Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/13/2017 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 | |
| HB201 | |
| SB64 | |
| SB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 2017
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Parish, Co-Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dean Westlake
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative DeLena Johnson (Alternate)
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (Alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 201
"An Act relating to municipal regulation of trapping; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 201(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act;
relating to environmental real property covenants and notices of
activity and use limitation at contaminated sites to ensure the
protection of human health, safety, and welfare, and the
environment; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 64 OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 201
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF TRAPPING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) CRA, RES
04/11/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/11/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/11/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/13/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM ENVIROMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
02/17/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/17 (S) CRA, L&C
02/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/07/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/17 (S) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
03/07/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/17 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 2NR
03/08/17 (S) DP: BISHOP, HOFFMAN
03/08/17 (S) NR: MACKINNON, STEDMAN
03/14/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/14/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/17 (S) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
03/16/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/20/17 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 3NR
03/20/17 (S) NR: COSTELLO, HUGHES, GARDNER
03/20/17 (S) DP: STEVENS
03/27/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/17 (S) VERSION: SB 64
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) CRA, L&C
04/11/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/11/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/11/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/13/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 63
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SMOKING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
02/17/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/17 (S) HSS, FIN
03/01/17 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/17 (S) Moved SB 63 Out of Committee
03/01/17 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/03/17 (S) HSS RPT 5DP
03/03/17 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH, VON IMHOF, GIESSEL,
MICCICHE
03/13/17 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/17 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/20/17 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/20/17 (S) Moved CSSB 63(FIN) Out of Committee
03/20/17 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/17 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/21/17 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, MACKINNON, BISHOP, VON
IMHOF, OLSON, MICCICHE
03/21/17 (S) NR: DUNLEAVY
03/27/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/17 (S) VERSION: CSSB 63(FIN)
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) CRA, JUD
04/13/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 201.
MEGAN ROWE, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201 on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
CHERYL BROOKING, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201.
HAZEL NELSON, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered feedback during the hearing on HB
201.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented SB 63.
RACHEL HANKE
Staff
Senator Peter Micchiche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
SB 63, on behalf of Senator Micciche, prime sponsor.
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society (ACS) Cancer Action Network (CAN)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 63.
BOB URATA, MD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
JAY BUTLER, MD, Chief Medical Officer/Director
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 63.
KRISTIN COX
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
JOHNA BEECH
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63, with
inclusion of e-cigs intact.
GAIL SCHIEMANN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
JENNY OLENDORFF
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63, including e-
cigs.
TERRENCE ROBBINS
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
JODI BLAKELY, Owner
The Mecca
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
MATT SCOTT
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
CARMEN LUNDE
Kodiak CHARR
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Kodiak CHARR in
opposition to SB 63.
ALYSSA KEILL
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
STEPHEN WARREN
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
RILEY NEFF WARNER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
CHRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, Owner
Forelands Bar
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 63.
DALE FOX, President/CEO
Alaska CHARR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 63.
MARY SEARS
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
MARNA SANFORD, Government Relations Coordinator
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
BETTY MACTAVISH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:20 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN PARISH called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
Representatives Talerico, Westlake, Rauscher, Fansler, and
Parish were present at the call to order. Representative
Drummond arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 201-MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF TRAPPING
8:03:12 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to municipal regulation
of trapping; and providing for an effective date."
8:03:40 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 201, labeled
30-LS0628\A.4, Bullard, 4/12/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) A municipality may not enact an ordinance
under this section that eliminates reasonable
opportunities for subsistence trapping of game within
its boundaries."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
8:05:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for discussion purposes, then
removed his objection.
8:05:24 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:05:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered his understanding that
Representative Saddler had requested some amendments but was not
present to offer them; therefore, he said he would offer the
amendments on Representative Saddler's behalf.
8:05:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 201,
labeled 30-LS0628\A.1, Bullard, 4/11/17, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 10, following "protect":
Insert "human"
CO-CHAIR FANSLER objected.
8:06:10 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:06 a.m.
8:06:49 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH called the meeting back to order to explain the
reason for the at-ease and to outline the agenda going forward.
8:07:30 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:08 a.m. to 8:10 a.m.
8:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out that if Amendment 2 was
adopted, then the sentence it amends would read as follows: "A
municipality may regulate trapping to protect human life and
property within its boundaries and may exempt trappers from
municipal regulation for good cause."
8:11:32 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER requested feedback from the bill sponsor as to
whether Amendment 2 is necessary.
8:11:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 201, said Amendment 2 is redundant, because
"in that sentence, what's described is clearly not to regulate
trapping to protect wild animals, because that's not necessarily
the purpose of this ordinance at all." He said he is not sure
what Amendment 2 would add. Further, he said because there is
not a comma following "life", the sentence could be interpreted
to mean protection of human life and human property, and since
"property" is "sort of a human term," he does not know what
other kind of property there is.
8:12:40 AM
MEGAN ROWE, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor of HB 201, said the term "life" implies human life. She
said she thinks the purpose of Amendment 2 is to clarify that
"life" means "human life", so a municipality cannot argue it is
trying to protect animal life. She suggested "human" could be
added in multiple places. For example, adding it preceding
"properties" would clarify that the protection is not intended
for beaver dams, for example. Nevertheless, she added that she
did not think Amendment 2 would have "a huge effect."
8:13:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered his understanding that "the
intent of the sponsor [of Amendment 2] ... was to differentiate
... between wild animals and domestic animals." He said
domestic animals could be considered the property of someone,
whereas wild animals would be considered "community property of
all the residents of the state of Alaska."
8:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked if there is anything wrong with
being redundant.
8:15:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered no, but opined that the
reading is "sort of clunky and a little awkward."
Notwithstanding that, he said he took Representative Westlake's
point and is "indifferent about it."
8:15:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the phrase "damage
to persons or property" on page 2, line 2, and said she doesn't
know why "this needs to be different." She noted that "persons
or property" appears in several places on page 2. She said she
does not think Amendment 2 is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND [moved to adopt] an amendment to
Amendment 2, to [delete] "human" from Amendment 2 and change the
word "life" to "persons".
8:16:24 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked for the sponsor's feedback regarding the
proposed amendment to Amendment 2.
8:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON told Representative Drummond that if
Mr. Bullard was available to comment, he would like to hear his
opinion. He stated, "I think it's a very fine idea."
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted Mr. Bullard was not on line, but listed
others who were available for comment, including Cheryl Brooking
from the Department of Law. He questioned whether the addition
of "human", as proposed under Amendment 2, would make a
substantive difference.
8:17:19 AM
CHERYL BROOKING, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), in
response to Co-Chair Parish, said the phrase "in defense of life
and property" has been established for quite some time, and she
suggested that a representative of the Department of Public
Safety could address how that is enforced.
8:18:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, in response to Co-Chair Parish, said
she maintained her motion to adopt the amendment to Amendment 2.
8:18:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed support for the proposed
amendment to Amendment 2.
8:19:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, in response to Co-Chair Parish, offered
that the amendment to Amendment 2 would delete "life" and insert
"persons", on page 1, line 10.
8:19:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected to the amendment to Amendment 2
for discussion purposes. He asked for confirmation regarding
what the amendment proposed by Representative Drummond would
amend.
CO-CHAIR PARISH clarified that the discussion pertained to the
amendment to Amendment 2.
8:19:46 AM
MS. ROWE offered her understanding that [Representative
Drummond] had offered an amendment to HB 201 and not to
Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR PARISH indicated that is a fair assessment.
8:20:06 AM
REPRESENTAIVE RAUSCHER stated, "Then I remove my objection."
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that the amendment
offered by Representative Drummond would replace [Amendment 2].
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO requested the committee take an at-ease.
8:20:27 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:20 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
[Although the recording clock was not stopped during this time,
the audio was turned off for the duration of the at-ease.]
8:22:39 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH explained that under the amendment to Amendment
2, on page 1, line 10, [the word "human" proposed under
Amendment 2 would be deleted, and the word "life" would be
replaced by the word "persons".] As such, he clarified that the
resulting language would read:
A municipality may regulate trapping to protect
persons and property within its boundaries
[The amendment to Amendment 2 was treated as adopted.]
8:23:49 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Representative Rauscher if he maintained
his "objection to the amendment as amended."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, after receiving further clarification
about the intent of the amendment to Amendment 2, said, "All
right, I remove my objection."
8:24:37 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER maintained his objected to Amendment 2, [as
amended], to hear from the bill sponsor.
8:24:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he does not know "whether we now
lose a line of cases in statutes that use the term 'life and
property'," but he said people are familiar with the term
"defense of life and property". He indicated that the change
will read more consistently on both pages of the bill. He said
he thinks the change is probably okay, but suggested hearing
again from Ms. Brooking may be helpful.
8:25:38 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if legal standing would be lost as a
result of Amendment 2, as amended.
MS. BROOKING answered that she thinks the language is similar
and "the record you are developing would help certainly in
determining the intent of what this statute would ultimately
mean"; however, she does not know if the change would have a
significant impact on how the law is interpreted.
8:26:56 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER withdrew his objection to Amendment 2, as
amended. There being no further objection, it was so ordered.
8:27:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 201,
labeled 30-LS0628\A.2, Bullard, 4/11/17, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "regulation"
Insert "trapping ordinances"
CO-CHAIR PARISH objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said since [HB 201] pertains
specifically to the regulation of trapping, he thinks exempting
trappers from municipal regulation, rather than just the
trapping ordinances that are adopted by local municipalities,
seems broad. He stated his assumption that "we wouldn't have
trappers come in and say, 'Well, I'm a trapper and I'd like to
be exempted from the borough's property tax' or ... some other
stipulation that might be within a municipality."
8:28:55 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER requested feedback from the bill sponsor.
8:29:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that the language, as is, is
stylistically better. He pointed out that the language follows
the heading of "Regulation of trapping"; therefore, it is clear
that the subject is trapping. He indicated that he does not
have a problem with Amendment 3, but finds it to be "a little
bit clunky."
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said he would like to hear from Ms. Brooking.
8:30:06 AM
MS. BROOKING stated that the change proposed under Amendment 3,
from "regulation" to "trapping ordinances", would be more
accurate. She explained that when a municipal government adopts
a rule of law, it is an ordinance. The code of municipalities
is considered a code of ordinances.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked to hear a response from the bill sponsor.
8:30:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said, "It's almost like asking which
form of poetry is your favorite." He said he respectfully does
not really agree with Ms. Brooking. He said local governments
will understand the term "to regulate."
8:31:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said under Amendment 3, the Municipality
of Anchorage would have to have a set of trapping ordinances,
which she said she does not think it would do. She surmised
that the municipality would defer to what the state's trapping
regulations already are. She concluded, "What we're talking
about here is ... making municipal ordinances that cause the
interpretation of state trapping regulations to be applied
differently within this municipality. I don't think this
amendment is necessary, and I would not support it."
8:32:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he appreciates the comments of
[Representative Drummond], but he said he thinks "municipal
regulation" is a broad term. Further, he said, "I think once
this is adopted, the only way a municipality will be able to
regulate this is through ordinances that they will have to
write." He expressed support for Amendment 3.
8:34:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said the issue is local control. He
said the intent should not be to pass on the cost to boroughs to
enforce state regulation. He encouraged writing ordinances at
the local level, and he expressed support of [Amendment 3].
8:35:05 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 3.
8:35:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND maintained her objection to Amendment 3.
8:35:34 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Westlake, Talerico,
Rauscher, and Fansler voted in favor of the motion to adopt
Amendment 3. Representatives Drummond and Parish voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
8:36:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 201,
labeled 30-LS0628\A.3, Bullard, 4/11/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "persons, property, or nontargeted
species"
Insert "persons or property"
8:36:29 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:36 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.
8:37:42 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER objected to the motion to adopt Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO spoke to Amendment 4. He related that
someone he knows, who has much experience related to the issue,
told him that although there may be a targeted species along a
trapline, occasionally there may be another species that is
caught in a trap, which Representative Talerico explained is the
reason for proposing the removal of the language "nontargeted
species".
8:39:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that he does not oppose
Amendment 4.
8:39:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for discussion purposes. He
noted that during a prior bill hearing, the committee had heard
that [the inclusion of the language] "nontargeted species" was
problematic. He expressed support for Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER removed his objection to Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
8:40:35 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to report HB 201, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
8:41:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for discussion purposes. He
shared that he gets "squishy" whenever the legislature makes
changes that affect Title 29, because it involves municipal
government, and occasionally the legislature has made what it
considers to be insignificant changes within Title 29, but those
changes have greatly affected municipalities. He said
municipalities have requirements on how they adopt powers and
make ordinances, and the changes from the legislature almost
come across as unfunded mandates. He said he gets nervous when
changes are made to Title 29, without significant input from
local governments.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO removed his objection.
8:42:12 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, for discussion purposes, objected to the motion
to report HB 201, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:42:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked, "Now that we've moved it over to
ordinances rather than regulations here, does that free you from
that trap of fiscal responsibility?"
8:42:35 AM
MS. ROWE answered that the terms "regulation" and "ordinance"
are interchangeable. Regulation means "general regulation of
... people within the municipality."
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE clarified that he would like to know if
the legislature would be passing an unfunded mandate.
MS. ROWE answered no, because the proposed legislation would
give discretionary ability to municipalities to regulate.
8:43:16 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted that there were still experts available to
answer questions. In response to Representative Rauscher, he
confirmed that public testimony had been taken at the prior
hearing of HB 201 and, upon ascertaining that there was no one
currently who wished to testify, he announced that public
testimony would remained closed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed concern regarding the
[unintended consequences of making changes to] Title 29.
8:44:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee is charged with making laws
that allow municipalities to operate more efficiently and in the
best interest of their citizens. She remarked that the
Municipality of Anchorage has 41 percent of the state's
population in three-tenths of one percent of the state's square
miles. She commented on the close quarters in Anchorage and
said tempers get frayed. She stated her belief that the
Municipality of Anchorage needs the flexibility to make
ordinances that protect its citizens. She said [the proposed
legislation] would not require any municipality to impact Title
29, and she said she trusts each municipality will go through
their public processes with their elected officials. She stated
that she does not want to fail to pass this law and then have
some child severely injured because of a negligent trapper. She
stated, "We are never going to stop people who have no common
sense, but we really do need to give our municipalities the
tools to put the laws in place that will protect their people
and their pets. Those are important things to people." She
stated support of HB 201, [as amended].
8:46:34 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said he would like to hear from Hazel Nelson to
find out whether "the subsistence modification that we placed
through" allay "some of the fears that she might have presented
on Tuesday."
8:47:05 AM
HAZEL NELSON, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said she appreciates the
additional language that has been inserted. She offered her
understanding that "the amendment that was included this morning
is intended to reflect current state law that is similar to
what's found in [AS] 16.05.258, that reasonable opportunity
would mean the same as it does in current statute."
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said it makes him happy to know that Ms. Nelson
does not still have cause for concern. He commented on the
coexistence of trapping and trail use in rural areas, and he
emphasized how important he thinks subsistence is. He said he
thinks local communities can make the determinations [about
issues that affect them] better than can be made at the state
level. He expressed support of HB 201, [as amended].
8:49:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed concern that under HB 201, as
amended, there may be a scenario that as proposals come to
ADF&G, the department might say, "That's up to the
municipality". He said if the department does that, it would
not only remove the science and data of the department, but
would also make the municipality responsible for enforcement.
He added, "But municipalities can make that decision."
CO-CHAIR PARISH commented that five out of the six members
currently present on the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee would be vetting the bill again as members of
the House Resources Standing Committee.
8:50:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that the
Board of Game tries to mirror its proposals with municipal
ordinance.
8:50:57 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH removed his objection to the motion to report HB
201, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no further objection, CSHB 201(CRA) was reported out of the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
8:51:20 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:51 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.
SB 64-UNIFORM ENVIROMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
8:55:00 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the next order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 64, "An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act; relating to environmental real property covenants
and notices of activity and use limitation at contaminated sites
to ensure the protection of human health, safety, and welfare,
and the environment; and providing for an effective date."
8:55:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO thanked Senator Peter Micciche for
sponsoring SB 64.
8:55:59 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER echoed the thanks. He said the proposed bill
seems a sensible way to achieve true property values, increase
public knowledge, reach fair deals, and clean up environmental
issues around the state.
8:56:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed appreciation for SB 64. He
said although he cannot predict the outcome, a lot of his
constituents want legislation like this.
8:57:10 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted that the bill has a further referral to
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
8:57:26 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to report SB 64 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 64 was reported out of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
8:57:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:58 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING
9:00:00 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final 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."
9:00:24 AM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented SB 63. He said as a former mayor of five
years, he believes in local control; however, he said over half
the state does not have local control issues. He reported that
there are more people dying annually from the effects of tobacco
than from suicide, motor vehicle accidents, homicides, and
chronic liver disease combined. He reminded the committee of
the connection between chronic liver disease and Alaska's huge
problem with alcohol abuse.
SENATOR MICCICHE talked about the balance between people's
freedom and liberties and public safety, and he said there is a
saying that a person has a right to swing his/her arms at will,
until he/she makes contact with his/her neighbor's nose. He
said Senator Giessel had spoken in support of SB 63 on the
Senate floor and had mentioned "Hamilton's statement," which he
summarized as saying that the ultimate property right is "the
right of your person."
SENATOR MICCICHE said SB 63 would ask that employees in the work
place go outside to smoke; the legislation would not affect
smokers at home or smokers in their places of business if they
do not have employees. He stated, "Over half the population of
the state are currently living under smoke-free laws that are
very similar to SB 63; this covers the remainder of the state -
most of them not having the ability in our current law to
essentially regulate themselves."
9:02:18 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said [vapor pens] ("vapes") and electronic
cigarettes ("e-cigs") are different from tobacco. He indicated
that SB 63 would grandfather vape shops and allow new shops in
the future if the shop has a separate air handling system.
However, in terms of "vaping" indoors, he said he does not want
employees forced to breath "whatever it is that those using an
electronic or vape device are exhaling." He stated, "This is
not about the right of the smoker to smoke; it is about the
rights of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air in the
workplace."
SENATOR MICCICHE noted there is a Dittman survey in the
committee packet. He said, "The fascinating thing is, even the
majority of smokers support this legislation." He recollected
that 85 percent of Alaskans who smoke do not smoke in their own
homes. He said, "We're just gently asking them to take it
outside." He illustrated that the penalties set under SB 63
would be low. He relayed that there were people available for
questions.
9:05:07 AM
RACHEL HANKE, Staff, Senator Peter Micchiche, Alaska State
Legislature, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher and on behalf of Senator Micciche, prime sponsor of SB
63, noted that the next committee of referral for SB 63 would be
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
9:07:01 AM
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director, American
Cancer Society (ACS) Cancer Action Network (CAN), relayed that
in 1998, Bethel was the first community in Alaska to pass a
smoke-free law. She echoed the sponsor's comment that currently
about half of Alaska has passed similar laws at the local level,
including the communities of Bethel, Barrow, Juneau, Anchorage,
Dillingham, Unalaska, Nome, and Palmer. Since 1998, she
reported things have changed. For example, there is more
information now than there was then.
MS. NENON stated that in 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a
report on the health effects of secondhand smoke, in which he
established that there is no safe level of exposure to
secondhand smoke and that ventilation and air cleaning systems
do not work to remove carcinogens or ultrafine particles. Since
then, she said, the body that sets standards on air ventilation
has added e-cigs to that list.
MS. NENON, regarding health, related that passing smoke-free
laws has resulted in an approximate 15-20 percent drop in
admissions to hospitals for heart attacks, acute myocardial
infarction, and pregnancy complications. She said once e-cigs
came on the market in about 2006, the laws since then mention
them. She said, "We know that nonusers can be exposed to ...
the same potentially harmful chemicals as users. We don't know
what's in every single one, but they have been found to contain
nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are the
carcinogens that are specific to tobacco, and, particularly
concerning, those ultrafine particles that can go deeper in to
the lungs."
MS. NENON continued as follows:
I want to just mention, for the purposes of this bill
here, we're not having a conversation about the safety
of e-cigarettes versus ... the traditional combusted
cigarette; we're just talking about taking it outside
and protecting nonusers.
So, today, with about half the state covered and not
all local communities having the power to do this at
the local level, we are here before you. We do have
strong support, as Senator Micciche mentioned, in our
instant polling, but we also have gathered over a
thousand resolutions of support from all corners of
the state over the last few years.
... To sum up: We're just asking folks to take it
outside, because everyone has the right to breathe
smoke-free air.
9:11:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Ms. Nenon to confirm that she had
said some municipalities are not currently able to "make this
law right now."
MS. NENON responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for a reason behind this
inability.
MS. NENON offered her understanding as follows:
It has to do with the powers that have been adopted in
corporation, particularly for ... the unorganized
borough - places that you don't have a local
government - and then also for some of the second-
class boroughs.
9:11:53 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced his intent to open public testimony on
Tuesday, [April 18, 2017].
9:12:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked what the barrier is in allowing
each municipality to exercise local control over this issue. He
said he is asking from the perspective of the business owner who
may want to do what he/she pleases while the state is telling
him/her what to do.
MS. NENON responded that ASC CAN thinks everyone should be
protected from second-hand smoke, and she said that is her
answer to the local control issue, because this is a serious
health hazard and standards need to be set statewide. She
deferred to municipal attorneys around the state to speak on the
specific challenges related to municipal powers.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE remarked on the choice one has whether
to frequent an establishment and the imposition of values on a
business that is owned by someone who may feel he/she has the
right to smoke in his/her own place of business.
MS. NENON said she understands Representative Westlake's
question, because she has had a similar conversation with many
Alaskans over the last 15 years. She stated, "This is a health
and safety issue; this is ..., we believe, an appropriate place
for government intervention, just as government intervenes in
the temperature of the dishwater that's used in the restaurant
that's ... washing your dishes or saying that asbestos can't be
used in your ... facility."
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said it is difficult to understand the
premise that the rights of a nonsmoker to dictate where people
should [not smoke] are "more than anybody else who owns a
business."
MS. NENON deferred to others to respond, but remarked that she
doubted anyone would be surprised to hear that the ACS wants to
"protect everyone from secondhand smoke."
9:15:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that some cigars stores have an
area in which customers are allowed to try out product, and he
asked how that would work in a municipality that decides to "go
smoke-free."
MS. NENON answered that SB 63 has a provision that would address
tobacco use in tobacco shops within standalone buildings. She
said, "Because we know that ventilation systems don't work, you
wouldn't want somebody in a strip mall having smoking right next
to another building." She added that there were people prepared
to testify regarding their experiences in strip malls.
9:16:28 AM
BOB URATA, MD, related he is a family physician born and raised
in Wrangell, Alaska, a graduate of the first Washington, Alaska,
Montana, Idaho Medical Education Program (WAMI) [with the
edition of Wyoming in 1996, now called WWAMI], and a 16-year
American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer. He stated support
for SB 63 and the inclusion of e-cigs. He said he is also here
to represent his past and future patients, including his
children and grandchildren.
DR. URATA continued as follows:
Cigarette smoking continues to the be the leading
cause of preventable death in America and in Alaska.
In Alaska, cancer, heart disease, and stroke are the
number one and two causes of death. Smoking not only
claims the lives [of those] who smoke or use tobacco,
but also those who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
In fact, just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand
smoke rapidly impairs the vascular function, and long-
term exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with
25-30 percent increased risk for coronary artery
disease or heart attacks in adult non-smokers.
