Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/27/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING
8:05:01 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the only order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 63(FIN), "An Act prohibiting smoking
in certain places; relating to education on the smoking
prohibition; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR PARISH stated his intent was to hear amendments and
move the bill out of committee.
CO-CHAIR PARISH handed the gavel to Co-Chair Fansler.
8:05:33 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 30-
LS0024\N.11, Martin, 4/26/17, which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 27 - 28:
Delete "a freestanding building"
Insert "freestanding"
Page 4, following line 29:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(1) "freestanding" means a building that
does not share ventilation or air space with an
adjacent structure and smoke from the building cannot
travel into the adjacent structure;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:05:52 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted that at the last hearing on CSSB 63(FIN),
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee had
discussed "freestanding" buildings. He said Amendment 3 would
support the prime sponsor's intent that there should not be two
buildings with smoke "traveling back and forth between them,"
but it would accommodate old structures in Juneau, which share a
wall. He said the proposed amendment offers a definition of
freestanding.
8:07:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the definition of
"freestanding" in Amendment 3 is a new one and if a definition
already exists in statute.
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that it is a new definition.
8:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said, "So, this just defines itself,
solely on its own, 'freestanding'."
CO-CHAIR PARISH interjected, "Yes."
8:09:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked to hear the prime sponsor's views
on Amendment 3.
8:09:15 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of
CSSB 63(FIN), said the proposed legislation addresses secondhand
smoke, and Amendment 3 "seems to separate secondhand smoke from
an adjacent building," which he said he thinks is "the only
intent of the entire bill."
8:09:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER objected for the purpose of discussion. He
expressed concern regarding the definition of "freestanding" as
a building that does not share airspace. He explained that
"airspace" seems vague. He further expressed concern about the
use of "adjacent". He said he can imagine a scenario wherein
there are two buildings close to one another where smoke could
travel into the adjacent structure "thereby negating what I
think would have been a freestanding building under the previous
definition and no longer saying it's a freestanding building."
8:11:19 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH said that is a valid concern, although he said
it is strange to think that by opening a window a building could
become freestanding or not. He added, "It does reveal a bug in
the amendment that I presented."
8:12:15 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE indicated that "originally we had 'attached to'
and 'supported by'." He said he thinks that if there is concern
about the definition [of "freestanding"], then "supported by"
would retain the structural definition of freestanding. He said
he thinks "the second part of it satisfies what Representative
Parish was concerned about" where, in downtown Juneau, some
buildings are attached but not supporting one another. He said
there would be no perfect solution. For example, even with
separation, [there could be smoke transferred from one building
to the next] on a windy day.
8:13:54 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH pondered over the use of "adjacent" instead of
"adjoining."
8:14:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested an engineer could answer many
of the questions the committee was asking regarding building
architecture. She said buildings that are "up against each
other" but "do not share structure" must have firewalls between
them.
8:15:06 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH stated a concern had been raised about smoke
traveling from one space to another through power outlets.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND relayed that "penetrations are not
permitted" in a fire wall.
8:16:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his understanding that "adjacent"
means "near" and "adjoining" means "connected." For example, he
said the Terry Miller Building is adjacent to the Capitol
building, whereas the Thomas B. Stewart Building is adjoining,
even if only by the [skybridge]. He opined that consideration
of whether there is shared air space is a more compelling
limitation or condition.
8:17:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that smoking
is already prohibited in the Capitol and its related buildings.
Nevertheless, she offered the unlikely scenario of a "smoke
shop" being opened in the basement of the Thomas B. Stewart
Building, and she said if that were to happen, then the smoke
would travel to the Capitol because of the attachment of the
buildings via the [skybridge].
8:18:49 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER recommended putting Amendment 3 aside to
address later when someone from Legislative Legal and Research
Services might be available to answer questions.
REPRESENTAIVE DRUMMOND moved to table Amendment 3. There being
no objection, Amendment 3 was tabled.
8:19:49 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled "30-
LS0024\N.7, Martin, 4/25/17," which read as follows:
Page 7, line 10, following "imposing":
Insert "additional"
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "additional"
Delete "or"
Page 7, line 12:
Delete "additional"
Page 7, line 14, following "smoking":
Insert "; or
(3) limitations on smoking in an outdoor area at a
municipal park designated as a children's playground"
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR PARISH reviewed the changes that would be made under
Amendment 4 and stated that it would "slightly explicitly"
expand the authority of municipalities.
8:21:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO requested feedback from the prime
sponsor regarding Amendment 4.
