Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124


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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
08:04:06 AM Start
08:05:01 AM SB63
08:59:22 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 63(CRA) Out of Committee
                  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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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