DR. URATA said, "It is expensive." He related that the [Center
for Disease Control] (CDC) reports that secondhand smoke
exposure costs the United States $6.6 billion a year in lost
productivity. He surmised that Alaska would probably save
millions in Medicaid if SB 63 becomes law. He noted that
studies conducted in at least 10 communities or more have been
published in peer review journals and show that the
implementation of smoke-free laws decreases the occurrence of
heart attacks. He reported that in Pueblo, Colorado, three
years after implementation of smoke-free laws, the city saw a 41
percent decline of heart attack hospitalization. He noted that
Helena, Montana, had also reported a 40 percent decrease;
however, he said that study "had some weaknesses in it."
DR. URATA relayed that the University of Alaska Anchorage's
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) showed "a
positive business experience." Other studies have shown the
same, he indicated. He explained that when businesses are
smoke-free, more people tend to frequent them.
9:19:05 AM
DR. URATA stated that e-cigs should be included because of
serious questions about their safety. He said the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA) has found known toxins and nicotine in many
of the [e-cig] products. Small particles, 1,000 nanometers in
size, penetrate deep into the lungs and include carcinogens such
as benzine, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, isoprene, lead, nickel,
nicotine, and nitrosamines. He said the base of the liquid has
propylene glycol, which in children is known to cause asthma;
therefore, children exposed to e-cigs in restaurants can be at
risk. He advised that when propylene glycol is burned, a
propylene oxide is produced, which is a known carcinogen.
DR. URATA said e-cigs are touted as being a tool to help people
quit smoking, but in his own practice, he has not witnessed that
result. He said he has seen a couple patients use e-cigs and
combustion cigarettes at the same time, depending on their
location. He said there has been a great increase of e-cig use
by children of middle school and high school age, which he said
is concerning. He offered his understanding that according to
the CDC, 16 percent of high schoolers in the U.S. are using e-
cigs, and this will lead to their continued use of tobacco
products in the future. On the subject of e-cigs, Dr. Urata
urged that because "we don't know everything," it is important
to consider: "first do no harm." He said as a physician,
whatever he chooses to do for a patient, he must first do no
harm, and he asked that that be done for the citizens of Alaska.
He indicated that until more is known about e-cigs, their use
should not be allowed indoors "where it's all captured."
DR. URATA concluded as follows:
The positive impacts will benefit many in the short
and long term. This will benefit your family, your
friends, your neighbors, but most importantly, your
grandchildren. They need clean air. They don't need
asthma; they don't need cancer; they don't need heart
attacks; they don't need strokes. On behalf of the
American Heart Association and many Alaskans, I urge
you to support this bill.
9:22:08 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked what the diffusion looks like for e-cigs
compared with regular cigarettes.
DR. URATA indicated that he does not have that information.
9:22:58 AM
JAY BUTLER, MD, Chief Medical Officer/Director, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS),
said he was testifying as a physician and former tobacco user.
He underscored Dr. Urata's statement about the short-term
benefits of limiting exposure to secondhand smoke. He said
there are three concurrent lines of evidence to that effect.
One line of evidence is derived from epidemiological studies,
which have linked smoke exposure to heart attack risk. Dr.
Butler indicated that from a biological perspective, it is known
that smoke exposure alters platelet function and the lining of
the blood vessels of the heart, increasing the type of blockage
that causes heart attacks.
DR. BULTER echoed the remark of other speakers that making
people who smoke do so outdoors has been shown to decrease
hospitalization rates for heart attack within months of such a
requirement being implemented. He indicated that if Alaska
[adopted a statewide requirement that people must not smoke
inside public facilities], then the healthcare system could
revert an estimated $3.7 million in costs from treating heart
attack and stroke, including over half a million for the Alaska
Medicaid program.
DR. BUTLER said exposure to secondhand smoke has led to the
following problems for children: lung cancer, an increased risk
of sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory infection, middle
ear infections, and asthma attacks. He said, "Avoiding
secondhand smoke not only protects the health and productivity
of Alaskans, but also helps avoid the costs of illness
associated with secondhand smoke that employers, the government,
and all of us who chip in to the health insurance system bear."
9:25:37 AM
MR. BUTLER said it is certainly rational to think that e-cigs
could play a role in smoking cessation, particularly for those
who have failed other methods of nicotine replacement in
attempts to quit smoking. He echoed Dr. Urata's remark that
sometimes people use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigs;
they may be smoking fewer combustible cigarettes, but they are
not quitting completely. He said the largest trial, which was
conducted in New Zealand, found that six-month quit rates for
those using nicotine containing e-cigs was approximately 7
percent, compared to 6 percent for those receiving nicotine
patches and 4 percent for those receiving e-cigs containing no
nicotine. He said it makes sense that an e-cig may be safer
than a combustible cigarette.
DR. BUTLER said another device is 95 percent vapor. He said it
is important to consider: "Where does that number come from?"
He indicated that information published in the European
Addiction Research Journal, by Professor David Nutt, states that
the number was from an expert panel that gave ratings on seven
criteria for risks to users, and to others, of a number of
tobacco products relative to cigarettes. He emphasized that
there is no "hard, scientific data that generated this number,"
rather knowledgeable and intelligent people ranked the safety of
"these other products" on a scale of 1-10. He said the same
group determined that "smoking a pipe is 78 percent safer,
smoking cigars is 85 percent safer." He said he thinks it
raises important questions about "using this number to generate
policy" and where the line should be drawn in terms of what is
safer. He explained, "If we draw it at 75 percent, you have to
question ... why are we also not allowing more public use of
pipes and cigars.
DR. BUTLER noted that at the end of the aforementioned
publication is "a rather unusual editor's note" pointing out
"the financial interest some of the contributors had to the e-
cigarette industry." He noted that the publication does not
specify what 95 percent safer means. He said it is known that a
lifetime combustible cigarette smoker has an approximate 50
percent chance of dying of a tobacco related illness. He asked,
"Does 95 percent mean a lifetime e-cigarette user has only a 1
in 20 or 5 percent risk of dying of a tobacco-related disease?"