8:21:37 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said under CSSB 63(FIN) there is nothing that
would prohibit a municipality of "making an ordinance that's
stricter in any way, shape, or form." He noted page 7, line 11,
pertains to "additional limitations on smoking" or "additional
duties on employers, owners, operators, and other persons who
are subject to the requirements" of the proposed legislation.
He indicated that if Amendment 3 [which was tabled] were to be
adopted, it "clarifies that even further"; therefore, he stated,
"It certainly doesn't hurt a thing."
8:23:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 4. There being no further objection, Amendment
4 was adopted.
8:23:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:24 a.m. to 8:40 a.m.
8:40:00 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER brought the committee back to order.
[Amendment 3 was, at this point, treated as back on the table.]
8:40:11 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 3, such that the new language proposed by Amendment 3
[text provided previously], on page 4, following line 29, would
read as follows:
(1) "freestanding" means a building
that is not supported by another structure and does
not share ventilation or internal air space with an
adjoining structure and smoke from the building cannot
travel into an adjoining structure."
8:41:14 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:41 a.m. to 8:42 a.m.
8:42:34 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER reviewed Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3.
He said it would change the two instances of "adjacent" to
"adjoining"; add "is not supported by another structure and"
before "does"; and add "internal" before "air space".
8:43:13 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he thinks the concern was to not make the
bill so restrictive that it could not accommodate 100-year-old
buildings, such as those in Juneau and Seward, that are attached
but separate. He indicated that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 3 would address this concern by [narrowing the
restriction] to buildings that are supported by another
structure or share air. He added that he thinks Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 would satisfy the committee's desire
to allow "a business in that type of freestanding structure."
8:44:28 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that there being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER removed his objection to Amendment 3, [as
amended]. There being no further objection, Amendment 3, as
amended, was adopted.
8:45:33 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, which he
explained is a request "to revisit the definition of
freestanding in a future committee of referral." He explained
this is intent language.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
He said he thinks Conceptual Amendment 5 is redundant, because
any subsequent committee of referral "has the full rights to
make an amendment." He suggested that the intent could be
simply communicated to the next committee of referral.
8:46:45 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH said he thinks there is some merit to
"specifically calling out a part of the bill as being
unfinished"; therefore, while he could communicate the idea to
the next committee of referral off the record, he would feel
more confident having done so on the record.
8:47:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if Co-Chair Parish could indicate
his intent "under his check mark, under 'amend'" [on the
committee report].
CO-CHAIR FANSLER responded that that would be another option for
sending the message, but [Conceptual Amendment 5] would be a
more explicit way.
8:47:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO concurred with Representative Saddler
that the prerogative of the chair is to pass along a request to
the chair of the next committee of referral to consider [the
definition of "freestanding"]. Further, he opined that it may
be more appropriate [to speak directly with the chair of the
next committee of referral] than to put intent language "within
the body of the bill itself." He offered his understanding that
the next committee of referral would have to clean up the bill
by removing that intent language.
8:48:57 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH withdrew his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 5.
8:49:52 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER passed the gavel back to Co-Chair Parish.
8:50:07 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER opined that the committee had thoroughly vetted
CSSB 63(FIN). He said, "We can't make perfect ... be the enemy
of good." He stated his support of moving the proposed
legislation out of committee forthwith.
8:51:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that during public testimony
[heard during the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee meetings of 4/13/17 and 4/18/17] there was a lot of
comment from public regarding e-cigarettes ("e-cigs"). He
offered his understanding that "over 85 percent" had said they
"kicked the habit" with the aid of e-cigs. He encouraged
attention be given to who called in to testify and the reasoning
behind their testimony.
8:51:53 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH said he had worked in a group home where a
resident self-medicated with nicotine, and he persuaded the
resident to switch to "vapor," because he had believed that it
was less harmful. He indicated that he has since seen the man,
who "has managed to quit"; therefore, Co-Chair Parish said he is
"not insensible to the notion that vaping can be a transitional
product." Nevertheless, he said he does not believe that
[vaping] is good for a person. He said he thinks vaping should
have some level of restriction; however, perhaps not at the same
level as [combustible tobacco products]. He acknowledged the
extensive testimony: dozens testified that vaping should be
included in CSSB 63(FIN); therefore, he did not offer an
amendment [to exclude it]. He noted that the "overall health
consequences [of vaping] are unclear at this time," and "pending
better data on the long-term effects of vaping," he does not
feel it is appropriate to "distinguish it too far from smoking."
8:54:23 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to report CSSB 63(FIN), as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note, with the intent to inform the next
committee of referral "to review the 'freestanding' issue."
There being no objection HCS CSSB 63(CRA) was reported out of
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 63 Schoenrock Letter 4-25-17.pdf |
HCRA 4/27/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |