now sets up a deal where federal lands outside of the coast area but affecting it are subject to coastal management. But the identical project on state land, which might be immediately adjacent to it, would not be in. So we have a double standard where we'd have to go back to the federal funding agency and say, 'Well, we have a new deal in coastal management now and the state is not holding itself accountable to the same standard of review with the local governments that the feds will be held accountable to.' So we have double standards, we have review procedures built in where you have to prove affect on coastal waters rather than anadromous steams to have the program go into effect. And essentially what we try to do in coastal management is timely - get in there, figure out what permits are needed and run a review, but under this system we're going to have to do initial analysis just to try to determine if projects in the upper reaches of the coastal boundary are even subject to the program and we consider that unnecessary." Number 456 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the fiscal note from Ms. Mayer's office dated March 4, 1998, and asked if it is relevant to the current version of the bill before the committee. MS. MAYER referred to the fiscal note that was submitted to the House Finance Committee and said the committee amended it. She noted that she hasn't received any paperwork, but it was reduced substantially. She said money that her office had asked for coastal districts to engage in this was deleted from their request. Ms. Mayer explained the narrative would be relevant, but what came out of the Finance Committee was not what they asked for. It was substantially cut. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if he would be correct to say there is a process of review available to the local area, and under the current version of the bill, that review would not then be available. He asked if there are any other mechanisms for that review. MS. MAYER responded that there will be areas within coastal districts that will not be eligible for the benefits of coastal management, but that was designed to be, so there is a reduction. She said the review they would get is unique in two ways. One, coastal management consolidates applications for federal and state agencies. It brings the applicant together with the local community and it actually runs a more holistic look at a project where people can do it once. So you would lose the opportunity to bring the players to the table to problem solve. Ms. Mayer pointed out that the second thing that would be lost is when the local communities design their coastal programs, they identify enforceable policies that they want, from the local perspective, to be applied to projects that affect their coastal zone. So if you unplug the program from project reviews in the coastal zone, as the bill does in the areas where the districts have expanded that boundary, you lose both the ability for them to have their standard of review on the table and you unplug the players. Number 498 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to a main river system such as the Copper River and asked who the local group would be. MS. MAYER responded the Kenai River is an example where the Kenai Peninsula Borough is the coastal district; it is the government entity. She explained there are a couple of gaps in coastal Alaska where you don't have a district and only the state piece of the program applies. Generally, if there is a local government they are the coastal district. Ms. Mayer said the exception is when you're in Western Alaska as it is an unorganized area, but people have organized into coastal districts. Current state statute allows people to elect a board and create a coastal resource service area and then become the entity you talk to in the unorganized area. She noted you have to follow the rules of the Alaska Coastal Management Act that sets out exactly what you have to do to become a coastal resource service area. You actually have a local election and during that election, they elect people in the unorganized area to the board. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how it is determined whether he can vote on that or not. MS. MAYER indicated they are within the rural education attendance areas (REAA). She said those are the initial boundaries and they can vote to subdivide them, but they start with something that is on the books. Ms. Mayer said the Kenai River is a good example because there the local community did expand the interim boundary to take in the fishery resources of the Kenai River. Number 527 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the linear process Ms. Mayer described and said if someone has any concerns about any particular economic development project or trapper's cabin having an effect on one of the resources there, there are still mechanisms, if this was not in effect, to pursue that. MS. MAYER explained that there are other permits that would apply to the project and would continue to apply. The significant shift is the standing of the local community is simply that you can just comment. Coastal management really gives a local district, that has an approved plan, standing in the process to be a stronger player. Number 543 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the current version of the bill eliminates the petition process that is currently available to the policy council for those specific projects. MS. MAYER responded in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked what impact would that have on the communities or the projects that may be considered. MS. MAYER responded that in 1994, the legislature took on the question and they changed the law. She said, "The law, as it currently stands, has communities or citizens of districts who have commented in the process, who feel their comments weren't fairly considered, they can go to the council and say basically, 'Government isn't hearing me.' the council's authority is simply to remand it if they believe that the record shows there was not fair consideration of comments. They simply remand it for further consideration. If they do believe there was fair consideration or comments, they just deny the petition." Ms. Mayer explained that since 1994, that process has been used seven times under 2,100 project reviews they've done in Alaska. Ms. Mayer pointed out that people argue that it has rarely been used and it doesn't make a difference if we get rid of it. The other side of the argument is because it's there, communities do get that extra attention because nobody likes petitions. Ms. Mayer said the truth of the matter is because nobody likes them, that extra consideration is given and districts enjoy the leverage it gives them to be heard. She said it is effective. Even though they have this authority, it has only been used seven times in 2,100 project reviews and it means that they've been given satisfaction out of the process. Ms. Mayer said, "So I say keep it. Why get rid of it? There has not been a record of abuse." Number 573 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 4, lines 19 and 20, "(A) outside and inland of the coastal zone unless the use or activity is on federal land and affects the coastal zone area, uses, or resources;" and asked whose responsibility is it to make the determination on whether or not the activity affects the coastal zone area. MS. MAYER explained her office would determine it if it wasn't obvious. Usually it is pretty obvious and not disputed. She said, "If it required some thinking, we would talk to the coastal community, as well as experts within the resource agency and get a feel from the technical expertise that's out there to help us." Ms. Mayer referred to the wording, "outside and inland of the coastal zone," and said you're basically above the coastal zone. She stated that it says that you may not adopt regulation procedures unless you're outside and inland of the coastal zone unless the use or activity is on federal land. She pointed out that if it is federal land outside, then you can do it, but the same project on state lands or private lands right next to it you can't. It creates a problem when you go to the federal government and tell them, "We have a program that gives equal treatment to coastal impacts." Ms. Mayer stated that the change was made to address the problem of federal lands inside the coastal zone. That problem was fixed, but then it created a problem with lands above the coastal zone. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the net effect is that you could have two similar projects, one located on federal land and the other not located on federal land and they would be treated differently. MS. MAYER responded in the affirmative. Number 608 MS. FISHER-GOAD explained said that Representative Therriault believes that there has been a potential for abuse with the current petition process. She pointed out that the sponsor statement does address the concern on the petition process. She said there is a seat at the table with the local program and it should address the concerns of the local government and the individuals of that district. If the district, as a voice of its constituents, disagrees with the proposed consistency determination for a project, they may elevate the proposed decision through the resource agencies, their directors and their commissioners. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that there is still that avenue for districts to have the project reviewed. She said she doesn't think there is any other program in the state that as an individual citizen, if she has a difference of opinion with her local government that she can petition a state entity to have that decision reviewed. MS. FISHER-GOAD said, "The other portion of the bill that does address the concerns of the actual program is we do allow, in the bill, a section where regulations may be adopted to periodically review the program and also allow for revocation if a district does not address deficiencies in their programs. So a program can be reviewed. The state can set up a procedure to do that and address deficiencies in the program. The other issue I wanted to address is the two-tiered system or the double standard. The one thing that's been a little bit difficult to kind of -- how to fashion this is regardless of where you draw your boundaries, you're never going to be able to include federal land. But if there is - if there adjacent state project and a federal project, you could always have your district boundaries include that state project. So once the district boundaries are set up, that would include all the state land. It would never include the federal land. So in some respects, the federal program handed us a program with double standards and we'd never be able to have -- federal land is never treated the same way." Number 641 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to Section 8, which requires modifications in a one-year time period, and asked who pays for those modifications. He asked if the districts pay for those modifications. MS. FISHER-GOAD responded that the modifications that the legislation addresses is specifically if an entity or a district adopts statutes and regulations by reference, those are the modifications that need to be addressed within a year. That has been an identified issue and the Administration supports that section of the bill. If there are statutes and regulations that are adopted by reference, those should come out of the programs. She noted the federal dollars and the state match pays for the entire program. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Fisher-Goad if she is saying that she doesn't think any additional money is needed (indisc.) districts or for the state to accomplish what they have to do within a year. MS. FISHER-GOAD said, "No." Number 658 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 7 and said there are several repealers. He asked if they are solely associated with the petition process. MS. FISHER-GOAD responded in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there were no further witnesses to testify and closed the public hearing. Number 664 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that she is going to oppose the legislation based on the fact that her history with coastal zone management on the Kenai Peninsula is longstanding and the coastal zone management policy and programs have been a way for the people on the Kenai Peninsula to participate in the decisions affecting our coastline for many years. She stated that the program has a critical effect on the Kenai Peninsula, not only on the coastline, but also on one of the most strategically important rivers in Alaska, the Kenai River. She explained it affects many of the cities in the borough and also the lands of the borough. The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly is opposed to the legislation as they believe the current program is the best representative program for the local people. She read the following section of a resolution from the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly: "The Kenai Peninsula Borough supports the Alaska Coastal Management Program and opposes the committee substitute to House Bill 28 and other legislative efforts to reduce local option." Representative Phillips point out that recently there was a bill in the House Rules Committee effecting another community where the committee didn't take action because the action would have been perceived to reduce local option. She reiterated she is opposed to the legislation as it would reduce local option. Number 683 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA indicated she wouldn't be supporting the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he agrees with everything Representative Phillips has said. He said coastal communities in Southeast Alaska have the same kind of issue to deal with. He said that getting rid of coastal zone management actually slows down economic development projects. It is a pattern and system that Southeast Alaska communities are comfortable with. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that there probably aren't the votes to move the bill forward, so the proposed CSHB 28(RLS) was held. ADJOURNMENT Number 700 CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Rules Standing Committee meeting at 6:00 p.m.