He said that is unknown and although the odds may be better,
"they're not great."
9:29:20 AM
DR. BUTLER said there are few advertisements ("ads") that
purport e-cigs as smoking cessation devices, and the reason is
that the FDA has not approved them for that purpose. He related
that the usual focus of e-cig ads is on a smoker's ability to
use the devices in places where smoking is prohibited. Dr.
Butler offered an example of one such ad. He said there has
been talk about the role of e-cigs in "renormalization of
smoking." He said there are epidemiological studies that
suggest teenagers who use e-cigs are more likely to go on to use
combustible cigarettes than those who do not use e-cigs. About
one-quarter of teens who use e-cigs report activities such as
"dripping," which involves dripping the liquids directly on the
heated atomizers. He said this is like another teen habit with
e-cigs, which is "amping" or "souping up your tank device" to
"get a better throat hit." He said there are instructional
videos on YouTube.
DR. BUTLER said there are also concerns with substances other
than nicotine. He said a few years ago there had been problems
in Anchorage related to "spice" products, which are synthetic
cannabinoids. He said some of the people that were hospitalized
were using "tank type" e-cigs and vaping the same chemicals that
were in the spice cigarette and were being sold on the street in
containers marked "car air freshener." Dr. Butler talked about
the flavors used in conjunction with e-cigs. He said those
flavors are labeled by the FDA as being generally recognized as
safe; however, that criterion is based on eating the flavors,
not vaporizing and inhaling them.
9:34:10 AM
KRISTIN COX testified in support of SB 63. She opined that it
is time to have smoke-free workplaces in Alaska to protect
workers from the effects of secondhand smoke. She stated that
that should include e-cigs. She related an experience when she
was eating at a local restaurant and a diner at the next table
began smoking an e-cig. Another time, at a social event, a
person next to her engulfed her head in an e-cig "vaping cloud."
Ms. Cox questioned whether e-cigs are safer. She suggested,
"Maybe, but most smokers die of heart disease from inhaling
particulate matter." She continued: "So, are e-cigarettes less
carcinogenic? Maybe they are."
MS. COX said e-cig aerosol is made up of "oily clouds of heated
propylene glycol and ... nanoparticles." She indicated that she
had been advised by representatives of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) that those nanoparticles are potentially
more harmful because they linger in the air, are inhaled more
deeply in the lungs, and dissipate further to land on surfaces.
She said, "You get thirdhand exposure from touching surfaces
where those oily clouds have descended ...." Ms. Cox said lungs
are essential to life and nothing is safer than breathing clean
air. She said people who believe e-cigs are safer should use
them outside where secondhand aerosol is less likely to affect
others. She stated that it is not up to legislators to
determine whether e-cigs are safer, and exempting e-cigs from SB
63 would "do just that." She urged the committee to pass SB 63,
"as is" - including e-cigs.
9:36:28 AM
JOHNA BEECH stated that as someone who lives in a borough
without health privileges, she is asking the committee to
support SB 63, with the inclusion of e-cigs. She stated that it
is time to protect all Alaska employees by asking smokers,
including e-cig users and "vapers" to "simply take it outside."
She said, "It's not about the smoker - it's about the smoke;
it's not about the vaper - it's about the 'vape'." She added,
"It's just about time."
9:37:36 AM
GAIL SCHIEMANN testified in support of SB 63. She said she
worked in the hospitality industry for over 20 years, before
there were any protections in place, and she now has chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She said she must use an
inhaler and medications every day. She emphasized that COPD is
a chronic lung disease from which she will never get better.
Ms. Schiemann said she has never smoked. She opined, "Alaska's
workforce deserves better now." She asked the committee to
protect that workforce by passing SB 63. She concluded,
"Business owners do not have the right to expose their staff to
toxic environments."
9:38:39 AM
JENNY OLENDORFF testified in support of SB 63. She said for
years she had worked in an office in a strip mall in Soldotna,
Alaska, where "cigarette smoke from the business next door
seeped in through the walls, the vents, and even the outlets."
She said her place of business beseeched the business next door
to have its employees smoke outside, away from the air intake
and doorways, but they refused. After seven years, her place of
business gave up trying to effect change and moved to a smoke-
free office place elsewhere in town. She said, "Ironically, the
mall owner called me, just two weeks ago, desperately asking why
a statewide law had not yet been passed. And then he
enthusiastically signed a resolution of support for a workplace
law." Ms. Olendorff asked the committee to pass SB 63, with the
inclusion of e-cigs, "in the name of public health." She said
it is unfair to ask non-users to inhale secondhand combustible
cigarette smoke and secondhand e-cig aerosol.
9:39:59 AM
TERRENCE ROBBINS testified in support of SB 63. He said the
damaging effects of smoking kill many Alaskans each year;
several of his family members are among those who have died. He
listed the following cancer related deaths in his family: a
grandfather; both maternal grandparents; an aunt, who worked for
the State of Alaska for 30 years; another aunt; an uncle; and
Mr. Robbins' father, who retired after 30 years working for the
State of Alaska. Mr. Robbins said he became addicted to
flavored chewing tobacco, while playing senior league baseball
at the age of 13. He quit using tobacco after 27 years. He
stated his belief that flavored e-cigs are the new way to get
children addicted to tobacco. He stated, "According to the CDC,
smoke-free laws are associated with increased tobacco use
cessation, decrease[d] ... tobacco use prevalence, ...
[reduction] of cigarette consumption among continuing smokers,
and ... [reduction] of tobacco use among youth." He concluded
his testimony as follows:
I support SB 63, because I have witnessed the last
ragged breath that my grandfather took, and my mother
spent two "retirement" years desperately trying to
comfort and care for her little sisters, as they
wasted away and eventually succumbed to their cancer.
Smoking is so addictive and so deadly that in my
opinion, this simple act - protecting our friends, our
family, and our neighbors from secondhand smoke - will
surely prevent illness; it will save lives; it will
help tobacco users quit smoking; and, by changing
community norms regarding smoking, it will reduce
youth smoking rates.
9:42:40 AM
JODI BLAKELY, Owner, The Mecca, said she, along with her
employees and customers, made the decision to go smoke-free in
2016, and she receives gratitude from people daily based on that
decision. She said she first allowed e-cigs in the bar, but
found they are offensive to her employees and customers, because
they smell, so e-cig users must go outside, as well. She
emphasized that her business was not adversely affected by the
decision to go smoke-free, and she urged the committee to
support SB 63.
9:44:06 AM
MATT SCOTT testified that he is a registered nurse in Bethel,
Alaska, but is testifying on behalf of himself. He said he
enjoys Bethel's ordinance that created a smoke-free workplace
for employees, and he has never heard a business owner complain
about "the effects of having this ordinance." He said, "This is
a health issue." He opined that the ability to walk into any
local business without suffering unplanned health risks is a
basic human right. He said, "We wouldn't allow gas station
owners to spray gasoline on people; it is absolutely ridiculous
to think that we could allow business owners to allow
microparticles as fine as that are found in e-cigarettes to be
in the air when people could be in those business places and
work places." He stated support of SB 63.
9:45:21 AM
CARMEN LUNDE testified on behalf of Kodiak CHARR in opposition
to [SB] 63. She explained that Kodiak CHARR believes strongly
that business owners have the right to make their own choices
without federal, state, or local government mandates that force
them to go against their wishes. She said allowing government
to take freedom of choice away is a slippery slope. Ms. Lunde
continued as follows:
Smoking bans violate private property rights. The air
in a bar belongs neither to smokers nor nonsmokers,
and it is the bar owner who should decide the smoking
policy on his or her own premises as, of course, they
are the only ones who know what is best for their
business and how to work out their own compromises and
solutions.
MS. LUNDE related that Kodiak "uses a commonsense approach that
works." She reported that three-quarters of the bars in Kodiak
are smoke-free, while about 25 percent allow smoking, which she
said gives every adult the opportunity to frequent a bar of
his/her choice. She stated that people should not be forced to
stand outside at any time to smoke a cigarette. She remarked
upon the extreme and cold weather. She stated, "I personally
would not have the nerve to ask a veteran who fought for our
freedoms to go stand in a snowstorm or even the rain to smoke
his or her cigarette." She continued:
Smoking prohibition and the campaign for behavior
modifications are a front to hide the self-
satisfaction of those who feel entitled to endorse
their views on choice, health, behaviors, and social
values. Health campaigns cover the reasons of those
who want to impose their ways with laws, programming
the lives of individuals, disregarding the values that
many people hold precious, one of which is freedom of
choice.
MS. LUNDE quoted Abraham Lincoln, as follows:
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that
it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation
and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.
A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded.
9:47:44 AM
ALYSSA KEILL testified in support of SB 63. She said she thinks
providing a smoke-free environment for employees is important,
because a person being exposed to smoke during an entire shift
can be more harmful than smoking one cigarette, and she said she
does not think that is fair to an employee whether or not he/she
is a smoker. Ms. Keill opined that it is important to include
e-cigs in SB 63. Further, she noted that the City of Fairbanks
had written a letter of support for SB 63, and she said she
would appreciate the committee' support of the proposed
legislation.
9:48:36 AM
STEPHEN WARREN expressed appreciation to the committee for
working on SB 63, which he said would protect all Alaskans from
"the proven dangers of secondhand smoke and nicotine vapor in
the workplaces." He opined that "big tobacco" has a problem in
that its products kill its customers; therefore, it must
continue to recruit new, young smokers and "normalize public
use." He continued:
And what better way to do this than start 'em out on
candy-flavored, supposedly safer but still addictive,
products? They know they'll crave a better, stronger
fix soon enough and Marlboros will be waiting to
satisfy the hunger that e-cigarettes ignited. E-
cigarettes are simply training wheels for addiction.
I doubt you would allow dealers to sell oxycodone
gummy bears to kids. Why allow Big Tobacco to commit
an equally despicable act to support their deadly
business model?
9:50:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE expressed appreciation for Mr. Warren's
testimony.
9:50:14 AM
RILEY NEFF WARNER acknowledged that the issue involves local and
business rights and said he sympathizes, considering the size of
Alaska; however, he stressed that it is important for the
legislature to protect those without voice or the ability to
protect themselves. For example, he said there may be single,
working parents who are in situations where they work in an
environment with secondhand smoke because they do not have other
options for employment. Eventually, they succumb to negative
health affects related to that exposure to secondhand smoke and
vapors. He said the result will be more cost to the state and
an impact on the families. He concluded, "These are unintended
consequences that don't have to do, necessarily, with what the
intention is of a smoker, but they're very real and they impact
Alaskans, who currently don't have a voice or the protections
that they need from the state."
9:51:44 AM
CHRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, Owner, Forelands Bar, relayed that she is
also secretary of the Kenai Peninsula CHARR and a member of
Alaska CHARR. She said she cannot understand why "you people
don't get it" that there are smoking bars and smoke-free bars -
both - and that system has worked, because people who don't
smoke can choose to go to the smoke-free bar, as can the people
who want to work in a smoke-free environment. She emphasized
that everybody should have a choice. Ms. Schoenrock said she
has veterans frequent her bar, some of whom are 70-80 years of
age, while others are young veterans having already served up to
three tours in the military, and they do not want to go outside
in the cold to smoke. She said those veterans have fought for
the freedoms [of Americans], and [forcing them to smoke outside]
would be taking their freedom away. She said that is not fair
to them and she opined that the decision to make an
establishment a smoking or smoke-free one should be up to the
owners and patrons. She said if her patrons wished for a smoke-
free bar, then she would accommodate them; however, they do not
feel that way.
MS. SCHOENROCK reiterated that the status quo is working out
fine; however, she said that concept "falls on deaf ears." She
recalled testimony in the past where people had related the
effect of going smoke-free on their bars, and she reiterated
that that past testimony fell on deaf ears. She said she cannot
understand why. She said not all legislators are "like that,"
but she urged the committee to "think about this and think about
the people who fought for your rights and your freedoms also."
9:54:35 AM
DALE FOX, President/CEO, Alaska CHARR, testified that SB 63
targets bars. He explained that the rest of the locations
listed under SB 63 have been smoke-free for years, including
airplanes and public buildings. He reminded the committee that
in terms of stated concerns for children: "children are not in
bars." Regarding the idea that [a smoke-free environment] is
good for business, Mr. Fox said while that may be true for some,
others have experienced a 30 percent loss in business. He
indicated that this issue is an economic one.
MR. FOX stated that most businesses, following their own self-
interest, are becoming smoke-free. He echoed a previous
testifier that in Kodiak, where there is no law against smoking,
three-quarters of the establishments that sell alcohol are
smoke-free. He said this gives people a choice. Mr. Fox said
he is a nonsmoker and easily finds an establishment that is
smoke-free. He said this bill targets bars. He stated that in
several communities where there have been public votes, a number
of people have voted no against the ban. In other communities,
he noted, the local governing body has made the decision to make
the ban. He said the legislature is being asked "to overrule
those closest to the people and/or the people themselves."
MR. FOX continued as follows:
Some people may be tempted to vote in favor of this
just to move it along and make it go away. But don't
think for a moment that it's going to go away.
Because the smoking ban proponents will be back next
year with new smoking ban proposals. Right now
they're saying, "Take it outside." It wasn't within a
week of the smoking ban in Anchorage where people were
walking down the sidewalk where people were kicked out
of the bars onto the sidewalk to smoke, and people
were going, "Oh, my God, I have to walk through this
cloud of smoke on the sidewalk!" Expect a sidewalk
ban in the future. All you have to do is look to
California and what they're doing - these guys will be
right behind that.
MR. FOX said Alaska CHARR is asking that legislators vote no on
SB 63.
9:58:13 AM
MARY SEARS related that she is a Tier I, retired correctional
officer, who was hired when she was a single mother of six
children. She said she is not a smoker, but she was working in
an environment where staff and inmates smoked. She developed
bronchitis, followed by asthma and pneumonia. She said her
health care provider urged her to quit her job, but she was
making the equivalent of male counterparts, as well as receiving
good benefits, so she chose not to quit. She said that after
retirement and having cancer, she found out that both her lungs
are scarred. She explained that she is testifying in favor of
SB 63 to support all the nonsmokers working in smoking
environments. She urged the committee to pass SB 63.
9:59:39 AM
MARNA SANFORD, Government Relations Coordinator, Tanana Chiefs
Conference (TCC), testified in support of SB 63. She said one
of TCC's focal points is "healthy, strong, unified people." As
an organization, TCC decided to be smoke-free several years ago
to provide its employees a healthful place to work where they
would not be adversely affected by tobacco smoke. She
acknowledged that Alaskans like to march to their "own step,"
but she opined that as only one of ten states that has not
enacted a smoke-free workplace law, "this is not the time to be
individualistic." She said the state is in "the bad minority"
currently and needs to be protecting its people.
MS. SANFORD, regarding a previously made point that everyone has
the choice not to go into an establishment where there is
smoking, said other previous testimony has shown that the
employees in those establishments "had to live through that and
now are suffering the consequences."
MS. SANFORD said she does not believe that SB 63 is targeting
bars. She said there are numerous businesses where the smoke-
free workplace would [be a] benefit, including hotels,
industrial businesses, automotive businesses, and construction
businesses. She said she is blessed to be able to come to work
in a smoke-free environment, but so many others do not have that
option, because perhaps their particular skills put them in a
position where the only place they are able to work is one where
there is smoking.
MS. SANFORD said the federal government puts workplace laws in
place for the safety of employees, which is why the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exists. She opined that
it is crazy to protect employees from slips and falls but not
from "the leading cause of death in Alaska." She urged the
committee to support SB 63.
10:02:55 AM
BETTY MACTAVISH testified in support of SB 63. She said she
lives in Kodiak, Alaska, where workers are not protected from
secondhand smoke in the workplace. She said she has been
diagnosed with smoker's lung and has black spots on her lungs as
a result of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace. She
said her health has been compromised, even though she has never
smoked a day in her life. Ms. MacTavish said only now is
information being discovered about the health effects of e-cigs;
therefore, she requested the committee proactively keep e-cigs
in SB 63. She urged the committee to pass SB 63 out of
committee quickly, because "rural Alaskans are waiting for
protection."
[SB 63 was held over.]
10:04:14 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB063 Sectional Analysis Ver. N 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Explanation of Changes Ver. U to Ver. N 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Resolutions of Support 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Ver. N 3.29.2017.PDF |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Fiscal Note DCCED-AMCO 4.6.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Fiscal Note DEC-FSS 4.6.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Fiscal Note DOT-COM 4.6.2017.PDF |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Sponsor Statement 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 DPS-DET 4.6.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Fiscal Note DHSS-CDPHP 4.6.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Resolutions of Support 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Support Document - Evidence on Secondhand Smoke 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Support Letters 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Support Document - Dittman Survey 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 email opposing, amend.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Maniilaq 17-06 Supporting a Smokefree Alaska.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Electronic_Nicotine_Delivery_Systems_Key_Facts_Infographic_CDC.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 ecigarette-secondhand-aerosol.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 E-cigarette nicotine labels not always accurate -- ScienceDaily.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 ASHRAE_PD_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke_2013.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 - States Map Smoke-Free.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| CSSB063 Resolutions of Support UPDATE 4.11.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Addnl Support 4-12-2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB064 DoD 4-6-2017Addnl Comments UECA Bill.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 DEC response to DoD 4-6-2017 Addnl Comments.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 63 email opposing 03302017.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2017 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/18/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |